Indian Hypothesis for Proto-Indo-European Homeland Part I: The Euro-Anatolians

The Archaeo-genetic model on the Out of India migrations of the Proto-Anatolians and the Proto-Europeans.

Introduction

The Out of India Theory or the Indian Hypothesis for the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the most misconstrued theory in the field of Indo-European studies. The linguistic, biological, philological, and archeological evidence that strongly endorses this theory, is often eschewed by the “mainstream” scholars.

It should be noted that the Out of India Theory was proposed by Friedrich Schlegel, a German philologist who pioneered the Indo-European studies. The anti-OIT group erroneously claim that the OIT is a “Right-wing Hindu nationalist” invention, the fact is that it was invented and even supported by the pioneers of Indo-European studies. Schlegel was the man who invented the Indo-European studies by scrutinizing the similarities between Saṃskṛt, German, Latin, Greek, and Persian.

In his book, Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (On the Language and Wisdom of India), he argued that people originating from India were the founders of the Early European civilizations. We indeed have a plethora of recent scientific evidence (which was absent during Schlegel’s time), that unambiguously supports Schlegel's Out of India hypothesis.

In this article, I shall be showing irrefutable archaeogenetic, archeological, philological and linguistic evidence in support of the emigration of Anatolian and European branches from North-west India, in the Chalcolithic times.

This is the first part of my model which will focus on the emigration of Euro-Anatolians, and its second part will focus on the emigration of the remaining branches (Graeco-Phrygians, Indo-Iranians and Albanians).

This part is further divided into two sections, the first section primarily deals with the Biological and Archaeological evidences, and the spread of Proto-Europeans and Anatolians in Eurasia. The second section deals with the irrefutable linguistic and philological evidence in support of the Indian homeland theory.

Acronyms :- PIE - Proto-Indo-European(s), IVC :- Indus-Valley/Sarasvati civilization.

Section I

Abstract

The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a group of Chalcolithic farmers of north-western India, who trace their origin to the Old Hakra ware culture of Bhirrana (7th millennium BCE). These farmers migrated westwards and brought Harappan related Iran_N type ancestry with some Siberian ancestry to the chalcolithic Steppes and Europe, in the 5th & 4th millennium BCE.

These migrations explain the spread of Indo-European languages (especially the European branches and Anatolian), and the technologies associated with them.

Genetics of the Proto-Indo-Europeans

The base ancestry of the Harappans was “West Eurasian” Iran_N type ancestry. The study on ancient Harappan and outliner DNA samples shows that the Harappans carried 50-97% IranN type ancestry. (Source: Shinde et al. 2019, Narsimhan et al. 2019)

According to Shinde et al. 2019 this Iran_N “like” ancestry was not exactly the Zagrosian Iran_N ancestry but a cousin of it, which shared a common ancestor that lived before 10,000 BCE. So I would prefer calling this Harappan related IranN like ancestry, “India_N” ancestry.

Narsimhan et al. 2019 stated that AASI-India_N mixing happened between 4483 BCE - 3811 BCE, thus it can be inferred that Pre-Harappan Chalcolithic IndiaN farmers living around or before 5000 BCE had zilch or atleast negligible AASI ancestry. These two papers also concluded that the IranN type ancestry was present in India before the development of farming.

We know that farming in India goes back to the 8th millennium BCE (even earlier). Bhirrana (7600 BCE) and Mehrgarh (8600 BCE) sites are two prominent Neolithic sites which used to grow “West Eurasian” crops such as Wheat and Barley since their earliest phases. Interestingly, copper arrow heads and bangles were reported from Period IA (7600 BCE - 6200 BCE) of Bhirrana (Source : Singh (2008)). So we can say that Bhirrana site was most likely Early Chalcolithic in its earliest phase.

So, IranN like ancestry was present in India atleast since 9000 BCE and in the 5th millennium BCE it began to mix with the Ancestral Ancient South Indian (AASI) ancestry.

Thus, there's no logic in denying the fact that the farmers of Bhirrana and Mehrgarh who were growing “West Eurasian” crops since 8th millennium BCE had rich India_N ancestry with almost no AASI ancestry (which admixed later) These farmers later mixed with AASI hunter-gatherers between 5400 BCE - 3700 BCE or 4500 BCE -3700 BCE.

Afterall, we've aDNA samples from Central Asia (secondary PIE homeland as per this theory) which show heavy India_N ancestry with some ancient Siberian ancestry but no AASI.

Ganj_Dareh Ancestry

Though this part of my article is irrelevant to the OIT but it gives some important details about the Iran_N or Ganj_Dareh ancestry. Formal tests show 23% of AASI ancestry in Ganj_Dareh sample which is Iran_N Zagrosian ancestry (7800 BCE)

According to Dr. Premendra Priyadarshi, the Iran_N/ Ganj_Dareh ancestry originated in India particularly in the Mehrgarh region, and Ganj Dareh farmers were migrants from Mehrgarh. According to [Possehl, GL, (1993) Archeology of South Asia] the calibrated date for Mehrgarh is 8550 BCE and the people of Mehrgarh domesticated goats and cultivated Barley during the same time. Later in Ganj Dareh, Iran (7850 BCE) (a small village inhabited for a very short period) we see domestication of goats and cultivation of wild Barley.

Not just this, even a study by Gollenge-Llorantini showed that Ganj_Dareh ancestry falls within the gene pool of South Asia.

So it is highly possible that the Ganj_Dareh ancestry or in the Harappan context, the Iran_N type ancestry of the Harappans is native to India. Even if it is not native to India, it might've originated near India and had been present in India for a very long time.

Archaeo-genetic Model for the migration of European branches and Anatolians

Map showing the spread of the European and Anatolian languages from NW India.

The earliest branch that left PIE homeland was of the Anatolians. They emigrated to South-central Asia (Namazga I Culture) in the late 6th millennium BCE. They were followed by the group of “Proto-Europeans”, viz the Proto-Tocharian-Italic-Celtic-Lusitanian-Germanic-Balto-Slavic speakers, who arrived there in the early 5th millennium BCE.

This migration of Proto-Anatolian and then Proto-Europeans is marked by the presence of Indian-origin haplogroup, L1a with IndiaN / IranN like ancestry (base ancestry of the Harappans) in a Central Asian site of Monjukli Depe (4600 BCE).

Recent genetic studies such as Tariq et al. 2022 confirm that L1a Haplogroup originated in India.

Anatolians and the Kura-Araxes Culture

The Proto-Anatolians from South Central Asia migrated to the Near East in the 5th millennium BCE.

In the 2016 study by Lazaridis et. al 3 samples of Indian origin L1a-M27 were found from the Areni caves of Armenia, dated to ~4200 BCE. The supplementary section of that research paper tell us-

All three males from this population belong to Y-chromosome haplogroup L1a-M27/P329. The M27 mutation is common in South Asian haplogroup L Y-chromosomes, but was absent in a survey of Y-chromosomes from Anatolia. Haplogroup L occurs at a very low ~2% frequency in present-day Armenians.

Lazaridis et al. (2016)

Thus, this indicates an Indian input in Chalcolithic Armenia probably via South Central asia (where L1a was also found). The Areni people also had some India_N (IranN like ancestry) autosomal ancestry which again confirms their relation with India and Central Asia.

Areni caves(4200 BCE) fall within the vicinity of the Kura-Araxes culture (4000 BCE). So, it is quite likely that the Areni people introduced the Anatolian languages to the Kura-Araxes culture.

The Genetic case is therefore clear for the migration of the Proto-Anatolians. Absence of Areni ancestry in a handful of later Kura-Araxes samples can be explained by the following points :-

i). Kura-Araxes was linguistically diverse where the Semitic, Hurro-Urartian peoples and the IE Anatolians were living together, we can clearly see the region where Hurro-Urartians and Semitic people lived was a part of this culture.

ii). The samples from Kura-Araxes period are pretty limited (less than 10), which cannot represent the highly heterogeneous population of this culture.

iii). Elite dominance by Areni people, or maybe their Anatolian speaking group living in that culture along with other groups, well explains the spread of Anatolian languages by the Areni people.

So, I would conclude that the Kura-Araxes culture was a diverse culture where many groups were living together, one being the Anatolian speaking IE Areni group that entered Near East before 4200 BCE.

Archeological Evidences for Indo-Steppe (Maykop) connections

The Proto-Europeans viz the Proto-Tocharian-Italic-Celtic-Lusitanian-Germanic-Balto-Slavic speakers migrated to Caucasus from SC Asia in the mid-late 5th millennium BCE (as shown in the map of my model). These people were the builders of the Maykop culture, which was one of the predecessors of the Yamnaya culture.

It’s an undisputed archeological fact that the Maykop culture (3700 BCE - 3000 BCE) heavily influenced its successor, the Yamnaya culture, which had spread Indo-European languages in Europe. The horse breeding technique, wheel technology, and traditions of Yamnaya people were introduced by the Maykop culture.

Notably, Maykop shows several artifacts which are clearly of South or Central Asian origin. In one of the Maykop sites, Klady we find the evidence of an axe made up of Indian origin copper-lead alloy. Eminent Russian archeologist, Maria Ivanova discusses this in her book :-

The axe from Klady was not work-hardened and possibly never intended for use, as suggested by its elaborate decoration. It demonstrates that the north Caucasus belonged to an area of early use of copper-lead alloys. The earliest evidence for this material has been reported from the Indus-valley and dates to the fifth millennium BC (Mille et al. 2004, 267). Terekhova (1981, 316) reports that during the Namazga II period artefacts of copper with high lead content were common at sites in the Kopet Dag piedmont.

Thus, it indicates that this alloy technology might've spread from the Indus-Saraswati civilization to the Namazga culture (Central Asia) and from there to the Maykop culture(Steppes).

Another technology that migrated from India to Caucasus was the lost-wax technique as pointed out by Ivanova:-

Finally, several metal artefacts such as animal figurines, axes with relief decoration, “forks”, and daggers with complex profiles were apparently produced in the lost-wax technique (Ryndina et al. zoo8). The earliest evidence for the lost-wax technique so far comes from the chalcolithic levels at Mehrgarh in north Baluchistan and dates to the fifth millennium BC (Mille et al. 2004, 267). Lost-wax casting was widespread in central and south- west Asia during the fourth millennium BC.

Another important Maykop technology traces it's origin to South Asia.

Ivanova also points out that the wheel technology was introduced to the Steppes by the Maykop people.

Half of all third-millennium finds of wheeled vehicles between the Danube and Ural were uncovered in the region of Kuban. Trifonov (2004, note 2) interprets this striking concentration of early graves with wagons on Kuban as an indication of the spread of the wagon from this area into the steppe.

Wheeled vehicle technolgy is considered by David Anthony as probably the most transformative technology that helped the steppe people spread their influence across a wide region in the form of the IE languages.

Now let's see what Ivanova says about the origins of wheel technology in the Maykop itself.

The evidence for wheeled vehicles dating to the preceding Maikop period, in contrast, is very tenuous… The vehicle from which the wheels at Novokorsunskaja originate might have been a two-axle wagon like the roughly contemporary wagon from Koldyri on the Lower Don (see Chapter 5). But it is also possible that the find from Novokorsunskaja was a two-wheeled cart. Clay· models of two-wheeled carts with rotating wheels attest to the use of this type of vehicle in central Asia and the Indus valley in the late fourth millennium BC. At Altyn-depe in south Turkmenistan, such models occur in the second half of the fourth millennium (Namazga III period) and become more common in the earlv centuries of the third millennium (Kircho 2009). Cattle figurines with holes in the withers for attaching the yoke have been recovered at Kara-depe (Kircho 2009, 30). Comparable models appeared in the Indus valley around 3500-3300 BC, during the Ravi-Phase of the Indus culture at Harappa.

So, again the link extends to the Indus-Saraswati Civilization via South Central Asia. Another important archeological fact that I would like to share is that wheel amulets have been reported from Mehrgarh site of the IVC, dating back to 4500 BCE - 4000 BCE.

Wheel Amulets from Mehrgarh (5th millennium BCE)

So, it is crystal clear that the wheel technology (which is considered as the most important Indo-European technology) migrated from the Early Indus-Saraswati civilization to the Kurgan Maykop culture, which later reached subsequent cultures (Yamnaya, CWC, etc.).

Even the textile samples from Maykop culture indicate an Indian connection. Maria Ivanova notes:-

The textile samples from Klady 31/5 consisted of very fine, 0.15-0.30 mm thin linen fibres. The threads were spun, plied, and dyed in two different hues of brown. In contrast, the fabric from Dolmen 2 was woven from a mix of wool with a plant fiber, possibly cotton.

Cotton was rare in the bronze Age and is known earliest from Mehrgarh and Indus Sarasvati civilization in general. Its appearance in the Maykop culture links it again with the IVC. Even the earliest evidence of wool is from Shahr-i-Sokhta (a chalcolithic site in Afghanistan) and may’ve come to Caucasus from the East. Ivanova adds :-

The earliest actual remains of a wool textile have been recovered at Shahr-i Sokhta I and date to the last centuries of the fourth millennium BC.

So, all these archeological evidences unequivocally prove the migration patterns shown in my model. Early Indus-Saraswati civilization > Namazga culture > Maykop culture/Steppe Eneolithic (Proto-Maykop).

Genetic Evidence for the Out of India Migrations

Having done a survey of archeological evidences, now let us look at the strong Genetic evidence of migrations from South and Central Asia to the Steppes.

We first need to understand that Caucasus was genetically heterogeneous where different groups of people were living together. One such group was the IndiaN (IranN like) rich group, that shared a common ancestor with the Mature Harappans and the Chalcolithic Central Asians.

The ancient DNA samples from sites which falls within the vicinity of the Maykop culture, VJ1001, PG2001 & PG2002 (as shown in the map) carried high concentrations of IranN like/IndiaN ancestry (which was the base ancestry of the Harappans). This “Steppe eneolithic” ancestry which is dated between 4300 BCE - 4000 BCE was a major source of subsequent cultures like the Yamnaya & Corded Ware. Chintalapati et. al 2022 shows the admixture between EHG and Iranian-related ancestry (IndiaN) in the Steppes.

a-genetics.blogspot.com showed heavy Steppe eneolithic ancestry in Yamnaya and Corded Ware using qpAdm formal tests. (See Steppe Eneolithic)

Through his formal models a-genetics also showed Sarazm ancestry (a chalcolithic Central Asian site, genetically related to IVC) in Yamnaya and Corded ware sites.

(See the 4th column) f4-statistics

We can see ~25% India_N Central Asian (Sarazm) ancestry in Yamnaya culture samples. We can also see Maykop influence on Proto-Yamnaya cultures and the migration of Steppe eneolithic ancestry there happening almost around the same time period.

Thus, we can confidently conclude that the India_N ancestry rich chalcolithic farmers from South and Central Asia brought Indian technologies such as Copper-lead alloy, Wheel-device technology, Lost-wax technique, Cotton, Wool and most importantly, the PROTO-EUROPEAN langauges to the Chalcolithic Steppes, which later migrated to Europe due to the Yamnaya invasions.

Let me remind my readers that Chalcolithic Central Asia itself got the Indian L1a haplogroup from India (as I've mentioned earlier).

Other Biological Evidences

1). Dog DNA Evidence

There's another noteworthy piece of evidence in the form of Indian dog ancient DNA found in the Corded Ware site of Germany, as shown by the research of Laura et al. (2017). The sample with Indian dog DNA is labelled as “CTC” by the authors. The authors of this paper in a peer reviewed file state :-

A key finding of our analysis is indeed that CTC appears to share some ancestry that is predominantly found in modern Indian dogs (which we refer to as India-like as it is also found in Central Asian and Middle Eastern dogs). All analyses that incorporate some model of admixture show this. We would argue that visually CTC is approximately halfway between European and
Indian dogs rather than being “clustered with Indian dogs”, but nonetheless, any Indian-like component inferred from this PCA analysis is clearly significant, as correctly pointed out by the reviewer. CTC also appears to show a clear Indian component in both the NGSadmix and ADMIXTURE clustering analysis, on the order of 25% (so closer to modern Europeans and thus
consistent with the Neighbor joining tree analysis). The MixMapper and ADMIXTUREGRAPH analysis also point to other higher values of Indian-like admixture.

Presence of Indian dogs in the Corded-ware cannot be due to trade, because there's no evidence of Trade or any kind of direct contact between the Corded-ware culture and India. Dogs are one of the animals domesticated by Pastoralists, since time immemorial and thus, it is highly likely that Indian dogs were brought to Europe by the Chalcolithic farmers of Northwest India, who domesticated them.

2). Zebu Cattle in Europe

The Zebu cattle or the Indicine cattle is native Indian cattle which migrated outside India in many waves. Two scholarly papers, Jones et al. (2015) and Haak et al. (2015) directly link the gene flow of Zebu cattle in Ukrainian Steppe cattle with the Yannaya invasions.

According to a study of ancient European DNA,

“The divergence of the BAI cattle as suggested by PCA (Figure 2c) can be attributed to an indicine genomic component which is identified in the ADMIXTURE (Figure 3) and D-statistics (Table 2) analyses. By analysing the genome-wide SNP markers, McTavish et al. (2013) and Decker et al. (2014) also reported an indicine influence on Italian cattle breeds. Using whole-genome sequences of ancient human DNA, Jones et al. (2015) and Haak et al. (2015) suggested massive migration of Yamnaya steppe herders as a source of dispersion of Indo-European languages to both northern-central Europe and India. These herders might also have mediated gene flow between Indian zebu and Ukrainian steppe cattle.”

Cattle do not migrate on their own, they migrate with Humans who domesticate them. There's abundant archeological evidence for the domestication of Zebu cattle at the sites of Bhirrana and Mehrgarh atleast since 6000 BCE. Thus, a Zebu-Yamnaya connection again proves that Indian herders brought this cattle to the Steppes, prior to the Yamnaya invasions.

3). Possible Sheep Migration

As per a study on the diversity of Indian sheeps by AP Kolte et al. :-

“Previous studies on mitochondrial DNA analysis of sheep from different regions of the world have revealed the presence of two major- A and B, and three minor- C, D and E maternal lineages. Lineage A is more frequent in Asia and lineage B is more abundant in regions other than Asia… The breed differentiation in Indian sheep was essentially due to variable contribution of two major lineages to different breeds, and sub- structuring of lineage A, possibly the latter resulting from genetic drift. Nucleotide diversity of this lineage was higher in Indian sheep (0.014 ± 0.007) as compared to that of sheep from other regions of the world (0.009 ± 0.005 to 0.01 ± 0.005). Reduced median network analysis of control region and cytochrome b gene sequences of Indian sheep when analyzed along with available published sequences of sheep from other regions of the world showed that several haplotypes of lineage A were exclusive to Indian sheep. Given the high nucleotide diversity in Indian sheep and the poor sharing of lineage A haplotypes between Indian and non-Indian sheep, we propose that lineage A sheep has also been domesticated in the east of Near East, possibly in Indian sub-continent. ”

In his article on Brown Pundits, Jaydeepsinh Rathod points out from this research paper that :-

Haplotype A is more widespread and frequent in Asia while mtDNA haplotype B is more common in Europe.

The above is an map from another paper which shows the relative distribution of various sheep mtDNA lineages. One can observe that the mtDNA A lineage (in Blue) predominates in Asia while mtDNA B (in Red) predominates in Europe. However, it is also evident that mtDNA A has a significant presence in the Caucasus as well as on the European steppe and Northern Europe. Considering its likely origin in South Asia and its presence in the Caucasus and steppe, this may again indicate that a sheep lineage spread out from South Asia to these two regions along with the Zebu cattle and was accompanied by human migrations as well.

It is possible that Indian chalcolithic herders (who also domesticated Sheeps) might have introduced this Sheep mtDNA in the Steppes. The spread of this DNA follows the same migration pattern.

4). Indian mtDNA in the Maykop culture

We know that the Maykop culture was genetically diverse where different groups were living together. We also know about the India_N rich Steppe eneolithic group present in the vicinity of the Maykop culture (as I've shown above). But apart from this evidence there's also evidence of Indian origin M52 mtDNA found in the Maykop population (4th millennium BCE).

Let me quote a Russian Genetic research, A.S Sokolov et al.

…we used target-enrichment together with high- throughput sequencing to characterize the complete mitochondrial sequence of three Maikop and three Novosvobodnaya individuals. We identified T2b, N1b1 and V7 haplogroups, all widely spread in Neolithic Europe. In addition,we identified the Paleolithic Eurasian U8b1a2 and M52 haplogroups, which are frequent in modern South Asia, particularly in modern India

Although we do not find any IndiaN autosomal ancestry in that sample, but it is comprehensible since the autosomal ancestry completely changes if an individual and his or hers offsprings marry outside their gene pool for 7-8 generations. The M52 mtDNA is only found in Indians and it is possible that the Indian Chalcolithic farmers brought it to Caucasus from India.

Spread of Indo-European languages in Europe and Siberia

The Yamnaya invaders brought Indo-European languages to Europe, 5000 years ago . The Corded-ware culture which was the first Indo-European culture in mainland Europe was established by these Yamnaya Steppe invaders. The Corded-ware people expanded westwards, and spread Indo-European languages in Central, Western and parts of Southern Europe in the 3rd millennium BCE. The Steppe rich ancestry in some Bell-Beaker samples shows that Indo-Europeans were also a part of this culture.

Sintashta and Andronovo Cultures

Extent of the Sintashta culture

The Sintashta culture (2200 BCE - 1800 BCE) was formed by the eastward expansion of the eastern Corded-ware (Fatyanovo) tribes. As per my research, the Sintashta & Andronovo cultures were the vectors for the spread of Tocharian languages. This is because of the following reasons :-

1. Uralic (particularly Proto-Samoyedic) influence on Proto-Tocharian, as shown by Michaël Peyrot (2019) in his research.

2. Greater Genetic impact of the Sintashta-related Andronovo ancestry in Tarim Basin than of the Afanasievo ancestry.

3. Old Iranian influence on Proto-Tocharian (Michaël Peyrot) which in my opinion was probably due to BMAC (Iranian) - Sintashta trade contacts.

Based on these studies, I've inferred that the Proto-Tocharians and maybe some lost unknown “Para”-Tocharian groups were the people of Sintashta and early Andronovo cultures. These evidences also rule out Afanasievo culture as the vector for Proto-Tocharian languages.

Afanasievo Culture

Afanasievo culture was formed by the eastward migration of the Yamnaya herders to Southern Siberia. As per archaeogenetic evidence ancient Afanasievo population was genetically indistinguishable from that of the Yamnaya herders (who carried significant South-Central Asian ancestry), indicating that they spoke an Indo-European language.

But now the question arises: to which branch of Indo-Europeans did the Afanasievo people belong to?

What if I say that the Afanasievo people were a branch of lost Proto-Germanic or maybe Para-Germanic speakers? It may sound surprising but there's ample amount of linguistic evidence shown in Chang(1988), Sino-Platonic paper of the University of Pennsylvania, which shows that Proto-Germanic language influenced the Old Chinese.

Tsun-Tsun Chang notes :-

Among Indo-European dialects, Germanic languages seem to have been mostly akin to Old Chinese.

CHANG 1988:32

So there's a high probability that a “Para-Germanic” tribe (closely related to Proto-Germanic) migrated from the Yamnaya culture to Siberia, and established the Afanasievo culture. There're also strong archeological evidences of contacts between Late Neolithic China and the Afanasievo culture that gives archeological explanation of the Indo-European Old-Chinese contacts.

I've discussed the Indo-European-Old Neolithic Chinese contacts in my previous article on substack in detail, do give it a read.

Section II : Linguistics and Philology

We’ve explored the overwhelming biological, and archeological evidence in support of the Out of India Theory, as well as the spread of Proto-Europeans in Eurasia. Now let us delve into some of the important Linguistic and Philological evidence which point out towards Indian homeland.

Indologist and Philologist Shrikant Talageri and Dr. Koenraad Elst have done a remarkable work in the field of linguistics and philology that explains the origin and spread of the Indo-European languages. This part of my article is mostly based on their works.

The linguistic reasons as to why India is the best candidate for PIE homeland. :-

1) PIE-Austronesian links: Many basic Proto-Austronesian (PA) words show great similarities with Proto-Indo-European (PIE). These include the first four numerals, many of the personal pronouns, and the words for water and land :-

(i). This/he in PIE —>*eĝh, *ṅsme, *yu, *eyo/*eya, *to/*eno.

This/He in PA –> *aku, Tagalog ka-mi, Tagalog ka-yo, PA *ia, *itu/inu.

(ii). "Water" and "Land":

PIE:- *wer, *ters.

PA:- *wair and *darat

Sanskrit:- “Vāri” and “Dharā”

(iii). First four numerals in PIE :- *sem, *dwōu/*dwai, *tri and . *qwetwor: ; note Tocharian . sas/se 'one', Romanian. . “patru”'four' , Welsh pedwar. In PA:- (*esa, *dewha, *telu and *pati/*epati:) In Malay (sa/satu 'one', dua 'two', tiga 'three', epat 'four').

These striking similarities cannot be coincidental or far-fetched, but are only possible if the Proto-Indo-Europeans were in some contact with the Proto-Austronesians(PA), and that can happen only in India. A notable linguist, S.K. Chatterjee noted that Austric languages (including Austronesian) trace their origin to India, he mentions this in his book :-

“India was the centre from which the Austric speech spread into the lands and islands of the east and Pacific”

(CHATTERJI 1951/1996:156)

He adds :-

“the Austric speech […] in its original form (as the ultimate source of both the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian branches) […] could very well have been characterized within India” (CHATTERJI 1951/1996:150).

In my map, I've shown how an eastern group of PIEs might've influenced the Proto-Austronesians, who probably dwelled in the Bengal region (or maybe the North-east?), before relocating out to the South-East Asia.

2). The Elephant/Ivory & PIE Homeland:- The elephants are only found in Africa and India, but not in the Steppes or Armenia. In the Indo-European lexicon, the terms related to Elephants and Ivories are clearly of Indo-European origin. If the IE languages originated in the Steppes or Armenia the word for this animal would've been of non-IE origin.

“Íbha” is a Sanskrit word for elephant that cognates with “Ebur” (ivory) in Latin, “Elephas” (Elephant) in Greek, “la-ḫpa” (related to Skt. Ribha √labh root) in Hittite, “Erepa” in Myc. Greek.

Let me quote eminent linguist Gamkrelidze who writes:

"Despite the restricted dialect distribution of cognates, a word for 'elephant; ivory' can be reconstructed as *yebh- (or *Hebh-), going back to an early stage of dialect unity and reflected in a number of archaic words from only two dialects: Lat. ebur 'ivory; elephant', Skt. íbha-ḥ 'elephant' […] In the same semantic sphere, an ancient migratory term for 'ivory' is found in other Indo-European dialects: Myc. Gk. e-re-pa, gen. e-re-pa-to 'ivory', adj. e-re-pa-te-jo 'made of ivory', Hom. eléphas, gen. eléphantos 'ivory', eléphanteios 'made of ivory'. The word can be compared to Hitt. laḫpa-, in one text with Glossenkeil" (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:443).

Thus, this evidence is clearly indicating that Elephant was a part of the Flora and Fauna of the PIE homeland and India is the only IE land where Elephants are found. To know more about the Elephant argument in detail, do read this informative ground-breaking paper authored by Shrikant Talageri. Click here

3). Monkeys in PIE homeland: There're Indo-European cognates for monkeys in Indo-Iranian, Greek, Balto-Slavic and Germanic branches. Two eminent Russian linguists, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov were the ones who pointed out that the Proto-Indo-Europeans knew of the Monkeys.

"Widely distributed cognate words for 'monkey, ape' in the ancient Indo-European dialects make it possible to posit a well-defined protoform at the Proto-Indo-European time depth […] the protoform can be reconstructed as *qhe/oph, with a variant *qhe/op" (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:442).

Readers must note that monekys were NEVER present in the Pontic Steppes and Armenia, like the elephants, and they are only found in India,Africa and parts of eastern Asia. Here's the map of their geographical distribution :

Shrikant Talageri notes :-

*qhe/oph, is found in four branches: with the initial *qhe in Indo-Aryan kapí- and Greek kēpos, and without it in Germanic (e.g. Old Icelandic) api and Slavic (e.g. Old Russian) opica.

- (The Rigveda and the Aryan Theory: A Rational Perspective THE FULL OUT-OF-INDIA CASE IN SHORT REVISED AND ENLARGED 20/7/2020)

Thus, it is pretty evident that the monkeys, just like the elephants were also a part of the flora and fauna of the PIE homeland, situated in India.

4). Phrygian-Burushaski links: Burushaski is a language isolate spoken by the Burusho people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. This language group has significant lexical correspondance with extinct Indo-European Phrygian language.

This fact was pointed out by I Čašule, Professor of linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Not just the basic vocabulary but even the words pertaining to mythology and rituals of both Phrygian and Burushaski show a terrific similarity.

Čašule notes:-

It may also be the case that the Burushaski material provides us with a possible solution for the etymology of the Indo-European term for ‘silver’: *silVbVr- may be a compound noun, consisting of IE

*sul- : *sil- ‘water, liquid’ + *bhru- ‘white’, i.e with a semantics as

‘white [shining] as water’, or rather ‘water-white’.

All the numerous correspondences in myth, cult and ritual, in onomastics (22 personal names) and in basic vocabulary between Burushaski and Phrygian, many of them unique within Indo-European, argue very convincingly for a strong relationship between the two languages. Not least, Burushaski preserves three terms associated with the Phrygian supreme goddess, the Great Mother Kubela. As noted, almost 80% of the attested Phrygian glosses find correlation with Burushaski and the latter preserves every third word from the inscriptions.

Čašule (2014:20/28)

The Phrygian-Burushaski links are so deep that Čašule even declared Burushaski a Western Indo-European language!

Whatever the depth of this connection, our comparative analysis with Phrygian strengthens significantly the position that the Burushaski language belongs to the North-Western branch of Indo- European.

Čašule (2014:20/28)

Although, the claim of Burushaski being IE was rejected by most of the scholars, but what we can't ignore is its deep linguistic connections with IE Phrygian.

The best explanation for these deep connections is that the Proto-Phrygians (who dwelled in N. Punjab, Kashmir region acc. to S. Talageri) were in close contact with the Proto-Bursho people of the Hunza valley. The migrations and origins of Phrygians, Iranians, Greeks,etc. will be elaborated in the 2nd part of this article.

These were some of the important linguistic evidence which unambiguously prove that India was the the PIE homeland. To know about Linguistic evidences in depth, read this blogpost of Shrikant Talageri Click here to read.

Druhyus

The ṚgVeda is the oldest surviving, well-preserved Indo-European document, and it's contribution in the study of Indo-European history is incontrovertible. Besides being the oldest extant IE text, it is also an ancient document that was composed in the same vicinity as the PIE homeland, viz NW India. Since, the text was composed in the vicinity of PIE homeland, it apprises us a lot about the PIE tribes, their customs,religion and also their emigrations.

(Note: the Old ṚgVeda was composed after the migration of Proto-Europeans, during the time of Indo-Iranian split).

The three northern tribal groups as per Indian/Vedic tradition were the Pūru, Anu and Druhyu. All three shared a common, or interrelated, culture in North western India, with religious systems exhibiting the same two central religious features: Hymnology and Fire-rituals. The priests of the Pūru were the Aṅgiras, of the Anu were the Bhṛgus, and of the western amorphous group of Aiḷas were the Druhyus (which is why the group was itself referred to as Druhyu).

These three priestly groups were rival groups, since the ṚgVeda (text of Aṅgiras) mentions Atharvans/Bhṛgus and Druhyus as enemies in VII.18.6. Likewise, in the text of Āθrauuans (Bhṛgus/Atharvans in RV), the Zend Avesta, the Aṅgiras and the Druhyus are mentioned as mythological “Angra” and a “Druj” in Vendidad 19 in negative and demonic sense. But the common religious PIE element in these three were Hymnology and Fire-rituals.

After examining the similarities between the ancient IE religions, scholar Shan Winn concludes that:-

“Celts, Romans, and Indo-Iranians shared a religious heritage dating to an early Indo-European period” (WINN 1995:103).

And this early Indo-European heritage was of the Pūrus, Anus and Druhyus and their priests, Aṅgiras, Bhṛgus (Āθrauuans), and Druhyus(Drui/Druh), respectively.

Shrikant Talageri points out that it was only the Celtic branch of the Europeans that retained these early Proto-Indo-European religious features, such as Fire worship and Hymnology. Talageri sir points out -

The only European group which preserves the original PIE priestly class is the Celtic group, whose religion exhibits the same two central religious features found in the Vedic and Avestan religions, i.e. hymnology and fire-worship. It also preserves the original name Drui (gen. Druid), i.e. Druhyu.

Winn notes :-

“Celtic Druids [….] involved years of instruction and the memorization of innumerable verses, as the sacred tradition was an oral one”

Fire worship forms the central aspect of the Celtic, Iranian and the Indo-Aryan(Vedic) religions, thus unquestionably of the PIE religion as well.

The fire rituals were introduced by the Bhṛgu priests, and the Rigveda gives them due credit to their rivals, for introducing the same. (See TALAGERI 2000:172-174) Similarly, The Bhṛgu (of the Anu tribe) are indirectly remembered in Celtic traditions as the earliest teachers in the form of Celtic goddesses, Anu and Brigit. While all the Goddesses in general were associated with fertility cults, Brigit goddess was associated with the knowledge and learning.

“Brigit, however, had additional functions as a tutelary deity of learning, culture and skills” (LAROUSSE 1959:239).

Talageri also notes that the Brigit deity is associated with Fire worship (ritual introduced by the Bhṛgus in PIE homeland).

Most significantly, Brigit is primarily associated with the maintenance of eternal fires, like the eternal fires of the Iranian priests (and the eternal fire referred to in the Rigveda III.23), and this was the central feature of her main temple at Kildare in Ireland, where eternal flames were maintained by priestesses.

So again we can see a strong philological connection between the Celtic Druids and the Bhṛgus (also Āθrauuans/Atharvans in Indo-Iranian traditions), who introduced fire worship in the PIE religion.

While Celtic is the only branch which preserves the original PIE priestly system with the name “Druh”/”Drui” (Druhyu, as well as the names Anu and Brigit), it is clear that this priestly class really prevailed in all the European Branches. Talageri adds :-

a) The word Druhyu and its cognates (Druh, Drugh, drogha, droha) in the Rigveda, as well as the word Druj in the Avesta, refer to demons or enemies. But cognate forms have the opposite meaning in the European languages: while Drui is the name for the priests of the Celtic people, the word means “friend” in the Baltic and Slavonic languages (e.g. Lithuanian draugas and Russian drug), and something like “soldier” in the Germanic languages (Gothic ga-drauhts, Old Norse drōtt, Old English dryht, Old German truht). “Friend” may have been a symbolic word for a militant "priest": the Rigvedic reference to the two priestly classes of Sudas’ enemies is as follows, Griffith’s translation: “The Bhṛgus and the Druhyus quickly listened: friend rescued friend mid the two distant peoples”.

So, the other European branches retained the word “Druhyu” in the form of friend/soldier (symbolic word for militant priests as evident from the hymn quoted from the ṚgVeda).

Germanic branch also remembered Bhṛgu in the form of a knowledge goddess, Bragi. Talageri adds

The Bhṛgu are also indirectly remembered in Germanic tradition: the Norse god of poetry and wisdom is Bragi, and although he is not directly associated with fire rituals, a suggested etymology of his name, often rejected simply because he is not known to be associated with fire or fire rituals, is from the word braga, “to shine”: i.e. his name is also derived from the same IE root as the name of the Bhṛgu, the originators of the Vedic fire-rituals, and the related Phleguai, the Greek fire-priests.

I reiterate that the Bhṛgus, introduced fire worship to the Druhyus(the priestly class of the Proto-Europeans), who remembered “Bhṛgu” clan in the form of gods/goddesses, etymologically related to fire priests and knowledge.

These “Druhyu” branches also remembered their priestly identity in the form of “friends” as shown above.

The “Druhyu” Páñcajánāḥ tribe (viz Proto-Europeans) in Indian traditions, is named after its priestly class “Druhyu” (originally “Drui/Druh”).

Let's now discuss the etymology of the term Druhyu in detail.

Etymological connection between Druh(Druhyu) and Druid

Based on the etymology of the word Druh-yu(originally Druh) and philological evidences related to it (as I’ve shown above), Shrikant Talageri identified the Druhyu (Druh/Drui) clan with Celtic Druid.

It must be noted that the original name of the Druhyus was “Druh/Drui” (etymologically related to Druid), and the suffix root “-yu” was added by the Vedic Aryans, since they were belligerent to them. The Vedic root “-yu” was added by the Vedic-Aryans to the names of their most hostile enemies. Another example is is the word “Dasyu” which is made up of the original word “Dāsa”, (a hostile tribe) and the root “-yu”. Similarly, the original word for Dru-yu was Druh.

Etymologically, the word Druh(Druhyu) is connected with Druid. As Druid is derived from PIE *deru (wood) and *weid (seer, knower) it would be connected with Sanskrit Dāruvid or taruvid.

However, in Sanskrit we do find the existence of “Dru” meaning wood, psychology of the word being that is broken off, melted off or to scatter/run away. Hence, it would be a good point to derive Druh from, and thus both Dru and Dāru would be connected.

So, Druid is connected with Dru-, “Druh-” in Sanskrit, and thus, if we add the Vedic suffix (*-yu) to it, it becomes “Druhyu”.

However, we should also be reminded that Dhruk, which is the basis of Druh- is related to PIE *dhreugh- and carries a meaning of “cunning”, “mischief”, “malicious”. Thus, again proving that Druj (Avestan - evil) = Druhyu/Druh(Vedic - belligerent tribe) = mischievous (since the Druhyus were their enemies).

Hence, there's a clear etymological connection between the Druhyu (Druh) priestly class and the priestly class of Celtic Druids, which was once the class of all European branches.

Conclusion

The plethora of linguistic, archaeo-biological (human and animal genetics), archeological, and philological evidence shown in this article, therefore proves that northwestern India was the Proto-Indo-European homeland.

This is the end of the first Part of my article, Indian Hypothesis for Proto-Indo-European Homeland, which also covered the spread of Proto-Anatolian and Proto-European speakers from north-western India based on scientific evidence.

In the second part of my article, I shall be be showing the Out of India migration of the Iranian, Graeco-Phrygian (Greek, Phrygian and Armenian) and Albanian branches, based on philological, archaeogenetic, archeological and linguistic evidence.

Thankyou for reading.

Please do subscribe, like and comment.