Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 02 May 2016 17:42

JohneeG, your claims that "bleeding statues," "rivers flowing in reverse," and "plants flowering out of season" are impossibilities, are simply not true. Responded in the New History of India thread.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 02 May 2016 23:25

Mount Bromo (Brahma) in Indonesia and its Indian connection

https://www.myind.net/mount-bromo-and-i ... connection

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 06:06

JE Menon wrote:Mount Bromo (Brahma) in Indonesia and its Indian connection

https://www.myind.net/mount-bromo-and-i ... connection

Like the Irrwaddy river in Burma is derived from Airavati

But let me digress a little and post some thoughts on Rig Veda/Sanskrit as the origin of Nazism. I have written this before (several times) on this thread and I have refs to match.

As Europe gained power in the 19th century, colonies started expanding and European orientalists, archaeologists and explorers went out all over the world and brought back artefact and wrote volumes about other races. If one recalls - the Church was very much involved with Europe's mercantilism, and if it was not the church it was European monarchs who took the blessing of their church as Europeans went forth and conquered the world and started writing a Eurocentric world view.

But the discovery of ruins that told the story of the old Testament in Assyria (Syria/Iraq/Levant) came as a rude shock to the Christian Europeans. here the semites - the forebears of the hated Jews had proof of their own antiquity - older by thousands of years than Christ's 1800 -1900 years.

It took the "dicsovery" of Sanskrit in the Rig Veda, carrying evidence of the origins of dozens of European languages, and much older than the Assyrian ruins to set European minds at rest. Sanskrit provided (to them)proof that Europe's ancestors had conquered their way all across Assyria right up to India and it was European influence that led to a great Assyrian history later. Translations of the Rig Veda were made all faulty as the spiritual content of the Veda was discarded - but words like Arya and dasyu made the Europeans think that they were "Aryans" - a conquering race of Noble people. It is another matter that Arya means noble people so Arya-n should mean "Noble people-ein" proving that Pakiness started way back then.

The Germans were among the first to claim Aryan-mess. Max Muller was a German and it was his German "translation" of the Veda using Sayana's texts IIRC, that William Jones, sitting in London, rendered into English with no help from any Indian quarter. And it is Jones translation that we find quoted on BRF and on the net because we don't study Sanskrit. But I digress.

While Spain and Portugal went to the Americas and Britain came to India, the Germans did not go far - they simply went to North Africa and Assyria - so it was the Germans who were big on Assyriology and the Germans who were maximally butt-hurt by the archaeology there. And it was aa German who brought the Rig Veda to Europe. With the rise of Nazism as a political force, the concept of Germans being a noble people "Aryans" - far superior to the despicable Assyrian Semites (jews) was used by Nazi Germany.

So yes there is a connection between the Rig Veda, Sanskrit and nazi Gremany but it has nothing to do with teh content of the Rig veda and everything to do with the search for superiority over other races by a butt hurt Christian Europe that was rising. I think this story needs to be understood before we go into denial about the connection between Nazia and sanskrit

The only analogy I can think of is the juvenile imagination of a banana as a dildo. A banana makes a very poor dildo and I am sure the slightest imagination can create a better dildo. However a person who convinces himself that bananas are dildos will always see dildos, not bananas. So the Germans saw the superiority of their race in the Rig Ved, which, like the poor banana had nothing to do with their delusions

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 03 May 2016 06:23

Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 07:01

sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.

There is a definite south, particularly Tamil connection there because Tamil pronunciations use 'th' and 'dh' interchangeably.

Airavati pronounced by a native Tamil speaker could come out as Airawadhy. Irrawaddy is easily converted to Airavathi/Airavati if one is not hung up on language chauvinism of one's own tongue. As it is "I" and "Ai" are interchangeable in English - with English having zero rules and words like
-iteration
-irrigation
-island
-inland
-irate
-irritate
and fcup words with both sounds like "mining" and "infinite"

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 03 May 2016 09:26

JE Menon wrote:Mount Bromo (Brahma) in Indonesia and its Indian connection

https://www.myind.net/mount-bromo-and-i ... connection

From the article:

Tenggerese themselves are the people who migrated from Central Java with the royals after the Hindu Majapahit empire was defeated by Islamic forces in the 15th century.

The Majapahit empire of SE Asia was probably the greatest maritime Hindu kingdom ever after that of the Cholas. And how did the Majapahit empire decline? This from Wikipedia:

During the reign of Wikramawardhana, a series of Ming armada naval expeditions led by Zheng He,[21]:241–242 a Muslim Chinese admiral, arrived in Java several times spanning the period from 1405 to 1433. By 1430, the expeditions had established Muslim Chinese and Arab communities in northern ports of Java such as Semarang, Demak, Tuban, and Ampel; thus Islam began to gain a foothold on the northern coast of Java.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 03 May 2016 15:59

sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.

Hmm...on what basis do you argue that Irrawady is actually Airavati? And even if it is called Airavati, how do you know its connected to India? Before you angrily jump up and down on those questions, let me clarify that these are the same questions which are raised everytime I say something on this thread apart from general abusing and trolling. So, now I have decided that I will simply ask these same questions everytime somebody else comes up with fanciful notions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 May 2016 16:58

johneeG wrote:
sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.
Hmm...on what basis do you argue that Irrawady is actually Airavati? And even if it is called Airavati, how do you know its connected to India? Before you angrily jump up and down on those questions, let me clarify that these are the same questions which are raised everytime I say something on this thread apart from general abusing and trolling. So, now I have decided that I will simply ask these same questions everytime somebody else comes up with fanciful notions.

I think the post clearly says the basis for calling the Irrawaddy the Airavati. If I may re post the part that explains it:

Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati."

Time and again on this thread we have referred to the fact that "recorded history" is only after Jesus Christ our Lord. Everything before that is questionable. This is accepted_fact. One of the problems we face on this thread is credibility. Nothing that was not written down in stone can be proven to be absolutely 100% correct, unlike events after Christ, which have been recorded diligently. To that extent all Hindu literature and tradition that was passed down orally does not constitute fact.

I think this thread has seen thousands of examples of things that are stated as fact or as something that can be taken as fact and we all learn from this and we learn to question everything. For example I recall your pointing out that Buddhism and Buddhist tradition considered incest as normal. I find that difficult to believe and would like to see proof. No need to get into chaddi twisting "I will troll you" mode. Let us talk about proof.
This link is a forum search for "incest buddhist" among posts made by you
Of the 18 links - only one has been posted in this thread. And that is a cross post of your own post from the off topic thread. Now I don't know why you chose to post it here but I bring it up to ask you to be accountable for what you write. And you need to say why it is relevant in this thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1421152

You wrote:

There is a misconception that Buddhism is against caste. It does not seem to be true. I don't know how to say this, but it seems that the stress of caste/Kula was so much that they were prepared to commit incest rather than marry outside Kula(more specifically Kshatriya).

Quote:
In several places in the Pāli Canon, including the Ambaṭṭha Sutta (D.i.92), the progenitors of the Śākyas are related to King Okkāka. Pāli Okkāka is identified with the Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, who is known from Purāṇic stories, and in Jainism he is an ancestor to all of the Tirthaṅkaras. The king banishes his elder brothers from his kingdom and they make their home on the slopes of the Himalayas. But they can find no one suitable to marry, so they take their own sisters as wives, and these incestuous relationships give birth to the Śākyas. Given the prejudice against incest in India society generally it is remarkable that this detail was preserved, and this suggests that it might have a grain of truth. If so it points to Iran "there is good evidence for this practice called xᵛaētuuadaθa, so-called next-of-kin or close-kin marriage."
Wiki Link

As you can see, they believed incest was better than marriage outside caste. In fact, they continued to believe that they were progeny of pure castes.

This incest in Buddhism had curious effect. They justified it through their theology by ascribing this behaviour to many other figures in their theology. But, most of the figures in Buddhism were borrowed from Hinduism. So, essentially, Buddhism redefined these figures and some of them were ascribed incest to justify their own incestous behaviour.

For ex:

Quote:
In the Udaya Jataka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jataka the princes Rama and Lakkhana marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakyans, the tribe the Buddha belonged to, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they ‘cohabite with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals’ (Ja.V,413). During the Buddha’s life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention he said, ‘Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?’
Link

So, Buddhists created a version of Ramayana where Sita is both the sister and wife of Rama. All this for what?! Caste! It is ironic since, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama killed Vali for committing incest with his sister-in-law. Rama explains that a sister-in-law is equivalent to one's daughter and should never be thought of as wife material. And the only punishment for such incest is death. If incest with sister-in-law in punishable by death, then what is the punishment for incest with sister?

But, all that is irrelevant when one has an agenda. So, Buddhists tarnish Rama to justify their incest.

There is another example: Brahma and Saraswathi relationship is presented as incest in Buddhism. Abraham and Sarah are most probably derived from this presentation of Buddhists. Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah

Without knowing this, some anti-Hindu morons latch on to this Buddhist presentation.

AFAIK, Hinduism does not agree with this portrayal of these figures(Rama, Sita, Brahma, Saraswathi,... etc). One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.

Thats why one must not try to think that all 'dharmas'(indic or foreign) are same.

Sir (or Madam in case you are not Sir), the original post I have quoted above is 7,449 words long. That is seven thousand four hundred and forty-nine words with 46,290 characters. In a book with 500 words per page that single post of yours would be a 37 page booklet. And couched within that 37 page thesis are 641 words, about a page and a half telling us about incest and Buddhism

I don't think 7,500 words is unusual for you. If you like I will go and count the long posts you have made - using the freedom you get to dump stuff on this forum to make humongous posts in which you write all sorts of stuff and you get very very upset indeed if anyone questions you. Or you reply with another very long post quoting yourself and entire posts made by you or others in reply basically obfuscating and evading the question and burying it with a word-dump

You have been requested to stay on topic and if necessary start a blog of your own. But you have been given the freedom to express your views here. Let me use my freedom to express my views. I think the dumping of enormous posts on this forum (which I will count and present to you if necessary) is a form of trolling but people have been too polite to say so. And within those huge trolling posts you have hidden some gems that you have not been asked to explain. I think you have yourself got to show some accountability for the privilege of dumping posts on this forum

May I take this opportunity to quote one more little sentence you have made in that 7,449 word post?

One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.

Using the very logic that you use, one could say that names that sound different may not necessarily be different names. There may be no proof that Irrawaddy is Airavati, but there is no proof against it. Until we can get more information it remains a hypothesis - but a hypothesis with much circumstantial evidence that it might be correct.

I have no proof that Buddhist doctrines did not call for incest. What would you be able to offer as the degree of credibility of the texts you quote (other than Wikipedia, which is edited by users) that Buddhism promotes incest. And please say why you posted that in this thread? How is that 7,449 word post about incest that you have posted here apart from other threads, relevant to the topic of this thread?

peter · Post by **peter** » 03 May 2016 17:10

johneeG wrote:
sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.
Hmm...on what basis do you argue that Irrawady is actually Airavati? And even if it is called Airavati, how do you know its connected to India? Before you angrily jump up and down on those questions, let me clarify that these are the same questions which are raised everytime I say something on this thread apart from general abusing and trolling. So, now I have decided that I will simply ask these same questions everytime somebody else comes up with fanciful notions.

Is this flip or are you serious? If you travel further east AIravat is firmly entrenched all over south east asia. Lookup Erawan in Thailand. Also see how many indonesians use the name Irawan . It is endless list...

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 03 May 2016 17:24

Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/place/Irrawaddy-River

Irrawaddy River, Burmese Ayeyarwady ,
Irrawaddy River [Credit: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]
principal river of Myanmar (formerly Burma), running through the centre of the country. Myanmar’s most important commercial waterway, it is about 1,350 miles (2,170 km) long. Its name is believed to derive from the Sanskrit term airāvatī, meaning “elephant river.”

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 07 May 2016 13:49

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batavi_(Germanic_tribe)

You might wonder why I'm posting this here. Golden star on notebook for the first to spot it.

Added later: for some reason when you click on the link, the closing bracket does not appear in the search string on wiki (although that is exactly how the link is). Please put the closing bracket on the hyperlink address of the page directly and the right page will open...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 07 May 2016 15:22

Alright...the history discussion has been moved to the Towards a New History Thread, at the following link:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... &start=240

Please continue there

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 May 2016 10:10

Kalavai Venkat jumps to Manasataramgini's defense (defending AIT and against OIT, based on genetics):
https://kalavaivenkat.wordpress.com/201 ... of-racism/

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 08 May 2016 13:02

shiv wrote:
I think the post clearly says the basis for calling the Irrawaddy the Airavati. If I may re post the part that explains it:
Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati."
Time and again on this thread we have referred to the fact that "recorded history" is only after Jesus Christ our Lord. Everything before that is questionable. This is accepted_fact. One of the problems we face on this thread is credibility. Nothing that was not written down in stone can be proven to be absolutely 100% correct, unlike events after Christ, which have been recorded diligently. To that extent all Hindu literature and tradition that was passed down orally does not constitute fact.

- Recorded history did not start after your Lord Jesus christ. Thats a nonsensical claim and silly belief. Herodotus is called the father of history in greece. He certainly was born before your lord Jesus christ. I don't think even the most conservative christian would have such a silly belief that recorded history was invented by christianity. And you were accusing others of being an EJ!
- There is no recorded secular history of your Lord Jesus christ himself for atleast 100 yrs after he is supposed to have been born. Recorded history is therefore problematic to christianity.
- If you think that only christian history is credible and non-christian history is not credible, thats your personal opinion.
- Europe was plunged into dark ages from 400 CE to 1200 CE(atleast). There is not much recorded history of Europe during that period.
- Oral traditions is a fig leaf which anyone can try to put up when they cannot come up with recorded historical evidence. For example, there is not much recorded history about Mohammad from 600 CE to 700 CE(if not 800 CE). Muslims say they had oral traditions during this time.
- Your assertion that Hindu literature was only oral tradition has to be proved. Hindus believe Ramayana to be the first poem and they attribute historical value to it. Only Vedas were oral traditions because Vedas were explicitly stopped form putting into writing for a long time and Vedas have special ways to preserve their character during oral transmission.

About Irrawaddy etymology:
That poster Sudharshan accused me of having substandard logic when I said that Agasthya must be derived from Agasthi if they are related(because other posters were already discussing under the assumption that they are related). Then, he posted a following counter to my post:

How do you categorically state that the Rishi's name is derived from the star, simply from the word endings? Both names could be corruptions of the original names. In which case, it is impossible to tell what is derived from what. Or "Agasthya" could be the original name, which could mean anything - it could be a flower, a pot, a southerner - all of those speculations are there on this very thread. Agasthya the sage could have decided to name the star after himself, and named it as "Agasthi," meaning "this is the star from which I have come." The relation could be in his own mind. But the star's name is in that case still derived from the Rishi's name, not the other way round. There is no basis for the categorical statement you made. This is a comment on your post and certainly also on the logic (thinking) behind it, not on you.

Then, he posted his inkling based on some anecdote. I thought the points he made against my post can equally apply to his own inkling. I'll just modify his post to show how it applies to his own inkling:
How do you categorically state that the Irrawaddy name is derived from the Airawathi, simply from some vague similarity? Both names could be corruptions of the original names. In which case, it is impossible to tell what is derived from what.

So, basically, Sudharshan was saying that there may have been some proto-words when Agasthi-Agasthya came up. That same argument of proto-words can also apply here. Before someone feels that the theory of proto-words is similar to proto-Indo-European and starts lashing at me, let me clarify that BTW, proto-words is not my argument. This is the argument of that poster Sudharshan. I am only pointing out that his argument against my post goes against his post also. So, I asked him to explain his inkling. I thought he would display his superior logical skills and there by give me a chance to learn some great logical acumen. But, instead he just continued his adhominems.

Now, you are saying that his first post already contains the explanation.

shiv wrote: May I take this opportunity to quote one more little sentence you have made in that 7,449 word post?
One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.
Using the very logic that you use, one could say that names that sound different may not necessarily be different names. There may be no proof that Irrawaddy is Airavati, but there is no proof against it. Until we can get more information it remains a hypothesis - but a hypothesis with much circumstantial evidence that it might be correct.

Your conclusion has no connection to what I said in that post. I have seen this kind of strange illogic in your posts atleast a few times(if not more). The most recent example, I can remember is that you were arguing that caste sytem was invented by British. Then you quoted Al Beruni who was saying that caste system existed in India before the British. You quote that very Beruni and then simultaneously argue that British invented caste system. At the same time, you also argue that caste system and untouchability are good. I am actually amazed that someone can come up with that kind of self-contradictions on a single issue. The same kind of illogic is being displayed here also. My quote does not say anything what you are saying.

You can call it a hypothesis. You say that personal anecdote is a circumstantial evidence at one place and call it as oral tradition at another place. Some unrelated, unknown and unverifiable personal anecdote is not a circumstantial evidence. The problem with personal anecdotes is that anyone can invent any such anecdote to justify anything. And thats the problem with oral traditions. They are easy to distort. Thus it becomes difficult to determine who distorted what. Compared to oral traditions, recorded works are more difficult to distort and it is easy to identify the distortions when the distortions do happen. Also, I don't think the anecdote of Sudharshan is an oral tradition. This is just a personal anecdote of somebody mispronouncing something. It should not be elevated to the level of a tradition. An oral tradition means some kind of tranmission over generations. Nothing of that sort is clear from that anecdote unless you are claiming that tamil people have an oral tradition of pronouncing Irawaddy as Airawathi.

If we take it that anecdote as true at facevalue and assume that poster Sudharshan was not just inventing a tale, even then his anecdote actually goes against his conclusion. Because according to his anecdote, some person somewhere mispronouned Irrawaddy as Airawathi. That shows that Irawaddy can become Airawathi. It does not show that Airawathi can become Irrawaddy(which is what Sudharshan was concluding). So, his anecdote actually shows the reverse of his conclusion.

Even if we grant that Irrawaddy and Airawathi are similar names, it still does not prove OIT. Because the similarity of names may be co-incidental or both these names may be derived from some other proto-word. Again, these are not my counter-arguments. These are the arguments which were used against my post in this thread. The proto-word theory is the argument of that poster Sudharshan himself. Surely, the same logic applies to other posts.

So, its just a hypothesis with no supporting evidence or logic. Your hypothesis is that even different names may not be different names. Then, any two names may actually be same names if they just share a few similar sounds. And even direction is not clear. So, its a pretty lame hypothesis. If anyone can post any hypothesis, why were you and that poster abusing me for posting hypothesis? I actually supported my hypothesis with much better evidence and logic than you are able to support your hypothesis.

shiv wrote: I think this thread has seen thousands of examples of things that are stated as fact or as something that can be taken as fact and we all learn from this and we learn to question everything. For example I recall your pointing out that Buddhism and Buddhist tradition considered incest as normal. I find that difficult to believe and would like to see proof. No need to get into chaddi twisting "I will troll you" mode. Let us talk about proof.
This link is a forum search for "incest buddhist" among posts made by you
Of the 18 links - only one has been posted in this thread. And that is a cross post of your own post from the off topic thread. Now I don't know why you chose to post it here but I bring it up to ask you to be accountable for what you write. And you need to say why it is relevant in this thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1421152

Sir (or Madam in case you are not Sir), the original post I have quoted above is 7,449 words long. That is seven thousand four hundred and forty-nine words with 46,290 characters. In a book with 500 words per page that single post of yours would be a 37 page booklet. And couched within that 37 page thesis are 641 words, about a page and a half telling us about incest and Buddhism

I don't think 7,500 words is unusual for you. If you like I will go and count the long posts you have made - using the freedom you get to dump stuff on this forum to make humongous posts in which you write all sorts of stuff and you get very very upset indeed if anyone questions you. Or you reply with another very long post quoting yourself and entire posts made by you or others in reply basically obfuscating and evading the question and burying it with a word-dump

You have been requested to stay on topic and if necessary start a blog of your own. But you have been given the freedom to express your views here. Let me use my freedom to express my views. I think the dumping of enormous posts on this forum (which I will count and present to you if necessary) is a form of trolling but people have been too polite to say so. And within those huge trolling posts you have hidden some gems that you have not been asked to explain. I think you have yourself got to show some accountability for the privilege of dumping posts on this forum

May I take this opportunity to quote one more little sentence you have made in that 7,449 word post?
One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.
Using the very logic that you use, one could say that names that sound different may not necessarily be different names. There may be no proof that Irrawaddy is Airavati, but there is no proof against it. Until we can get more information it remains a hypothesis - but a hypothesis with much circumstantial evidence that it might be correct.

I have no proof that Buddhist doctrines did not call for incest. What would you be able to offer as the degree of credibility of the texts you quote (other than Wikipedia, which is edited by users) that Buddhism promotes incest. And please say why you posted that in this thread? How is that 7,449 word post about incest that you have posted here apart from other threads, relevant to the topic of this thread?

Madam/Sir,
My posts are long because I generally reply to several different posters in one post. I was replying to about 4 to 5 posts in that single post. Its amusing to see you complaint about the length of the posts when the forum is littered with your long posts. If someone collects all your posts(many of them long and meaningless monologues) at one place, it would be bulkier than a telephone directory. I don't know if anybody reads any of your posts, but if they do read even some of your posts, they will notice too many self-contradictions. If you start posting what you generally post with another login ID, then that login ID would be shut up or kicked out for posting nonsense. If anybody(including me) posted half the rubbish(contradictory & meaningless) rants that you post, they would be kicked out for good from here. On the top of that, you even abuse, insinuate and bully other posters. You seem to get away with lot of stuff here because you are some ex-mod or something. If I had abused or insinuated against you, then I would have faced much harsher punishment than what you are facing for abusing and insinuating against me(without a provocation BTW). I saw many posters being reprimanded or banned from here for much milder stuff. If you post similar stuff anywhere else, you would be promptly shut up(if not kicked out). So, your ironic complaints are like pot calling kettle black.

Just take the above post:
1) about etymology of Irrawaddy. Nothing original. 1 Line.
2) short rant against recorded history in your mistaken belief that recorded history was invented after christianity. 1 Paragraph.
3) long rant on the length of my post and my freedom to post. 3/4 Paragraphs.
4) About Buddhism & incest. Question. 2 Lines.

The whole post is mostly made up of long rant complaining about the length of my posts and my freedom to post. The rest of the post is made up of a short rant based on a wrong belief that christianity invented recorded history. The actual points are just 2/3 lines. And those 2/3 lines of actual points are either trivial or plain wrong. Most of the post is just a rant. I hope this is not the general characteristic of your long monologues littered all over the forum.

About Buddhism & incest:
Let me first note that you are quoting one of my posts from 3 yrs back. Now, if I search for posts of anyone, surely I would be able to find some contradictions or change of views over a long period because time is an important variable and people do change their views based on time and circumstance. I think that my views on Buddhism at that time were quite harsh and my posts on Buddhis were in harsh tone at the time. I have considerably softened towards Buddhism now. So, I did change my views to some extent. But, what I said in that post was largely right in essence.

Secondly, I don't even understand what reply you are expecting. Because you are asking for proof even as you quote the proof I provided. I even gave references in the post you are quoting, so you can check those references if you still have doubts. Perhaps, you didn't understand that you are quoting my proof. Just o you can understand, let me put it in simple words: the proof is already given with references in that very post you are quoting. I gave references from Buddhist literature.

Lastly, that post was in reply to some other post which was made on this thread. I didn't bring that issue here. It was already brought by someone just like you are bringing it now. I don't know how the issue is relevant here. I was just replying to another post. It seems that you have been raising this point about Buddhism & incest when replying to me recently. When I didn't reply, you perhaps assumed that this is a good line of argument and seem to be repeating it everywhere regardless of whether its relevant or not. I didn't reply to this point because it was not relevant to discussion. I was just cautioned for replying to a similar off-topic post even though the original poster was not cautioned. I am not going to reply to your off-topic point. I can't get away with silly or off-topic posts like you. Even as you are accusing me of posting off-topic post, you demand me to answer off-topic points. Maybe your strategy is to post some off-topic stuff while replying to me and when I reply to your off-topic posts, then only I will get in trouble because you can get away with anything.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 May 2016 13:32

Published on May 08, 2016
Author: Vedveer Arya
Vijayanagara: A Greatest South Indian Empire: Itihasa Bharati Blog

This is an extremely important paper.

It establishes that

- the Vijayanagara Empire was founded in around 655 CE - 660 CE instead of 1336 CE.
- Madhavacharya (Ananda Tirtha) lived around Saka 1040-1119 (457-537 CE).
- Vidyaranya lived from 560 CE to 660 CE

- Hukka and Bukka I (630-645 CE?)
- Sangama, son of Bukka (645-658 CE)
- Harihara I, son of Sangama (658-687 CE)
- Bukka II, younger brother of Harihara I (688-716 CE)

Moreover, the paper talks about the Turushka kings in India, who were Hindus, which goes into an empire which extended into Afghanistan and further.

For any discussions, please go to the "Towards a New History of India" thread.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 May 2016 13:35

johneeG ji,

Please, check the link to the Vijayanagara Empire paper.

_____

may be long posts divided into smaller posts would be more acceptable for moderators.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 08 May 2016 15:57

Prem Kumar wrote:Kalavai Venkat jumps to Manasataramgini's defense (defending AIT and against OIT, based on genetics):
https://kalavaivenkat.wordpress.com/201 ... of-racism/

shiv ji's comments on issues mentioned in support on AIT in the above article here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... h#p2001538
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... h#p2001412
https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/12 ... -nonsense/

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 08 May 2016 17:53

https://kalavaivenkat.wordpress.com/201 ... of-racism/

This guy is so full of sh*t. I'm sorry this is too much.

Nobody seriously believes that ANI ORIGINALLY came from India.

What is in dispute is WHEN and HOW they came to India and whether they BRANCHED out afterwards (OIT).

All the genetic evidence points to ANI settling somewhere between Punjab and Afghanistan for a period of time,
formulating Vedas, and mixing w/ other groups.

Moreover, there is NO EVIDENCE to show they came violently.

Why is this so hard for these boneheads to understand this?

From the same link:

The evidence conclusively proves that these IE people originated in the steppe and diffused in various directions to replace the native inhabitants of Europe and Central Asia. This favors the AIT model by which they would have entered Iran and India over the next few centuries.

Replace the native inhabitants? The end.

Recent genetic researches confirm that the admixture of Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) happened between 4,200 and 1,900 YBP. One may refer to Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India by David Reich et al for details. The ANI cluster broadly corresponds to IA. Genetics is unaware of a Dravidian race but ASI can be taken to broadly correspond to the non-IA populations of India. These non-IA populations form heterogeneous clusters and themselves came to India from the outside at different periods. As a result of this admixture, all Indian castes have both ANI and ASI markers in varying proportions.

There is no evidence to show that they "stormed" the subcontinent between this time. He deliberately leaves out Moorjani's findings and the jati rigidification that occurred sometime during the end of the Gupta period. This means that it is post vedic and not due to some ancient martial white race on horseback descending ominously from the pontine steppe (puts to rest this idea that they were oppressive). He also leaves out the M17 and Z93 marker discoveries (highest in Punjab ~ 62%).

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 08 May 2016 19:20

Thank you. Today evening (I am in a hurry to go to my office at the moment) I will upload an article I had sent to a western scholar on the Indology List who wanted to start a debate on the AIT/OIT. But after that, there was a dead silence on his part. Koenraad Elst wrote to me that they were expecting me to make some mistake they could use to discredit me, but my article left them speechless, so they backed out of the discussion.

http://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/no ... -none.html

AIT linguists engage in haughty theatrics and verbal diarrhea and then when you call their bluff this tends to happen.

http://talageri.blogspot.com/search?upd ... -results=2

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 09 May 2016 02:00

Elst's comment regarding the KV's article:

Dear listfolk,

No time for a serious analysis now, though it must be done; and this thread would stray from the purpose of this list, so just two general remarks:

* That "genes don't speak" (just like "archaological facts don't speak"), is now a matter for consensus among linguists. Jamaicans may have African genes (and Kalavai and the Manasataramgini blogger would attribute an African language to them) but they speak a European language. Populations change language all while maintaining their genetic and technological make-up. It is precisely Witzel c.s. who have emphasized this in order to explain the absence of any genetic or archaeological sign of an Aryan invasion into India. So, Talageri is right in being skeptical of the genetic evidence.

* The genetic data cited are from after 2500 BCE = 4500 BP. But this is too late. Linguists estimate the split of PIE at 3700 BCE. In 2900 BC, a major and very well-attested event in Central Europe marked a breakthrough of steppe people displacing the Original Europeans. Since these traditionalist AIT defenders use genetic evidence, for what it is worth, there is simply no other event that allows to the same extent for identifying one of the contending sides as IE, also supported by physical anthropology and archaeology. So, it is generally agreed that this event marks the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe. It marks the "Aryan invasion of Western Europe" in a way that has been looked for in India but never found (or as Witzel admits, "not found yet"). That is what an Aryan invasion would look like, but it is foud in Europe, not in India.

Regards,

Koenraad Elst

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 May 2016 02:14

venug wrote:Elst's comment regarding the KV's article:

* The genetic data cited are from after 2500 BCE = 4500 BP. But this is too late. Linguists estimate the split of PIE at 3700 BCE. In 2900 BC, a major and very well-attested event in Central Europe marked a breakthrough of steppe people displacing the Original Europeans. Since these traditionalist AIT defenders use genetic evidence, for what it is worth, there is simply no other event that allows to the same extent for identifying one of the contending sides as IE, also supported by physical anthropology and archaeology. So, it is generally agreed that this event marks the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe. It marks the "Aryan invasion of Western Europe" in a way that has been looked for in India but never found (or as Witzel admits, "not found yet"). That is what an Aryan invasion would look like, but it is foud in Europe, not in India.

Regards,

Koenraad Elst

This is exactly which was described in this article published in 2006 by yours truly.
The entire theory was used to explain the origin of EUROPEAN LANGUAGES. They needed a secular narrative of their European history of language

It was not about India at all.
With Indian 'intellectuals' with too much brain twisted it for India and now this mess.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/7447100/The- ... an-History

Sanskrit was the key for generating the Indo-European theory and in the development of itsassociated subjects like philology and linguistics. Only after 1830, when indologists hadtranslated numerous Sanskrit texts, did the west finally form an origin theory for its languagesand people that was independent of the Bible. Until the IE language family and correspondingworld-view gave them an alternative (non-religious) vision, the history of Europe had been thehistory of Christianity and their origin understood to be as given in the Bible.

It allowed the west to devise a secular narrative of history for itself (the IE framework) - one based on a model of language dispersal and migration of races, instead of one based on biblicalmyths. It was this non-Christian narrative that later became the secular western understanding of the past. But it was also used by communism in projecting the history and origin of Europe as being separate from religion.
The assumptions and central premise of the Indo-European world-view
We have seen how the name of the language family has evolved along with the times: frominitially being called Japhetic (signifying its European-ness), to Aryan (referring to the Caucasian people thought to have migrated to other parts and invaded other lands), and finally to the present term of Indo-European. Its new name, having now lost the overt racialist connotations,appears to merely signify the expanse from Europe to India where these languages have beenspoken historically. Yet the underlying premise of the IE world-view has not changed, regardlessof the change in name. The IE framework still holds fast to the idea that these languages areEuropean in origin: not connected to Europe geographically, but intrinsically connected to thoseof its people whose ancestors are thought to have spoken an Indo-European language. The IEworld-view is still centred on the idea that this group of people, the so-called Aryans, gave rise tothe Indo-European languages and the civilisations derived from it; that these people and their languages share a common origin.[26] As evidence for this, linguists point to Proto-Indo-European - despite the fact that PIE itself is constructed and validated only by IE linguistics.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 09 May 2016 04:42

Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: I think Reich is a Western AIT snake. He tried to challenge the Gupta-period claim by saying that "time period of each generation was underestimated". He wants that date closer to 1200 BC

The problem is genetics doesn't lie. No matter what you do, you cannot fake the Z93 data, genetics regarding jati rigidification, etc.

AIT/OIT for many indologists isn't about the genetics of ANI at all.

It's about proving that Sanskriti was oppressive

By doing this, they can prove that Aryans were martial to the Dravidians of India and prove that Sanskrit/Sanskriti was divisive (caste, untouchability, sexism, elitist etc).

There is simply no evidence for this.

Nobody is claiming that ANI, ASI, etc. originates in India. Not even Talageri. Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa.

Based on what I've read so far, after splits, waves back and forth, etc. there was a point in which ANI settled somewhere between Haryana and Afghanistan and formulated Sanskrit and Sanskriti. Another reason why OIT/AIT imo isn't an accurate descriptor. The dates keep getting pushed back every year w/ more genetic data. It was then that it went outward before mixing w/ ASI began. In other words, linguistics doesn't entirely follow ethnic migration.

This is what Talageri is trying to say. But that Manasataramgini blogger (Iyer) bonehead simply doesn't get it.

He keeps jerking off to this ANI horde theory and simply fitting genetic data to prove it. Again, Talageri calls him out on this.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 09 May 2016 07:37

If later parts of Rigveda were written by people moving westwards from India to Pakistan/Afghanistan, how did they come back to India and spread all over India, but not towards the west. Not questioning OIT, but just want to know how the intellectual growth and continuation of Hindu scriptures happened eastwards in India, but the westward traveling Indians could not sustain and spread it where they went.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 09 May 2016 08:46

hanumadu wrote:If later parts of Rigveda were written by people moving westwards from India to Pakistan/Afghanistan, how did they come back to India and spread all over India, but not towards the west. Not questioning OIT, but just want to know how the intellectual growth and continuation of Hindu scriptures happened eastwards in India, but the westward traveling Indians could not sustain and spread it where they went.

It's okay to question. It's not okay to ignore data and sound logic. This is the biggest problem w/ most AIT and some OIT folks.

Overtime it disappeared/adapted as they integrated w/ other settlements outside the subcontinent. This phenomena is clearly seen w/ the Romani people whose out of India journey began 1500 YBP. We also see elements of Vedic culture in other civilizations like the Mittani, Avestan, and groups like the Yazidi.

There is still no bloody response from these guys as to how the Mittani had Sanskrit names but didn't speak the language and yet are proof that Sanskrit was originally formulated somewhere in Central Asia. That's like saying Shankuntala Devi moves to Florida and speaks English but Sanskrit originated in the Americas. You're either someone w/ a motive or suffering from mental retardation if you believe this. This is further buttressed by the fact that nowhere in the Rig Veda is the topography mentioned outside the Indian subcontinent. How the hell could Sanskrit have been composed outside? I wish some AIT moron like Manasataramgini could answer this instead of fapping all day long to his martial white race on horseback.

What you have to keep in mind is the scriptures themselves were rooted in tradition rather than doctrine. Logically, this would have meant that the thought process would have been similar but there would have been a greater degree of aesthetic/grammatical permutation.

If the skeletal remains sent to SK yield minuscule to no ASI dna, AIT will be officially dead forever. There can be no ambiguity at the point. Manasataramgini should then dip his head into Ganga and apologize to his cult followers and everyone else.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 May 2016 08:56

http://yugaparivartan.com/2016/01/23/ar ... s-part-ii/
Aryan Invasion Theory: The Genetics (Part II)

So, the data from the study gives evidence that the R1a1 found in Punjab is the oldest while the central European haplotype is in the middle and Northern European R1a haplotype is the youngest. This pretty much buries the Aryan invasion/migration theories to the ground because if AIT/AMT was true, we would have seen from the genetic results that the Eastern European haplotype being the oldest and Indian haplotype being the youngest since AIT claims that Europeans (the parent population) came as invaders/migrants to North India as Aryans. It is also important to note the age of different population groups in the study. The study states that Central/Eastern European population is 12.5k years old while Northern Population is 6.9K years old. And the Punjabi/North Indian population is at least 15.5k years old.he age component in these studies is the most important because as per Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, IVC was Dravidian and it ended because of Migration/Invasion by the Aryans around 1500 BC i.e. 4000 years ago. In the light of above mentioned and similar other genetic studies, the Aryan Invasion theory/Migration theory is off the mark by at least 10000 years. The significance of this fact is that it demolishes the argument of AIT peddlers who push the narrative that Hinduism is not native to India and came with the Aryan invaders. Since North Indian population is at least 15,000 years old, this claim falls flat on its face and make Hinduism indigenous to India and India alone.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 09 May 2016 09:27

Went through the Reich paper. Venkat's inability to notice this observation casts serious doubts on his ability to carry out even basic research. Someone should point this out to him on twitter.

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is
possible that with further sampling and new methods
such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility
that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI
and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial
period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has
been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA
studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic
farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe
about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter
gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day
populations of northern Europe.15,16,44,45
The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is
how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark
on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just
traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally
lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are
united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand
years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the
history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying
DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to
overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not
conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies
could be particularly revealing about Indian history
because they have the potential to directly reveal the
geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their
admixture.

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929713003248 ... eaf900d2d7

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 09 May 2016 10:44

This series of 6 lectures Michel Danino has been posted here a page or two ago. I watched only the first part but it was comprehensive and detailed and amply disproves AIT. If you have to convince anybody of the non existence of AIT, this would be the one link that will do it. Please do watch it.
[youtube]RT4pUJMDV2Y&list=FLWzDRitRlr9YCFiZyI_w4-g[/youtube]

member_29400 · Post by **member_29400** » 09 May 2016 12:50

RoyG wrote:Went through the Reich paper. Venkat's inability to notice this observation casts serious doubts on his ability to carry out even basic research. Someone should point this out to him on twitter.

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is
possible that with further sampling and new methods
such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility
that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI
and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial
period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has
been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA
studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic
farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe
about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter
gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day
populations of northern Europe.15,16,44,45
The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is
how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark
on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just
traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally
lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are
united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand
years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the
history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying
DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to
overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not
conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies
could be particularly revealing about Indian history
because they have the potential to directly reveal the
geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their
admixture.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929713003248 ... eaf900d2d7

He pointed out a three week old study by Poznik to claim that there is new evidence for admixture between ANI and Europeans in recent time.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 May 2016 17:23

I would not argue directly with these people. They are not going to get converted. Better to put down all effort in making other people, lurkers and the silent majority understand the issues.

In all discussions a person who uses rhetorical tactics can destroy a well argued genuine case in a minute - so the idea of having different opinions sit side by side is always a good one. If you have 500 against AIT and 25 for AIT you know what information is more credible..

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 May 2016 20:02

Shiv: quick question. A point that Kalavai Venkat raises is that, if ANI & ASI were admixed in India before OIT began, we should see some ASI-related genes in Central Asia and Europe. He claims we don't see it.

1) I recall a paper in which some such ASI-related genes showed up in Europe. Do you recall by any chance?

2) Its certainly possible that OIT happened before the major ANI-ASI admixture (starting 4200 YBP). Hence ASI traces outside India would be hard to find

3) Lastly, even if admixture happened before OIT, if only a small percentage of Punjabis had ASI genes in them, its very likely that a random statistical sampling of Europeans might not detect it. Its like trying to find ASI genes in today's USA. I know it exists because I know a Tamilian married to a white girl & having kids. But unless you happen to sample the right persons, you won't detect it

RoyG: yes, its either careless or deliberate that Kalavai Venkat didn't read the very important last paragraph of the Priya Moorjani/Reich paper, where they clearly state that their paper is not proof of AIT! In fact the lack of gene influx in last 12500 years is definite proof against AIT

Dinesh: do you have access to the paper? I think its behind a paywall. So, I don't know what point Kalavai was making with reference to that paper

member_29400 · Post by **member_29400** » 09 May 2016 20:23

Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: quick question. A point that Kalavai Venkat raises is that, if ANI & ASI were admixed in India before OIT began, we should see some ASI-related genes in Central Asia and Europe. He claims we don't see it.

1) I recall a paper in which some such ASI-related genes showed up in Europe. Do you recall by any chance?

2) Its certainly possible that OIT happened before the major ANI-ASI admixture (starting 4200 YBP). Hence ASI traces outside India would be hard to find

3) Lastly, even if admixture happened before OIT, if only a small percentage of Punjabis had ASI genes in them, its very likely that a random statistical sampling of Europeans might not detect it. Its like trying to find ASI genes in today's USA. I know it exists because I know a Tamilian married to a white girl & having kids. But unless you happen to sample the right persons, you won't detect it

RoyG: yes, its either careless or deliberate that Kalavai Venkat didn't read the very important last paragraph of the Priya Moorjani/Reich paper, where they clearly state that their paper is not proof of AIT! In fact the lack of gene influx in last 12500 years is definite proof against AIT

Dinesh: do you have access to the paper? I think its behind a paywall. So, I don't know what point Kalavai was making with reference to that paper

Could not get it either.

You might want to check this for your questions above: https://twitter.com/yugaparivartan/stat ... 9112549380

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 May 2016 20:57

Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: quick question. A point that Kalavai Venkat raises is that, if ANI & ASI were admixed in India before OIT began, we should see some ASI-related genes in Central Asia and Europe. He claims we don't see it.

Kalavai Venkat is a bullshitter who has not understood the point of definition of a set of genes called ASI and ANI. They are unique to India. This is in the Reich paper and I will post 2 data graphs from that paper to illustrate.

In the image below the left half shows Indian all genes ASI+ANI among all groups, North/South/Upper/Lower caste) clustering in the upper part of the graph. European genes are at bottom right. Chinese at bottom left. Indian genes are slightly closer to European ones except Nyshi and Naga tribes. Europe has no ASI or ANI genes. China has no ASI or ANI genes. ASI and ANI are unique to India and extend up to Afghanistan and Burma

The tree on the right explains how this might have happened. Comon human genes at the apex split into a left side African group and a right side Andaman Onge group. The right Andaman Onge group gave off a branch that later split into 2 groups - one Eruropean and the other ANI. Slightly later the same right Onge Andaman group gave off an ASI branch. The ASI and ANI branch mixed. The Onge group in the Andamans went on and stayed "pure" and has shown no admixture for 48000 years

Neither ASI nor ANI appear in Europe, but it is the Y chromosome M 17 (and Z 93 IIRC) that appear in Europe. This shows male migration from India to Europe but no major migration either into or out of India.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 May 2016 21:06

Shiv, are there details about what the Europe (CEU) sample actually refers to? Is it Uzbeks? Swedes?

PS: OK, I found my answer
CEU – U.S. Utah residents with ancestry from Northern and Western Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_h ... .282009.29

CEU has genetic distance of 1.06 with Northern Germans, and upto 2.89 with some Finnish subpopulation (see the table at the link above).

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 May 2016 21:31

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 141808.htm
"Modern DNA reveals ancient male population explosions linked to migration and technology"

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 May 2016 21:36

The Toba eruption 74,000 years ago, and a research project to determine its impact on India:
http://toba.arch.ox.ac.uk/project.htm

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 09 May 2016 21:40

In this (https://kalavaivenkat.wordpress.com/201 ... of-racism/) post, KV links to a ManasaTaramgini's blog post dated December 2005, which itself does not link but most likely refers to this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/) article which first appeared in Dec 2005.

The abstract of the article says

We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era—not Indo-European—expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.

So I don't know why KV and MT want to use an article that actually refutes their claim.

The answer may lie in MT's blog post where he seeks to interpret the data in his own way.
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2 ... -of-india/

The conclusions of the paper itself are a bit confused and it does not do full justice to the data it analyzes. So we decided to reanalyze the data and reach some tentative conclusions.

To cut a long story short we provide an interpretation of this data: The main problem with the interpretations offered by the authors are: 1) their improper grouping of the jAtis and other populations and 2) their steadfast adherence to a model that the IE invaders of India should have come in only around 1500 BC.

The time of divergence with the central Asian R1a1 comes to around 6000-10000yrs bp. This along with the early separation dates for J2a suggest that these are easily explained by accounting for an early origin for Indo-Europeans of India. This makes the possibility of an Indo-Aryan Indus civilization a possibility.

He is proposing time lines that would wrench the guts out of the AIT proponents but probably he is BSing even that without proof.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 May 2016 22:21

He is proposing time lines that would wrench the guts out of the AIT proponents.

We should look at this alternative AIT time line and see what it does to linguistics, PIE, etc., which were the original line of evidence spouted off to support AIT.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 May 2016 22:22

Thanks Shiv & Hanumadu.

I also found the paper I was looking for: its by Metspalu that talks about k5 & k6 components which roughly correspond to ANI and ASI. I am linking his paper here: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(11)00488-5

He says 2 things:

1) k5 & k6 are more diverse in India. In line with what Shiv posted - i.e. they are India-specific components

2) Any migration of k5 happened 12500 years ago. Since Europe has k5 genes, if it was the result of a migration, the likely origin is South Asia (because of greater diversity)

3) Since k5 could not have migrated later than 12500 years ago, its presence in India is not due to any Aryan migration

4) k5 & k6 admixture could be a more recent event but that just means recent North Indians & South Indians inter-marrying to put it crudely. There is no foreign gene influx. In fact, this is precisely what Priya Moorjani states in her paper quoted by RoyG above. The admixing between 4200 - 1900 YBP was a local event (i.e. Indians having hex with other Indians!)

Reproducing 2 quotes here from the paper, worth repeatedly drilling into people's heads

Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recently—our haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture

Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 May 2016 22:29

Manasataramgini, being a geneticist himself, probably knows the significant of the genetic nail-in-the-coffin to traditional AMT. To my knowledge, he has never spelled out his theory other than drop hints here & there. But his theory is not mainstream AMT.

From what I could gather, his hypothesis contains 2 significantly different ideas:

1) Its an invasion, not a migration. Even mainstream AIT-wallahs have discarded invasion, but he hasn't

2) Its earlier than 1500 BCE. I don't know what dates he has in mind

He needs to come out and state his theory rather than take potshots at OIT or dropping hints. His theory needs to first explain why mainstream AMT is wrong.

I don't know how many of his acolytes in social media even know that he advocates a different theory than mainstream AMT!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 May 2016 05:05

Prem Kumar wrote:Manasataramgini, being a geneticist himself,

If this guy is Aravind Iyer he is an evolutionary biologist - which is no more geneticist than I am

2) Its earlier than 1500 BCE. I don't know what dates he has in mind

This was posted by me earlier. If it is earlier than 1500 BC it has nothing to do with language spread and IndoEuropeans and therefore "Aryans". Catch 22