Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Murugan]

Now History Channel Says Indian Civilization is more than 32,000 years old

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfmid ... aka_webcam

[Virendra]

Virendra ji

Do you have an article/paper etc. that would describe scenarios 15000 BCE to our times, separated by say North India (Ganga Belt), Centeral India (Narmada), South Central (Godavari), south (Karnatak), further south (Kerala/Tamilnad), and Sri Lanka.

Specifcially - climate, rain, seasons (temperatures) etc..

TIA

Nilesh ji,

Sorry I do not have anything on those specifics.
Please try looking up the records of *Geological Survey of India* because Ice Age Research in the sub-continent has been on since early 20th century.

There is the "Paleoclimate Studies in India - Last Ice Age to the Present" by Ashok K Singhvi and Vishwas S Kale

These are from "India at the cross-roads of human evolution" by R PATNAIKa and P CHAUHAN

In the terminal Pleistocene cool and dry conditions corresponding to the Last Glacial Maxima (LGM) prevailed in the Indian subcontinent.
Conditions between ~18,000 to ~13,000 yrs have been referred to as hyper-arid (Pant 2003).
When compared to present day climate, such dry conditions were probably due to low precipitation of summer monsoon and a higher winter precipitation (Singh et al. 1990).
Nilgiri Hills of southern India also experienced LGM climate (Sukumar et al. 1993).[Aligns to the data I quoted earlier about treeline depression in Nilgiris @ South India during LGM]
Under such conditions predominance of tropical grass type vegetation during 20-16 ka clearly indicates a very arid phase, as this type of vegetation grows favourably under low aridity and low soil moisture.
This also points to a period of weak southwest summer monsoon during LGM.
It has been noticed that the change in climate and vegetation has adversely influenced the structure and composition of the montane ecosystem (Sukumar et al.1995).
Similar conditions of LGM have also been identified in the Central Narmada Valley (Patnaik et al. 2009).

The terminal Pleistocene cool and dry conditions of LGM were followed by warm and humid conditions of early Holocene time.
Around ~7–10 ka the northwestern part of India was very warm and wet (Goodbred and Kuhel 2000; Fleitmann et al. 2003), which would have facilitated the hunter-gatherers to domesticate plants and animals,followed by the start of agriculture (Gupta 2004).
Eventually, agriculture led to the permanent settlement of populations.

Then you can try "Ice Age in the Tropics and its Human Implications" by Andrew S Goudie

The following is not India specific but might help nonetheless - "Tropical climates at the Last Glacial Maximum: a new synthesis of terrestrial palaeoclimate data. I. Vegetation, lake-levels and geochemistry"

Regards,
Virendra
Edit: Have fixed an incomplete statement, by correcting omission of the term "Geological Survey of India".

[Nilesh Oak]

Virendra ji,

Thank you very much. I will get to the references you quoted in next few weeks. Even then, what you just quoted (few cuts and paste) are equally useful.

First draft of some odd 20 chapters done and few more? (5, 10 ) more chapter to go. In this current project - The Historic Rama, I may not have luxury of getting into climate/weather/rain issues, however do plan on making some cursory comments that allow researchers to check the weather/climate/rain-precipitation for specific periods and thus corroborate with Ramayana time, or modify their theories.. or wonder why different interpretation is required of the geological evidence!!!

Thanks again.

[Virendra]

On basis of luminescence dating of aeolian sands on the river bed of Ghaggar-Hakra, UK based Geologist Sanjeev Gupta (Imperial College, London) and others are stating that there is sand of a Himalayan river in Ghaggar-Hakra only in a level corresponding to a period before 15 KYA i.e. 13000 BCE & before.
That means, if the Ghaggar-Hakra was at all having direct glacial input, the timeline is terminal Pleistocene and it certainly doesn't carry over to Holocene at all.
Holocene (9500 BCE) onwards the river sustains on healthy Monsoons that were amplified by increased summer insolation after the last Milankovitch forcing 9000 BCE.
A crucial point made by geologists after recent researches :
“Reliable monsoon rains were able to sustain perennial rivers earlier during the Holocene, (which) explains why Harappan settlements flourished along the entire Ghaggar-Hakra system without access to a glacier-fed river.”

Probably a dating of settlements at banks of both - Ghaggar-Hakra and Indus should be done and then compared, to determine which are the older settlements. Or has it been already done? It would help us tell which bank was populated first or whether there was no such discrete sequence and it was all adhoc & somewhat parallel.

Big Harappan sites like Kalibangan that are devoid of reservoirs, canals, bore few wells have only one source left then, the Ghaggar-Hakra palaeochannel on whose bank the Kalibangan is located.

We know that Mahabharata doesn't picture a healthy Sarasvati so the war IMO is safe to date within Holocene.
Even there we should leave aside the initial millennia since Early Holocene had strong Monsoons that would allow for a strong stream of Sarasvati, not the dying broken one the epic depicts.
Around the Pleistocne to Holoecne switch (at 9500 BCE) only we see the first flood, first Sangam.
B ji also had quoted in Astronomic texts thread that 10,000 BCE to 8,000 BCE was the heaviest Monsoon phase, peaking at 8,000 BCE.
The forcing at 9000 BCE and its effects has already been covered
For these reasons too strong a stream of Sarasvati and others would also lead to occasional flooding and is not suitable for agriculture.
That puts 10,000 BCE to 7000 BCE also out of picture. Only post this we should find a good candidate. I think first signs of agriculture in the sub-continent (Mehrgarh) are also 7000 BCE onwards only.

That was for Mahabharata, but how does Ramayana talk about Sarasvati. Can anyone shed some light?
I'm not sure whether Ramayana's geography covers NW India & Sarasvati.

Regards,
Virendra

[Nilesh Oak]

^^^
Ramayana talks of Sarasvati in 2 or 3 places. It's location, as described in Ramayana, supports Sarasvati locations, west of Yamuna, but before Satlaj.

Ramayana times describe Yamuna merging with Ganga at Prayag (Prayag might not have mentioned by name.. but geographically very accurate spot, as described in Valmiki Ramayana.

Satlaj has also turned west, (Ropar?) in Ramayana times.
----------------
Messengers from Ayodhya going to Kekaya capital (I think) mention it. OR Bharata returning to Ayodhya, from Kekaya crosses it.

-------------
When Sugriva instructs Vanara parties -search of Sita, in describing various directions, and where to look for Sita, he mentions Sarasvati.
------------
It is definitely described, but I don't think it is described as grand as Ganga....(but then that could also be due to the fact that while for Hastinapur, Sarasvati was close (Mahabharata), Ramayana things were happening near Sharayu, Ganga, Shona, Tamasa and Yamuna.....and of course Godavari

[Nilesh Oak]

On basis of luminescence dating of aeolian sands on the river bed of Ghaggar-Hakra, UK based Geologist Sanjeev Gupta (Imperial College, London) and others are stating that there is sand of a Himalayan river in Ghaggar-Hakra only in a level corresponding to a period before 15 KYA i.e. 13000 BCE & before.
That means, if the Ghaggar-Hakra was at all having direct glacial input, the timeline is terminal Pleistocene and it certainly doesn't carry over to Holocene at all.

I am lovin it. Thanks.

[Virendra]

Ramayana talks of Sarasvati in 2 or 3 places. It's location, as described in Ramayana, supports Sarasvati locations, west of Yamuna, but before Satlaj.

Ramayana times describe Yamuna merging with Ganga at Prayag (Prayag might not have mentioned by name.. but geographically very accurate spot, as described in Valmiki Ramayana.

Clift mentions in U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and capture of the Yamuna River that Yamuna was captured away from Indus & Ghaggar Hakra 47,000 BCE or before. [So now we know for sure that Ramayana is after 47,000 BCE atleast.]

Satlaj has also turned west, (Ropar?) in Ramayana times.
----------------
Messengers from Ayodhya going to Kekaya capital (I think) mention it. OR Bharata returning to Ayodhya, from Kekaya crosses it.

Clift also shows that Sutlej moved away from Ghaggar-Hakra 8,000 BCE or before and went to Indus. At the same time Beas river stopped draining directly to Ghaggar-Hakra at Tilwalla and started dropping quite early into Sutlej who was going to Indus now. [Ok. That means Ramayana is most likely after 8,000 BCE or perhaps a few millennia before that mark. Well ... that didn't help much ]




Holecene onwards the Monsoon-fed Ghaggar-Hakra was active till 2,500 BCE. Somewhere between that and 600 AD it got covered by dunes.
The paper though implies that the feeds of Beas and Sutlej required for Ghaggar-Hakra to have the strength of flowing into Arbian Sea, were out of the scene by 8,000 BCE. Thus it may have stopped reaching the Sea 8,000 BCE or at best 7,000 BCE onwards.
However there are arguments that between 8000 and 5000 BC, GH was though thinner than before. But due to strong SW monsoons, it was still going to sea by joining Nara river near Sukkur. Monsoons that were at peak 8,000 BCE would weaken in a very gradual process and not suddenly.

...delta drilling proved that the early Holocene (11,000ka - 8000ka that is 10,000 BCE to 7,000 BCE) was a time of very rapid sediment flux, probably driven by fast erosion under the influence of a strong summer monsoon, the period since 6,000 BCE has been one of weakening rains and reduced sediment flux, as established from lake sediment records in India.

..major channels existed prior to ca. 5,300 BCE Marot and ca. 3,000 BCE at Tilwalla...

Strengthens the idea that between 5,300 BC and 3,000 BC the GH was still flowing beyond Cholistan, whether it still reached Sea (via nara river) or not.

Clift also argues that Indus or one of its tributaries used to flow 200 kms east than present and was linked with Ghaggar-Hakra nearby and that the link was lost before 3,000 BCE. Based on sediment study, Fort Abbas in the image above is said to have been a place appearing near/after this linking.
Also independent researches confirm that Thar Desert was on northward expansion between 4,000 BCE and 3,000 BCE in the same region (Fort Abbas near southern Punjab border).

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

I lost my post because while drafting it, my login session expired
Please read K S Valdiya here. He argues for a healthy Sarasvati even in late Harappan phase and has slightly different timelines for various commonly studied attributes like dry and wet phases in NW India.

[Nilesh Oak]

Ramayana talks of Sarasvati in 2 or 3 places. It's location, as described in Ramayana, supports Sarasvati locations, west of Yamuna, but before Satlaj.

Ramayana times describe Yamuna merging with Ganga at Prayag (Prayag might not have mentioned by name.. but geographically very accurate spot, as described in Valmiki Ramayana.

Clift mentions in U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and capture of the Yamuna River that Yamuna was captured away from Indus & Ghaggar Hakra 47,000 BCE or before. [So now we know for sure that Ramayana is after 47,000 BCE atleast.]

Bingo! A While ago ManishH ji, I think, quoted a reference from Rigveda -specific Mandala, which did not mention Yamuna in the list. And then either he or someone else quote either Clift paper or some other researcher who stated/conjectured that Yamuna had not separated from Sarasvati until 47K BCE or 39 K BCE (That post would be still here on OIT thread).

Now here is all the fun of logic or lack thereof begins .. mixed with inductive confusion and what not..

ManishH ji was quoting those references to ask why Yamuna was missing in the list ( in reality Yamuna in the list of rigveda verse could be missing for many reaons), but going by AIT/inductive/circular type logic.. or even otherwise.. this could mean 'YAMUNA WAS NOT SEPARATED FROM SARASVATI WHEN THAT MANDALA OF RIGVEDA WAS WRITTEN/COMPOSED".

Rajesh A ji and I jumped on with that conclusion. Of course, as expected, in such cases, AIT thinkers keep mum ..hoping people will soon forget about it.

I have not and I have those references cataloged for future reaseach..

Summary: Yes, Ramayana after 47,000 BCE, but that specific mandala of Rigveda could be before 47,000 BCE!
--------
Thanks Virendra ji. Keep it coming...

[Virendra]

Clift mentions in U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and capture of the Yamuna River that Yamuna was captured away from Indus & Ghaggar Hakra 47,000 BCE or before. [So now we know for sure that Ramayana is after 47,000 BCE atleast.]

Bingo! A While ago ManishH ji, I think, quoted a reference from Rigveda -specific Mandala, which did not mention Yamuna in the list. And then either he or someone else quote either Clift paper or some other researcher who stated/conjectured that Yamuna had not separated from Sarasvati until 47K BCE or 39 K BCE (That post would be still here on OIT thread).

Now here is all the fun of logic or lack thereof begins .. mixed with inductive confusion and what not..

ManishH ji was quoting those references to ask why Yamuna was missing in the list ( in reality Yamuna in the list of rigveda verse could be missing for many reaons), but going by AIT/inductive/circular type logic.. or even otherwise.. this could mean 'YAMUNA WAS NOT SEPARATED FROM SARASVATI WHEN THAT MANDALA OF RIGVEDA WAS WRITTEN/COMPOSED".

Rajesh A ji and I jumped on with that conclusion. Of course, as expected, in such cases, AIT thinkers keep mum ..hoping people will soon forget about it.

I have not and I have those references cataloged for future reaseach..

Summary: Yes, Ramayana after 47,000 BCE, but that specific mandala of Rigveda could be before 47,000 BCE!
--------
Thanks Virendra ji. Keep it coming...

I see .. quite interesting.
However if any of RV's verse was conceived before 47,000 BCE, I suggest it won't be a lot far back from there.
Because at 72,000 BCE we have the Mount Toba eruption that had long term devastating effects on Indian sub continent.
It was thought previously that no hominins in India survived that catastrophe and India was repopulated most probably via an Out of Africa wave.
But that theory has now been challenged by Petraglia and other archeologists. They claim that some hominins did survive the ordeal. Anyway, just wanted to iterate that I wouldn't place any parts of RV to have been conceived before .. say 60,000 BCE. One can read on Toba's effects to understand why.

Regards,
Virendra

[Nilesh Oak]

I see .. quite interesting.
However if any of RV's verse was conceived before 47,000 BCE, I suggest it won't be a lot far back from there.
Because at 72,000 BCE we have the Mount Toba eruption that had long term devastating effects on Indian sub continent.
It was thought previously that no hominins in India survived that catastrophe and India was repopulated most probably via an Out of Africa wave.
But that theory has now been challenged by Petraglia and other archeologists. They claim that some hominins did survive the ordeal. Anyway, just wanted to iterate that I wouldn't place any parts of RV to have been conceived before .. say 60,000 BCE. One can read on Toba's effects to understand why.

Regards,
Virendra

Of course the point reg. 'absence of Yamuna' in that specific verse was.. that the logical conclusion of that verse for Yamuna or timing of composition of that verse is 'WE DON'T KNOW'. But that is not how brain of those who are trained under Hegalian gobblygoo works. The reference will be used by such crowd to show that, incorrectly of course.. but they don't know it, for example:

(1) If Rigveda is written in 3000 BC, 4000 BC etc. (notice they don't care when it was written. if the claim is that it was written before 1500 BC, they have problem with it since it conflicts with their PROVEN brainchild. Let's leave it nameless) then why did it not mention Yamuna?

(2) The whole Rigveda does not corroborate well with geology data, so we can NOT talk about its timing. So let's stick to established wisdom of 1500 BC.

You get an idea.

------------
My point was, by such clumsy logic.. at least to be consistent , they must accept that 'that specific mandala/verse of Rigveda that does not mention Yamuna was composed before 10K BP (8000BC). That they will not do.. since it again conflicts with the established wisdom of 1500 BC.

But we did show their methodology in its true colors. Their strategy: Keep mum and hope people soon forget about this discussion.
--------------
Now back to serious topic.. Toba explosion

Researchers do think that many did survive and thus would have carried the memories of anything that existed before that.. albeit in mythologized form.

BTW, there is a reference, IMO, that preserves the memory of Toba explosion in written/composed literature of ancient India.. but will write about it some other time......

[Virendra]

@Nilesh ji,
It would be fascinating to read that reference.

But with the kind of Acheulean (Lower Paleolithic culture of the middle Pleistocene) settlements and tools that have been found in India, it is hard to fathom that a proper civilization would have existed so far back. I mean it would need a constant improving march of a developing society. That takes a lot of time.
Even the decline of such hypothetical civilization would either be slow (thus taking more time again ) or sudden (getting recorded prominently).
I don't know of any such recording and we don't have such long chunk of our timeline in the decades around Toba event; that could indicate civilization or intellectual prowess capable of conceiving a language such as Sanskrit's parent and verses such as that of the RV.
All we find are stone age remnants. Best relevant remains we've got till now are ISVC and Dwarka. Per my knowledge, neither goes beyond 20,000-25,000 YBP archeologically.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In other aspects of the debate .. has anyone started looking into the genetics, domestication and migration of species other than us dreaded humans ??
I mean horses (wild as well as domestic), cow, mouse, sheep etc who are major companions of human march on this planet.
It would help us flank the hot contest over human genetic studies and the conclusions drawn therefrom.

Regards,
Virendra

[Lalmohan]

if there were developed linguistics/culture around Toba time, then it would be refered to somewhere... unless of course it is represented by 'kalyug' - or atleast the memory of such

perhaps our ancestors found ash layers and ascribed it to kalyug?

anyway - some hypotheses to be tested

[ramana]

Nilesh, Is the pralaya a ref to Toba eruption memory?

[Virendra]

More on Toba :-

http://varnam.nationalinterest.in/2007/ ... hra_prade/

Investigation of the Toba ash deposited in an Andhra Pradesh village called Jwalapuram in Kurnool district has revealed that the blast was not that catastrophic and that some of the hunter gatherers of India survived. Stone blades and other tools as well red ochre used in cave paintings were found both above and below the ash layer indicating that whoever lived at that time survived and there was technological continuity.

These tools were also similar to the ones used to the ones found in Africa around the same time indicating that Indians had closer affinities to African stone age traditions than European ones. It also validates the theory that humans took the route from Africa, through Arabia into India and that India was populated much before Europe. The best evidence to seal the argument would be the discovery of fossil evidence, either human or Neanderthal, but none has been found.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post in Varnam is based on the work of Oppenheimer and Petraglia

Regards,
Virendra

[Agnimitra]

Caste barriers not older than 2000 years - Indians mated across ethnic groups till 2nd century: Study

G.S. MUDUR
New Delhi, Aug. 8: People across India mixed and mated without class, caste, or ethnic barriers for about 2,300 years until strict endogamy emerged across the subcontinent around the 2nd century AD, a new genetic study has suggested.

The study by scientists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, and the Harvard Medical School has indicated a staggering level of population admixture that they say had not been previously suspected.

The scientists said that ancient, pervasive and widespread mixture of genes showed up in the genetic makeup of virtually all of India’s present-day populations — upper-castes, lower-castes, and even tribes such as Bhils of Gujarat, the Kallars of Tamil Nadu, and another tribe from Uttar Pradesh, long viewed as genetically isolated.

The study, based on the analysis of the genetic make-up of 571 persons from 73 well-defined ethno-linguistic groups — 71 from India and two from Pakistan — has found evidence of widespread population mixture between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago.

“With the dawn of endogamy, genetic mixing became rare — that’s what we see in present-day Indian genomes,” Priya Moorjani, a graduate student at the Harvard Medical School and the first author of the study, told The Telegraph. The findings will be published tomorrow in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

The CCMB-Harvard team had shown through similar genetic analysis four years ago that most Indians have their origins in two root populations — ancestral south Indians (ASI) not related to any population outside the subcontinent, and ancestral north Indians (ANI) related to present-day Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians and Europeans.

The genetic makeup of modern Indians contains a mosaic of chromosomal segments from both ANI and ASI — and the lengths of the segments of ASI and ANI ancestry allow them to measure the time of genetic mixture in individual populations.

“We can now assign time periods for cultural changes in India that appeared to culminate in the establishment of endogamy some 1,900 years ago,” said co-author Kumarasamy Thangaraj, a scientist and team member at the CCMB.

The analysis shows the history of India’s population has changed episodically, said David Reich, professor of genetics at the Harvard school and the study’s senior author. Prior to 4,000 years ago, there was no mixture — the ANI and ASI remained isolated.

“Then there was widespread mixture between ANI and ASI that affected all population groups in India, including the isolated tribal groups,” Reich said. “And finally, there was a shift to endogamy such that mixture between even geographically closely-located groups became rare.”

The scientists have found that the dates of mixture are correlated to language and geography as the mixtures are more recent in the northern Indo-European language speaking groups than in the southern Dravidian language speaking groups of India. That is possibly because populations in the north have had multiple episodes of ANI-ASI mixtures.

The study has also indicated tentative dates when specific population groups turned to endogamy — the Vysyas in Andhra for instance have the longest period of endogamy, or genetic isolation, nearly 3000 years. The Bhils in Gujarat have remained largely isolated for nearly 2200 years.

The ancestors of Kshatriyas in Uttar Pradesh were mixing with other groups at least until 2,200 years ago, the ancestors of Brahmins in Uttar Pradesh were doing so at least until 1,885 years ago, as did those of the Sindhis of Pakistan up to 1,940 years ago.

Moorjani, who completed a Bachelor of Engineering in computer science in Mumbai before pursuing a PhD in genetics in the US, said the new study was consistent with the content of the ancient Indian texts, including the Rig Veda.

“The oldest text in India, the Rig Veda, does not mention a caste system at all, and suggests there was substantial social movement of populations, as reflected in the acceptance of people with non-Indo-European names as chieftains and poets,” she said.

“The class system, of grouping people based on occupational roles, is first mentioned only in the book 10 of Rig Veda that was likely to have been composed later. The caste system of endogamous groups is, however, only mentioned centuries later in the law code of Manu, or Manusmriti, that forbids mixing between caste groups.”

“We’ve known there was admixture and co-mingling of populations, but we'll need more evidence to establish the chronology,” said T.K. Venkatasubramanian, a former professor of ancient Indian history at the University of Delhi.

“The date for the code of Manu is not clear, but it is accepted as having been around in the pre-Christian era, after the advent of the iron age which began in India around 1000 BC.”

The CCMB’s Thangaraj said long periods of endogamy had led to concentration of certain deleterious genetic mutations in some populations.

So there have been periodic trends of intermixing and endogamy alternating with one another. But prior to 4000 years there was no admixture?

[Atri]

The term ASI (ancestral south indian) has to be understood properly. There are no people belonging to ancentral south indian genome in mainland India since last 40,000 years. Most of the people in INdia belong to ANI (ancestral north indian) genetic group. So, no need to get all worked up.

When they say ANI and ASI did not mix, they mean most of mainland Indians and ASI people from remote places (like andaman, for example) did not intermingle since last 2000 years.

Reference - http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/R ... _India.pdf

[Agnimitra]

Atri ji, what about intermingling in the middle-east and CA? Are there studies on the intermingling that happened between the current middle-eastern and the older strata of Ilamite and other races that first settled there?

[Vadivel]

Genetic admixture studies on four in situ evolved, two migrant and twenty-one ethnic populations of Tamil Nadu, south India

We analysed the genetic structure of ∼1000 samples representing 27 ethnic groups settled in Tamil Nadu, south India, derived from two linguistic families (Dravidians and Indo–Europeans) representing four religious groups (Hinduism, Islam, Chris- tianity and Jainism) using 11 mtDNA markers. Out of 27 ethnic groups, four are in situ populations (Anglo-Indian, Labbai Muslim, Nadar Christian and south Indian Jain) and two are migrants (Gypsy and north Indian Jain) from north India to Tamil Nadu, and 21 are native ethnic groups. Six of the markers we used were monomorphic (HaeIII663, HpaI3592, AluI5176, AluI7025, AluI13262, 9-bp deletion) and five markers were polymorphic (DdeI10394, AluI10397, HinfI12308, HincII13259 and HaeIII16517). Haplogroup frequencies, genetic affinities and admixture analysis are based on the genotype data of poly- morphic markers observed in these populations. Haplogroup frequencies indicate that various ethnic groups entered Tamil Nadu during different time periods. Genetic affinities and admixture estimates revealed that the ethnic groups possessing advanced knowledge of farming cluster in a branch (C), and could be the late arrived settlers as agriculture, was introduced to this region at about 5 to 3 thousand years ago. In situ ethnic groups appear to have arisen at various times as a result of the prevailing dominant socio-cultural forces. Hierarchical Hindu caste system created many ethnic groups in the history of its existence; some of them became isolated for considerable period of time. Over all, among Tamil ethnic groups, in spite of caste systems’ rigidity, built in flexibility in the system in the form of hypergamy and hypogamy had allowed maternal gene flow between them.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol90No2/191.pdf


http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol90No2/191.pdf

[Prem Kumar]

Agnimitra: there is something that doesnt make sense in that article:

I can understand how they can derive that admixture stopped 1900 years ago. But how did they come to the conclusion that admixture "started" 4000 years ago???

Are they trying to conform to AIT and Biblical origin subconsciously/consciously?

They are also using the terms ANI and ASI very loosely. There is no meaning for the term ANI/ASI as late as 4000 BC. The "A" stands for "Ancestral". As Atri states above, the mixing of ANI and ASI started probably 70K years ago.

[KLP Dubey]

However if any of RV's verse was conceived before 47,000 BCE, I suggest it won't be a lot far back from there. Because at 72,000 BCE we have the Mount Toba eruption that had long term devastating effects on Indian sub continent.
It was thought previously that no hominins in India survived that catastrophe and India was repopulated most probably via an Out of Africa wave.

But that theory has now been challenged by Petraglia and other archeologists. They claim that some hominins did survive the ordeal. Anyway, just wanted to iterate that I wouldn't place any parts of RV to have been conceived before .. say 60,000 BCE. One can read on Toba's effects to understand why.

This is all complete nonsense. The RV has no information that supports a date of 1500 BC or 47000 BC or any other date. The Rv describes all sorts of catastrophic and incredible events, which you don't seem to consider at all. Anybody can conjure up similarities between some geological event and certain small numbers of words in the RV, but this leads nowhere and can be easily refuted.

Also as shown earlier in this thread, running after the river names is futile. Among many other obvious flaws, the assumption that the river names remained unchanged between (say) 20000 BC and now is simply not supported. And for that matter, the RV has words like "Krishna" and "Vena" which are also currently rivers in South India, so why not place the RV 'composers' there as well ?

Namaskar,

KL

[member_24042]

Indo-Aryans are not the only Caucasoids in India

In fact, they do not even form the dominant Caucasian group in India. There are other Caucasian ethnicities in India who have migrated to India after the Nirvana of Buddha, such as:

1. Indo-Scythians - Jats mostly, also called Sakas. Their warlords Mihirkula was probably a Christian.
2. Hepthalites/ White Hunas - Most of them became Rajpoots after Brahmins raised them to the status of Brahma-Kshastra kings to drive away remaining traces and influences of Buddhism among common people in western India (especially Rajasthan).
3. Gurjara-Pratiharas : They are also Caucasians and their descendants are mostly called Gurjars as a caste in India in current times. The oldest record of these tribes in India date to around 11th century. They were also most definitely from Central Asia.
4. Indo-Greeks, descendants of Alexander's armies who multiplied and formed a significant Caucasian family in current times, but got absorbed into various tribes of India.
5. Indo-Iranian (Parsis) - The only Zoroastrian people extant in the world who migrated to India after the rise of Islam in Iran.


Considering the above, the Indo-Aryans were just one of the Caucasian groups in Northern India, unlike the established theory that the Aryans form the majority of India's current population and that they were the first civilized people in India.


In fact, Indo-Aryan Brahmins are not the only Aryans who live in India. The Aryan races in India are:

1. Indo-Aryan (Brahmins mostly).
2. Indo-Iranian (Zoroastrians)
3. Persian Muslim invaders and descendants(Muslims in India)

[vishvak]

What is the historical meaning of word Caucasoids - in terms of year limits, mixture with other races like Indian and Mango and so on and so forth. What are sources about Caucasoids, dominant mixtures, ethnicity, caste, migration, races and civilization history?

[member_23700]

I see TonySoprano reinstated.

The intelligent folks of this thread don't need heads up and warnings from this humble self. Still, watch for derailing of a thread, and choose 'ignore' over 'respond' when statements are thrown as bets, without any serious study or references.

[member_23700]

This is all complete nonsense. The RV has no information that supports a date of 1500 BC or 47000 BC or any other date. The Rv describes all sorts of catastrophic and incredible events, which you don't seem to consider at all. Anybody can conjure up similarities between some geological event and certain small numbers of words in the RV, but this leads nowhere and can be easily refuted.

Also as shown earlier in this thread, running after the river names is futile. Among many other obvious flaws, the assumption that the river names remained unchanged between (say) 20000 BC and now is simply not supported. And for that matter, the RV has words like "Krishna" and "Vena" which are also currently rivers in South India, so why not place the RV 'composers' there as well ?

Namaskar,

KL

KLP Dubey ji,

Your arguments on this thread are well known. It is the evidence from your side that is lacking. You did make some interesting observations about Rigveda and were very educational. Unfortunately, your broader theme (correct me if I am wrong) seems to be.. nothing can be tested and nothing needs to be tested. If I am correct in interpreting your theme.. then unfortunately, your theory may be right, but we have no way of testing it. Thus it is irrefutable, unempirical, untestable, un-falsifiable and thus un or non-scientific.

Hari Om.

[member_22872]

AntuBarwa ji, I am not qualified to comment on Rg Veda, but if I understand Dubey ji, he is saying that when you are holding that Vedas are timeless and authorless, and when the Vedic verses are context based with some verses could be mere figurative or symbolic to mean something completely different. Then, When we use Rg Veda to even counter AIT theorists, we end up making the same mistake that they are making. The mistake of dating something which is difficult to date. You neither can prove nor can disprove the timelessness of an entire knowledge base that was passed by mere word of mouth, a tradition which exists even today. How long have they been doing that? we don't know.

What evidence did we ask when Christians claimed that Bible is the word of God? or Quran is the word of Allah revealed to Mohammad? There are axioms which you just take it for granted. Even physics is not devoid of such assumptions taken as axioms.

The problem I see is this, we revere Vedas, entire Sanatana Dharma is based on the axiom that Vedas are authorless and timeless. But such a sentiment is lacking in the minds of the west. Hence they are fine when they say 'bards' composed the Rg Veda while harvesting crop or while riding horses. How can you explain the taste of sweetness to say a dung beetle?

[KLP Dubey]

then unfortunately, your theory may be right, but we have no way of testing it. Thus it is irrefutable, unempirical, untestable, un-falsifiable and thus un or non-scientific.

Please get off the 'high horse' of testable or refutable theories, because none of the AIT or OIT theories are testable or refutable theories. Both are interpretations of history, and are not scientific in nature. That is why history is a branch of humanities.

As I mentioned before, the Veda is eternal, impersonal, and has nothing to do with the human race or any historical event per se. People have been assigning all sorts of meanings to Vedic sounds over the ages. Only fools would form historical theories based on this occurrence. Now this is well known and accepted by Indian scholars from time immemorial, and if you can't see this simple fact it is useless to argue at all.

Namaskar
Kishen Lal P Dubey

[Dipanker]

Please get off the 'high horse' of testable or refutable theories, because none of the AIT or OIT theories are testable or refutable theories. Both are interpretations of history, and are not scientific in nature. That is why history is a branch of humanities.

As I mentioned before, the Veda is eternal, impersonal, and has nothing to do with the human race or any historical event per se. People have been assigning all sorts of meanings to Vedic sounds over the ages. Only fools would form historical theories based on this occurrence. Now this is well known and accepted by Indian scholars from time immemorial, and if you can't see this simple fact it is useless to argue at all.

Namaskar
Kishen Lal P Dubey

If Vedas are eternal, certainly they are in no particular language, they are just sound, right? And thus they have no meaning at all, right? Now if Vedas are in Sanskrit, then Sanskrit is also an eternal language?

[Virendra]

This is all complete nonsense. The RV has no information that supports a date of 1500 BC or 47000 BC or any other date. The Rv describes all sorts of catastrophic and incredible events, which you don't seem to consider at all. Anybody can conjure up similarities between some geological event and certain small numbers of words in the RV, but this leads nowhere and can be easily refuted.

Dubey ji,
I'm not saying that RV talks of Mount Toba or that it talks of a year 47,000 BCE.
I was replying to Nilesh ji's post. You might want to respond to that, as I'm just a fencer sitter.

My only point about RV was that if a part of it was composed before 47,000 BCE (as was hypothesized in the thead) then it cannot go before 72,000 BCE either. That is because most (not all) of humanity and livestock in Indian subcontinent was decimated after the Mount Toba eruption around that time.

Also as shown earlier in this thread, running after the river names is futile. Among many other obvious flaws, the assumption that the river names remained unchanged between (say) 20000 BC and now is simply not supported. And for that matter, the RV has words like "Krishna" and "Vena" which are also currently rivers in South India, so why not place the RV 'composers' there as well?

Okay, thanks. I understand.

Regards,
Virendra

[Virendra]

1. Indo-Scythians - Jats mostly, also called Sakas. Their warlords Mihirkula was probably a Christian.

Evidence please.

2. Hepthalites/ White Hunas - Most of them became Rajpoots after Brahmins raised them to the status of Brahma-Kshastra kings to drive away remaining traces and influences of Buddhism among common people in western India (especially Rajasthan).

Again, evidence please.
Rajputs have absolutely no memory, no history, no epigraphy to tie themselves to Huns. We don't have a delusional disorder where we don't know our own history and others have to tell it to us.

3. Gurjara-Pratiharas : They are also Caucasians and their descendants are mostly called Gurjars as a caste in India in current times.

Sorry, but who are the Gurjar Brahmins, Gurjar Kshatriyas, Gurjar Vanias, Gurjar Jains, and Gurjar Oswals? All these communities have been living in Gujarat and speak the Gujarati language.
Lets take one example - the 'Gurjara Brahmans' are group of brahmins found only in Gurjaratra region and are purely defined by geography (not gothra/clan etc).
North Indian brahmins are Gaud brahmins and south ones are called Dravida brahmins. 'Goud Gurjara' is a clan of Goud Brahmins settled in Gurjara region and it is a part of the 'Gurjar Brahmins' grouping.

Whats more, these communities are not found anywhere outside Gurjaratra. Only the pastorals of Gurjaratra looking for moderately wet grasslands went out to Punjab (possibly driven out due to drought/famine in Gurjaratra).

It is still debatable whether the province Gurjaratra got its name from Gurjars or the Gurjars got their name from Gurjaratra. There are plenty instances in history for both - people getting names by places and vice versa.

Uddotana's prakrit creation 'Kuvalayamala' from 779 CE Jalor, Rajasthan (contemporary to early Pratihara times) is making reference to the adjoining territories of Pratihara Kingdom. It calles them - Maru, Malava, Gurjar, Lata, Madhyadesa, Takka, and Sindhu.

Hiuen Tsang writes about a Kingdom with its capital at pi-lo-mo-lo (modern Bheenmal near Abu, Rajasthan) like this:
"The king is of the Kshatriya caste. He is just twenty years old, He is distinguished for wisdom and he is courageous. He is a deep believer in the law of Buddha and highly honours men of distinguished ability." He has called this kingdom ku-che-lo (Gurjara).

The 'Harsha Charita' of Banabhatta talks about Prabhakarvardhana of Thaneswar fighting the Hunas, the king of Sindhu (modern Sindh), the king of Gurjara (modern Gujarat and parts of Rajasthan), the lord of Gandhara (northwest), the ruler of Lata (southern Gujarat), and that of Malava (western Madhya Pradesh).

Epigraphical records of Broach Gurjars mention Pratihara Kings lineage as being "the lineage of the kings of Gurjara", like this - "Gurjara nripa vamsa".
Rajor inscription 959 CE has a feudatory of the Imperial Pratiharas named Malthandeva, describing himself as - gurjara-pratiharanvayah.
Translations differ from a) a Pratihara from Gurjara (place) .. to b) a Pratihara from Gurjara (tribe).
Problem with attaching the tribe meaning is that normally the clan name precedes the tribe name. Hence it doesn't seem plausible.
Inscription further talks about the agrarian people of the region as: Tathaitat pratyasanna Sri Gurjjara vahita samasta-ksetra sametah.
Translations differ from a) all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the inhabitants of Gurjara region .. to b) all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the Gurjara tribe.
Problem with attaching the tribe meaning here is that it implies 1) a huge population of Gurjar tribe 2) that is agrarian (nor martial/pastoral).
Not to forget that we've been told only the warlike elements of the foreign tribe colonized Rajasthan. Huge population is again not plausible.
It is common knowledge that Gurjars form only a tiny percentage of modern Rajasthan and Gujarat's population.

Even in late medieval and modern history the word Gurjar was being used in territorial sense, rather than tribal, in certain parts of India.
1. Rajputana gazetteer 1879 reports that in Marwar the word Gurjar is used to designate Gujarat.
2. Then the 1883 Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency reports that in Maharashtra the vani (vanik i.e. traders) were named after the provinces of their origin; hence the word Gurjar was used for a Vani from Gujarat while Marwari was used for a Marwar based Vani.

The oldest record of these tribes in India date to around 11th century.

Gurjara-Pratihara Kingdoms started in 6th century A.D.

They were also most definitely from Central Asia.

Evidence?

4. Indo-Greeks, descendants of Alexander's armies who multiplied and formed a significant Caucasian family in current times, but got absorbed into various tribes of India.

Don't know about these guys. If they are so, even then they form only a tiny fraction of the Indian genetic/demographic picture.

5. Indo-Iranian (Parsis) - The only Zoroastrian people extant in the world who migrated to India after the rise of Islam in Iran.

Agreed.

Considering the above, the Indo-Aryans were just one of the Caucasian groups in Northern India, unlike the established theory that the Aryans form the majority of India's current population and that they were the first civilized people in India.

Aryans go long way back from the Sycthians and Huns. As of now, there is no way to tell whether these people are descendants of some outgoing Aryan branch or not. Only colliding opinions and theories of scholars.

The Aryan races in India are:

????
------------------------------------------------------------

Request the Mods to move this post wherever they take the other OT posts.

[Agnimitra]

If Vedas are eternal, certainly they are in no particular language, they are just sound, right? And thus they have no meaning at all, right? Now if Vedas are in Sanskrit, then Sanskrit is also an eternal language?

Vedas are not in 'Sanskrit'. They are in 'chhandas'. Sanskrit grammar is developed by trying to recognize repeated patterns in Vedic sound (shabda) and approximating them via a set of derived rules to facilitate prediction of phonemes.

Here is a post I had made previously on this thread:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1348762

[KLP Dubey]

1. Indo-Scythians - Jats mostly, also called Sakas. Their warlords Mihirkula was probably a Christian.

Evidence please.

I don't think there is any. Mihr-gul (called Mihirakula in Sanskrit) converted to Kashmir Shaivism and worshipped Shiva in the form of "Sthanu". A redeeming feature of this ex-barbarian was that he suppressed Buddhism in Northwest India.

Rajputs have absolutely no memory, no history, no epigraphy to tie themselves to Huns. We don't have a delusional disorder where we don't know our own history and others have to tell it to us.

Actually, on this matter I believe there is some evidence. I do not remember the details, but about 10 years ago I studied the work "The Hunas in India" by Prof. Upendra Thakur (Magadh University). He enumerated various clans that absorbed the Hunas (including some minor Rajput subcastes if I remember correctly). But I am fairly sure this list did not include the 'high-class' Rajputs like Chauhans, Rathores, etc.

KL

[KLP Dubey]

If Vedas are eternal, certainly they are in no particular language, they are just sound, right? And thus they have no meaning at all, right? Now if Vedas are in Sanskrit, then Sanskrit is also an eternal language?

The Rgveda is in the form of sound patterns, yes - but these patterns are not 'meaningless'. They are in particular arrangements and hold information which we are yet not able to decipher or comprehend at the moment. This information is eternal and has no particular association with humans. Some of these patterns were used to develop the Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is not an eternal language. The Veda is not 'in Sanskrit'.

KL

[RamaY]

If Vedas are eternal, certainly they are in no particular language, they are just sound, right? And thus they have no meaning at all, right? Now if Vedas are in Sanskrit, then Sanskrit is also an eternal language?

When people say Vedas are eternal, they mean the body of knowledge that Vedas represent. Unlike Abrahmic knowledge, which is said to have come from a specific point, Vedas understand and proclaim that the conscious is beyond time (beyond Kala, infinite) which starts from Bigbang.

This body of knowledge existed all along, that is why it is Satyam (ultimate), Anantam (infinite) and Jnanam (knowledge/consciousness).

Body of Knowledge exists even without language.

JMHT.

[Dipanker]

If Vedas are eternal, certainly they are in no particular language, they are just sound, right? And thus they have no meaning at all, right? Now if Vedas are in Sanskrit, then Sanskrit is also an eternal language?

The Rgveda is in the form of sound patterns, yes - but these patterns are not 'meaningless'. They are in particular arrangements and hold information which we are yet not able to decipher or comprehend at the moment. This information is eternal and has no particular association with humans. Some of these patterns were used to develop the Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is not an eternal language. The Veda is not 'in Sanskrit'.

KL

SO basically nobody (I am assuming that includes you too!) really knows what RgVeda is talking about, right?

Also can you provide some sort of timeline when RgVeda was used to develop Sanskrit language? 1500 BC? 15,000BC? older?

[Virendra]

Actually, on this matter I believe there is some evidence. I do not remember the details, but about 10 years ago I studied the work "The Hunas in India" by Prof. Upendra Thakur (Magadh University). He enumerated various clans that absorbed the Hunas (including some minor Rajput subcastes if I remember correctly).

Minor absorption of Huns in one or two, of the dozens of Rajput clans? May be. When Huns and sycthians stayed for a long time in our periphery, it cannot be entirely ruled out.
But Huns or Sycthians being the origin of Rajput clans? No, not possible.
Firstly, there is absolutely no literary or epigraphic evidence where any of the Rajputs point to a Hunnic/Sycthian origin. There is, for native origin though.
Then, what the colonial historians saw as similarities between Rajput and Hunnic/Sycthian traditions, are nothing but the Aryan customs, as Ojha and many others have shown.

But I am fairly sure this list did not include the 'high-class' Rajputs like Chauhans, Rathores, etc.

Epigraphic evidence clearly establishes that Chauhans are Suryavanshis. They get their name from King 'Chahamana', the progenitor.
Rathores again are indigenous, originating from the Kannauj branch of Rashtrakutas.
If needed I can present evidence for all of the above.

Requesting the mods again to move the posts out, if these are OT.

Regards,
Virendra

[Agnimitra]

The Rgveda is in the form of sound patterns, yes - but these patterns are not 'meaningless'. They are in particular arrangements and hold information which we are yet not able to decipher or comprehend at the moment. This information is eternal and has no particular association with humans. Some of these patterns were used to develop the Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is not an eternal language. The Veda is not 'in Sanskrit'.

KL

SO basically nobody (I am assuming that includes you too!) really knows what RgVeda is talking about, right?

Dipanker ji, what's your point?

What we're saying is that there is no "one true meaning" of the Veda as far as we know. But based on established sciences of interpretation and meditation, there are meanings out there.

These questions have been discussed on this very thread before:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1349347

Just like the concept of "past-to-present" time-binding property of Veda, I think this meaning-neutral property is also being misunderstood. Like the time-binding property, this meaning-neutrality also happens to be a fundamental concept in modern theories of semantics and epistemology.

Meaning neutrality signifies "silence on the objective levels" on the part of the hearer. This means that no intensional or extensional memory contents are impinging on the present-moment's contextual understanding of the words. This means that there is a "non-verbal awareness" that is also important, since it is well known that the greater part of communication that happens even between two people is non-verbal.

So again, the pseudo-scientific AIT'ers need to be shown that a Vedic self-descriptor is found as a fundamental aspect of the most modern theories of semantics and epistemology, while they are busy with their puerile sand-castles in their pseudo-archaeological-linguistic sandbox.

And also this one:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1344606

Also can you provide some sort of timeline when RgVeda was used to develop Sanskrit language? 1500 BC? 15,000BC? older?

Older. I had given you a link to a previous post, in which I quoted Patanjali's Mahabhashya. Sanskrit was ancient even then.

[member_23700]

then unfortunately, your theory may be right, but we have no way of testing it. Thus it is irrefutable, unempirical, untestable, un-falsifiable and thus un or non-scientific.

Please get off the 'high horse' of testable or refutable theories, because none of the AIT or OIT theories are testable or refutable theories. Both are interpretations of history, and are not scientific in nature. That is why history is a branch of humanities.

I hope and pray not.

AIT predictions (even though the goofy theory is not) are testable (Sanskrit, horses, etc. only after 1500 BC) and therefore are falsified. Since one can not prove anything per say, we will not able to 'PROVE' OIT, but will able to show lot of evidence for its support.

Your knowledge of science seems to be on a loose footing and I would be happy to educate.

All scientific theories are nothing but 'INTERPRETATIONS'. They are accepted as valid theories (or scientific) because they withstood many tests (experiments, observations...etc.)

Yes, History is branch of humanities, as it stands now, does not mean it is the right thing or that is how it ought to be.

As I mentioned before, the Veda is eternal, impersonal, and has nothing to do with the human race or any historical event per se. People have been assigning all sorts of meanings to Vedic sounds over the ages. Only fools would form historical theories based on this occurrence. Now this is well known and accepted by Indian scholars from time immemorial, and if you can't see this simple fact it is useless to argue at all.

So you are saying likes of Lokamany Tilak, Subhash Kak, Vinoba Bhave, Shrikanth Talegeri, Nilesh Oak etc, who see history in Veda are fools. Ok, fine. I would prefer to be in company of fools.

But please tell me who are these Indian scholars who think (besides you) that Veda has nothing to do with humarn race or any historical event per se.

TIA

[member_23700]

The Rgveda is in the form of sound patterns, yes - but these patterns are not 'meaningless'. They are in particular arrangements and hold information which we are yet not able to decipher or comprehend at the moment. This information is eternal and has no particular association with humans. Some of these patterns were used to develop the Sanskrit language. Sanskrit is not an eternal language. The Veda is not 'in Sanskrit'.

KL

Would you then agree that all past researchers who have made an attempt to decipher 'meaning' ouf to Rigveda are brave and to be praised for their efforts?

And do you have any ideas how one should go about deciphering the meaning but also any idea on golden standard (calibration gauge) to figure out if the decipherment is plausible?

If your answer is 'Big NO', then we are doomed, it seems.

I also see your stand(s) as few contradictory statements put together and being claimed as consistent.

You assume meaning in Rigveda, but won't appreciate anyone's effort to decipher it, you won't do it yourself (In fact you give the impression that you are against any effort at decipherment). Anyone making an effort, by this very act is a 'fool'. And there is no golden standard (which is fair argument btw) against which any decipherment attempt could be compared.

So, you believe there is meaning. You won't decipher it. Anyone attempting to decipher is fool. And your point is........

[member_23700]

Just like the concept of "past-to-present" time-binding property of Veda, I think this meaning-neutral property is also being misunderstood. Like the time-binding property, this meaning-neutrality also happens to be a fundamental concept in modern theories of semantics and epistemology.

Meaning neutrality signifies "silence on the objective levels" on the part of the hearer. This means that no intensional or extensional memory contents are impinging on the present-moment's contextual understanding of the words. This means that there is a "non-verbal awareness" that is also important, since it is well known that the greater part of communication that happens even between two people is non-verbal.

Went way above my head. May be an illustration of 'meaning neutral' might shed some light.

So again, the pseudo-scientific AIT'ers need to be shown that a Vedic self-descriptor is found as a fundamental aspect of the most modern theories of semantics and epistemology, while they are busy with their puerile sand-castles in their pseudo-archaeological-linguistic sandbox.

Agnimitra,

I completely agree with this. Isn't that what likes of Shiv ji are attempting to do? or likes of Shrikant Talegeri have attempted?

But if I understand correctly- the contention of KLPD ji, he is against such attempts and I fail to understand his logic, assuming there is one.