Aryan Invasion Theory

N4tsula67

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
1,009
Likes
4,317
Country flag
More Interesting Evidence of Out of India Migration of Indian Females:
Not only iranian female lineages migrated into eurofagland, but also several Indian female lineages (mtDNA) did migrate in significant numbers, and out of them mtDNA M itself is found in the eastern europe, hungary, poland etc up to the extent of 3 to 5 percent of population today. This is not a small number.This is almost the same frequency in which the Indian mtDNA “M” lineages are found in Iran today. So when the iranian people migrated to europe with their families, there were Indians (NRIs, Non Resident Indians) too in their group who had earlier arrived into Iran with the farming and other culture. These Indian lineages are scattered all over east and central eurofagland and also in iran, tajikistan, uzbekistan, kazakhstan, arabia and caucasus.
The Indian female migrant lineages which are found in europe today include M5a, M5a1, M35 etc .This research paper concluded that one of the Slovak female lineage (mtDNA) actually had even belonged from Andhra Pradesh in South India. They named it M35b.

See - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18205894/
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Dirty deception of ait larpers:

It must also be understood here that iran which is a sibling of India linguistically is considered as a part of West Asia by the eurocentric authors, and this practice is wrong. And then they say, West Asia is near europe, hence West Asian DNAs are european DNAs :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: . Thus iranian DNAs become eurofags DNA by manipulation of geographical description.

However because of linguistic and prehistoric unity of East iran with Saraswati civilization, iran must not and cannot be considered West Asia but as western part of Indo iran civilization. East Iran was certainly within the greater Saraswati civilization and people from East iran came and settled in India since the Saraswati civilization period up to the mughal period. Most of the mtDNA lineages lare in fact east Iranian, and they are found up to Punjab amounting up to 20% of the population, but not further East in India. In fact the East iran was a an extension of the Vedic Civilization, and it has been demonstrated again and again by comparison of the avesta and the Vedas and their practices. The mtDNAs HV, T2, etc fall in this category. And considering these DNAs as of eurofags is totally arbitrary and wrong.

This research paper concludes :
Migration was bi-directional between east iran and India. The climate led earlier migration was from India to Iran, attested by the presence of 10% Indian lineages (mtDNA) in Iran overall, 5% of the mtDNA in Iran today are constituted by the Indian M lineage itself.

See - https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-5-26

But later when Saraswati civilization being most advanced of her time , became the world centre of culture, people from every part of Asia and Eastern part of Africa came and settled there as traders, businessmen and artisans , well concluded in this research paper.

In fact the N1a, T2 and HV (mtDNAs) listed by eurofag authors to be of european, also originated in Iran, and they reached India when the Saraswati civilization became a trade center of world, and the traders from every part of the world came and settled in the Saraswati civilization in small numbers during the Bronze Age. East Iranian arrivals due to economic factors is understandable, and they were the largest numbers among the foreign settlers in India. But hipster 60 iq aitcucks confuse this movement with retarded concept of invasion LMFAO of which there are NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR UNDISPUTED LITERARY EVIDENCES NOT EVEN HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES !!!


See - https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-5-26
See - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123103



A frenly remainder on Greater India :

uwu1.png

Look at all those M, N and R all mdDNA originating in India ^^^



Refer to my post on Greater India and her boundaries .

See - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123103

See - https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-5-26

Therefore ,None of the above named DNAs, which aitcucks list as of europeans (western) mtDNAs, originated in eurfagland(West Eurasia). These are the mtDNA lineages which reached europe from Asia after 5500 BC. In fact only a few original paleolithic DNAs of europe have survived till today. In the great freeze of 8200 BP known as 8.2 kilo year event, nearly all of the european people died. So did the people of the steppy and Central Asia. As this research papers concludes “Ancient DNA studies have revealed genetic discontinuities between indigenous hunter-gatherers and early farmers and between later and present day europeans.

See - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/

See - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24115443/

Above mentioned study establishes (by means of ancient DNAs recovered from the fossils) that the newer people continued to arrive into europe, through the turkroach corridor and the north Black Sea highway, from the caucasus, Iran and Central Asian during the various stages of the neolithic.

This research paper also concludes eurofag transition from foraging to farming introduced by the LBK (Linear Pottery Culture), which reached Central Europe circa 5500 BC . MtDNA data from central european hunter-gatherers, i.e. the people who were the original inhabitants of europe, comprises only of some U lineages (viz. U, U4, U5, and U8) and not even U2 and many other lineages found today in europe. On the other hand the later eurofags (after 5500 BC) had entirely new DNAs arriving from Asia.

See - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24115443/

See - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/

Aitcucks also whine that , mtDNA U7, that U7 too is eurofags and migrated from europe to India. However this research paper concludes that mtDNA U7 was present in India about 11,500 years back, and reached europe about 8000 years back.

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46044

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46044.pdf
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
On light skin :

This research paper concludes that SLC24A5 is responsible for controlling the expression of melanin . The light skin colour gene, which is the hallmark of the the white people today, too originated in India. This light-skin colour gene is exactly the same as that found in India both, north and south India and also eurfags. It was inherited from a common ancestor some 30000 years ago.

See - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3820762/


It is from India that it migrated to eurofagland particularly during the Bronze Age. In this DNA study of the existing populations of eurofag and Asia, they found that the oldest or the original of the light-skin-colour gene is found in the Gujarati Indians .

Canfield and colleagues noted, “Interestingly, the greatest diversity of B-region haplotypes associated with C11 is found in GIH (89% B6).”. The GIH in this study stands for Gujarati-Indian-Hindus. The data obtained from the GIH (the Gujarati Indians included in this study) showed that the light skin colour gene originated in Gujarat (India). So, at the most, the gene must have originate in a region spreading from India to Iran, but not to the further north, the authors concluded.


See - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815065/

Hence this study settles the issue as to where be the place of origin of the light-skin-colour gene. This gene spread from India to Iran; and from Iran to the steppe, and also to anatolia and arabia.


The light skin colour gene came into existence at about 10,000 years back by a genetic mutation. This happened in India in the form of a new mutation called A111T
. It soon spread in Northwest India, iran and afghanistan. Later it spread to Central Asia and steppe from Iran. In the northern latitudes of India as well as in Iran and Afghanistan and further north, the light skin colour gene underwent Natural Selection leading to the increase in its frequency. In Central Asian regions like the tarim Basin, and also in eurofagland its frequency went on increasing by the process of the Natural Selection until late Bronze Age.

See - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...lived-India-Middle-East-10-000-years-ago.html

See - https://news.psu.edu/story/299166/2...-gene-across-global-populations-reveal-shared

See - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...lved-5-500-years-ago-food-habits-changed.html

The Natural Selection which was exerted on the light skin colour gene was enforced by farming related vegetarian diet which was poor in Vit D, and the lower intensity of sunlight caused the Vitamin D deficiency in the darker skinned people who had reached these northerly regions. The dark-skinned humans were eliminated over time and lighter skinned among them were promoted to survive. This process of Natural Selection was spread over generations over thousands of years, and it happened because the light skin colour helped get more of Vitamin D from the sunlight. Ultimately making the entire population white skinned in North europe. In South europe, the sunlight was more powerful than North europe, and people would have more of Vitamin D. Hence in South europe some dark-skin gene has survived and is found in the greek, spanish and the latina populations even today.

So white people infact should be eternally grateful to us for they exist because of India .
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Yajurveda 1.1 "Animals are Aghnya – not to be killed. Protect the animals” It is scientifically proven that Prehistoric humans in India had minimum impact on animals, however they elsewhere have been responsible for a large scale extinction in other world.

When it comes to recent extinctions (less than 4000 years) you do realize culture has an impact. In India life in general is valued and even animals like leopards and lions are not hunted. In eurofagland it’s difficult even today to prevent hunting of rare species.

Why do Homosapiens have such a low impact on fauna in India while they have been implicated in large scale extinctions elsewhere in the world? Like Africa, the Indian record provides strong support for the coevolution hypothesis.

See - https://www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5848

Continuity of mammalian fauna over the last 200,000 years in the Indian subcontinent has now been scientifically established.

See - https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-rockshelter/9EAEC2F1CDC94C43DD1CEE06E257DFB5

See - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003101822030585X
 
Last edited:

Ashok84

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
44
Country flag
Arya or Arian is the Persian name Iran. Arya is a very common name in Iran.Oldest common God in Iran and India are Surya and Fire.Thismay be simple migration not invasion.
 

N4tsula67

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
1,009
Likes
4,317
Country flag
Arya or Arian is the Persian name Iran. Arya is a very common name in Iran.Oldest common God in Iran and India are Surya and Fire.Thismay be simple migration not invasion.
I would advise you to check whatever everyone has posted before reaching to any conclusion. Anyway Arya is a sanskrit word which means Noble thats it. Arya isn't a race lol.
Also i would advise you to check this
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Arya or Arian is the Persian name Iran. Arya is a very common name in Iran.O
The word aryan was created by vermin western indologists and philologists from the word "Arya" in the Rig Veda . Your persians’ are first mentioned in the 9th century BC assyrian annals.Firstly, "persia" or "iran" did not exist at that time . Even the worst anti-Hindu historian does not place the Rigveda at a date later than 1000 bce lmao.And in fact, the latter-day persians and Iranians of the west were local natives of the Iranian plateau who accepted the language, religion and culture of the Indian Parśu tribe (and the other Anu tribes) which migrated westwards.
And how was the name “Avestan” given to this language? There are no ancient zoroastrian texts that refer to their language as “Avestan” In fact no one knew of any original zoroastrian language of any name, be it Avestan or any other name. But here is how the name was given. In the late 1700s a man called Anquetil du Perron came to India and lived for a few months with Parsi priests in Surat, who taught him what they knew of Zoroastrian chants (gathas) and rituals. Perron also collected some Zoroastrian texts and returned to europe where he wrote a book in French called “Zend Avesta – Ouvrage du Zoroaster” meaning “Zend Avesta – the work of Zoroaster”. Perron’s work was initially dismissed but 60 years later it was validated and corrected by a man called Eugene Burnouf. To make the corrections Burnouf used a 13th century Sanskrit book by an Indian called Neryosangh Dhaval. That book was a Sanskrit translation of a pahlavi language version of zoroastrian holy texts. So whatever is written about the 3000 plus year old “Zend Avesta” is derived from verbal accounts of 17th century Parsi scholars, contemporary texts and a 13th century book that was written in Pahlavi language and translated to Sanskrit. A 3000 year gap between the original language and the translation does not inspire confidence about the linguistic theories regarding the identity of the original Zoroastrian language.

For the earliest persians in Southwestern iran: The Textual Evidence
See - https://www.jstor.org/stable/4311206?seq=1
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Debunking lies on Onge :

Aitfags talk about Ancient Ancestral South Asian- (AASI)-related population by the modern Onge tribe’s genome, which live in the Andaman Islands today, and which are genetically related to the Papua New Guinea tribal peoples from the antiquity. Surprisingly the aitfags ’ hypothesis that there were people having identical genomic constitution as the modern Onge living in India until the Iranians and the steppe people arrived and admixed with them. These Indians have been labelled as the AASI. This is a new invention uniquely invented for the occasion in an attempt to authorize retarded delusions. These Onge people of North and South India admixed with Iranian and mid-to-late BA steppe genetic group to produce the modern Indian populations, ait cucks try show.In their hypothesis the admixture of the Onge-genome with the Iranian one gave rise to the South Indian population; and the admixture of this with the Middle-to-late-Bronze Age steppe population gave rise to the North Indian population, they retarded hypothesize.


However the real story is different. Onge people could have been of the same genetic composition as the Indians about 70,000 to 50,000 years back, but not today, not even 10,000 years before today. These people (Onge) are the remnants of the people who migrated to the Anadaman Islands, and also to the southeast Asia about 70,000 to 50,000 years back. Some had stayed in India; some had arrived into Andaman (ancestors of the Onge and Jorwa); and some others would migrate eastward towards Papua New Guinea and Australia. But they did not stop there. They migrated further east to South America.


Thus the Onge separated from the rest of the humanity about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, AsThis was the same time when the Australians (and the Papuas) separated from the rest of the humanity. They are considered Australasian family, and must be considered much more remotely connected to the Ancient Ancestral South Asians than the eurofaglad , Cro-Magnons, Siberians, Iranians and the Central Asians who branched off from the main basal Eurasian trunk much later than the Onge did.


It is useful here to recollect what this research paper concludes about the Onge: “Our data indicate that two ancient maternal lineages, M31 and M32 in the Onge and the Great Andamanese, have evolved in the Andaman Islands independently from other South and Southeast Asian populations. These lineages have likely been isolated since the initial penetration of the northern coastal areas of the Indian Ocean by anatomically modern humans, in their out-of-Africa migration –50 to 70 thousand years ago.”

See - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7850233_Reconstructing_the_Origin_of_Andaman_Islanders

They also noted that over the period of time the genetic composition of the populations of the Andaman-Onge and Indian-Mainland population drifted from each other due to changes taking place in the two independently. They note: “Analysis of the complete mtDNA sequences shows that none of the coding region mutations defining these two haplogroups overlap with the known Indian or East Asian mtDNA haplogroups (1–5). In our survey of 6500 mtDNA sequences from mainland India, none of the M lineages carried the coding region mutations specific to M31 and M32 (6).” . Thus we can see that genetically the Onge had deviated a lot from mainland India over the last 50,000 years of the separation. The Onge people are short-stature and dark skinned.

Hence considering Onge as the Indian population at the onset of Neolithic cucked the total work, and vitiated all those damn results. Instead of considering the it as single component, thar admixture analysis found that it is an admixture of Iranian DNA. This error occurred because the authors failed to recognise that the Onge and the Iranians both had split from the mainland Indians, although in different eras.

Onge has almost the same components as the Mala, Irula, Shaidu-Sharif (Iron Age_0) and Shahar-i-Sokhta BA3, except that the latter ones have greater proportions of the Iranian component. This failure to appreciate some commonality (due to origin) between Indian and Iranian DNAs resulted in considering the Iranian farmers as unmixed pure component. It was also compounded by the false and erroneous belief that nobody could ever have gone out of India. In an effort at negating the Indian components in the Iranian Agriculturists the ait whoresons used the parameters in such way as that it read Iranian Agriculturists made up of a single component and entire foundations of their larp were screwed.
 
Last edited:

Krishnarjun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
68
Likes
333
Country flag
Not sure if the video is already posted but worth watching & sharing. Excellent compilation & some irrefutable facts presented in very simple manner. Do follow this guy Nilesh Oak. He is killing it with scientific work on dating of Indian epics and Vaidic literature. Makes a compelling case for his timeline of Rigveda, Ramayan & Mahabharat. His work instantly demolishes the whole AIT / AMT dogma & provides a fresh perspective of grand Indian narrative as RM calls it. What makes his work more convincing than any current indologists is use of multidisciplinary evidence such as archaeology, scriptures, archaeo-astronomy, genetics, hydrology, oceanography & many more to establish & corroborate his dates. Has his own yt channel link

 

Haldilal

लड़ते लड़ते जीना है, लड़ते लड़ते मरना है
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
5,015
Likes
15,963
Country flag
AASI Dilema.

Ya'll Nibbiars AIT Nibbiarw also try to show “Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI)-relate”: a hypothesized South Asian Hunter-Gatherer lineage related deeply to present-day indigenous Andaman Islanders” . This means that the Indians both North and South had a hunter-gatherer population whose ancestry was exactly the same as the present day Andaman islanders before 8th millennium BC, the time of arrival of Neolithic in India. It also by implication means that Andaman Islanders and the Hunter-Gatherer Ancient Indians had not diverged genetically or evolved at all in spite of having been separated genetically and spatially for 30,000 to 60,000 years. In other words, AIT's assumes that the Andaman Islanders like people ASI had occupied the whole of India, and were not restricted to the south India, and hence they have been given a new name AASI replacing the older name ASI. However this assumption cannot be supported on the basis of received information so far. We know from the data supplied by these idiots as well as earlier articles by various authors that the Y-DNA haplogroup of the Andaman Islanders had stayed the same the oldest Asian ones—D1 and C2. On the other hand people who had stayed in the mainland India had developed newer haplogroups like F*, C5, H1 etc in their Y-DNA profile, and these newer Y-DNAs have largely replaced the oldest lineages D1 and C2 in the mainland India by this time. Hence the identification of the pre-Neolithic Indians by modern Andaman Islanders gene is essentially flawed, and is fraught with the dander of misleading the entire study towards wrong conclusions. This also further expose the academic prejudice and bychcraft operations carried by these vermin Idiots.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Exposing ait lies on anatolia :

Anatolia (Asian part of turkroach) has occupied a special place in the hearts of aitfags .In spite of the aitfags claims, the emerging facts did not prove that these two (Anatolia and Levant) had been the sources of the cultures located to their East like Iran and India. Archaeology did not support such views and the recent ancient DNA studies too screw this larp.

Due to prejudice and fear of getting caught , aitfags have not consulted the articles on Mehrgarh written by authors like Jarrige (the French excavetor of Mehrgarh) and Peter Bellwood (an International doyen in Archaeology). The central Indian farming sites which pre-date the west Asian’s have all been studied only after this time. The Ladakh farming sites of 7000 bce, and Assam early farming of almost equal antiquity have all been omitted deliberately.

We should go by the facts. The first settlement at Jericho was established at about 7500 BC, and it lasted only 300 years. “At some point between 8000 and 7000 B.C., the first permanent settlement on the site was started by an unknown people who built extensive walls …”


The DNA analysis of the people found from Israel and Jordan Neolithic sites indicates that most of those who had arrived here were from Africa. This could be said because they harboured the African male DNA lineages (Y-DNA) E1b and its branches. Thus out of the eight one was Indian and three were African. The other three were CT which might have arrived from South Asia about 50,000 years ago and can be considered local settled hunter-gatherer population of the Levant. One sample, numbered ‘1707’, was Y-DNA T. T possibly originated in Andhra Pradesh of India. Similarly out of five Natufian samples three were the African E1b1 and E1b1b1b2 and two were CT. These lineages (E1b and its branches) did not migrate further east to Iran, as they are not found from the Bronze Age samples from Iran. However they are found from Armenia and later steppe.

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310?proof=t

The Anatolian Neolithic too was characterised by a large number of Eastern arrivals particularly the East Iranian G2a and the Indian (Andhra Pradesh) H2. Later the African lineage E1 and its branches are found in the plenty in the Y-DNA recoveries from the Early Bronze age Anatolian skeletons. The E1b1b etc came to Anatolia through the Levant Israel and Jordan .

They conclude,
uwu1.PNG

In other words, the people who arrived at the north-west Anatolia to activate the Neolithic revolution had arrived there from several different sources. We can clearly see in the Y-DNA haplogroup constitution of northwest Anatolia that the Neolithic people had arrived there from India (haplogroup H2); Iranian Zagros (haplogroup G2a) and Northeast Africa (haplogroup E1b1b).

Finally they clarify that the Neolithic Iran and the Neolithic Anatolia are very different. Yet at the Chalcolithic (Copper Age) period they share some resemblance or components. This is not because the Anatolians migrated to Iran, but because the Iranians expanded to Anatolia, Caucasus and the steppe during the Chalcolithic period.

uwu2.PNG


This research paper also confirmed that the Israeli (Levant) Bronze Age was a product of arrivals from Iranian Copper Age. Haber “Showed that the Levant Bronze Age population from the site of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan (2490–2300 BCE) could be fit statistically as a mixture of around 56% ancestry from a group related to Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists (represented by ancient DNA from Motza, Israel and ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan; 8300–6700 BCE) and 44% related to populations of the Iranian Chalcolithic (Seh Gabi, Iran; 4680–3662 calBCE)” .

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9


It is finally concluded in the research paper as :

uwu3.PNG



Clearly this means that the Anatolian genetic cline by vermin delusional low iq aitcucks reaching up to Indian boarders is huge larp resulting from mishandling/ manipulation/ tampering of the genetic data. In fact the Anatolian Neolithic was the product of arrival of the farmers from India, Iran and Africa into a region inhabited by local hunter-gatherers which were genetically continuous with the European hunter-gatherers before such arrivals. This is reflected in the following lines by Lazaridis:

uwu4.png


Also ,This research paper concludes that

" Our finding that the Levant_ChL population can be wellmodeled as a three-way admixture between Levant_N (57%), Anatolia_N (26%), and Iran_ChL (17%), while the Levant_-BA_South can be modeled as a mixture of Levant_N (58%) and Iran_ChL (42%), but has little if any additional Anatolia_Nrelated ancestry, can only be explained by multiple episodes of population movement. The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region.”

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05649-9

Also this research paper concludes that

Furthermore, when we form each Anatolian Neolithic genome as a mixture of all modern groups, we infer no contributions from groups in southeastern Anatolia and the Levant, where the earliest Neolithic sites are found (SI Appendix, Figs. S22 and S30 and Table S30; Dataset S3). Similarly, comparison of allele sharing between ancient and modern genomes to those expected under population continuity indicates Neolithic-to-modern discontinuity in Greece and western Anatolia, unless ancestral populations were unrealistically small”

And that ,

“The dissimilarity and lack of continuity of the Early Neolithic Aegean genomes to most modern Turkish and Levantine populations, in contrast to those of early central and southwestern European farmers and modern Mediterraneans, is best explained by subsequent gene flow into Anatolia from still unknown sources.


See- https://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886

This unknown source was also the source of Y-DNA haplogroup H2 found in the early Neolithics of these regions. Thus we can say that the unknown source was South Asia or Indian subcontinent .


Citations (snaps) taken from :

Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East, Nature, advance web publication


View attachment 69296
 
Last edited:

Cheran

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
1,804
Likes
11,525
Country flag


1607510599842.png
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
On rakhigari cell 2019 paper :

If you look at the cell paper 2019 authored by Neeraj Rai (Head of Genetics) and Vasant Shindey(Head or archaeology) of this project, shows that the ivc individual and the IVC periphery individuals separated from the ancestors of the iranian agriculturalists at about 10k BC. So IVC people do not have any relation with the iranian Agriculturalists of the later period from 7k BC.

See-https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30967-5.pdf

This disproves one huge point that many have been saying since a long time, that agriculture is not indigenous to Bharat and was brought from outside. This further proves that agriculture was developed within Bharat and by Bhartiya people.

The paper then explains in great detail how difficult it is to extract genetic details in the harsh Indian climate and the entire process carried out to extract usable genetic information for drawing concrete conclusions from it, including sophisticated statistical analysis.

Based on these statistical analysis, it was found that, the previously analyzed 11 individual from gonur and shahr-i-shokta, and I6113 from Rakhigarhi were of the same origin. So those 11 individual belonged to ivc and had migrated to areas like Iran and Central Asia, from where their remains were excavated and analyzed. This conclusion was reached based on the analysis that they were not local to the areas they found, because their genetic data did not match with 44 other remains found with these 11. These 11 remains matched with ivc data instead. And our I6113 skeleton from Rakhigarhi also matches with these 11. So it can definitely be concluded from this section that the 11 individuals had gone “out of India” to Iran and central Asia during iv times. The paper also provides evidence that these individuals had no Anatolian ancestry as well. This ancestry is clearly present in the Iranian agriculturalists but has no relation with the ivc population.

So from this section we can conclude that, during the mature Harappa phase, people moved “out of India” and mixed with people from those regions. AND SHOULD WE CALL IT the “Harappan Invasion of Central Asia” like aitfags do ?, :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: this data would give me enough ammunition to claim an invasion from Harappan by the Indus Valley people to Central Asia.

Btw , this paper also claims following by citing same old gibberish from retarded aitfags authors
“the fact that the steppy pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, but not Western Europe provides additional evidence for this theory(the theory of Steppe migration to India), as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages.”

Infact ,we must know folks this paper ,make no mention of the term ‘aryan’, and yet delusionals merely speculate that migrants from the deserted shithole aka steppy may have brought Vedic culture into India. This is mere speculation; the study does not furnish any evidence that would support such a hypothesis. The larp of invasion is long rekt .Does the study demonstrate that the migrants brought Sanskrit and Vedic culture into Bharat? No, it does not. Does the study confirm that there was an "invasion"? No, it does not.

Rather, we find that it is limited in scope, and that its results fit quite well within a larger cycle of back-and-forth population migrations whose most common recent ancestor MRCA originated in present day BHARAT.
And even if steppyniggrs came in , they were migrants for whom the Bhartiyas felt nothing but pity for and they got assimilated . This was the original “Ghar Wapsi” for the sheep who went “out of BHARAT” during the mature Harappan times. They felt sick and they came back!
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Debunking the very origin of aryan as race :

The major problem is that the very word ‘aryan’ is of Sanskrit origin "ARYA" and it refers to a person who is noble and righteous. Sometimes, the word is used for referring to someone – male or female – as "Aryaputra" or "Aryakanya". Immaculate combing through the whole bunch of Vedic literature never reveals even one single instance of the word ARYAN being used to refer to a language or race. Even modern genetic studies have proven that there is no such thing as race or aryan race . We all are genetically same .

In 1853, max mueller introduced the word "Arya" in English and assigned it the meaning of either a race or a language. The only reason he did this was to add an extra hand of credibility to the myth of Aryan Invasion Theory. It was not until 1888 that Mueller’s definition of the word "Arya" came under heavy criticism from highly learned historians and scholars. That is when mueller issued a statement refuting the theory he forwarded! Irony! The exact statement he issued is quoted,

“I have declared again and again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair, nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language…to me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.”

See - https://www.organiser.org/archives/dynamic/modules590a.html?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=67&page=43


Unfortunately, it was too late. By the time he issued statement, french and german trash and political groups had already picked up the word to propagate delusional claims - the idea of aryan race in a never ending shitquest for western identity.
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Mehargarh farming culture was not borrowed from anatolia :

Folks mehargarh is archaeological site in present day balochistan. We see aitfags claiming that Mehargarh farming culture was borrowed from anatolia is blatant lie .

This research paper concludes ,
The site has been directly dated to 9650–9950 cal BP7, and shows intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population was that of pastoralists with an emphasis on goat herding7. Archaeobotanical evidence is limited12 but the evidence present is for two-row barley with no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. This implies that the overall economy was at a much earlier stage in the development of cereal agriculture than that found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326

The date cited above gives a date of 7,850 BC (mean). It may be noted that the Mehrgarh oldest layer has a date of 8,707 BC (mean).

While the ganj Dareh Iranian people had only two-row barley (see above) at 7850 BC, the Mehrgarh had six-row barley at 8700 BC, which is an advanced stage of agricultural development and domestication of barley.

See - https://www.jatland.com/home/Mehrgarh

Btw , we dont only have Mehrgarh is not the only early Neolithic site in South Asia dating to 7000 BC. We also have Bhiranna in Haryana which is far away from Mehrgarh in Balochistan but whose faunal assemblage is quite similar to it. Check this out -

A compilation of calibrated radiocarbon dates of the charcoal samples and OSL dates of pottery (see later discussion) from various cultural levels of Bhirrana (Lat. 29°33′N; Long. 75°33′E), retrieved during the excavation of 2005, is given in SI8,18. At Bhirrana the earliest level has provided mean 14C age of 8.35 ± 0.14 ka BP (8597 to 8171 years BP8). The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP), Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP), Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP8,17,18,20,34).


See - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555

Check out the faunal assemblage from Bhiranna in Haryana,

"Preliminary faunal investigations suggest presence of domestic cattle e.g., cow/ox (Bos indicus), buffalo (Bubalus bubalis), goat (Capra hircus) and sheep (Ovis aries) from the earliest levels. Besides the dietary use of cattle and goats, wild fauna such as nilgai (Boselaphas tragocamelus), Indian spotted deer (Axis axis) and antelope (Antilope cervicapra) were also a part of the diet37,38,39,40."

And then compare it with what we know of Mehrgarh,

"""the wild animal remains that dominate the earliest levels of the ""aceramic Neolithic''.........reflect this situation with 12 forms of ""big game'' represented: wild sheep (Ovis orientalis) and goats (Capra aegragrus) from the hills, gazelle (Gazella bennetti) from the foothills and plain (Fig. 11), wild asses (Equus hemionus) and blackbuck (Antilope cervicapra) from drier plains, and nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), large deer (Cervus(?)duvauceli), smaller deer (Axis (?)axis), boar (Sus scrofa), water buffalo (Bubalus arnee), wild cattle (Bos namadicus), and possibly elephant (Elaphas maximus).. "

You can clearly see the substantial overlap in the faunal assemblage. This includes wild/domestic Zebu cattle, wild/domestic water buffalo, wild/domestic sheep & wild/domestic goat. Neither Zebu cattle nor the water buffalo is present in the Zagros Neolithic but it is present from very early Neolithic levels at both Mehrgarh & significantly further east in Bhiranna. And there is evidence of wild sheep and goats being used as well at Mehrgarh which subsequently could have been locally domesticated.

There is evidence that the dominant sheep type in much of Asia could have its origin in Bharat

See - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077858

Previous studies on mitochondrial DNA analysis of sheep from different regions of the world have revealed the presence of two major- A and B, and three minor- C, D and E maternal lineages. Lineage A is more frequent in Asia and lineage B is more abundant in regions other than Asia... Nucleotide diversity of this lineage was higher in Indian sheep (0.014 ± 0.007) as compared to that of sheep from other regions of the world (0.009 ± 0.005 to 0.01 ± 0.005). Reduced median network analysis of control region and cytochrome b gene sequences of Indian sheep when analyzed along with available published sequences of sheep from other regions of the world showed that several haplotypes of lineage A were exclusive to Indian sheep. Given the high nucleotide diversity in Indian sheep and the poor sharing of lineage A haplotypes between Indian and non-Indian sheep, we propose that lineage A sheep has also been domesticated in the east of Near East, possibly in Indian sub-continent.

If we moved to agriculture, you should know that there are no pulses at Mehrgarh in contrast to the Near East and the predominant crop was barley by far, which have been locally domesticated,

Lorenzo Costantini has shown that the plant assemblage of Period I is dominated by naked sixrow barley which accounts for more than 90% of the so far recorded seeds and imprints.7 He has also pointed out the sphaerococcoid form of the naked-barley grains with a short compact spike with shortened internodes and small rounded seeds. According to him, such characteristics in the aceramic Neolithic levels can be ascribed to probably cultivated but perhaps not fully domesticated plants. Domestic hulled six-row barley (H. vulgare, subsp. vulgare) and wild and domestic hulled two-row barley (H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum and H. vulgare subsp. distichum) have also been recorded, but in much smaller quantities. According to Zohary8 quoted by R.H. Meadow,9 the distribution of wild barley extends today to the head of the Bolan Pass. It is therefore likely that local wild barleys could have been brought under cultivation in the Mehrgarh area.

So the situation of South Asian Neolithic is far more complex and imagining it as simply a derivative of the Near Eastern Neolithic is totally wrong. The Zebu cattle and water buffalo are indisputable proofs of indigenous domestications which cannot derive from West Asia. Similarly the sheep could also have been locally domesticated and quite possibly goats too. Barley, the main crop of South Asian Neolithic in the Saraswati plain, also have been locally domesticated. Yes there are undoubtedly similarities between the Zagros Neolithic and the South Asian Neolithic which suggest some sort of an interaction. The architecture in both regions also have some parallels which is quite remarkable seeing that this is at such a great distance. J F Jarrige, the excavator of Mehrgarh, observes,

In spite of limited exposure in the deepest layers, it appears that the first settlement was composed of freestanding, multi- roomed, rectangular houses built with long, cigar-shaped mud bricks with finger marks for keying the mortar (fig. 1). Such houses are by their shapes, their sizes, and the types of bricks used to build them very similar to those from several settlements in the Near East dating to the early seventh millennium, when rectangular plans re-placed the circular plans of the eighth millennium. It will be interesting to see if further research will yield evidence in the greater Indus of an earlier phase of hunter-gatherers living in circular pit dwellings. So far such circular pit dwellings, which could be compared with those of Beidha or Mureybet in the Near East, have not been found in Baluchistan...

Infact, the pre-Harappan level settlements from Haryana shows circular pit dwellings. It is difficult to make sense of these apparent similarities spread out across such a vast landscape.

Nevertheless, it would be more appropriate to suggest that there was some interaction between people of the Iranian plateau and the NW portions of Greater Bharata during the early Neolithic or pre-Neolithic phase. However this interaction cannot simply be viewed in terms of a one-way transfer of the Neolithic package from the zagros to South Asia is total shit as aitcucks lie . when IVC ended in 2200-1800 BC, because Saraswati dried up and from the effects of the 4.2 kilo year event, there was an outflow of the millions of the people living in those thousands of river dependent cities, in both east and west directions. We see, after the IVC collapses, cultures and empires like Avestan, Gutian, Mitanni, Kassite and Medean pop up all over the place along with new Gangetic cultures like Sanauli, Mathura, Kurukshetra and Ayodha on the eastern front. Traditional historians have most of these western people climb down from obscurity from the same old Zargos mountains. Such a convenient excuse! Yet, the one thing these people have in common is the Vedic Dharma. Even the seals from Susa, in Elam bears strikingly similar motifs to the IVC seals. Its much easier even for the Tocharian language to have been derived from proto-Sanskrit travelling from India through the Nathula and Bomdila type passes to China, like Buddhism spread and how Korean history starts with a marriage of a princess from Ayodhya.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Exposing ait lies on iranian agriculturalists :

Folks these jagros neolithic got ancestry from Northwest Indian sub-continent. the the (Iran) farmers had not arrived from anatolian farmer community of the as aitfags claim to , we will shortly see ...


“The mitochondrion of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, likely to the sub-haplogroup X2, which has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia, Hungary and Germany.” (Llorente 2016)

“GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses.” (Llorente 2016)

“We further investigated the relationship between GD13a and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers using D-statistics to test whether they formed a clade to the exclusion of other ancient and modern samples (Table S4). A large number of Western Eurasian samples (both modern and ancient) showed significant excess genetic affinity to the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, whilst none did with GD13a. Overall, these results point to GD13a having little direct genetic input into later European populations compared to its northern neighbours.”


Thus the oldest Iranian Agriculturists of the Ganj Dareh had not directly migrated to eurofags, although their mitochondrial DNA X2 certainly contributed to the modern eurofags population. Clearly, the Ganj Dareh DNAs were not the gross representative of the Iranian Neolithic, but they represent a segment which was very small and did not make much impact on later eurofags, caucasus orsteppyfags. It might have represented just a small number of the emigrants from a single village in Balochistan or other parts of northwest South Asia (pre-modern India), and might have represented only a tiny fraction of genetic variation which South Asia had at that time. On the other hand, the people reaching the other locations in Zagros (Iran) at Neolithic might have originated from other villages of present-day porkyland/ Afghanistan resulting in differences (diversity) in genetic composition within the Zagros Neolithic populations.


“The individual analysed here was part of burial 13, which contained three individuals, and was recovered in level C in 1971 from the floor of a brick-walled structure. The individual sampled, 13A (referred to as GD13a throughout the text), was a 30–50-year-old female; the other individuals in the burial unit were a second adult (13B) and an adolescent (13). The site has been directly dated to 9650–9950 cal BP, and shows intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population was that of pastoralists with an emphasis on goat herding. Archaeobotanical evidence is limited but the evidence present is for two-row barley with no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. This implies that the overall economy was at a much earlier stage in the development of cereal agriculture than that found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.” (Llorente 2016)

This information refutes the claim by ait cucks that the Mehrgarh farming culture had been borrowed from Anatolia (Turkey) through Iran (Ganj Dareh). The date cited above gives a date of 7,850 BC (mean). It may be noted that the Mehrgarh oldest layer has a date of 8,707 BC (mean).

While the Ganj Dareh Iranian people had only two-row barley (see above) at 7850 BC, the Mehrgarh had six-row barley at 8700 BC, which is an advanced stage of agricultural development and domestication of barley (Upinder Singh 120; Jarrige 2008).

Lorenzo Costantini has shown that the plant assemblage of Period I is dominated by naked six-row barley which accounts for more than 90% of the so far recorded seeds and imprints. He has also pointed out the sphaerococcoid form of the naked-barley grains with a short compact spike with shortened internodes and small rounded seeds.

According to him, such characteristics in the aceramic Neolithic levels can be ascribed to probably cultivated but perhaps not fully domesticated plants. Domestic hulled six-row barley (H. vulgare, subsp. vulgare) and wild and domestic hulled two-row barley (H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum and H. vulgare subsp. distichum) have also been recorded, but in much smaller quantities. According to Zohary quoted by R.H. Meadow, the distribution of wild barley extends today to the head of the Bolan Pass. It is therefore likely that local wild barleys could have been brought under cultivation in the Mehrgarh area. Costantini has also identified a small amount of domestic einkorn (hulled: Triticum monococcum), domestic emmer (hulled: T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum) and a free-threshing form which can be referred to as Triticum durum (Fig. 10).”

See -https://www.academia.edu/7147498/J_F_Jarrige

See - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/059568v1.full


Thus, these people of Iran had arrived here about 1000 years after the Mehrgarh culture had taken off. The Ganj Dareh site had been occupied for only a short period of 100 to 300 years (mean 200 years). On the other hand, the Mehrgarh shows a continuous occupation for a long and continuous period till recent times. It may be noted that the domestication of the goat is not possible to take place in 200 or 300 years and about a thousand years is required for the features of domestication to start appearing on the skeletons of the animals. Clearly, the people of Ganj Dareh were not local, and had arrived from somewhere else.

Then if you look at ,

“ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 statistics identified Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B,C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4).” (Llorente 2016)

This shows that Ganj Dareh coming from a region within the locations of Brahui, Baluchistan and Makaran of South Asia, now in porkystan. Mehrgarh was in modern-day Baluchistan all well within boundaries of GREATER BHARAT !!!

Refer to my post on greater Bharat - https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/aryan-invasion-theory.1403/page-99#post-1803978


What about other characters of the Ganj Dareh lady? This paper also noted the skin colour of the Ganj Dareh lady:

“She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but likely had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait. The derived SLC24A5 variant has been found in both Neolithic farmer and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer groups suggesting that it was already present at an appreciable frequency before these populations diverged. Finally, she did not have the most common European variant of the LCT gene (rs4988235) associated with the ability to digest raw milk, consistent with the later emergence of this adaptation.” (Llorente 2016).

Clearly, she had the light skin colour gene SLC24A5 allele which produces light skin colour in the eurfogas and the Bhartiyas . This gene was not found in the eurofags until late the Bronze Age. It was not present in the La Branda human of 5000 BC. However, it was found present in many euofags between 3000 BC and 1000 BC (Allentoft). This means the Ganj Dareh were not ancestral to the early Neolithic people of the north of Black Sea who entered East Europe replacing the hunter-gatherers at about 5000 BC.I have earlier showed that the light skin colour gene SLC24A5 originated in India long back, and it migrated to other places including even ethiopia from India earlier.

See - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14507


Also , this research paper concludes that the Iranian Neolithic people from Wezmeh Cave were related to the modern north western Indian and Afghan people, particularly the Zoroastrians of Iranian origin now living in Bharat.

“These people are estimated to have separated from Early Neolithic farmers in Anatolia some 46–77,000 years ago and show affinities to modern day Pakistani and Afghan populations, but particularly to Iranian Zoroastrians.”


Clearly, the Zagros (Iran) farmers had not arrived from Anatolian farmer community of the Anatolia Neolithic. In fact, they are deeply related to the BHARTIYA population.

See - https://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6298/499.full
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Spices, fruits and oils from Asia had reached the Mediterranean several centuries, in some cases even millennia, earlier than had been previously thought. " This is first direct evidence to date of turmeric, banana and soy outside of South and East Asia.

This research paper concludes the earliest direct evidence in the mediterranean to date for the consumption of sesame, soybean, probable banana, and turmeric :

uwu.PNG


See - https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/12/16/2014956117

I want to ask all of ait cucks and dhimmi marxshit orangutans and all bhadwa krantikari patrakaars a simple question ?? Well if the so called 'aryan invaders/ migrants' were creating devastation / chaos during that period in Ancient BHARAT , then how come the poor 'Dravidians' :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: managed to sustain such a long distance trade contacts? like in the times of 'Saraswati Civilization' ?
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Dice. From Mohenjo Daro, Sindh. Ivory. ~2500BCE - 2000BCE. 'Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe.They give frail gifts and then destroy the man who wins, thickly anointed with the player's fairest good.' -RigVeda

uwu.jpg


Harappan diet included milk & meat. Again another study this year confirming dairy consumption in the Bhartiya subcontinent for five thousand years . It is also evident that meat was consumed in Vedic period.

See - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440320302120
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
609
Likes
3,096
Country flag
Map showing the comparative distribution percentage of spoked wheels recovered from different zones of South Asia. From preprint of the same paper, thanks to Krishnendu Das. As we see, the Sarasvati region dominates :

uwu.jpg




Chart showing chronology and site wise distribution of spoked wheels recovered from South Asia, thanks to Krishnendu Das. From preprint of the crucial paper:- Invention and Development of Spoked Wheel: A Harappan Perspective by Krishnendu Das, published in Puratattva - 49, 2019. :


uwu1.jpg



Region wise distribution of spoked wheels recovered from South Asia :

uwu5.jpg



See - https://www.academia.edu/41275548/Invention_and_Development_of_Spoked_Wheel_A_Harappan_Perspective


Reconstruction of Sanauli Chariot dated back to 4000 years ago :

uwu4.jpg
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top