Genetic evidence suggests the origins of Indian caste populations

[LalTopi]

Basically, the old narrative goes like this, Aryans came from Out of India, settled here and brought all things lovely, Dravidians were the SDRIs who were the original inhabitants.
The Indian narrative says Aryans didn't come from out of India, but were indigenous folks and Indians were resistant to intermix with foreigners (mlechchas)

This and other studies well point out different things.

No, I meant why post this 2001 article when other more recent studies contradict the Aryan Invasion Theory or even the Aryan Migration Theory for that matter. E.g. Daredevil posted the same article as you at the beginning of the AIT thread, but also posted this article written in 2006, which contradicts genetic differences amongst caste populations:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/religion-culture/1403-aryan-invasion-theory.html#post13108

 

[pmaitra]

@Singh, you might find this interesting about Indra: Indra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding Brahma, I do not think it is a post, but one divine individual; although the word Brahman is a post, and many people can be a Brahman. The contrast here is, that only one person can be Indra at a given time, but any number of persons can be a Brahman.

 

[MAYURA]

@pmaita

this is what you wrote

There is a term called "Hellenic."

if you are not aware of anything, why are you showing your ignorance?

I completely know hellenic and hellenization but do you know how these words come into being?

the greeks ( including ionians ) called themselves hellas and from this we get a very frequent word philhelene meaning friend of greeks in parthian coins.
hellenic and hellenization are modern words just like indian and indianization.

 

[MAYURA]

Ok, and I still don't see how Chauhan/Chavan does not sound like Yavanas, but Guhaditya and Guhilot does.

You said my premise was "thin," then your premise is based on what? Historical records? I would like some references to that effect please.

Look, similar sounds mean nothing but for anyone who relates seljuq turks with seleucids, it is hard to understand that.

Guhadatta or guhaditya was a historical king of 6th century ad and we have coins of him ( many thousand discovered from agra) in which it is written " sri guhil" .

the term guhilot is just like term dehelvi or banarasi meaning someone hailing to that.

guhil and guhilot are remarkably close but anyway this is irrelevant as we have historical records of guhilots from guhadutta to jaitrasingh in forms of inscriptions and coins.

need a source?

read any book of rajasthan history.

" rajasthan through ages " by Dasarth Sharma, a professional historian who chaired IHC is my recommendation.


when you have whole geneaology from guhaditya to rana sanga and that too verified by inscriptions, you can not dismiss that away.

Which earlier inscriptions?

read the book recommended by me.

Pahlavi is an Iranian surname, even to this day. Regarding Seleukia and Chalukya, it did strike me, but again, one needs to study more, to come to a definitive conclusion. There is no geographical continuity. Have you ever looked up the location of the Chalukya Empire?

I know reza shah pehlavi and that it is an iranian surname and i was not disputing but only telling that similar sounding names mean nothing when they have different meaning and etymology.

and be rest assured, I have read more on chalukyan history than any south indian dynasty for it is my favourite dynasty.

i was just pointing out your eroneous way of matching names and then making wild assumptions on chauhan being yavan when the original word is chahman which later got corrupted to chauhan and even then chauhan is not yavan.


you are advising me to look at geographical location of chalukyas but do you realize the time gap between your yavanas and chauhan.

I've heard these stories - rather imaginative I must say. If you want to believe in these theories, then so be it.

In one of the posts, i had said that those looking for scythian and greek ancestry of chauhans and guhilots are just PN Oak on the other side.

he thought christianity was krishnaniti and you think yavana= chauhan.

both of you do not take into account distances of time, space and context.

for you people marwari birlas are nothing but turks as the tribe of Taimur lang was barlas never mind the different sounding r.

 

[pmaitra]

Look, similar sounds mean nothing but for anyone who relates seljuq turks with seleucids, it is hard to understand that.

What do you mean by relating Seljuk Turks with Seleucids? Please elaborate? What exactly was said? Please quote. Don't be like Joseph Goebbels - prove it.

Guhadatta or guhaditya was a historical king of 6th century ad and we have coins of him ( many thousand discovered from agra) in which it is written " sri guhil" .

the term guhilot is just like term dehelvi or banarasi meaning someone hailing to that.

guhil and guhilot are remarkably close but anyway this is irrelevant as we have historical records of guhilots from guhadutta to jaitrasingh in forms of inscriptions and coins.

need a source?

read any book of rajasthan history.

" rajasthan through ages " by Dasarth Sharma, a professional historian who chaired IHC is my recommendation.

I am not disputing Guhaditya and Guhilot. I am saying these two words do not sound as similar as Yavan and Chavan/Chauhan.

when you have whole geneaology from guhaditya to rana sanga and that too verified by inscriptions, you can not dismiss that away.

Where are the inscriptions? Is it on a piece of rock? Where was it found? Where is it now? In a museum? Are there any pictures? Share it with us.

read the book recommended by me.

Anything I can check online?

I know reza shah pehlavi and that it is an iranian surname and i was not disputing but only telling that similar sounding names mean nothing when they have different meaning and etymology.

There are lots of things that you should not be disputing, which you keep disputing, for example the "Seljuk" part of your post, or the other post where you said the Red Sea was in the Balkans.

and be rest assured, I have read more on chalukyan history than any south indian dynasty for it is my favourite dynasty.

I am not asking what your favourite dynasty is.

i was just pointing out your eroneous way of matching names and then making wild assumptions on chauhan being yavan when the original word is chahman which later got corrupted to chauhan and even then chauhan is not yavan.

In this particular case, I already said I have no solid proof, but how did you know it was erroneous? I searched for "Chamana" but found nothing.

you are advising me to look at geographical location of chalukyas but do you realize the time gap between your yavanas and chauhan.

What time gap? How does that even matter? Mughal rule ended long time back, but does that mean their descendants do not live anymore?

In one of the posts, i had said that those looking for scythian and greek ancestry of chauhans and guhilots are just PN Oak on the other side.

Not sure what that sentence means.

he thought christianity was krishnaniti and you think yavana= chauhan.

You have this habit of drawing inane parallels. When I linked Russia with Ukraine, two neighbours, you drew a parallel by linking Mongolia and Azerbaijan. Now, if I link a bicycle with a motorcycle, you will draw a parallel by linking a bullock cart with a space shuttle.

both of you do not take into account distances of time, space and context.

Time and space? We are not discussing physics or Big Bang Theory here.

for you people marwari birlas are nothing but turks as the tribe of Taimur lang was barlas never mind the different sounding r.

No, you are making that up.

 

[MAYURA]

@pmaitra

OK I give up because

1. it is not good for my health in this forum if i debate with someone who has authority of banning me.

2. History is not the main focus of this forum so a tiny member like me can not convince any senior when the topic is deebated in alone.

let others join the debate and only then it can be resumed as on net one can face severe dishonesty.

 

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra

OK I give up because

1. it is not good for my health in this forum if i debate with someone who has authority of banning me.

No one is going to ban you simply because you are disagreeing with him. Secondly, I do not shy away from admitting my mistakes, and you are witness to that.

2. History is not the main focus of this forum so a tiny member like me can not convince any senior when the topic is deebated in alone.

let others join the debate and only then it can be resumed as on net one can face severe dishonesty.

It is also not about seniority, but about writing posts and providing some kind of support/links/citations/references for it, and this applies especially to you, simply because you are the one who brought in Joseph Goebbels, and called @Iamanidiot wrong, when actually you were wrong and he was correct. On top of that, you were calling him names. Minimum decency requires you offer an apology to him (not to me).

 

[MAYURA]

No one is going to ban you simply because you are disagreeing with him. Secondly, I do not shy away from admitting my mistakes, and you are witness to that.

You are also witness to the fact that i do not participate in armoury threads. reason is lack of knowledge on my part but on historical topics i am a bit comfortable.

It is also not about seniority, but about writing posts and providing some kind of support/links/citations/references for it, and this applies especially to you, simply because you are the one who brought in Joseph Goebbels, and called @Iamanidiot wrong, when actually you were wrong and he was correct. On top of that, you were calling him names. Minimum decency requires you offer an apology to him (not to me).

Laman idiot was not correct on any account.

Erythrean sea refers to red sea as well as arabian sea and I do not recall greeks marrying with brahmins being mentioned in that book so I was not at all wrong.

 

[Virendra]

Ok, and I still don't see how Chauhan/Chavan does not sound like Yavanas, but Guhaditya and Guhilot does.

Aiyyooo When did I say Chauhan doesn't sound similar to Yavana. A lot of things in this world sound similar.
My point was, just this similarity in sound is not a good basis.

You said my premise was "thin," then your premise is based on what? Historical records? I would like some references to that effect please.

I would like to know more about these inscriptions.

PrithviRajVijaya, HammirMahaKavya, SurjanCharitra as well as the Vansha Bhaskar specify Chahamana, as the progenitor of Chauhans.
They also mention Pushkar as his birth place.
This is an example I'm quoting from the second Sarga of PrithviRajVijaya:

This is the verse 12 of the Harshanath inscription of 961 A.D issued by VigrahaRaj Chauhan:
L-12:*आद्य: श्री गूवकाख्यप्रथितनरपतिश्चाहमानान्वयोभूत्
श्री मन्नागाय्वलोकप्रकरनृपसभालब्धवीरप्रतिष्ठ: ।
यस्य श्री हर्षदेव वरभवनमयी भौतली कीर्तिमूर्ति

The same primary sources have been analyzed and referenced by many of the later historians (like Dasharatha Sharma:Early Chauhan Dynasties, Chauhan Kul Kalpadrum by Bhimbhai Desai etc) on numerous occasions.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[pmaitra]

Aiyyooo When did I say Chauhan doesn't sound similar to Yavana. A lot of things in this world sound similar.
My point was, just this similarity in sound is not a good basis.

Ok, I get it you did not say that, and also, just to clarify what I was saying:

• Yavana and Chavan/Chauhan sound similar, and although I do not have any solid proof, there is a possibility the term came from Yavanas. Of course, this could be a coincidence.
• I am not contesting your claim about Guhaditya and Gehlot; all I said they do not sound as similar (I think we have clarified that between ourselves by now).

Now, regarding similarity in sounds, I would like to draw your attention to the following.

Noun-Adjective-Substantive
In Sanskrit, as well as Proto-Indo-European, and therefrom, Russian (Slavonic) and German (Germanic) languages, there is an usage of a noun, and there is an adjective that is derived from that noun, and that adjective is also used as a noun in its own right. Some examples:

• Gandhara - Gandhari
• Kaikeya - Kaikeyi
• Kshetra - Kshatriya (Graeco-Persian Satrapi)
• Vishnu - Vaishnava
• Chanak - Chanakya

There are plenty of examples, where you see how a noun (place, profession, or heritage), can be used to define another person (adjective), and that definition can itself be used as a noun (substative).

My point is that similarity in sound is a very important link, especially for the type of grammar that Sanskrit, Avesthan, and Proto-Indo-European languages use.

Two more examples:
Russian - agoin -> agnivaya
German - vierbeinende (vier = 4, bein = leg) -> vierbeinende; in a particular context that I had read meant a dog (four legged).

PrithviRajVijaya, HammirMahaKavya, SurjanCharitra as well as the Vansha Bhaskar specify Chahamana, as the progenitor of Chauhans.
They also mention Pushkar as his birth place.
This is an example I'm quoting from the second Sarga of PrithviRajVijaya:

This is the verse 12 of the Harshanath inscription of 961 A.D issued by VigrahaRaj Chauhan:
L-12:*आद्य: श्री गूवकाख्यप्रथितनरपतिश्चाहमानान्वयोभूत्
श्री मन्नागाय्वलोकप्रकरनृपसभालब्धवीरप्रतिष्ठ: ।
यस्य श्री हर्षदेव वरभवनमयी भौतली कीर्तिमूर्ति

The same primary sources have been analyzed and referenced by many of the later historians (like Dasharatha Sharma:Early Chauhan Dynasties, Chauhan Kul Kalpadrum by Bhimbhai Desai etc) on numerous occasions.

Regards,
Virendra

Thank you. That was very informative. I did search for "Chamana" but did not find anything online. Now yo have provided screenshots, so thank you for that.

 

[SinghSher1984]

being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans

This is propoganada as which upper castes, and what kind of East Europeans, from what time period?

The scythian migrations from which many Jatt, Tarkhan, Gujjar, and Rajput clans are descended from are the answer,(kshatriyas) and 500-500 (bc-ad) the time period.

End of discussion, it's already well-known.

This is not anything new, and the whole asian thing? Well of course how do you think people got to SE asia by land? Through India.

So pretty much, yes we've had migrations, with the fathers marrying Indian women, and adopting Indian culture.

This is part of the reason why the Muslims weren't taken that seriously because people thought they would assimilate as well.

End thread. /

 

[Simple_Guy]

Hello everyone. Hope this is right thread.

From the timesofindia

Film-turned-television actor Nakuul Mehta's royal lineage shows in the interiors of his modest apartment in Mumbai, as it has got many elements of his ancestral home in Udaipur. While Nakuul's great great grandfather Laxmilal Mehta was the military-in-chief of the Mewar region, their family tree can be traced to the Rajput King, Prithviraj Chauhan.

Some place they are Khatri but in Rajasthan Mehta are Rajput?? What is the Chauhan connection