Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[Agnimitra]

Sorry if this was posted before:

[shiv]

I still do not like the terminology ASI/ANI for genes that all Indians have

I think one reason why the terminology ASI/ANI sits uneasy is because

• Ancestral South Indians sounds like Ancestors of South Indians, and
• Ancestral North Indians sounds like Ancestors of North Indians

and that is misleading. The only thing they should imply is the approximate geography in which these early population groups first settled down in India after their Out-of-Africa migration.

The terminology is a problem in many ways Rajesh. Why, for example do people selected from North India speaking an Indo European language have 40 to 50% ancestral South Indian genes? Why do Kashmiri Pandits have 30% ASI genes? Where did they get those Ancestral South Indian genes from?

Now please go back several months and ask yourself why you started this thread. I put it to you that one intent was based on disbelief at a story that has been foisted on Indian history that claims that an invasion from Europe into the Indus region brought Sanskrit and the Vedas to the region and pushed the indigenous Dravidians there to the South and created the caste system to separate the high caste invaders from the future low caste Dravidians who went South. This left fair skinned high caste Aryans in North India and dark skinned low caste Dravidians in the South. Vedic culture and Indo European languages are a North Indian phenomenon.

Why do we object to this story? What is wrong with it? It should be easy to accept it no? After all how the hell does it matter that someone came to India with a foreign long ago and butt kicked someone else? We are told that this is a common thing for India? First the Aryans butt kicked the Dravidians and brought Sanskrit and Vedic wisdom. Then the Mughals butt kicked Hindus and brought Persian, Islam and egalitarianism to a caste ridden society. Then the British butt kicked those two to bring English, modernity and technology to India. It is a coincidence that the ancestors of the Europeans were also the Aryans who has butt kicked the earlier Indians.

This is the history we are taught. Why rebel against it? What has happened has happened. We need to move forward. We have so many problems. 600 million Indian have no toilets. Malnutrition is rife. And the Hindutva monster threatens to swallow up all the gains that were set in motion because of their corrupt Vedic racism that ws only partially corrected by the Mughal and British incursions. Hndutvadi parties are north Indian parties - like the BJP, Dominated by the high caste racist Brahmins who initially drove away the Dravidians. Dravidians of South India who were pagan are now peaceful and are now increasingly embracing a superior egalitarian philosophy brought by Christian missionaries from the sea.

This is the truth as it is currently portrayed. Why are you worried about it? Why do I dislike it?

I dislike it because my own culture stems from the Vedas and nothing in the Vedic culture I follow taught me that my Vedic ancestors came from a far away land and butt kicked anyone else. That same Vedic culture has always known Indian geography from north to south, east to west. Having been born in a Dravidian speaking family I still find that the South has preserved Vedic culture as well, if not better than the north which has been raped by recent invasions. The so called Dravidian languages - especially Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam are full of Sanskrit. Tamil too has deep Sanskritic and Vedic influences. Both north and south India have served as a home for religions like Budhism and Jainism. It is necessary to revisit history and ask if an Aryan invasion of racist people brought Sanskrit to India. Or if an invasion of Sanskrit speaking people came to India and then became racist.

Unfortunately I find that even geneticists are burdened by this history and openly apply the AIT terminolgy to their findings. Kumarasamy Thangaraj takes pains to point that out even as he has himself fallen prey to the same tendency.

So far as I can tell, Indian genes show a deep mix of two sets of ancestral genes, One set show a connection with Europe and one set does not. All studies that I have seen, including the Reich paper speak of this gene mixture as having occurred 12,500 or more years ago. No paper has evidence of such major gene mixing in India between genes of Indian and European ancestry dating from 3500 years ago.

What does this mean?

• To me this means that if an Aryan invasion took place, it took place more than 10,000 years ago.
• If such an invasion took place it means that either the people were not speaking Sanskrit or PIE then and they settled in India and then composed Vedas in Vedic language that they developed in India
• Or it means that Indo European was already being spoken when the first Aryan invaders/migrants came to India more than 10,000 years ago. That would mean that you have to find some evidence of PIE more than 10,000 years ago
• If there is no evidence of PIE outside India 10,000 years ago, then you have to consider the possibility that it may have originated in India
• Alternatively one could postulate that the "Aryan invasion" that took place more than 10,000 years ago had nothing to do with language, PIE or Sanskrit. People migrated to India in waves and mixed and the language developments came later.

If you look at the genetic map of India, none of the above points can be ruled out. All of them go against the standard "AIT" history that we have been taught. But the AIT version of history has been taught for 150 years and will not die easily. The terminology for genes like "Ancestral South" and Ancestral North" falls squarely within the mental framework created by the Aryan Invasion theory. Even the geneticists who made up those names have created those names because they have a mental framework that makes them look for proof of the AIT as a North Indian upper caste versus Dravidian lower caste history. This is a mistake.

The names are not only wrong from the genetic viewpoint, they are a hurdle in telling the truth. In the history we are taught, language, racism, caste and western ascendancy are all mixed up and dated to 1500 BC or so. This is a gross error and it is only compounded by the ASI/ANI terminology. I don't like it.

[shiv]

This is a unique thread that has brought history, archaeology, linguistics, genetics and geopolitics together under one discussion platform and the debate has moved from one to the other. I have found myself reading from every single one of these specialities and because of the changing subjects and the complexity it is easy to lose sight of the issues that we need to look at:

1. How far are race and language connected?

• The history we have been taught suggests that race and language are deeply interlinked. That means genetics should reflect language.
  
  2. Do you base history on archaeology and linguistics alone and completely reject traditional folk memories, legends and folklore
  
  3. Do you believe that anatomically modern humans are somehow more intelligent and civilized now than they were in the past. Do you believe that today is always more right than yesterday?

Everything I have read so far indicates to me that

1. Yes race and language have been considered to be interlinked even when sociological and genetic evidence prove otherwise

2. Yes folklore and civilizational memory are totally rejected in favor of archaeology and linguistics in writing history to the extent of bluffing and cooking up things to achieve this.

3. Scholars of the highest institutions of the world are convinced that today is more right than yesterday.

[Arjun]

There's a group of committed 'AIT genome bloggers' who, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, still stick to regurgitation of the standard BS. Here's a recent effort from their side: Signal of Indo-Aryan admixture in South Indian Brahmins

If you'd like to know more about who this character Deinekes is, here's some speculation: Who is Dienekes Pontikos?

From an article in Nature (The rise of the genome bloggers):

He is part of a small but growing group of 'genome bloggers', a mix of professional scientists and hobbyists proving that widely available tools for computational biology could enable recreational bioinformaticians to make new discoveries.

Can someone here provide some guidance on the tools required to set oneself up as a 'recreational bioinformatician'? I am sure quite a few here would be interested in this hobby.

[shiv]

Not sure if Rajesh had posted this earlier re Pashtun ancestry/genes
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0034288
Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events

The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India.

MDS and Barrier analysis have identified a significant affinity between Pashtun, Tajik, North Indian, and West Indian populations, creating an Afghan-Indian population structure that excludes the Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the South Indian Dravidian speakers. In addition, gene flow to Afghanistan from India marked by Indian lineages, L-M20, H-M69, and R2a-M124, also seems to mostly involve Pashtuns and Tajiks. This genetic affinity and gene flow suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region's first civilizations at the Indus Valley and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

PS Brihaspati sems to have posted it on page 7 or 8 of this thread.

[harbans]

This is the truth as it is currently portrayed. Why are you worried about it? Why do I dislike it?

I think the cause for dislike is primarily most of us know this is not the truth. When inherently biased 19th century scholars created theories they continued in academia for too long. Much of those terminologies got inducted into post independence Indian text books and scholars formally schooled in that lingo held top academic posts. Every person wanting a doctorate in Linguistics did some damage like researching and finding some proof that the point of greatest divergence is the source of the origin of a language. How many people have been schooled in that thought, created immense academic material towards it. Yet for many reasons i cannot state fluently i have tremendous reservations in accepting that contention at least as an axiom for all time.

The intellectual wealth that emanated from Dharmic tradition emanated completely from the Indian subcontinent. Even all the major Buddhist canons in Burma, Tibet were taught by Brahmins from all over India up to the Southernmost parts of South India. Ravana in the Treta Yuga was a Brahmin well versed in the Vedas. How could a society waiting for pure TFTA Aryans riding Spoked chariots invading them evolve so deeply in thought from the Veda whereas the so called progenitors of the Veda the Mittani's just had less than 30 words of convergence and every other IE language in Europe completely lost track of the Veda? Why are timelines of Yuga's given the short stick that have been accepted for millenia in Indian society.

Somewhere down the line the 1st theorists just internalized that these dhoti clad SDRE just could not have made all that material up by themselves. Till date many gora's are surprised why Indians do so well in academics, little realizing the tradition of learning, seeking and introspection that the Veda's fostered. I am not even looking into the NW parts of India let alone West or North or NW of that for the origin of the Vedas..my guess it lies much more East and South. Preserving the Veda's in the exact form through Shruti required very dedicated, intelligent sets of people, that made the recitals at eve of dawn on the banks of a river. Only that could have preserved the Vedas for thousands of years. Not a group of Macho, TFTA, blue eyed Aryan hordes riding some spoked chariot. JMT/

[Arjun]

This genetic affinity and gene flow suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region's first civilizations at the Indus Valley and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

Confirms earlier speculation on this thread of IVC, BMAC and eastern Iran being one large ancient cultural complex.

Presume IVC is off-bounds to Indian archeologists given where it is located, but what about BMAC? These are all supposedly friendly governments - Afghanistan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan. India has the maximum motivation amongst all countries for an archeological expedition at these sites - does the ASI even have a presence there?

[Arjun]

The names are not only wrong from the genetic viewpoint, they are a hurdle in telling the truth. In the history we are taught, language, racism, caste and western ascendancy are all mixed up and dated to 1500 BC or so. This is a gross error and it is only compounded by the ASI/ANI terminology. I don't like it.

I agree. The terminology needs to change - maybe BRF can take the lead on this (Metspalu also used alphanumerals for the two categories).

But the fact is, two separate founder groups in India is the only logical explanation for the observed genetic phenomena. Postulating only one founder group in the Indian geography does not explain how only parts of India-specific genomes are present in Ukraine, Slovenia while other parts are not. Also, massive influx of European genomes into India has been refuted by these same studies - so the only possibility that remains is of an OIT model that is based on two distinct founder groups within the Indian geography.

[RajeshA]

I still do not like the terminology ASI/ANI for genes that all Indians have

I think one reason why the terminology ASI/ANI sits uneasy is because

• Ancestral South Indians sounds like Ancestors of South Indians, and
• Ancestral North Indians sounds like Ancestors of North Indians

and that is misleading. The only thing they should imply is the approximate geography in which these early population groups first settled down in India after their Out-of-Africa migration.

The terminology is a problem in many ways Rajesh.

shiv saar,

in this post, you have explained once more what is the problem of AIT, and now of genetic studies, which may be influenced by this old legacy thinking.

As Arjun ji has stated before this post, there is however a certain historicity of Out-of-Africa migrations that we may need to adopt in order to explain the relations between Indian populations and the other populations to our East and West. After Africa, India shows the biggest genetic diversity and even researchers seem to be of the view that after Africa, India provided the next level of incubation before humans spread throughout the world.

The reason I am against "Aryans and Dravidians" terminology is simply because the Europeans took something from our culture - the word "Arya" and disfigured it to cause cultural and historical divisions within India. The reason I don't like "Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans" terminology is that even though it wishes to restrain itself to linguistics, it doesn't do so and continues to attack cultural and historical fabric of India.

However I feel comfortable with two founder populations migrating to India, not from Europe or Central Asia, but from Africa, not 3,500 years ago or even 10,000 years ago but possibly over ~45,000 years ago, when I would think that civilizational elements were still rudimentary. Now these founder populations need to have some descriptor! The Reich et al. (2009) paper proposes ASI and ANI.

What I like about this idea over the AIT idea is that it is culture-neutral considering that it lies so far into the past. It is based on a genetic differentiation of an old era, which the current Indian population does not reflect. Today the Indian population is a mixture of both. For that matter, even the Pathan and Paki has to accept 30+% of the ASI component in his genetic makeup.

Except for the Onge, no other group can really speak of any genetic purity in terms of ANI or ASI. The mixture has created out of two populations one single population - the Indians.

If we are not satisfied with ANI and ASI terminology, we can search for a different terminology, some terminology which we can call "political correct" and does not denote the intellectual poverty of the whole AIT business. We can propose such a terminology to Kumarasamy Thangaraj and others, and request a correction. We can make a case, why exactly we find ANI and ASI insufficiently reflective of history and politics of India.

In case you find some alternative terms to denote the founder populations of > 45,000 YBP, all the better.

[shiv]

But the fact is, two separate founder groups in India is the only logical explanation for the observed genetic phenomena. Postulating only one founder group in the Indian geography does not explain how only parts of India-specific genomes are present in Ukraine, Slovenia while other parts are not. Also, massive influx of European genomes into India has been refuted by these same studies - so the only possibility that remains is of an OIT model that is based on two distinct founder groups within the Indian geography.

Several papers (at least 3 posted on this thread) have spoken of founder populations moving into India earlier than 8000 or 10,000 years ago. I would say that the Indian genetic picture reveals an admixture of two paleolithic populations groups, one of which has links with Europe. Both these ancestral populations of India show good mixing in India but only some genes are found in Europe. For example, I think R1A1a1 (M17) is present pretty much all over India and is seen in Europe too. But there are other genes that are said to be autocthonous to India. The question is whether these genes are found more frequently and with more diversity in the South suggesting that the Europe mix occurred largely before thorough mixing of the two ancestral Indian populations. That would give a date of mixing. I have seen the date 12,500 years in the Reich paper supplement

I get the feeling that a little more research is needed here. There may be some genes here that came to India from Europe and other genes that went out of India in a two way process. Clearly there is some evidence of an early (45,000 ybp) migration to India. But the ice age had covered Europe up to about 18,000 years ago and northern parts were not human friendly. And then up to about 13000 years ago there was melting and flooding. This may have been a time of great flux when people were moving around a lot. With North India being a route to a safe haven, populations could have come and gone in he 15,000 to 10,000 ybp time and. The M17 migration was probably out of India after the two ancestral Indian populations mixed fairly well. But there may be others that either came in or went out before mixing occurred,

No one knows yet how much of the initial migration was along the coast and how much overland. In fact around 18,000 years ago much of the ocean was locked up as ice, the sea levels wold have been several meters lower. If you look at Google Earth sea depths you will find that the Persian gulf between the Saudi peninsula and Southern Iran may have been walkable and coastal travel would have been pretty easy all the way to south India. In fact that would have been an easier route than north via Hindu Kush or through the Baluchistan mountains

But all these possibilities do not give any explanation about language. AIT is a language based theory where history is explained by linguists cooking up convenient details. Those details are clearly false when you look at genetics. This throws the whole language question open and makes Indian dates like 3000 BC for Mahabharata and Vedas before that much more likely.

It also means that if there was a PIE, it existed before 3000 or 5000 BC. Since all Indian genetic groups speak IE (or IE speakers have all Indian genes after the mixing of two ancestral populations) it seems likely that Vedic sanskrit and the Vedas came after 12,500 BC (when the two Indian ancestral lines may have mixed ) but before 3000 BC of Mahabharata.

Does that mean PIE came with the population that came to India around 12,000 to 10,000 BC leading to the spread of IE influence among the old earlier migrants to India? Or did PIE develop in India and spread?

To my mind the evidence of Slavic languages and R1A1a1 (M17) suggests that PIE may have an Indian origin. This is the only genetic evidence I have seen so far. The other signs are speculatory but plausible - like the corrupted forms of Sanskrit words used all over the IE speaking world

[shiv]

Several papers (at least 3 posted on this thread) have spoken of founder populations moving into India earlier than 8000 or 10,000 years ago. I would say that the Indian genetic picture reveals an admixture of two paleolithic populations groups, one of which has links with Europe. Both these ancestral populations of India show good mixing in India but only some genes are found in Europe. For example, I think R1A1a1 (M17) is present pretty much all over India and is seen in Europe too. But there are other genes that are said to be autocthonous to India. The question is whether these genes are found more frequently and with more diversity in the South suggesting that the Europe mix occurred largely before thorough mixing of the two ancestral Indian populations. That would give a date of mixing. I have seen the date 12,500 years in the Reich paper supplement

One more nail in AIT coffin
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707623532
Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists

Sanghamitra Sengupta1, Lev A. Zhivotovsky2, Roy King3, S.Q. Mehdi4, Christopher A. Edmonds3, Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow3, Alice A. Lin3, Mitashree Mitra5, Samir K. Sil6, A. Ramesh7, M.V. Usha Rani8, Chitra M. Thakur9, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza3, Partha P. Majumder1, Go To Corresponding Author, and Peter A. Underhill3

Paper in pdf
http://download.cell.com/AJHG/pdf/PIIS0 ... 623532.pdf

Abstract:

Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. 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.

Pre Holocene is more than 12,000 years ago

[Anand K]

I googled a bit (to confirm what I have heard) about inter-disciplinary studies/projects/initiatives in Indian history but couldn't find any resources. I mean, the tech/sciences+social studies approach and not history+sociology approach which you have dime a dozen. I'm looking for something like say, the Smithsonian thing where people from all imaginable fields work together corroborating findings and theories or shooting down balloons someone floats.

Anybody got some details?

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library



Publication Date: Oct 11, 2006
Author: Paul Kekai Manansala
Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan [Google] [Amazon]

Description
Author Paul Kekai Manansala has researched ancient and medieval history for decades traveling to far corners of the world for clues about little-known ancient maritime voyaging and oceanic trade networks. He has collaborated and corresponded with recognized experts like Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer, author of Eden in the East and archaeologist Wilhelm Solheim in developing this ground-breaking study.

Manansala's book Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan explores the history of an ancient maritime trade thalassocracy founded by peoples called Nusantao.

The Nusantao were intrepid seafaring people who learned to master celestial navigation in very early times. These oceanic adventurers interacted with other peoples included the Neolithic Yayoi who the author suggests used Nusantao trade routes in migrating to Japan.

Catastrophic events like sea flooding and volcanoes stimulated Nusantao exploration and migration further and further abroad. In the course of these wide-ranging travels, Manansala suggests that these sea explorers altered history in wide-ranging areas in ways never before explored.

For example, he claims that the legendary king Prester John of the Indies was an historical and not-so-legendary Nusantao king. Also he provides evidence that the Holy Grail, which most medieval texts claim came from, and returned to the Indies, was related to Nusantao spiritual culture.

____________

Manansala discussed the issue of the Vedic Horse on the IndiaArchaeology Yahoo Group in 2005, which he also mentioned on his blog and gave more details. Later on he also goes into the issue in his book. There he refers to two papers by Judith Paterno and Elenita Alba.

Then there is discussion of Equus Sivalensis traits among modern horses.

Author: Professor J.C. Ewart F.R.S
Animal Remains

Some modern horses like Barbs, Arabs, Thoroughbreds have descended from Equus Sivalensis.

Also another paper on dentition of Equus Sivalensis.



Publication Date: 1982
The Filipinas Journal of Science and Culture, Band 4

Author: Judith Paterno
Chapter: The Indigenous Horse

fully-sivalensis types have been described from Neolithic strata (8000-4000 BCE) at Lemery, Batangas in the Philippines together with dog remains.

Publication Date: 1994
National Museum Papers, Philippines, Volume 4

Author: Elenita Alba
Archaeological evidences of animals as trade goods: A preliminary survey

E. sivalensis features are still found in horses of the so-called "Sulu Horse" and its relatives in Borneo, Sumatra and Malacca.

[RajeshA]

Basically the above discussion says, that Equus Sivalensis was domesticated in South Asia and available in Southeast Asia for a long time between 8000 BCE and 4000 BCE, which is before the known time of domestication of Horse in the Pontic Steppes.

So it is not just the remains of Horse in India that become relevant. The horse remains in Southeast Asia also need to be explained.

[Lalmohan]

at tiwanaku in bolivia, amidst the ruins of the ancient city is a large open air theatre. on the walls of this theatre are carved various figures. on one wall in particular are carved the faces and heads of a large number of people. these ruins were from a civilisation that came way before the spanish 'discovery' of s. america. amongst the figures are clearly identified facial characteristics of people who do not look native american, or andean or even european. they look black, chinese and indian

how do we think the andean people of the altiplano encountered peoples who by gora history didn't arrive there until hundreds of years later?

[shiv]

The guy who maintains this blog suggests that the Indian cow/bull the Zebu went out of India to Europe. Plenty of genetic evidence from Central Asia and elsewhere.
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2012_04_01_archive.html

I already observed in a previous post that in northern Mesopotamia, in the area of Mitanni, we find signs of the presence of Bos indicus in the 2nd millennium BC, which could be a significant clue of the Indian origins of the Mitanni rulers (along with the appearance of the peacock, as we will tell in a next post). But we did not expect to find signs of the zebu even in Ukraine! But this is what I discovered reading a site about Baltic languages and their affinities with Sanskrit. There I found a link to a study by Kantanen et al. of 2009 about bovine haplogroups which can be read in a full form.

He also notes:

Actually, scholars have always thought of Indo-Europeans as the people of the horse and searched for horses in order to find Indo-Europeans. But they were also, and I would say more, the people of the cow and the ox, as is shown from the root gu̯au/-gu̯ou-: Sanskrit go-, Avestan gāu-, Tocharian keu /ko, Armenian kov, Lithuanian gùovs, German Kuh, Irish bó, all for 'cow', Albanian ka/kau, Greek βοῦς, 'ox, cow', Latin bōs, bovis, Croatian and Serbian vo, 'ox'. Therefore, let's look more at Bos indicus and taurus for finding the traces of Indo-Europeans!

[RajeshA]

By Paul Kekai Manansala



A New Look at Vedic India

One thing one notices is that this whole dialogue that we are carrying out here, and which has been carried out over the last two hundred and more years on history is really between Europeans and Indians, and that too with Indians voices often emasculated. In this dialogue we discuss Central Asia, North Asia, West Asia and Europe.

However historically perhaps we have been closest with Southeast Asia. When Southeast Asia again regains the top spot as our primary region of reference, than we Indians would come of age (again).

Perhaps one reason is that scholarly research into history, culture and religion has been so become dominated by Europeans that it has blocked out all the rest. What Europeans have managed to do is to push themselves right into the middle of the spoked-wheel, such that every end of the spoke has to look for its bearings from the West and to make reference to other cultures also making recourse to works of the West. I would plead so much ignorance on my part that I am not even much aware of writers from Southeast Asia and really don't know what they have to say! Shame on me!

But Southeast Asia is the region of our cultural strategic depth, which we have not yet even started researching in full earnest.

In this context, it is a welcome sign to see a Filipino trying to understand Vedic India and trying to look for ancient cultural connections between Southeast Asia and India.

[RajeshA]

Resource Links on AIT-OIT Debate

SvAbhinava

[peter]

Yes, RajeshA is right. Majumder's group has been publishing such things for a long time. IMO this rubbishes the claims.

The two experts Supratik and Shiv can you guys please digest this on R1a*:
http://www.familytreedna.com/Public/r1a

And this discussion on the mutation rates: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/189.summary

We seem to be spending a lot of time discussing other's research. Since we have doctors in our mix what is the fundamental reason why we can't do a much more comprehensive study of Indian DNA ourselves? Say sponsored by this forum?

[Virendra]

2. Do you base history on archaeology and linguistics alone and completely reject traditional folk memories, legends and folklore

3. Do you believe that anatomically modern humans are somehow more intelligent and civilized now than they were in the past. Do you believe that today is always more right than yesterday?[/list]

About the past vs. present thing. An author on Mayans said that civilizations follow a cycle of birth and destruction, much like people themselves and that there is a pattern to it.
So saying that all civilizations where ever they're placed in the past, were less advanced than the present one .. could be wrong.
He was talking about concentric year cycles of Mayans, which align with the fate of civilizations on this planet.
As an example he took American history and related the peculiar Revolution, Independence, Constitution etc with the Mayan systems of understanding civilizational behavior as it progresses in its lifecycle.

But now his (previously free) articles are smartly woven into ebook series on Kindle

http://therealmayanprophecies.com/new-b ... rophecies/

....The author begins by revealing that the ancient Maya believed in a 256-year cycle that governed the rise and fall of civilizations. The Maya divided this 256-year cycle into thirteen 20-year periods called katuns. They developed predictions for each katun by looking back through their extensive written histories and finding events that seem to repeat in each specific katun. They recorded these predictions in their “prophetic” books called the Chilam Balam, books of the Jaguar Priest....

Basically the point is, there may have been equally advanced or even more successfull civilizations in the past.

Regards,
Virendra

[shiv]

Yes, RajeshA is right. Majumder's group has been publishing such things for a long time. IMO this rubbishes the claims.

The two experts Supratik and Shiv can you guys please digest this on R1a*:
http://www.familytreedna.com/Public/r1a

And this discussion on the mutation rates: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/189.summary

We seem to be spending a lot of time discussing other's research. Since we have doctors in our mix what is the fundamental reason why we can't do a much more comprehensive study of Indian DNA ourselves? Say sponsored by this forum?

er I am no more of an expert than I am a fighter pilot. I have some basic knowledge, ability to read and sometimes even understand what I read. I also sometimes manage to land planes in flightsim software. Provided an airfield is provided in front of me.

[Murugan]

Orion Derived From Agrahayana !?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrahayana

Agrahayana

For month in Bengali calendar, see Ogrohayon.

Agrahāyaṇa or Mārgaśīrṣa,[1] (Hindi: अगहन - agahana; मार्गशीर्ष - Mārgaśirṣa) is a month of the Hindu calendar and Tamil calendar. In India's national civil calendar, Agrahāyaṇa is the ninth month of the year, beginning on 22 November and ending on 21 December. Since Vedic times, this month is known as Mārgaśīrṣa after the Nakṣatra (asterisms) Mṛgaśiras. In Tamil, the month is known as Maarkazhi.

The word Agrahāyaṇa means the month of Ayana or Equinox (agra=first + ayana = travel of the sun, equinox). The aligning of this name with the Mṛgaśiras Nakṣatra (lambda orionis), gives rise to speculation that this name may have been given when the sun was near Orion at the time of vernal equinox, i.e. around 7000 years ago.

In lunar religious calendars, Agrahāyaṇa may begin on either the new moon or the full moon around the same time of year, and is usually the 9th month of the year.

In solar religious calendars, Agrahāyaṇa/Maarkazhi begins with the Sun's entry into Sagittarius, and is usually the 9th month of the year.

In the Vaiṣṇava calendar, Keśava governs this month.

[shiv]

2. Do you base history on archaeology and linguistics alone and completely reject traditional folk memories, legends and folklore

3. Do you believe that anatomically modern humans are somehow more intelligent and civilized now than they were in the past. Do you believe that today is always more right than yesterday?[/list]

About the past vs. present thing. An author on Mayans said that civilizations follow a cycle of birth and destruction, much like people themselves and that there is a pattern to it.
So saying that all civilizations where ever they're placed in the past, were less advanced than the present one .. could be wrong.
He was talking about concentric year cycles of Mayans, which align with the fate of civilizations on this planet.
As an example he took American history and related the peculiar Revolution, Independence, Constitution etc with the Mayan systems of understanding civilizational behavior as it progresses in its lifecycle.

But now his (previously free) articles are smartly woven into ebook series on Kindle

http://therealmayanprophecies.com/new-b ... rophecies/

....The author begins by revealing that the ancient Maya believed in a 256-year cycle that governed the rise and fall of civilizations. The Maya divided this 256-year cycle into thirteen 20-year periods called katuns. They developed predictions for each katun by looking back through their extensive written histories and finding events that seem to repeat in each specific katun. They recorded these predictions in their “prophetic” books called the Chilam Balam, books of the Jaguar Priest....

Basically the point is, there may have been equally advanced or even more successfull civilizations in the past.

Regards,
Virendra

Here is a scan of a relevant quote from David Frawley's book "Gods, Sages and Kings" (It is about the Vedas and Indian civilization in general

[shiv]

By Paul Kekai Manansala


A New Look at Vedic India

Rajesh this looks like an interesting article I would like to read. But is there any other source. It is nearly impossible to read that pdf because there are no paragraph breaks.

[RajeshA]

By Paul Kekai Manansala


A New Look at Vedic India

Rajesh this looks like an interesting article I would like to read. But is there any other source. It is nearly impossible to read that pdf because there are no paragraph breaks.

Publication Date: 2000
By Paul Kekai Manansala
A New Look at Vedic India: Asia Pacific Universe

It has lots of juicy stuff!

[member_22872]

Many Articles by Paul Kekai Manansala and Vrndavan Parker

[RajeshA]

Indus-Saraswati Evidence for Krishna

A steatite tablet (2600~1800 BCE) which was unearthed from Mohanjodaro in 1931, depicts a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures. It has been considered an interesting archaeological finding for fixing the date of Krishna.



Dr. E.J.H. Mackay, who did the excavation at Mohanjodaro compares this image with the Yamalarjuna episode and Prof. V.S. Agrawal has also accepted this identification. In this image, the young boy depicted could very well be Krishna and two beings emerging out of the trees, the two cursed Gandharvas Nalkubera & Manigriva, who had turned into Arjuna trees due to a curse and were liberated by Krishna.

Mentioned in "Age of Bharata War" by G.C. Agarwala and K.L Verma page.81
____



First Published in 1938
Author: Dr. E.J.H. Mackay
Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro: Being an official account of archaeological excavations at Mohenjo-daro carried out by the Government of India between the years 1927 and 1931, 2 vols.

[RajeshA]

Journal of Biosciences, Volume 32, No. 7, December 2007

Historical evidence for a pre-Columbian presence of Datura in the Old World and implications for a first millennium transfer from the New World
Authors: R Geeta* and Waleed Gharaibeh†

* Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245, USA
† Department of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faculty of Science and Arts, Jordan University of Science and Technology, PO Box 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan

Abstract
Datura (Solanaceae) is a small genus of plants that, for long, was thought to occur naturally in both the New and Old Worlds. However, recent studies indicate that all species in the genus originated in the Americas. This finding has prompted the conclusion that no species of Datura could have been present in the Old World prior to its introduction there by Europeans in the early 16th century CE. Further, the textual evidence traditionally cited in support of a pre-Columbian Old World presence of Datura species is suggested to be due to the misreading of classical Greek and Arabic sources. As a result, botanists generally accept the opinion that Datura species were transferred into the Old World in the post-Columbian period. While the taxonomic and geographic evidence for a New World origin for all the Datura species appears to be well supported, the assertion that Datura species were not known in the Old World prior to the 16th century is based on a limited examination of the pre-Columbian non-Anglo sources. We draw on old Arabic and Indic texts and southern Indian iconographic representations to show that there is conclusive evidence for the pre-Columbian presence of at least one species of Datura in the Old World. Given the systematic evidence for a New World origin of the genus, the most plausible explanation for this presence is a relatively recent but pre-Columbian (probably first millennium CE) transfer of at least one Datura species, D. metel, into the Old World. Because D. metel is a domesticated species with a disjunct distribution, this might represent an instance of human-mediated transport from the New World to the Old World, as in the case of the sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas)
__________

So there seems to be contacts between the Americas and India from times before Columbus

[peter]

Yes, RajeshA is right. Majumder's group has been publishing such things for a long time. IMO this rubbishes the claims.

The two experts Supratik and Shiv can you guys please digest this on R1a*:
http://www.familytreedna.com/Public/r1a

And this discussion on the mutation rates: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/189.summary

We seem to be spending a lot of time discussing other's research. Since we have doctors in our mix what is the fundamental reason why we can't do a much more comprehensive study of Indian DNA ourselves? Say sponsored by this forum?

er I am no more of an expert than I am a fighter pilot. I have some basic knowledge, ability to read and sometimes even understand what I read. I also sometimes manage to land planes in flightsim software. Provided an airfield is provided in front of me.

The question is how do we reconcile this image of R1a* w.r.t the assertion that it originated in India (From: R1a* ):


How difficult would it be to create a similar chart for R1a* originating in India?

[ramana]

RajeshA, There was a map posted sometime back which shows the possible trade winds route from South India all the way to South America.

[peter]

[..]

Peter, Did you read Kota Venkatchalam's "Age of Mahabharata"? Send me a note if you did.

No I did not. I have heard of it. What does he say about the war?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1334210

Read what he says about Rajputs in pages 20 onwards...

And lets follow up in the Historical Battles thread..

Page 20 is about Shankracharya. What is the page number I should look at?

[member_22872]

The question is how do we reconcile this image of R1a* w.r.t the assertion that it originated in India (From: R1a* ):

How did they calculate the dates for various subclades?

[peter]

The question is how do we reconcile this image of R1a* w.r.t the assertion that it originated in India (From: R1a* ):

How did they calculate the dates for various subclades?

From their website:

The chart below is a simple, basic version of the actual SNP tree depicting clade positions and relations as well as approximate dates and probable ethnic or geographical spread. The chart and maps include some estimation and conjecture, and should not be taken as proven fact. Most R1a1a clades and branches cannot be fully characterized by simple ethnic labels.

Seems like WIP. Question that is mildly interesting is the origin of Z280. Is it the Scythian DNA?

[member_22872]

According to Oppenheimer in 2003:

And sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan Invasion of India.’ Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India.

if that is still valid, then any other subclades derived from it, only will support OIT. as M17 is the oldest with highest diversity in India.

[ramana]

[..][..]

Peter, Did you read Kota Venkatchalam's "Age of Mahabharata"? Send me a note if you did.

No I did not. I have heard of it. What does he say about the war?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1334210

Read what he says about Rajputs in pages 20 onwards...

And lets follow up in the Historical Battles thread..

Page 20 is about Shankracharya. What is the page number I should look at?[/quote]


Am not sure if that is the right page. I want you to read the chapter on Yudhishtira saka. Especially the part about Bappa. And lets continue in the Historic battles thread....

[shiv]

The question is how do we reconcile this image of R1a* w.r.t the assertion that it originated in India (From:

How difficult would it be to create a similar chart for R1a* originating in India?

I don't know what R1a* means. I don't think R1a* has its origins in India but I don't even know what it means.

Every paper I have read clearly states that R1A1a1 (M17) has its greatest diversity in India (meaning that it has probably originated there and has had the greatest number of years to acquire minute mutations)

It would be impossible for me to create such an image unless I was bluffing. This looks like the sort of chart that would be made up by a bunch of enthu postgraduate students in genetics, perhaps as a side business to earn some money.

The dates in the chart don't fit in with what I have read and what has been posted here. The information in the chart contradicts what I have myself cross posted from at least 2 papers on here. I personally would not trust that site as accurate. The only information I tend to absorb is from scientific papers and even then I tend to be critical of assumptions that I believe might be wrong. But it is very difficult to actually read an absorb the info in these genetics papers. Any simplified chart may well be BS. A long list of scientific papers cited actually means nothing unless you can cross check and find the info in that chart especially in cases of doubt.

[shiv]

It is clear from genetic studies that there was no migration into India 3500 to 4000 years ago of the sort described by the Aryan invasion theory. But what the death of AIT does is to pt a huge question mark on the entire linguistic history of the world because he most ancient and most voluminous linguistic evidence comes from India.

If that language did not come to India around 1500 BC what the hell does that mean?

Did it (heaven forbid! ) originate in India? Yuck. How demeaning.
Or did it come from elsewhere?

I have stated from time to time on this thread that the dating of Sanskrit (by means of dating the Vedas) has been the sheet anchor of all linguistic theories about the spread of language. Those theories can go to hell and linguists are welcome to stick their theories up their *ekhwas

But can we came up with alternative dates for Indian epics and Sanskrit. Here are a few thoughts which I have stated from time to time, but I collect them all up in one post here

1. Every native Indo European language speaker in India has a mix of two ancestral gene streams. The same genetic signature exists among all Dravidian language speakers. If you are shown an Indian you will not be able to predict the percentage mix of two ancestral gene streams based on what language he speaks. This suggests that Indo European languages in India are a development that came after the mixing of two ancestral gene streams in India. From this information alone it is not possible to say whether IE languages originated in India or not.

2. Many papers suggest that the mixing of two ancestral gene streams in India was around 10 to 12,000 years ago (at least more than 8000 years ago). Since this mixing appears to have occurred before IE languages, it means that sanskrit/IE/PIE are less than 10,000 years old.

3. The Mahabharata war has been dated variably to the time between 5000 BC and 3000 BC. The 3000 BC date is popular and has been attested in a 1500 year old inscription in Aihole. That would make the Vedas older than 3000 BC, but younger than 10,000 BC or so

4. The Slovenian language shares as much as 30% cognates with Sanskrit. But there is no shared word for metal and it has been suggested that the link between Slovenian and Sanskrit dated to a period before 3500 BC when metals (bronze) are said to have become known.

5. The Slavs and the people of Slovenia share the Y chromosomal R1A1a1 M17 sub clade with Indians, but the Slavs also have the European derived M458 associated with that and that is absent in India. That seems to rule out the movement of M17 from Slavic nations to India. Movement in the opposite direction, from India to the Slavic speaking countries cannot be ruled out. M17 is about 16,000 years old. M458 originates in Poland about 10,000 years ago but may have taken a few thousand years to spread south in significant ad detectable amounts. Spread of a Sanskrit like language from India to Eastern Europe between 10,000 BC and 5000 BC cannot be ruled out. Europe started getting repopulated after the ice age more or less ended by 13,000 BC and the origin of a mutation in Poland in 10,000 BC in Poland that was previously under permafrost indicates repopulation from southern refuges.

6. Latvian and other Slavic mythological memories of India and common gods like and the name "Dieva/Deva" is indicative of an ancient, if undated link.

[KLP Dubey]

It is clear from genetic studies that there was no migration into India 3500 to 4000 years ago of the sort described by the Aryan invasion theory. But what the death of AIT does is to pt a huge question mark on the entire linguistic history of the world because he most ancient and most voluminous linguistic evidence comes from India.

I think the genetic evidence is fully in line with the spread of Sanskrit from India due to the large numbers of corrupted Sanskrit words found in all places along the "genetic path".

I think a scholarly and psychological benefit would accrue if one could take the currently existing "PIE lexicon", erase all the fake PIE words, and use the Sanskrit words as the originals. This way, we can take advantage of the "busy work" done by the "useful idiots".

Furthermore, I suspect it will be *much easier* to keep adding new words that are corrupted from Sanskrit, than invent fake PIE reconstructions. That way, it will rapidly grow in size and overwhelm fake lexicons over the years.

This would be made easy if somebody had an Excel (or similar database-like) file of the "PIE lexicon". Copying and pasting from web documents could be too much of a pain.

I would be willing to erase the fake PIE words and create an "Indian Superlanguage" lexicon with the other cognate words listed as derivatives or "corruptions".

Do you see any intellectual flaw in the endeavor ?

KL

[shiv]

Do you see any intellectual flaw in the endeavor ?

KL

None at all. Actually that is an original and serendipitous idea. Knowing myself, I will do it whether I know the Sanskrit root properly or not and give the excuse that i am not afraid of being told I am wrong, which is true

One cannot trip over anything new unless one gets up and walks over new territory!

[shiv]

This would be made easy if somebody had an Excel (or similar database-like) file of the "PIE lexicon". Copying and pasting from web documents could be too much of a pain.

I would be willing to erase the fake PIE words and create an "Indian Superlanguage" lexicon with the other cognate words listed as derivatives or "corruptions".

Let me see what I can do here. I believe the name Pokorny is associated with creating just such a list and it is available online. Will get back on this topic after I find a suitable database - good idea.

OK. Here it is.

Here is a database that can be cut and pasted onto a spreadsheet.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... aster.html

I have already done that but I am not very adept at using Google drive. I think I will need a Gmail sign in to give you or others edit access.
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ ... aster.html