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

[Prem Kumar]

Exactly Shiv: what racist Europeans couldn't accept as "older than Jesus", they tried to accommodate by proposing dates that are "younger than Garden of Eden" (i.e. post 4000 BCE). Those dates still stick.

The Uhreimat (with its central place from which languages spread), fits into the Tower of Babble Babel myth. Those concepts still stick. In this day & age! Which is proof that linguistics/indology/sociology etc are all at the level of 7th century alchemy

[shiv]

Shiv: you have e-khabar(s)

Got it. Will revert in due course

[hanumadu]

Even UnderHill using complete DNA puts Indian z93 at 5800BC. How can you use ancient DNA to determine age when you don't have ancient DNA from India and all other places where z93 exists. And you cannot tell if any ancient DNA found is absolutely the oldest. What is to say if the same subclade did not exist 10000 yrs earlier? Given the nature of how rare it is to find ancient DNA and how it becomes less and less likely as age increases, claiming this is the earliest sample found and at this place, so it is where it originated sounds simplistic.

Sorry but you are creating a straw man argument. I never made any claim that ancient DNA samples we have are oldest. And I also said that ancient DNA from Asia is required before making any definitive conclusions.

Also Underhill is not making claim for "Indian Z93". He is giving 5800bp as coalescing date between Z280 and z93. He also claims that M417 diversified in Iran.

No you didn't and I didn't mean to say you did either. My question is in the absence of absolute certainty that any DNA found is the oldest of its kind, how can any one conclude the direction of migration even if ancient DNA is found in India? Its a genuine question and I am just trying to understand.

[Prem]

Pre Africa Y Crime-o-zone

[Yayavar]

The very fact that the AIT 'dates' were determined on a biblical timeline - not based on any archaelogical evidence - should be enough to kill it. The 4004BC date was taken and then some estimates on when the flood happened etc. and dispersion of men were used to come up with 1500BC date on entry into India. Not sure how they accounted for pre-existing peoplein IV though. That should have been enough to kill it. Was enough for me to reject it when I first read about the 'date determination'.

[shiv]

The very fact that the AIT 'dates' were determined on a biblical timeline - not based on any archaelogical evidence - should be enough to kill it. The 4004BC date was taken and then some estimates on when the flood happened etc. and dispersion of men were used to come up with 1500BC date on entry into India. Not sure how they accounted for pre-existing peoplein IV though. That should have been enough to kill it. Was enough for me to reject it when I first read about the 'date determination'.

They did not account for the pre-existing people in the Harappan civilization. Once again it is easy to forget the development of the Aryan Invasion Theory. It was first proposed by William Jones in the mid 1700s and was accepted as fact. It was already in all the fat books of the 1800s and 1900 with a dozen theories about whether the language came from Sweden or not and how it could never have really developed in India.

The archaeological findings of the Indus Valley and Harappa started appearing over a century after AIT was first proposed. The early findings were described in the mid 1800s and also in the early 1900s - ie less than a century ago. By this time AIT was taken as established, incontrovertible fact. All they needed was excuses to say why Harappa had nothing to do with the Aryans. Various stories were cooked up
1. Harappans were the black Dravidian people kicked out by the noble Aryans
2. The word "pur" in the Rig veda meant Harappan cities
3. There were no Horse bones in Harappa and Rig Veda was horse culture (bullshit actually)

None of these western oiseaules seems to find it odd that they are perfectly willing to accept the truth value of words like pur and and Dasyu but are unwilling to accept as true the geographical descriptions of the Saraswati river and start looking for it in Afghanistan and other places simply to avoid accepting that the language spread theory upon which AIT is based is cooked up and fake.

There is an assumption even today that Harappan settlements were somehow "Dravidian". One of the biggest shots in IVC/Harappa seal interpretation is one Iravatham Mahadevan who claims this to be the case apart from others.

But I have not for the life of me understood how and why they can reach such a conclusion. But they are big shots and will crush anyone who says anything different. Just one month ago we saw right here on this thread the way in which an alternative theory by Sue Sulllivan about Sanskrit/Vedic names in Harappan seals published in Swarajya Magazine was opposed and the article taken offline briefly until protests brought it back on.

"Scholars" who have spent their lives on theories that get questioned later get very very angry and do not like to be told that they might nave been wrong. Add to that the Indian penchant for somehow believing that the average western scholar is fundamentally more honest and less likely to bluff than the Indian - and we have a formula for having our history written for us.

[sudarshan]

"Scholars" who have spent their lives on theories that get questioned later get very very angry and do not like to be told that they might nave been wrong. Add to that the Indian penchant for somehow believing that the average western scholar is fundamentally more honest and less likely to bluff than the Indian - and we have a formula for having our history written for us.

This is a universal problem in all fields. A good bit of science consists of work by so-called "experts," who became the experts in that field simply because they were the first movers (or only movers) in fields which nobody else wanted to delve into. A good friend of mine who started her PhD is now so disillusioned with the whole peer-review process, that she's started feeling that all of science is a fraud. I had to point out that this need not necessarily be the case, but yes, there definitely is a lot of bogus science floating around.

But this whole "Dravidian flavor of the Harappan civilization" has been taken as fact even by Indians who consider themselves patriotic and uninfluenced by western mores. That the Harappan people spoke a language "very similar to Tamil" is considered to be a lesser-known fact, which, if you know it, establishes you as an expert on Harappans.

It was the British who started the Aryan Invasion Theory, Nazi Germany simply took a pre-existing framework of "Aryan superiority," which was invented by the British, and applied it to the Jews. It was no accident that the Swastika (Hakenkreuz - or hook cross) became the symbol of Nazi Germany. These facts should make any European squirm in embarrassment, unfortunately, the Germans took the full blame for the racially motivated attempt to exterminate the Jews, sparing the British, the French, the Dutch, the Poles, and even the Russians a lot of introspection on their own treatment of the Jews, and in the process leaving the British free to continue to subtly promote the AIT with regards to India (after coolly disassociating it from what happened to the Jews).

[A_Gupta]

It was the British who started the Aryan Invasion Theory, Nazi Germany simply took a pre-existing framework of "Aryan superiority," which was invented by the British, and applied it to the Jews. It was no accident that the Swastika (Hakenkreuz - or hook cross) became the symbol of Nazi Germany. These facts should make any European squirm in embarrassment, unfortunately, the Germans took the full blame for the racially motivated attempt to exterminate the Jews, sparing the British, the French, the Dutch, the Poles, and even the Russians a lot of introspection on their own treatment of the Jews, and in the process leaving the British free to continue to subtly promote the AIT with regards to India (after coolly disassociating it from what happened to the Jews).

Haha, Sheldon Pollock, in scholarly language argues that the British colonialists became nasty to their subjects, and the Germans were receptive to Nazism because of the malign influence the learning of Sanskrit and its literature had on their intellectuals. You know, it can all be traced back to those cunning and wicked Hindus. (Read Pollock's "Deep Orientalism".)

[johneeG]

The 2nd fallacy is the one Shiv posted & one that I call out in my MyInd piece as well: i.e. we cannot take any random gene movement and claim Look ma, Aryans!.

If the gene data shows, to give a hypothetical example, that Z93 moved to India in 3000 BCE, that's not AIT. In fact, if that's the only time genes moved into India, such a finding would kill AIT.

AIT is 1500 BCE. Any gene movement has to support that date.

(Too many people get into paroxysms of agony or ecstasy seeing gene movement, without taking into account the dates)

The point of genetics is that its based on evolution theory. And evolution theory is based on the idea that humanity has evolved from monkeys in Africa. So, it starts with the point that migrations did happen from Africa to other places including India. Thus, its quite impossible to disprove migrations using a theory which is based on migrations unless one wants to suggest that migrations started from India rather than Africa.

1500 BCE date is only important in Judeo-Christian scheme(due to Exodus). Others are not invested into it. Even in Judeo-Christian scheme, they can always go for some other figure like Abraham for some earlier date. For most people, any gene movement into India in ancient past(anything before 1000 BCE) means AIT. Genetics can be used to disprove AIT in a specific setting where they are highly invested on 1500 BCE date. But otherwise, depending on genetics to disprove AIT is a self-goal. It should be used as a supporting evidence at best, rather than primary evidence against AIT.

[johneeG]

It does. But still not clear and the fault is mine.
Say Z93. Two individuals A and B:
AB
00 (none have it)
01 (B has it)
10 (A has it)
11 (both have it)

How does this determine who is older? Can you give an example with another gene and Z93 to help clarify the example. In other words if we use two genes can we determine who came first? How?

The very simplified mental model I have is this: suppose each man hands down a copy of a book to his son, but the copy of the book has a small rate of random errors and no error-correction or proof-reading, so that when the son gives the grandson a copy, the errors in the book he received from his father are copied, of course, possibly with more copy errors. Moreover the book is so long and the rate of error is such that the probability of the same error being created twice are small.

Now, you have a collection of such books from a set of contemporary men. Can you say anything about how the men are related, and how?

One is, we can group men by how many errors they have in common in their books. The more errors they have in common, the closer they are related. Of course, we have a few thousand samples from a very rich family tree, so it is a sparse family tree that we can construct.

Two - let's say an event where the 30th word in the book was misspelled happened long ago. In books that have that error, there will likely be a variety of other errors, accumulated since that time, and they will differ quite a bit. On the other hand, the set of books that have a recent error in copying will be much more similar to each other. Thus we can put the errors in a relative time line.

The principle does not change even if we do not know what the original book was.

Another possibility is we notice that there is a particular feature in the errors, repeated words, e.g., "and and", "and and and". Now, copy errors that happened long ago are more likely to show repeats in some or other version of the book available today, while recent errors will not have had a lot of time to have repeat errors. We can then put when errors originally occurred into a time line.

If you think about it, all of the above relies on having a sufficiently representative sample of books.

But how would they test that the mutation has reversed?

I don't know how exactly stable mutations in humans are identified.

What does error rate of 1 in 100 years signify for our discussion?

If in my analogy of books copied from father to son, there is a copying error 1 in 100 years, and two current books differ in 60 places, then it is possible that the two current books had a common ancestor around 3000 years ago, since then each lineage would have accumulated 30 errors; since the books are really long and the errors are random, the chance that the same error occurred in both books (which would not show up as a difference between the two books) is very small. Any such common error would push back the first common ancestor book.

And I read recently that this unused part of DNA actually does play a role in diseseases and is just not well understood. I will post the link if I can dig it up again.

If there are any selection effects from this unused DNA, then I think the simple model can no longer work.

This is a very nice analogy, A_Gupta ji.
But, the situation is genetics seems more complicated. For example, in books, we know what is a correct spelling and what is a wrong spelling(error). And this is a very important point. Using this we can go abut finding the errors.

In genetics, there is no 'correct' and 'wrong'. So, they have to focus on patterns. And then divide these patterns into common and uncommon patterns. Uncommon patterns are called 'mutations' if I understand the concept right. Common patterns are too common to reveal anything. So 'mutations' (uncommon patterns) are used to understand the relationship between two communities. Changes in mutations can potentially reveal a lot. But, the problem is that without knowing the earliest specimen, one cannot be sure what is an earlier error and what is a later error.

Another problem is dating. The problem in dating is that no one knows the rate of errors(in your analogy) or mutations(in genetic terms). Knowing the rate is critical to dating. If the rate is an assumption, then whatever date one calculates using that assumed rate, will also be just a speculation.

[shiv]

By definition "Aryans" was the name given to people who are said to have brought the Indo-European language to India. That name was conjured up based on an Indo-Euroepaan language (formerly called "Aryan language") source - which is the Rig Veda.

No migration into India can be called "Aryan invasion" or "Aryan migration" if that migrations does not involve the spread of Indo-European language.

Genetics may show 1000 migrations into India, but if those migratioos cannot be shown to have been associated with the movement of the so called "Aryan" (Indo-Europan") language then it cannot be called AIT.

AIT (ARYAN invasion theory ) is a specific event created to claim a movement of people_with_language. Movement of people alone, without the link to language does not make it AIT. It is ignorant misinformation to claim that migrations at any time into India can be redefined as "Aryan" invasions. The language link has to be shown. It so happens that the language links have been cooked up using external evidence from outside India (in part) to arrive at a date of 1200 BC. If that date has to be changed - all the external evidence outside India also has to be changed. One cannot simply say that "some otherearlier invasion was the Ayran invasion". That is bullshit

[Arjun]

The point of genetics is that its based on evolution theory. And evolution theory is based on the idea that humanity has evolved from monkeys in Africa. So, it starts with the point that migrations did happen from Africa to other places including India. Thus, its quite impossible to disprove migrations using a theory which is based on migrations unless one wants to suggest that migrations started from India rather than Africa.

1500 BCE date is only important in Judeo-Christian scheme(due to Exodus). Others are not invested into it. Even in Judeo-Christian scheme, they can always go for some other figure like Abraham for some earlier date. For most people, any gene movement into India in ancient past(anything before 1000 BCE) means AIT. Genetics can be used to disprove AIT in a specific setting where they are highly invested on 1500 BCE date. But otherwise, depending on genetics to disprove AIT is a self-goal. It should be used as a supporting evidence at best, rather than primary evidence against AIT.

This viewpoint seems highly ignorant of historical timeframes...Evolution theory we are talking in terms of Billions and Millions of years BCE. Out-of-Africa we are talking sometime in 150K - 50K BCE...I don't think anybody is in the least bit interested in viewing these events in chauvinistic terms.

But - when it comes to start of urban civilization, agriculture, language, scriptures etc - that is where we become interested in knowing what roles various regions and races had to play (pretty much last 10K years). In any case - Mt Toba eruption probably ensured that no human survived in the Indian subcontinent 70K years BCE, and therefore all races who came in after that had to come in from elsewhere.

[johneeG]

Arjun,
So, any migration after 70K before present would prove AIT?

[Arjun]

Arjun,
So, any migration after 70K before present would prove AIT?

Why? Aryans, Dravidians, Adivasis and everyone else (if they are indeed different races) had to have come in after 70K BCE....so AMT, DMT, AdMT are all a given if we consider these ancient timeframes. The only sequencing I and most others are bothered about is last 10K years.

[Pulikeshi]

The point of genetics is that its based on evolution theory. And evolution theory is based on the idea that humanity has evolved from monkeys in Africa. So, it starts with the point that migrations did happen from Africa to other places including India. Thus, its quite impossible to disprove migrations using a theory which is based on migrations unless one wants to suggest that migrations started from India rather than Africa.

What is this monkey business? genetics is the study of genes, its variations and heredity in life forms. Evolution is the theory that different life forms (perhaps even complex, but there is room for regression) came from earlier (simpler or perhaps lesser) forms. Even in that theory, there has been much evolution!

The former sometimes aids the observations and hypothesis for the latter, but to say the former is based on the latter is stretch. You tend to make an epistemological monkey mess... Humans evolved along with apes, etc. from a common ancestral primate. This is evident in genetics - there is no "idea" about it... your very survival today (in genetic and other pharma, cosmetic, medical, etc. development, testing, validation, etc.) are based on this theory - Evolution theory is a story on how this became possible... so genetics is not based on evolution, genetics can be studied even if god intelligently engineered all life forms using genes! and yes, god save us if this were true
So you are welcome to ignore facts and regress back to simian belief systems, but why insult our intelligence?


Now regarding migrations... there is enough evidence that India was the second homeland post Mt. Toba. However, tomorrow, there may be more evidence that Tibet was the third homeland (idk perhaps Kumari Kandam)... as a seeker, it is best to have an open mind. That said, AIT/AMT is a racist theory - period. Anyone who says Aryan is a racist (present company excluded as I have to make the point!). You may call me Arya or address a woman as Arye - the other word form is just that - a racist concoction masquerading as a linguistic definition postpartum that abomination - Aryan.
To even consider AIT/AMT as theories and then questioning Evolution and Genetics - now that shows what power the Euro-Thrash Intelligencia has had on the Indian mind

If the rate is an assumption, then whatever date one calculates using that assumed rate, will also be just a speculation.

Unlike historians, linguists, etc. who cannot really scientifically prove anything, but can speculate and get away with it...
Genetics and other fields in science can truly be challenged by research in the future... as understanding grows...
Now science can validate these assumptions on rates, if not, it is not science. So why are you speculating?

[johneeG]

Pulikeshi,
I don't know what your point really is as your post is convoluted and rambling. If you are claiming that genetics is not based on evolution theory (especially dating), then I think you are wrong.

[johneeG]

Arjun,
So, any migration after 70K before present would prove AIT?

Why? Aryans, Dravidians, Adivasis and everyone else (if they are indeed different races) had to have come in after 70K BCE....so AMT, DMT, AdMT are all a given if we consider these ancient timeframes. The only sequencing I and most others are bothered about is last 10K years.

So, any migration after 10K would prove AIT? Why only 10K? Why not 20K or 30K?

[Pulikeshi]

^^^The origin of modern genetics was from physics - please read Schrödinger's - what is life?
Most geneticists do not care about the dating crap - most of them have better useful agrarian, humanitarian, etc. issues to deal with in life. You seem to be single track focused on an argument... so if you do not understand my ramble, keep plodding on chief your loss!

[johneeG]

Pulikeshi,
please man, context! Genetic dating is important for this thread and genetic dating is based on evolution theory.

[Arjun]

So, any migration after 10K would prove AIT? Why only 10K? Why not 20K or 30K?

Most markers of modern-day civilization are associated with last 10K years - including agriculture, urban settlements, all religious scriptures, writing, grammar etc.

If Sanskrit is not indegenous to India over last 10K years (unlikely), then I would be interested in knowing where the origin was. The latter the entry point the more serious it is - last 5K years if it has entered from elsewhere then AMT is proven. Between 10K - 5K BCE, it wouldn't prove AMT but it would still be interesting from a sequencing standpoint... Again, one would have to compare it to Dravidian language entry (in the remote scenario that these are different races).

[johneeG]

So, any migration after 10K would prove AIT? Why only 10K? Why not 20K or 30K?

Most markers of modern-day civilization are associated with last 10K years - including agriculture, urban settlements, all religious scriptures, writing, grammar etc.

If Sanskrit is not indegenous to India over last 10K years (unlikely), then I would be interested in knowing where the origin was. The latter the entry point the more serious it is - last 5K years if it has entered from elsewhere then AMT is proven. Between 10K - 5K BCE, it wouldn't prove AMT but it would still be interesting from a sequencing standpoint... Again, one would have to compare it to Dravidian language entry (in the remote scenario that these are different races).

Thanks for that answer about 10K.
What is the 'Dravidian' entry date?

[Arjun]

Thanks for that answer about 10K.
What is the 'Dravidian' entry date?

Another mystery to be solved....according to many Dravidianists Elam spoke a Dravidian language. In which case entry date would be linked to fall of Elam. More likely though - both ASI and ANI are indigenous to Indian subcontinental region over last 10K years.

[johneeG]

Thanks for that answer about 10K.
What is the 'Dravidian' entry date?

Another mystery to be solved....according to many Dravidianists Elam spoke a Dravidian language. In which case entry date would be linked to fall of Elam. More likely though - both ASI and ANI are indigenous to Indian subcontinental region over last 10K years.

So, any migration before 10K would become 'Dravidians'?

[Arjun]

So, any migration before 10K would become 'Dravidians'?

Don't follow you...

The only questions that matter are:

1. Is there any real distinction between Aryan and Dravidian family languages or are they both part of the same larger family? I think answer is more likely to be the latter - but can't be conclusive at this stage.

2. Under the possibility that they are different language families - have both been present in Indian subcontinental region for last 10K years or did one precede the other.

3. Not really interested in what happened before 10K years

[JE Menon]

Johneeg

Genetics is not based on evolution theory.

And you are trolling again.

[johneeG]

So, any migration before 10K would become 'Dravidians'?

Don't follow you...

The only questions that matter are:

1. Is there any real distinction between Aryan and Dravidian family languages or are they both part of the same larger family? I think answer is more likely to be the latter - but can't be conclusive at this stage.

2. Under the possibility that they are different language families - have both been present in Indian subcontinental region for last 10K years or did one precede the other.

3. Not really interested in what happened before 10K years

1. Study of Languages is not based on genetics right. And Linguistics has already 'established' that 'Indo-European' and 'Dravidian' are two distinct language families.

2. If we assume that they are two different language families - later than 10K migration would be 'Aryan', right? So, 'Dravidian' must have come from Africa to India before 10K, right?

Anyway, if 'Dravidian' languages is distinct family from the 'Indo-European'' language family, then shouldn't this difference reflect in genetics as well? If the genetics can mix, shouldn't the languages also mix? Because the genetics shows that all Indians have mostly same genetics, so one can say that genetics disproves the 'Aryan' & 'Dravidian' are distinct family groups. The problem is that genetics uses terms like ANI(Ancient North India) & ASI(Ancient South India) giving an impression that there was a 'Aryan' and 'Dravidian' separate groups.

----
Seriously, JEM? I am trolling? Again? You are just targeting me unfairly.
Genetic dating is based on rate of mutation. Rate of mutation is
a) assumed
b) based on evolution theory.

It seems to me JEM that you simply don't want me to post in this thread. Is that so?

[Arjun]

2. If we assume that they are two different language families - later than 10K migration would be 'Aryan', right? So, 'Dravidian' must have come from Africa to India before 10K, right?

Anyway, if 'Dravidian' languages is distinct family from the 'Indo-European'' language family, then shouldn't this difference reflect in genetics as well? If the genetics can mix, shouldn't the languages also mix? Because the genetics shows that all Indians have mostly same genetics, so one can say that genetics disproves the 'Aryan' & 'Dravidian' are distinct family groups. The problem is that genetics uses terms like ANI(Ancient North India) & ASI(Ancient South India) giving an impression that there was a 'Aryan' and 'Dravidian' separate groups.

If we assume two different language families associated with two different groups - it would boil down to ASI / Dravidian vs ANI / Aryan. So again the choices are that (a) both of these groups have existed for last 10K yrs in Indian subcontinental region, (b) ANI existed in the beginning to be followed by ASI (say after fall of Elam) or (c) that ASI existed (say at IVC) followed by AMT. Most genetic studies seem to be corroborating the first option.

Anyways, I am done with this discussion here. Lets give space to folks with more actual genetic knowledge.

[JE Menon]

Genetics is not "based on" evolution theory and you know it. They are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Evolutionary genetics is a broad field of study in itself.

As I said, you are trolling, diverting a discussion that is ongoing in a clear and cautious manner. Consider. Please. I am not targeting you unfairly. No need. You have been repeatedly given leeway to post your theories on threads, even your own. But you cannot use BRF as your personal blog. This is not about johneeG. I don't know you. I am looking at the impact on thread and forum stability. I have made the same explanation before as well. It will not be made again.

[shiv]

The point of genetics is that its based on evolution theory.

Another round of complete bullshit being posted as a strawman so that everyone can sit and argue and try and explain why people should discuss anything with a person who bullshits and runs away without explanation as he did after saying that incest is part of Buddhism.

Trolling is a kind expression for someone who appears and says "Genetics is based on evolution theory". The most polite thing I can do is to ignore this blather. This person used to make humongous posts that covered up his bluff. You see the real rubbish pouring out when he makes short readable ones.

"Genetics is based on evolution" indeed. Need to remember that one. Those who argue with this man need to remember that he argues using rhetoric from a standpoint of complete ignorance (real or feigned) about genetics. That would be trolling in my book

[shiv]

The point of genetics is that its based on evolution theory. And evolution theory is based on the idea that humanity has evolved from monkeys in Africa. So, it starts with the point that migrations did happen from Africa to other places including India. Thus, its quite impossible to disprove migrations using a theory which is based on migrations unless one wants to suggest that migrations started from India rather than Africa.

Thank you for pooping on the thread with a small post that can be read and rebutted rather than a 25,000 word post. I don't expect you to read this but others will.

Genetics is not based on evolution theory any more that human life is based on bread and wine. Evolution was suggested by Shri Darwin, while genetics was first described by one Shri Mendel. However genetics did not really take off as a speciality till Shri Watson and Shri Crick discovered the double Helix structure of DNA.

There now clear proof available of evolution based on natural selection - an idea that used to be theory until proof was found. The evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and insecticide resistant strains of mosquito are examples. the explanation is simple but I am not going to explain to the troll

Molecular genetics has found clear proof of changes that support the theory of evolution. Molecular genetics is a century younger than the theory of evolution and does not depend on evolution in any way. Molecular genetics would exist even if there was no evolution, just like this forum would continue even if it was not trolled. It just happens molecular genetics supports the theory of evolution, just like forum discussions suggest that they are better without trolling.

1500 BCE date is only important in Judeo-Christian scheme(due to Exodus). Others are not invested into it. Even in Judeo-Christian scheme, they can always go for some other figure like Abraham for some earlier date.
For most people, any gene movement into India in ancient past(anything before 1000 BCE) means AIT.

Without the connection with Sanskrit and the Rig Veda that migration would not be "Aryan" migration. It would be migration but not migration of Indo-European languages. You bluffed earlier when you defined AIT based on what you felt rather than what it is. You are bluffing again.

Genetics can be used to disprove AIT in a specific setting where they are highly invested on 1500 BCE date. But otherwise, depending on genetics to disprove AIT is a self-goal. It should be used as a supporting evidence at best, rather than primary evidence against AIT.

You don't even know what genetics means and you are giving lectures about how others should use genetics. You are trolling the discussion.

[RajeshA]

Perhaps genetics can explain which populations in Central Asia, Middle East and Europe are overwhelmingly Indic-derived (from Core- and Peripheral Bharatiyas) and today may or may not speak Sanskrit-based languages and which populations speak or spoke languages which had an important Sanskrit-based superstrate, but may not have been Indic.

So one has
- ethnic groups with genetic make-up showing an Indic origin who still speak or spoke Sanskrit-based language

- ethnic groups with genetic make-up showing an Indic origin who have lost their original Sanskrit-based language

- ethnic groups with a different genetic make-up than Indics who speak or spoke languages with a significant Sanskrit superstrate (different grammar, different phonology but important words in Sanskrit-base)

[RajeshA]

Something that I would welcome is an etymology dictionary of Persian words with their Sanskrit counterparts and origins.

Question is whether Persian or Iranian can themselves be considered a Prakrit.

That way, Iranians can themselves be seen as an extension of Indic, at least linguistically, and hence one does not need this artificial separation between Indian groups and Iranian groups among Indo-Iranians. The question is why should Parthians, Baloch, Bactrians, etc. be considered Iranian and not Indian?

[RajeshA]

Just posting a Facebook post here, without further verification:

Hindus As Slavic Ancestors?: Facebook
By Rayvi Kumar
Posted on May 25, 2016

The Serbs, which appear to be the original name for the Slavik people, once covered large parts of Europe, into the British isles and also throughout Russia and beyond. Like the rest of the world before the appearance of semetic religions, the Serbs worshipped a variety of Gods. As well as a Supreme source from which everything comes, like the Vedas, the Serbian people recognised a cosmic administration within this universe, powerful beings, gods with a small g, whose sincere worship could bestow elevation and earthly benedictions. In the Vedas we have Indra, the God of thunder, the administrator in charge of the higher planetary system known as heaven. The Serbs worshipped Yndra, the supreme God of thunder who battles to defend his heavenly realm known as Svarga Log. These two personalities, Indra and Yndra, are obviously one and the same and the Serbian Svarga Log is simply the Vedic Svarga Loka, the heavenly abode of Lord Indra.

The Serbians inherited from Vedic culture the concept of a three tiered universe, heaven, earth and the underworld. The Trimurti of the Vedas is also there in the form of the creator, the maintainer and the destroyer. In Slovenia the pre-eminent symbol of the nation is Mount Triglav, a mountain possessing three peaks and named in honour of the Serbian God Triglav. Triglav means three heads and similar to the Vedic Trimurti it depicts the three Gods of creation, maintenance and destruction. The names of these Serbian Gods are Visnji, Ziva and Brajanj. Compare this with Visnu, Siva and Brahma, the Trimurti of the Vedas and we can conclude that both these cultures are intimately related. We also have Mount Troglav which is the highest peak of the Dinara mountain range and once again named in honour of the Slavik/Serbian God Triglav. Throughout the rich Slavik/Serbian culture, the folk songs, ceremonial prayers and the book of Veles, Triglav is frequently mentioned and in one verse it says the following " May our cattle be healthy, all the cows and sheep. All the kids, the lambs and the great big horses which carry our heroes. Dear soldiers of the God Triglav, Triglav the holy trinity, Visnji the creator, strong Ziva the destroyer and Branjanj the protector ".

In Poland, in the capital city of Stettin, which is now named Szczecin, there was once three hills, of which one was dedicated to the three headed deity of Triglav. Triglav was its chief deity, its three heads were made of gold, its lips and eyes covered by a golden veil. Triglav, as declared by the priests, ruled over earth, heaven and hell. Eventually these deities were destroyed, their golden heads chopped off and sent to Rome as evidence that the Plobabian Serbs had converted to the "peace loving" Christians. This same Serbian tradition from where these folk songs and culture came, declare that Triglav lives in India and India was once the home of the Serbs. The following is taken from an old Serbian folksong called the children of India. "From your tree a branch are we. We are too children of Hindustan, you do not know of Serbs, we know of you. We think of you, sing of you from Himalaya to Hindukush, with you is our heart and soul ". As well as a pantheon of deities which very much resemble the Devas of the Vedas, the Slavik language of the Serbian people are full of Sanskrit words. Below are a few examples.

[JE Menon]

^^The source for the above Facebook post is here:

http://www.prasadam.co.uk/articles/441- ... nt=1&page=

And some borrowed from here:

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.nl/2 ... -agni.html

Well worth thread readers to go through both links. The Serbian connection is elaborated on a little more in the second link.

Some of you will get tears in your eyes, like I did.

Thanks RajeshA

[RajeshA]

Triglavi means Three heads.

[sudarshan]

Many of those words are similar or the same in Russian. "Bog" is God, "Svet" is light, "Znat" is to know, "Zhit" is to live, "Otets" is father. Lots of Russian words are very similar to Sanskrit, especially the numerals. Saint Cyril, a Christian missionary (of course), came up with the current script that many Slavic languages use (Cyrillic script). This is based off both Greek and Latin letters (of course), but some letters correspond neither to Greek or Latin. Then Pushkin standardized the various Russian dialects into a literary Russian. "Visnja" is actually the Russian word for "cherry," though.

I vaguely remember reading about Triglav before, but it would be nice to verify the rest (Branjanj, Visnji, Ziva, etc.). Between similarity of language and culture and genetics, a strong case may be built for OIT. Many of these people, oppressed folks like the Slavs, actually would be proud of any association with India. IIRC, the Celtic/ Welsh people, some time ago, discovered some connection to Sanskrit, and were proud to be associated with something as ancient as that, rather than the history of subjugation at the hands of the Angles and Saxons, that they were familiar with. I'll try and dig up that link.

Pagan memories persist in Russia. Yakov Perelman once talked about Svagotyr, the strongman hero, who boasted that he could lift the earth. He actually did, but got killed in the process, and Perelman was talking about how this revealed the knowledge of the law of action/ reaction in the ancient world.

[shiv]

Something that I would welcome is an etymology dictionary of Persian words with their Sanskrit counterparts and origins.

Question is whether Persian or Iranian can themselves be considered a Prakrit.

That way, Iranians can themselves be seen as an extension of Indic, at least linguistically, and hence one does not need this artificial separation between Indian groups and Iranian groups among Indo-Iranians. The question is why should Parthians, Baloch, Bactrians, etc. be considered Iranian and not Indian?

Rajesh that totally cooked up name of a language "Avestan" is a prakrit.

Let me first explain by what cunning linguists are saying

First there was Avestan, then Old Persian, then Middle Persian and finally modern Persian (with much Arabic influence)

Students who know Sanskrit will understand "Avestan" straight off.

Old Persian is in the Behistun texts - it sounds bit like Sanskrit

The only thing I know about "middle Persian" is that the Parsi Holy book "Venidad" existed as a middle Persian text and it was transcribed in Brahmi script around 1300 AD by a Sanskrit scholar Naryosang Dhaval. All of what linguists call Avestan has been inferred/cooked up using comparisons with Sanskrit from this text which is itself 2300 years later than Linguists dates for "Avestan". A lot of things could have changes in 2300 years - but linguists claim that nothing changed and that the language they cooked up is Avestan. It could just as well be Sanskrit.

I suspect the original language of the Parsis was a Prakrit and may have been similar to what cunning linguists call Avestan - although they have cooked up the entire language and claim that is it a sister language of Sanskrit that existed 2300 years earlier

Parsis took an essentially Indic culture to Persia and preserved it until they were defeated by the Greeks a thousand years later. I am convinced that the Sindhu-Hindu, sapta-hepta went into the Greek language from a Sanskrit original via the Parsis.

The oldest evidence of old Greek is much much later than Rig Vedic Sanskrit - but linguists have forced the date of Rig Veda to 1200 BC to bring it closer to old Greek.

[shiv]

Many of those words are similar or the same in Russian. "Bog" is God,

Bog is a cognate of Bhag from which Bhagwan is derived. But weirdly the have bielobog (white god) and charobog (black god). What is odd is that "bielo - for white is like Kannada "bili" meaning white and Tamil "vellai". Charo means black and while it may be a cognate of "char" the word for black in Kannada is also "kari"

We know shit all about languages and I am not impressed by the amount of bullshitting done by linguists. Much of their credibility is gone as far as I am concerned because of the fact that they cook up stuff at will.

[shiv]

Perhaps genetics can explain which populations in Central Asia, Middle East and Europe are overwhelmingly Indic-derived (from Core- and Peripheral Bharatiyas) and today may or may not speak Sanskrit-based languages and which populations speak or spoke languages which had an important Sanskrit-based superstrate, but may not have been Indic.

So one has
- ethnic groups with genetic make-up showing an Indic origin who still speak or spoke Sanskrit-based language

- ethnic groups with genetic make-up showing an Indic origin who have lost their original Sanskrit-based language

- ethnic groups with a different genetic make-up than Indics who speak or spoke languages with a significant Sanskrit superstrate (different grammar, different phonology but important words in Sanskrit-base)

R1A1a M17 links Sanskrit and similar languages including Russian, Slovenian, Lithuanian etc
Check the map for the same

[RajeshA]

Triglavi means Three heads.

The Slavic word "Glava" which means head most probably derives from "grīva" which means neck, as in Hayagrīva (हयग्रीव).

So

Triglavi <= Trigrīva