h2-so-4

[h2-so-4]

A few more if you want:

Sci-Hub | Complex genetic origin of Indian populations and its implications. Journal of Biosciences, 37(5), 911–919 | 10.1007/s12038-012-9256-9

AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory (debunked): A superior "race" of white, horse-riding Aryans invaded the areas of the inferior and primitive Indus Valley population, which included the Dravidians (but actually no one said that the IVC was a pure, dark-skinned Dravidian civilization so idk where that idea came from), and civilized them.

AMT or Aryan Migration Theory: A group of usually horse and chariot-riding nomads and pastoralists usually called the Aryans migrated from the Indo-Iranian region to India and mingled PEACEFULLY with the population of the late Indus Valley population (who were already highly advanced, as we know), by which time the IVC was beginning to collapse, possibly due to change of climate and rain patterns (still not sure yet), and hence the people were abandoning these settlements spreading across the subcontinent. These Indo-Aryans on arriving mixed with this population and shared their genetics, art and culture with each other, which led to the introduction of Sanskrit and Vedic culture in India.

To any leftist who keep regurgitating the former busted myth, please stop. You look stupid. And to any rightist who keep using AMT as AIT to debunk it, they're not the same. These two theories have a sky-ground difference.

The previous one makes Aryans look evil. That they were some high-level royalty who invaded India. But, in fact, they were regular people, regular migrants, just how every migration used to happen 3000-4000 years ago. Like I said, most of them were nomadic settlers.

Sure, later on, the varna system came into existence and this was the beginning of a hierarchical structure in India for the first time (since during the IVC there wasn't any sort of social hierarchy according to current sources). But who's to say it was ONLY the Aryans? Remember. They're NOT a race. They're a particular group of people. And by the time the varna system was introduced already a hell lotta intermixing had happened. Hence it wasn't JUST the Aryans (history and especially anthropological and genetic history is not that black and white LMFAO), because it was a term for 'noble', not some kinda "righteous clan" or something. Idk why people keep thinking of it as a race lol. I thought that was already debunked with the AIT.

As for the indigeneity of the Aryans, technically no one is indigenous. Many of the adivasi and non-adivasi tribes came AFTER the Indus Valley Civilization. So the "who came first" logic doesn't really work at all. (There might've been many that came before as well, who knows. Point is, again, it's all a migration salad at the end of the day)

adjective

indigenous (adjective)

originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native:

This is the Google definition of indigenous. If we take THIS into account, there would be SEVERAL groups of people involved, instead of just one, like the IVC people, a few of the oldest nomadic tribes, mixed Indo-Aryans, etc. But I'm not gonna call ANYONE indigenous, or not indigenous. Because guess what, none of the humans are really indigenous to any place apart from the African continent. Also the Aryan migration led to the rise of a LOT of genetic subgroups, which was a key factor in leading to the most confusing anthropological history of the Indian subcontinent. It has a fuck ton of genetic markers and groups and subgroups, it's wildly confusing and historians are still trying to figure out every kind of intermixing that has happened. So STOP fighting over who is indigenous or not LMAO. Because guess what, we can never truly assert the indigeneity of a migrant species such as humans. (Yes we do call Native Americans the indigenous people of Americas, or the aboriginals the indigenous people of Australia and the Australasian archipelago, but they were also migrants at some point of time. Now before anyone says I'm disregarding the indigeneity of these groups, I'm not. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't CARE who's indigenous and who's not, because unlike the case of Americas and the Australasian islands, Aryans didn't INVADE India. They were simply another set of migrants, JUST like the IVC people, who also came from the middle-eastern region, and JUST like the adivasi tribes, who migrated from mostly the African and Australasian regions, probably, not sure again.)

I'll link the genetic studies done below because they explain it all way better than I can (and these research papers may also correct some of the incorrect statements I might've unnoticeably or ignorantly made in my own paragraphs so yeah):

Hence, at the end of the day, idk why we're banging our heads on the walls over ONE SIMPLE MIGRATION, which was NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER MIGRATION. Migrations happen ALL THE TIME. Get over it, BOTH the sides of the political wings, and live in harmony lmao. The Aryans and Dravidians AREN'T RACES. They were just certain groups of REGULAR ass people jeez.

History is a complex subject, and the more evidence we find, the more we would know about our past. I have literally nothing against any of the political wings, but I do want to keep the current theories (which are NOT synonymous to hypotheses btw) and facts straight. I'm once again not saying these facts will never change, because that's not how history works. Maybe in the future, we might find out something completely different about India's past. But remember, whenever we talk about our country's past, we should keep it unbiased, unopinionated, and definitely factual and objective, without including our own views (both political and personal) into it. Interpretations? Sure. But they should remain at ONLY interpretations at best, and only the solid evidences should be claimed as facts.

[h2-so-4]

I'll link a few more research papers:

Sci-Hub | Y-DNA genetic evidence reveals several different ancient origins in the Brahmin population. Molecular Genetics and Genomics | 10.1007/s00438-020-01725-2

Sci-Hub | The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia. Science, 365(6457), eaat7487 | 10.1126/science.aat7487

Sci-Hub | 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes. Nature, 557(7705), 369–374 | 10.1038/s41586-018-0094-2

AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory (debunked): A superior "race" of white, horse-riding Aryans invaded the areas of the inferior and primitive Indus Valley population, which included the Dravidians (but actually no one said that the IVC was a pure, dark-skinned Dravidian civilization so idk where that idea came from), and civilized them.

AMT or Aryan Migration Theory: A group of usually horse and chariot-riding nomads and pastoralists usually called the Aryans migrated from the Indo-Iranian region to India and mingled PEACEFULLY with the population of the late Indus Valley population (who were already highly advanced, as we know), by which time the IVC was beginning to collapse, possibly due to change of climate and rain patterns (still not sure yet), and hence the people were abandoning these settlements spreading across the subcontinent. These Indo-Aryans on arriving mixed with this population and shared their genetics, art and culture with each other, which led to the introduction of Sanskrit and Vedic culture in India.

To any leftist who keep regurgitating the former busted myth, please stop. You look stupid. And to any rightist who keep using AMT as AIT to debunk it, they're not the same. These two theories have a sky-ground difference.

The previous one makes Aryans look evil. That they were some high-level royalty who invaded India. But, in fact, they were regular people, regular migrants, just how every migration used to happen 3000-4000 years ago. Like I said, most of them were nomadic settlers.

Sure, later on, the varna system came into existence and this was the beginning of a hierarchical structure in India for the first time (since during the IVC there wasn't any sort of social hierarchy according to current sources). But who's to say it was ONLY the Aryans? Remember. They're NOT a race. They're a particular group of people. And by the time the varna system was introduced already a hell lotta intermixing had happened. Hence it wasn't JUST the Aryans (history and especially anthropological and genetic history is not that black and white LMFAO), because it was a term for 'noble', not some kinda "righteous clan" or something. Idk why people keep thinking of it as a race lol. I thought that was already debunked with the AIT.

As for the indigeneity of the Aryans, technically no one is indigenous. Many of the adivasi and non-adivasi tribes came AFTER the Indus Valley Civilization. So the "who came first" logic doesn't really work at all. (There might've been many that came before as well, who knows. Point is, again, it's all a migration salad at the end of the day)

adjective

indigenous (adjective)

originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native:

This is the Google definition of indigenous. If we take THIS into account, there would be SEVERAL groups of people involved, instead of just one, like the IVC people, a few of the oldest nomadic tribes, mixed Indo-Aryans, etc. But I'm not gonna call ANYONE indigenous, or not indigenous. Because guess what, none of the humans are really indigenous to any place apart from the African continent. Also the Aryan migration led to the rise of a LOT of genetic subgroups, which was a key factor in leading to the most confusing anthropological history of the Indian subcontinent. It has a fuck ton of genetic markers and groups and subgroups, it's wildly confusing and historians are still trying to figure out every kind of intermixing that has happened. So STOP fighting over who is indigenous or not LMAO. Because guess what, we can never truly assert the indigeneity of a migrant species such as humans. (Yes we do call Native Americans the indigenous people of Americas, or the aboriginals the indigenous people of Australia and the Australasian archipelago, but they were also migrants at some point of time. Now before anyone says I'm disregarding the indigeneity of these groups, I'm not. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't CARE who's indigenous and who's not, because unlike the case of Americas and the Australasian islands, Aryans didn't INVADE India. They were simply another set of migrants, JUST like the IVC people, who also came from the middle-eastern region, and JUST like the adivasi tribes, who migrated from mostly the African and Australasian regions, probably, not sure again.)

I'll link the genetic studies done below because they explain it all way better than I can (and these research papers may also correct some of the incorrect statements I might've unnoticeably or ignorantly made in my own paragraphs so yeah):

Hence, at the end of the day, idk why we're banging our heads on the walls over ONE SIMPLE MIGRATION, which was NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER MIGRATION. Migrations happen ALL THE TIME. Get over it, BOTH the sides of the political wings, and live in harmony lmao. The Aryans and Dravidians AREN'T RACES. They were just certain groups of REGULAR ass people jeez.

History is a complex subject, and the more evidence we find, the more we would know about our past. I have literally nothing against any of the political wings, but I do want to keep the current theories (which are NOT synonymous to hypotheses btw) and facts straight. I'm once again not saying these facts will never change, because that's not how history works. Maybe in the future, we might find out something completely different about India's past. But remember, whenever we talk about our country's past, we should keep it unbiased, unopinionated, and definitely factual and objective, without including our own views (both political and personal) into it. Interpretations? Sure. But they should remain at ONLY interpretations at best, and only the solid evidences should be claimed as facts.

[h2-so-4]

AIT or Aryan Invasion Theory (debunked): A superior "race" of white, horse-riding Aryans invaded the areas of the inferior and primitive Indus Valley population, which included the Dravidians (but actually no one said that the IVC was a pure, dark-skinned Dravidian civilization so idk where that idea came from), and civilized them.

AMT or Aryan Migration Theory: A group of usually horse and chariot-riding nomads and pastoralists usually called the Aryans migrated from the Indo-Iranian region to India and mingled PEACEFULLY with the population of the late Indus Valley population (who were already highly advanced, as we know), by which time the IVC was beginning to collapse, possibly due to change of climate and rain patterns (still not sure yet), and hence the people were abandoning these settlements spreading across the subcontinent. These Indo-Aryans on arriving mixed with this population and shared their genetics, art and culture with each other, which led to the introduction of Sanskrit and Vedic culture in India.

To any leftist who keep regurgitating the former busted myth, please stop. You look stupid. And to any rightist who keep using AMT as AIT to debunk it, they're not the same. These two theories have a sky-ground difference.

The previous one makes Aryans look evil. That they were some high-level royalty who invaded India. But, in fact, they were regular people, regular migrants, just how every migration used to happen 3000-4000 years ago. Like I said, most of them were nomadic settlers.

Sure, later on, the varna system came into existence and this was the beginning of a hierarchical structure in India for the first time (since during the IVC there wasn't any sort of social hierarchy according to current sources). But who's to say it was ONLY the Aryans? Remember. They're NOT a race. They're a particular group of people. And by the time the varna system was introduced already a hell lotta intermixing had happened. Hence it wasn't JUST the Aryans (history and especially anthropological and genetic history is not that black and white LMFAO), because it was a term for 'noble', not some kinda "righteous clan" or something. Idk why people keep thinking of it as a race lol. I thought that was already debunked with the AIT.

As for the indigeneity of the Aryans, technically no one is indigenous. Many of the adivasi and non-adivasi tribes came AFTER the Indus Valley Civilization. So the "who came first" logic doesn't really work at all. (There might've been many that came before as well, who knows. Point is, again, it's all a migration salad at the end of the day)

adjective

indigenous (adjective)

originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native:

This is the Google definition of indigenous. If we take THIS into account, there would be SEVERAL groups of people involved, instead of just one, like the IVC people, a few of the oldest nomadic tribes, mixed Indo-Aryans, etc. But I'm not gonna call ANYONE indigenous, or not indigenous. Because guess what, none of the humans are really indigenous to any place apart from the African continent. Also the Aryan migration led to the rise of a LOT of genetic subgroups, which was a key factor in leading to the most confusing anthropological history of the Indian subcontinent. It has a fuck ton of genetic markers and groups and subgroups, it's wildly confusing and historians are still trying to figure out every kind of intermixing that has happened. So STOP fighting over who is indigenous or not LMAO. Because guess what, we can never truly assert the indigeneity of a migrant species such as humans. (Yes we do call Native Americans the indigenous people of Americas, or the aboriginals the indigenous people of Australia and the Australasian archipelago, but they were also migrants at some point of time. Now before anyone says I'm disregarding the indigeneity of these groups, I'm not. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't CARE who's indigenous and who's not, because unlike the case of Americas and the Australasian islands, Aryans didn't INVADE India. They were simply another set of migrants, JUST like the IVC people, who also came from the middle-eastern region, and JUST like the adivasi tribes, who migrated from mostly the African and Australasian regions, probably, not sure again.)

I'll link the genetic studies done below because they explain it all way better than I can (and these research papers may also correct some of the incorrect statements I might've unnoticeably or ignorantly made in my own paragraphs so yeah):

Hence, at the end of the day, idk why we're banging our heads on the walls over ONE SIMPLE MIGRATION, which was NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER MIGRATION. Migrations happen ALL THE TIME. Get over it, BOTH the sides of the political wings, and live in harmony lmao. The Aryans and Dravidians AREN'T RACES. They were just certain groups of REGULAR ass people jeez.

History is a complex subject, and the more evidence we find, the more we would know about our past. I have literally nothing against any of the political wings, but I do want to keep the current theories (which are NOT synonymous to hypotheses btw) and facts straight. I'm once again not saying these facts will never change, because that's not how history works. Maybe in the future, we might find out something completely different about India's past. But remember, whenever we talk about our country's past, we should keep it unbiased, unopinionated, and definitely factual and objective, without including our own views (both political and personal) into it. Interpretations? Sure. But they should remain at ONLY interpretations at best, and only the solid evidences should be claimed as facts.

#hindublr #aryan migration theory #indo-aryans #history #indian history #indus valley #indus valley civilization #desiblr #desi tumblr #desiposting #bharat

[h2-so-4]

None of us are indigenous. Let's go back to Africa everyone.

The plot thickens-

@piya-re So basically we all burst forth through the permafrost where we were biding our time in our cryogenic pods so that when the ice age dissipated we could pop out and take over the entire world mwahahahahahahaha

Hindu world order!👹

(Lol sorry couldn’t help myself)

[h2-so-4]

So I write biology fanfiction.

*And I'm giving it arcs and metaphors and a narrative journey because BYTHESTARS I cannot give anything a simple plotline.*

Probably going to redo some of it, because right now it's just vibes. I want to do some learning in what makes sense narratively by flipping around the textbook, then I can do some ARCS and WORLDBUILDING.

[h2-so-4]

republicans are gonna flip when they learn the sun is nonbinary

[h2-so-4]

Hi. It's that anon.

First, off you asked me to provide evidence, so here it is. Ik the title sounds irrelevant but the video is made as a counterdebate essay to Abhijit Chavda's counterclaims on AIT (and not AMT, which he has mistaken as AIT, probably). Also I hope you don't dismiss this guy as a foreigner because I'm also very skeptical in case of outsiders making videos on Indian history (for evident reasons in the past as you may know). So I won't be providing you with deluded and baseless videos for sure.

Second, I'm honestly shocked that the AIT is still brought up. It was already discarded like 30 years ago maybe why would they bring it up lmao. Also talking about the indigeneity, well technically with that logic none of the people in any country except the African ones (cuz that's where humans originated from, as we know) are indigenous to their place. AMT doesn't mean Hindus don't belong here lmfao what are they on?

Also them vouching for all Aryans as upper caste is wilder because when they migrated, people from all the castes (IF and IF ONLY the system was prevalent before the migration, that is) were immigrants. It wasn't like only the Brahmins and Kshatriyas migrated. That is another stupid generalization they're making. There were merchants, farmers, and every other kind of people to begin with. In fact, no royals were probably even there during the migration (we haven't found any mentions). It was just horseriders, farmers and yk the usual nomadic kinda people.

Now, as for Shiv. We all know he's one of the most famous Gods apart from Vishnu, Brahma, Lakshmi, and a few others. I would never deny nor disregard the validity of the Purans (which obviously mention Mahadev) OR Shiv, for that matter. As a theology nerd, disregarding any religious text as a form of bias wouldn't be justifiable. All I said was that he was just as much of a later addition as Apollo was to the Greek pantheon. All the evidence you have provided me with is related to Rudra, who was initially a whole different deity, and unrelated to Shiv (despite him getting referred to as Siva sometimes), but gradually, his identity mingled with the latter (probably because of his 'Siva' name receiving more popularity but not sure) and now we know him as a form of Shiv, or Shiv as a form of Rudra (mostly the former version is considered).

Also yes, like both of us said, biases still exist. But I'm afraid these biases are mostly from amongst the Indians nowadays than from the foreign historians, who, like I've mentioned before, have begun to treat Indian history just as accurately as they treat the Greek, Mesopotamian and other ancient civilizations (but again, there are always assholes, definitely).

Also the pic of the lingam you've shown me is believed to be from 2700 BC (when the Vedic civilization was already in the full run, as we know), and I haven't found any based sources which posit to it being 4300 years old. It is, however, definitely believed to be the oldest Shivling till date.

As for the Swastika, I agree we have found a few symbols of it in the pottery of IVC. I hope we find further info about it in the future. But again this symbol is very common in several cultures of the ancient times, so idk tbh.

As for my secret, I myself don't understand why anyone would question the indegeneity of the Hindus, and EVEN IF they weren't indigenous, doesn't mean they don't belong to India, because the Aryans MIGRATED, not INVADED. They migrated and mingled with the later IVC population and shared each other's cultures, just like how the Ahoms migrated to the Northeast (especially Assam) and mingled with the indigenous people there. So I have no idea why this whole "HINDUS ARE OUTSIDERS" thingy is brought up in the first place. Also, as for out-of-India migrations, I'm sure there have been many (migrations toh hota hi rehtae), but the Yamnaya tribe migration (a popular out-of-India hypothesis) has been successfully debunked, and if there was any mass exodus/migration from India can you source the link (not from the Vedas but from a trustable unbiased source)? Also yes there was no invasion during the IVC according to current sources. Alexander, however, did invade a few parts of India in 327 BC (when the Vedic civ. was already on), as we know, but again that was only for two years.

Also I just found out that the Saraswati river topic is still debated, actually (my bad I wasn't aware). It isn't a myth, it's more of a legend, kinda. So Idk if you have sources (other than the Vedas) to back it up, but I don't. Hopefully we'll find out about it in the future, I guess.

And I'm glad that you mentioned at the end about not being stubborn with your claims. Because at the end of the day we can't get every info we want to get. Or every hypothesis of ours to turn into a fact. Rather, I HOPE my claims are proven wrong cuz it would mean more wins for the Indian history (me a bit biased in that bit heh), but again, I want them to be proven wrong with equally evident counterpoints. Because at the end of the day, I have nothing against anyone. Im just another history and theology nerd tryna enjoy my life.

(Again, ignore any grammatical or spelling errors I have probably made)

Before I start I want you to know that I'm not trying to come off as rude here. I just wanna inform you in a friendly manner, and I hope you answer this ask the same way :)

I feel like most of the liberals are talking about the Aryan MIGRATION theory, and not the AIT, because that one has been debunked like 3 decades ago.

Its the AMT that's the most consistent with the evidences *as of now*.

As for the "Pashupatinath" seal, there is still debate going on about it, but it mostly likely isn't Shiv due to his much later entry into the Hindu pantheon (we can see that he wasn't mentioned in the Rig Veda and the earliest Vedas as well). Also I'm pretty sure the Saraswati river is no longer considered a myth. So it's still assumed the IVC didn't have any religion to begin with (atleast not till the end of it when the AMT actually happened and the Aryans mingled with the IVC people *peacefully*, and so did the cultures). Also hopefully the findings of IVC being around 8000 years old would become true if we have enough evidence to factualize it.

Even the Dwarka case has been highly debated. Not saying that it wouldn't have existed but it's still been debated, since there have been accounts of many underwater cities, and hence it's not clear if it's Dwarka or some other city.

In conclusion I'm saying is that probably most of the leftists are talking about the AMT and not AIT (if they're still bringing up the latter then they're simply stupid atp), and we have the evidence of AMT in every way possible, at least now. Later on it might be a different story altogether.

Anyways what I'm trying to say is that history is a complex matter, and we can hypothesize all we want but at the end of the day a hypothesis has to go through a long series of stages and processes to be finally accepted as a fact. And yes I'm not saying there can be biases in this history field. We have seen it in the case of Max Muller and we know there are shitlings everywhere. But again, today the evolution of Hinduism and IVC is treated the same way they treat the Mayan civ., or the Greek civilization etc. So there's mostly (again, *mostly*) no bias in the field towards Indians today.

And hence with enough deep-rooted undeniable evidences in the future, who knows, maybe all of these hypotheses might come true.

(PS: Ignore my grammatical/spelling mistakes kindly thank you)

Firstly, we explicitly mention that the leftists use AIT here because they do. They are explicitly saying that “Aryans” came as invaders from outside and are oppressors. I've (and it's not too hard to find) seen multiple leftist blogs and channels claim that tribals are the one true natives which is absolutely stupid hence the post.

If they were talking about migration, then why are they harping about aryans being opressors and all upper caste = aryans?

Also please do some more reading before dismissing Shiva’s existence during and prior to the vedic era because there is mentions of rudra along side another deity as seen in mahamrityunjay mantra that talks about 3 eyed Shiva. Not just this, Karpur Gauram mantra is also in Yajur Ved. Contrary to your beliefs Shiva wasn't “added” later on.

Look up Rig Veda, Shiva Sankalpa Suktam, 18th Mantra.

Again, in Yajurveda

ईशानस्सर्वविद्यानां ईश्वरस्सर्वभूतानां ब्रह्मािधिपतिर्ब्रह्मणोऽधिपतिर्ब्रह्माशिवो मे अस्तु सदाशिवोम्।

Clear mentions of Ishana & Sadashiva.

Namaste Astu Bhagavan Visvesvaraya Mahadevaya Tryambakaya Tripurantakaya Trikaagni Kaalaaya Kaalaagni Rudraya Nilakanthaya Mrityunjayaya Sarvesvaraya Sadasivaya Sriman-Mahadevaya Namah.

In shri rudram.

Which again, if you leave it upto Experts they will debate it to be something entirely different, just as seen in Sanauli Archelogical findings and Pashupatinath or "Pashupatinath" seal, three headed deity in a yogic pose. Ayodhya site is still "disputed" according to some "experts". Biases are very much still alive.

"He approached the brhati meter, and thus the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas andNarasamsis became favorable to him. One who knows this verily becomes the beloved abode of the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas and Narasamsis." (Atharva Veda15.6.10–12)

तमि॑तिहा॒सश्च॑ पुरा॒णं च॒ गाथा॑श्च नाराशं॒सीश्चा᳚नु॒व्य᳡चलन्॥११॥ इ॒ति॒हा॒सस्य॑ च॒ वै स पु॑रा॒णस्य॑ च॒ गाथा᳚नां च नाराशं॒सीना᳚ञ् च प्रि॒यं धाम॑ भवति॒ य ए॒वं वेद॑ ॥१२॥ He went away to the great region. Itihāsa and Purāṇas and Gāthās and Nārāśaṃsīs followed him. He who possesses this knowledge becomes the dear home of Earth and Agni and herbs and trees and shrubs and plants. ~ Atharva Vēda (Śaunaka Śākhā), Pañcādaśa Kāṇḍam, Ṣaṣṭhaḥ Sūktam.

This and many other verses tell us to not dismiss significance of Purana, Puranas detail lore and revelations of Lord Shiva has himself a puran dedicated to himself and finds mentions in almost all puranas. Although with no writer of Ved it can be assumed all its knowledge must've been passed down orally for a much longer time. Agni, Indra, Mitra etc are widely talked deities in veds but they're barely worshipped today, i suppose that's how practices evolve - maybe 2000 yrs from now nobody will remember Krishna (ouch). I don't personally think puranas are something foreign because they don't contradict or demean Vedas they're based on them and respect the texts properly

^ this one is believed to be the oldest shivling about 4,300 yrs old found in kalibangan only

Even Swastika was found in the Indus Civilization.

I still haven't found one person that vouch for AIT or AMT not deny indigenity of Hindus, shocked and pleasantly surprised that you did. (Reveal thy secret) However, you claim there are ample evidence of AMT yet you didn't link any. While we're onto that, there is infact mentions of out-of-india migrations in ved itself, but no scripture (unless hey we figure out indus script!) talk of intrusion of a foreign Aryan group.

There was a comment made by a Tambram in my older post where they confirm AIT is used to deny their indigenity to india almost wildly!

And thank you for accepting that the Saraswati is no longer considered a myth because it confirms the older datings of rig veda and how it is much older than presently assumed, which is way earlier than the proposed timeline of the arrival of “aryans” into India (*side-eyeing muller*).

Maybe tomorrow we figure out something else, debates are good, I'm not cementing my beliefs about anything, there is always a chance of finding out even more about something. I'm open to reading evidences abt AMT, send them in.