Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Like the Irrwaddy river in Burma is derived from AiravatiJE Menon wrote:Mount Bromo (Brahma) in Indonesia and its Indian connection
https://www.myind.net/mount-bromo-and-i ... connection
There is a definite south, particularly Tamil connection there because Tamil pronunciations use 'th' and 'dh' interchangeably.sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.
From the article:JE Menon wrote:Mount Bromo (Brahma) in Indonesia and its Indian connection
https://www.myind.net/mount-bromo-and-i ... connection
The Majapahit empire of SE Asia was probably the greatest maritime Hindu kingdom ever after that of the Cholas. And how did the Majapahit empire decline? This from Wikipedia:Tenggerese themselves are the people who migrated from Central Java with the royals after the Hindu Majapahit empire was defeated by Islamic forces in the 15th century.
During the reign of Wikramawardhana, a series of Ming armada naval expeditions led by Zheng He,[21]:241–242 a Muslim Chinese admiral, arrived in Java several times spanning the period from 1405 to 1433. By 1430, the expeditions had established Muslim Chinese and Arab communities in northern ports of Java such as Semarang, Demak, Tuban, and Ampel; thus Islam began to gain a foothold on the northern coast of Java.
Hmm...on what basis do you argue that Irrawady is actually Airavati? And even if it is called Airavati, how do you know its connected to India? Before you angrily jump up and down on those questions, let me clarify that these are the same questions which are raised everytime I say something on this thread apart from general abusing and trolling. So, now I have decided that I will simply ask these same questions everytime somebody else comes up with fanciful notions.sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.
I think the post clearly says the basis for calling the Irrawaddy the Airavati. If I may re post the part that explains it:johneeG wrote:Hmm...on what basis do you argue that Irrawady is actually Airavati? And even if it is called Airavati, how do you know its connected to India? Before you angrily jump up and down on those questions, let me clarify that these are the same questions which are raised everytime I say something on this thread apart from general abusing and trolling. So, now I have decided that I will simply ask these same questions everytime somebody else comes up with fanciful notions.sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.
Time and again on this thread we have referred to the fact that "recorded history" is only after Jesus Christ our Lord. Everything before that is questionable. This is accepted_fact. One of the problems we face on this thread is credibility. Nothing that was not written down in stone can be proven to be absolutely 100% correct, unlike events after Christ, which have been recorded diligently. To that extent all Hindu literature and tradition that was passed down orally does not constitute fact.Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati."
Sir (or Madam in case you are not Sir), the original post I have quoted above is 7,449 words long. That is seven thousand four hundred and forty-nine words with 46,290 characters. In a book with 500 words per page that single post of yours would be a 37 page booklet. And couched within that 37 page thesis are 641 words, about a page and a half telling us about incest and BuddhismThere is a misconception that Buddhism is against caste. It does not seem to be true. I don't know how to say this, but it seems that the stress of caste/Kula was so much that they were prepared to commit incest rather than marry outside Kula(more specifically Kshatriya).
Quote:
In several places in the Pāli Canon, including the Ambaṭṭha Sutta (D.i.92), the progenitors of the Śākyas are related to King Okkāka. Pāli Okkāka is identified with the Sanskrit Ikṣvāku, who is known from Purāṇic stories, and in Jainism he is an ancestor to all of the Tirthaṅkaras. The king banishes his elder brothers from his kingdom and they make their home on the slopes of the Himalayas. But they can find no one suitable to marry, so they take their own sisters as wives, and these incestuous relationships give birth to the Śākyas. Given the prejudice against incest in India society generally it is remarkable that this detail was preserved, and this suggests that it might have a grain of truth. If so it points to Iran "there is good evidence for this practice called xᵛaētuuadaθa, so-called next-of-kin or close-kin marriage."
Wiki Link
As you can see, they believed incest was better than marriage outside caste. In fact, they continued to believe that they were progeny of pure castes.
This incest in Buddhism had curious effect. They justified it through their theology by ascribing this behaviour to many other figures in their theology. But, most of the figures in Buddhism were borrowed from Hinduism. So, essentially, Buddhism redefined these figures and some of them were ascribed incest to justify their own incestous behaviour.
For ex:
Quote:
In the Udaya Jataka the Bodhisattva is a prince who is compelled to marry his half-sister. Although the two sleep in the same room for many years they remain celibate (Ja.IV,105). In the Dasaratha Jataka the princes Rama and Lakkhana marry their sister (Ja.IV,130). As with many ancient peoples the Sakyans, the tribe the Buddha belonged to, had a myth about their origins which included brother-sister incest. When the Koliyans were involved in a dispute with the Sakyans they taunted them by sayings that they ‘cohabite with their sisters like dogs, jackals and other animals’ (Ja.V,413). During the Buddha’s life there was an incident where a nun became infatuated with her son who was a monk and had sex with him, an offence entailing expulsion from the Sangha (Vin.III,35). When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention he said, ‘Does not this foolish man know that a mother shall not lust after her son or a son after his mother?’
Link
So, Buddhists created a version of Ramayana where Sita is both the sister and wife of Rama. All this for what?! Caste! It is ironic since, according to Valmiki Ramayana, Rama killed Vali for committing incest with his sister-in-law. Rama explains that a sister-in-law is equivalent to one's daughter and should never be thought of as wife material. And the only punishment for such incest is death. If incest with sister-in-law in punishable by death, then what is the punishment for incest with sister?
But, all that is irrelevant when one has an agenda. So, Buddhists tarnish Rama to justify their incest.
There is another example: Brahma and Saraswathi relationship is presented as incest in Buddhism. Abraham and Sarah are most probably derived from this presentation of Buddhists. Abraham's Incestuous Marriage with Sarah
Without knowing this, some anti-Hindu morons latch on to this Buddhist presentation.
AFAIK, Hinduism does not agree with this portrayal of these figures(Rama, Sita, Brahma, Saraswathi,... etc). One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.
Thats why one must not try to think that all 'dharmas'(indic or foreign) are same.
Using the very logic that you use, one could say that names that sound different may not necessarily be different names. There may be no proof that Irrawaddy is Airavati, but there is no proof against it. Until we can get more information it remains a hypothesis - but a hypothesis with much circumstantial evidence that it might be correct.One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.
Is this flip or are you serious? If you travel further east AIravat is firmly entrenched all over south east asia. Lookup Erawan in Thailand. Also see how many indonesians use the name Irawan . It is endless list...johneeG wrote:Hmm...on what basis do you argue that Irrawady is actually Airavati? And even if it is called Airavati, how do you know its connected to India? Before you angrily jump up and down on those questions, let me clarify that these are the same questions which are raised everytime I say something on this thread apart from general abusing and trolling. So, now I have decided that I will simply ask these same questions everytime somebody else comes up with fanciful notions.sudarshan wrote:Memories are long. Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati." That was the first inkling I had, that the Indian civilization extended far beyond the borders of the current shrunken India.
Irrawaddy River, Burmese Ayeyarwady ,
Irrawaddy River [Credit: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]
principal river of Myanmar (formerly Burma), running through the centre of the country. Myanmar’s most important commercial waterway, it is about 1,350 miles (2,170 km) long. Its name is believed to derive from the Sanskrit term airāvatī, meaning “elephant river.”
- Recorded history did not start after your Lord Jesus christ. Thats a nonsensical claim and silly belief. Herodotus is called the father of history in greece. He certainly was born before your lord Jesus christ. I don't think even the most conservative christian would have such a silly belief that recorded history was invented by christianity. And you were accusing others of being an EJ!shiv wrote:
I think the post clearly says the basis for calling the Irrawaddy the Airavati. If I may re post the part that explains it:Time and again on this thread we have referred to the fact that "recorded history" is only after Jesus Christ our Lord. Everything before that is questionable. This is accepted_fact. One of the problems we face on this thread is credibility. Nothing that was not written down in stone can be proven to be absolutely 100% correct, unlike events after Christ, which have been recorded diligently. To that extent all Hindu literature and tradition that was passed down orally does not constitute fact.Tamil teacher back in school would always talk about the "Airavati river in Burma." Being curious, I went and looked it up, and that's when I realized that the "Irrawady" was actually the "Airavati."
Then, he posted his inkling based on some anecdote. I thought the points he made against my post can equally apply to his own inkling. I'll just modify his post to show how it applies to his own inkling:How do you categorically state that the Rishi's name is derived from the star, simply from the word endings? Both names could be corruptions of the original names. In which case, it is impossible to tell what is derived from what. Or "Agasthya" could be the original name, which could mean anything - it could be a flower, a pot, a southerner - all of those speculations are there on this very thread. Agasthya the sage could have decided to name the star after himself, and named it as "Agasthi," meaning "this is the star from which I have come." The relation could be in his own mind. But the star's name is in that case still derived from the Rishi's name, not the other way round. There is no basis for the categorical statement you made. This is a comment on your post and certainly also on the logic (thinking) behind it, not on you.
Your conclusion has no connection to what I said in that post. I have seen this kind of strange illogic in your posts atleast a few times(if not more). The most recent example, I can remember is that you were arguing that caste sytem was invented by British. Then you quoted Al Beruni who was saying that caste system existed in India before the British. You quote that very Beruni and then simultaneously argue that British invented caste system. At the same time, you also argue that caste system and untouchability are good. I am actually amazed that someone can come up with that kind of self-contradictions on a single issue. The same kind of illogic is being displayed here also. My quote does not say anything what you are saying.shiv wrote: May I take this opportunity to quote one more little sentence you have made in that 7,449 word post?Using the very logic that you use, one could say that names that sound different may not necessarily be different names. There may be no proof that Irrawaddy is Airavati, but there is no proof against it. Until we can get more information it remains a hypothesis - but a hypothesis with much circumstantial evidence that it might be correct.One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.
Madam/Sir,shiv wrote: I think this thread has seen thousands of examples of things that are stated as fact or as something that can be taken as fact and we all learn from this and we learn to question everything. For example I recall your pointing out that Buddhism and Buddhist tradition considered incest as normal. I find that difficult to believe and would like to see proof. No need to get into chaddi twisting "I will troll you" mode. Let us talk about proof.
This link is a forum search for "incest buddhist" among posts made by you
Of the 18 links - only one has been posted in this thread. And that is a cross post of your own post from the off topic thread. Now I don't know why you chose to post it here but I bring it up to ask you to be accountable for what you write. And you need to say why it is relevant in this thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1421152
Sir (or Madam in case you are not Sir), the original post I have quoted above is 7,449 words long. That is seven thousand four hundred and forty-nine words with 46,290 characters. In a book with 500 words per page that single post of yours would be a 37 page booklet. And couched within that 37 page thesis are 641 words, about a page and a half telling us about incest and Buddhism
I don't think 7,500 words is unusual for you. If you like I will go and count the long posts you have made - using the freedom you get to dump stuff on this forum to make humongous posts in which you write all sorts of stuff and you get very very upset indeed if anyone questions you. Or you reply with another very long post quoting yourself and entire posts made by you or others in reply basically obfuscating and evading the question and burying it with a word-dump
You have been requested to stay on topic and if necessary start a blog of your own. But you have been given the freedom to express your views here. Let me use my freedom to express my views. I think the dumping of enormous posts on this forum (which I will count and present to you if necessary) is a form of trolling but people have been too polite to say so. And within those huge trolling posts you have hidden some gems that you have not been asked to explain. I think you have yourself got to show some accountability for the privilege of dumping posts on this forum
May I take this opportunity to quote one more little sentence you have made in that 7,449 word post?Using the very logic that you use, one could say that names that sound different may not necessarily be different names. There may be no proof that Irrawaddy is Airavati, but there is no proof against it. Until we can get more information it remains a hypothesis - but a hypothesis with much circumstantial evidence that it might be correct.One must understand that just because the names of these personalities are same in Hinduism and Buddhism does not mean their deeds, definitions and portrayals will also be same.
I have no proof that Buddhist doctrines did not call for incest. What would you be able to offer as the degree of credibility of the texts you quote (other than Wikipedia, which is edited by users) that Buddhism promotes incest. And please say why you posted that in this thread? How is that 7,449 word post about incest that you have posted here apart from other threads, relevant to the topic of this thread?
shiv ji's comments on issues mentioned in support on AIT in the above article here:Prem Kumar wrote:Kalavai Venkat jumps to Manasataramgini's defense (defending AIT and against OIT, based on genetics):
https://kalavaivenkat.wordpress.com/201 ... of-racism/
The evidence conclusively proves that these IE people originated in the steppe and diffused in various directions to replace the native inhabitants of Europe and Central Asia. This favors the AIT model by which they would have entered Iran and India over the next few centuries.
There is no evidence to show that they "stormed" the subcontinent between this time. He deliberately leaves out Moorjani's findings and the jati rigidification that occurred sometime during the end of the Gupta period. This means that it is post vedic and not due to some ancient martial white race on horseback descending ominously from the pontine steppe (puts to rest this idea that they were oppressive). He also leaves out the M17 and Z93 marker discoveries (highest in Punjab ~ 62%).Recent genetic researches confirm that the admixture of Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) happened between 4,200 and 1,900 YBP. One may refer to Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India by David Reich et al for details. The ANI cluster broadly corresponds to IA. Genetics is unaware of a Dravidian race but ASI can be taken to broadly correspond to the non-IA populations of India. These non-IA populations form heterogeneous clusters and themselves came to India from the outside at different periods. As a result of this admixture, all Indian castes have both ANI and ASI markers in varying proportions.
http://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/no ... -none.htmlThank you. Today evening (I am in a hurry to go to my office at the moment) I will upload an article I had sent to a western scholar on the Indology List who wanted to start a debate on the AIT/OIT. But after that, there was a dead silence on his part. Koenraad Elst wrote to me that they were expecting me to make some mistake they could use to discredit me, but my article left them speechless, so they backed out of the discussion.
Dear listfolk,
No time for a serious analysis now, though it must be done; and this thread would stray from the purpose of this list, so just two general remarks:
* That "genes don't speak" (just like "archaological facts don't speak"), is now a matter for consensus among linguists. Jamaicans may have African genes (and Kalavai and the Manasataramgini blogger would attribute an African language to them) but they speak a European language. Populations change language all while maintaining their genetic and technological make-up. It is precisely Witzel c.s. who have emphasized this in order to explain the absence of any genetic or archaeological sign of an Aryan invasion into India. So, Talageri is right in being skeptical of the genetic evidence.
* The genetic data cited are from after 2500 BCE = 4500 BP. But this is too late. Linguists estimate the split of PIE at 3700 BCE. In 2900 BC, a major and very well-attested event in Central Europe marked a breakthrough of steppe people displacing the Original Europeans. Since these traditionalist AIT defenders use genetic evidence, for what it is worth, there is simply no other event that allows to the same extent for identifying one of the contending sides as IE, also supported by physical anthropology and archaeology. So, it is generally agreed that this event marks the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe. It marks the "Aryan invasion of Western Europe" in a way that has been looked for in India but never found (or as Witzel admits, "not found yet"). That is what an Aryan invasion would look like, but it is foud in Europe, not in India.
Regards,
Koenraad Elst
This is exactly which was described in this article published in 2006 by yours truly.venug wrote:Elst's comment regarding the KV's article:
* The genetic data cited are from after 2500 BCE = 4500 BP. But this is too late. Linguists estimate the split of PIE at 3700 BCE. In 2900 BC, a major and very well-attested event in Central Europe marked a breakthrough of steppe people displacing the Original Europeans. Since these traditionalist AIT defenders use genetic evidence, for what it is worth, there is simply no other event that allows to the same extent for identifying one of the contending sides as IE, also supported by physical anthropology and archaeology. So, it is generally agreed that this event marks the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe. It marks the "Aryan invasion of Western Europe" in a way that has been looked for in India but never found (or as Witzel admits, "not found yet"). That is what an Aryan invasion would look like, but it is foud in Europe, not in India.
Regards,
Koenraad Elst
Sanskrit was the key for generating the Indo-European theory and in the development of itsassociated subjects like philology and linguistics. Only after 1830, when indologists hadtranslated numerous Sanskrit texts, did the west finally form an origin theory for its languagesand people that was independent of the Bible. Until the IE language family and correspondingworld-view gave them an alternative (non-religious) vision, the history of Europe had been thehistory of Christianity and their origin understood to be as given in the Bible.
It allowed the west to devise a secular narrative of history for itself (the IE framework) - one based on a model of language dispersal and migration of races, instead of one based on biblicalmyths. It was this non-Christian narrative that later became the secular western understanding of the past. But it was also used by communism in projecting the history and origin of Europe as being separate from religion.
The assumptions and central premise of the Indo-European world-view
We have seen how the name of the language family has evolved along with the times: frominitially being called Japhetic (signifying its European-ness), to Aryan (referring to the Caucasian people thought to have migrated to other parts and invaded other lands), and finally to the present term of Indo-European. Its new name, having now lost the overt racialist connotations,appears to merely signify the expanse from Europe to India where these languages have beenspoken historically. Yet the underlying premise of the IE world-view has not changed, regardlessof the change in name. The IE framework still holds fast to the idea that these languages areEuropean in origin: not connected to Europe geographically, but intrinsically connected to thoseof its people whose ancestors are thought to have spoken an Indo-European language. The IEworld-view is still centred on the idea that this group of people, the so-called Aryans, gave rise tothe Indo-European languages and the civilisations derived from it; that these people and their languages share a common origin.[26] As evidence for this, linguists point to Proto-Indo-European - despite the fact that PIE itself is constructed and validated only by IE linguistics.
The problem is genetics doesn't lie. No matter what you do, you cannot fake the Z93 data, genetics regarding jati rigidification, etc.Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: I think Reich is a Western AIT snake. He tried to challenge the Gupta-period claim by saying that "time period of each generation was underestimated". He wants that date closer to 1200 BC
It's okay to question. It's not okay to ignore data and sound logic. This is the biggest problem w/ most AIT and some OIT folks.hanumadu wrote:If later parts of Rigveda were written by people moving westwards from India to Pakistan/Afghanistan, how did they come back to India and spread all over India, but not towards the west. Not questioning OIT, but just want to know how the intellectual growth and continuation of Hindu scriptures happened eastwards in India, but the westward traveling Indians could not sustain and spread it where they went.
So, the data from the study gives evidence that the R1a1 found in Punjab is the oldest while the central European haplotype is in the middle and Northern European R1a haplotype is the youngest. This pretty much buries the Aryan invasion/migration theories to the ground because if AIT/AMT was true, we would have seen from the genetic results that the Eastern European haplotype being the oldest and Indian haplotype being the youngest since AIT claims that Europeans (the parent population) came as invaders/migrants to North India as Aryans. It is also important to note the age of different population groups in the study. The study states that Central/Eastern European population is 12.5k years old while Northern Population is 6.9K years old. And the Punjabi/North Indian population is at least 15.5k years old.he age component in these studies is the most important because as per Aryan Invasion/Migration theory, IVC was Dravidian and it ended because of Migration/Invasion by the Aryans around 1500 BC i.e. 4000 years ago. In the light of above mentioned and similar other genetic studies, the Aryan Invasion theory/Migration theory is off the mark by at least 10000 years. The significance of this fact is that it demolishes the argument of AIT peddlers who push the narrative that Hinduism is not native to India and came with the Aryan invaders. Since North Indian population is at least 15,000 years old, this claim falls flat on its face and make Hinduism indigenous to India and India alone.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929713003248 ... eaf900d2d7It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is
possible that with further sampling and new methods
such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility
that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI
and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial
period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has
been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA
studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic
farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe
about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter
gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day
populations of northern Europe.15,16,44,45
The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is
how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark
on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just
traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally
lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are
united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand
years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the
history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying
DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to
overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not
conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies
could be particularly revealing about Indian history
because they have the potential to directly reveal the
geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their
admixture.
He pointed out a three week old study by Poznik to claim that there is new evidence for admixture between ANI and Europeans in recent time.RoyG wrote:Went through the Reich paper. Venkat's inability to notice this observation casts serious doubts on his ability to carry out even basic research. Someone should point this out to him on twitter.
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929713003248 ... eaf900d2d7It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is
possible that with further sampling and new methods
such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility
that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI
and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial
period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has
been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA
studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic
farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe
about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter
gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day
populations of northern Europe.15,16,44,45
The most remarkable aspect of the ANI-ASI mixture is
how pervasive it was, in the sense that it has left its mark
on nearly every group in India. It has affected not just
traditionally upper-caste groups, but also traditionally
lower-caste and isolated tribal groups, all of whom are
united in their history of mixture in the past few thousand
years. It may be possible to gain further insight into the
history that brought the ANI and ASI together by studying
DNA from ancient human remains (such studies need to
overcome the challenge of a tropical environment not
conducive to DNA preservation). Ancient DNA studies
could be particularly revealing about Indian history
because they have the potential to directly reveal the
geographic distribution of the ANI and ASI prior to their
admixture.
Could not get it either.Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: quick question. A point that Kalavai Venkat raises is that, if ANI & ASI were admixed in India before OIT began, we should see some ASI-related genes in Central Asia and Europe. He claims we don't see it.
1) I recall a paper in which some such ASI-related genes showed up in Europe. Do you recall by any chance?
2) Its certainly possible that OIT happened before the major ANI-ASI admixture (starting 4200 YBP). Hence ASI traces outside India would be hard to find
3) Lastly, even if admixture happened before OIT, if only a small percentage of Punjabis had ASI genes in them, its very likely that a random statistical sampling of Europeans might not detect it. Its like trying to find ASI genes in today's USA. I know it exists because I know a Tamilian married to a white girl & having kids. But unless you happen to sample the right persons, you won't detect it
RoyG: yes, its either careless or deliberate that Kalavai Venkat didn't read the very important last paragraph of the Priya Moorjani/Reich paper, where they clearly state that their paper is not proof of AIT! In fact the lack of gene influx in last 12500 years is definite proof against AIT
Dinesh: do you have access to the paper? I think its behind a paywall. So, I don't know what point Kalavai was making with reference to that paper
Kalavai Venkat is a bullshitter who has not understood the point of definition of a set of genes called ASI and ANI. They are unique to India. This is in the Reich paper and I will post 2 data graphs from that paper to illustrate.Prem Kumar wrote:Shiv: quick question. A point that Kalavai Venkat raises is that, if ANI & ASI were admixed in India before OIT began, we should see some ASI-related genes in Central Asia and Europe. He claims we don't see it.
So I don't know why KV and MT want to use an article that actually refutes their claim.We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era—not Indo-European—expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.
The conclusions of the paper itself are a bit confused and it does not do full justice to the data it analyzes. So we decided to reanalyze the data and reach some tentative conclusions.
To cut a long story short we provide an interpretation of this data: The main problem with the interpretations offered by the authors are: 1) their improper grouping of the jAtis and other populations and 2) their steadfast adherence to a model that the IE invaders of India should have come in only around 1500 BC.
He is proposing time lines that would wrench the guts out of the AIT proponents but probably he is BSing even that without proof.The time of divergence with the central Asian R1a1 comes to around 6000-10000yrs bp. This along with the early separation dates for J2a suggest that these are easily explained by accounting for an early origin for Indo-Europeans of India. This makes the possibility of an Indo-Aryan Indus civilization a possibility.
We should look at this alternative AIT time line and see what it does to linguistics, PIE, etc., which were the original line of evidence spouted off to support AIT.He is proposing time lines that would wrench the guts out of the AIT proponents.
Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recently—our haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture
Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool.
If this guy is Aravind Iyer he is an evolutionary biologist - which is no more geneticist than I amPrem Kumar wrote:Manasataramgini, being a geneticist himself,
This was posted by me earlier. If it is earlier than 1500 BC it has nothing to do with language spread and IndoEuropeans and therefore "Aryans". Catch 222) Its earlier than 1500 BCE. I don't know what dates he has in mind