The Aryans were ‘Invasive’ to South Asia

[ArainGang]

I wrote a piece on the nature of the Aryan Migration into India during the early Vedic Period. Its a history I believe all Pakistanis should be aware of. Enjoy!

 

[Whirling_dervesh]

I wrote a piece on the nature of the Aryan Migration into India during the early Vedic Period. Its a history I believe all Pakistanis should be aware of. Enjoy!

Unsupported video can u send in another format please

 

[Samlee]

Nice

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

I wrote a piece on the nature of the Aryan Migration into India during the early Vedic Period. Its a history I believe all Pakistanis should be aware of. Enjoy!

just one correction with title..
there was no india back then..

 

[Joe Shearer]

just one correction with title..
there was no india back then..

What would you prefer to call it? That large blank space between the Indus and the Irrawady? Oops, they didn't exist either. Got it! Coterminous India.

I learn so much every time I look at PDF.

 

[W.11]

genetics cannot tell the language, only the migration, but migrations doesnt always translate into linguistic change and vice versa.

until and unless we decipher indus script there is zero support for AMT or AIT, the archaeological evidences are zero as well.

some arhcaeologists based on anthropological evidences declared that the iranians came to mehrgarh and caused neolithic revolution, based on ''iranian'' lookng skulls, similarly J haplogrou was tauted as proof of dravidians in IVC, again debunked.

hence proven that any cultural or evolutionary change doesnt nevessarily mean genetic change and vice versa.

regards

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

What would you prefer to call it? That large blank space between the Indus and the Irrawady? Oops, they didn't exist either. Got it! Coterminous India.

I learn so much every time I look at PDF.

conterminours India is fine. Atleast it doesnt give the impression "india existed for thousands of years".

BTW Presnt day Pakistan would prefer the very original and local historic name 'sindhu/sindh' over labels given by outsiders like 'hind', 'hindustan','Indika' and 'india'.
Its the name of one of our province.

 

[Dual Wielder]

I learn so much every time I look at PDF.

Likewise, PDF has become an indispensable platform for us all..

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

genetics cannot tell the language, only the migration, but migrations doesnt always translate into linguistic change and vice versa.

until and unless we decipher indus script there is zero support for AMT or AIT, the archaeological evidences are zero as well.

some arhcaeologists based on anthropological evidences declared that the iranians came to mehrgarh and caused neolithic revolution, based on ''iranian'' lookng skulls, similarly J haplogrou was tauted as proof of dravidians in IVC, again debunked.

hence proven that any cultural or evolutionary change doesnt nevessarily mean genetic change and vice versa.

regards

Language has it's own tree ... they're called Indo-European languages for a reason... if you have linguistic connections all you need is a DNA match to piece together when those linguistic connections occurred.

 

[Joe Shearer]

conterminours India is fine. Atleast it doesnt give the impression "india existed for thousands of years".

If you bring in posts about history, others reading it, and similar stuff, have a right to insist that you learn your history first. With this half-baked approach, all your good intentions will get you nowhere.

BTW Presnt day Pakistan would prefer the very original and local historic name 'sindhu/sindh' over labels given by outsiders like 'hind', 'hindustan','Indika' and 'india'.
Its the name of one of our province.

Please feel free to use whatever appellation you choose. The real world is seldom affected by fantasies in the electronic world.

I'm sorry, you have a long way to go.

I miss Indus Pakistan.

 

[W.11]

Language has it's own tree ... they're called Indo-European languages for a reason... if you have linguistic connections all you need is a DNA match to piece together when those linguistic connections occurred.

The geneticists themselves are very much confused on how they can relate genetics with linguistics, so far, the geneticists have failed to show any scientific reasoning for their corelation, a very simply logic that if an indian speaks english language, does it mean that the indian is genetically an english now?

In the paper itself two entirely different groups i-e J haplogroup and R1a are touted as origin of indo european, the J being the anatolian group, so my question is, if the indo european is one genetic family, then how come the anatolian branch is attributed J family while the rest declared R1a?

They probably tested some ancient hittite/anatolian genes (hitties being indo europeans themselves) but they couldn't extract the R1a indo european element, hence the confusion.

Another fact from the very rakhigarh paper which as i already stated debunks genetic corelation with culture is that they have not found the J haplogroup which was touted as the important for indian/south asian neolithic beginnings.

regards

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

The geneticists themselves are very much confused on how they can relate genetics with linguistics, so far, the geneticists have failed to show any scientific reasoning for their corelation, a very simply logic that if an indian speaks english language, does it mean that the indian is genetically an english now?

In the paper itself two entirely different groups i-e J haplogroup and R1a are touted as origin of indo european, the J being the anatolian group, so my question is, if the indo european is one genetic family, then how come the anatolian branch is attributed J family while the rest declared R1a?

They probably tested some ancient hittite/anatolian genes (hitties being indo europeans themselves) but they couldn't extract the R1a indo european element, hence the confusion.

Another fact from the very rakhigarh paper which as i already stated debunks genetic corelation with culture is that they have not found the J haplogroup which was touted as the important for indian/south asian neolithic beginnings.

regards

Let's read this and leave conclusions for

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...tic-tree-C-Revised-language_fig4_23442433/amp

One thing you have to understand is that for two languages to be in any way sho certain degree of commonality in structure and certain words mean those cultures were in contact enough or one had overtaken the other leaving an imprint. That imprint manifests as noted both on language and genes for subsequent generations.

 

[W.11]

One thing you have to understand is that for two languages to be in any way sho certain degree of commonality in structure and certain words mean those cultures were in contact enough or one had overtaken the other leaving an imprint. That imprint manifests as noted both on language and genes for subsequent generations.

This reasoning is completely BS.

The entire indo european speaking anatolian population had been converted into turkish speaking population and yet there is no central asian/turkic genetic imprint on them (anatolian population/present day turkey).

I have already argued that R1a, touted as indo european marker, is entirely absent from hittite ancient DNA, debunking the myth of genetic corelation with indo european linguistics. You can read the rakhigarhi findings and confirm the points raised my myself here.

considering vedic religion argument as ''indo european argument, Islam came to south asia, and Pakistanis/indians/south asians/bangladeshis accepted the faith, does that mean that they were imprinted with arab DNA?, what about chinese buddhists, were they imprinted with indian DNA?

regards

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

This reasoning is completely BS.

The entire indo european speaking anatolian population had been converted into turkish speaking population and yet there is no central asian/turkic genetic imprint on them (anatolian population/present day turkey).

I have already argued that R1a, touted as indo european marker, is entirely absent from hittite ancient DNA, debunking the myth of genetic corelation with indo european linguistics. You can read the rakhigarhi findings and confirm the points raised my myself here.

considering vedic religion argument as ''indo european argument, Islam came to south asia, and Pakistanis/indians/south asians/bangladeshis accepted the faith, does that mean that they were imprinted with arab DNA?, what about chinese buddhists, were they imprinted with indian DNA?

regards

I updated above link with a study... you can review that in detail... here is the abstract;

"Recent studies have detailed a remarkable degree of genetic and linguistic diversity in Northern Island Melanesia. Here we

utilize that diversity to examine two models of genetic and linguistic coevolution. The first model predicts that genetic and

linguistic correspondences formed following population splits and isolation at the time of early range expansions into the

region. The second is analogous to the genetic model of isolation by distance, and it predicts that genetic and linguistic

correspondences formed through continuing genetic and linguistic exchange between neighboring populations. We tested

the predictions of the two models by comparing observed and simulated patterns of genetic variation, genetic and

linguistic trees, and matrices of genetic, linguistic, and geographic distances. The data consist of 751 autosomal

microsatellites and 108 structural linguistic features collected from 33 Northern Island Melanesian populations. The results

of the tests indicate that linguistic and genetic exchange have erased any evidence of a splitting and isolation process that

might have occurred early in the settlement history of the region. The correlation patterns are also inconsistent with the

predictions of the isolation by distance coevolutionary process in the larger Northern Island Melanesian region, but there is

strong evidence for the process in the rugged interior of the largest island in the region (New Britain). There we found some

of the strongest recorded correlations between genetic, linguistic, and geographic distances. We also found that,

throughout the region, linguistic features have generally been less likely to diffuse across population boundaries than

genes. The results from our study, based on exceptionally fine-grained data, show that local genetic and linguistic exchange

are likely to obscure evidence of the early history of a region, and that language barriers do not particularly hinder genetic

exchange. In contrast, global patterns may emphasize more ancient demographic events, including population splits

associated with the early colonization of major world regions."




That being said ... Rakhigarhi is indeed the red herring in R1a debate ... they didn't have any. But you draw a false conclusion that they still maintained an Indo-European language ... if there were no subsequent R1a markers in south Asia that indeed would have been an outlier but guess what at this point in time ... both R1a and language tree prove each other.

Secondly, Turkish example is very flawed... Turks are not harbingers of any distinct haplogroups... for example you'd have to know early Oguz Turk genetic makeup to find their resultant imprint on current Turkish state. But what we do know is that Turks ruled that land and because of their rule their language dominates.

 

[W.11]

Rakhigarhi is indeed the red herring in R1a debate ... they didn't have any. But you draw a false conclusion that they still maintained an Indo-European language

DNA of rakhigarhi has nothing to do with languages spoken in IVC, by only deciphering IVC script, we can be definite about IVC languages. We cannot conclude that IVC were non indo european/aryan speakers based on DNA results.

regards