Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:20

SwamyG wrote:I do not check this dhaaga, however as I was reading the book "Pre-Pauranika Hinduism" by Professor S.R. Goyal, I remembered this thread, and wanted to share his thoughts:

Excerpt from Page 45/46 of the above said book. All italics are from the book.
The present author finds it difficult to assume that the Aryans (whether they were a race, or a linguistic or cultural group) spread from India to Europe.. It needs to be remembered that the 'Aryan' or 'Indo-Europeans' emerge on the stage of world history in the first half of the second millennium B.C. - the history of Indo-Iranians of Iran, Kassites of Babylon, Mitannians and Hittites of Asia Minor, Achaeans and Mycenaeans of Greece etc. - shows it very pointedly. Therefore, the existence of Indo-Aryans in Indian in 3000 B.C. or earlier does not seem likely. On the other hand, the view that the 'Aryans' began to enter India in the first half of the second millennium B.C. fits well with the general history of the Aryans perfectly. Further, it is a well established fact that in India their movement and spread (as is the case with all subsequent movements) took places from the North-West towards Magadha and then to the South. According to the Satapatha Brahmana (I.4.1.10 ff.), Videgha Mathava, the King of Videhas, accompanied by his priest Gautma Rahugana carried the sacrificial fire from the banks of Sarasvati over Kosala eastwards across the Sadanira, and established a settlement known as Videha. The story preserves the tradition that the Videhas received their culture from the banks of Sarasvati in the West and the Kosala was Brahmanised before Videha. In the South the Vedic religion, culture and language were still struggling to establish themselves in the post-Buddha period. When the Ramayana was composed its author knew that the greater part of the Deccan and the whole of the Far South was devoid of the Vedic people and religion. There is no doubt some references in it to the asramas of rishis,but they are obviously interpolated passages. They are only as reliable as the reference to the belief of Hanumana of Kishkindha and Vibhishana of Lanka in the godhood of Rama even before they encountered Rama as a human price of Ayodhya! There is no instance when the movement of a people took place from the North-West of the Indian sub-continent towards West Asia and Europe.

Sure but once Saraswati dried up people left its banks to spread both west of it as well as east of it. Bulk moved east some moved west. This in no way "proves" that Aryans came from the west of Saraswati.

Ancient Saraswati flowed through modern Haryana.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:25

Murugan wrote:An ancient ecosystem locked in time

http://www.themetrognome.in/places/an-a ... ed-in-time

I had an opportunity to meet and discuss with Paleontologists of Deccan college recently. They have confirmed that horse's remains have been found in Manjra rive valley of Latur in Maharashtra. From their even hippo's fossils have been found, one can see these fossils in Deccan college lab too.

Yeah but this "confirmation" is still tied up in a political knot. Harvard professor Meadow disagreed with the Hungarian expert, Sandor Bakonyi. that Indian scientists had invited to look at some of these horse remains. The debate between Sandor and Meadow was not resolved before Sandor's untimely demise.

I just wonder why the scientists at Deccan college cannot "just prove" for good, with data, that these are horse remains. They should be able to shut up people like Meadow and the other AIT crowd.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:29

vishvak wrote:
It is not unknown that words like Sanskrit were absent in Europe before 17th century. But such reference is ignored as and when it doesn't fit. The word aryan is Sanskrit isn't it.

But is it really true? Is'nt Iran just a corruption of Aryan? And is'nt Ireland also the land of Aryans?

So presumably the Celts and Iranians should have the word Aryan in their languages.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:40

Prem Kumar wrote:A couple of take-aways from the other paper: [url=Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711004885[/url]

1) > 12500 years BP admixture between Europe, Central Asia & India. Pretty much convincingly demolishes AIT/AMT/ATT

In terms of human population history, our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East. Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla15) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration.


2) More genetic diversity in k5 & k6 (ANI and ASI) ancestry components in South Asia --> indicating an OIT flow

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

Very interesting analysis Prem! What effect does the European glaciation, if any, has on the conclusion as to where the spread happened from:
"We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. "

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:42

shiv wrote:Prem Kumar let me make a prediction about what is likely to be found - but for that I think it is a good idea to stop talking in terms of "OIT" ot "AIT" and just concentrate on what humans and the world was doing around 10,000 years ago.

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. When it started, humans in Europe migrated out to what current refs call as "refugia". But the ice age did not ice up India or the Indian ocean. In fact ocean levels would have dropped and the 10 meter deep waters from Gujarat to Arabia would have been exposed land.

It is very likely that humans travelled into tropical areas in the ice age to escape the cold. That may have led to an admixture 25 to 30,000 years ago. ....


But how do these researchers define the "European gene" and furthermore how do they define its age?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:46

SwamyG wrote:
shiv wrote:Anyone who uses this classification has absolutely no clue whatsoever about science and human biology and should not be talking about humans at all.

Most of the humans do not know what they are talking about, including those in this forum. We all should sit at the feet of a few gyanis listen to them and sing their laurels.

That is not true. Just see how anthropology departments across the world have been shutdown with the advent of genetics. Classification of human species based on skin colour/size or shape of cranium etc was not very accurate. Hence authors like Goyal were handicapped because in his age Genetics research was non existent.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 14:55

Virendra wrote:Here's my view on the refutation :-
Putting up the Metspalu-Thangaraj paper's figure here for easier reference by all.
Image

In the K8 analysis we have k5, which is shared by Indians, Iranians, many Indo-European speaking Europeans, Central Asians, West Asians, and Caucasians. It is found at similar levels in Northern and Southern brAhmaNa-s and northern kShatriya-s.

Wrong and misleading. Not just Brahmins or Kshatriyas, the (light green)k5 is found at similar and very healthy diversity levels all over India .. even in Chamars, Dhankars, Kol, Muslims and Kanjars. I don't know why the author forgot to mention them.

This is an excellent result to support the Sanskrit textual evidence that originally Indian caste system was not based on birth.

My question though is that it is known that upper castes did do excesses on the lower castes. How does the author distinguish that? Perhaps it does not matter in how they are analysing but I am not sure I understand.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 19 Oct 2013 16:44

Virendra wrote:Here's my view on the refutation :-
Putting up the Metspalu-Thangaraj paper's figure here for easier reference by all.
Image

In the K8 analysis we have k5, which is shared by Indians, Iranians, many Indo-European speaking Europeans, Central Asians, West Asians, and Caucasians. It is found at similar levels in Northern and Southern brAhmaNa-s and northern kShatriya-s.

Wrong and misleading. Not just Brahmins or Kshatriyas, the (light green)k5 is found at similar and very healthy diversity levels all over India .. even in Chamars, Dhankars, Kol, Muslims and Kanjars. I don't know why the author forgot to mention them.

One more question Virendra how do these genetics experts distinguish between ANI and ASI?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 19 Oct 2013 21:18

Mitannis using Vedic Gods is proof enough for me that they read Vedas. Onus on you to prove otherwise.

You are the one who came out swinging that you have irrefutable poof that to say that Vedic corpus has historicity and it can be proved through Mittani texts, we had to beg you and fall at your feet and request you to explain us repeatedly, either you talk in puzzles or brush off objections as 'frivoulous' and 'silly'.

For Mittani Kings to "read" the vedas, there should have been Vedic texts in textual form in the first place, secondly you need to know that Vedas are not read, only western "scholars read". If you are an Indian, you should be having first hand knowledge how Vedas are learned. Even to this day, it is through word of mouth. The vedic texts are in poetic, and it is for a reason, they are not in prose unlike other religious texts, did you ever reason why? it is because Sages figured that one can memorize better when knowledge is in poetic form, many vedic mathematical sutras too are in poetic verse form for this very reason. Did you reason why other religious groups carry around a book with them? the reason is they cannot memorize it in prose form. What I am trying to say is, Vedic curpus is in poetic form because it was supposed to heard and memorized not "read" as you are thinking.

You brought about this Mittani kings having "read the vedas" argument when pointed to you the simplest explanation for their knowledge of Vedic Gods...that is social interaction and absorption of cultural practices of that day, instead you go about repeating "your master's voice" - Mittanis "read" the vedas...the above what I stated is the reason why Mittani Kings having "Read" Vedas is nonsensical.

Who is making a statement based on Western Scholarship? Mitanni treaties are known far and wide. To keep repeating "Mittanis had Vedic knowledge is an assumption at the best." shows you are not clear about what is written in Vedas.


You are funny. if you are serious you will take the trouble of showing the vedas are in written form by then, no serious vedic would "read" the vedas.

One more try:
Please figure out why only the four gods were used by Mitanni on their treaty.


Enough, give it a rest, I am not interested, your have nothing to show, what you hold in your folded hands is "nothing". If you had you wont play this silly game of asking us to guess.
Have you ever wondered why Hindus say "Bhrama-Vishnu-Maheswara"? in that order? do you think all the 800 million or so of Hindus have read the vedas to know the exact order as mentioned in the vedas?

If you were serious you would have said something 4-5 pages back, not expecting us to guess what could be in your mind and then calling everything as frivolous. The ordering of Gods in Mittani texts is either by accident or a cultural norm similar to the way Hindus mention the trinity, even if there is a reason, no reason to assume they have "read" the Vedas. Unless you prove the Mittani Kings "read" the vedas you cannot connect the vedic corpus to any historicity.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Murugan » 20 Oct 2013 12:48

Interesting take on Stone Age Site in India

http://archive.archaeology.org/1001/abs ... india.html

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Murugan » 20 Oct 2013 13:02

Indians 'broke Australian isolation 4,000 years ago'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... a217a5.1a1

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7021
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby JE Menon » 20 Oct 2013 14:20

If anyone can get the first one on the Andhra discovery in full post the link here please. Sounds extremely interesting.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 21 Oct 2013 14:52

peter wrote:One more question Virendra how do these genetics experts distinguish between ANI and ASI?


On basis of autosomal DNA variations in the population, the geneticists would reconstruct the ancestry.
ANI and ASI are differentiated because the populations spring out of different ancestors. Meaning the common ancestor af ANI and ASI was somone 30,000 to 50,000 years back in time.
Hence after the split, there was recordable and significant genetic distance in the respective streams of descendants, namely the ANIs and ASIs.
It is stated by Reich et al that these populations did not intermarry till 2200 BCE. Though these dates have been disputed by others as being 'too recent'.
However many say that equally true is the fact, that alleles common to ANI-ASI are found uniformly across many casts and tribes. Meaning very different and isolated castes and tribes of India had common ancestry. Or it could mean some fairly predating gene flows that affected ANI and ASI both.
Brings me to a thought .. if there was an isolation, what imposed it ... Ice Age? .. but Ice Age was over by 8,000 BCE and the rivers were down to reasonable flows by 7,0000 BCE. That leaves us with a gap of around 5,000 years.
Then I find this important disclaimer :
"It is also important to recognize that a date of mixture is very different from the date of a migration; in particular, mixture always postdates migration. Nevertheless, a genetic date for the mixture would place a minimum on the date of migration (before xyz date) and identify periods of important demographic change in India."

Lastly, the blog I mentioned about, posits ANI to be pretty much the same thing as the light green k5 component given in Metspalu-Thangaraj paper.
Now, this component is widespread; shared between South Asia, West-Eurasia and Europe. Problem (for AIT/AMT School) is, they haven't yet been able to find the flow of this component, in whatever direction, in the timeline stipulated by AIT/AMT.
Whatever places ones choose as the origin and destination of this component (per his subscription to AIT vs. OIT) ... the component didn't travel/expand in the last 12,500 years. Its spread was done 12,500 years before present.

Have I successfully confused you? :D

Regards,
Virendra
Last edited by Virendra on 21 Oct 2013 15:14, edited 1 time in total.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 21 Oct 2013 14:53

Funny that the Reich admixture date neighbors the Indo-Australian connection dates.

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1669
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Nilesh Oak » 21 Oct 2013 19:53

Virendra wrote:
Then I find this important disclaimer :
"It is also important to recognize that a date of mixture is very different from the date of a migration; in particular, mixture always postdates migration. Nevertheless, a genetic date for the mixture would place a minimum on the date of migration (before xyz date) and identify periods of important demographic change in India."

Have I successfully confused you? :D

Regards,
Virendra

Virendra,

Good exposition. It certainly enlightened me. I copied portion of your post.. where I wanted to ensure I understood it correctly..

So what you are saying (the paper is saying) is that whatever timeline they are proposing for admixture.. is to be interpreted to mean (if they say admixture in ~4000 BP (2000 BCE) ) admixture occurred ON OR BEFORE 4000 BP (2000 BCE), etc., correct?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby vishvak » 21 Oct 2013 20:33

In historic context,

1) Common ancestors 30,000 yearsBP - 50,000 yearsBP -no comments about mixtures earlier. Split in some way for descendants - of k5 component.
2) the component k5 was present before 12,500 YearsBP in South Asia, west Asia, Europe.
3) Many alleles common found across communities and tribes etc.

Then,
Ice age ends 8000 yearsBP - gap continues for k5 component
Then,
Ice age + another gap till 4200 yearsBP - the k5 split continues.
Then,
Post 4,200 yearsBP mixing started again.

Some out of box thinking:
1) Is the reference for mixing only for k5 component? Even that is disputed.
2) The k5 component itself expanded before 12,500 yearsBP
3) Intermarriage of components generally.

If I remember correctly, at times there are reports with is ample sprinkling of Airyan horse theory, and such colonial and pre colonial ideas coming from exotic fields of that time. One can imagine if theology becomes history and history becomes anthropology and so on and so forth, what can happen to even scientific studies like genetics, that can produce some accurate results within scientific and sampling limits.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17254
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby RamaY » 21 Oct 2013 21:07

JE Menon wrote:If anyone can get the first one on the Andhra discovery in full post the link here please. Sounds extremely interesting.


Nilesh Oak garu,

IIRC Devi Bhagavatam speaks about a meteor impact from Revati (star) direction in south-India. Do you think this has anything to do with that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonar_crater_lake

Another thing is Meadows Taylor's book (autobiography) talks about some ghost-hills with large stone planks (5x9x12 mtr) in an area of 800x900 yards area, somewhere near Shorepur. Wonder if there were any archaeological research on these things.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 22 Oct 2013 11:29

Nilesh Oak wrote:Virendra,

Good exposition. It certainly enlightened me. I copied portion of your post.. where I wanted to ensure I understood it correctly..

So what you are saying (the paper is saying) is that whatever timeline they are proposing for admixture.. is to be interpreted to mean (if they say admixture in ~4000 BP (2000 BCE) ) admixture occurred ON OR BEFORE 4000 BP (2000 BCE), etc., correct?


Nilesh ji,

First, they've specified a range for admixture .. between 2200 BCE and 100 A.D.
Second, they say that migration is always before the admixture.
Hypothetically taking 2200 BCE as admixture date, one would say that migration happened before 2200 BCE.
Thats all.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Agnimitra » 24 Oct 2013 11:23

X-posting from Iranian identity faultlines thread:

I think some of the material in this lecture is contrived and incorrect. But just posting it for the record...

Vedic roots of Western religious tradition

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 52534
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby ramana » 24 Oct 2013 18:25

Theo_Fidel wrote:Meanwhile turns out SDRE shifty looking types can have blonde blue eyed kids too.
Who knew. It’s a miracle. Kal-Yug, etc.
I hope this will lay to rest this business of targeting dark skinned folks.
Which has unfortunately happened many times on this website as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24645947

It is understood DNA tests have proved that a seven-year-old girl taken from a Roma family in Dublin on Monday is their daughter.
Police removed the seven-year-old, blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl from her home in the Tallaght area.
The parents told police the child was their daughter, but officers were not satisfied with the explanation, nor with the documents that were produced.
The child was taken into temporary care.



Some Indians have blue eyes and some rare ones have blond hair.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2186
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Prem Kumar » 25 Oct 2013 03:51

Peter, Virendra, Vishvak: I hadnt kept up with this thread. The paper doesnt talk about what might have triggered the migration (or the direction) which caused the k5 gene to spread. But it states quite clearly that such a spread is very unlikely to have happened before 12500 YBP.

k5 = ANI
k6 = ASI

a) k6 isnt present in Central Asia, Iran or Europe as much as k5. k6 almost certainly originated in India (probably South India)

b) k5 is decently present even in South India and doesnt drop with distance from Balochistan in a uniform way. This suggests that this is not the result of a recent migration. This is the statistical analysis that points out that any such migration had to have happened at least 12500 YBP. ANI & ASI are pretty nicely mixed up - wherever you go in India. So, they've both been around in India for a loooong time

c) k5 has comparable diversity in the Indus region & West Eurasia - so the authors arent able to point direction of flow. But the k5 diversity in Indus & Western Eurasia is greater than the diversity of Europe specific genes like k4/k3, suggesting that k5 is older

The reason this paper is important is that, for the first time, a decently representative sample of Indian population (though not comprehensive) was used. Till now, samples predominantly from Pakistan were used to represent India :roll:. As the paper explains, this is a very poor representation, because the Pakistani genetic diversity looks more similar to European's than Indian's & they represent only a fraction of South Asian genetic diversity. So, any conclusions based on an incomplete Indian sample will be misleading. Garbage in, garbage out! See page 737 in paper.

The URL of the paper is: Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 25 Oct 2013 16:09

Prem Kumar wrote:b) k5 is decently present even in South India and doesnt drop with distance from Balochistan in a uniform way. This suggests that this is not the result of a recent migration. This is the statistical analysis that points out that any such migration had to have happened at least 12500 YBP. ANI & ASI are pretty nicely mixed up - wherever you go in India. So, they've both been around in India for a loooong time

Add to that the fact that endogamy has been in practice here since 2,000 years or more. So if this mix up took a decent amount of time, where does that take us in the timeline; going backwards from 01 BCE approx.
And then from that ballpark location (called 'admixture') in the timeline, we have to go further backwards to reach the supposed inward migration.

Prem Kumar wrote:c) k5 has comparable diversity in the Indus region & West Eurasia - so the authors arent able to point direction of flow. But the k5 diversity in Indus & Western Eurasia is greater than the diversity of Europe specific genes like k4/k3, suggesting that k5 is older

Indeed. There is no mention of haplotype diversity in that refutation I quoted. Haplotype diversity is the main basis of results put up in that paper.
I don't think the assertion that 12,500 years is over estimation, cuts a big dent. All that is needed to demolish AIT/AMt is 4,500 YBP .. mere one third of this figure. So even if the author inflated their figure to three times of the original, it still nullifies AIT/AMT. Even the number of generations (200) given in the refutation do not align with AIT timelines, when we take just 25 years average for the generations. Comes to 4500 years.

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 27 Oct 2013 03:25

venug wrote:
Mitannis using Vedic Gods is proof enough for me that they read Vedas. Onus on you to prove otherwise.

You are the one who came out swinging that you have irrefutable poof that to say that Vedic corpus has historicity and it can be proved through Mittani texts, we had to beg you and fall at your feet and request you to explain us repeatedly, either you talk in puzzles or brush off objections as 'frivoulous' and 'silly'.

.....

I have said this multiple times that Rigved has many Riks in which these particular Gods mentioned on Mitanni seals have been described to :
* Protect friendships
* Punish those who break friendships.

Anyone who claims that the use of these Gods was a random act clearly does not know what is contained in Rigved.

On similar line the reason Mitanni used these gods points to :
o Mitanni being aware of the Rigvedic Mantras (Else they could choose numerous other Gods and not the ones mentioned).
o Rigved has a historicity as in real people used the contents for real things as in sealing some friendships to name a few. It is not all "Paroksh" as has been claimed by Dubey etc.

Your continuing argumentation without looking into Rigved is not scholarly.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 27 Oct 2013 03:32

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:One more question Virendra how do these genetics experts distinguish between ANI and ASI?


On basis of autosomal DNA variations in the population, the geneticists would reconstruct the ancestry.
ANI and ASI are differentiated because the populations spring out of different ancestors. Meaning the common ancestor af ANI and ASI was somone 30,000 to 50,000 years back in time.
Hence after the split, there was recordable and significant genetic distance in the respective streams of descendants, namely the ANIs and ASIs.
It is stated by Reich et al that these populations did not intermarry till 2200 BCE. Though these dates have been disputed by others as being 'too recent'.
However many say that equally true is the fact, that alleles common to ANI-ASI are found uniformly across many casts and tribes. Meaning very different and isolated castes and tribes of India had common ancestry. Or it could mean some fairly predating gene flows that affected ANI and ASI both.
[...]
Have I successfully confused you? :D

You are helping lift the confusion! But obviously more questions:
o If ASI and ANI did not mix till 2200 BC, as claimed by Reich et al, then does it give strength to the theory that Naarthies and Southies are indeed separate groups? Who are the disputers of 2200 BC date and what is their argument?

o What impact does this statement:

"However many say that equally true is the fact, that alleles common to ANI-ASI are found uniformly across many casts and tribes."

have on the date of mixture ?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 27 Oct 2013 03:37

Prem Kumar wrote:Peter, Virendra, Vishvak: I hadnt kept up with this thread. The paper doesnt talk about what might have triggered the migration (or the direction) which caused the k5 gene to spread. But it states quite clearly that such a spread is very unlikely to have happened before 12500 YBP.

Prem do you mean after?

Prem Kumar wrote:k5 = ANI
k6 = ASI

a) k6 isnt present in Central Asia, Iran or Europe as much as k5. k6 almost certainly originated in India (probably South India)

b) k5 is decently present even in South India and doesnt drop with distance from Balochistan in a uniform way. This suggests that this is not the result of a recent migration. This is the statistical analysis that points out that any such migration had to have happened at least 12500 YBP. ANI & ASI are pretty nicely mixed up - wherever you go in India. So, they've both been around in India for a loooong time

What are the dates for this mixing up? If the two populations, k5 and k6, were living adjacent then mixtures should have started 12500 YBP or could there be reasons to prevent it?

Prem Kumar wrote:c) k5 has comparable diversity in the Indus region & West Eurasia - so the authors arent able to point direction of flow. But the k5 diversity in Indus & Western Eurasia is greater than the diversity of Europe specific genes like k4/k3, suggesting that k5 is older

Can they or any other research group point out the "age" of European genes k4 and k3?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 27 Oct 2013 05:40

Mitanni being aware of the Rigvedic Mantras (Else they could choose numerous other Gods and not the ones mentioned).

How scholarly can it get? Mittanis are aware of Rigvedic mantras? how? did they quote any? since it is a scholarly argument you are making, references please. If it is based on order of Gods, I already stated my objection to that.

In Indi,a Hindus when they invoke any vedic gods for example for marriages or any other auspicious occasion, they dont rely on the 'order' of Vedic Gods but they quote the slokas as mantras. Since Mittanis too knew Vedas as you claim and they are 'aware' of these mantras, their treaties must have quoted these mantras, kindly provide references to the mantras Mittanis quoted in their treaties. why rely on inference based on assumption of some order of Vedic Gods?
Last edited by member_22872 on 27 Oct 2013 06:18, edited 1 time in total.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 27 Oct 2013 06:17

venug wrote:
Mitanni being aware of the Rigvedic Mantras (Else they could choose numerous other Gods and not the ones mentioned).

How scholarly can it get? Mittanis are aware of Rigvedic mantras? how? did they quote any? since it is a scholarly argument you are making, references please. If it is based on order of Gods, I already stated my objection to that.


You are not aware of what is written in Rigved. Why are you not wanting to learn?
Won't it help you to understand how these four gods help in treaties which is amply described in various Riks of Rigved?
You are arguing ad nauseum without bothering to learn or understand the riks of Rigved. Pretty sorry state of affairs.

BTW you are still on the hook to prove how Mitanni are Mllecha.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 27 Oct 2013 06:19

You are not aware of what is written in Rigved. Why are you not wanting to learn?

I am ignorant, please be kind and educate me, I am ready to learn.

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 27 Oct 2013 06:20

BTW you are still on the hook to prove how Mitanni are Mllecha.

Yes, you can disprove me simply by providing the proof that Mittanis studied under Vedic Indian gurus.

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 27 Oct 2013 08:35

shiv wrote:Virendra - note both those posts are cut and paste - I just did not put them in quotes so the credit must go to the author of those links.

That said the more I read the more the links between India and the European bearers of R1A1a1 seem close.

For example, the word "bag", cognate of "bhagwan" has come up before as "God" in Iran. But in Europe - ranging from Russia to the Slavic nations to Poland the word for God is "bog"

In Russia, Poland and other nations there used to be two gods, bielobog and charobog (approximation of various similar names)

The word "bielobog" means white god. "biely" means white in Russian and other east Euroopean languages. I was unable to find a close cognate in Sanskrit other than "valaksh" . But he Kannada word for white is "bili" , cognate of Tamil "vellai" Ther is some connection there.

"Charobog" means black god. Now "char", "kar" etc seem to be related to Sanskrit "krishna" (black), Kannada too has "kari" meaning black, as Tamil has "karppu". Incidentally the Christian gilr name "kari" may be derived from Gaelic Ciardha (meaning black-haired one)

There are dep links that are not acknowledged by the type of anglosaxon scholarship that we tend to follow.

Link to original post

JE Menon wrote:>>"Charobog" means black god. Now "char", "kar" etc seem to be related to Sanskrit "krishna" (black), Kannada too has "kari" meaning black, as Tamil has "karppu". Incidentally the Christian gilr name "kari" may be derived from Gaelic Ciardha (meaning black-haired one)

The word Kara to mean black is used across a range of countries in the area encompassing Turkey, Greece, East Mediterranean, Slavic zone. Most often found in names, like "Karageorghis" (Black George) in Greece for instance, or "Kara Aydin" (in Turkey)... Of course, it is the K in CYMK which will be familiar to Graphic Designers standing for the colour channel representing Cyan, Yellow, Magenta and "Kara" (for black).

Indeed, we have only just begun scratching the surface... only now are we really scratching our own collective heads and saying "wait a minute, WTF"? And when a bunch of Yindoos begin doing that, the world better watch out... The shite is really going to hit the fan in the next decade.


Link to original post

'Karre' in Thelugu also means 'black' or 'dark'.

The word 'kara' may have been a simple corruption of the Sanskruth word 'kaala'. In Sanskruth, 'kala' means 'black'. In Hindhi, 'kala' means 'black'. There is even a rule in Sanskruth grammer(if my grammar is not wrong) which states that 'ra-la-yor abedhah'. It means 'ra' and 'la' are interchangeable. 'kara' may be a simple corruption of 'kala'.

The same phenomenon is perhaps seen in the words 'Rama' and 'Lama'.

'Kaali' means 'blacky'. The Goddess is called Kaali because She is black in color. 'Krushna' also means 'black' in Sanskruth. Shri Krushna is called so because He was also dark. Bala Rama was fairer.

So, Bielobog and Charobog may indeed be Bala Rama and Shri Krushna respectively. 'Bielo' sounds similar to 'Bala'(Rama), while 'Charo' has some phonetic similarity to Kara i.e. Kala.

So, Beilobog and Charobog may be corruptions of Bala-bhagwan and Kaala-bhagwan i.e Kara-bhagwan(i.e Krushna).

peter wrote:
vishvak wrote:
It is not unknown that words like Sanskrit were absent in Europe before 17th century. But such reference is ignored as and when it doesn't fit. The word aryan is Sanskrit isn't it.

But is it really true? Is'nt Iran just a corruption of Aryan? And is'nt Ireland also the land of Aryans?

So presumably the Celts and Iranians should have the word Aryan in their languages.


Many have suggested that Iran is taken from the word 'irinam' which means 'barren land'.

Link to post about 'Irinam'

Another post on same topic

Another post

Coming to the word 'Aryan':
johneeG wrote:
johneeG wrote:Pithr(Sanskrit-Father)->Pitha(Hindi-Father)->Padre(Italian/Spanish-Father)->Pater(Latin-Father)->Pedda(Telugu-Elder)->Pedar(Persian-Father)->Pere(French-Father)
Pater(Latin-Father)->Pedar(Persian-Father)->Father(English-Father)
Pater(Latin-Father)->Bater->Vater(German-Father)->Validi(Arabic->Father)

Arya(Sanskrit-Respected)->Ayya(Telugu-Father)->Appa(Tamil-Father)->Abba(Arabic/Korean-Father)
Appa(Tamil-Father)->Papa->Pai(Portuguese-Father)
Papa(Pappa)->Bappa(Marathi-Father)->Bapu->Baba(Chinese-Father)

Thatha(Sanskrit-Father)->Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->O Tats(Russian-Father)
Thatha(Telugu-Grand Father)->Dhadha(Hindi-Grand Father)->Dada(Father).

Amba(Sanskrit-Mother)->Amma(Telugu/Tamil-Mother)->Ammi(Arabic-Mother)->Mama(many langs- Mother)->Ma(Hindi-Mother)->Eom Ma(Korean-Mother)

Mathr(Sanskrit-Mother)-Matha(Hindi-Mother)->Madar(Persian-Mother)->Mother(English-Mother)

Sutha(Sanskrit-Son)->Zadha(Persian-Son).

Duhitha(Sanskrit-Daughter)->Daughter(English-Daughter)->Doxtar(Persian-Daughter).

Link to original post

Also,
suna(Sanskruth-son) -> son(english-son)
pilla(Thelugu-young one) -> pilla(Hindhi-puppy)->fille(french-son/daughter)

Arya is used in all languages(especially Indian languages) with or without corruption. Ayya(Thelugu), Appa(Tamil), Abba(Persian), Papa(Latin), Bapu(Gujrathi), Baba(Arabic), Bappa(Marathi), Pappa, Pai(Portuguese),...etc are all corruptions of Arya. Arya was used as honorific for elders(generally father). Its meaning is 'noble'.

If you were to talk in Sanskruth and want to call someone respectfully without using their name, what would you say?
Arya or Deva. These are used as honorifics in Sanskruth. All other languages being corruptions of Sanskruth, they also use the word Arya in various forms.

-------
Edit:
BTW, several abrahamic characters have their names ending in 'ayya'. For example,
Elijiah
Yehoshuah(Joshua)
Ovadiah
Achiah
Azaryah
Hoshea
Zephaniah
Uriah
Neriah
Sharyah
Machsiyah
Hagai
Zechariah
Mordechai

All the above names end in 'ayya' kind of sound. Is it possible that 'ayya' is a suffix to their original names and 'ayya' is a honorific which is a corruption of 'arya'? In Thelugu, 'ayya' is a honorific and corruption of 'arya'.


Link to original post

sameer_shelavale wrote:The word Zorashtra sounds an abbreviation of Saurashtra(Gujarati: સૌરાષ્ટ્ર, Hindi: सौराष्ट्र).
Saurashtriya then became Zorashtrian?

So, it should be no wonder that Shrikirshna is mentioned in their literature.


Excellent saar. Now that you have said it, it is so straight-forward. Its embarrassing that I couldn't see it. :oops:

peter wrote:Well question still remains. How did "great Mahapurushas" got their gotras that are given in Rigved? Do not forget your position is that no historical rishi/gotra/brahmin/shudra in Rigved.


I thought gothras came from Rushis who started lineage. Gothra comes from the father's side. Even adoption is supposed to be allowed only within the Gothra. Marriage is prohobited within the Gothra to avoid incest(from father's side). Gothra of women changes at the time of Marriage.

Post on Gothra


------
X-posting from Sanskruth thread:

Atri wrote:
Agnimitra wrote:^^^ अतीव रोचते !
--------------------

Dilwale dulhaniya le jayenge - RigVeda 10.71.4

Today's Sudharma edition has an editorial that quotes a portion of this mantra from the RigVeda's Saraswati Suktam:

उत त्वः पश्यन् न ददर्श वाचं , उत त्वः श्रृण्वन् न श्रृणोत्येनम् ।
उतो त्वस्मै तन्वं विसस्रे जायेव पत्य उषति सुवासाः ॥ ऋग्वेदः १०.७१.४


"One man looks at the Word, yet he does not see Her; One listens but does not hear Her.
But to another has She shown Her beauty, like a fond well-dressed bride does to her husband."
- RigVeda 10.71.4
.


Interesting. However, this ruchA is more interesting than u have discussed here from historical perspective.

The crude translation of this rucha, especially the last part is that vaakdevi reveals her beauty like a bride reveals her beautiful inner body to her husband which is wrapped under clothes for the society. Only he who can "see" vaakdevi can enjoy her in a way husband enjoys his wife.

Now, what is this "vaakdevi" which can be seen?

This is hint at presence of script and ability of vedic people to "write", gentlemen. Hidden in this erotic verse is a valuable information. Dr. P V Vartak has discussed this verse elaborately.

Link to original post

Yep, the following is pretty conclusive.
उत त्वः पश्यन् न ददर्श वाचं

'Seeing the word'(dhadharsha vaacham) definitely indicates script. This is quite conclusive.

johneeG wrote:And there are also Upa-Vedhas:

Medicine (Āyurvedha), associated with the Rigvedha
Archery (Dhanurvedha), associated with the Yajurvedha
Music and sacred dance (Gāndharva-vedha), associated with the Saamavedha
Military science (Shastrashastra), associated with the Atharvavedha

Upa-Vedha could mean knowledge branches derived from the Vedhas or it could also mean applied(i.e. practical) knowledge derived from the Vedhas. It is also clearly given which branch was derived from which Vedha.

This is also traditionally being studied by the Hindhus for more than 5000 years.

BTW, I wonder where the colonial EJ 'indologists' got 5000 year mark from? Just the good old creation day mentioned in THE BOOK?


The highlighted part was taken from Wiki, but it seems to be wrong. The Upa-Vedha associated with Atharvana Vedha is Sthapathya Vedha(i.e architecture).

johneeG wrote:Latin is very much influenced by Sanskruth. Take the good old months' names:

September, October, November, December.

September -> Saptham-vara (7th turn)
October -> Ashtam-vara (8th turn)
November -> Navam-vara (9th turn)
December -> Dasham-vara (10th turn)

'varam' means 'again'. It denotes a repetition. In India, one finds the word 'varam' is used for the days of the week as in Shani-vara(i.e. Saturnday or Saturday) because days of the week also get repeated.

'vara' becomes 'ber' in the latin version. Actually, there is a suthra in Sanskruth grammer called 'ba-va-yor abedhah'. It means 'ba' and 'va' are indistinct and can be used to replace each other.

Originally, September, October, November and December were 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th months respectively. Later, newer months were added. For example, August and July.

Original Roman calendar:
Calendar of Romulus

Roman writers attributed the original Roman calendar to Romulus, the founder of Rome around 753 BC. The Romulus calendar had ten months with the spring equinox in the first month:

Calendar of Romulus
Martius (31 days)
Aprilis (30 days)
Maius (31 days)
Iunius (30 days)
Quintilis [2] (31 days)
Sextilis (30 days)
September[3] (30 days)
October (31 days)
November (30 days)
December (30 days)

wiki

Note that sextilis -> shat(6th)
Also note that the Calendar starts from Spring Equinox. This is also based on Hindhuism.

In India, Hindhu new year starts on Yuga-adhi(near spring equinox). In Thelugu and Kannada, Ugadhi is celebrated at the time. In Marathi, it is called Gudi Padwa. At almost the same time, Vikram Samvath new year also comes.

P.N. Oak in one of his books(I think 'Some Missing Chapters of World History') says that the word X-mas to denote Christmas is also based on the above.

He says that December was the 10th month of Roman Calender. And it is derived from Dasham(10th) in Sanskruth. In Roman notation, '10' is represented by 'X'.

Dasham-vara->December-> 10th month -> X-mas.

He says that the word 'mas' taken directly from the sanskruth word 'masa'(sanskruth for month). In sanskruth, 'masa' means 'month'.

So, X-mas, he says meant a 10th month which was celebrated as a festival.

Later, the church usurped it and gave it christian coloring. Thats why the church narrative is incoherent. It was not the only hijacking by the church.


In Hindhi also, 'vaaram' of Sanskruth becomes 'baar'. So, in Hindhi, it would be
Saathvi-baar -> 7th time ->
Aaatvi-baar -> 8th time
Navi-baar -> 9th time
Dasvi-baar -> 10th time

Shashti means 6th in Sanskruth. In Hindhi, Chatti means 6th.

See, how close they are phonetically:
Sanskruth -> Hindhi -> Latin
Shasti -> Chatti -> Sextilis
Saptham-vaaram -> Saathvi-baar -> Septem-ber
Ashtam-vaaram -> Aaatvi-baar -> Octo-ber
Navam-vaaram -> Navi-baar -> Novem-ber
Dasham-vaaram -> Dasvi-baar -> Decem-ber

johneeG wrote:Note the similarity in the sounding of the words:
'namas' & 'namaaz'(islamic prayer)


P N Oak suggested that the word 'Namaaz' is made up of two words 'Nama' and 'yaja'.
the word ‘Namaz’ derives from two Sanskrit roots ‘Nama’ and ‘Yajna’ (NAMa yAJna) meaning bowing and worshipping.

Link

But, that seems to be wrong. A more straight-forward corruption would be from the Sanskruth word 'Namas' to 'Namaaz'.

johneeG wrote:
Speaking of mispronunciation, is it possible that Namaz is a mispronounced and corrupted copy/version of Vedas?

I am posting a video for comparative study:
Sama Veda parayanam(0:26 onwards)
[youtube]6OyetBRM9X8&feature=plcp[/youtube]

People may have listened to Namaz from the loud speakers from mosque near their homes/offices/colleges/temples.


Link to post

Agnimitra wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:This is a misleading comparison. First of all, the Arabs, Jews, and Christians do not consider the "Word" as eternal. They consider it the "word of god"

KL ji, to be fair, in the New Testament, we have: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1.1

Also, in Islam, there was violent disagreement and schism between the Mutazilites and the Asharites about whether the Qur'an was the created word of god or whether it was co-eternal with god.


johneeG wrote:They are uncannily similar to Hindhu ones. Some have even shown the exact Hindhu ones that they imitate.

That is proof that these newer cults were derived from older Vaidhik branches with lots of corruption happening.



P N Oak gives an example:
[Note: Another scholar points out that the following teaching from the Koran is exactly similar to the teaching of the Kena Upanishad (1.7).

The Koran:
"Sight perceives Him not. But He perceives men's sights; for He is the knower of secrets , the Aware."

Kena Upanishad:
"That which cannot be seen by the eye but through which the eye itself sees, know That to be Brahman (God) and not what people worship here (in the manifested world)."

A simplified meaning of both the above verses reads:
God is one and that He is beyond man's sensory experience.]

Link

Another controversial chapter from Brihadharanyaka Upanishadh seems to have close similarities to certain teachings of Koran

----
peter wrote:
KLP Dubey wrote:
Perfectly correct. I simply do not understand this obsession with finding history and geography in the Veda. It seems perverse in the extreme, and seems to be a recently developed illness.

It was common knowledge that Veda had no historical record in it. ...


Dwivedi,
You are factually incorrect. 3500 years ago a kingdom now known as mitanni signed some peace treaties with adjoining nations. This nation of mitanni used Vedic Gods in their treaties and the reason why these gods were used is clear from reading Rg Veda.

Have you come across this before?


Link to post

Dubey Saar said that there is NO history in Vedha.

Other historical records may use the contents of Vedhas. Other historical records may use the contents derived directly or indirectly from Vedhas.

Infact, the whole OIT is supposed to be trying to prove that everything is directly or indirectly derived/corrupted from India(which includes literature). So, the literature must be directly or indirectly derived from Vedha.

By quoting Mitannis, you are actually proving that Vedhas had the influence not just in India but in other empires of the world. So, its a thumbs up to OIT.

But, I can't understand how this proves that Vedhas contain history? It only proves that some historical records directly or indirectly revere the deities mentioned in Vedhas. Even today many records directly or indirectly revere the deities mentioned in Vedhas. That doesn't mean that Vedhas contain history.

Venug saar has already thrashed your stand from various angles. But, you continue to repeat the same thing without realizing that your stand is quite absurd.

peter wrote:
Dipanker wrote:...

This is just one of the reasons I don't take Rajesh Kochar too seriously.

BTW are you an AIT proponent?

Well he had an excellent section on why mitanni used vedic gods. rest of his book is crap.

What is AIT?


peter wrote:
Virendra wrote: :lol: Pardon me but this has to take the cake. :lol:
Anyway, were you being serious while asking that question?

:) . I was just messing with Dipankar.


So, Peter you didn't clarify your stand. Do you have any stand? If so, what exactly is your stand? Are you an AIT/AMT proponent? Are you an OIT advocate?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2186
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Prem Kumar » 27 Oct 2013 10:19

peter wrote:
Prem Kumar wrote:Peter, Virendra, Vishvak: I hadnt kept up with this thread. The paper doesnt talk about what might have triggered the migration (or the direction) which caused the k5 gene to spread. But it states quite clearly that such a spread is very unlikely to have happened before 12500 YBP.

Prem do you mean after?

Yes - thanks for spotting it

Prem Kumar wrote:k5 = ANI
k6 = ASI

a) k6 isnt present in Central Asia, Iran or Europe as much as k5. k6 almost certainly originated in India (probably South India)

b) k5 is decently present even in South India and doesnt drop with distance from Balochistan in a uniform way. This suggests that this is not the result of a recent migration. This is the statistical analysis that points out that any such migration had to have happened at least 12500 YBP. ANI & ASI are pretty nicely mixed up - wherever you go in India. So, they've both been around in India for a loooong time

What are the dates for this mixing up? If the two populations, k5 and k6, were living adjacent then mixtures should have started 12500 YBP or could there be reasons to prevent it?

The mixing was very likely happening before & after 12500 YBP. The Priya Noorjani paper talks about when the admixture ended roughly

Prem Kumar wrote:c) k5 has comparable diversity in the Indus region & West Eurasia - so the authors arent able to point direction of flow. But the k5 diversity in Indus & Western Eurasia is greater than the diversity of Europe specific genes like k4/k3, suggesting that k5 is older

Can they or any other research group point out the "age" of European genes k4 and k3?

They dont go into it. It wasnt the purpose of this paper

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 27 Oct 2013 16:16

peter wrote:You are helping lift the confusion! But obviously more questions:
o If ASI and ANI did not mix till 2200 BC, as claimed by Reich et al, then does it give strength to the theory that Naarthies and Southies are indeed separate groups? Who are the disputers of 2200 BC date and what is their argument?

North - South difference does not bother me. Even if they were two separate genetic lineages since a long time, it does not matter. As long as they are native.
About them being separate groups, it happened most probably due to paleoclimatic conditions, Ice Ages and geographical barriers. It has been discussed previously at this thread. There is a reason why the three languages families (IE, Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic) are found in India separated by geographical barriers.

peter wrote:o What impact does this statement:
"However many say that equally true is the fact, that alleles common to ANI-ASI are found uniformly across many casts and tribes."
have on the date of mixture ?

The statement means either of the two :
a) All these castes and tribes have common ancestry, whose alleles have appeared thus.
or
b) If they don't come from common ancestor, then for the given alleles to be found uniformly present in castes and tribes, their spread would have to occur at a time far back. So that the genetic mixing over a long period of time irons out the differences across the castes and tribes.
Otherwise there will not be a uniformity in the alleles frequency. That is what tells you about recent spread of genes vis a vis ancient spread. Recent ones show contrast in frequency while the ancients ones go uniform.
Given the level of uniformity in alleles frequency, a very recent admixture cannot be credited for it. Even if there was an admixture of extenal and local genes, it happened far back from the stipulated 2200 BCE.
And ofcourse as we've already covered, the migration itself would have to go even further back in the timeline.
You don't mix up without arriving in the first place :)

Regards,
Virendra

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby vishvak » 27 Oct 2013 16:58

[OT here.
Hopefully the old tricks of 19th century AIT are not repeated this time by way of genetic science as legitimate literature to create arbitrary theories at various locales as per various reference points.
OT off.]

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 27 Oct 2013 18:38

Vishvak ji,

One can fake it in a fake science. But IMO it is hard to sell lies in fields like Genetics for a long time.


vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5337
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby vishvak » 29 Oct 2013 19:42

Virendra wrote:Vishvak ji,

One can fake it in a fake science. But IMO it is hard to sell lies in fields like Genetics for a long time.

Well one must learn from experience no. 19th century had few scientific leading edge techniques too. For example, if history of dominant Anglo/Arab is not mapped and validated as a test case to validate rise of Anglo/Arab as noted per history, doesn't it mean that the science of genetics is used selectively? This has nothing to do with science but levers of power in scientific studies of genes and conclusions as legitimate scientific outcome i.e. scientific proof.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1200
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby Virendra » 29 Oct 2013 23:20

Another important point in Thangaraj-Metspalu paper that I wanted to highlight:
..."any non-marginal migration from Central Asia to South Asia" [AMT that is] should have also introduced readily apparent signals of East Asian ancestry into India (see Figure 2B). Because this ancestry component is absent from the region [i.e. India], we have to conclude that if such a dispersal event [AMT] nevertheless took place, it occurred before the East Asian ancestry component reached Central Asia...

The point being, Central Asia has major genetic ancestry from East Asia. However, this East Asian component is absent in India.
Meaning, if at all the naarthies had major mixing with a wave from Central Asia, it happened before these Central Asians got East Asian genetic contribution. Else we should be seeing East Asian component in India .. which we don't.

To be more sure of it, here's another paper with the same point :
Genetic Evidence of an East Asian Origin and Paleolithic Northward Migration of Y-chromosome Haplogroup N
Abstract
The Y-chromosome haplogroup N-M231 (Hg N) is distributed widely in eastern and central Asia, Siberia, as well as in eastern and northern Europe. Previous studies suggested a counterclockwise prehistoric migration of Hg N from eastern Asia to eastern and northern Europe. However, the root of this Y chromosome lineage and its detailed dispersal pattern across eastern Asia are still unclear. We analyzed haplogroup profiles and phylogeographic patterns of 1,570 Hg N individuals from 20,826 males in 359 populations across Eurasia. We first genotyped 6,371 males from 169 populations in China and Cambodia, and generated data of 360 Hg N individuals, and then combined published data on 1,210 Hg N individuals from Japanese, Southeast Asian, Siberian, European and Central Asian populations. The results showed that the sub-haplogroups of Hg N have a distinct geographical distribution. The highest Y-STR diversity of the ancestral Hg N sub-haplogroups was observed in the southern part of mainland East Asia, and further phylogeographic analyses supports an origin of Hg N in southern China. Combined with previous data, we propose that the early northward dispersal of Hg N started from southern China about 21 thousand years ago (kya), expanding into northern China 12–18 kya, and reaching further north to Siberia about 12–14 kya before a population expansion and westward migration into Central Asia and eastern/northern Europe around 8.0–10.0 kya. This northward migration of Hg N likewise coincides with retreating ice sheets after the Last Glacial Maximum (22–18 kya) in mainland East Asia...

So that pushes AMT (if at all it happened) before 9,000 kya.

Regards,
Virendra

johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby johneeG » 13 Nov 2013 14:12

X-posting Link
Also notice that, seven day week is a Hindu concept, starting from Sunday(Adivara) and ending on the seventh day Saturday(Shanivara).

Hindu concept of seven day week is much older and has other associated astronomical issues. In Judaism, seven day week is taken for granted without any introspection on it. There is no development of ideas or background on the issue, which indicates that this concept was borrowed, ready-made, from another culture(most probably Hindus).

Judaism is not the only culture to do so. Other cultures have also done this. All of them have seven day week. But none of these cultures are old. And none of them have any associated astronomy with it to decide why it should be seven days and which day corresponds to which planet(or deity).

In Hinduism, seven day week is associated with lot of astronomy. Even the modern-day 'Hour' is derived from 'Hora' of Hinduism.

Also, the sanskrit word for a week is Saptah.
Saptah->Haptah(Persian)->Haftah->Afta(Urdu)

In sanskrit, Sapta means seven.

It is possible that Shabat(Sabbath) is a corruption of some derivative of Sapta.


Link to post

Bhaskaracharya's Law of Gravity

Did you know that the famous Hindu astronomer, Bhaskaracharya in his Surya Siddhanta wrote:

"Objects fall on the earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellations, moon and sun are held in orbit due to this attraction."

It was not until 1687, 1200 years later did Issac Newton "rediscover" the Law of Gravity.

In Surya Siddhanta, dated 400-500 AD, the ancient Hindu astronomer Bhaskaracharya states,

"Objects fall on the earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellations, moon, and sun are held in orbit due to this force."

Approximately 1200 years later (1687 AD), Sir Isaac Newton rediscovered this phenomenon and called it the Law of Gravity.


Link

The sanskrit word 'graha' is generally translated as 'planets', in astronomical context. This is a mistake, IMHO. The actual meaning of 'graha' is 'grasping'. So, in astronomical context, the word 'graha' should mean 'a body that exerts attractive force on earth'.

9 Grahas are listed by Indians:
1) Sun (Ravi/Aditya)
2) Moon (Soma/Chandra)
3) Mars (Mangal)
4) Mercury (Budha)
5) Jupiter (Guru/Brihaspati)
6) Venus (Shukra)
7) Saturn (Shani)
8 ) Rahu
9) Ketu

Rahu and Ketu are called chaya(shadow) graha(bodies exerting attractive force on earth). They are merely shadow bodies and therefore, the actual grahas are only 7. These 7 grahas are used to denote the 7 weekdays.
1) Sun (Ravi/Aditya) - Sunday (In Indian astrology, Sun is considered the King of the grahas).
2) Moon (Soma/Chandra) - Moonday or Monday ( In Indian astrology, Moon is considered a minister or a weak king of the grahas. Moon is called Soma. 'Soma' also means elixir. Essentially, Moon is considered the reason for the formation of medicinal
3) Mars (Mangal) - Tuesday (in Latin, it is called dies of Mars i.e. day of Mars. Mars is a god of war according to the romans. The etymology of Tuesday comes from 'Tiw's day' Tiw is a god of war just like Mars. In fact, one could say that Tiw is another avatar of Mars. But, why is Mars associated with wars? In Indian astrology/jyothishya, there is a dosha called Mangala. People with this dosha are called Mangliks. If an unmarried person has a mangala dosha, then he/she should marry a person with the same dosha. The idea is that a person with mangala dosha(Mars affliction) will be aggressive and passionate. It is better if such a person marries another aggressive and passionate person. So, in Indian astrology, Mars symbolizes aggression and passion, not necessarily war. In Japanese, Tuesday is called fire day because Mars is called fire star.)
4) Mercury (Budha) - Wednesday (in Latin, it is called dies of Mercury i.e. day of Mercury. The etymology of Wednesday comes from Woden's day. Woden is interpreted as the germanic mercury god.)
5) Jupiter (Guru/Brihaspati) - Thursday (in Latin, it is Jupiter's day. The etymology of Thursday is 'Thor's day'. Thor is a germanic god who weilds a mighty hammer.)
6) Venus (Shukra) - Friday (in Latin, it is dies of veneris i.e. a day of Venus. The etymology of Friday is 'Frigg's day'. The germanic goddess Frigg is associated with the roman goddess Venus)
7) Saturn (Shani) - Saturnday or Saturday

The 7 weekdays(starting with Sunday and ending with Saturday) is, thus, an Indian invention(or discovery), which was copied by others. They even wove theology around it(sabbaths :rotfl: ).


Link to post

Image
Image

LORDS OF THE HOURS AND DAYS
16. The (above-mentioned) seven planets beginning with Saturn, which are arranged in the order of increasing velocity, are the lords of the successive hours. The planets occurring fourth in the order of increasing velocity are the lords of the successive days, which are reckoned from sunrise (at Lanka).3

That is to say, the lords of the twenty-four hours (the hours being reckoned from sunrise at Lanka) are :
Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, respectively;

and the lords of the seven days are :
Saturn, Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Venus, respectively.

The lord of a day is the lord of the first hour of that day, the day being measured from sunrise at Lanka.

It is to be noted that the lords of the hours and the days are to be reckoned from sunrise at Lanka (and not from sunrise at the local place). Since Aryabhata I mentions, in the above rule, sunrise without specifying that it refers to Lanka, Brahmagupta finds occasion to criticise him.

Writes he :
"The statement of Aryabhafa, v/z., 'Reckoned from sunrise, the planets occurring fourth (in the order of increasing velocity) are the lords of the successive days' is not true, because he has himself declared sunset at Siddhapura when it is sunrise at Lanka."1

On this criticism, Brahmagupta's commentator Prthndaka comments :
"This is a phantom of a defect, for, in the Dasagitika, Aryabhafa has (already) said—'from sunrise at Lanka'.1'

As regards the first day of the week cycle, it is perhaps implied in the above rule that it was Saturday. Vajesvara (A.D. 904) is the only Hindu mathematician who supposed that the world-order commenced on Saturday. He has criticised Brahmagupta for starting the Kalpd
on Sunday :
"The lords of the hours, days, months and years have been stated by Brahma to succeed one another in the order of increasing velocity beginning with Saturn and not with the Sun. Even
the order of the planets are not known to him."*


As far as I understand, no other culture gives any reason for why a particular planet is associated with a particular day of the week. Only the Indian jyothish (Hora-shaasthra) gives the reason. Not some folk-lore reason, rather an astronomical one. So, that should clinch the argument that weekdays is an Indian invention which was borrowed/copied by the others.

What is the reason for particular planet being associated with a particular day of the week?
Firstly, one needs to understand that a day is divided into 24 horas. A 'hora' is a time-division. Most probably, 'hour' is derived from 'hora'. Each hora is associated with a graha.

There are nava-grahas according to Hindhus(Indians). It is a common mistake to equate graha with planet. But, graha does not mean planet.

The sanskrit word 'graha' is generally translated as 'planets', in astronomical context. This is a mistake, IMHO. The actual meaning of 'graha' is 'grasping'. So, in astronomical context, the word 'graha' should mean 'a body that exerts attractive force on earth'.

9 Grahas are listed by Indians:
1) Sun (Ravi/Aditya)
2) Moon (Soma/Chandra)
3) Mars (Mangal)
4) Mercury (Budha)
5) Jupiter (Guru/Brihaspati)
6) Venus (Shukra)
7) Saturn (Shani)
8 ) Rahu
9) Ketu

Rahu and Ketu are called chaya(shadow) graha(bodies exerting attractive force on earth). They are merely shadow bodies and therefore, the actual grahas are only 7. These 7 grahas are used to denote the 7 weekdays.


Rahu and Ketu are solar and lunar nodes. The fact that they are called 'chaya'(Shadow) also indicates that Indians understood the eclipse in the same way as the modern understanding is. Infact, one could say that the modern understanding is derived from the Indian understanding. When the indian knowledge of mathematics, astronomy and medicine spread to europe and middle east, the modern sciences in their present form were created.

So, the 7 grahas are the 7 astronomical bodies that exert pull on the earth and earthlings. Therefore, other astronomical bodies that do no exert this pull or exert a insignificant pull are ignored, IMHO. Thats the reason for ignoring Neptune, Uranus and Pluto.

These 7 grahas are associated with 24 horas. The day of the week is decided based on the hora in which the sun rises on the day. According to Hindhus(Indians), the day starts with sun rise and continues till the next sun rise. Between the two sun rises, there are 24 horas. When a sun rises in the hora associated with jupiter, it is called jupiter's day i.e. Guruvaaram. Thats the methodology.

Aryabhatta mentions Shani(Saturn) first. I think he does that because Shani(Saturn) is the slowest graha i.e. it takes the longest time in a revolution around the sun. Infact, the word 'shani' seems to be related to 'shanaihi' which means 'slowly'. Starting from Shani, he says that the other planets are faster. I don't think he meant Saturn-day (Shanivaaram) to be the first day of the week.

Because, Sunday is specifically known as 'Aadhi-vaaram' i.e. first-day and in almost all jyothishya treatises, sunday is treated as the first day of the week whenever the weekdays are mentioned. Bhaskara says that Sunday is the first. Aryabhatta does not explicitly say which day is the first day of the week.

In Judaism, 'God' is supposed to have worked for 6 days and then rested on the 7th day. That means, that their week also starts from the Sunday and ends on Saturnday(which they consider to be a holiday).

In X-ism, Sunday was chosen as sabbath because of the pagan association of the Sun God(Mithra) with Sunday.

In Malsi, Friday was chosen just to get sabbath before jews and X-ists.

I searched for a reference for a weekdays in Ramayana and MB, but I have not been successful. Maybe I missed and others can verify. But, there definitely seems to be references to weekdays in Puranas. Infact, I had created an excel sheet on Nava-grahas for my understanding sometime back based on Puranas and Jyothisya. I am linking a screenshot to it. Link

Sunday is supposed to be a very holy day according to the Hindhuism. All days are holy and are associated with different Gods and Goddesses, but Sunday seems to have a special significance. Infact, it seems that Meat and Sex are supposed to be shunned on Sunday.

There is a hithopadhesha story involving a jackal, deer and crow. The story briefly goes like this:
There was once a deer in a forest. It was well-fed and healthy. It had a friend, crow. Once upon a time, a jackal saw the deer and wanted to eat it. But, the deer was quite strong and healthy, so the jackal could not hunt it. So, it tried subterfuge. Jackal went to deer and offered friendship. Deer accepted it and took it to crow. Crow and jackal used to be neighbours along with friends. The crow was not happy with deer's decision to befriend the jackal(who was an unknown stranger with unknown motivations and history). But, jackal made sentimental and rhetorical protests against the crow's suspicions and convinced them of his honesty. Then, both of them accepted the jackal as friend.

One day, when the crow went to some other place on some business, jackal spoke to deer,"dear friend, there is a wonderful field of crop just outside the jungle. You can feast in it..." The deer was initially afraid that the farmer of the field would attack it, but soon it was lured by the jackal. Jackal promised to keep guard while the deer ate in the field. So, they went and feasted on the field of crops. This became a routine. The farmer of the crop was fed up with this and put a net to catch the deer. One day, when the crow was not in town, jackal and deer again went to the field. But, this time, the deer got caught in the net. Immediately, it started crying for help from the jackal.

Deer said,"Oh friend, quickly cut open this net. I am trapped, if the farmer comes, he'll kill me."

But the wily jackal said,"I am so sorry my friend. I would have definitely released you, but the net seems to be made of animal fibre. Today is Sunday and I don't eat meat today. So, I can't cut that net today. I'll release you tomorrow morning. Till then, I'll wait here..."

And then the jackal waited for the farmer to come and kill the deer, so that he could feast on it. But, the crow came back to forest and learnt the truth and immediately came to the help of the deer.

But, the farmer was already coming to kill the deer. So, crow devised a plan. It instructed somethings to deer. And the deer followed the instructions. The deer lied down on the ground and acted like dead. It pulled in all the air and tried to look bloated. Meanwhile, crow pretended to peck on the deer's eyes. Seeing that scene, farmer thought the deer was dead. So, he casually opened the net. Immediately the deer scooted from the place. Farmer threw the stick on the deer, but it missed the deer and hit the jackal which died on the spot.

-----------
Link to pdf of aryabhattiya translation in English

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby peter » 23 Nov 2013 19:53

johneeG wrote:...

Dubey Saar said that there is NO history in Vedha.

Other historical records may use the contents of Vedhas. Other historical records may use the contents derived directly or indirectly from Vedhas.

Infact, the whole OIT is supposed to be trying to prove that everything is directly or indirectly derived/corrupted from India(which includes literature). So, the literature must be directly or indirectly derived from Vedha.

By quoting Mitannis, you are actually proving that Vedhas had the influence not just in India but in other empires of the world. So, its a thumbs up to OIT.

But, I can't understand how this proves that Vedhas contain history? It only proves that some historical records directly or indirectly revere the deities mentioned in Vedhas. Even today many records directly or indirectly revere the deities mentioned in Vedhas. That doesn't mean that Vedhas contain history.

Venug saar has already thrashed your stand from various angles. But, you continue to repeat the same thing without realizing that your stand is quite absurd.

Surprised that venu has thrased anything. He has not made any effort to look at various mantras given in Rigveda connected with these deities mentioned on Mitanni treaties. A person who does not know their own heritage is not capable of thrashing anything.

Mitanni were real people. Their use of Vedic Gods was not an accident. It proves the historicity of Vedas as in these people believed in what Vedas contained and their treaties are a testimony of that.

No two ways about it.


johneeG wrote:
So, Peter you didn't clarify your stand. Do you have any stand? If so, what exactly is your stand? Are you an AIT/AMT proponent? Are you an OIT advocate?


Does it matter if I have a stand?

member_22872
BRFite
Posts: 1873
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Postby member_22872 » 23 Nov 2013 20:18

Surprised that venu has thrased anything. He has not made any effort to look at various mantras given in Rigveda connected with these deities mentioned on Mitanni treaties. A person who does not know their own heritage is not capable of thrashing anything.


:), I gave you examples to show you how meaningless your insistence that "Mittanis read the Vedas" argument is, you turned Nelson's eye to them. I ask you if Mittanis indeed "Read" the vedas why is that they didn't quote the slokas and hymns diectly as every hindus does in every auspicious event and engagement. You would rather draw your conclusions based on assumptions and some relationships based on which God names is listed first. I also countered why such a listing of God names is meaningless.

Yes heritage, you are the person who is of the opinion that Mitanis either carried the Vedas and read them at leisure or had traveled to a guru in India and had studied under them, and this is coming from a person who knows about Indian heritage :). But let me also acknowledge, I don't know Indian heritage, so now I am incapable of seeing how illogical your arguments are?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests