Aryan Invasion Theory

viklewapatel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
146
Likes
68
Country flag
tellmeGen: MY RESULTS / TRAITS: Skin pigmentation

SNP: rs1426654
Gen or Region: SLC24A5

SNP USED: rs1426654
GENOTYPE: AA
RESULT: High likely to have light skin


SNP: rs16891982
Gen or Region: SLC24A5

SNP USED: rs16891982
GENOTYPE: CC
RESULT: High likely to have dark skin


61stxp.jpg
 

viklewapatel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
146
Likes
68
Country flag
Press Trust of India @PTI_News: Any website, YouTube channel spreading lies, conspiring against India will be blocked: Information and Broadcasting Minister Anurag Thakur #broadcasting #india #youtube #lies #modigovernment #news
 

viklewapatel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
146
Likes
68
Country flag
Brahmin_UP

... by Autosomal DNA


1. Kshatriya (4.626)
2. Gujarati (5.085)
3. Bangladeshi (10.94)
4. Dharkar (13.06)
5. Kanjar (13.97)
6. Punjabi_Jat (16.29)
7. Sindhi (17.04)
8. Uttar_Pradesh (17.08)

... to closest Ancient group

1. *Karkota (4.742)
2. *Maurya (4.742)
3. Karkota + Maurya (4.742)
4. Karkota + Ghaznavid (5.101)
5. Karkota + Brahmin (5.362)
6. Brahmin (7.745)
7. Brahmin + Maurya (10.91)
8. Karkota (13.47)
9. Brahmin + Ghaznavid (17.21)
10. Maurya (18.7)
11. Ghaznavid (33.59)

screencapture-mytrueancestry-dashboard-main-py-2022-01-20-08_03_22.png


Genetic distance measures how close you are to a given modern population. Many modern populations are surprisingly close to another, which is often due to true common ancestry.
  • 5 means you are close to this population
  • 10 means you could fit into this population
  • 15 means a related population
  • Compare DNA:

  • Autosomal tests look at chromosomes 1-22 and X, which are inherited from both parents and all recent ancestors.
  • Male (Y-DNA) looks at the Y-chromosome which is inherited father to son. Only males can take these tests to explore their direct paternal line.
  • Female (mtDNA) looks at mitochondria, which is inherited from mother to child and can be used to explore the direct maternal line.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
Excellent work viz The ARCHAEOGENETICS Blog

Author : VASISTHA and ASHISH

Proto-Indo-European from NW Indian subcontinent, Iran or SC Asia - A Proposal based on Genetics


PIE



ABSTRACT

qpGraph modeling of the Steppe_Eneolithic samples shows that they received up to 40% of ancestry from the common ancestors of the later Indus Valley Civilization (IVC or SSC). The Steppe_Eneolithic ancestry from the piedmont steppe from 4336-4047 BCE is the major source of subsequent cultures like Yamnaya & Corded Ware, which are widely suggested to be the vector of the language spread of European language families. This genetic connection, therefore, offers a significant genetic clue to the common ancestor of the first Proto-Indo-European language speakers.

THE SOURCE OF THE YAMNAYA ANCESTRY.

The Yamnaya culture or culture with an autosomal ancestry profile similar to that of Yamnaya is widely believed to be the source of the Indo-European languages of Europe.
Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ∼4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ∼75% of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ∼3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe. - Haak et al, 2015 (1)
The source of the Iranian-like ancestry in Yamnaya has always been a mystery. Below is a Twitter conversation between Dr. Mathieson from U. Penn and Dr. Laziridis from Harvard University. It is quite clear that neither Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHG) nor Iran Neolithic (IranN) samples from Zagros quite fits the bill by themselves as a second source of the Yamnaya ancestry.
I think can't really distinguish between CHG and Iran Neolithic as Yamanya source.
— Iain Mathieson (@mathiesoniain) September 26, 2017
Neither CHG nor Iran_N is a good source for Yamnaya *on their own*
— Iosif Lazaridis (@iosif_lazaridis) September 26, 2017
I mean Yamnaya=EHG+(Either CHG or Iran_N or both or something similar)
— Iain Mathieson (@mathiesoniain) September 26, 2017

Wang et al, 2019 (2) found 3 samples from the Piedmont Steppe north of the Caucasus mountains dated to 4336-4047 BCE which proved to be very good fits as the ancestors of the Yamnaya culture. However, even this study could not pinpoint the actual source of the CHG/Iran ancestry.
North of the Caucasus, Eneolithic and BA individuals from the Samara region (5200–4000 BCE) carry an equal mixture of EHG- and CHG/Iranian ancestry, so-called ‘steppe ancestry’ that eventually spread further west, where it contributed substantially to present-day Europeans, and east to the Altai region as well as to South Asia. - Wang et al, 2019
Progress Location
Location of the Steppe Eneolithic Samples at Progress & Vonyuchka


The latest research. Chintalapati et al, 2022 preprint (13), shows that the admixture between EHG and Iranian-related ancestry in Yamnaya and Afanasievo occurred around 4400-4000 BCE.

To understand the timing of the formation of the early Steppe pastoralist-related groups, we applied DATES using pooled EHG and pooled Iranian Neolithic farmers. Focusing on the groups with the largest sample sizes, Yamnaya Samara (n=10) and Afanasievo (n=19), we inferred the admixture occurred between 40-45 generations before the individuals lived, translating to an admixture timing of ~4,100 BCE . We obtained qualitatively similar dates across four Yamnaya and one Afanasievo groups, consistent with the findings that these groups descend from a recent common ancestor.
Thus, we combined all early Steppe pastoralist individuals in one group to obtain a more precise estimate for the genetic formation of proto-Yamnaya of ~4,400 to 4,000 BCE.
These admixture dates give another line of evidence to the theory that Steppe_eneolithic were the ancestors of Yamnaya, and were the first in the region to possess this unique EHG + Iranian ancestry.

THE IndiaN ANCESTRY

Shinde et al, 2019 (3) concluded that the 'Iranian like' ancestry which gives between 60-87% ancestry to the Indus Periphery samples is not the same ancestry as that of IranHG or IranN, but rather they share a common ancestor deep in time (split before 10000BCE). Since the study does not name this ancestry, I have decided to name it IndiaN, which will be used in my subsequent models. The location of these IndiaN people prior to mixing with AASI people of the Indian subcontinent is unknown, but they could well be inhabitants of NW India since their split with IranN 12000 ya, or they could be more recent migrants to NW India around 7000 ya (5000 BCE) where they mixed with AASI. We just don't know yet due to a lack of relevant samples. The IndiaN ancestry is so named not because we know it's the original location, but because it provides the largest chunk of the ancestry in modern people of the Indian subcontinent today.

1642864250868.png


Using qpGraph(Patterson et al., 2012), we tested all possible simple trees relating the Iranian-related ancestry component of these groups, accounting for known admixtures (Anatolian farmer-related admixture into Hajji Firuz and Tepe Hissar and Andamanese hunter-gatherer-related admixture in the IVC Cline)(Figure S3), using an acceptance criterion for the model fitting that the maximum Z scores between observed and expected f-statistics was <3 or that the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was within 4 of the best-fit (Burnham and Anderson, 2004). The only consistently fitting models specified that the Iranian-related lineage contributing to the IVC Cline split from the Iranian-related lineages sampled from ancient genomes of the Iranian plateau before the latter separated from each other.
This qpGraph method (5) is what we will use to build our tree for Steppe_Eneolithic, which helps us overcome the limitation of the absence of IndiaN samples from the aDna record.

BUILDING THE TREE MODEL

The following sample labels from the available ancient and modern DNA datasets will be used to build the tree.

1. Mbuti.DG - Pygmy group from Modern Congo as Outgroup
2. China_Paleolithic - 2 samples, one from Tianyuan ~40kya and one from Amur River China ~33kya
3. Ong.SG - Modern Onge Andamanese
4. Yana_UP.SG - 2 samples from NE Siberia Yana RHS region, ~32kya, ancestry label ANE
5. Tarim_EMBA1 - 12 samples from Tarim Basin China, ~4-3.5kya, related to ANE ancestry
6. IronGates_Mesolithic - 29 samples from Serbia, ~9-8kya, also labeled WEHG
7. EHG_Karelia - 2 Samples from Western Russia, ~8.5kya, also labeled EHG
8. CaucasusHG or CHG - 2 samples from Georgia, ~13.5 - 9.5kya
9. GanjDareh_N - 10 IranN herder samples from Zagros, W Iran, ~10kya
10. IVC - 6 outlier samples from Shahr_i_Sokhta which are migrants from IVC, ~4.5kya
11. Steppe_Eneolithic - 3 samples from Piedmont steppe, ~6.4-6 kya

Model Parameters and Acceptance Rules
The common parameter file for qpGraph is pasted below. Allsnps: YES is used along with Inbreed: NO

1. Z-Score threshold is set at 3, bad fits will be reported if the model has F Stats with Z-Scores above +3 or below -3, and we will look for a better model.

2. All drift edges must be of non-zero drift length.

3. Sometimes, a 0 drift length edge as seen on the graph is actually non-zero (but minuscule) when the output file is inspected.

See -
Starting from Scratch

1. Adding Mbuti, China_Paleo & Onge


1642864308373.png


2. Adding Yana_UP

1642864320744.png


3. Adding Tarim_EMBA1.



1642864335867.png


4. Adding IronGates_Mesolithic.

1642864352342.png


5. Adding Karelia_EHG.

1642864364066.png


6. Adding CHG_Georgia.

1642864375659.png


7. Adding GanjDareh_N.


1642864394827.png


8. Adding SINDHU SARASVATI

1642864438986.png



Some Notes on the findings of the preceding qpGraphs.


1. Shahr_I_Sokhta IVC or Indus_Periphery is modeled as 29% AASI and 71% of IndiaN1 which itself is an admixture of IranN related ancestry (IndiaN) and 11% Tarim Basin related ancestry (related to ANE and WSHG). This is consistent with the conclusions of Shinde et al, 2019 & Narasimhan et al, 2019.

2. The hypothetical component AASI shares a common ancestor with Onge Andamanese deep in time, consistent with Narasimhan et al, 2019.

3. China Paleolithic and Onge share a common East Eurasian ancestor, corroborating with He et al (6), 2021. Minor archaic Human admixture in China_paleolithic is not seen as we havent included Denisovan or Neanderthal in our tree.

4. CHG and IranN don't form a clade, consistent with Laziridis, 2018 preprint (7). CHG and IranN obtain 60% and 50% ancestry from a West Eurasian source respectively, consistent with Laziridis 2018 preprint. We also detect ~8% and ~14% basal/African ancestry in CHG and IranN respectively, which is close to the estimate of Laziridis 2018 preprint. The remaining ancestry in our tree is East Eurasian, unlike Laziridis 2018 which gives a mixture of ANE (MA1 related) and east Eurasian. This could be because Laziridis 2018 used the actual Dzudzuana sample in their paper, whereas we use a proxy WE node as the Dzudzuana sample has not been published yet.

5. EHG is 40% West Eurasian + 60% ancestry related to ancestors of Tarim_EMBA1. This is close to Laziridis et al., 2016 (8) model of 25% West Eurasian + 75% ANE related to AG2 (or MA1) as Tarim_EMBA is more east Eurasian Shifted than MA1 or AG2.

6. Tarim_EMBA is modeled as 70% ANE (related to Yana and 30% East Eurasian (related to the deep ancestor of Onge). This is close to Zhang et al, 2021 (9) model of 72% AG3 + 28% Northeast Asian ancestry.

7. This is the basic tree that we will work on in our next step. Please note that this is not the only possible tree for fitting all the samples, and neither can we say that this is the best fitting model. However, it passes all our criteria and we can proceed with the analysis using this as a baseline. The worst fit F stat has a Z-Score of 2.03 <3, and all the drift edges are non-zero. The edges that have a 0 label on them are rounded off by the program, the actual non-zero values of which can be seen in the respective .ggg files (supplement).


FITTING STEPPE_ENEOLITHIC.

Now that we have the base model setup, it is a matter of adding Steppe_eneolithic to the graph and seeing what sources give the best fits. We will test various models one by one - choosing between EHG and CHG/IranN/IndiaN as sources, as a 2 source, 3 source, and 4 source model.

1. Steppe = EHG + CHG.
A bad fit with worst ZScore of 6.6 for f4 (Yana, IVC; CHG, Steppe_En) indicating that Steppe needs ancestry from a source close to IVC. There are total 91 outlier F stats, each signaling a need for either IVC or IranN ancestry.


Now that we have the base model setup, it is a matter of adding Steppe_eneolithic to the graph and seeing what sources give the best fits. We will test various models one by one - choosing between EHG and CHG/IranN/IndiaN as sources, as a 2 source, 3 source, and 4 source model.

1. Steppe = EHG + CHG.
A bad fit with worst ZScore of 6.6 for f4 (Yana, IVC; CHG, Steppe_En) indicating that Steppe needs ancestry from a source close to IVC. There are total 91 outlier F stats, each signaling a need for either IVC or IranN ancestry.

1642864505286.png



To be continued.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
[]Continued... from https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/aryan-invasion-theory.1403/post-2132344

Excellent work viz The ARCHAEOGENETICS Blog

Author : VASISTHA and ASHISH

Proto-Indo-European from NW Indian subcontinent, Iran or SC Asia - A Proposal based on Genetics

3. Steppe = EHG + IranN

The model fails with the worst F Stat Zscore = 11.15 for f4(Irongates, CHG; IraN, Steppe) signaling a need for CHG.
Outlier Z Scores

See -


With the above (failed) models, what we see is that apart from EHG, at least 2 sources for Iranian components are needed in Steppe_EN, CHG & IndiaN.

4. Steppe = EHG + CHG + IranN

The model fails with worst F4 Z-Score of 4.64 for f4(Yana, IVC; IranN, Steppe) signaling that there is still a need for IVC-related ancestry. All the outlier F4 Z-scores also signals the same need. They are pasted below.

See -

5. Steppe = EHG + CHG + IndiaN
Model is a success
with the worst f4 Z-Score of 2.52. IranN ancestry is not needed, unlike in the above model where IVC-related ancestry was needed.

Steppe_Eneolithic = 50%EHG + 44% IndiaN1 + 6% CHG +- standard errors



1642864802456.png


FINAL MODEL

From the above, we can see that the that the only working model for Steppe_Eneolithic is a 3 source model of EHG + CHG + IndiaN with EHG and IndiaN being the major components.

However, the model whihc provides the best fit is a 4 source model which also includes IranN. It gives no F4 outliers, the lowest final score (best fit) as well as all non zero drift edges.

Worst F4 Z-Score 2.7. Steppe = 51% EHG + 40% IndiaN1 + 6% CHG + 3% IranN

1642864817054.png


DISCUSSION


No study so far has delved into the nature of the source of the Iranian related ancestry in the Steppe Eneolithic. The above qpGraph models conclude that the only models which fit for Steppe_en have to include EHG, CHG, and IndiaN as a source. The western Iranian Zagros herder-related ancestry has little part to play in the genesis of the Steppe ancestry. The graphs show a high prevalence (40%) of ancestry related to the ancestors of IVC people in the steppe profile. The usual caveats apply - we need to find the actual samples corresponding to the 5000-4000 BCE time period from the NW Indian subcontinent, SC Asian, and Eastern Iranian regions. qpGraph outputs may also change with the inclusion of other reference groups.

Narasimhan et al., 2019 provide the admixture date between AASI and IndiaN components in IVC samples from Shahr-i-Sokhta as 4483-3811 BCE. This could have occurred in two ways:

1. The IndiaN ancestry in IVC (node IndiaN3) resided near the IVC region and it was the AASI ancestry that moved to NW Indian subcontinent for the admixture.

OR

2. The AASI ancestry resided near the IVC region and IndiaN3 ancestry admixed with this ancestry from the west of it.

Ancient DNA from the NW Indian subcontinent region from 5000 BCE should give a definitive answer to this question. What is clear is that the same ancestors of IVC people gave ancestry to both IVC and Steppe post 6000 BCE, which provides evidence to explain the common source of Indo & European languages.

THE INDO IRANIAN BRANCH OF IE
The linguistic case for a steppe homeland (Sintashta/Andronovo Horizon) of Proto-Indo-Iranian language assumes a (one or more) non-IE language substrate in NW of the Indian subcontinent. The hypothesis assumes a complete replacement of extant languages by the incoming people (predominantly male) from the steppes. However, there are many inconsistencies with this hypothesis as has been laid out in a comprehensive article by Jaydeepsinh Rathod (11), using tens of references from the work of linguists. The article also argues for a much older presence of the IE language family in the Indian subcontinent than is proposed by the steppe theory (1500BCE). There have been other historians, linguists, and archaeologists who have also argued for a much older presence of IE languages in the subcontinent. This paper agrees with the assertion of the older presence of IE languages in the NW Indian subcontinent given the genetic contact between ancestors of IVC and Steppe_eneolithic.

The answer to the question regarding the linguistic nature of contact between the bronze age Steppe people and Indo Iranian speaking people of the Indian subcontinent & Iran remains unclear because of the lack of any extant texts from the steppe. It is clear that the steppe bronze age ancestry appeared in the Indo Iranian speaking regions post-2000 BCE, but the nature of linguistic contact, loanword exchange, etc needs more study.


THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN HOMELAND

The crux of the above analysis is that the same source that provides the maximum amount of ancestry to modern Indians (especially north Indians & Pakistanis), also provides a big chunk of ancestry to the Steppe component. This steppe component is believed to be the vector of language spread to the ancestors of most IE-speaking Europeans today.

This validates the theory of an Iranian PIE homeland, also supported by Johannes Krause of Max Planck Institute in his 2021 book (10). However, given that the bulk of the Iran-like ancestry in the Steppe is related to IVC ancestry rather than CHG or western Iranian herder ancestry, the locus of PIE must be shifted to the east of what has been suggested in the book. Another reason why a northwest Iranian PIE is unlikely is that the region had a big amount of Anatolian farmer ancestry already by 6000 BCE, which is missing from the Steppe Eneolithic. The high in Anatolian Farmer ancestry 6000 BCE Hajji Firuz chalcolithic samples are evidence of this. The location of these samples is actually inside the locus proposed by Krause (in the graphic below)

This eastern locus supports the hypothesis by the anthropologist from St. Petersburg State University, Alexander Kozintsev (12) among others, who proposed east of Caspian sea origin of pie.

1642864836506.png

From Chapter 6: A Short History of Humanity by J. Krause, Max Planck Institute


THE PROPOSAL FOR Pie.
PIE Map
THE BIG PICTURE: Genetic admixture events post 6000BCE can explain the IE Language dispersal



TOOLS, DATA, AND OUTPUT FILES
1. The latest version of ADMIXTOOLS was used for qpGraph and convertf. Available here.

2. Plink 1.9 was used to make only a subset of required samples from the large eigenstrat database.

3. The genotype files and qpGraph parameter/input/output files are uploaded here, which can be used for verification and rebuilding the models.

REFERENCES
1 Haak, W., Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N. et al. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522, 207–211 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14317

2 Wang, CC., Reinhold, S., Kalmykov, A. et al. Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions. Nat Commun 10, 590 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8

3 Shinde V, Narasimhan VM, Rohland N, et al. An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers. Cell. 2019;179(3):729-735.e10. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.048

4 Narasimhan VM, Patterson N, Moorjani P, et al. The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia. Science. 2019;365(6457):eaat7487. doi:10.1126/science.aat7487

5 Patterson N, Moorjani P, Luo Y, et al. Ancient admixture in human history. Genetics. 2012;192(3):1065-1093. doi:10.1534/genetics.112.145037

6 He G, Wang M, Zou X, et al. Peopling History of the Tibetan Plateau and Multiple Waves of Admixture of Tibetans Inferred From Both Ancient and Modern Genome-Wide Data. Front Genet. 2021;12:725243. Published 2021 Sep 3. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.725243

7 Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry
Iosif Lazaridis, Anna Belfer-Cohen, Swapan Mallick, Nick Patterson, Olivia Cheronet, Nadin Rohland, Guy Bar-Oz, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Nino Jakeli, Eliso Kvavadze, David Lordkipanidze, Zinovi Matzkevich, Tengiz Meshveliani, Brendan J. Culleton, Douglas J. Kennett, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich
bioRxiv 423079; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/423079

8 Lazaridis, I., Nadel, D., Rollefson, G. et al. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature 536, 419–424 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19310

9 Zhang, F., Ning, C., Scott, A. et al. The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies. Nature 599, 256–261 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04052-7

10 Krause J, 2021 A Short History of Humanity- How Migration Made Us Who We Are Penguin Books. Chapter 6 Europeans Find a Language

11 Rathod J., 2021 Can Linguistics prove AMT & reject OIT ?

12 Kozintsev A, 2019 Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 47 (3-4), pp.293-380

13 Chintalapati M., Patterson N., Moorjani P. et al. Reconstructing the spatiotemporal patterns of admixture during the European Holocene using a novel genomic dating method
bioRxiv 2022.01.18.476710; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.18.476710
 

viklewapatel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
146
Likes
68
Country flag

viklewapatel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
146
Likes
68
Country flag
Brahmin.DG (Visakhapatnam) 0.104481
Punjabi Lahore Pakistan 0.401352
Balochi 1.199462
Pathan 2.253083
Sindhi_Pakistan 1.870072
Brahui 4.894929
Onge.DG 27.860794
screencapture.png

map-my-genes-results.png


:india:
 
Last edited:

viklewapatel

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
146
Likes
68
Country flag
Brahmin.DG (Visakhapatnam) 0.104481
Punjabi Lahore Pakistan 0.401352
Balochi 1.199462
Pathan 2.253083
Sindhi_Pakistan 1.870072
Brahui 4.894929
Onge.DG 27.860794
View attachment 134294
View attachment 134293

:india:
Compare
Jew_Cochin 0.249434
Tajik_o.DG 3.520550
Iranian_Bandari 6.264458
Lezgin.DG (Dagestanskiye Ogni, Dagestan) 6.690181
Jew_Iranian 10.450395
English 18.692425
Jew_Ashkenazi 21.01666667
 

cannonfodder

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
1,460
Likes
4,022
Country flag
Lot of DNA/ RNA analysis. Can some one please explain engineer what is brief conclusions of the studies right now?

Aryan Invasion is BS; having no scientific proof in hardened fields like archaeology and geology. Its been debunked and thrown in garbage bin by Indologist without any support from current dispensation. Why so much discussion on gene analysis when its still evolving science?
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
The Sarasvatī: One key to Indigenism -- N. Kazanas
The Sarasvatī: One key to Indigenism
N. Kazanas,
0. The Sarasvatī in the RV (Ṛgveda) is a very large river fed by many tributaries. Along its banks thrived, says the RV, the 5 Aryan tribes, chiefly the Purus. The river dried up c1900 BCE. The name is cognate with Iranian Harxvaiti and its first element has cognations in other IE (Indo-European) tongues. It is thus one of the keys for dating the RV, and much of ancient Indian history and for settling many aspects of the IE scene.
1. The name Sarasvatī means ‘she who has sáras’. It is feminine and it is formed with the noun sáras and the taddhita matup suffix (Pāṇini 8.2.9, 4.2.72 etc) -vat > fem -vatī which indicates possessing (as bhagá-vat ‘possessing wisdom, prosperity, love’, mánas-vat ‘possessing spirit’).
The noun sáras denotes ‘lake, pond, pool’! It is cognate with Iranian *Harax- (*harah-) which is isolated in that language and does not yield a meaning, as we shall see below (§4ff). It is also cognate with Greek helos ‘swamp’. In this respect Sarasvatī is ‘she who has lakes’. But how can a river possess lakes?.… Well, this could refer to the pools formed at the delta of the river as it flowed into the ocean (or disappeared in the Batnair desert). Or it could refer to a large lake or lakes on the Himalayas from which it flowed down into the valley.
However, sáras means also any ‘moving/flowing sheet of water’. As such the name Sarasvatī means ‘she who has currents, eddies, swirls, turbulences, whirlpools’ in its streaming water. And this, would be a much more reasonable interpretation since it denotes a continuous aspect of the river, rather than the lakes/pools which indicate an initial and/or terminal aspect only.
Moreover, the noun sáras comes from dhātu √sṛ > sarati/sisarti (1st and 3rd class respectively) which in the sense gatau means ‘flowing, moving, rushing’. From this dhātu (=lexical seedform, root) we have the full conjugation of the two verbs: sarati he/she/it flows, sasrāva has flowed, sariṣyati will flow, and so on; sisratuḥ ‘the two flow’ etc. Also, many nouns and adjectives: sṛta flowed; sṛti flow; sara flow/flowing; sarit ‘brook, stream’; sāra ‘pith, essence’; etc, etc.
Then, this verb sarāmi ‘I flow/rush’ is cognate with Greek hallomai Latin salio (<salire) and Tocharian B salate – all meaning ‘leap, rush’. This strengthens the meaning of movement and rushing rather than the immobile lake/pond/pool, which must be, like Greek helos, a later meaning.
All this may mean very little at present but the significance will emerge below, when I discuss the relation with Iranian Haraxvaiti (§ 4-5).
2. The river Sarasvatī as presented in the hymns of the RV gives us a key to the date of the composition of the samhitā.
The river is mentioned in all the books of the RV except the 4th. The name denotes also a goddess and 2.41.16 calls Sarasvatī ‘best river nadītamā, best mother ambitamā and best goddess devitamā’. Elsewhere she is a celestial river and, of course, a goddess (of plenty and wisdom). In this paper I deal with the river only. She is a mother because she nourishes the Aryan tribes (in 6.61, 10.64, 10.177) providing sustenance and prosperity. 6.52.6 says that she is fed pinvamānā by three or more (lesser) rivers, while Yajurveda 3.4.11 states that she is augmented by 5 tributaries.
An important point is that RV 7.95.2, a very early hymn (Books 3, 6 and 7 are generally regarded as the earliest), says the river flows “pure from the mountains to the ocean” girī́bhya ā́ sumudrā́t. Then 6.61. 8-13 lauds the river as endless, swift-moving, roaring, most dear among the sister-currents and, together with her divine aspect, nourishing the five tribes. Several other verses in the Rigvedic hymns (7.96; 8.21; 10.64 and 177) praise the river for its greatness and pray that it continues to give sustenance to the peoples along its banks.
A simple fact should be borne in mind: no other river receives such praise, or, indeed, any praise in the hymns. There is no hint anywhere in the RV, no complaint or bewailing, that the Sarasvatī is a desiccated river vanishing in the middle of the desert – as Manusmṛti 2.21 and scholiasts thereon say. In historic times the river is indeed shrunk and called Chaggar/Hakra or Sarsuti (<sarasvatī).
When did this happen?
I do not know. It is for archaeologists and geologists to give us the correct answer. For, if the Rigvedic references to the mighty river are a fiction then nothing in the RV can be trusted.
But reputed archaeologists, G. Possehl (1998) and B. B. Lal (2002), say that the river flowed down to the ocean before 3800 or thereabouts. Other scientists have traced the full course with satellite photographs (Sharma 2006). Others again say that the river dried up c1900 BCE due to tectonic adjustments, shifts of river-courses and other climatic conditions (Rao 1991, Allchins 1997). Due to the subsequent desiccation of the region, the inhabitants moved eastward to the Gangetic plain.
These considerations bear mightly on the date of the composition of these hymns, the RV and, by extension, of the presence of the Indoaryans in the region. (All this was discussed at great length in Kazanas 2009, ch 1, and 2015, passim. But more recent studies present contradictory data about Sarasvatī.)
3. The mainstream doctrine has been teaching the AIT (=Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory). It held that the Indoaryans came from Iran and settled in Saptasindhu, the Land of the Seven Rivers, in North-West India and Pakistan of today, c1700 BCE. Earlier the date was 1500; now mainstreamers have changed it up to 2000. This change is not because the RV has suddenly acquired antiquity but in order to avoid the difficulty of having foreign intruders settling in a region which (in 1900 BCE) was being desiccated and the local population was moving eastward.
I have argued fully elsewhere that this mainstream doctrine has no basis whatever in hard evidences and facts; it is concocted out of pure conjectures without even, as is claimed, any linguistic basis (Kazanas 2009 mainly for archaeological evidences; 2015 mainly for literary, linguistic and genetic ones).
Neither the RV nor any other Indian or non-Indian document refers to this alleged entry. The theory began in France and later in England in the 18th cent. as sociological speculation to explain the caste system as being a result of an Egyptian or Mesopotamian invasion and conquest, then was turned into linguistic arguments (chiefly Max Müller) and now it is repeated quite mechanically without any rational explanations (Kazanas 2015, Introduction).
The archaeologists also have failed to find any evidences of intrusion – even Western ones, even Indians who have adopted the wretched AIT (Kazanas 2009, ch 1).
Now, clearly, if the Sarasvatī was a mighty river that flowed down to the ocean only before 3800 BCE, according to the archaeologists mentioned above, then the hymns that refer to it must have been composed before or at about that date. This applies to the part of the Yajurveda 3.4.11 that mentions the river. Consequently the Indoaryans were inhabitants of that area before that date and the Rigvedic world is anterior to the mature Harappan culture of c2800-2600 BCE. This is not surprising since many items common in the mature Harappan, like bricks iṣṭakā (first used in the Yajur Veda), fixed altars, urban settled life, iconic representations etc, are not found in the RV.
Corroboration and more evidences come from a comparison of the names Sarasvatī and Iranian Haraxvaiti.
4. Iranian (or Avestan) has no cognate for Vedic √sṛ and derivatives. Its own word for lake is vairi while for water it has vār which is cognate with Vedic vār ‘water’.
The name Haraxvaiti appears in the first chapter of the Avestan Videvdād along with place-names Haetumant (=Helmand), Māuru or Margu (=Margiana), Baχδī or Baxdhri (=Bactria) and others, and, of course Haptahǝndu which transliterates Sanskrit saptasindhu (short for the Vedic sapta-sindhavaḥ in the RV) ‘seven rivers’. These are places, we are told, which the Iranians passed through before they settled in South Iran and from there moved northwestward. So they record their movement out of India! Yet the AIT doctrine insists that it is the Indians who moved out of Iran into Saptasindhu despite total absence of any evidence for this!
This name too has the possessive suffix -vaiti and should mean ‘she who has harah’. But *harah- or *harax- is a stem totally isolated in Iranian: it has no other related lexemes. In this name we find yet another piece of overwhelming evidence that it is the Iranians who moved away from Saptasindhu, Bactria and so on into Iran.
The AIT in all its folly claims that the Indians and Iranians lived together in Iran in the so-called common Indo-Iranian period and spoke one language (having come there from the Russian Steppes at an earlier period). The Indoaryans then moved and at c1750, or 2000 as is the new date, settled in Saptasindhu, only to move 100 or so years later eastward and southward. In moving to their new habitat, they brought with them the memory of the river they knew in Iran and gave it to a river in Saptasindhu. But the comparison of the two names Sarasvatī and Haraxvaiti tells a different tale.
5. The AIT doctrine is attended by many absurdities.
If the Sarasvatī was a small river in the process of drying up, then the immigrant Indoaryans would have given the name to Sindhu which was a large river flowing from the mountains to the ocean. Furthermore, they would have praised that river and not Sarasvatī as endless, mighty and nourishing the tribes. But we know from hymn 10.75 that the Vedics knew of both Sarasvatī (and place it in its correct geographical place among the rivers) and Sindhu, since both are mentioned. Moreover, hundreds of sites along its banks have been unearthed by archaeologists.
Furthermore, the order of the rivers as given in hymn 10.75 is from east to west. If the Indoaryans had come from the west then their knowledge of the rivers would have been in the reverse order – from west to east. It may be argued that many folks tend to enumerate locations from east to west because of the (worship of the) sun, but if the Indoaryans had just arrived there then moved eastward, they would have not stayed there long enough to get accustomed to the geography and to compose those hymns. The hymns suggest they had been at Saptasindhu a very long time.
But the most glaring absurdity is in the disregard of the names. No adherent of the AIT ever discusses the two names.
In the entire extant Avestan literature and its language the word *haraḥ- remains an isolated miserable orphan: it has not one cognate. But according to the laws of change and correspondence regarding Old Iranian (Avestan) and Old Indic (Vedic), *harah- is the exact equivalent of Vedic saras. The correspondences are many: asura ahura, dasyu ‘demon’ dahyu/daŋhu, nas/nāsā ‘nose’ nāh/nāŋhā, soma ‘the drink’ haoma. Vedic |s| is Avestan |h|.
The significance here is that |s| is declared by all indoeurepeanists to be original and |h| to be a later change. So, while the Iranians stayed in the alleged original habitat, they lost the original IE sound |s|. On the contrary, the Indoaryans moved far, yet managed to retain the original |s|. Thus Old Indic is closer to Proto-Indo-European. This is totally unreasonable in the context of the AIT.
Moreover, and this is even more surprising. The sedentary Iranians lost the dhātu √sṛ and all its derivatives except the one *harah- but the mobile, nomadic Indoaryans retained this. For it would be utterly ludicrous to suppose that they came to Saptasindhu and here developed (from *harah-) the complex lexical family of sṛ/sar which are cognate with other IE words in Greek etc (see above, §1).
The Avestan Haptahǝndu is also revealing: this too is a transliteration of Sanskrit Saptasindhu. But the word ‘river’ in Avestan is θraotah- (Sanskrit srotas), ravan and rauδah-. The word -hǝndu is met only in much later Iranian in the sense ‘Hindu/Indian’! So here again the Iranians carried a memory of Saptasindhu in their new habitat.
In ch 4 of my Vedic and Indo-european Studies (2015) I discuss very fully the Vedic-Avestan relations and correspondences and show that Avestan is far more recent (later) than Vedic. Vedic itself is a derivative of the Proto-Indo-European language but far closer to it than any other extant IE tongue.
6. Thus the Sarasvatī is one of the keys for unlocking the puzzle of historical dates and the origin of the Indoaryans. And it has two aspects: the flow of the river itself, which is a matter for archaeological and geological investigation, and the name and its Avestan correspondence which is a matter for linguistic investigation.
In this paper I have provided the linguistic evidence which shows that the Indoaryans retain faithful memory of the original Proto-Indo-European sounds and roots and derivatives. The Iranians on the other hand lost all this. In fact the name Haraxvaiti is a straight transliteration of Sarasvatī showing that the Iranians moved away from Saptasindhu (the Avestan haptahǝndu in their Scriptures which is another transliteration of the Sanskrit) and took with them the memory of the Land of Seven Rivers as well as that of the mighty river on the bank of which they had lived.
The Indoaryans are therefore indigenous on this account.
It is up to the archaeologists and geologists now to reinforce with fresh evidence (or cast doubt on) the linguistic finds.
The Sarasvatī is only one key. There are others, as I have shown, but they belong to a different context and discussion.


Bibliography
Allchin B&R: 1997 Origins of a Civilisation N Delhi, Viking Penguin.
Kazanas N. 2009 Indo-Aryan Origins… N. Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
2015 Vedic and Indo-European Studies N Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
Possehl G 1998 “Did the Sarasvati ever flow to the sea?” in G. Phillips et al (eds) Arabia and its neighbours (in honour of B. de Cardi), Turnhout, Bepels (335-354).
2003 The Indus Civilization Roman & Littlefield (non NBN); Delhi, Vistaar.
Rao S.R.: 1991 Dawn & Devolution of the Indus Civilisation, Delhi, Aditya Prakashan.
Sharma JR et al 2006 ‘Course of Vedic river Saraswati…’ in Puratattva vol 36 (187-195).
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
All more evidence of unbroken 10thousands yrs plus cultural continuity viz SINDHU SARASVATI endless knot. Right: The same symbol from an inscription in Gujarat from 884ad. The symbol is also frequently found in the kolams that Hindu women of BHARAT draw at the entrances of their homes

DHARMAAloneTriumphs.jpg
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
Lot of DNA/ RNA analysis. Can some one please explain engineer what is brief conclusions of the studies right now?

Aryan Invasion is BS; having no scientific proof in hardened fields like archaeology and geology. Its been debunked and thrown in garbage bin by Indologist without any support from current dispensation. Why so much discussion on gene analysis when its still evolving science?
Old Ani Asi model had lots of ghotala wrt principle component analyses and lots of data was willingly omitted under sampled population samples etc etc etc. Then there is another issues wrt to Tmrca formation dates because R1a E1b and r1b had lower somatic mutation rates an important advice which is often willingly ignored.

There is also some butthurt in admission the fact that there was single out of africa migration from southern route towards Bharat.

Small percentage of steppy ancestry that reflects out of tourism is late as late as 800ad because we know sakas hunas etc assimilated with Rajputs and other Bhartiya and adopted Dharma. Waiting for Neeraj Rai's legendary paper the most extensive paper to date. A lot has been discussed in previous posts I will save your time you go through this.

 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
Look at this etruscan civilisation lasted in italy from aaprx 900 bce to 30 bce.

A sketch of etruscan <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Prabhu Shri Ram.


DHARMAAloneTriumphs.jpg
DHARMAAloneTriumphs51.jpg



Sri Rama was born in Ayodhya in India not a year later than 5118 bc. The exact planetary positions at the time of his birth, recorded in the Valmiki Ramayana, have not occurred in the skies since 5118 bc- viz various astronomical sources.


Here is the SHOLKA from Valmiki Ramayana:

ततो यज्ञे समाप्ते तु ऋतूनाम् षट् समत्ययुः |
ततः च द्वादशे मासे चैत्रे नावमिके तिथौ || १-१८-८
नक्क्षत्रे अदिति दैवत्ये स्व उच्छ संस्थेषु पंचसु |
ग्रहेषु कर्कटे लग्ने वाक्पता इंदुना सह || १-१८-९
प्रोद्यमाने जगन्नाथम् सर्व लोक नमस्कृतम् |
कौसल्या अजनयत् रामम् सर्व लक्षण संयुतम् || १-१८-१०*


"
By deduction we also know that Sun was in Aries, Mars in Capricorn, Jupiter in Cancer, Venus in Pisces and Saturn in Libra. Sun and Venus are always within 47 degrees of each other and that condition is fulfilled if Sun is in Aries and Venus is in Pisces. If Sun and Venus are exalted, Mercury cannot be exalted because Mercury is always within 28 degrees of the Sun. If Sun is in Aries, Mercury cannot be in its exaltation sign Virgo. Aries and Virgo are too far apart.

Since Moon and Jupiter are together in Cancer in the first house or ascendant, it caused one of the best forms of Gaj Kesari Yoga. Jupiter is exalted, and Moon is in its own sign in Cancer. What could be better than that! And five exalted planets made him an divine, an emperor who's fame has refused to fade away. But we are looking at Lord Rama's planetary positions here from a point of view of astronomy, and not astrology! Though both are intricately tied up with one another!!

The closest date from today into the past, for which the planetary data of Lord Rama's birth fits in, is 10th January, 5114 bc . Since then this combination has never occurred in the skies which implies Sri Ram was born no later than 5114bc .
"
.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
The features of the etruscan men and women, especially their large eyes, and the attire were distinctly Asian as is evident from the many paintings and sculpture artifacts of the time.

1643458315769.png
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
Notice the Garuda like creature. In Vedic scriptures Garuda's father was Rishi Kashyapa who had two wives Vinata and Kadru. In Etruscan mythology Charu or Karun was the guide of the souls of underworld often portrayed along with the winged goddess Vanth. In the Hindu tradition Garuda had the powers to remove all evils from the body. This sketch seems to portray the creamation
ceremony. Notice the priest at the funeral pyre.
1643458419193.png


Garuda Devta



1643458431397.png
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
9,021
Likes
54,375
Country flag
This following etruscan artefact makes you think the scene of Sugreeva and Bali, the two VAANRA - chiefs, with Tara who was the wife of Bali

1643458497242.png


Following sketch of etruscan makes you think of Kaushalya and Kaikeyi, the two queens of King Dasratha


1643458526130.png
 

Articles

Top