Ancestry Of Jats

[Mad Indian]

Iranian identity

Fascinating article

This is the reason I dont give two shits about the linguistic arguments. there are several contradicting arguments for both sides and linguistics is by itself is a very subjective field. For people with objective reasoning, Genetics and archeology should be the fields to base their arguments on, and both of them have already ruled out any migration or invasion.

This is a linguistics video supporting indigenous origin of Aryans(Indians). Note how easy it is to claim unprovable or unfalsifiable claims in linguistics? If someone enters the AIT with linguistics, he has already lost his debate in my eyes

 

[Simple_Guy]

More from that article:

Not only is Aryanism a relic of nineteenth-century European thought with an ignominious legacy, but its Iranian variety is a symptom of an entrenched complex of inferiority, a desperate attempt to be something other than a "mere Iranian." This complex is rooted in a traumatic encounter with Europe that took place two centuries ago. It thus alarms me that to this very day, serious Iranian intellectuals tell a wide audience that "Iranians are Aryans."


In the same way, nineteenth-century European thought with an ignominious legacy, has a grip on some Indians

 

[Mad Indian]

The summary of the above video -

1. Similiarities between Sanskrit and European languages made the Britshits to first propose AIT with only basis on similiarity between the languages - and that they claimed the the origin of the Aryans was South Russia(central asia?!)

2. Harappa was discovered when AIT was already established. So they decided based on their previous assumption that Harappa must be Pre-Aryan as Harappan was dated as 1500 BCE and dates for AIT was decided already to be later than that, with no evidence whatsoever for Harappa being pre aryan. That is it is solely on a speculation on the similiarity between Sanskrit and European languages

3. Postulates of the AIT -

1. languages of Iran , India, Euro are all related to a single family, just like how TibetoBurman is a different language tree
2. Since they are all related- they must have a common ancestor . Note that there is no evidence for the existence of such language anywhere. They constructed a proto european langauge - with no evidence.
3. The proto Indo euro language must have had a homeland(logical from the second point) - but with no evidence for it whatsoever
4. This proto Indo euro language homeland must have been at the center of Europe and Srilanka(the southern most tip where Aryan language was spoken ) and so it must have been Caucausus(South Russia)
5. Since this Proto Euro language is South Russian in origin, Vedas and hence the Hindu religion must have been foreign to India brought in by Aryan Invaders​

4. But according to this theory, note that even the Britons and Germans must also have been immigrants, invaders of the Britain and Germany respectively. But nowhere in Britain or Germany do they talk about how they are the immigrants or invaders of that Country (this is why I consider people who claim they were descendents of Foreigners to be pathetic and it can happen only in India)

Now these are the oppositions to this theory by the opponents of AIT

5. First postulate of AIT:

That there is a thing called Aryan language tree - they hate the idea that Sanskrit is more related to Euro languages than the Indian Languages like Tamil or Telugu. But of course, one cannot dismiss an idea because they hate it.

The speaker says that the first point is absolutly correct in his view - his reason being - there are several words with similiar vocabularies - 3 is Three in English, Theen in Sanskrit and Hindi, Thin in Persian etc , father, mother, brother in English - pithra, mathar, pirthar in Sanskrit?

Pronouns in English - he we they, in sanskrit - vyom, uyam and they? voh and nah in Latin and Sanskrit , for they and we respectively


dau draps- sanskrit, dew drops in english


In India there are six language families

6. Second postulate-

It is opposed on the grounds - why cant sanskrit be that ancestral language ?

The speaker is also opposed to this opposition , He says -" the present day classical sanskrit is very different from Vedic sanskrit. So we cant blanketly say that there was no proto aryan language language - it might have been the ancestral form of even Vedic sanskrit ". They have constructed the proto aryan language too

7. Third postulate - this part must be accepted if 1st and 2nd points are accepted as a logical extension of the 1st and 2nd postulates

8. Fourth postulate - that India is not the homeland

Author claims this is the most controversial of the postulates- placing the origin of Aryans , because this is not based on any scientific evidence or logical premises but only on the assumptions and dubious speculations.

No evidence for this claims on Text books, archeology anywhere in the world . The whole AIT is based on this sole point - language of IVC is still unknown, no evidence for language of IVC being Aryan or dravidian, no evidence for Aryan migration or invasion

So the AIT arguments for this postulate :

1. India could not have been the homeland of Proto Indo European Language, 2. Trace some evidence for AIT in Rig veda

But the evidence they site is bad- they base their whole argument on the sole word anas - which Sanskrit scholars claim means people who babble, while the AIT proponents claim it to be unas - flat nosed people. This word anas is found in the Rig veda only once and they AIT proponents have constructed their whole theory on it - that Europeans with their sharp noses came to India and conquered the Indian natives with flat noses .(NOTE: AIT is not based on any evidence other than these linguistic interpretations)

Here the author claims to have authored three books on why AIT is false and OIT is true, based on linguistics, textual, and chronological arguments, which absolutely prove that AIT is false and OIT - Aryans out of India theory is true

So the author claims that his first book on OIT was cited by THE Witzel(whom the identity crisised idiots here were citing for the AIT) as an example of how Indians are making the theory up and how the author's name - Shrikant G Talageri was mentioned in it. So in his second book, this author had devoted an entire chaptor on how Witzel had provided false information and had provided contradictory evidences to his own arguments on each page and he provided the actual proof from Rig Veda and he sent a copy to him.

This is the best part- on recieving a copy, some other Harward professor had offered a scholarship program for this author under Witzel, if he was willing to modify his viewsand was willing to be flexible in his views(yeah, thats right, bribe to silence criticism rather than debate and disprove his positions and accusations). And in his third book, he had completely exposed all the nonsense which has been written by Witzel in his AIT works


@Sakal Gharelu Ustad You asked for if there is any proof for OIT regarding linguistics? Here is a video and the part of its summary. This video is a also kind of a linguistical debunking of AIT.

While retards and ideologically stunted clowns can believe and stew in whatever BS they want, those of us with self respect and actual thirst for knowledge should actively seek to find the truth

 

[Mad Indian]

In the same way, nineteenth-century European thought with an ignominious legacy, has a grip on some Indians

And pointing this out is somehow bad. pathetic isn't it?

 

[Abhijat]

Maybe give more info (a link, a credible source) for the underlined??

http://www.thehindu.com/news/horses-and-rhinos-originated-in-india/article6622486.ece

 

[Mad Indian]

@Razor When you are done dealing with your european/central asian/whatever ancestry and superior cultural upbringing, here go through this video :


As I said , I have no problems giving arguments supporting OIT. But I am too lazy to devote too much time on ideologically stunted idiots who refuse to learn even when given the chance.

Just for the record, no I dont think this alone can be taken as a proof of OIT. I would need archeological and genetic data(more than what is present ) for accepting OIT. As Far as I am concerned, linguistics is a bunch of pseudo science which can be intrepreted in any way to suit any narrative

 

[Screambowl]

You asked me whether I had ever seen a white chimp. You got your answer. The colour of the hair is a distraction. Many white people have black hair too.

Ok, so your point is that they (the sages mentioned in the Vedas?) started this word Aryan (absolutely wrong, considering Arian was already a place in Iran), and they did not say ". . ." (how do you know they did not say that?).

I agree with the last part. The word Aryan has another meaning, as in noble, but that could have developed because the settlers considered themselves noble.

Japnese are not white and blonde. And Please also google Kalash people from Chitral they are also white with unique DNA. This does not mean they have anything to do with europe or central west asia. They are white and Indigenous people of that region.

Whatever in Vedas is, is the product of knowledge which was gained through meditation. And very late , approx 3000 BC, they were compiled by Vedvyas. So there is no question of getting any name from Iran, but yes the possibility of Persians taking the knowledge of Vedas and to respect them naming a place to Aria.

The term Arya Purush , has nothing to do with any settlements, but the character of a human. This should not be mixed with demographic distinction on the bases of geography.

Just like the term 'Brahmin' which is also a product of vedic philosphy has nothing to do with region, looks, and background. It solely depends on the character.

Ravan was called as Mahabrahmin, why?

 

[Mad Indian]

Continuation of the summary of the video I posted debunking AIT:

Then the speaker talks about the American academia - how when the american text books write about Muslims, they consult Muslims, Jews, they consult jews and of course when they write about Xtians, they consult Xtians. but when they write about Hindus, they consult no Hindus and just write whatever they want to write.

Recently American Hindus there challenged this process of writing about Hindus and Hinduism, and that Hindus should be consulted before they are written about. This was opposed by the Witzel(and though the speaker does not mention, I know Romilla thappar too did it too) and his likes, through signature campaigns and they were silenced(see how pathetic Hindus are. ) .

When asked to comment on his third book, Witzel just said - "I dont want to talk about it" claims the speaker . The speaker claims that his third book contains pages and pages of data on Rig Veda and Augusta(not sure what it is)? and not just simple speculations on OIT. The author is challenging anyone to disprove his data. He also claims that his data is absolute.


The Author makes it clear that by OIT, he means that only the languages went out and that Hinduism is related only to India and unique to India. He claims that Vedas do not contains what we consider to be modern Hindu culture.

First Linguistic Argument -

1. Early western works on Indo european languages actually made Vedic Sanskrit the earliest language of the Aryan Language tree. There are actually several early 19th century works available , done by western authors claiming so . But it was soon discovered that Vedic sanskrit is itself a derived language and hence not a origin language. But this supposedly triggered an opposite reaction claiming that since Vedic sanskrit was not the original source of language, then it automatically must mean that India was not the original homeland. So they started to construct theories on why South Russia must be the Aryan homeland while the Sanskrit scholars insisted on Sanskrit being the original language and India being the homeland.

But the author claims that this whole reasoning, by both sides is flawed - the flaw being , since Vedic sanskrit was itself a reconstructed derivative language of Proto Aryan Language, then so must the language of South russia(or the Slavic languages.). In fact, the author claims that Slavic languages are even more reconstructed, or even more derivative of the original Proto Aryan language and so it is more unlikely that South Russia was the original homeland of the Proto Aryan Language .

2. Also, he claims that the Vedic sanskrit is much closer to the proto aryan language than any Indian language


For eg, Childe` gives 72 basic cognate Proto Indo European words constructed scientifically?!?! of which

Sanskrit has 70 words, German- 46 words, Baltic - 23 words, Slavic -16 words, Greek - 48 words etc.

He claims that Sanskrit has three genders, three numbers - (he , we two, we all) and eight cases(whatever that is) and that it is the only Aryan language besides the Proto Indo European language to have all of this intact.

3. He claims that Griffith claims that there are Sanskrit base and roots for Greek, Teuton, Latin, Slavonian, Celtic

There are words which are in Aryan language family like in German and English for example, which remain unrelated, unless you find the link word, which invariably is found in Sanskrit(more proof that Sanskrit was more original that Slavik or Central asia or Any other european language)

4. He claims that Vedic myths went to these places and not the other way around. He also claims vedic gods were different from puranic gods - Agni, mithra, ruthra of Vedas. These all are represented in the Mythology of Greece, Hittites, Lithuania(yes, that lithuania onleee ) etc. He also quotes from Griffith on how Vedas throw light on the religious practices of the europeans before the introduction of Christianity.

When you compare greek and Vedic mythologies, there are many common elements. If you compare german and Vedic mythologies, you find so many common elements. But if you compere German and Greek, there are no common elements. More proof that Vedas were the common ancestors.


5. Also, Iranian Mythology has common elements ONLY with Vedic mythology. But, According to AIT - Aryans came from South Russia to Central Asia and there they seperated. This cant be the case when Iranian mythology has nothing in common with any other mythology of the European countries of that time

6. He claims that Vedic gods provide explanation for the origin of the Gods of the Greek and Romans - Pithru in Vedas- Jupiter in Rome, .,ie vedas provide the links to why Romans considered Jupiter as their god. He claims that Mcdonalds claim that Vedic gods are close to the physical forms they represent than any other mythological gods of any Indo European Mythology.

7. According to AIT - Aryans originated in the South Russia and migrated slowly, over centuries eastwards - settling and moving on. While they were moving, they gradually picked up and assimilited to the local population culture and religion while they moved on as a much mixed population of Aryans step by step.. But According to witzel, people of the Central asia got completely aryanised(.ie Mixed aryan people completely aryanised non aryan people, while being mixed aryans) .


8. And these Aryanised local population of Central asia moved into Punjab and Aryanised the local population, as per Witzel, claims the speaker. To get a perspective, imagine that the bunch of nomads of Central Asia, who themselves were not Aryans but were Aryanised Central Asians , came in as small and uncollected groups of nomads, why completely aryanised the settled civilisation of Indus Valley,which at the time had the highest population in the world, ie The few hundred Central asians made the millions who lived in the IVC to stop being Dravidians(or whatever he cooked them up to be) and made them to speak Aryan Languages. The millions who lived in IVC gave up all their religion and just adopted the religion of the few hundred nomadic Aryans who migrated

 

[Mad Indian]

I could go on as I have only explained first 40 minutes of the video. But I dont think I want waste any more time to convince these ideologically stunted identity crisised idiots. I think four hours is more than enough.

Watch the full video. Its completely worth it.

I dont believe in OIT as there is not enough archeological/genetic evidence for it yet but that video will shut up the Rig veda/Linguistic morons of the AIT up completely as it is full of Linguistic arguments only.

 

[Mad Indian]

Ravan was called as Mahabrahmin, why?

He was magically transported by Vayu, to provide proof that Aryans migrated

 

[Screambowl]

He was magically transported by Vayu, to provide proof that Aryans migrated

LOL, But I don't understand why we give preference to western facts to know about our own selves. Shame

 

[Mad Indian]

LOL, But I don't understand why we give preference to western facts to know about our own selves. Shame

Because many people here lack self respect

 

[Screambowl]

Continuation of the summary of the video I posted debunking AIT:

Then the speaker talks about the American academia - how when the american text books write about Muslims, they consult Muslims, Jews, they consult jews and of course when they write about Xtians, they consult Xtians. but when they write about Hindus, they consult no Hindus and just write whatever they want to write.

Recently American Hindus there challenged this process of writing about Hindus and Hinduism, and that Hindus should be consulted before they are written about. This was opposed by the Witzel(and though the speaker does not mention, I know Romilla thappar too did it too) and his likes, through signature campaigns and they were silenced(see how pathetic Hindus are. ) .

When asked to comment on his third book, Witzel just said - "I dont want to talk about it" claims the speaker . The speaker claims that his third book contains pages and pages of data on Rig Veda and Augusta(not sure what it is)? and not just simple speculations on OIT. The author is challenging anyone to disprove his data. He also claims that his data is absolute.


The Author makes it clear that by OIT, he means that only the languages went out and that Hinduism is related only to India and unique to India. He claims that Vedas do not contains what we consider to be modern Hindu culture.

First Linguistic Argument -

1. Early western works on Indo european languages actually made Vedic Sanskrit the earliest language of the Aryan Language tree. There are actually several early 19th century works available , done by western authors claiming so . But it was soon discovered that Vedic sanskrit is itself a derived language and hence not a origin language. But this supposedly triggered an opposite reaction claiming that since Vedic sanskrit was not the original source of language, then it automatically must mean that India was not the original homeland. So they started to construct theories on why South Russia must be the Aryan homeland while the Sanskrit scholars insisted on Sanskrit being the original language and India being the homeland.

But the author claims that this whole reasoning, by both sides is flawed - the flaw being , since Vedic sanskrit was itself a reconstructed derivative language of Proto Aryan Language, then so must the language of South russia(or the Slavic languages.). In fact, the author claims that Slavic languages are even more reconstructed, or even more derivative of the original Proto Aryan language and so it is more unlikely that South Russia was the original homeland of the Proto Aryan Language .

2. Also, he claims that the Vedic sanskrit is much closer to the proto aryan language than any Indian language


For eg, Childe` gives 72 basic cognate Proto Indo European words constructed scientifically?!?! of which

Sanskrit has 70 words, German- 46 words, Baltic - 23 words, Slavic -16 words, Greek - 48 words etc.

He claims that Sanskrit has three genders, three numbers - (he , we two, we all) and eight cases(whatever that is) and that it is the only Aryan language besides the Proto Indo European language to have all of this intact.

3. He claims that Griffith claims that there are Sanskrit base and roots for Greek, Teuton, Latin, Slavonian, Celtic

There are words which are in Aryan language family like in German and English for example, which remain unrelated, unless you find the link word, which invariably is found in Sanskrit(more proof that Sanskrit was more original that Slavik or Central asia or Any other european language)

4. He claims that Vedic myths went to these places and not the other way around. He also claims vedic gods were different from puranic gods - Agni, mithra, ruthra of Vedas. These all are represented in the Mythology of Greece, Hittites, Lithuania(yes, that lithuania onleee ) etc. He also quotes from Griffith on how Vedas throw light on the religious practices of the europeans before the introduction of Christianity.

When you compare greek and Vedic mythologies, there are many common elements. If you compare german and Vedic mythologies, you find so many common elements. But if you compere German and Greek, there are no common elements. More proof that Vedas were the common ancestors.


5. Also, Iranian Mythology has common elements ONLY with Vedic mythology. But, According to AIT - Aryans came from South Russia to Central Asia and there they seperated. This cant be the case when Iranian mythology has nothing in common with any other mythology of the European countries of that time

6. He claims that Vedic gods provide explanation for the origin of the Gods of the Greek and Romans - Pithru in Vedas- Jupiter in Rome, .,ie vedas provide the links to why Romans considered Jupiter as their god. He claims that Mcdonalds claim that Vedic gods are close to the physical forms they represent than any other mythological gods of any Indo European Mythology.

7. According to AIT - Aryans originated in the South Russia and migrated slowly, over centuries eastwards - settling and moving on. While they were moving, they gradually picked up and assimilited to the local population culture and religion while they moved on as a much mixed population of Aryans step by step.. But According to witzel, people of the Central asia got completely aryanised(.ie Mixed aryan people completely aryanised non aryan people, while being mixed aryans) .


8. And these Aryanised local population of Central asia moved into Punjab and Aryanised the local population, as per Witzel, claims the speaker. To get a perspective, imagine that the bunch of nomads of Central Asia, who themselves were not Aryans but were Aryanised Central Asians , came in as small and uncollected groups of nomads, why completely aryanised the settled civilisation of Indus Valley,which at the time had the highest population in the world, ie The few hundred Central asians made the millions who lived in the IVC to stop being Dravidians(or whatever he cooked them up to be) and made them to speak Aryan Languages. The millions who lived in IVC gave up all their religion and just adopted the religion of the few hundred nomadic Aryans who migrated

In short, they want to own the Vedas and tell the world , that their ancestors were superior. Same old subversive techniques.

 

[warrior monk]

You asked me whether I had ever seen a white chimp. You got your answer. The colour of the hair is a distraction. Many white people have black hair too.

Ok, so your point is that they (the sages mentioned in the Vedas?) started this word Aryan (absolutely wrong, considering Arian was already a place in Iran), and they did not say ". . ." (how do you know they did not say that?).

I agree with the last part. The word Aryan has another meaning, as in noble, but that could have developed because the settlers considered themselves noble.


Bro, repeatedly claiming AIT/AMT has been "debunked" will not debunk anything.

All I get is proclamations and this oft repeated word "debunked," but no argument whatsoever.

Mitochondrial DNA is matrilineal. This is hardly a proper way to judge a person's ancestry. If you use that method, and if in an overwhelming cases in the past, men of a certain ethnicity took wives from another, then we would find no trace of the father's side of the ethnicity if we study the mitochondrial DNA of the offsprings.


Why talk about "masturbation?" Are you angry with yourself that you are failing to make your point?

Didn't i also mentioned about Y chromosomes markers my bad ok genetic data BOTH mitochondrial and Y chromosomal haplogroups have yielded dramatically inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of south Asia high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers ie VNTRs from a large set of geographically, socially and linguistically representative ethnic groups of south Asia have found lack of influence of central Asia or Europe . The VNTRs in Y chromosome observed in South Asians DNA is more than 20000 BP so quite long .
Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, a pioneer in the field noted that importance of the mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians this study relied upon relied on 550 samples of mitochondrial DNA and revealed there was no recent population movement towards India; rather the subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward migration of modern humans from Africa, some 40,000 years ago.

Quoting studies by Sanghamitra Sahoo et al
“the caste populations of ‘north’ and ‘south’ India are not particularly more closely related to each other (average Fst value = 0.07) than they are to the tribal groups (average Fst value = 0.06),” an important confirmation of earlier studies. In particular, “Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.”
All genetic studies account for India’s considerable genetic diversity by using a time- scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 or 50,000 years. In fact, several experts, such as Lluís Quintana-Murci,20 Vincent Macaulay and their associates, have in the last few years proposed that when Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula
Quoting Oppenheimer
“For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, 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. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”
"We will not call it, of course, an “Indian invasion” of Europe; in simple terms, India acted “as an incubator of early genetic differentiation of modern humans moving out of Africa.”
Thus the indian genepool is a result of an autochthonous history not some mythical European invasion.

 

[pmaitra]

Japnese are not white and blonde. And Please also google Kalash people from Chitral they are also white with unique DNA. This does not mean they have anything to do with europe or central west asia. They are white and Indigenous people of that region.

See the part in red. That is a fairy tale alert.

I would have given you credit had you made a probabilistic statement, but such a deterministic statement has to be rejected.

Whatever in Vedas is, is the product of knowledge which was gained through meditation. And very late , approx 3000 BC, they were compiled by Vedvyas. So there is no question of getting any name from Iran, but yes the possibility of Persians taking the knowledge of Vedas and to respect them naming a place to Aria.

The Persians could have taken the knowledge of the Vedas, or the Indians could have taken the knowledge of the Vedas, or both could have taken the knowledge from some common ancestor. I love it how you look at only one possibility and refuse to look at the other possibilities.

The term Arya Purush , has nothing to do with any settlements, but the character of a human. This should not be mixed with demographic distinction on the bases of geography.

How do you know? Forget about that "Purush" part in "Arya Purush," and focus on "Arya." I have already proven that a geographical region with that name already exists.

Just like the term 'Brahmin' which is also a product of vedic philosphy has nothing to do with region, looks, and background. It solely depends on the character.

Ravan was called as Mahabrahmin, why?

A parallel does not exist between Brahmin, which is a Varna and reflects a person's profession and acquired knowledge, and Arya, which is a word with double meaning, and is related to a geographical region. Kaikei is a name. Does it have anything to do with a geographical region? Gandhari is a name. Does it have anything to do with a geographical region?

 

[pmaitra]

Didn't i also mentioned about Y chromosomes markers my bad ok genetic data BOTH mitochondrial and Y chromosomal haplogroups have yielded dramatically inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of south Asia high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers ie VNTRs from a large set of geographically, socially and linguistically representative ethnic groups of south Asia have found lack of influence of central Asia or Europe . The VNTRs in Y chromosome observed in South Asians DNA is more than 20000 BP so quite long .
Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, a pioneer in the field noted that importance of the mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians this study relied upon relied on 550 samples of mitochondrial DNA and revealed there was no recent population movement towards India; rather the subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward migration of modern humans from Africa, some 40,000 years ago.

Quoting studies by Sanghamitra Sahoo et al
“the caste populations of ‘north’ and ‘south’ India are not particularly more closely related to each other (average Fst value = 0.07) than they are to the tribal groups (average Fst value = 0.06),” an important confirmation of earlier studies. In particular, “Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.”
All genetic studies account for India’s considerable genetic diversity by using a time- scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 or 50,000 years. In fact, several experts, such as Lluís Quintana-Murci,20 Vincent Macaulay and their associates, have in the last few years proposed that when Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula
Quoting Oppenheimer
“For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, 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. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”
"We will not call it, of course, an “Indian invasion” of Europe; in simple terms, India acted “as an incubator of early genetic differentiation of modern humans moving out of Africa.”
Thus the indian genepool is a result of an autochthonous history not some mythical European invasion.

Ok, point taken. I must admit, I did not read your post beyond that sentence with the word "masturbation." If I see clean language with cogent arguments, even if those arguments disagree with me, I will be motivated to care to read.

 

[Screambowl]

See the part in red. That is a fairy tale alert.

I would have given you credit had you made a probabilistic statement, but such a deterministic statement has to be rejected.

Please explain on what basis? You need scientific proofs, you have google. Their DNA is unique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people

The Persians could have taken the knowledge of the Vedas, or the Indians could have taken the knowledge of the Vedas, or both could have taken the knowledge from some common ancestor. I love it how you look at only one possibility and refuse to look at the other possibilities.

First of all, the knowledge of vedas has two nature 1) Para 2) Apara. And the origin is not known. Mythology says, the 'knowledge ' was created with the creation of universe, which is not wrong.

The Para knowledge deals with the highest state of conciousness
The Apara knowledge deals with the compiled knowledge of Vedas.

The Para knowledge was obtained through meditation and on it's basis only on later stage Vedas were compiled on leaves(Apara). No other civilisation used leaves before except in India

Coming to ancestry, you have to find out who the first human was. And this debate is irrelevant , because you are talking about ancestry within a time frame.

How do you know? Forget about that "Purush" part in "Arya Purush," and focus on "Arya." I have already proven that a geographical region with that name already exists.

This proves that our influence was till Iran Because Arya is Sanskrit word, Iranians speak Farsi.

A parallel does not exist between Brahmin, which is a Varna and reflects a person's profession and acquired knowledge, and Arya, which is a word with double meaning, and is related to a geographical region. Kaikei is a name. Does it have anything to do with a geographical region? Gandhari is a name. Does it have anything to do with a geographical region?

This is a double meaning word for those who want it to be double meaning word. Arya word also reflects only the character of the person.

The possibility of this word used for political goals , like by Nazis, or ancient Kingdoms, might have caused its loss of actual meaning.

 

[Screambowl]

The summary of the above video -

1. Similiarities between Sanskrit and European languages made the Britshits to first propose AIT with only basis on similiarity between the languages - and that they claimed the the origin of the Aryans was South Russia(central asia?!)

2. Harappa was discovered when AIT was already established. So they decided based on their previous assumption that Harappa must be Pre-Aryan as Harappan was dated as 1500 BCE and dates for AIT was decided already to be later than that, with no evidence whatsoever for Harappa being pre aryan. That is it is solely on a speculation on the similiarity between Sanskrit and European languages

3. Postulates of the AIT -

1. languages of Iran , India, Euro are all related to a single family, just like how TibetoBurman is a different language tree
2. Since they are all related- they must have a common ancestor . Note that there is no evidence for the existence of such language anywhere. They constructed a proto european langauge - with no evidence.
3. The proto Indo euro language must have had a homeland(logical from the second point) - but with no evidence for it whatsoever
4. This proto Indo euro language homeland must have been at the center of Europe and Srilanka(the southern most tip where Aryan language was spoken ) and so it must have been Caucausus(South Russia)
5. Since this Proto Euro language is South Russian in origin, Vedas and hence the Hindu religion must have been foreign to India brought in by Aryan Invaders​

4. But according to this theory, note that even the Britons and Germans must also have been immigrants, invaders of the Britain and Germany respectively. But nowhere in Britain or Germany do they talk about how they are the immigrants or invaders of that Country (this is why I consider people who claim they were descendents of Foreigners to be pathetic and it can happen only in India)

Now these are the oppositions to this theory by the opponents of AIT

5. First postulate of AIT:

That there is a thing called Aryan language tree - they hate the idea that Sanskrit is more related to Euro languages than the Indian Languages like Tamil or Telugu. But of course, one cannot dismiss an idea because they hate it.

The speaker says that the first point is absolutly correct in his view - his reason being - there are several words with similiar vocabularies - 3 is Three in English, Theen in Sanskrit and Hindi, Thin in Persian etc , father, mother, brother in English - pithra, mathar, pirthar in Sanskrit?

Pronouns in English - he we they, in sanskrit - vyom, uyam and they? voh and nah in Latin and Sanskrit , for they and we respectively


dau draps- sanskrit, dew drops in english


In India there are six language families

6. Second postulate-

It is opposed on the grounds - why cant sanskrit be that ancestral language ?

The speaker is also opposed to this opposition , He says -" the present day classical sanskrit is very different from Vedic sanskrit. So we cant blanketly say that there was no proto aryan language language - it might have been the ancestral form of even Vedic sanskrit ". They have constructed the proto aryan language too

7. Third postulate - this part must be accepted if 1st and 2nd points are accepted as a logical extension of the 1st and 2nd postulates

8. Fourth postulate - that India is not the homeland

Author claims this is the most controversial of the postulates- placing the origin of Aryans , because this is not based on any scientific evidence or logical premises but only on the assumptions and dubious speculations.

No evidence for this claims on Text books, archeology anywhere in the world . The whole AIT is based on this sole point - language of IVC is still unknown, no evidence for language of IVC being Aryan or dravidian, no evidence for Aryan migration or invasion

So the AIT arguments for this postulate :

1. India could not have been the homeland of Proto Indo European Language, 2. Trace some evidence for AIT in Rig veda

But the evidence they site is bad- they base their whole argument on the sole word anas - which Sanskrit scholars claim means people who babble, while the AIT proponents claim it to be unas - flat nosed people. This word anas is found in the Rig veda only once and they AIT proponents have constructed their whole theory on it - that Europeans with their sharp noses came to India and conquered the Indian natives with flat noses .(NOTE: AIT is not based on any evidence other than these linguistic interpretations)

Here the author claims to have authored three books on why AIT is false and OIT is true, based on linguistics, textual, and chronological arguments, which absolutely prove that AIT is false and OIT - Aryans out of India theory is true

So the author claims that his first book on OIT was cited by THE Witzel(whom the identity crisised idiots here were citing for the AIT) as an example of how Indians are making the theory up and how the author's name - Shrikant G Talageri was mentioned in it. So in his second book, this author had devoted an entire chaptor on how Witzel had provided false information and had provided contradictory evidences to his own arguments on each page and he provided the actual proof from Rig Veda and he sent a copy to him.

This is the best part- on recieving a copy, some other Harward professor had offered a scholarship program for this author under Witzel, if he was willing to modify his viewsand was willing to be flexible in his views(yeah, thats right, bribe to silence criticism rather than debate and disprove his positions and accusations). And in his third book, he had completely exposed all the nonsense which has been written by Witzel in his AIT works


@Sakal Gharelu Ustad You asked for if there is any proof for OIT regarding linguistics? Here is a video and the part of its summary. This video is a also kind of a linguistical debunking of AIT.

While retards and ideologically stunted clowns can believe and stew in whatever BS they want, those of us with self respect and actual thirst for knowledge should actively seek to find the truth

Sanskrit is more related to European lang' because the north India was not Isolated like south India

Universities like Taxila, and Nalanda played major role in linguistics. European scholar came, learnt implemented in their society.

Invasions, wars on Iran by european played another role in transfer of knowledge.

It is just like East to West.

Ex: Europeans write the discovery of Zero is attributed to Arabs, and May be India. Why do Europeans write that? Because they learnt this from Arabs. Arabs learnt it from Persian and Persian and Indias were at Taxila.

 

[pmaitra]

Please explain on what basis? You need scientific proofs, you have google. Their DNA is unique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people

I suggest you read the article before claiming their DNA is unique.

Here, I will be more specific and link the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people#Genetic_origins

First of all, the knowledge of vedas has two nature 1) Para 2) Apara. And the origin is not known. Mythology says, the 'knowledge ' was created with the creation of universe, which is not wrong.

The Para knowledge deals with the highest state of conciousness
The Apara knowledge deals with the compiled knowledge of Vedas.

The Para knowledge was obtained through meditation and on it's basis only on later stage Vedas were compiled on leaves(Apara). No other civilisation used leaves before except in India

Coming to ancestry, you have to find out who the first human was. And this debate is irrelevant , because you are talking about ancestry within a time frame.

Ok.

This proves that our influence was till Iran Because Arya is Sanskrit word, Iranians speak Farsi.

Sanskrit is itself a synthetic language. It was never the lingua franca. There were existing works on grammar. Panini took the existing works, and created his eight chapters of Sanskrit. So, even if it is true that "Arya" is a Sanskrit word, it became a Sanskrit word because it already existed in, and was adopted from, the existing languages and/or dialects.

Persian spoken today is similar to Persian spoken then, but not exactly the same. In those days, it was the Avestan Persian, and that is very similar to Sanskrit.

This is a double meaning word for those who want it to be double meaning word. Arya word also reflects only the character of the person.

Exactly. The double meaning came to existence because those people who arrived and settled wanted to place themselves at a higher echelon in society. So, they added another meaning to the word Arya, and called themselves noble. So, yes, they wanted a second meaning, and they got it. They did it for their own benefit.

The possibility of this word used for political goals , like by Nazis, or ancient Kingdoms, might have caused its loss of actual meaning.

Of course, this second meaning was attached for the purpose of political goals, and something similar is being done today by peddling ANI/ASI and OIT theories.

 

[Screambowl]

I suggest you read the article before claiming their DNA is unique.

Here, I will be more specific and link the section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_people#Genetic_origins

A study by Rosenberg et al. (2006) employing genetic testing among the Kalash population concluded that they are a distinct (and perhaps aboriginal) population with only minor contributions from outside peoples. In one cluster analysis with (K = 7), the Kalash formed one cluster, the others being Africans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, East Asians, Melanesians, and Native Americans. [42]

A study by Li et al. (2008) with geneticists using more than 650,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) samples from the Human Genome Diversity Panel, found deep rooted lineages that could be distinguished in the Kalash. The results showed them clustered within the Central/South Asian populations at (K = 7). The study also showed the Kalash to be a separated group, having no membership within European populations

And NOT just that .. their language is close to Old Sanskrit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalash_language

This means as we moved towards west, the Sanskrit was influenced by Dialects, and clean Sanskrit remains spoken in Bharat. Other vice it would have been vice versa

Sanskrit is itself a synthetic language. It was never the lingua franca. There were existing works on grammar. Panini took the existing works, and created his eight chapters of Sanskrit. So, even if it is true that "Arya" is a Sanskrit word, it became a Sanskrit word because it already existed in, and was adopted from, the existing languages and/or dialects.

Persian spoken today is similar to Persian spoken then, but not exactly the same. In those days, it was the Avestan Persian, and that is very similar to Sanskrit.

The Vedas were compiled in text very late. The Mantras existed before that. The Mandukaya Upanishad explains about the syllable OM ( a sanskrit word) which was generated during creation of the Universe. Hence it means Sanskrit existed in vocals.

Exactly. The double meaning came to existence because those people who arrived and settled wanted to place themselves at a higher echelon in society. So, they added another meaning to the word Arya, and called themselves noble. So, yes, they wanted a second meaning, and they got it. They did it for their own benefit.


Of course, this second meaning was attached for the purpose of political goals, and something similar is being done today by peddling ANI/ASI and OIT theories.

According to your argument, Houston Brahmins are also Brahmins, with blood lineage of our Sages. They used the word to gain political leadership and distinction from others.

As per the definition of Brahmin, they are and any one who is learned is a Brahmin. But there you see a political usage without any cultural match.

But if you start saying that Brahmin word originated in Houston , then I have a problem