Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RajeshA]

RoyG ji,

this thread is there to make the search easier, though not the study of it!

[RoyG]

thanks, i'll be starting from page 1 soon...90 pages to go lol.

[kish]

Not to derail the discussion but few pages earlier there was a discussion about possible sanskrit name for Darius. How about "DharYash" (one who holds yash)? Cyrus might be "Suyash"/"Suryash", Xerses is difficult.

Just my two cowries only.

The translations of the Old Persian text in the Behistun inscriptions commissioned by Darius read "Aham Daravayus" - "I am Darius"

Let me also derail the discussion just once, few pages back murugan ji and others talked about the possible indic origins for "Mayan" civilization. And the orientation of Tanjore temple and Mayan temple being the same.

Sangam literature refers to 'Thirumal'(SriVishnu) as 'Mayan/Mayon'. IMHO, it isn't one of those mere coincidences. There is more to it and needs research.

Western linguists having hard time deciphering the ancient Mayan language. IMHO, Tamil linguists who have adequate knowledge about 'Tamil-brahmi','Pali' may decipher it relatively easily.

[Arjun]

Quick question for those in the know - it seems most Indian archeologists (including SP Gupta, BB Lal, SR Rao, RS Bicht and many others) are not supporters of AMT.

What is the situation on the linguistics side in India? There used to be a Lachmi Dhar in the 1930s who argued for an Out-of-India hypothesis - are there any non-Marxists left today among Indian linguists who may be working on possible OIT models? Or are the bulk of them sepoys of the type we're familiar with?

Also - In surveying this field, I am familiar with a small list of original thinkers who have published either books or papers, in other connected areas. If anyone has pointers to other names that need to be on this list, would appreciate it.

Archeo-astronomy: Nilesh Oak, TRS Prasanna
IVC Climatology/Geology: KS Vaidya, Michel Danino, S Kalyanaraman
Epigraphy: Natwar Jha, I Mahadevan, S Kalyanaraman
Archeogenetics (S AsiA): Premendra Priyadarshi, Lalji & team + Reich
Historiography: Koenrad Elst, NS Rajaram, David Frawley, Subhash Kak
'Big Picture' OIT: Srikanth Taligeri, Premendra Priyadarshi

[Nilesh Oak]

Archeo-astronomy: Nilesh Oak, TRS Prasanna
IVC Climatology/Geology: KS Vaidya, Michel Danino, S Kalyanaraman
Epigraphy: Natwar Jha, I Mahadevan, S Kalyanaraman
Archeogenetics (S AsiA): Premendra Priyadarshi, Lalji & team + Reich
Historiography: Koenrad Elst, NS Rajaram, David Frawley, Subhash Kak
'Big Picture' OIT: Srikanth Taligeri, Premendra Priyadarshi

In Archeo-astronomy
I would add 'Anil Narayanan' (Paper.. I will send it to Rajesh ji and he can link it here) that talks of timing of data that was used in revisign Suryasiddhanta going back to 5000-7000 BC.

Also P V Vartak (Mahabharata, Ramayana, Rigveda, Puranas, Samhita)

In Epigraphy

Sue Sullivan (Indus Script Dictionary)
Wim Borsboom (Reengineering of Western Alphabets, also "Ancient Indian god in IVC'

[Rony]

Not directly related to OIT, but could have huge positive bearing on it if properly trained and used !

The new historians

[shiv]

What is the situation on the linguistics side in India? There used to be a Lachmi Dhar in the 1930s who argued for an Out-of-India hypothesis - are there any non-Marxists left today among Indian linguists who may be working on possible OIT models? Or are the bulk of them sepoys of the type we're familiar with?

Arjun. I am not trying to make excuses for Indians, and will be the first to point out that linguistics is not a field that any young Indian enters because such courses are fundamentally unavailable in India.

But let me point out that if you grow up in India and learn 3 languages (as everyone does) or more you soon figure out that there is a connection between languages in India based on either Sanskrit or Tamil, both languages lnown to be very old and indigenous to India. I mean that Indians already know where their own "proto-Indian" came from.

The situation in Europe was slightly different. Those Europeans who learned many European languages in he 1700s and 1800 when there was a knowledge explosion in Europe could clearly see similarities within Germanic and Latin languages. But they could detect no link between these and between other language groups like Celtic, Baltic etc. Only the Romance languages had a long history of Greek and Latin. Others had no history. But then Sanskrit suddenly appeared on the scene and like an explosion everyone was able to see links between Sanskrit and every single European language. This is what set up and interest in linguistics and every single European country has thriving university course in linguistics with each university having a 100 or 200 year old history of "scholarship". Europe has been in a search for its language roots, for "proto European" for 200 years. Not India.

But it is not possible to find proto European without linking with Sanskrit. For an Indian,it is perfectly possible to find proto-Indian right here in India with no need to look for any link with any European language. The Indian perspective is different

[Arjun]

But it is not possible to find proto European without linking with Sanskrit. For an Indian,it is perfectly possible to find proto-Indian right here in India with no need to look for any link with any European language. The Indian perspective is different

That is certainly one reason. There were also a few others that I would mention-

1. The 'Christian Missionary' connection: Linguistics, probably more than any other social science, was and is intimately connected with the missionary setup and evangelism. This was even more true of the early centuries when the science developed in the West. Another spur was the Biblical agenda to find out the truth behind the 'Tower of Babel' and the origin of language.

A significant percentage of those who train in linguistics today in the West are missionaries for whom this is an integral part of their evangelism. See this as example: How Linguists and Missionaries Share a Bible

Based in Dallas, S.I.L. (which stands for Summer Institute of Linguistics) trains missionaries to be linguists, sending them to learn local languages, design alphabets for unwritten languages and introduce literacy.

2. Indians in general have preferred (and quite rightly so) the physical sciences, medicine and engineering over the last several decades to education in the social sciences. Those opting for social science majors in India have not necessarily been the brightest

3. Government and social science academies have been largely dominated by moronic Marxist thought processes

The good news is, some of these will cease to be constraints going forward. Social sciences is being revolutionized by the internet...and one doesn't need to be in 'tenured' academic confines anymore to produce solid, well-researched papers / books.

It is very clear now that Sanskrit, Persian / Avestan, Hittite / Anatolian & Greek have a common origin, if not the other Indo-European languages. If Indians are not interested in delving into the mysteries of the common linguistic and mythological origins of all these civilizations - when they have enough evidence of the antiquity of their own, they must be the most unscientific people on this planet.

[shiv]

It is very clear now that Sanskrit, Persian / Avestan, Hittite / Anatolian & Greek have a common origin, if not the other Indo-European languages. If Indians are not interested in delving into the mysteries of the common linguistic and mythological origins of all these civilizations - when they have enough evidence of the antiquity of their own, they must be the most unscientific people on this planet.

That is a hasty and harsh statement in my view. Those languages that you name have some common words. That means possible common origin for those common words. But for words that they do not have in common, there is no common origin. But those non common words too have a source which no one seems to be interested in, until recently.

25% of German words and an even bigger percentage of Greek words nothing in common with Indo-European words. Hittite is a case I would leave out of this list because very little is known. Avestan and Sanskrit are very close and what is known of the language makes me wonder if it really was a "different language" at all.

Greek and Sanskrit are very very different. I do not see any pressure as to why Indians should want to look for a common origin with Greek or German or English. It is the Greeks, Germans and English who chose to include Sanskrit in a common origin because Sanskrit alone can give them clues to about 25 to 75% of their language. They are still left with a huge percentage that they have to figure out that has nothing in common with Sanskrit or other IE languages.

From an Indian viewpoint what exactly do you feel the search should be for? Proto Sanskrit? Technically Sanskrit has next to zero non IE words. It is all IE barring about 2% of words. So what are Indians supposed to be curious about?

If you ask for my opinion on this I think Indians should bring accountability to linguistics and go back and relook the assumptions made by the community of linguists

1. Mistranslation of the Rig Veda
2. How exactly were the Behistun inscriptions and Hittite deciphered.
3. Wanton application of cooked up phonetic changes from guessed phonetics to archaeological finds in areas wheer the language is unknown.

So I think I would disagree with you in your contention that Indians too should join the current bandwagon for a search for a common origin language. That very search has ended up with the mess we have now after 200 years of searching. The actual history of Sanskrit and European languages may not be one of a single common origin at all but one shared language or a set of similar languages picked up along the way by Europeans, perhaps at some exceedingly remote date. There may have been later remixes as well. It is possible that that common origin language simply developed unadulterated in India. The linguistic arguments against this are not convincing to me because they all seem to depend on phonological change of reconstructed languages, including Hittite.

[A_Gupta]

Languages that are related should show some relationship in grammar, not just in similar words.

[Arjun]

From an Indian viewpoint what exactly do you feel the search should be for?

The search should be for all cultures and peoples that may have been part of the 'greater' Indic civilization at some point.

Let me take as example Avestan. The standard image of the Parsis is as a non-Indian though highly benign 'model minority' community in India. However, a better way to view them might be as an Indic civilization that came back into the fold when their land was overrun by Islamic marauders. And that realization comes from an understanding that in many ways Sanskrit and Avestan are practically the same.

We have not dug deep enough into the connections between Indians and Greeks - Indians need to be interested enough to pursue this study systematically and come up with credible hypotheses on how key elements of culture flowed from India to Greece. And the only way to build credibility for the Out-of India -to-Greece theory is through linguistics, comparative mythology, cultural anthropology and genetics. Genetics in any case does prove that Europe was populated 50K ybp from India- we need other evidence for language and other cultural flow in the same direction less than 10K years back.

I would be particularly interested in building the connection with Greece... Get to own Greek and you destroy a critical pillar holding up the entire 'Western Civilization' construct. And I don't agree with you that the similarity between Sanskrit and Greek is minor. The phonetic similarities may be low - but the grammar part (nominal and verbal morphology) shows up highly uncanny similarities between the two languages.

So I think I would disagree with you in your contention that Indians too should join the current bandwagon for a search for a common origin language. That very search has ended up with the mess we have now after 200 years of searching.

Your focus is on proving linguistics as an illegitimate science. I agree with the problem areas you point out - but I am also looking at the larger goal of using legitimate linguistic arguments in a case for OIT. And unless Indians become interested enough to delve into this field of study - we are not going to make much headway.

I will address specific linguistics problem areas, as I see them - in a separate post.

[Arjun]

In Archeo-astronomy
I would add 'Anil Narayanan' (Paper.. I will send it to Rajesh ji and he can link it here) that talks of timing of data that was used in revisign Suryasiddhanta going back to 5000-7000 BC.

Also P V Vartak (Mahabharata, Ramayana, Rigveda, Puranas, Samhita)

In Epigraphy

Sue Sullivan (Indus Script Dictionary)
Wim Borsboom (Reengineering of Western Alphabets, also "Ancient Indian god in IVC'

Nilesh ji, Thanks for the inputs.

[Arjun]

Cultural Links Between Greece & Vedic India

[RajeshA]

[quote="shiv"] From an Indian viewpoint what exactly do you feel the search should be for? Proto Sanskrit? Technically Sanskrit has next to zero non IE words. It is all IE barring about 2% of words. So what are Indians supposed to be curious about?

If you ask for my opinion on this I think Indians should bring accountability to linguistics and go back and relook the assumptions made by the community of linguists

1. Mistranslation of the Rig Veda
2. How exactly were the Behistun inscriptions and Hittite deciphered.
3. Wanton application of cooked up phonetic changes from guessed phonetics to archaeological finds in areas wheer the language is unknown.

So I think I would disagree with you in your contention that Indians too should join the current bandwagon for a search for a common origin language. That very search has ended up with the mess we have now after 200 years of searching. The actual history of Sanskrit and European languages may not be one of a single common origin at all but one shared language or a set of similar languages picked up along the way by Europeans, perhaps at some exceedingly remote date. There may have been later remixes as well. It is possible that that common origin language simply developed unadulterated in India. The linguistic arguments against this are not convincing to me because they all seem to depend on phonological change of reconstructed languages, including Hittite.[/quote]

My opinion on this is that Indians should get into this field in a major way!

1) It is just like Siachen or Antarctica or any other region! If we do not occupy it, others would, and they wouldn't let go! And we have seen what happens when others get this strategic space!

2) The other is the concept of Subject-Object Dynamic. The one who observes others and writes about them gets power of them for he forces others to see their own culture in somebody else's categories with all the accompanying judgmental positions. India has been an object for too long. In fact many Indians feel they should feel honored that others are taking an interest in them and their culture, which is more than naive. Now we need to take the place of Subject. That is what Rajiv Malhotra has done in his book "Being Different" through Purva-Paksha.

3) Considering the diversity of language in India, I consider the goals as follows

[list=i]
[*] Record and study the various dialects and languages of India before many simply go extinct.
[*] Explore the etymology of all words in all languages in India.
[*] Map the various cognates between various Indian languages. This should be easy, except perhaps the relationships between Tamil and North Indian Languages and Sanskrit.
[*] Explore the dates when certain words from language A entered language B in India - develop the historiography of development of Indian languages.
[*] Explore the prehistoric development of language in India.
[*] Make a concerted effort to study the languages in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran and build the connections between Indian languages and these other languages.
[*] Study Indo-European languages and build alternative models to PIE.
[*] Study East Asian languages.
[*] Study the other languages of the world - African, native American.
[*] Break the European Historical Linguistic Models. All of the historical European study in Linguistics need to studied and unraveled and criticized as severely as possible. One needs to bring down their Greats!
[*] Build up the level of scholarship in linguistics overall in India.
[/list]

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting something I posted on a Sulekha blog.

Ancestral North Indians do have common origins with Europeans, but ANI have been in India for almost as long as ASI. The ANI came into India over the Northern route, passing through Sinai, Levant and Iran. The ASI came into India over the Southern route passing through Bab el-Mandeb, Straits of Hormuz and Iran.

That is the model proposed by Kivisild et al.

It may be true that the major mixing between the ANI and ASI started around 2000 BCE, even though there must have been substantial admixing going on earlier as well. It happened because as the Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization had its downfall after Sarasvati dried up, the ANI from this region expanded into other areas including into Central India and admixed with the ASI.

Both ANI and ASI may be over 60,000 years old in India (read Oppenheimer). Till date all genetic evidence has pointed out that there were no migrations into India any time in the last 12000 years except some very marginal ones, no migrations which would have changed the culture of India, where people would have been interacting for 55,000 years and would have developed their own cultural roots.

The fact that major admixing between ANI and ASI started just 4000 YBP in fact tells us that when these ANI migrated out of India earlier in outward migrations, many ANI tribes would not have had much ASI admixture. That is also the reason why one doesn't see ASI subclades in Europe.

AIT/AMT among Indians is simply superstition, an awkward religion without any basis in science.

[Arjun]

Shiv, The problem-areas with comparative linguistics as I see them are-

1. Reconstruction of phonetics of dead languages from bilingual inscriptions containing scripts that are logo-graphic or logo-syllabic. This is something you've rightly unearthed - Akkadian, Hittite phonetic reconstructions would fall under this rubric

2. Many comparative linguistic methodologies- such as glottochronology and lexicostatistics stand discredited even within the linguist community

3. The most commonly used technique in comparative linguistics - the 'comparative method' for reconstruction is dependent on the neo-grammarian position that 'sound laws have no exceptions'. Unfortunately, even this has been proved wrong in the case of Maltese Guttarals.

4. Another problem with reconstruction methodology: Reconstructed Proto-Greek has some features that should make it precede Mycenaean Greek in evolution, but then Mycenaean seems not to have participated in linguistic innovations of Proto-Greek. That's a contradiction that's not been resolved.

5. Identification of cognates, 'false cognates', substrates and the like seems to be rather arbitrary. In fact, there are differences between the Nostratic camp and PIE camp on rules for cognates.

6. Comparative linguistics can be very clearly seen to be a continual 'curve-fitting' exercise. They thought they had everything figured out into neat categories - the discovery of Tocharian and Hittite turned things upside down. And now they have modified their theories again to fit the latest data...Now of course this is no different from any other science, but the key issue is that reconstruction is not 'falsifiable' using experiments unless more 'dead' languages are discovered. So 'reconstruction' of dead languages is very much a questionable science.

7. The tree model of language evolution, where proto-languages are surmised to be collapsible to a particular point in space and time in the past - is now widely regarded as an outdated concept by most linguists.

[Arjun]

So, Shiv - the problem is fundamentally with reconstruction of dead or proto-languges and in deriving definitive conclusions about the proto-language as representing the historical truth. The better way to present it would be as an elucidation of the process in which language may have evolved - and only in conjunction with other 'harder' set of evidence.

I do think, though, that linguistics can provide some perspective on whether two languages are related. Even for you to state, as you have done, that Avestan and Sanskrit are the same - you will have to fall back on linguistic arguments. So, one cannot dismiss the field wholesale. Especially when it can be of use in proving an Out of India relationship with Avestan, Persian & Greek.

[Samudragupta]

No Comments.....

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/08/18/ar ... 17093.html

Every year, thousands of people make the pilgrimage to Arkaim, a place that presents strong evidence that “Russia is the Motherland of the Elephant” and that Aryans, the architects of the ancient cultures of India and Iran, built fortresses on Russian territory and roamed the land in their chariots thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

In 1987, the Arkaim Valley was destined to become a giant reservoir. A dam had already been built, and archeologists were busy wrapping up exploratory works, the kind that are always performed ahead of such operations. It was at this point that a group of young hunters found something strange in the steppe.

After following up on the hunters’ lead, the archaeologists immediately knew they had stumbled upon something big the moment they had an aerial view of a giant figure made up of nested circles with lines radiating from the centre. The figure looked like an Indian Mandala (a sacred symbol of the realm of gods in the Buddhist and Hindu religious traditions), or a wheel with spokes. Incidentally, the military had known about Arkaim since the 1950s, but never told scientists, for some strange reason.

If indeed those were ancient indo iranians and a big if then isn it Russia shud vacate the lands to indo-iranian entity...

[Arjun]

No Comments.....

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/08/18/ar ... 17093.html

This is actually a very old discovery, and all aspects have been discussed threadbare. It can just as well be used in favour of an Out of India hypothesis, as this paper details: Death of AIT

[Nilesh Oak]

No Comments.....

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/08/18/ar ... 17093.html

This is actually a very old discovery, and all aspects have been discussed threadbare. It can just as well be used in favour of an Out of India hypothesis, as this paper details: Death of AIT

Assuming this refers to Aryan presence (and/or Indic languages, Rigveda burials.. whatever!), It would indeed be OIT. The timing alluded to this place (whatever the validity and rigor of investigation) refers to 500 years before Torjan war... so we are talking 1200 BC - 1700 BC. Indian civilization has solid grounded refernces going back to 3000 BC (Brahmanas.. work on S B Dixit), 5561 BC (Mahabharata, my work ), IVC civilization 4000 BC-2000 BC) and many many more. It is OIT.

[Nilesh Oak]

So, Shiv - the problem is fundamentally with reconstruction of dead or proto-languges and in deriving definitive conclusions about the proto-language as representing the historical truth. The better way to present it would be as an elucidation of the process in which language may have evolved - and only in conjunction with other 'harder' set of evidence.

I do think, though, that linguistics can provide some perspective on whether two languages are related. Even for you to state, as you have done, that Avestan and Sanskrit are the same - you will have to fall back on linguistic arguments. So, one cannot dismiss the field wholesale. Especially when it can be of use in proving an Out of India relationship with Avestan, Persian & Greek.

Arjun ji,

Linguistics has value. I agree. (so is politics, sociology, Monday morning Quarterback, Psychology etc.). IMHO, linguistics is/can be useful as corroborative tool, however rarely it has proven to be a tool that made 'quantum jump' in growth of our understanding (Rosetta Stone, Panini Grammer are examples of such rare discoveries). Linguistics is hardly a tool to falsify some proposition, however it is capable of corroborating a theory validated by other stronger evidence.

Same is with Archeology. As an illustration, take example of PGW (Painted Gray ware pottery). Archeolgy group dug at a place called ~ Hastinapur, on the bank of Ganga, found a pottery, dated it (~1000 BC). Bingo. Mahabharata happened in 1000BC!

Such analysis is so juvinile, it overrules all rules of commonsense, knowledge of epic, method of science and more.

[Arjun]

Linguistics is hardly a tool to falsify some proposition, however it is capable of corroborating a theory validated by other stronger evidence.

Agree with you...I would take a 'hard' science over linguistics any day. For refuting AIT- archeoastronomy, epigraphy, genetics can play critical roles.

But if I want to establish an Out of India relationship between India & Greece what 'hard' discipline would come in handy? Possibly genetics..Other than that it may have to be the softer fields of linguistics, comparative mythology etc.

[RamaY]

^ RajeshAji

In your graphic in previous page...

IMHO the link from Mecca to North India is the creation of AIT vadis. I seriously wonder if the stream that came to GV valley after crossing Sindhi, Saraswati etc couldn't and didn't go up to north India.

What is that attractive for this stream to come to Bharat-varsha but not explore north India until their estranged brotheren from Europe come down?

Thirdly that would make the Bharatiyas the Ancestors of chinis and Russian civilizations.

Can someone change the graphic to depict

- only one stream that comes to Bharat.
- in Bharat it splits into two groups.
- one goes to east to china and Russia etc
- another goes west to turkey and up north
- the east stream splits once in North-east India down to south east asia
- the east stream splits again in Russia to go east to American continents and one goes to west

Then see if the DNA evidence can be interpreted to support this?

[Nilesh Oak]

^ RajeshAji

In your graphic in previous page...

IMHO the link from Mecca to North India is the creation of AIT vadis. I seriously wonder if the stream that came to GV valley after crossing Sindhi, Saraswati etc couldn't and didn't go up to north India.

What is that attractive for this stream to come to Bharat-varsha but not explore north India until their estranged brotheren from Europe come down?

Thirdly that would make the Bharatiyas the Ancestors of chinis and Russian civilizations.

Can someone change the graphic to depict

- only one stream that comes to Bharat.
- in Bharat it splits into two groups.
- one goes to east to china and Russia etc
- another goes west to turkey and up north
- the east stream splits once in North-east India down to south east asia
- the east stream splits again in Russia to go east to American continents and one goes to west

Then see if the DNA evidence can be interpreted to support this?

RamaY garu,

That is what current genetic evidence shows (what you are postulating/desiring/suggesting). See maps from 'Out of Eden' by Stephen Oppenheimer. Only pothole Stephen got stuck was 'AIT' in 1500 BC. However when one goes in remote antiquity - 15000, 20000, 40000, 60000 years - M17 (Y chromosome-male line) and also female genetic trail takes us out to India towards East, towards North and towards NW.. via North)

[Arjun]

The best recent migration map I have come across, from here: Peopling of Eurasia. Timeframe for all of this is over 50K ybp

[Nilesh Oak]

Here is Stephen Oppenhemier 'Journey of Mankind'. There are many assumptions (not unlike anything else) and thus you will see people migratiing only via beaches (when beaches are available in that part of world landscape, otherwise they don't mind migrating through land!

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

[RamaY]

Wow! Looks like I am getting mantRa-siddhi (vagdevi)... Pointer to Atriji

Note to self and like minded...

On Naradas instigation first and second 1000s of Dakshas sons moved all over the world and never returned back.

[RamaY]

So what is the possibility of some west-Asians an europeans coming to Bharat after they were disgusted and harassed by the first Abrahamic faith, Judaism, as settlers during 1-2 millennia BC. After all Old testament is filled with such stories where jealous Jews cause mayhem in west-Asia.

Since the pre-Abrahamic west Asia and Europe are nothing but streams of Indics, they might have returned to their roots, sometimes bringing their own life stories, enriching already existing Vedic knowledge.

[member_23700]

So what is the possibility of some west-Asians an europeans coming to Bharat after they were disgusted and harassed by the first Abrahamic faith, Judaism, as settlers during 1-2 millennia BC. After all Old testament is filled with such stories where jealous Jews cause mayhem in west-Asia.

Since the pre-Abrahamic west Asia and Europe are nothing but streams of Indics, they might have returned to their roots, sometimes bringing their own life stories, enriching already existing Vedic knowledge.

Always a possibility. Probability anywhere from, say, 0-100%

[Atri]

"AntuBarwa"

Good name for a forum handle.

Wow! Looks like I am getting mantRa-siddhi (vagdevi)... Pointer to Atriji

Note to self and like minded...

On Naradas instigation first and second 1000s of Dakshas sons moved all over the world and never returned back.

Brief history of Hindu Marriage - 1 - Evolution of Human Pair Bonding as seen from Puranas and Vedas

There is story of Daksha prajapati and Aasivaki giving birth to 5000 children then a brahmachari named Naarada appears and counsels them about economy. This discourse of Narada found in Harivamsha is first of its kind in human history which talks about economics and necessity to keep numbers less and spread across different regions for efficient utilization of resources without burdening the earth.

Those 5000 sons agreed with Narada and scattered in all directions and settled in distant lands, never to return. Seeing that children are gone, Prajapati and aasivaki gave birth to 1000 more kids who also spread in all directions like their predecessors. This not only shows expansion of aryans all over earth from here, but also shows how certain individuals by sacrificing their primal drives earned knowledge and respect from rest. Thus this prajapati system resulted in 3 important changes in humans and dharmiks.

1. Emergence of Gotras
2. Tendency to spread out and colonize other lands
3. Tendency of few to indulge in Brahmacharya willingly.

[RajeshA]

In the International Conference on Human Genetics (ICHG2011) held on Oct 11-15, 2011 a paper was presented.

Authors: V. A. Stepanov, V. N. Kharkov
Phylogeography of R1a1 Y-chromosomal haplogroup and genetic history of Indo-Europeans.

Recent discussion of the prehistoric spreading of the Indo-European language group has generally concentrated on two alternative hypotheses: so-called “Kurgan Culture” hypothesis, which places the homeland of proto-Indo-Europeans to the Steppe of Eastern Europe, and alternative hypothesis of the spread of farmers from the Near East (Anatolia) to Europe in the Neolithic times. Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a1, lineage is thought to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, seems to be associated with the Kurgan culture. Three geographic areas with the highest frequency of R1a1 haplogroup were revealed: Eastern Europe; Southern Siberia and Hindustan where the highest diversity of microsatellite haplotypes was observed. Phylogenetic analysis of microsatellite haplotypes demonstrates the presence of three corresponding major clusters with the age of the generation of haplotytic diversity of 7.2-12.5 ky. The highest diversity in Hindustani is related to the presence of haplotypes of Indo-Pakistani and Southern Siberian clusters in the population from India and Pakistan, probably due to relatively recent migrations from Central Asia. The age of the cluster admittedly brought to Hindustan from Central Asia / Southern Siberia is 3,9 +/- 1,3 ky. Probably, the primary center of the generation of diversity and expansion of R1a1a was the territory of the Eastern European Steppe. With the spread of of R1a1 carriers, secondary centers of genetic diversity and population expansions were formed in the Southern Siberia and Hindustan.

Would somebody like to comment on this!

Added Later: Upon further research, I saw that ManishH had linked this same paper here some time back.

Not including ManishH ji in this claim, but AIT-Sepoys seem to be very fond of the 'Abstract' of this paper and like to quote it in their support. For example one dmrsekhar on sulekha!

My response to him below on his article "Fabricating History – 2000 BC" in which he criticizes "Indigenists"!

-----

If R1a1 really arrived with "Aryans", how come that the frequency of R1a1 among Iranians is so low? Isn't it said that Indo-Iranians separated later on, after first together separating from the Central Asian Aryans?

Why is the R1a1 diversity in Hindustan the highest? Isn't it so that there where the diversity is highest has the highest probability of being the origin?

Stepanov is making reference to the "historical thinking" among Europeans and their minions in India that Aryans came from Central Asia and thus simply reiterating it with a possible explanation, that those particular subclades of R1a1 which are found in India came from Kurgan region, since mummies were found there with R1a1. His argument on the direction of this movement of R1a1 subclades common to those found in Kurgan and Indians is not based on any genetic evidence at all. There is no additional evidence that he presents that the direction of movement was from Central Asia to India. The movement could just have been in the other direction.

In order to find the direction of this movement, one has to look at the overall evidence. The low Iranian frequency of R1a1 is for example one evidence which debunks Stepanov's half-hearted attempt at history. More conclusive is the high diversity of R1a1 in India.

The Aryan invasion/migration theory postulates Aryans entered India around 3,500 years ago. Ancestral North Indians on the other hand were in India at the latest 40,000 years back. So we should not mix up the two.

Beyond ANI and ASI, there aren't any others which entered India in the last 12,500 years as Kivisild et al found out. Unlike Stepanov, Kivisild is not trying to fit his data to some outmoded ideas of history of Aryan expansion and trying to interpret it accordingly. He is really basing his conclusions on the data itself.

[RajeshA]

From Journal of Human Genetics 54, 47-55 (January 2009)

Authors: Swarkar Sharma, Ekta Rai, Prithviraj Sharma, Mamata Jena, Shweta Singh, Katayoon Darvishi, Audesh K Bhat, A J S Bhanwer, Pramod Kumar Tiwari and Rameshwar N K Bamezai
National Centre of Applied Human Genetics: School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University

The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system

Abstract: Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1* in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1* haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1* and confirm the present conclusions.

[RajeshA]

^ RajeshAji

In your graphic in previous page...

IMHO the link from Mecca to North India is the creation of AIT vadis. I seriously wonder if the stream that came to GV valley after crossing Sindhi, Saraswati etc couldn't and didn't go up to north India.

What is that attractive for this stream to come to Bharat-varsha but not explore north India until their estranged brotheren from Europe come down?
I don't think such conclusions are being made from the graphic. All it says is that two streams ended up in India, and ANI was relatively North of ASI in India. The resolution of the graphic does not go beyond that.

Thirdly that would make the Bharatiyas the Ancestors of chinis and Russian civilizations.

Yes, we can now call them 'beta'!

Can someone change the graphic to depict

- only one stream that comes to Bharat.
- in Bharat it splits into two groups.
- one goes to east to china and Russia etc
- another goes west to turkey and up north
- the east stream splits once in North-east India down to south east asia
- the east stream splits again in Russia to go east to American continents and one goes to west

Then see if the DNA evidence can be interpreted to support this?

There is no necessity for that, and that would in fact weaken the OIT position.

Reich et al. also say that the major admixing happened between the two ANI and ASI fairly lately - between 2000 BCE and 800 CE, though it may have started much before that. This gives a perfect way to explain why there is no ASI clades to be found in Europeans, only ANI. There was plenty of time for ANI to move out of India and reach Europe through Central Asia.

So two streams are good!

It does not really matter where ANI and ASI diverged from each other, whether it was in India or Levant. We are already considering a time frame of 60,000 to 40,000 years ago. Civilization at that time was really rudimentary. After all humans come from Africa originally! So if ASI and Yemeni are somewhat close and ANI and Pre-Europeans are somewhat close genetically it does not matter at all, because that would have been very very long ago. We are all humans.

Also there aren't any ANI or ASI in India anymore. We are all mixed, so there isn't really any need for any modern Indians to relate to one more than the other.

What does matter is in which direction "Civilization" moved? And the answer to that is "Out-of-India" and the ANI could have moved out to Central Asia anything between 11,000 and 7000 YBP!

[shiv]

So, Shiv - the problem is fundamentally with reconstruction of dead or proto-languges and in deriving definitive conclusions about the proto-language as representing the historical truth. The better way to present it would be as an elucidation of the process in which language may have evolved - and only in conjunction with other 'harder' set of evidence.

I do think, though, that linguistics can provide some perspective on whether two languages are related. Even for you to state, as you have done, that Avestan and Sanskrit are the same - you will have to fall back on linguistic arguments. So, one cannot dismiss the field wholesale. Especially when it can be of use in proving an Out of India relationship with Avestan, Persian & Greek.

I agree with your posts. I am not dissing linguistics as a field, but it has moved in directions that I believe call for course correction. My only quibble was with the idea that the suggested goal for Indian linguistics would be to search for a connecting link to all IE. The reason such a goal raises my ire is because the end goal "finding the link" is pre-supposed. The idea that "There is a link and I am going to find it." It is that pre-imagined/pre-supposed idea of one link that in my view has caused linguists to build that tree model in the first place. Having built that tree model, they have found an area of the world where the history of language is totally unknown (Pontic Steppe) and have planted the root and trunk of the tree there and have faked the evidence from the Rig Veda to fit archaeology to ensure that all previous work done in the field is proved right.

This in fact is not science and I think Indians including Nilesh Oak have done a far better job of pulling science into the field. When you look for something, starting with an idea that it is going to be exactly one thing - one "missing link" or "one root" suffers from the major flaw of leaving out all other possibilities.

The more I dig into Sanskrit - the more I find that it is an extremely refined "state of the art" language. It has not been created by accident or by random chance. Ancient scholars have sat down and created that language and its structure. They could well have created it out of some shared, common proto language that was already being spoken and well understood - a Prakrit as I think brihaspati suggested. For all their peer reviews and copious cholero-fecal journal publishing, the community of WitMer linguists seem to have missed this completely. You do not have mad conquering illiterate horse eating horse riding hordes sitting down and creating a greater work of ordered linguistic scholarship than any of these modern day linguists. Sanskrit is a structured language where every sound is given meaning - not some silly kemtom/*buleschidt meaningless sounds culled from mixing up likely cognates.

The grammatical structure of Sanskrit is evident even from the Mitanni texts and the suggestion that this was cooked up on the fly while riding from Pontic Central Asia steppe in the 200 years before reaching Punjab where Rig Veda was written is not just India blindness, it is moorkhta of the highest genre. The word "moorkhta" has been shown to be derived from PIE "*blithering *idiocy".

[Rahul M]

>> Reich et al. also say that the major admixing happened between the two ANI and ASI fairly lately - between 2000 BCE and 800 CE

will that not make it a variation of the AIT/AMT, with ANI as aryans ? which paper is this ? couldn't find this in the one he wrote with Lalji Singh, Thyagarajan etc.

[ramana]

So what is the possibility of some west-Asians an europeans coming to Bharat after they were disgusted and harassed by the first Abrahamic faith, Judaism, as settlers during 1-2 millennia BC. After all Old testament is filled with such stories where jealous Jews cause mayhem in west-Asia.

Since the pre-Abrahamic west Asia and Europe are nothing but streams of Indics, they might have returned to their roots, sometimes bringing their own life stories, enriching already existing Vedic knowledge.

Bhagwan Gidwani wrote a book called "Return of the Aryans" on the same theme.

[shiv]

From Journal of Human Genetics 54, 47-55 (January 2009)

Authors: Swarkar Sharma, Ekta Rai, Prithviraj Sharma, Mamata Jena, Shweta Singh, Katayoon Darvishi, Audesh K Bhat, A J S Bhanwer, Pramod Kumar Tiwari and Rameshwar N K Bamezai
National Centre of Applied Human Genetics: School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University

The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system

Abstract: One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India.

One of the things that I stress to patients who come to me with some problem, carrying with them several repeat scans of the same part of the body and no relief or cure is that if they find a pen missing after visiting my consulting room and they return four or five times to look for it there and do not find it, the likely reason is that the pen was not lost in my consulting room. They need to search for it elsewhere and stop repeating the same negative tests.

If repeated genetic studies do not throw light on the assumption that the caste system caused a particular type of segregation sooner or later, one needs to start using one's dormant brain and ask if the premise that is being searched for is correct in the first place. Is the definition of the castes system and what it is supposed to have done correct? Or is it more crock like Aryan-Dravidian. After all it was the same series of racist imbeciles who cooked both up.

[Arjun]

I am not dissing linguistics as a field, but it has moved in directions that I believe call for course correction.

Agreed. Given the enormity of social problems caused by Western linguists; the sheer weight of evidence of incompetence, racism and Christian evangelical motives - over-reaction may be justifiable and perhaps even necessary. Paraphrasing Wheeler ('Indra stands accused of the destruction of the Harappan civilization'), Western linguists stand accused of the destruction of Panini's contribution to world science.

I think there needs to be one school that focuses on discrediting comparative linguistics (if there is one field that deserves it, this is it)....But that shouldn't stop a separate school of Indians from getting deeply into the field, inject some degree of Panini-an clarity - and use it for furthering the OIT case.

My only quibble was with the idea that the suggested goal for Indian linguistics would be to search for a connecting link to all IE.

Not interested in a link to Germanic and other branches (that would make me a distant relative of Witzel? ). Only Avestan, Persian and Greek are of interest.

The word "moorkhta" has been shown to be derived from PIE "*blithering *idiocy".

[RajeshA]

X-Posting from a Sulekha Blog "Fabricating History – 2000 BC" by another Aryan-Sepoy DMR Sekhar.

Aryans are not one race they came from different regions with different genetic composition at different times.

Well if that is the case, what is the need of calling them "Aryans"? If you are not willing to pin the migration down to either
a) on some one source region
b) on some one genetic marker (race)
c) on some one point of entry

how can they be called one group with an identity, i.e. Aryans? You might as well call them Bantu!

The way Aryan is defined by the Europeans is
a) speakers of Proto-Sanskrit
b) believers in Rigvedic Gods
and
c) races who did the above

These people are supposed to have almost fully replaced indigenous language spoken on the Indian Subcontinent, transplanting them with either Sanskrit <b>or Sanskrit derived languages</b> like Hindi, Gujarati, Bengali, Punjabi, etc.

All that is supposed to have been accomplished by migrants from Central Asia who <b>did not invade</b> according to you, who were a racial diverse group, entered India at different times from different regions. These small groups of wandering pastoralists entered a heavily populated Indian Subcontinent, and somehow magically changed the whole culture of the Subcontinent!

The problem with your theory is that your string is too short. You cannot have one end of the string explain the genetic evidence and the other explain the cultural overhaul in India, all at the same time. Your theory cannot explain both. The logical acrobatics done by Aryan Migration Theory proponents are really for all to see.

If you think Kivisild et al. (2003) is too old a model, just read Reicher et al (2009) and if one finds it difficult to understand, then here is an explanation by Premendra Priyadarshi.

Understanding Reich et al.

[RajeshA]

Mehndi or Mendhikā (Sanskrit) happens to have been mentioned in the Vedas. I do not know where. It is an old custom, and the custom is widely spread, especially in Middle East.

I was wondering if the custom came from India. Or whether it came from the Arabs to India in the very old days, which again shows contact and trade between the two regions, an argument also useful for trade in horses!

The Henna plant itself is cultivated widely.

In case somebody has more information on this, it would be interesting, especially where in the Vedas Mendhikā is mentioned. There has been some attempts to also reject the antiquity of Mehndi use in India, for example according to this website, managed by some Jewish American, who claims that Mehndi was introduced into India by the Mughals!!!