The Clearly Evident Out of India Migration from Ancient DNA

While the two recent ancient DNA papers have set the Indian media abuzz with talk of whether Aryans were indigenous or whether they came from outside, almost all the English media has ignored the fact the genetic data also shows the migration of ancient Indians or Harappans into neighbouring regions of Eastern Iran and Central Asia.

A couple of articles took note of it but tried to minimise its relevance. Tony Joseph at The Hindu says,

Another spin around the new studies suggests an ‘Out of India’ migration. This is also misleading. If by ‘Out of India’ migration we are referring to the fact that some Harappans visited neighbouring civilisations or cultures such as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) or Shahr-i-Sokhta, with whom they had trade and cultural links, these are well-known and unsurprising facts.

Girish Shahane at the Scroll.in, opines about the Indus Periphery samples,

The obvious explanation is that the 11 people had travelled to those locations from an Indus Valley Civilisation region. Their presence in such far-flung places testifies to the extensiveness of Indus Valley Civilisation commercial and cultural contacts. It does not suggest a migration out of India extensive enough to change the genetic profile of foreign lands, because if that were the case the 11 individuals would not have been obvious outliers.

Both these writers are hardly excited by the fact that there is indeed evidence of Indian migration into Eastern Iran & Central Asia and they try to explain it away non-nonchalantly as the evidence of Harappans’ trade & cultural contacts.  I mean, why is the overwhelming obsession just about proving the supposed Aryan migration ? Isn’t it exciting that we now have clear and indisputable evidence of ancient Indians already, as early as 3300 BC (the earliest dated Indus Periphery sample), migrating and living in advanced Bronze Age civilizations outside of the traditional geographic boundary of South Asia. What was the nature of these interactions should naturally arouse considerable curiosity.

The writers also grossly underestimate the genetic influence of Harappans on both its neighbouring regions.

What the research paper says

Let us quote directly from the paper which published these 11 ancient South Asian migrant samples and see what it has to say on the matter –

We document 11 outliers—three with radiocarbon dates between 2500 and 2000 BCE from the BMAC site of Gonur and eight with radiocarbon dates or archaeological-context dates between 3300 and 2000 BCE from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta—that harbored elevated proportions of AHG-related ancestry (range: ~11 to 50%) and the remainder from a distinctive mixture of Iranian farmer– and WSHG-related ancestry (~50 to 89%).

While this part of the research is reported by our writers they fail to note another equally important piece of research from the same paper which states,

Unlike preceding Copper Age individuals from Turan, people of the BMAC cluster also harbored an additional ~2 to 5% ancestry related (deeply in time) to Andamanese hunter-gatherers (AHG). This evidence of south-to-north gene flow from South Asia is consistent with the archaeological evidence of cultural contacts between the IVC and the BMAC and the existence of an IVC trading colony in northern Afghanistan.

When we take both these statements together we get the clear picture. Not only were migrants from the Harappan civilization present in Eastern Iran and Central Asia, infact the genetic admixture from these Harappan migrants was present in all the native people of these regions and was not just consigned to the Harappan migrants only. It is puzzling as to why this crucial information has completely been ignored by almost everyone.

This Harappan admixture was apparently not present in the earlier period in Central Asia before 3000 BC which would mean that the Harappan admixture happened in the transition phase between the Copper Age in Central Asia and the formation of the Bronze Age urban civilization of BMAC when the population of this region increased greatly.

Quite clearly, the migration and mixing of Harappans with the Central Asians and Eastern Iranians co-incides or slightly pre-dates the transformation of these socieites into large urban civilizations and likely played a crucial role in the transition of these culture into urban Bronze Age civilizations.

How is this not an important finding ?

It is quite strange that this clear evidence of Out of India migration is being sidelined and neglected. Let us dig a little deeper and show what the quite comprehensive and large Supplementary section of the paper has to say on this Out of India migration.

What the Supplement Says

The primary ancestry source of all these ancient samples from Central Asia & Eastern Iran was the Iranian farmer related ancestry, the same ancestry type which was also the main ancestry of IVC people.

This Iranian farmer related ancestry was the main ancestral source in Central Asia even in Chalcolithic period (4000 – 3000 BC) which means that already by the Chalcolithic period the populations of Central Asia and NW South Asia had a lot of shared ancestry before the IVC migration into Central Asia during the Bronze Age. How old is this shared ancestry should be a matter of future research.

The analysed data from Central Asia and Eastern Iran in the Bronze Age consists of about 60 samples from the sites of Gonur, Sappali, Jarkutan (Dzharkutan) & Bustan associated with the BMAC or Oxus Civilization of Central Asia, 2 samples each from Parkhai & from Aigyrzhal in Kyrgyzstan, also from Central Asia and finally 17 samples from the large Eastern Iranian settlement of Bronze Age Helmand civilization, Shahr-i-Sokhta (fig. S17, pg 202).

Quoting from the Supplement, they observe from the admixture plot (fig S18, bottom panel, pg 203) that,

“… some individuals from each site also harbor trace amounts of a component that is maximized in Andamanese Hunter-Gatherers (AHGs) and Dravidian speaking groups in southern India. Particularly revealing is our observation of outlier individuals from several of these sites that are exceptions to these patterns. We hypothesize that these individuals were migrants from South Asia (or descendants of recent migrants)…” (pg 202)

Based on the results of the admixture-f3 stats (fig S21-S23) on the BMAC and Shahr-i-Sokhta main group of samples they further observe,

For the BMAC main cluster, we also observe significant (Z<-3) admixture signals with a source from pre-Copper Age Iran and Turan and a source related to present day groups within the Indian subcontinent, a signal that we do not detect in individuals from the earlier period in Turan (Fig S 21 – Fig S 23). This is consistent with the hypothesis that the main BMAC cluster harbors a proportion of ancestry from gene flow from the south, plausibly from South Asia… We observe that the individuals from Shahr-i-Sokhta, also show significant admixture-f3 statistics with one source as AHG. Taken together with the fact that there are individuals with significantly high proportions of AHG-related ancestry at both sites, this suggests that there was gene flow from South Asia out into Turan during the BA (pg 206).

Finally moving onto the qpAdm admixture analysis, our researchers note,

To better understand the population changes associated with these BA settlements we studied proximal sources. We first observe that there are many models that fit under our acceptance criteria, but they are of a similar nature, in the sense that all involve a population from the previously described Copper Age period with additional ancestry related to present-day South Asians. Most working models involve populations from Turan with additional South Asian related mixture, for example present-day individuals from South Asia with minimal Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry, or outlier individuals from Shahr-i-Sokhta and BMAC sites with high proportions of AHG-related ancestry (pg 210).

When we look at analysed aDNA samples Shahr-i-Sokhta, we see that out of a total of 17 samples, as much as 8 of them are classified as migrants from the Harappan civilization by our authors. So essentially about 50 % of the population at Shahr-i-Sokhta was made up of migrants from the IVC. Infact, barring one sample which they classify as an outlier, the other 8 samples, which the authors label as Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1, also harbour IVC ancestry and the best fitting qpAdm model (p-value – 0.658) suggests that this S_I_S_BA1 group harboured as much as 20 % ancestry from these IVC migrants (table S30, pg 212).

It may also be noted that the IVC migrants at Shahr-i-Sokhta date from a period between 3300-2000 BC while the other group of 8, labelled the main S_I_S_BA1 group only date between 3300-2600 BC. All in all, this cumulative genetic evidence alone is enough to show that Shahr-i-Sokhta was enormously influenced by the Harappans.

This is further underlined when one looks at the archaeological evidence which shows substantial similarities between Shahr-i-Sokhta and sites to its east in the Indian subcontinent. Shahr-i-Sokhta itself only came into existence as a habitation site around 3300 BC but the other major site of the Helmand civilization, Mundigak, found about 425 kms east along the course of the Helmand river in Afghanistan, has a beginning going back to the 5th millenium BC, and it already shows significant cultural parallels with older sites such as Mehrgarh to its southeast. The main cattle type at Shahr-i-Sokhta was also of the Indian Zebu variety further cementing the strong east to west cultural and genetic flow at the site.

To try to brush this off vaguely as evidence of ”commercial and cultural links” and trying to de-emphasize the importance is quite telling.

In contrast, the Italian archaeologist Massimo Vidale, one of the principal researchers at Shahr-i-Sokhta in recent years and one of the contributors of this Narasimhan et al paper, states the following on page 110 of Supplementary section,

The archaeological and genetic evidence thus suggest that a flow of migrants from the northwestern borderlands of South Asia was active at the beginning of the local settlement, and that the same flow, different from the earlier one from northwest, intensified in the following centuries. We unfortunately do not have ancient DNA from Period III and the later centuries of the Shahr-i-Sokhta sequence when cultural influence from the Indus Valley Civilization appears to become stronger.

To be sure, what percentage would a trader community consitute in the population of a foreign city ? And out of these traders, how many are going to end up dying and getting buried in that foreign land ? Perhaps 1 or 2 %. It surely cannot be as high as 50 % besides also contributing your ancestry to all the local people in the foreign land.

But that is what we see at Shahr-i-Sokhta and therefore this is evidence of very deep cultural and perhaps religious and linguistic links.

The body of archaeological literature documenting the links between the IVC, Eastern Iran & BMAC is quite significant and I intend to write on it, God willing, in the next post to complete and complement the picture given by genetic data.

Moving to Bronze Age Central Asia, the authors document 3 samples from the major site of Gonur in the Margiana region of the BMAC which they classify as IVC migrants along with the 8 already noted at Shahr-i-Sokhta. Alongside these 3 samples, there is a slightly later sample dating to around 1500 BC from the site of Bustan, labelled as Bustan_BA_o2, which is not similar to the 3 Gonur IVC migrants but can be modelled as 70 % Swat_IA + 30 % IVC migrants. So this is also for all intents and purposes a likely migrant from South Asia but with a very different genetic profile.

But besides this, as can be read from the quotes from the Supplement and main paper given above, all the ancient samples of the main group of BMAC people also harboured ancestry from South Asia which was absent in the earlier period.

In the proximal models for the BMAC main cluster (table S28, pg 210), we can observe that the BMAC Bronze Age population can be modelled as deriving between 70-75 % ancestry from Shahr-i-Sokhta_BA1 which itself harbours about 20 % IVC ancestry. Therefore this suggests that the BMAC main cluster, its core population, harbours about 15 % ancestry from IVC.

Therefore, we see all pervasive South Asian admixture in Central Asia just before the region becomes urbanised and perhaps organised into a state. This suggests that the South Asian or IVC migration and admixture in Central Asia could have played a leading role in the transition of the region into an urbanised state with major cities like Gonur.

Our authors argue that the 2 samples from Aygyrzhal in Kyrgyzstan in the eastern part of Central Asia, do not have any South Asian ancestry but this is belied by the fact that in all proximal models (table S31, pg 212), these 2 samples show about 17 % admixture from IVC migrants.

Nor is the IVC genetic influence this far to the east in Central Asia an anamoly. A study of mtDNA  from some ancient Tarim Basin samples (4000 YBP), showed the presence of the indisputably Indian lineage M5, besides other lineages such as U7, U2e & R* which are also widely present in South Asia, Central Asia and Iran.

As pointed out by Silva et al 2017, mtDNA M5a was clearly part of outward South Asian migration towards Iran in the Bronze Age. Therefore its presence also in Tarim Basin in the same timeframe explicitly confirms it to have been there as part of South Asian migration and admixture in the Tarim Basin in that early period.

Winding up the genetic evidence, we observe that in the Bronze Age, the IVC genetic influence extended in an enormous arc from Shahr-i-Sokhta in Eastern Iran to the Tarim Basin mummies in modern Xinjiang, China with the genetic influence on the Helmand civilization (Shahr-i-Sokhta) being quite overwhelming and that on the BMAC also being all-pervasive.

How is this major Bronze Age genetic phenomenon not a significant event of Out of India migration ? Whether this was related to Indo-European migration, only time will tell.

It is a matter of archaeological record that the greatest influence on BMAC was from IVC and the Eastern Iranian civilizations of Halil Rud (Jiroft) and Helmand which were themselves heavily influenced by IVC. Infact, when there is evidence of such overwhelming cultural and genetic links between these regions, political links between these regions would have been a definite reality. Infact, as Mesopotamian records of the 2nd quarter of the 3rd millenium BC, the Eastern Iranian state of Marhasi (perhaps Halil Rud) was closely in political alliance with Meluhha (the IVC).

It is quite instructive that the historically known core region of Indo-Iranians was already greatly in confluence from the Early Bronze Age period.

12+

82 Replies to “The Clearly Evident Out of India Migration from Ancient DNA”

    1. This is heartening news indeed. All the while we were being told about the Aryan invasion from Central Asia displacing the IVC.
      This evidence suggests that the reverse is true and the ancients of IVC migrated northwards!

      1+
    2. Iran was Persia.It took fifty years to convert them to Islam.
      Thousand s ran away and landed at Gujarat they are Parsis now.

      1+
    3. All 7 billion humans are interconnected
      I’ll read the article fully later yet find it frustrating that of molecular evidence points to our physical bonds then why cannot this knowledge unite us to protect our species from extermination .Or is there also a gene for that?
      Could we find a gene for peaceful coexistence please and actualise actions to protect our planet Earth and each other

      0
  1. Gene flow is not migration.

    Nobody denies there is AASI in Iran and Central-Asia, but its at the level (0-5%) associated with normal gene flow between adjacent areas. You would see at least double that for any significant migration out of India.

    Its also a bit misleading to use IVC admixture as a proxy for Indian. Obviously West/Central Asia showed higher affinity with IVC populations, as both are largely comprised of the same Iranian HG base. The key difference is what the IVC has that these other areas don’t, is AASI admixture ranging from 10-50%.

    4+
    1. A 5% AHG ancestry = 15-25% ancestry from IVC. not at all insignifact. It is equal to the steppe ancestry in Swat.
      Anyone who plays this down is biased.

      10+
  2. I think these observations tie in with the theory that the initial entry of the Sanskrit speaking branch of the Aryas into the subcontinent around 2000 BC could have happened through a military and marriage alliance with the IVC (perhaps against the BMAC who probably sided with the Iranian branch of the Aryas, their primary rivals) in their border zone. This was followed by assimilation and extensive admixture in this zone during which the Indo-Aryan genetic signature proper came into being with max 30% Steppe_MLBA as seen in Swat valley IA samples. It is these admixed populations who likely expanded into the Sindhu-Saraswati region followed by the Gangetic plains through military conquest between 1900-1500 BCE following the fall of the IVC. So these admixed populations were already the inheritors of the legacies of both the IVC culture and vedic culture.

    1+
    1. Rigveda knows both Aryas and Dasas therefore both would have entered South Asia according to the AMT. Why then do you mention this as an entry of Aryas only? This doesnt make sense.

      Obviously you are talking like this due to indoctrination by the AMT.

      “Sanskrit speaking branch of the Aryas”
      Again, this doesnt make sense. Aryans are known within Indo-Iranian only and both branches converge at Sanskrit.

      For the AMT to work, both Aryan and Dasa IEs would need to invade India.

      You seem to know alot of things but strangely also miss out lots things, thus you are creating an incorrect version of reality which can only be consistent with your biased views.

      Clearly there is a lot of misinformation out there due to attempts to make the AMT fit by people with little regard for actual data.

      3+
  3. But wasn’t the original “Out of India” thing more about claiming that the Indo-Europeans came “out of India” and there was no IE migration into India? Is it now OK to accept that they at least came FROM central Asia to India?

    9+
    1. // But wasn’t the original “Out of India” thing more about claiming that the Indo-Europeans came “out of India” and there was no IE migration into India? Is it now OK to accept that they at least came FROM central Asia to India? //

      Nop initially most scholars {at that time} agreed to the invasion theory but the politics of that period resulted in making Hindutva people strong proponent of ‘Out Of India’ theory. There were some media reports which mentioned this when Rakhigarhi results came out Or when they reviewed & discussed 2 books about Savarkar.

      https://qz.com/india/1691223/new-savarkar-biography-sheds-light-on-the-origins-of-hindutva/

      It highlights how politics can invade the spaces where politics should have no role & complicates everything.

      —————————————————————

      A worthy talk – Panel Discussion on ‘The Peoples of Early India: Origins, Migrations and Identities’

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N65Fj8WXKmA

      Note the pertinent questions raised by Romila Thapar especially at the end of the discussion.

      0
    2. Is this question being addressed to me or to vsds ?

      As far as I am concerned I am not advocating any migration from Central Asia. But yes, there is a trace amount of gene flow from perhaps Iran or BMAC & perhaps even further west because modern North Indians & Pakistanis have some amount of Anatolian Farmer ancestry which was non-existent during the IVC period. Narasimhan et al try to suggest that this also came into South Asia directly from the steppe. But I am not quite convinced.

      3+
    3. I think it is important to understand the context in which OIT gathered steam. The narrative was that benign and civilized Indus valley people were invaded by barbarous pastoralists from the Steppes. They were clearly trying to draw false equivalences between the Islamic ravaging of the subcontinent. So the natural and easiest counter to this for any self respecting and reasonable Hindu was that they got the linguistics all wrong. Ofcourse when one digs deeper one could construct a counter-narrative that did not reject the origin of Sanskrit outside the subcontinent. But the issue was a very sensitive one politically and didn’t allow for nuanced interpretations in such an environment. But genetics, as Jaydeep has pointed out from Narasimhan’s paper, shows that IVC had a <30% contribution to ancestry of Central Asian people of the bronze age. So if the Steppes people had a <30% contribution to South Asians of the late bronze age, then the narrative changes to one of plenty intermingling of divergent populations over centuries. At the end of this assimilation, the culture of the Steppe people, the Vedic culture, is what came to dominate formerly IVC lands and later the Gangetic plain. But this assimilation was clearly not the result of unilateral subjugation of the IVC people

      3+
  4. That IVC people must have traveled, and even settled abroad permanently was never in doubt. IVC was a very populous and geographically large civilization, as evident from the size and number of its archaeological sites. They were also highly mercantile people given to travelling to foreign lands for economic opportunities. (Sometimes I wonder if Punjabi, Sindhi and Gujarati fetish for migrating to foreign shores is a deep seated IVC trait).

    What is really the central question is that whether Sanskrit, and its descendant IA languages came to India from foreign lands, or did they arise naturally in this land. This is a linguistic question, and will have to be answered by linguistics. Genes don’t carry the markers of languages.

    3+
    1. “What is really the central question is that whether Sanskrit, and its descendant IA languages came to India from foreign lands, or did they arise naturally in this land.”

      I dont know if it would be settled even in that way. You are emphasizing on language too much. Even if Sanskrit is established as having formed totally outside the subcontinent, it will not deter AMT naysayers to push back.

      For people to whom it matters , the Hindutva folks ( 90 percent N-Indian) , religion matters more than language. That’s why they don’t have any problems steeping back from the language controversy(Tamil-Hindi) whenever it arises. This is from a Govt which almost never steps back on any issue.

      To “settle” the issue, you have to prove their religion came from/was formed outside like Abrahmic religions. Good luck trying to “settle” this in any other way.

      0
  5. Gonur excavator Sarianidi is confident that Gonur was iranian/zoroastrian/proto zoroastrian.
    Gonur also was a heavily fortified city, sometimes with 3 fortifications (tripura of the RV). Fire temple like buildings have also been found, along with horse remains.
    Parpola agrees with the Iranian nature of BMAC. Witzel also considers the dasyus to be iranian speakers. Sadly for both though, BMAC has almost no steppe ancestry, but IVC ancestry.

    5+
  6. Here is a map similar to this one in the text. Actually, there are several maps in a raw with Serbian toponyms in different countries (Sinai, Asia Minor, Iran, etc). Presented are ONLY toponyms which contains in the name – Serb or Ser. There are a thousand more toponyms of the same origin in South Asia, Europe, Middle East, North Africa…You can see for e.g. Jebel (Mount) Serbal, the highest peak in Sinai (the old name of the whole Sinai was also Serbal), where Moses received 10 commandments from the God…and much more…

    https://www.zapadnisrbi.com/ostalo/pricaonica/720-srbi-jedan-od-najstarijih-naroda-evo-i-zasto

    2+
  7. can we stop with this tangential about motivations and psychoanalysis of OIT supporters and deal with the intellectual arguments J (Jaydeepsinh) put forward? (on that tangent, though, there is such a wide spectrum of people, and some of you are using a pretty broad “hindutva” brush ).

    The so-called Iranian-farmer-related ancestry is a population thats *ancestral* to IVC and iranian farmers, according to both new papers (Rakhigarhi, and Vagheesh). The separation is 12,000 BP, I think. So, presumably there was a population, isolated from what became Iranian farmers, somewhere between NW India and (eastern?) Iran, stable for thousands of years, mixing presumably near IVC times with AASI. They could certainly be Mehrgarh-related people. This was presumably a large population.. (most indians derive most of their ancestry from IVC.. again according to both the papers). So,they must have had some language, culture etc. I am very curious about what that was. (I think J is suggesting these could be vedic people. but thats speculation. )

    4+
  8. Scorpion Eater,

    Linguistics alone has shown itself to be so far incapable to come to a reliable conclusion regarding the PIE homeland.

    Right now, the two dominant PIE hypothesis are the steppe origin hypothesis & the Anatolia origin hypothesis, both proposed by archaeologists.

    Today the most well known proponents of the steppe origin theory are James Mallory & David Anthony, both of whom are archaeologists.

    So archaeology has played a major role in the theorisation of PIE origins.

    1+
    1. Linguists had more or less settled on the steppe hypothesis a long time ago, except for a few scholars with pet theories that they didn’t want to give up on. Until ancient DNA came out it seemed that most archaeologists supported the Anatolian hypothesis.

      1+
  9. Independent Counter-Evidence to show people moved out of Saptha Sindhu ( or Indus Valley)

    Sanskrit has a periphrastic perfect. So does Hittite where it is formed with the finite forms of the verb ‘to have’ ḫar-, ḫar-ak as auxiliary and the nom/acc sing neuter participle of the verb: e.g. mar-kán har-teni ‘you have cut’: this is the only perfect Hittite has. Avestan too has the periphrastic perfect. No other IE branch has this – except as a very late innovation in historical times (Drinka 2001). In Vedic this perfect is formed with the accusative of a feminine noun made from the verbal stem and with the perfect of kṛ- ‘to do’ (cakāra/cakre) as auxiliary: this is
    found first in the Atharva Veda (18.2.27: gamayā́ṃ cakāra), continues with frequency in the Brāhmaṇas, then gives precedence to a new construction with the perfect of as- ‘to be’ as auxiliary as in mantrayām āsa, and then, in addition, with the perfect of bhu- ‘to become, be’. Avestan has a similar construction with the acc sing of the feminine participle of the main verb and the perfect of ah- ‘to be’ (=S as-) as auxiliary: e.g. āstara yeintīm ah- ‘must have corrupted’. Now, if Indo-Aryan had indeed moved away from the unified Indo-Iranian community in Iran, then how does it have the auxiliary kṛ- first and for a long period, and only afterwards the auxiliary as-, which is ah- in Avestan? In other words, if Old Indic had separated from Indo-Iranian it should have had the equivalent of the ah construction, that is as-, and only later that of kṛ-. We must conclude, on the contrary, that Avestan moved away from the Indo-Iranian unity, and it did this when the use of as- as auxiliary in the periphrastic perfect was well-established in the Brāhmaṇa texts.

    Avestan, in common with all the other branches, lost the original voiced aspirates (e.g. *dh as in S dhāman ‘domain’ vs Av dāman); also the original *ṛ (e.g. as in S bhṛti ‘maintenance’ vs Av bǝrǝti-). Then, in Avestan (as in Armenian, Phrygian and Greek) original *s in pre- or inter-vocalic position became h: e.g. S soma vs Av haoma, S asura vs Av ahura-. This immediately suggests that Avestan broke away from Old Indic. In any event, surely it is most odd since Indo-Iranian is supposed to have separated, albeit late, from the other branches, and even from Armenian and Greek (which are thought by many to be so close to IIr as to form a small sub-group) and moved, always according to the AIT of the IE linguistic Doctrine, south-east into Persia whence IAn later broke away into Saptasindhu. Of course, this isogloss *s>h could have developed independently (as perhaps the loss of the voiced aspirates and the retroflex ṛ). But it is a bit of a mystery that IA did not suffer these losses and mutations despite its additional trek (in contrast to Tocharian which made a correspondingly long journey and, indeed, suffered many such changes).

    Bird faced man with snakes found in Bactria in 1800 BCE.

    The bird must be eagle, also known as Garuda. This image fulfils the iconographic features of Garuda given in Mayamatam. Mayamatam says (See Dagens 2007:869) that the image of Garuda is a Tārkṣya , with rounded eyes and two hands. His hands are either joined or resting slightly on his thighs. He has breast plates, fangs and his hair coiled into a crown. Tip of his nose is dark and serpents are his adornments. Figure 7 almost fulfils these stipulations, particularly the two hands slightly resting on thighs. The nose is like that of Garuda, the eagle. In a surprising link to Mahabharata, only Kṛṣṇa had Garuda-dhvajā.

    The above two provide a strong case for the presence of Kṛṣṇa cult or memory of Kṛṣṇa in Bactria or the spread of people connected with Kṛṣṇa moving from India to Bactria.

    This seal upsets the AIT chronology as it had appeared in Bactria 300 years before the Aryans started composing Rig Veda. Assuming that AIT chronology is right, it is questionable how this bird was known to Bactrians, even before Vedic people employed them in their hymns.

    Rig Veda speaks about this bird as Garutmān, the strong-winged bird. In the famous Rig Vedic verse “ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti”, (That which is One, sages call by many names), ‘Garutmān’ is considered as the other names of the One God (Rig Veda 1.164.46). According to this hymn, the One God is also known as Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, Garutmān, Yama and Mātariśvān. Garuda is held on par with Indra in this hymn. How are the AIT theorists going to treat this feature within their concept and justify its appearance in the seal in Bactria even before the Aryans started composing Vedas?

    Rig Veda : 1.164.46

    इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान |
    एकं सद विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ||

    Translation : They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
    To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

    Writes J.M. Kenoyer, specialist in the archaeology of the Indus Valley: “[T]here is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic Period around 600 BC” (1998:174). Shaffer and Lichtenstein confirm this emphasizing the continuity of the indigenous culture (1999).

    3.”The language of India from its earliest documentation in the Rigveda”: in this sphere too the PP operates most profoundly. Burrow, whose The Sanskrit Language (1973) is still the authority in this field, says: “Vedic is a language which in most respects is more archaic and less altered from original Indo-European than any other member of the family” (34: emphasis added); he also states that root nouns, “very much in decline in the earliest recorded Indo-European languages”, are preserved better in Sanskrit, and later adds, “Chiefly owing to its antiquity the Sanskrit language is more readily analysable, and its roots more easily separable from accretionary elements than… any other IE language” (123, 289). Nobody, as far as I know, has even attempted to dispute this and the presence of dialectal variants and innovations or erosions and losses in Vedic (and Sanskrit) does not invalidate Burrow’s judgement. Vedic is superior also in respect of its inner organic cohesion: from roots dhaatu by simple and fairly regular processes are generated primary (krrt-) and secondary
    (taddhita-) derivatives in nominal and verbal forms.15 This organic cohesion

    Also please be informed that the horses of Bactria more looks like the Arabian horse than the Steppe horse. The one and only unique seal from Bactria clearly looks like the Arabian horse rather than the steppe horse.

    The only horse depiction detected from BMAC is a seal (below; source David Anthony’s Blog, also cited in Anthony 2009) with a horse-rider. The horse in it is clearly of the Etruscan type, which is no different from the Marwari type (see below).
    A BMAC (Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex; 2100-1750 BCE) horse, the lone horse depiction from the BMAC

    6+
    1. Good comment.

      You seem like you have done your own independent little research on this topic which is great.

      Specifically, regarding the birdman in BMAC seals, I quite agree. I was indeed wondering when I saw and read about it that it could have something to do with Garuda because he has snakes in his hands.

      Your quotation of Garuda’s description from Mayamatam makes this association even stronger. And Garutman being one of the attributes of the Supreme one in Rigveda gives further context. Can you give a reference for this quote from Mayamatam ? I intend to use it in my next post.

      Besides the birdman motif, there is also the goddess seated on different vehicles/animals/objects motif which is very common in BMAC which also recalls the iconographic depiction Goddesses in Hinduism.

      Both these iconographies are present in the Halil Rud or Jiroft civilization several centuries before BMAC and perhaps the iconographic representation was something that came into Vedic India via Eastern Iran which itself adopted this practice under interaction with the proto-elamites. I think the early Vedics frowned upon iconographic depictions and we can see that even in IVC that is the case.

      My only word of advice, you should instead of writing such a long comment, break it up into 3 comments so it becomes easy to read

      0
    2. Indian Nalagonda wrote:

      “Sanskrit has a periphrastic perfect. So does Hittite where it is formed with the finite forms of the verb ‘to have’ ḫar-, ḫar-ak as auxiliary and the nom/acc sing neuter participle of the verb: e.g. mar-kán har-teni ‘you have cut’: this is the only perfect Hittite has. Avestan too has the periphrastic perfect.”

      The AIT/AMT runs into insurmountable problems when one considers all the isoglosses. See slide 6 below

      http://www.culturavedica.org/pdf/the_out_of_india_theory_the_linguistic_case

      To make the case for AIT Hock has no choice but to ignore the isoglosses between Tocharian and Anatolian on the one hand, and Tocharian and Italic-Celtic/Germanic on the other.

      The best way (imho, the ONLY way) to explain all the isoglosses is to have Italo-Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic move in that order through the ever expanding wedge between Anatolian to the west and Tocharian to the East as argued above by Talageri (slide 18) for example. His maps are not all that good but one can visualize an initial homeland within the core area of the Sarasvati basin and the homeland itself shifting westwards and northwards.

      Russian linguists Igor Tonayen Belayev’s work posits almost the same routes except that he has Italo Celtic moving west right after Anatolian.

      https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_

      In both these scenarios Iranian, Greek and Armenian are the last ones to dance out of the new homeland which could be placed at the northern tip of the current Afghan Iran border.

      Now where does genetics fit into all this? I don’t have a clue but please allow me to continue anyway!

      1. Reich has placed the origins of some controversial haplogroup(s) in Iran?

      2. Panel B in Narsimhan’s tweet can explain the Italo Celtic, Germanic, Balto Slavic movements out of Yamnaya beautifully.
      https://twitter.com/vagheesh?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

      3. The new genetic data that is being discussed these days can be used to explain the isoglosses between Anatolian and Tocharian with the much controversial steppe ancestry accounting for the last Balto Slavic movements towards Europe.

      0
    3. Writes J.M. Kenoyer, specialist in the archaeology of the Indus Valley: “[T]here is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic Period around 600 BC” (1998:174). Shaffer and Lichtenstein confirm this emphasizing the continuity of the indigenous culture (1999).

      This was postulated in the last century. Shouldn’t it be revised in light of genetic (biological) evidence discovered in the past two decades?

      1+
      1. No, because there still is no archaeological evidence showing change in material culture. So the whole statement stands if you read it carefully.

        2+
        1. Only if you place archaeology and genetics on the same plane. As far as I know, genomes don’t lie, whereas potsherds are always going to be fragments of information at best (rather than full pictures.)

          0
          1. Admixture can only say the latest date for mixing. It can’t detect if there were older similar components were present. (Or deny presence of unmixed populations that lived in strict endogamy for a long period until mixing occurred due to a catastrophe — not far fetched in Indian context despite occum’s razor)

            Iran_neo wasn’t separated in ANI from Steppe, and that produced a misleading picture of ANI-ASI cline until Zagros farmers aDNA was found.
            Then, story changed that Iranians made IVC until Rakhigarhi aDNA. Now we know, Iran-like was not the same as coming from Iran.

            So, should genetic evidence be taken as physical biological evidence when it is only inferred evidence? If there is more aDNA from India, then that is admissible biological evidence. Otherwise it is only indirect inference until direct evidence is found.

            Also, there are lies and there are statistics (biostatistics?!) 😀

            1+
      2. Numinous wrote:

        “This (Kenoyer’s article) was postulated in the last century. Shouldn’t it be revised in light of genetic (biological) evidence discovered in the past two decades?.”

        This one by Kenoyer is written in this century.

        https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer_Changing%20Perspectives%20of%20the%20Indus%20Civilization.pdf

        ” The simplistic diffusion model of early
        domestication, or specific technologies, urbanism
        and writing emcrging (sic) first in Mesopotamia, and then
        spreading to Egypt and the Indus Valley region is no
        longer supported by the recent discoveries in each of
        these regions. ”

        “These data indicate that foragers were present in the
        exact locations where we later see the emergence of
        settled agro-pastoral communities during the Early Food
        Producing Era (7000-5500 BCE) and the Regionalization
        Era (5500-2800 BCE).”

        Keonyer (2011) stands vindicated by the latest genetic study that includes the Rakhigarhi aDNA.

        0
    4. In response to Indian Nalagonda’s discussion of Vedic Avestan isoglosses

      http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Vedic_and_Avestan.pdf

      Check Kazanas’ concluding remarks in section 18 also. That is why the idea of Indic and Iranian separating from an immediate ancestor is linguistically absurd and yet is REQUIRED by the AIT.

      But the most clinching and the easiest to understand argument is the words for fire. Indo-Aryan has both pahhur and agni type of words that are found in many other IE languages such as English pyre, fire, ignite ( agni related ), purify (pahuur) related words. So if the sequence went from Indo-European to Indo-Iranian and then to Indic and Iranian, Iranian should have had such words for fire. But they DO NOT. Instead they have their own totally different word for fire “athar” , which can be related to a post Rig Vedic word athari (flame) and hence Atharva Veda.

      0
  10. @ Indian Nalgonda

    “…No other IE branch has this – except as a very late innovation in historical times (Drinka 2001).”

    >>> Drinka?

    A common Serbian name. It is a nickname of Drina (=little Drina) which is also a common female Serbian name. Drina is a central Serbian river, envisaged for thousands of years (by Vatican) to be a border btw East and West. It is currently the border btw Serbia and Bosnia, i.e. there were many attempts for border to go through the middle of the Serbian corpus. Because of this we had many wars in last 1000 years, including WW1 and civil war in 90ies. Here is used as a surname of Bridget, a Razib’s neighbour and a linguist.

    Where is the ‘late innovation’? We find ‘Greek, Latin and Old Church Slavonic’. What is the last one? Which church?

    The church is Serbian Orthodox Church and the previous is a political euphemism to avoid using the name of Serbian language. Because they even do not say “Slavic” than “Slavonic”, not to be mixed with other Slavic languages (e.g. Russian, Polish, etc).

    “Late innovation”??? (Ha-ha-ha). Serbian language is the oldest language in the world. Much older than Greek and Latin (and Hebrew). Greek was Hurrian-language, i.e. non-IE and after interactions with indigenous Serbs when Greeks migrated to today’s Greece, it became so-called IE language. For e.g. some here often mention Pontic (Steppes). “Pont” is a Greek word for the ‘road’ because, as the continental migrants, they did not have own word for “sea” (Black Sea) and borrowed it from Serbian. The name “Greek” itself is also given by Serbs.

    Latin is a young artificial language which was formed in a Serbian language environment. Similarly, Bosniacs now trying to build ‘Bosnian’ language by comically inserting some Turkish words but they still speak the identical language as in Serbia.

    Sanskrit is the old Serbian language. Which language was spoken by Hittite? Who were Phrygians? Who were Tocharians? Which languages they spoke?

    Example for “innovation”.

    Ja sam uradio. (=I have done)
    Uradih. (=I have done).

    Credit for reading Inglese and Luraghi (re: Hittite).

    Re: Garuda “eagle rock” – some other time. I still prefer the theory about mouses (with India’s genes) who followed rice (i.e. food, i.e. people) and went OUT of India to Europe and everywhere. Elephants’ story was also good. So, as counting the horse ribs.

    3+
  11. Hi Jaydeep:

    This seems important.

    Gaska wrote on Eurogenes October 17, 2019

    “@Davidski

    In that you are absolutely right, Bohemia won’t change anything.

    1- We still do not find R1b-L51 in the steppes or in the forest steppe, or in Northern Russia or anywhere in Eastern Europe- I hope you’re right and the researchers get us out of doubt soon
    2- After having ruled out Yamnaya, we will still not know in what culture M417 or R1b-L51 originated
    3-They will still not find P312/U106/Df27/U152/L21 in Eastern Europe. Obviously because they are all western markers
    4-The oldest cases of R1-M343/L51 line, will remain those of Germany that all of us should know
    5- There will still be older BB culture dates in Iberia

    I suppose your Kurganist friends will be very happy to find P312 in the CWC, especially since anything is better than accepting Iberia’s participation in this process. Please remind them that the Basques/Iberians neither speak nor have we ever spoken Indo-European languages ​​and that this reality has been scientifically proven and that it can never be refuted. And also remind them that they have been ridiculous for years saying that the Yamnaya culture is the origin of all European Prehistory.”

    Regarding point#2 above Isn’t M417 the parent of R1a or is it M780?

    0
  12. Numinous wrote”

    “As far as I know, genomes don’t lie, ,,”

    They don’t speak so that CANNOT lie.

    2+
  13. “To be clear, the Iranian ancestry in the IVC did come from Iran, just earlier than many thought.”

    Just when exactly did it come to South Asia from Iran ?

    And how do you know it was there in Iran at that date ?

    Just so that you may remember, the Harvard team actually said that the Iranian farmer/herder type ancestry in IVC separated from their cousins in Iran before 12 kya. Do you know of any Iran Hunter Gatherer or Farmer sample from Iran that is older than 12 kya ?

    Do enlighten us.

    4+
    1. There is substantial Iranian HG in ancient Caucasus, Steppe, and Anatolian populations, with zero AASI.

      And we know that when IVC populations did move in significant numbers to either BMAC or Neolithic Iran, even though they were mostly Iranian HG, they carried enough AASI that it was detectable in these populations (2-5% on the lower end).

      So makes sense to assume Iranian HG originated in West Asia, as the patterns we would expect to see had it originated in the Indus region and moved West/North, well, just aren’t there.

      0
      1. @indthings,

        Stick to one story at least in one thread.😀

        Either Iran-like in IVC “did” come from Iran or “makes sense to assume” that it originated in west Asia.

        There are other things that could make sense to assume too. Like ancestors of both Iran_neo and IVC Iran-like originated somewhere else (neither Iran nor IVC) and moved to two different regions. Or, admixture to AASI occurred after Iran-neo moved out of IVC area. Lack of biological evidence is just that, it is lacking.

        5+
        1. “admixture to AASI occurred after Iran-neo moved out of IVC area.”

          We need more samples to say for sure but this is almost certainly not true based on the samples we do have.

          This hypothesis also kind of renders useless the entire reason for this theory. If Indus farmers did not originate in South-Asia, and did not mix with native AASI Indians during the creation of the IVC and alleged spread of culture to Iran and BMAC, then what claim do modern Indians have to any of this?

          If anything this strengthens the claim of Pakistanis (and Punjabis), that they are fundamentally different from other Indians historically/genetically, and are the source for pretty much everything of note in the region. Aside from the Vedic culture brought by the invading Aryans, and even much of that was developed in the Punjab rather than India.

          0
          1. @indthings,

            I made a mild claim (“not the same”) but you made a strong claim (“did”) but backed off to “assume” when questioned.

            Now you come back with “need more samples” for something I clearly said as “assume”. Bringing in the inference for absence of evidence as evidence of absence…

            What was your point in this? Whatever you were trying to demonstrate in these comments didn’t indicate that you had mental hygiene for unbiased evaluation of evidence.

            I don’t care who has claims to what. I care to know what is the strength of evidence behind each hypothesis. That’s why I took time to respond to @numinous regarding the claim of biological evidence. That’s why I produced two hypotheses that give opposing interpretations of the same available evidence.

            I am taking time to respond now because I would like to add clarity for others devoted to truth. Hope this helps them to evaluate “truth” claims better and avoid trolls with lawyerly arguments.

            2+
  14. In Table S 31 of the Supplement, the best models for Aigyrzhal_BA include Indus_Periphery _Pool as one of the components, probably because it together with Central_Steppe_EMBA and have about 13 to 15% of the Indus_Periphery_Pool ancestry. In reality Aigyrzhal_BA is probably about 75% from the Indian Subcontinent from a population without much AASI unlike the Indus_Periphery_Pool individuals. Such populations must have existed at least until the late bronze age.

    0
  15. Here is a presentation from one of the coauthors of the latest genetic paper archaeologist Michael Frechetti on the so called “Inner Asian Mountain Corridor.” (IAMC)

    https://youtu.be/r7qq9__GWN0?t=1248

    Frechetti has excavated a site called Begash in Kazaksthan . The more interesting parts begins around the 15 min mark where he discusses grain imported to the site. Grains, horses and sheep were used in a ritualistic context at the site. Horses were considered as rare exotic animals at the site around 2000 BCE. Wheat could have made it to China through the site also. Frechetti is of course working under the AIT paradigm because charioteer David Anthony and Victor Mair (Tocharian mummy fame) had presented right before him. But his summary slide at 37:30 of the east-west trade within the IAMC could be re purposed within an OIT scenerio. The trade links could be a result of that ever expanding wedge between Anatolian and Tocharian (Uttar Kuru–Tarrkru–Tokhru–Tocharian; Henning as cited by Talageri). The timing of these trade networks meshes well with the appearance of the Mittani Indo Aryans in Anatolia also. The inscriptions have been dated around 1500 BCE but the people must have reached there a few centuries ago.

    2+
  16. AK wrote:
    “Parpola agrees with the Iranian nature of BMAC. Witzel also considers the dasyus to be iranian speakers. Sadly for both though, BMAC has almost no steppe ancestry, but IVC ancestry.”

    Why would they? They were moving in there after the Varsagira War with the Vedic people to their southeast. The final schism between these two civilizations.

    http://vyoman-wwwzblogcom.blogspot.com/2009/11/historic-zarathushtra.html

    According to a tweet from Joseph T. Noony both the Indic and Iranian sources mention the following kings who fought

    “Avesta records that he died in the war but ironically the name Zarathustra is not recorded Rig Veda. But all the other warriors are named in both sources-
    Arjaspa- Rjrasva
    Vistaspa- Ishtashva
    Humayaka- Somaka
    Bidarfsha- Ambarisha
    Vandaremaini-Bhayamana.”

    To the left are the Iranian version of the kings. One sees the well known sibilant shift from s to h there too. One can only speculate why Zarathustra himself was never mentioned in the Rig Veda. Human nature: he inverted the Vedic religion. The gods became demons and vice versa.

    1+
  17. MMK,

    What they are trying to hypothesise is that around 4500 BC, the populations atleast around the western Periphery of the Early Harappan culture if not across its entire geography, were having ancestry that can be modelled as a composition of 3 ancestries – the Iran_N like (orange), the AASI-like (purple) and the WSHG (Green).

    WSHG is essentially the steppe related ancestry that was already present across South & Central Asia before the supposed steppe migration that brought Indo-Aryans.

    They are giving this date based on their hypothesised date of admixture between the Iran_N like and AASI admixture that is found in the Indus Periphery samples. Before that they suppose that Iran N like ancestry in South Asia probably did not admix with AASI.

    0
    1. Regarding R1a, it’s parent is M417 – ancestral to Z645 which is in turn ancestral to Z93 – widespread in South Asia upto Afghanistan, and in the late Bronze Age on the steppe. It is also ancestral to Z280 which is a brother clade to Z93 and is the predominant R1a clade in Europe today.

      M780 is downstream to Z93 and is also known as L657, the R1a-Z93 clade found in majority South Asians but is absent outside. It has not been found even on the Bronze Age steppe so far. What has been found in the LBA steppe is R1a-Z93 Z2125, a brother clade of M780.

      0
      1. Jaydeep wrote:
        M780 is downstream to Z93 and is also known as L657, the R1a-Z93 clade found in majority South Asians but is absent outside. It has not been found even on the Bronze Age steppe so far. What has been found in the LBA steppe is R1a-Z93 Z2125, a brother clade of M780.”

        A bit too much for me to handle. Hopefully, someday you will get to be on internet TV explaining this with charts. Best!

        0
    2. Hi Jaydeep:
      Thank you for taking the time to provide these details.

      “WSHG is essentially the steppe related ancestry that was already present across South & Central Asia before the supposed steppe migration that brought Indo-Aryans”

      https://twitter.com/vagheesh?lang=en

      The date of -4500 BCE is far too early for AIT. In any case the same green color WSHG appears in large proportion to the right of the Caspian sea 1500 years LATER and in even larger proportion at the very top around the same time or 500 years later. It could be due to OIT or it could be that they don’t have older samples. Notably the AIT poster child Yamnaya EEHG light green (teal?) color has not even made it to Central Asia let alone South Asia. AASI showing up that far Northwest has to be good news for OIT but it does not go beyond that though.

      0
  18. So, by this logic Babur’s ancestors migrated out of India, and he then did Ghar Wapasi… 😂😂😂

    2+
  19. Found something that will put an end to the steppe Indo aryan hypothesis.

    Heres the archaeological context on Bustan BA (1600-1300BC). From Narsimhan supplement Metadata
    “Archaeological investigations at Bustan Burial Mound have revealed a complex funerary ritual related to the usage of fire. On top of the graves there were piled rocks, showing the influence of Steppe traditions. There were inhumation as well as cremation burials. There was a dedicated chamber for cremation of bodies at Bustan, including multi-usage hearths and altars. The altars were functionally classified into ones used for libations, ones used for meals, and ones used for sacrifices. The funerary rite documented at Bustan, specifically in relation to the role of fire, is not known at this time from any other site Iran, South Asia, or
    the Central Eurasian Steppes.”

    More details available here http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/archaeological-news/annotations-of-issues/arheologicheskie-vesti.-spb-1995.-vyp.-4.-annotacii

    “Three bonfires were made for each cremation act. Their traces were found at the level of buried soil south, west, and east of the incinerators (figs. 1; 2: B). These finds are closely paralleled by the Vedic texts, where cremation, described as an offering to the sacred fire carrying the body to heaven, is said to be made in three open fires (Rigveda X, 16, 18; Atharvaveda XVIII, 2, 7; Asvalayana-grihyasutra IV, 1, 2).”

    These are late vedic texts – RV mandala X, atharvaveda & asvalayana Grihyasutra.

    Of course, Bustan BA has no trace of steppe ancestry,( not even in the outliers, except 1 which has some steppe emba ancestry, 1 outlier has elevated AHG and can be modeled with Swat valley IA).

    Before the genetic data came, this was connected with the assumption that this site was infested with incoming Aryans. But now you have Aryan culture with 0 steppe mlba or LBA ancestry.

    The dominant Y haplogroup here is J2a (also dominant in brahmins and more specifically, modern zoroastrians).

    Steppe bringing Arya culture is BS

    3+
    1. AK wrote:

      “These are late vedic texts – RV mandala X, atharvaveda & asvalayana Grihyasutra.”

      The word LATE is very important here. The relative chronology of the Rig Vedic and the Avestan books has been widely known and accepted for the last two centuries. And because these two books clearly indicate a movement in a direction opposite to the AIT, the tendency has been to geographically and chronologically cram these books to the northwest of the Indian subcontinent and then hurriedly bring in the Indo Aryans to their present locations and have them rename and glorify dried up rivers as mighty. Rajesh Kocchar even absurdly transposes the whole Mahabharata era to Afghanistan even finding a Kurukhestra there!

      “Before the genetic data came, this was connected with the assumption that this site was infested with incoming Aryans. But now you have Aryan culture with 0 steppe mlba or LBA ancestry.”

      Bet Talageri would be thrilled to hear this. He just dismisses genetics and astronomy for that matter, out of hand.

      1+
    2. Now I wonder why all of the above facts about Bustan are not presented in the Narsimhan paper. James Mallory is also a co author of that paper.
      Heres what Kuzmina & Mallory wrote in their 2007 book about Bustan “The Andronovo provenance of the fire cult and the cremation rite is beyond dispute”
      Wonder why the absence of Andronovo/steppe ancestry in this highly ‘Aryan’ Bustan site does not disprove the steppe origin of Indo aryan hypothesis.
      After all, in the Rakhigarhi cell paper, Harvard is quick to reject Anatolian Hypothesis because independent anatolian ancestry wasnt present in IVC or swat. Too much double standard..

      4+
      1. AK wrote:

        “Now I wonder why all of the above facts about Bustan are not presented in the Narsimhan paper. James Mallory is also a co author of that paper.”

        Because the wind kindling those fires is now blowing the other way.

        “Heres what Kuzmina & Mallory wrote in their 2007 book about Bustan “The Andronovo provenance of the fire cult and the cremation rite is beyond dispute”

        Geneticists have done and will continue to do fantastic work that will eventually help settle the debate once and for all. As it is, every time archaeologists have tried to find evidence for the AIT they end up proving just the opposite.

        http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-andronovo-cradle-of-indo-iranian.html

        “And at once we notice something that will characterize many passages: though convinced of the Aryan invasion, she (Kuzmina) furnishes data that are compatible with, or even point to, an opposite Bactria-to-Urals migration (Elst, 2016).”

        This is what a real “Aryan Invasion” looks like

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032697/Trip-Zhou-Remains-horses-chariots-unearthed-3-000-year-old-Chinese-Dynastys-tomb.html

        But darn it! It is in the wrong country.

        “Archaeologists have painstakingly uncovered the almost 3,000-year-old remains of horses and wooden chariots in a Zhou Dynasty tomb in Luoyang, Henan Province, China..”

        And yet the Chinese still speak Mandarin, Yue, Wu and Minbie but NO Tocharian. Sorry Professor Victor Mair.

        1+
  20. “This hypothesis also kind of renders useless the entire reason for this theory. If Indus farmers did not originate in South-Asia, and did not mix with native AASI Indians during the creation of the IVC and alleged spread of culture to Iran and BMAC, then what claim do modern Indians have to any of this?

    If anything this strengthens the claim of Pakistanis (and Punjabis), that they are fundamentally different from other Indians historically/genetically, and are the source for pretty much everything of note in the region. Aside from the Vedic culture brought by the invading Aryans, and even much of that was developed in the Punjab rather than India.”

    Can you explain this leap of logic of yours ?

    How did Indus farmers not originate in South Asia ? And why is only AASI native to South Asia but Iran N or ANE is not ?

    Do you have 10 or 20 kya samples from South Asia to prove this ? How do you know that around 10 kya, populations in North India were purely or heavily AASI ? Based on what exactly ?

    And how exactly any of this has anything to do with claims of Indians vis-a-vis claims of Pakistanis regarding their history ?

    It is a fact that the civilization consciousness of Bharat or India or Aryvarta arose in North India and gradually spread across the entire South Asian region. IVC reflects the early period of this consciousness. It did not arose in any region of modern day Pakistan but Pakistan and Afghanistan were part of this civilizational consciousness since its early period.

    0
    1. 1.) We don’t need ancient samples to prove AASI was the early genetic makeup of most Indians, this can be modeled out by working backwards with later Indian genomes.

      2.) There isn’t any good evidence that the IVC was Vedic, and the overwhelming consensus among academics is that it either was not, or we don’t have enough evidence to say yet.

      3.) Bharat, or Hindu civilization if you want to call it that, originated in West UP, but did not spread west of the Sarasvati into either Punjab or Sindh. These regions remained distinct from India, considered outside Aryavarta by both groups, and today are not Hindu for that reason (Muslim and Sikh).

      4.) The genetic makeup of Indians east of the Sarasvati is largely AASI. The genetic makeup of Punjabis and Sindhis is largely Iranian HG. Many in this later group are already claiming the IVC as purely their own, based on all our ancient samples being majority Iranian HG over AASI. If as some are arguing on this thread, the IVC was started (and exported to Iran/BMAC) by people who weren’t just majority Iranian HG, but entirely so, this would solidify the idea that the IVC is purely a Punjabi/Sindhi thing (as well as Baloch/Pathan to an extent), and that Indians are simply trying to steal this history for themselves.

      Full disclosure, I am leaning toward this latter camp.

      0
      1. “Many in this later group are already claiming the IVC as purely their own”

        Like which group, if i may ask?

        6+
      2. INDTHINGS,

        I’m looking forward to your comment where you argue that the IVC (aka “Punjabis and Sindhis”) practised an old form of Islam, a noble religion that was subverted by the fire- and idol-worshipping unholy mix of steppe barbarians and forest dwellers from the east. Glorious Pakistan is therefore the true inheritor of the IVC, culturally, religously, and genetically.

        Go for it!

        3+
        1. I think once Khalistanis were claiming they were the true IVC inheritors , genetically , spiritually, morally and financially. This was at the peak of running amok in the ’80s.

          Alas they took the mantle of IVC from Dravidianists who were 100% certain it was a dravidian civ with a drav language – which is interchangeable with Tamil

          1+
        2. I think claiming old civilizations, or generally lionizing/demonizing the past is lame. But if we’re going to engage in this talk, I agree with the secular Pak-Nationalist that the IVC belongs to Indus peoples (Sindhi/Punjabis) if it belongs to anyone.

          I don’t think there is any connection to Islam here. Which is fine, all ancient civilizations (Egypt, China, Mesopotamia) had a different religion/culture than their modern descendants. Also, the people typically interested in this topic are already quite secular to begin with, so don’t care about connecting the IVC with Islam.

          0
          1. ” I agree with the secular Pak-Nationalist that the IVC belongs to Indus peoples”

            Did you just use “secular” and “Pak” in the same sentence? Good job.

            Also do they keep these people in some sort of zoo, perhaps? Since they must be endangered species.

            1+
          2. “Do they keep these people in zoos?”

            You will mostly only find secular Pakistanis in graveyards and anonymous online chat forums. But their numbers are increasing.

            0
      3. Ah! A justification for Pakistan along the lines of the “The Indus Saga” thinking.

        All these borders that we argue over right now, are largely recent and often accidental. Nations are relatively new and national boundaries have changed constantly. Long before nations came into being, people migrated constantly, and culture has diffused across vast regions with/without the migration of people.

        0
  21. Jaipur Dialogues session on AIT

    Geneticist Niraj Rai speaks in Hindi from, 45:21 for about 10 minutes
    Main points:

    Rakhigarhi is bigger than Mohenjodaro. Took 2-3 years to analyze the aDNA from there. DNA can be divided into maternal, paternal and inherited from both parents. The sample is 4500 year old. They compared the Rakhigarhi sample with ancient samples from Middle East, Central Asia and Europe and also contemporary Indian populations. Three DEFINITIVE(“100% full proof”) conclusions were reached. Our paper has been published in the world’s top most journal. The paper was been reviewed by Europeans and not (just) Indians. This paper has been praised around the world as the most important paper of the year (audience clapping.). Europeans are in full agreement (“pure ke pure”) with our findings. aDNA was extracted from 60 skeletons but only one skeleton was used which is enough if you have a lot of data. The first finding was that the Rakhigarhi people were indigenous with tribal admixture and had no input from Central Asia or Iran as caste system had not been established then. Castes were formed 4200 years ago as described in the Vedas (Kelkar does not know where Rai is getting that from). People should really visit the Rakhigarhi civilization. It is very technologically advanced, the brick measurements are very precise (within a millimeter) and precious gemstones have been found. Advanced metallurgical work has also been found. They knew agriculture. We found rice, millet. Our (genetic) findings prove that agriculture was indigenous to the region because we did not find any mixing with Iranian farmers contrary to what textbooks have been teaching that agriculture came here from Iran (this is the second finding he is alluding to). Some people have argued that Iranians brought agriculture here and then went back. (Chuckles) We cannot respond to such arguments. Our third finding relates to the out of India migration (OIT). WE HAVE PROVED THIS GENETICALLY (literally translated from Hindi). We had contemporaneous from data from Gonur (Turkmenistan) and Shar-i Sokta (Iran). The 20% people there that were till now considered as outliers at these sites have now been matched with Rakhigarhi indicating that those people went there from Indus Valley . This is also a 100% percent full proof finding (translated literally). Earlier work had sampled 50 modern people (from India) out of 1.3 billion claiming that the so called “steppe ancestry” had arrived but that is not logical. They had used limited data. We have sampled 10,000 people from 500 communities. From now on will not be talking about AIT but OIT and European scholars are accepting it “happily” (big applause). They acknowledge that a historical mistaken has been made. But the most unfortunate thing is that in our Hindustan people are still arguing against this but now we have these three genetic findings (speaks in incomplete sentences). Gypsy population has gone from India to Europe but still remains distinct. (On the contrary) I (Rai) have worked on populations such as Parsi and Jews that have come to India but have been genetically and culturally assimilated. That is the beauty of our civilization and culture. But we have not assimilated invaders such as Huns. Western scholars had argued that a gene called R1a which is found in 40% of Indians had come from outside. But that is not logical because they had sampled only 50 out of a population of 1.3 billion. We have sampled 10,000 people from 500 communities. Genetics has a rule that the origin of a haplogroup is supposed to be where it is most diverse. The genetic diversity of R1a is 60% more than that in Europe. Our new paper will show with the help of maps that R1a had originated in India and then migrated to Europe. This is going to be a breakthrough paper that will prove the OIT. But as a scientist I (Rai) I must say that its not like that people have not mixed. We do find genetic signature of incoming populations at various dates 1200 BC, 600 BC, 800 AD (?). Then he talks about horse evidence in the Himalayas which he calls a “pony horse” distinct from the Arabian horse. With this I ( (Rai) would like to take questions from the audience because many people don’t understand this stuff.

    0
    1. I can confirm that ‘Europeans’ are thrilled. And there is a panic in AIT camp while awaiting the results of pony horse ribs counting.

      0
  22. https://youtu.be/4VEdyPxkT3k?t=3518

    At 58 min Rai says there are working on horse the pony horse of DNA of a 34 ribbed that they think matches the horse described in the Vedas. But he is not sure because nuclear (?) DNA is harder to extract than mitochondrial DNA which is not sufficient to prove…we are working on it. Geneticist Shiv Shastry starts speaking in English around 1:08:00

    Then a genetics related question is asked at 1:23. Rai answers in English. Geneticist Shiv Shastry continues in English. Then Rai says something technical in English about ruling out hypotheses. Shastry speaks again at 1:35 in English.

    0
  23. The IE cognates for king/royalty follow the same pattern as those for fire.

    https://twitter.com/JoeAgneya

    As one can see Vedic Raja has cognates as far west as Ireland (Rai) and yet the Iranians (surprisingly!) do not have it. Their words for royalty can be related to kstra or ksatriya which is a relatively modern word.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah

    “The word descends from Old Persian xšāyaθiya “king”, which (for reasons of historical phonology) must be a borrowing from Median,[3] and is derived from the same root as Avestan xšaϑra-, “power” and “command”, corresponding to Sanskrit (Old Indic) kṣatra- (same meaning), from which kṣatriya-, “warrior”, is derived. The full, Old Persian title of the Achaemenid rulers of the First Persian Empire was Xšāyathiya Xšāyathiyānām or Šāhe Šāhān, “King of Kings”[4] or “Emperor”.”

    The other Vedic word for royalty is Kesar (lion) that also has cognates in European languages caesar (Italic) Kaiser (Germanic), Zar (Russian) and such. Once again Iranians do not have it.

    A third example is the words for night. Old Rig Vedic nakt has the following cognates

    Avestan naxt-, German nacht, modern Greek nukhta, Latin nocte, Old Russian noshti, Old Irish nnocht, Albanian natë, Lithuanian naktis, Tocharian nakt, Hittite nekuz, English night

    This time the Iranians do have an old cognate but it has taken a back seat just as in Indic languages where the modern Indo Aryan words for night are derived from Ratri (except Marathi which still has nisha but very rarely used only in poems and refined speech). The more common Iranian word for night is shab (shabnam, shabbakhair for Bollywood fans!) which can be related to the a much later Atharva Vedic word ksap compared to say English where night is THE primary word for the concept and there aren’t any others that I can think of.

    All this shows that the Iranians were the LAST ones to depart the putative homeland after all the other branches had left, which can only be from South Asia. The preceding discussion is based on ideas from Shrikant Talageri, Igor Tonoyen Belayev , Subhash Kak and Joseph T. Agneya. Any errors are of course mine.

    0
    1. After quasi-geneticists we have quasi-linguists, i.e. having proved OIT genetically now it should be also proved linguistically?

      Very humorous comment (I still remember the best on BP came from you). You almost explained everything comparing Irish with Vedic word ‘raja’. Where it comes from? From ‘Old Indic’? You are maybe the first (as far as I know) in the world who termed Sanskrit as Old Indic. When originated the word “Ind…”? By the way you have failed the assignment to find the previous name for the river Ind even I gave you time extension.

      From which language came the word – Tsar (and its derivation ‘shah’). As before, when you and others talk linguistics, you lose sense of time. What (where and when) is the link between Sanskrit and e.g. English (formed in 12th c), German (14th c), Russian (8th c), Greek, Latin, Albanian (??19th c)? Which language was spoken in Europe for e.g. 2000BC (a tip: none of previous mentioned)

      Do you know where ‘raj’ came from? Media is old name for Macedonia. Castes were brought to SA by Aryans. What about ‘Kesar’ (and variations)? Sometimes it is called Cesar or Ćesar (e.g. Franz Joseph was called like this) or female version – ‘Cesarica’ (how Maria Teresia was called).

      Ok, enough, let’s relax, for you and other readers – Cesarica (Oliver Dragojevic) 4 min

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vban2vqqk6s

      0
  24. Vagheesh’s samples are from Iran and Central Asia, which is largely IE speaking today. An even larger portion of this area was IE speaking historically but transitioned to turkic. So the paper is ideally placed to do a time transect analysis of Iran and correlate with languages (since this seems fashionable). But the paper skirts this and jumps to South Asia where ancient samples are sparse. If steppe MLBA was “the only” vector for IE what is its role in Iran.

    0
  25. A New Nepal Terracotta Tablet Predates Mahabharata to Harappa Culture
    https://openthemagazine.com/special/new-nepal-terracotta-tablet-predates-mahabharata-harappa-culture/
    “The tablet was authenticated by Oxford Authentication using thermoluminescence or TL dating method on May 14th, 2019. The result of the ​​authentication confirms that the date of the firing was between 2,300 and 3,600 years ago, that is, 1,600 BCE to 300 BCE.”
    Interesting. The article does not say which archaeological layer the tablet was found in. It does not look that old. The margin of error is quite large too. May be someone is trying to cash in.

    0
  26. Hi Jaydeep:

    Check out the various comments from Gaska on the Eurogenes blog

    on the latest article “Interesting times ahead”

    The two paragraphs below in particular:

    “Dr Reich words are basically the same as always, we still don’t know what “Yamnaya” or “steppe”, or “Yamnaya related” or “steppe related” ancestry is, and the reason why uniparental markers tell us a totally different story-Many researchers in Spain think that we are making a fool of ourselves by letting this man interpret our prehistory partially and without sufficient knowledge- Some universities and museums that keep thousands of ancient skeletons are developing independent programs that will help to understand this process-”

    “None of these samples has been taken into consideration to establish the autosomal composition og the WHGs and it is a fundamental lineage to know the European genetics Do not you think that much is missing, to be able to make such resounding statements regarding the autosomal composition of Europeans before the arrival of Neolithic farmers?”

    So does that mean the light blue WHG in the Narsimhan tweet below

    https://twitter.com/vagheesh?lang=en

    is not sufficiently European? If that is indeed true, then it is going have a serious impact on Panel B of Narsimhan’s tweet. The impact of the so called “Yamnaya Steppe Pastoralist” could be seriously overestimated. And if THAT is also true, then the genetic bubble on the steppe homeland theory has been totally bursted. Thank you for your time.

    1+
    1. Very well MMK, good research. I have been talking for long time about the corrupted system and meaningless taxonomy. How someone can interpret ancient history after skipping 7000 years from the ‘beginning’, to start in deep ‘second half’ and project what has been happening before, instead of doing the real job. Because we have his untenable theory that so-called ‘Indo-European’ languages originated in Yamnaya and were spread out in Europe about 2700BC. This was accepted by Indian guy who made even worse by inventing IE ‘language conduit(!)’ to SA and stating that Romans were spreading IE languages.

      Reich realized where is the belly of ancient history and recently started to research Lepenski Vir. He made a paper in 2017 where he said that he needs medieval (?) and earlier archaeological samples from Balkan to establish ancient continuity with modern people, although none asked him about this continuity and what is a political crap. Of course, he knew, if he says anything, it would have a domino effect and automatically annihilate the current version of world history we know.

      Keep doing good work, I have a faith in your resilience that you will overcome the previous ‘F’ and do not use the term ‘European’ in this context because Europe did not exist at that time. Instead, it is much beter to use the name of languages spoken at that time.

      0
      1. Milan Todorovic wrote:

        “Reich realized where is the belly of ancient history and recently started to research Lepenski Vir.”

        Discovered the following map after googling Lepenski Vir
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepenski_Vir#/media/File:Lepenski_vir_culture.png

        Danube is referred to as Dunav. Danu is a goddess of Celtic mythology.
        https://bardmythologies.com/danu/

        Rivers are associated with her, and represent the fertility and abundance in a land. There is a suggestion that Danu might have had dual characteristics, one being the beneficent, nurturing mother goddess, and another being the strong, malevolent side of the warrior goddess. The root “dan” in ancient Irish means art, skill, poetry, knowledge, and wisdom.”

        https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/danu

        “Danu (दनु) is the name of a mind-born ‘divine mother’ (mātṛ), created for the purpose of drinking the blood of the Andhaka demons, according to the Matsya-purāṇa 179.8. The Andhaka demons spawned out of every drop of blood spilled from the original Andhakāsura (Andhaka-demon). According to the Matsya-purāṇa 179.35, “Most terrible they (eg., Danu) all drank the blood of those Andhakas and become exceedingly satiated.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu_(Asura)

        “Danu, a Hindu primordial goddess, is mentioned in the Rigveda, mother of the Danavas.”

        For once, let us not get into a fist fight over who came first (OIT/AIT!) and just realize and cherish the ancient bonds that we know have existed among cultures.

        1+
        1. MMK, we already wrote about Dunav (it is a Serbian name for Danube, Russians say – Dunay) and Danu. Is there any idea how ancient Irish (?) and Hindu mythology are connected? Is it not self-explainable? Just watch the Euro-Asia map.

          Just to reiterate, I am neither AIT nor OIT, unless you are offended by mousse/elephant joke? Maybe you adopted English (Hoju would say – eccentric) sense of humour and got disconnected from your Aryan roots? I am uncovering the falsifications of the world history which says that Serbian history before 7cAC did not exist and that they fell down from the Mars.

          There is a deep frustration among OITs who draw all facts from reading old epics between the lines. I experienced couple backstabbings by anonymouses here and couple, open and candid, attempts to shout my mouth, to be censored and my comments to be blocked. We have several open OITs (and couple afraid to come out) who grotesquely try to act as impartial geneticists, linguists, historians, etc.

          I think that it is inevitable to make AIT/OIT reconciliation and this can start here at BP. It would be a huge progress for Indian society at large. Some can initiate the provisional committee with people interested to participate. Maybe, Omar could be the initiator and members could be yourself, Slapsy, Karan, some other OIT and some of AIT guys, including Razib. This would have a global significance and attention. I think that is the most realistic that such thing starts from Indian diaspora, rather than from India itself. You have some responsibility of this kind. I can contribute also and give some data which can provide ability to Indian scholars to have upper hand in discussions with western scholars (like your note about Reich, etc). Everyone needs to make some concessions and make a shift in their entrenched assertions. I, myself, will also make a move by recalling the mousse/elephant joke.

          1+
  27. Milan Todorovic wrote:

    “MMK, we already wrote about Dunav (it is a Serbian name for Danube, Russians say – Dunay) and Danu. Is there any idea how ancient Irish (?) and Hindu mythology are connected?”

    Back to the homeland debate again? Ok. My answer is of course going to be OIT.

    “Just to reiterate, I am neither AIT nor OIT,

    That is good to know.

    “unless you are offended by mousse/elephant joke? Maybe you adopted English (Hoju would say – eccentric) sense of humour and got disconnected from your Aryan roots?”

    Not sure what that means. We have a family tradition of hosting Rudra Abhishekas and occasionally a Mantra Jagar (chanting of the Vedas). These ceremonies are expensive because not many people can do it right today.

    “I think that it is inevitable to make AIT/OIT reconciliation and this can start here at BP.”

    I am afraid that is not possible. IE languages could not have come into India and went out at the same time. The best approach to reconciliation would be to propose a Colin Massica style linguistic area which makes a lot of sense. For example there is evidence that Vedic and the Iranian branches were on better terms in later texts after the initial parting of ways. People get caught up into modern national boundaries. To that end there is some one calling himself mzp1 of Iranian descent who is occasionally seen around here.

    “We have several open OITs

    count me among those.

    (and couple afraid to come out) who grotesquely try to act as impartial geneticists, linguists, historians, etc.”

    Can’t comment on that.

    ” I am uncovering the falsifications of the world history which says that Serbian history before 7cAC did not exist and that they fell down from the Mars.”

    Having seen all the distortions and spins that have been put on India’s history it is easier for me to feel your pain. I for one, do think Serbian history is a LOT older than 700 CE. That is probably when the language appears in writing? The Lepenski Vir site has been dated earlier than 6000 BCE. To my knowledge the Serbs do not have anything comparable to the Vedic oral tradition. But that does not mean Serbs do not have an ancient tradition. Looking at the map below of all the Slavic languages

    https://www.google.com/search?q=map+of+slavic+languages&sxsrf=ACYBGNTrdQBRWCy5zjLDICcbk0eiILVcow:1572921575261&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=XgXqsdr05KiL6M%253A%252C_exB8G-NCevbeM%252C%252Fm%252F06n20&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRXJEP0tlWIlr77s3uQFpzVNDsHpQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh0YK-hdLlAhXFnuAKHdUzARcQ_B0wE3oECAoQAw#imgrc=XgXqsdr05KiL6M:

    The Serbs ought to have been the earliest peoples to have spoken an IE language in that region. That would be true in an Anatolian, Armenian or an Indian homeland scenario.

    From a Serbian point of view you may want to look into Johanna Nichols’ work very seriously. She is not committed to any homeland. But according to her, based on loan word trajectories the isoglosses shared by IIr and Balto Slavic languages are best explained by an east to west movement (citing Talageri from memory).

    0
  28. Jaydeepsinh, you had promised: “The body of archaeological literature documenting the links between the IVC, Eastern Iran & BMAC is quite significant and I intend to write on it, God willing, in the next post to complete and complement the picture given by genetic data.” Hope its coming. But also, given Razib’s recent endorsement, may be you are on to bigger results/writeups.

    0
    1. So-called ‘Trypillia’ is a clumsy translation of the Serbian word ‘Tripolje i.e. Tripolye’ what means – three fields. It is identical with another Serbian toponym ‘Tripoli’ given to the today’s capitol city of Libya. Initially, it was the name for the whole Africa.

      Tripolye is a part of Vinca civilization. Even, Wikipedia shyly says this:

      “The culture thus extended northeast from the Danube river basin around the Iron Gates to the Black Sea and the Dnieper. It encompassed the central Carpathian Mountains as well as the plains, steppe and forest steppe on either side of the range. Its historical core lay around the middle to upper Dniester.[3] During the Atlantic and Subboreal climatic periods in which the culture flourished, Europe was at its warmest and moistest since the end of the last Ice Age, creating favorable conditions for agriculture in this region.”

      There are some figurines from Vinca as well. It can be seen that it is the same civilisation.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=vinca+figurines&rlz=1C1GCEA_enAU795AU795&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Ay4T69wXd3O6oM%253A%252CxkAXO_17_KDRoM%252C%252Fm%252F021vcm&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTpoTUvloWFHDGnnvyLvhH49w5AOw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSm8P_jtTlAhUVQH0KHdaJA2kQ_B0wCnoECAoQAw#imgrc=Ay4T69wXd3O6oM:

      0
      1. PS. In previous comment I mentioned the right name of Tripolye instead of meaningless English constructions (there are few). It is not strange considering that English speakers cannot read even own name without spelling (it is sad that some South Asians see spelling bee as something significant and cool). It is also here (wiki) used the name ‘Carpathian Mountains’. This is also a recent change of the name which even Romans (Marcelin) used – Sarbatian M. (i.e. Serbian Mount).

        The link with a map of Slavic languages posted by MMK is a joke and reflects political constructions. Why no one presents the map of languages, for e.g. at the beginning of the 1st millennia, there would be only one language.

        MMK says in his previous comment: “For once, let us not get into a fist fight over who came first (OIT/AIT!) and just realize and cherish the ancient bonds that we know have existed among cultures.”
        Agree, no questions about that. ‘You’ are the first and champions. ‘We’ came the second, silver for us, long behind are lagging bronze Mughals and Brits sucks without medal.

        … And, I haven’t started story about homeland. You MMK did, but if you are mentioning the similarity between ancient Irish and Hindu mythologies, you should explain (or at least speculate) this link.

        0
  29. Milan Todorovic

    Leaving the issue of homeland aside, just sharing these with you.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg79R5jopj8&t=29s

    The above video says Serbs have been mentioned in the Rig Veda. Indra fought a war with Sarbinda” equivalent of the modern Serbian word “Serbenda”

    Also

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGf4de8nsQc

    According to Pliny the Serbian ancient homeland is among the Iranian peoples south of the Caucasus. As per Constantine VII Serban is also the name of a Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan.

    Reminds me of Sarvendra (King of of gods) as a birth name for male children almost all over contemporary India. Interesting stuff.

    0
    1. Thanks, MMK. I saw some material, they are pretty much fabrications. I don’t know who is behind these productions. I may provide you with some material with real references. For example, you already know for the book of songs, preserved for hundred years in a monastery, with songs from old SA homeland from people who after 1000 years of living in SA and fighting Chinese for 1000 years returned to today’s Serbia. You also know (it was your reference) about ‘northern people’ who came to today’s China in Aryan times where even founded at least one dynasty, fought Chinese for hundreds of years, some were assimilated, and others escaped back to Siberia. Chinese write PhD theses about their Aryans.

      It is true that Srbinda or Serbinda appears in Rig Veda. And, this term is still used in modern days for – a big Serb or real Serb or true-blue Serb but mostly in jokes (e.g. He can drink 2 bottles of whiskey, he is a real Srbinda, etc). Beware of fabrications, there are many around, Croats who have not any history (except last 27 years plus 4 as Nazi puppets in ww2) are very productive in these make ups, claiming for e.g. 40 of their kings although they did not have any.

      0

Comments are closed.