Reconstruction of Ancient History

[moumotta]

I propose to discuss the question of reconstruction of ancient history in this thread. Before going in to individual issues and questions let us discuss the sources of information available that a historian has to synthesize before reaching conclusions.

Archaeology
This is self explanatory but there are traps. Evidence can be corrupted intentionally or unintentionally over time.

Linguistics
Words like bhratra in Sanskrit, biradar in Arabic and brother in English are so similar that their speakers must have been in contact in ancient times. Did they originate from same group of men or did they learn it by means such as trade contacts. You can also analyse roots of words & speech to figure out how and in which direction people moved. Sanskrit has dravid inflexions that do not exist in other Indo-European languages. If Aryans moved out of India to other places then how come they did not carry these inflexions with them.

Literature
Again obvious but there are traps. If there are two opposite chronicles describing an event and one survives does that mean it is right. Indians have always had a tendency to exaggerate. A vedic Brahmin prays to God for a gift of 50,000 cows. In Mahabharat a tribal war is recorded as fought with 180 million soldiers. Even today a birthday wish goes ‘may you live thousands of years and may each year have 50,000 days’. Sounds nice but that’s hundreds of thousands years.

Anthropology
Physical as well as social. How do people in a particular climate behave. Can we extend that knowledge from one society to another.

Genetics
A new science that needs to treated carefully. Being statistical tests they are subject to random error. There are also issues like population bottlenecks that can corrupt evidence from future generatiuons.

Local culture
This is becoming less reliable with rapid changes taking place but in nineteenth century India you could see a lot of ‘living history’. The way people lived, travelled on bullock carts. The question then is can it lead to reasonable inferences or havethings changed over time.

There will be times when these sources point you in different directions. Any answer will be a probability statement with different degrees of confidence depending on how strong the evidences are and the extent to which they point you to the same conclusion.

 

[Butcher face spotter]

On the Genetics side of things the Cavallisforzageneclusters is a four quadrant graph which places various populations / races of the World based on their genetic make up. The attached link shows how far / close the various populaces of the World are in this front.

 

[Wazeeri]

moumotta

We reached a point on the other thread on which we could agree. There is on point in starting another thread.

 

[moumotta]

I have three questions from Wazeeri. Questions from ISR have been covered or will be covered as part of these answers. Please let me know if that is not correct.

1) Why was the immigration male heavy? was it an army or not? If not what was it
2) Why were most of these eurasians WARRIORS the kshatriyas? How did they get this notability
3) How did they convince the locals that they were better than them?

I will start with question 1 in this post.

I will rephrase the question if I amy, to

a) why does the genetic study show a higher European proportion among males than females- was it because of a high male ratio among arriving Aryans.
b) was it an army or not? If not what was it?

Let us take the second question first.

a) Was it an army? ? If not what was it?

As I have mentioned earlier they entered India from a number of entry points and over a period of time. That’s not the march of an army.

Armies move much faster and with a purpose. That’s not indicated by the speed of Aryan spread.

Aryans were a pastoral tribal society. While they shared a common language, gods and religious practices they were not a political union.

If you leave out the Indus Valley cities there were no settlements large enough for an army to invade. Any army would have been untenable and fallen apart in the absence of targets of adequate size.

(the question of why IVC did not fall to Aryans has been addressed in a separate post in Butcher’s thread)

Aryans were tribal hordes.

b) why does the genetic study show a higher proportion of European genes among males than females- was it because of a high male ratio among arriving Aryans.

I will start with indications against a high male- female ratio on arrival that would have required majority of migrants to take local wives.

Tribal migrations are in family units- plunder campaigns are all male. A plunder campaign from Iran to Punjab would have required a very motivated central leadership that a tribal society could not have.

Aryans brought Sanskrit with them and it thrived in India. Languages thrive in homes- not in battlefields and farms. An Aryan society with majority of indigenous women would not have been able to preserve an imported language.

The question then is why is this not reflected in genetic tests. No definitive answers but here are a few possibilities.

Aryans had a preference for male child. The preference continues in India today with added economic compulsions. In ancient times it was a religious and cultural preference. Proper ritual funeral could only be performed by a son, death anniversaries could only be performed by sons. A son was a passport to a better after-life. Did this preference lead to a lower survival ratio for females. As has been mentioned by some, higher caste Aryans could take a wife from lower caste altering the balance of mtDNA towards Asian genes. You have a situation where,
1. European female genes were socially disadvantage and
2. Female Asian genes from lower castes are allowed to enter higher castes but not male Asian genes.

Also if the balance of power in caste hierarchy was in favour of Aryans then it is likely that they would have been able to sow their wild seeds among lower caste increasing the presence of European male genes among lower castes.

 

[moumotta]

1) Why was the immigration male heavy? was it an army or not? If not what was it
2) Why were most of these eurasians WARRIORS the kshatriyas? How did they get this notability
3) How did they convince the locals that they were better than them?

Now we move on to the next two questions

Why were most of these eurasians WARRIORS the kshatriyas

Warriors are Kshatriyas because Kshatriyas are warriors. That’s what their caste classification is.

If the question is about the higher proportion of European genes among Kshatriyas then the reply in the earlier post, just above, should explain. It should also be remembered that the composition of the Kshatriyas caste, more particularly the Rajputs has been changing till the first millennium AD with the introduction of foreign and tribal blood in the form of new tribes, any tribe that could annex a kingdom would in the course of time claim to be a Kshatriya..

How did they convince the locals that they were better than them?

Again the question betrays an inclination towards seeking an extreme view of history. Aryan tribe did get an unfair advantage in caste hierarchy but it was not as if every Aryan was a brahmin or kshatriya and every local was a lower caste. The reasons for such assimilation were more functional, social and economic rather than political.

As I have said earlier Aryans in common with their Iranian ancestor had a functional stratification of society. It was functional not hereditary hence the son of a fisher woman could become a great sage Vedvyas. Over time as they moved from pastoral to agricultural system and settled in villages, tribes started combining to form bigger political units. Tribal chiefs, chosen on merits were replaced by hereditary chiefs, chiefs later became kings as the units got even bigger. Around this time the functional stratification also became hereditary.

The point to note is that a hereditary caste system had developed before non-Aryans were admitted to it in any sizeable numbers. All four castes at this time were populated by Aryans.

There is a very simple rule of thumb one can apply to caste hierarchy. More work a caste did the lower was its ranking. This was ritual purity gone mad. The more work a person did the more impure he was. Idle classes such as royals and brahmins who made no economic contribution were placed at the top. Clearly the population of upper classes a community could support would be limited by the productivity of its lower classes.

Now we move on to assimilation of different ethnic societies that was driven by expansion of economy in a sedentary agrarian society and the need for people to come and work together. The functional stratification and ritual purity concepts Aryans were applying to their own society would have been extended to new communities joining the fold. Chief would become a kshatriya. Priest, shaman or medicine man would become a Brahmin. The rest would be accommodated in Vish or Shudra depending on the jobs they performed. The proportion they contributed to each caste would depend on their state of economic advancement. A community of traders would be all admitted to Vish. A tribal community in a late stages of hunter gatherer mode would contribute more to Shudra. An agrarian society would be classified pretty much the same way as an Aryan community.

Before you think that I am trying to present it all as a very civil, modern style of dispute resolution system, let me say that I am merely pointing out the over-arching social and economic forces at play. The society two and a half thousand years ago was very brutal- savage in battle and cruel in every day life. Robbing a stranger was a ‘duty’ rather than a crime. Aryans and other recent arrivals did come out better in the over all scheme of things. The original inhabitants- the proto-Australoid tribes got the worst of it. More recent arrivals from the Aryans to the Mesopotamians did relatively better.

 

[moumotta]

Just for completeness I will leave a link to another post to round up my view on this controversial period of history.

Any comments or critique are welcome.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=1642881&postcount=108

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

Sorry for replying back after a month, I was away for exams and I had banned myself from PP.

I strongly feel that you are hellbent on trying to prove the aryan migration was peaceful rather than an invasion contrary to the conclusions of the historians and geneticist who carried out this research.

Setting that aside, let's approach this sensibly.

I will try to summarise your answers below please correct me if I have misunderstood.

1)Aryans entered into mainland and southern India through many entry points and for reasons other than an invasion as they did not come along with an army.

2)The aryans used to kill their daughters hence we know why there is male european heritage than female.

I will get to point 1 (and 3) in a while but point 2 is something which I will just have to clarify first.

There is no doubt that hindus from the very beginning of records killed their daughters because they feared the dowry system and the obligation to feed their daughters without getting an eventual return.

Some vedic texts speaks off these people at the time the texts were written but what you are suggesting is that nearly all aryans killed their daughters rather than just the poor ones. If they all or a very siginificant number of them killed their daughters then that would cause a catastrophe in what ever soceity they lived in because women are and have always been the base of all economic systems.

A positive female to male ratio is natural but the opposite is unstable and cannot be sustained for long enough to achieve the disparity we have seen the genetic studies we are discussing.

The other thing which counters the argument is that Dravidians also were involved in female infanticide.

Point 1) states that the migration was not an invasion but when you take that along with point 3) in which you state that a kshastriya is a warrior and a warrior is a Kshastriya then that begs the questions. How does a warrior migrate from one place to another?

Invasion or economic migration?

 

[moumotta]

Sorry for replying back after a month, I was away for exams and I had banned myself from PP.

No worries. Trust you did well and all the best for results.

I strongly feel that you are hellbent on trying to prove the aryan migration was peaceful rather than an invasion contrary to the conclusions of the historians and geneticist who carried out this research.

Setting that aside, let's approach this sensibly.

You misunderstand. Peaceful and violent are relative terms and the society 3500 years ago was certainly not peaceful by today’s standards. You don’t have to prove that by making it an army instead of tribal clans.

1)Aryans entered into mainland and southern India through many entry points and for reasons other than an invasion as they did not come along with an army.

I am saying that Aryans entered India through many entry points.
Historical evidence is that from there they spread east wards, to Punjab and then to the Gangetic plains and Himalayan foothills, rather than to the south.

I have yet to hear a coherent theory on invasion of south other than your Ram-Ravana stories. I will leave you some interesting reading on Ravana at the bottom of this post.

2)The aryans used to kill their daughters hence we know why there is male european heritage than female.
I will get to point 1 (and 3) in a while but point 2 is something which I will just have to clarify first.

There is no doubt that hindus from the very beginning of records killed their daughters because they feared the dowry system and the obligation to feed their daughters without getting an eventual return.

Some vedic texts speaks off these people at the time the texts were written but what you are suggesting is that nearly all aryans killed their daughters rather than just the poor ones. If they all or a very siginificant number of them killed their daughters then that would cause a catastrophe in what ever soceity they lived in because women are and have always been the base of all economic systems.

A positive female to male ratio is natural but the opposite is unstable and cannot be sustained for long enough to achieve the disparity we have seen the genetic studies we are discussing.

The other thing which counters the argument is that Dravidians also were involved in female infanticide.

You have totally lost me here and this has been the problem in our discussion. You want to see things in black and white when there are many shades of grey. A preference for male child becomes killing female child and interestingly you also found historical evidence for it from Vedic times. Any ways, where we left the genetics issue was that males show a higher proportion of European genes according to caste hierarchy where as there is no marked difference among females. Why would that lead to every parent killing female child.

BTW Aryans are not the only group to enter India from West. There were the Hellenistic Greko-Bactrians, Parthians, Scythians, Yueh-chihs and the Satrapies and armies left behind by Alexander. Aryans get lot more attention than they should because of the historical baggage and confusion between Aryan language, Aryan culture and Aryan race and because every one wants to load their personal political and cultural baggage on to it.

Any genetic evidence linking to Aryans without excluding other groups would at best be tentative.

There have also been other doubts about genetics and the definitiveness of their results.

I will quote from a site that I disagree with in terms of their overall direction but let us just follow the scientific argument.

Identifying and making sense of the right genetic markers is not the only difficulty; dating their mutations remains a major challenge: on average, a marker of Y- DNA may undergo one mutation every 500 generations, but sudden changes caused by special circumstances can never be ruled out. Genetics, therefore, needs the inputs from palaeontology and archaeology, among other disciplines, to confirm its historical conclusions.

Since the 1990s, there have been numerous genetic studies of Indian populations, often reaching apparently divergent conclusions. There are three reasons for this: (1) the Indian region happens to be one of the most diverse and complex in the world, which makes it difficult to interpret the data; (2) early studies relied on too limited samples, of the order of a few dozens, when hundreds or ideally thousands of samples are required for some statistical reliability; (3) some of the early studies fell into the old trap of trying to equate linguistic groups with distinct ethnic entities — a relic of the nineteenth-century erroneous identification between language and race; as a result, a genetic connection between North Indians and Central Asians was automatically taken to confirm an Aryan invasion in the second millennium BCE, disregarding a number of alternative explanations.7

More recent studies, using larger samples and much refined methods of analysis, both at the conceptual level and in the laboratory, have reached very different conclusions (interestingly, some of their authors had earlier gone along with the old Aryan paradigm8). We will summarize here the chief results of nine studies from various Western and Indian Universities, most of them conducted by international teams of biologists, and more than half of them in the last three years; since their papers are complex and technical, what follows is, necessarily, highly simplified and represents only a small part of their content.

you can follow the rest as it is too detailed to quote but you get the gist that the application of genetics is still evolving and can not stand on its own without other evidence from archaeology and other sources.
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate.html

Point 1) states that the migration was not an invasion but when you take that along with point 3) in which you state that a kshastriya is a warrior and a warrior is a Kshastriya then that begs the questions. How does a warrior migrate from one place to another?

Invasion or economic migration?

I am missing your point on 3. Caste system was not brought by Aryans wit them. It developed in India.

Here are some interesting links on the how mythology is being cut and restitched to suit the interests of various groups. Notice what sort of a dog's breakfast ancient history on the internet is and the traps in relying on it.

First up is the chief-minister of Jharkhand, a tribal state recently carved out of Bihar claiming that Ravana was a resident of his state.

According to other concept it is mentioned that the palace of Ravana was made of pure gold. Jharkhand was rich in gold deposits in ancient days. Probably gold used in the palace was brought from Jharkhand. So the palace must have been built here seeing the abundant presence of gold. People are still found panning gold from the sands of the local rivers after rainy season.

Report was published in the year 1971 in the National news paper dated 5/10/1971. According to the report Chotanagpur (Jharkhand State,India) was the Lanka of Ramayana. In other words Ravana lived in Jharkhand.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/76771

and following is a link to a report on a tour organised by Sri Lankan tourist board trying to cash-in on Hindu tourism.

Wa, meaning air, riya or craft and pola,that is port). Strangely, this place is believed to have been Ravana’s airport thousands of years ago and is one of the many places which match the description about Ravana’s kingdom in Valmiki’s Ramayana.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1184891&pageid=0

 

[Wazeeri]

No worries. Trust you did well and all the best for results.

Actually a lot of worries,

I am saying that Aryans entered India through many entry points.
Historical evidence is that from there they spread east wards, to Punjab and then to the Gangetic plains and Himalayan foothills, rather than to the south.

I have yet to hear a coherent theory on invasion of south other than your Ram-Ravana stories. I will leave you some interesting reading on Ravana at the bottom of this post.

I am sure the eastern european indicators in the genetic evidence which is found in Andhra Pradesh are enough proof. We can deduce from this evidence that a foreign invasion (your migration) came in and set up or took over a caste hierarchy.

As the brahmins hold the highest of the cast hierarchy and the fact that the to be a brahman you have to be (or considered to be) well versed in the vedas we can conclude that the aryans did indeed make their all the way down to the south.

BTW Aryans are not the only group to enter India from West. There were the Hellenistic Greko-Bactrians, Parthians, Scythians, Yueh-chihs and the Satrapies and armies left behind by Alexander. Aryans get lot more attention than they should because of the historical baggage and confusion between Aryan language, Aryan culture and Aryan race and because every one wants to load their personal political and cultural baggage on to it.

Any genetic evidence linking to Aryans without excluding other groups would at best be tentative.

You can call them whatever they like, we know that the vedas have been brought to the south and if you don't want to call the bringers of these books (who originated in western asia, eastern europe) as Aryan than I am willing to accept whatever name you give them.

There have also been other doubts about genetics and the definitiveness of their results.

I will quote from a site that I disagree with in terms of their overall direction but let us just follow the scientific argument.

This is where the argument is going to get childish like in the last thread.

Genetic evidence or any evidence for that matter whether it be literary or archeological, it is always going to be questionable. Unfortunately this all the evidence we have and the fact that you are willing to question the eligibility of the evidence rather than understanding it and concluding shows that this discussion is going to go round in circles as you are not going to concede anything.

The genetic evidence we are speaking off has shown us a pattern that the further up you go in a caste hierarchy the closer the genetic difference is from the eurasians.

The problem with the studies as your quote has pointed out is with sampling not with the genetic evidence. To mitigate that problem a massive sample is needed from the whole human population, this is being done at the moment (human genome project).

A bigger sample is likely to give us a better indication of pattern ie the precise percentages it is not likely to completely change the pattern.

A preference for male child becomes killing female child and interestingly you also found historical evidence for it from Vedic times. Any ways, where we left the genetics issue was that males show a higher proportion of European genes according to caste hierarchy where as there is no marked difference among females. Why would that lead to every parent killing female child.

Males show a difference in their (MALE) ancestory as they go up the caste hierarchy.
Female show hardly no difference.

So either nearly all females who came along in the first migration were killed before giving birth, or all their daughters were killed, or all females descending from the female lines of the first female migrants were killed.

Otherwise what we would have seen is that a siginificant proportion of females would have shown female lineage to eurasians as well as men. This is not the case hence the migration was nearly all male.

I am missing your point on 3. Caste system was not brought by Aryans wit them. It developed in India.

I asked a simple question twice which you haven't answered.

You claim that the eurasian migration was not an invasion.
I asked then how comes the Kshatriyas (warriors) show the closest links to the eurasians?

You answered a Warriors are Kshatriyas because Kshatriyas are warriors.
then you referred me to your last post for further clarification which I didn't find.

I will ask again,
If the migration was not an invasion and the migrants only injected themselves into an existing hierarchy, then how do you explain the WARRIOR migrants?

Did these warrior migrants migrate or come in armies?

If they migrated then doesn't that put a quetion mark on their warrior credentials?

 

[Idris Gogen]

This is a very interesting and intelligent thread and I am glad to see that "religion" has not enter the picture yet. Let's see how long we can discuss a very important chapter from our past without somehow the inclusion of religion.

 

[Wazeeri]

It started off with religion.

 

[moumotta]

I am sure the eastern european indicators in the genetic evidence which is found in Andhra Pradesh are enough proof. We can deduce from this evidence that a foreign invasion (your migration) came in and set up or took over a caste hierarchy.

As the brahmins hold the highest of the cast hierarchy and the fact that the to be a brahman you have to be (or considered to be) well versed in the vedas we can conclude that the aryans did indeed make their all the way down to the south.
You can call them whatever they like, we know that the vedas have been brought to the south and if you don't want to call the bringers of these books (who originated in western asia, eastern europe) as Aryan than I am willing to accept whatever name you give them.

None of the groups I mentioned are Aryan and of them two, Parthians (Pahalvas/ Pallavas in south) and Scythians (Shakas) have very significant dynastic and racial presence in South. You would have realised that this opens the possibility of cultural spread being separate and independent from racial spread. I will make some further comments on the spread of Brahmanism, Buddhism and Jainism later in this post.

This is where the argument is going to get childish like in the last thread. .

You look for extrapolated answers and make extra ordinary leaps of logic without analysis , present mythology as historical evidence and often mix up between happenings in North and South and yet I am the one making childish arguments. If analysing and delving in depth is childish, so be it. I am happy to be childish.

Genetic evidence or any evidence for that matter whether it be literary or archeological, it is always going to be questionable. Unfortunately this all the evidence we have and the fact that you are willing to question the eligibility of the evidence rather than understanding it and concluding shows that this discussion is going to go round in circles as you are not going to concede anything.

The genetic evidence we are speaking off has shown us a pattern that the further up you go in a caste hierarchy the closer the genetic difference is from the eurasians.

The problem with the studies as your quote has pointed out is with sampling not with the genetic evidence. To mitigate that problem a massive sample is needed from the whole human population, this is being done at the moment (human genome project).

A bigger sample is likely to give us a better indication of pattern ie the precise percentages it is not likely to completely change the pattern.

I did say at the top of this thread that it is like a process of reconstruction and answers will be in the nature of probability statements. I will wait till the confidence interval of answers provided by genetics improves. At the moment all genetics can do is to provide supporting evidence rather than be the primary evidence to discard other more reliable tools. There is a reason the lady professor behind your 1996 study chose to mis-quote history to prove the validity of her study- she knew the value of support from other historical tools and was led to make some very questionable statements about history. Like you she was confusing between north and south, quoting an event in northwest to support a study in Andhra as well as jumping to an all male invasion, again in northwest from her comments.

Males show a difference in their (MALE) ancestory as they go up the caste hierarchy. Female show hardly no difference.

So either nearly all females who came along in the first migration were killed before giving birth, or all their daughters were killed, or all females descending from the female lines of the first female migrants were killed.

Otherwise what we would have seen is that a siginificant proportion of females would have shown female lineage to eurasians as well as men. This is not the case hence the migration was nearly all male.

We have agreed earlier that females could move up the racial hierarchy (this is common to most patrilineal cultures. Even in Islam a male can marry a jew or a Christian but a muslim female can’t).

Let us take a very conservative assumption that in each generation one in twenty females have moved from a lower caste to an upper caste. Assuming we start with an all-European female population- as a most unfavourable scenario. In the next generation the European gene is 95%, the ratio drops to 90% in second generation and 86% in the third. Repeat this over a 100 generations and the European gene ratio is down to 0.6%.
This is when we started with an all-European population. The actual strating point would be an already diluted proportion.

Change the 1 in 20 to 1 in 40 and the dilution is still down to 8%.

Now my turn to ask a question- why do you think lower castes show european genes in both male and female populations.

I asked a simple question twice which you haven't answered.

You claim that the eurasian migration was not an invasion.
I asked then how comes the Kshatriyas (warriors) show the closest links to the eurasians?

You answered a Warriors are Kshatriyas because Kshatriyas are warriors.
then you referred me to your last post for further clarification which I didn't find.

The answer I was referring to was the explanation of higher proportion of genes in male population than females. A more detailed mathematical proof has just been given.

I will ask again,
If the migration was not an invasion and the migrants only injected themselves into an existing hierarchy, then how do you explain the WARRIOR migrants?

Did these warrior migrants migrate or come in armies?

If they migrated then doesn't that put a question mark on their warrior credentials?

I don’t understand why migration puts a question mark over their warrior status. Some of the major causes of community migrations have included famines and short or long term climatic changes. They should affect every one, whether warrior or peasant. I am not saying that invasions are not a possible cause but its not the only cause and short distance invasions do not result in soldiers setting up new homes and leaving their old homes and women for good.

Cultural assimilation of north and south.

Towards the end of his life Chandragupta Maurya abdicated his throne in favour of his son and walked all the way to South India as a Jain monk and preacher. Accompanying him were a galaxy of senior most Jain monks He died in Karnataka.

His grand son Ashoka invaded Kalinga and counted Andhra among his suzerain states. He turned Buddhist and sent emissaries overseas as well as to various parts of India that were not controlled by him.

Vedic Brahmanism was also spreading to south but it lacked high-powered connections. By then it had also lost its hold on north- As stated above Mauryans were leaning towards heterodox sects rather than Vedic Brahmanism. Brahmanism was all about orthopraxy of rituals and struggling to meet the challenges posed by new philosophies of Buddhists and Jains. This was the situation when all three rival sects started spreading to south.

In North Mauryan empire started shrinking after Ashoka and was replaced around 200BC by a Brahmin minister who assassinated the last Mauryan king Brihadratha. The empire was now limited to Magadh and no longer had the power to influence events afar.

Buddhism and Jainism continued as major forces in south till the 8th century AD. The change is mainly attributed to the consolidation of the philosophy of Advaita (Non-dualism) by Shankaracharya that regained a philosophical base for Hinduism moving away from ritualistic Brahmanism.

Again, I am not suggesting that there were no military invasions ever. There is evidence that Mauryan empire did reach as far as Andhra Pradesh and as it collapsed some of their governers would have set up their own kingdoms in south but that alone does not explain the spread of vedic brahaminism which wasn't the unchallenged-dominant force for another 1000 years.

 

[Wazeeri]

Let us take a very conservative assumption that in each generation one in twenty females have moved from a lower caste to an upper caste. Assuming we start with an all-European female population- as a most unfavourable scenario. In the next generation the European gene is 95%, the ratio drops to 90% in second generation and 86% in the third. Repeat this over a 100 generations and the European gene ratio is down to 0.6%.
This is when we started with an all-European population. The actual strating point would be an already diluted proportion.

You are assuming up here that the Aryans (or some other eurasians) produced less women then the Dravidians, otherwise taking into account the fact that polygamy was looked down upon you will have to explain where the aryan women were married off.

Naturally there are always more men then women. The ratio is lopsided when females are killed in their infancy or through abortion as is the case in India, China and Pakistan.

Your upward movement of the lower caste females theory suggests that atleast 5% of the aryan women were killed off (10% if you take the fact that natural ratio is 100 : 106). So every 20th or 10th aryan female was killed off.


You have made this assumption to support your theory. This is an assumption that you can't base anything on. Without a drastic culling of female children your theory cannot hold and you have no evidence to support the fact that killing a female child was the norm.

The answer I was referring to was the explanation of higher proportion of genes in male population than females. A more detailed mathematical proof has just been given.

Steady on.

Now my turn to ask a question- why do you think lower castes show european genes in both male and female populations.

The same way the trimurti came into existence.
The Dravidians at points in history were the dominant or stronger forces, in these times they managed to get their beliefs endorsed and they entered the hierarchy by force.

Cultural assimilation of north and south.

The Mauryan dynasty was about 2.5 thousand years ago where as the genetic evidence points to a migration 4000 years ago(upto 10,000 years). A later migration would mean that the incoming migrants had a big cull of the existing population to manage the percentage of the total population that they do.

The Brahmans and Kshastriyas (cast hierarchy) as you have said existed at the time of the migration hence we should not be discussing what happened 2000 years after the event.

This was a random history dump and nothing else.

I did say at the top of this thread that it is like a process of reconstruction and answers will be in the nature of probability statements. I will wait till the confidence interval of answers provided by genetics improves.

Why will you wait?
What is the confidence interval of the other evidence?

Will you wait on improvements on all evidence which points to a theory other than yours?
Is that not childish?

 

[moumotta]

You are assuming up here that the Aryans (or some other eurasians) produced less women then the Dravidians, otherwise taking into account the fact that polygamy was looked down upon you will have to explain where the aryan women were married off.

Naturally there are always more men then women. The ratio is lopsided when females are killed in their infancy or through abortion as is the case in India, China and Pakistan.

Your upward movement of the lower caste females theory suggests that at least 5% of the aryan women were killed off (10% if you take the fact that natural ratio is 100 : 106). So every 20th or 10th aryan female was killed off.


You have made this assumption to support your theory. This is an assumption that you can't base anything on. Without a drastic culling of female children your theory cannot hold and you have no evidence to support the fact that killing a female child was the norm.

Looked down upon or banned. In an age when heroic characters like Rama had 3 mothers. Pandavas had 2. Would you still think polygamy is not a solution even with a 1 in 20 situation.

In your analysis did you consider higher female mortality during child birth or the fact that upper caste widows did not remarry where as widowers invariably did -factors that would icrease demand for young females.

I made up 1 in 20. What else did I make up.

While not relevant to the discussion can I ask why you think culling is the only solution to a population imbalance.

The same way the trimurti came into existence.
The Dravidians at points in history were the dominant or stronger forces, in these times they managed to get their beliefs endorsed and they entered the hierarchy by force.

OK. Now we are moving away from Aryan upper castes kick-azz all through to see-sawing battles with different sides having upper hand at different times. Any suggestion on when and how it happened.

If lower castes were so powerful at times as to forcibly claim upper caste women as well as force upper castes to worship their gods then why could they not do anything about their social status. Why did they not force themselves in to upper caste or change the system altogether.

The Mauryan dynasty was about 2.5 thousand years ago where as the genetic evidence points to a migration 4000 years ago(upto 10,000 years). A later migration would mean that the incoming migrants had a big cull of the existing population to manage the percentage of the total population that they do.

The Brahmans and Kshastriyas (cast hierarchy) as you have said existed at the time of the migration hence we should not be discussing what happened 2000 years after the event.

This was a random history dump and nothing else.

There is some serious time-travel happening here. Unlike sci-fi stories, not one person but whole communities are travelling back and forth in time. Let us re-cap with some approximate dates.

Aryan arrival in India- 3500- 4000 years ago.
Caste system- post arrival, say 3000 years ago
Migration reaches eastern doab (Yamuna- Ganges plains)- less than 3000 years ago (note this is why my historical dump starts from this period, there is strong evidence that Aryans went east rather than south)
Vedic corpus- 3500 to 2500 years ago
Deification of Rama- 2000 years ago

If the migration discovered by the genetic evidence happened 4000 to 1000 years ago how did it involve Aryans- it must have been pre-Aryan Europeans. There is no historical evidence of any such migration to India or to the south so must be pre-historic and pre Indus Valley times. That would make it 5000 years ago or more.

How did this migration to Andhra 4000 years ago or earlier involve Aryans who were just about to make their way to nortwest, 2000 kilometers away.

How did it carry Vedic corpus to south when such literature did not exist.

How did it carry caste system with it before it existed.

How did it force Rama worship on a Ravana worshipping population.

Why will you wait?

Because it raises more questions than it answers.

 

[TAK]

Words like ... biradar in Arabic.

it's farsi moumotta

 

[moumotta]

it's farsi moumotta

Thanks. That actually makes more sense because Arabic is not an Indo-European language. Farsi is.

 

[Wazeeri]

Looked down upon or banned.

Looked down upon or banned we know that it wasn't prevalent hence it is insignificant.
We still have the problem of explaining what happened to the excess aryan females.

I made up 1 in 20. What else did I make up.

It's not so much that you made something but the fact that the argument using this made up fact was very weak.

In your analysis did you consider higher female mortality during child birth

No because regardless of this fact there are always more women then men in the world. So if child birth is killing women then a lot of other events are leading to the death of men which is skewing the balance towards women.

or the fact that upper caste widows did not remarry where as widowers invariably did -factors that would icrease demand for young females.

An average Man doesn't outlive a woman hence this is again insiginificant.

Even if this was significant, the point is very weak because whatever happens there are more women then men in a given population hence these men would be able to find women from within their people.

This doesn't answer the question of what happens with the excess aryan females.

While not relevant to the discussion can I ask why you think culling is the only solution to a population imbalance.

I have already explained this.

The MtDna shows no distinct pattern through the caste system as the male Y chromosome does. This suggests that these women didn't exist or they existed in such a small number that they left no sign of their existence.

If there was a significant number of migrant women then their daughters would still survive to this day. As women are mainly upward mobile in the caste system we should find that all of these daughters are still in the upper classes and there should be some sort of disparity between the MtDna of the different castes despite your theory of the lower caste women taking over.

OK. Now we are moving away from Aryan upper castes kick-azz all through to see-sawing battles with different sides having upper hand at different times. Any suggestion on when and how it happened.

If lower castes were so powerful at times as to forcibly claim upper caste women as well as force upper castes to worship their gods then why could they not do anything about their social status. Why did they not force themselves in to upper caste or change the system altogether.

Now you're getting childish again and soon we will have another thread started because this one was full of me and you having a go at each other.

Let's stay sensible.

The Dravidians who were strong enough did do something about their status. That is why we don't see pure eurasian race in the upper caste. The lower caste Dravidians stayed lower caste.

If the migration discovered by the genetic evidence happened 4000 to 1000 years ago how did it involve Aryans- it must have been pre-Aryan Europeans. There is no historical evidence of any such migration to India or to the south so must be pre-historic and pre Indus Valley times. That would make it 5000 years ago or more.

So shall we discard the fact that you said that these migrant injected themselves into an existing hierarchical system?

Migration reaches eastern doab (Yamuna- Ganges plains)- 3000- 3200 years ago (note this is why my historical dump starts from this period, there is strong evidence that Aryans went east rather than south)

Your history dump started from 2300 years ago.
mauryan dynasty 322-185 BC

Please provide this strong evidence you speak off as well,
It would be nice to see evidence which concludes that the Aryans didn't go in two different directions.

How did it force Rama worship on a Ravana worshipping population.

You are trying to bring the argument into the cyclical argument we had on the thread because the evidence in that argument is very subjective and hence it allows you to go around in circles.

 

[moumotta]

Looked down upon or banned we know that it wasn't prevalent hence it is insignificant.

We still have the problem of explaining what happened to the excess aryan females.

These questions have been answered so I will be repeating lot of what I said in my last post and expand where necessary. I gave evidence from mythology that it was acceptable. A 1 in 20 or lower is in line with acceptable even if not common.

No because regardless of this fact there are always more women then men in the world. So if child birth is killing women then a lot of other events are leading to the death of men which is skewing the balance towards women.

Death of an upper caste man did not bring the widow back in the marriage-pool. Death of a woman did not stop the widower from remarrying. This is a very important point to keep in mind as it creates an artificial imabalance, a need for greater number of women than what a straight male- female count would indicate and create a disadvantage for females as far as passing their genes is concerned.

A man could continue reproducing and perpetuating his genes as long as his fertility lasted or he lasted. If his wife died he would remrry and continue as before. A females stopped reprodcing when she died. She also stopped when her husband died. The dice of reproduction was heavily loaded against upper class females. The balance you mention did not apply to marriagebility or reproduction.

or the fact that upper caste widows did not remarry where as widowers invariably did -factors that would icrease demand for young females.

An average Man doesn't outlive a woman hence this is again insiginificant.

Hope you are not assuming modern levels of longevity. Average longevity was in 30s to low 40s as recently as in the ninteenth century. It would have been much lower back then. The age under discussion had no anti-biotics. There was no pathology, no surgery.

In any case outlasting had no reprouctive benefit for upper caste females. As mentioned above a female stopped reproducing as soon as her husband died even though she was fully capable of reproducing. Outlasting her husband did nothing to improve her chances of bearing children.

Even if this was significant, the point is very weak because whatever happens there are more women then men in a given population hence these men would be able to find women from within their people.

Has been replied above but let me expand. If 20% of 20 year old population died between the ages of 20 and 30 then out of a cohort of 100 males- females pairs , there will be 80 males and 80 females left after 10 years of which 64 will be couples, 16 widows and 16 widowers. The 16 widows will be condemned to life of misery but the 16 widowers will be looking for 16 new women to marry. You can see how an imbalance gets created because of social strictures.

The MtDna shows no distinct pattern through the caste system as the male Y chromosome does. This suggests that these women didn't exist or they existed in such a small number that they left no sign of their existence.

If there was a significant number of migrant women then their daughters would still survive to this day. As women are mainly upward mobile in the caste system we should find that all of these daughters are still in the upper classes and there should be some sort of disparity between the MtDna of the different castes despite your theory of the lower caste women taking over.

Refer back to all the discussion above.

The Dravidians who were strong enough did do something about their status. That is why we don't see pure eurasian race in the upper caste. The lower caste Dravidians stayed lower caste.

Let me get this right. Those Dravidians who could move up did so leaving the less fortunate ones behind in lower castes.

What it explains is how lower caste genes entered upper castes. You still have to explain the presence of european genes among lower castes, those who were not strong enough to move up.

If the migration discovered by the genetic evidence happened 4000 to 1000 years ago how did it involve Aryans- it must have been pre-Aryan Europeans. There is no historical evidence of any such migration to India or to the south so must be pre-historic and pre Indus Valley times. That would make it 5000 years ago or more.

So shall we discard the fact that you said that these migrant injected themselves into an existing hierarchical system?

Please refer me to it. I don’t remember making that statement about a migration between 4000 to 10000 years ago.

My question remains- how did a migration from 4000 to 10000 years ago carry racial stock, culture and religion that did not exist at that time.

Your history dump started from 2300 years ago. mauryan dynasty 322-185 BC

Actually 2430 years ago (2108+372)
1000- 900 BC is the date put on their presence in modern day Delhi and surrounding area. Spread to eastern doab and Bihar would have taken some more time.

Please provide this strong evidence you speak off as well,
It would be nice to see evidence which concludes that the Aryans didn't go in two different directions.

Two references.

The geographic focus of the later Vedic corpus moves from the Sapta Sindhu region into the Ganges–Yamuna Doab and the territories on its fringe. The areas within this land of the aryas, called Aryavarta, were named for the ruling clans, and the area encompassed within Aryavarta gradually expanded eastward.
India From-c-1500-to-c-500-bce in Encyclopedia Britannica

Ancient History of Mithila ( 600 BCE - 1097 CE) By Sri Mohammad Aquique

The present work is an attempt at depicting the economic fabric of Mithila from 600 B.C. to 1097 A.D. The country of Mithila during this period was bounded on the north by the Himalaya, on the south the Ganga, on the east the Kosi, and on the west the Gandak. It consisted of the modern districts of Darbhanga, Muzaffarpur, Champaran, Saharsa, Purnea, north Monghyr, and north Bhagalpur, as well as the tarai under Nepal lying between the district and lower ranges of the Himalaya.

It was the earliest Aryan settlement in Eastern India and from here the wave of Aryanism spread over other parts of the country.
http://www.geocities.com/arerdih/MITHILA.html

There is no similar or comparable evidence for Aryan presence in south India at this time.

 

[Wazeeri]

I gave evidence from mythology that it was acceptable. A 1 in 20 or lower is in line with acceptable even if not common.

Where did you get 1 in 20 from? every 20th female infant being killed is a regular occurence. That would make it common there is nothing to say that this practice was common.

A man could continue reproducing and perpetuating his genes as long as his fertility lasted or he lasted. If his wife died he would remrry and continue as before. A females stopped reprodcing when she died. She also stopped when her husband died. The dice of reproduction was heavily loaded against upper class females. The balance you mention did not apply to marriagebility or reproduction.

You completely ignored the rebuttal to the above assertion. Is this how this discussion is going to go ahead?

The imbalance you speak of is insignificant because women outlived men and no this isn't a modern occurence, Women naturally outlive men.

So a widower was a relative rarity and for all the widowers who existed we had enough women from the aryan race to meet the imbalance. Hence the influx of lower caste women could not have been significant.

Has been replied above but let me expand. If 20% of 20 year old population died between the ages of 20 and 30 then out of a cohort of 100 males- females pairs , there will be 80 males and 80 females left after 10 years of which 64 will be couples, 16 widows and 16 widowers. The 16 widows will be condemned to life of misery but the 16 widowers will be looking for 16 new women to marry. You can see how an imbalance gets created because of social strictures.

A very dubious calculation assuming that women to men ratio was 1:1. Male to female ratio is 1.01 males to 1 female in the modern time and that is due to the practice of female infanticide (pre birth) China, India and Middle east and correcting the higher infant mortality in boys due to advances in medical sciences. The other thing your calculation fails to acknowledge is the longer life span of women, so by the age of 20 we will not see the same number of men and women die.

Let's ignore all these statistics for a moment and Let's assume the following.

Women both aryan and dravidian cannot remarry,
They all have the same life expectancy and fertility

The only way we could then have the Dravidian women out producing the Aryan women is if there was an excess of men. Otherwise all these women should have the same number of offspring maintaining the ratio of the genepool.

Unless ofcourse the upper caste men were taking lower caste women at the loss of the lower caste men.

Let me get this right. Those Dravidians who could move up did so leaving the less fortunate ones behind in lower castes.

What it explains is how lower caste genes entered upper castes. You still have to explain the presence of european genes among lower castes, those who were not strong enough to move up.

No one said Hypogamy was impossible we have just agreed that upper caste man was more likely to get married to a lower caste woman than the other way around. I am claiming that there weren't many aryan women to start off with hence even one or two aryan women getting married into the Dravidians will result in the same admixture.

There are special rules against an upper caste woman marrying a lower caste man which dictate that she becomes lower caste herself. This indicates that there were occurences of this happening.

My question remains- how did a migration from 4000 to 10000 years ago carry racial stock, culture and religion that did not exist at that time.

That would be my question to you. You are the one who claimed that the migrants iserted themselves into an existing structure. I have claimed that they came and imposed the structure on to the inhabitants.

There is no similar or comparable evidence for Aryan presence in south India at this time.

You have provided a reference to the first major kingdom of the vedas. If we look at the other invading forces like the Vikings for example, they didn't just go into Europe but they ventured into all directions.

The other examples you have given are from the Vedas which mentions specific cities. It doesn't discount another settlement in the south.

Please also notice how you have not considered many points in my last post.

 

[moumotta]

Where did you get 1 in 20 from? every 20th female infant being killed is a regular occurence. That would make it common there is nothing to say that this practice was common.

On the other hand 1 in 20 surviving an attempted killing would not make survival common. Let us not get in a childish debate on usage of terms. The point is that polygamy happened and I provided examples from the most revered stories of the day.

You completely ignored the rebuttal to the above assertion. Is this how this discussion is going to go ahead?

The imbalance you speak of is insignificant because women outlived men and no this isn't a modern occurence, Women naturally outlive men.

So a widower was a relative rarity and for all the widowers who existed we had enough women from the aryan race to meet the imbalance. Hence the influx of lower caste women could not have been significant.

A very dubious calculation assuming that women to men ratio was 1:1. Male to female ratio is 1.01 males to 1 female in the modern time and that is due to the practice of female infanticide (pre birth) China, India and Middle east and correcting the higher infant mortality in boys due to advances in medical sciences. The other thing your calculation fails to acknowledge is the longer life span of women, so by the age of 20 we will not see the same number of men and women die.

Females have physiological advantage in survival at pre-puberty and older ages. At child bearing age she is at a disadvantage. Dominant male mortality causes in youth have been cultural and sociological, deaths in battles and violence in prehistoric times and accidents in recent times. As society became sedentary violence and battles would be less frequent. To say young males in a sedantary agrarian society will have higher death rates than females is not correct.

Let's ignore all these statistics for a moment and Let's assume the following.

Women both aryan and dravidian cannot remarry,
They all have the same life expectancy and fertility

The only way we could then have the Dravidian women out producing the Aryan women is if there was an excess of men. Otherwise all these women should have the same number of offspring maintaining the ratio of the genepool.

Upper caste women could not remarry. Lower castes could. These customs survive even today. The question isnot about out-producton in an absolute sense. It is about lower caste women entering upper caste house holds repeatedly over generations resulting in diluted proportion of upper caste MtDNA over time .

Let us say all societies around the world had found their natural balance of male- female pairing.
Now consider two features that applied to upper caste Hindus.
1. A preference for male child that would mitigate the natural physiological survival advantages girls had during their childhood.
2. An asymmetry in the pairing equation created by the ban on female remarriages.

It follows that upper caste hindus are more likely to run in to an imbalance, or a reproductive-female population bottleneck than lower castes and other societies.

Unless ofcourse the upper caste men were taking lower caste women at the loss of the lower caste men.

Exactly, That’s what power equations are all about.

No one said Hypogamy was impossible we have just agreed that upper caste man was more likely to get married to a lower caste woman than the other way around. I am claiming that there weren't many aryan women to start off with hence even one or two aryan women getting married into the Dravidians will result in the same admixture. .

You must be joking. Aryans hardly had any women to start with, were dominating the power structure yet they would allow lower castes to take away half of their women- this would only happen if lower castes would steal these women, will flee the area for good and not come near an Aryan settlement before the Aryan women left their company.

There are special rules against an upper caste woman marrying a lower caste man which dictate that she becomes lower caste herself. This indicates that there were occurences of this happening.

This would be far rarer as she would probably be killed along with her new found family.

That would be my question to you. You are the one who claimed that the migrants iserted themselves into an existing structure. I have claimed that they came and imposed the structure on to the inhabitants.

I did ask you to refer me to my statement in relation to a migration from 4000-10000 year ago. I will itemise my requests so you can answer them.
1. Provide a link to my statement where I said that Aryans inserted them selves in an existing structure.
2. Confirm if you agree that there were no Vedas 4000-10000 years ago.
3. Confirm if you agree that there was no caste system 4000-10000 years ago.
4. Nominate the date of Aryan arrival in Andhra Pradesh that you are working with.

You have provided a reference to the first major kingdom of the vedas.

I gave you evidence that Aryans went east-wards. One of the quotes also claimed clearly that they spread to other areas from east.

If we look at the other invading forces like the Vikings for example, they didn't just go into Europe but they ventured into all directions.

And how do we know that Vikings spread in all directions. Did they leave any evidence of it. Is there a similar evidence that Aryans did not just go east but went south as well.

The other examples you have given are from the Vedas which mentions specific cities. It doesn't discount another settlement in the south.

Actually, other than Mithila all other names are names of districts in modern usage.

Please also notice how you have not considered many points in my last post.

My apologies. I found this section that I thought I had indirectly replied to else where.

The MtDna shows no distinct pattern through the caste system as the male Y chromosome does. This suggests that these women didn't exist or they existed in such a small number that they left no sign of their existence.

If there was a significant number of migrant women then their daughters would still survive to this day. As women are mainly upward mobile in the caste system we should find that all of these daughters are still in the upper classes and there should be some sort of disparity between the MtDna of the different castes despite your theory of the lower caste women taking over.

The reason I can’t go in more detail on this is because I can’t lay my hands on the study. All you provided was a second hand link to a news article quoting this study. I can’t make out whether the claims are accurately taken from the study and if so what is the data behind them.

One thing I will mention is if the claim of an all male army was correct and accepted by historians then that would have resulted in a major rewriting of history books. It would have required a review of the theory that Aryans entered India from a number of entry points over a period of time. That obviously has not happened even though 12 years have passed.

What I can do is review the results of the Bamshad study I had posted in the other thread. The genetic difference tables in the study show following Genetic distance between AP population and European populations:

Table 1. MtDNA

Upper Caste- .100
Middle Caste- .086
Lower Caste- .113
It clearly shows lower distances from European for upper and middle castes compared to lower castes. This is quite different from what your link claimed- no distance for females at all.

Another very interesting feature is that middle caste women are nearer to European populations than upper castes. Clearly the social power enjoyed by upper caste men allowed them to prise women away from lower castes. Middle castes had less social power and also had less luck with lower caste women.

 

[Wazeeri]

You are using very rare occurences to explain data which suggests some drastic action taken against a whole generation of women if one existed. That goes against your earlier suggestion of relying on probability.

You must be joking. Aryans hardly had any women to start with, were dominating the power structure yet they would allow lower castes to take away half of their women- this would only happen if lower castes would steal these women, will flee the area for good and not come near an Aryan settlement before the Aryan women left their company.

You are the one who is claiming that the Aryans arrived with women, that is not my assumption. The women show a consistant spread throughout the castes which shows that at no point there was a big migration of women.

I have explained why there are MtDna similar to the europeans in the lower castes by stating that there were not many or no women in the migration and it will take only a few of them to marry into the lower caste at any point in history for the lower caste to acquire the Dna. If no women at all came in the migration then this MtDna could have come from and spread evenly among the host population before the migration.

Actually let's put your theory to test up here.
-If the women were not downward mobile in the hierarchy,
-And there were a lot of Aryan women

Then why have we not got a concentration of all eurasian MtDna in the upper castes?

Remember you have stated that any higher caste woman moving down the hierarchy would be killed along with her new family.

2. Confirm if you agree that there were no Vedas 4000-10000 years ago.
3. Confirm if you agree that there was no caste system 4000-10000 years ago.
4. Nominate the date of Aryan arrival in Andhra Pradesh that you are working with.

No one knows when the Vedas came into existence as they are believed to be an oral tradition. The date set on there arrival is 3500 to 4000 years ago (Rog Veda) but it could be much older than that. The caste system is supposed to have been developed at a similar time possibly later than the Rig veda.

The type of evidence you have to support these dates has a margin of era as big as half a millenium so to try and derive a timeline is splitting hair. It is not inconceivable to consider that an army of aryans managed to make their way to the south with a few 100 years of their arrival in the north.

And how do we know that Vikings spread in all directions. Did they leave any evidence of it. Is there a similar evidence that Aryans did not just go east but went south as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Viking_Expansion.svg

Notice how Sicily in the south forms a seperate non continuing area.

I did ask you to refer me to my statement in relation to a migration from 4000-10000 year ago. I will itemise my requests so you can answer them.
1. Provide a link to my statement where I said that Aryans inserted them selves in an existing structure.

Sorry I misread your first post which I wasn't expecting to completely scrap your earlier assertion. I thought you were being consistant and claiming that the aryans came and entered into an existing culture where as you actually agreed that the aryans came and asserted the hierarchy on the local hosts.

Which was how the argument started in the first place.

[Moumotta]Aryan tribe did get an unfair advantage in caste hierarchy

I don't know what we are arguing over now because the whole point of contention was that Hinduism was not brought to India peacefully as people claim it to be.

You have agreed that the Vedic caste system was forced onto the Indians from outside, whether it be due to political, economic or other reasons, that is what happened. One of your opening posts also accepts the use of force and violence.

[Moumotta]The society two and a half thousand years ago was very brutal- savage in battle and cruel in every day life.


I think you need to decide what you are arguing against.

If you are confusing my argument with the argument you had with KB and ISr then let me remind you that I made the assertion that as Islam and Christianity, Hinduism was also brought to India violently.

 

[moumotta]

I could go back to the earlier thread and remind you of where the argument started but you are reluctant to do that so let us just leave the origins of our argument to the dust bins of history.

The argument now is that I am saying a genetic study that flies in the face of other historical evidence can not be relied on. If I can summarise it you appear to be saying that you will redefne history based on a second hand reference to a genetic study.

The onus is on you to prove that it is the case or alternatively to demonstrate how results of the genetic study fit with history as agreed by experts.

 

[moumotta]

Not going to rake up petty points and your frequent changes of stance but following post becomes relevant again.

As I have said earlier the Aryan issue has been messed up by a number of ideological camps that try to fit history to their agenda. That fact that evidence is limited and at times can be interpreted or distorted to suit a preconceived view helps. I will mention two of these, the hindutva and the islamist view here- there are others with as much of ideological bias and agenda.

The hindutva view is that aryans did not arrive from outside. All hindus are aryans and aryans are indigenous. It is basically trying to prove that hindus are the rightful owner of the land because this is their motherland and the land of their religion. Muslims and christians are aliens.

There is also an islamist view that tries to portray an overly bloodied view of aryan invasion. It imagines aryan arriving in mammoth armies with their maces and axes to plunder indigenous populations. Like the hindutva view this view also has an agenda. If it was OK for aryans to plunder and impose their culture and way of life on a peaceful local population then it some how justifies subsequent acts of muslim armies and rulers.

We saw an example of it on this thread. As soon as a question was raised about muslim history of conversion, the aryan invasion theory was wheeled out as a kind of pre-emptive strike.

How does one move forward in this maze. The first thing is if your source of information is a hindutva site, an Islamic site, Pakistani text books or Indian text books during the time of BJP rule then wipe your memory clean and start again. There are other biases to keep clear of but this should be a good start.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=1641694&postcount=88

 

[Wazeeri]

What I am saying is that there was no Aryan invasion of South India. Wazeeri mixed his facts- and timing- in compiling his googled information.

In fact, not withstanding the story of Rama, there is no historical evidence of any military invasion of South India.

[Moumotta]Aryan tribe did get an unfair advantage in caste hierarchy

The society two and a half thousand years ago was very brutal- savage in battle and cruel in every day life.

Make your mind up.

 

[moumotta]

Make your mind up.

Please clarify what contradiction you see in the three statements.

I also take it that like your earlier wargument of Ravana worship you are now also giving up on all male army and genetic studies because your evidences are subjective- only you agree with them, and are now moving on to a third topic.

To avoid confusion in another couple of days time can you state what position you are taking this time.

 

[Wazeeri]

Allow me to remind you that the ravana debate ended because you denied that Rama was aryan

Ram was not an Aryan God and would have been of part non-aryan blood considering his dark complexion, not the fair varna that the aryans were so proud of.

Then you attempted a ridiculous argument by stating that Vishnu was a minor god even though that was not relevant to the debate.

Then you denied every evidence as third hand massala rubbish.

I didn't move on from that debate I just gave up on it because you were childishly not willing to accept any argument.


The contradiction in your above statement is that we (you and me) have established and agreed upon

1) The aryans established the caste system.
2) The aryans took up the best spots in this hierarchy

Now I am stating that it would have been very hard to convince the local population of your superiority without any violence.

You have accepted that there may have been violence.

But for some reason an invasion is out of the question.

you are now also giving up on all male army and genetic studies because your evidences are subjective

Evidence is subjective? Is all evidence not subjective?
Are you saying that the vedic corpus mentioning regions and cities is PROOF?

And please can you also tell me of an army which has been other than nearly all male?

 

[pal]

Are these the 'Aryans' we're talking about?

For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan invasion' of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.

The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey: http://books.google.com/books?id=5tP5Wb92wT4C&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152

Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/

 

[Wazeeri]

No

 

[moumotta]

Allow me to remind you that the ravana debate ended because you denied that Rama was aryan
Then you attempted a ridiculous argument by stating that Vishnu was a minor god even though that was not relevant to the debate.

What I said was Rama was not an Aryan god. He is a hindu god.
Vishnu, a minor Aryan god becomes hindu trinity (hence the relevance of minor god). Major Aryan gods were relegated to inconsequential positions. Besides Aryan input Hinduism also included indigenous gods so it is a different religion..

Then you denied every evidence as third hand massala rubbish.
I didn't move on from that debate I just gave up on it because you were childishly not willing to accept any argument.

This was your evidence

Sunday, October 21, 2007 Ravana has his temples, too
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20071021/spectrum/society1.htm

An article in glossy society section of a Sunday paper that is more of a curiosity than evidence. Would you really blame me for rubbishing it. If you believe such articles as history than that would explain a lot of your confusion. I also gave you other curious article- one stating that Ravana lived south of Bihar and another saying they have found Ravana’s airport in Sri Lanka. It would be ridiculous if some one started a major discussion using these as evidnece.

The contradiction in your above statement is that we (you and me) have established and agreed upon

1) The aryans established the caste system.
2) The aryans took up the best spots in this hierarchy

Now I am stating that it would have been very hard to convince the local population of your superiority without any violence.

You have accepted that there may have been violence.

But for some reason an invasion is out of the question.

Because an armed invasion is very different from unruly tribals bullying their way. May I ask why you insist on calling it an army when all evidence is against it.

Evidence is subjective? Is all evidence not subjective?

Word play. If all evidence is subjective and you want to avoid subjective evidences then you would avoid all discussions that require evidence unless the quality is over looked entirely.

Are you saying that the vedic corpus mentioning regions and cities is PROOF?

A single evidence in itself is not clinching. It becomes more reliable when it is supported by their evidence such as Buddhist and Jaina chronicles and archaeology.

And please can you also tell me of an army which has been other than nearly all male?

Circular logic. All males is army and army is all male. What does it prove.

If armed invasion is still on table then let us move back to your post #21

You are using very rare occurences to explain data which suggests some drastic action taken against a whole generation of women if one existed. That goes against your earlier suggestion of relying on probability.

We couldn’t agree on assumptions with your preference to declare any point not suiting your argument as insignificant. Unfortunately there are no life tables from the times so any modelling will have to be off line.

You must be joking. Aryans hardly had any women to start with, were dominating the power structure yet they would allow lower castes to take away half of their women- this would only happen if lower castes would steal these women, will flee the area for good and not come near an Aryan settlement before the Aryan women left their company.

You are the one who is claiming that the Aryans arrived with women, that is not my assumption. The women show a consistent spread throughout the castes which shows that at no point there was a big migration of women.
I have explained why there are MtDna similar to the europeans in the lower castes by stating that there were not many or no women in the migration and it will take only a few of them to marry into the lower caste at any point in history for the lower caste to acquire the Dna.

There were no women but there were enough to make the mtDNA distance from Europeans much lower- about half the distance from African populations. Decide which way you want to lean.

If no women at all came in the migration then this MtDna could have come from and spread evenly among the host population before the migration.

OK. So now you are moving away from Aryan invasion induced changes to pre-existing strains. Couldn’t these strains also exist in males with higher European origin communities later making way in to higher castes. Let me know if you want to discuss the sociological factors that would point to more recent migratnts ending up higher in hierarchy compared to tribal/ forest people who entered the pale of civilisation more recently.

Actually let's put your theory to test up here.
-If the women were not downward mobile in the hierarchy,
-And there were a lot of Aryan women

Then why have we not got a concentration of all eurasian MtDna in the upper castes?

Remember you have stated that any higher caste woman moving down the hierarchy would be killed along with her new family.

The onus to prove that the study stacks up is on you. I am happy to leave it as invalid

No one knows when the Vedas came into existence as they are believed to be an oral tradition. The date set on there arrival is 3500 to 4000 years ago (Rog Veda) but it could be much older than that. The caste system is supposed to have been developed at a similar time possibly later than the Rig veda.
The type of evidence you have to support these dates has a margin of era as big as half a millenium so to try and derive a timeline is splitting hair.

This is the problem. You are happy to move dates even though it further weakens your argument but ignore all evidence against an army.

Recap-
Entry from multiple point rather than one
Entry over a period of time
Tribal structure rather than a central command
Lack of adequate targets to support an army

It is not inconceivable to consider that an army of aryans managed to make their way to the south with a few 100 years of their arrival in the north.

Clutching at straws now. From evidence we have moved to conceivability. What you are suggesting is that an all male army made way to Andhra in a few hundred years and then married local women once it reached there. Right?

And how do we know that Vikings spread in all directions. Did they leave any evidence of it. Is there a similar evidence that Aryans did not just go east but went south as well.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...g_Expansion.svg

Notice how Sicily in the south forms a seperate non continuing area.

Thank you. Vikings spread in all directions and it was easy for you to find an evidence. Now why can’t you find similar evidence of Aryans spreading to south rather than east. Because it did not happen.

Don't turn the it in to a debate on terminology; the evidence of some thing not happening is that there is no evidence of it happening.

Sorry I misread your first post which I wasn't expecting to completely scrap your earlier assertion. I thought you were being consistant and claiming that the aryans came and entered into an existing culture where as you actually agreed that the aryans came and asserted the hierarchy on the local hosts.

Thanks. You misquoted me and admit that. I will leave it at that but please don’t blame your mistake on my inconsistency. Even granting, for argument sake that I was inconsistent- how would that lead you to make up a comment that I never made.
Your various quotes of my posts have been discussed above so I will not waste band-width again.

If you are confusing my argument with the argument you had with KB and ISr then let me remind you that I made the assertion that as Islam and Christianity, Hinduism was also brought to India violently.

ISR asked me for some information that I provided and he has not come back. There is no dispute outstanding on that count.

ISR and KB questioned my comment on Islamic view. They were actually talking about recent changes in Pakistani academic emphasis rather than an Islamic view but I did not debate with them because I had a good feeling the Islamic view will make its appearance on this forum soon and it has !!

 

[Wazeeri]

What I said was Rama was not an Aryan god. He is a hindu god.
Vishnu, a minor Aryan god becomes hindu trinity (hence the relevance of minor god). Major Aryan gods were relegated to inconsequential positions. Besides Aryan input Hinduism also included indigenous gods so it is a different religion..

Hinduism has been evolving throughout it's history as most religions have Veganism, Trimurti and Smartism are just examples of this. So trying to negate the aryan influence in the insertion of these gods by declaring it hinduism is a very poor argument.

Hinduism is not all aryan or vedic but the Vedic influence is the greatest. The vedic gods and concepts form what most people regard as hinduism. This is why I have placed so much emphasis on the Aryans.

Ramayan is a sanskrit text which promotes vedic teachings. It is more Aryan than anything else.

The indigenous Gods were not inserted by the Aryans they were inserted by their followers when they were in some sort of position of power.

Anyway this is the type of argument which is your bread and butter. You are going to ignore the facts stated above and go on about how Ram was black....etc, So I am not willing to go down that route. The argument is pretty much done and dusted below.

An article in glossy society section of a Sunday paper that is more of a curiosity than evidence.

You asked for evidence of Ravana worship.
The article has mentioned two temples and named the followers of Ravana, there is also a small picture for those who don't wish to read.

Because an armed invasion is very different from unruly tribals bullying their way. May I ask why you insist on calling it an army when all evidence is against it.

This my friend is really funny.

Fine, I concede I will from now on call the group of men violently subjugating the local population A MOB rather than an ARMY.

Now we can agree on the fact that Aryan MOBS enforced their beliefs on to the local population.

The onus to prove that the study stacks up is on you. I am happy to leave it as invalid

You are going to declare the joint studies done by the University of Utah, University of Louisisiana, Andhra University, University of Madras, University of Arizona....etc as invalid just because it doesn't fit in with your view of history????????????/

You have quoted the very study too many times to declare it invalid.

There were no women but there were enough to make the mtDNA distance from Europeans much lower- about half the distance from African populations. Decide which way you want to lean.

I don't think you understand the relevance of the data. Following facts should help.

There has been very little recent immigration of africans into the subcontinent.
You only need a few women (literally a dozen or so) to have enough off spring to give minor associations.
In absolute terms the similarities are negligible.

OK. So now you are moving away from Aryan invasion induced changes to pre-existing strains. Couldn’t these strains also exist in males with higher European origin communities later making way in to higher castes. Let me know if you want to discuss the sociological factors that would point to more recent migratnts ending up higher in hierarchy compared to tribal/ forest people who entered the pale of civilisation more recently.

Again I don't think you understand.

The female european strain does not equal male european strain
Female strain shows a difference which is much much larger than the male difference.

If there were very few women: then you need only a few of them marrying into the lower caste for there to be some similarity (insignificant as it is)

If there were no women then you need even less women much earlier in history to produce the insignificant similarity we can see in Bamshad.

Clutching at straws now. From evidence we have moved to conceivability. What you are suggesting is that an all male army made way to Andhra in a few hundred years and then married local women once it reached there. Right?

No, not anymore, you have convinced me that it was a MOB not an ARMY.

Thank you. Vikings spread in all directions and it was easy for you to find an evidence. Now why can’t you find similar evidence of Aryans spreading to south rather than east. Because it did not happen.

Some of evidence used is GENETIC.
Now you don't consider that as evidence do you?

I'm sorry that you haven't come across genetic evidence before and hence you don't understand it but the sensible thing to do is not to discard it completely.

As I am holding an opposing view to yours I completely understand why you are not willing to accept my analysis.

So I will reproduce for you the conclusions of one of the researchers who produced the paper that you, yourself quoted. That is prof Lynn B Jorde you will find his/her name at the top of the copy of Bamshad you have got.

Ancient Indian history of conquest told in modern genes
Research from the University of Utah and Andhra Pradesh University in India
Robert Cooke, Newsday - San Francisco Chronicle, 26 May, 1999

Today's genetic patterns, the researchers explained, vividly reflect a historic event, or events, that occurred 3,000 or 4,000 years ago. The gene patterns "are consistent with a historical scenario in which invading Caucasoids, primarily males,established the caste system and occupied the highest positions, placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in lower caste positions."

"there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago", said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah. Along with Jorde, the research team included Michael Bamshad, W.S. Watkins and M.E. Dixon from Utah and B.B. Rao, B.V.R. Prasad and J.M. Naidu, from Andhra Pradesh University.

According to geneticist Douglas Wallace of Emory University in Atlanta, the work reported by Jorde and his colleagues "is very interesting, and is certainly worth further study."

Like an indelible signature enduring through a hundred generations, genes that entered India when conquering hordes swooped down from the north thousands of years ago are still there, and remain entrenched at the top of the caste system, scientists report. Analyses of the male Y chromosome, plus genes hidden in small cellular bodies called mitochondria, show that today's genetic patterns agree with accounts of ancient Indo-European warriors' conquering the Indian subcontinent.

The invaders apparently shoved the local men aside, took their women and set up the rigid caste system that exists today. Their descendants are still the elite within Hindu society.

Researchers used two sets of genes in their analyses.

One set, from the mitochondria, are only passed maternally and can be used to track female inheritance. The other, on the male-determining Y chromosome, can only be passed along paternally and thus track male inheritance.

If women had accompanied the invaders, he said, the evidence should be seen in the mitochondrial genes, but it is not evident.

http://sociologyindex.com/social_customs_and_traditions_india.htm

Anyway this is a mute point now that you have accepted that there were unruly mobs who came and enforced the caste system.

I am happy with this conclusion.

 

[moumotta]

Despite your apparent attempt at sarcasm, which I understand- it is not easy for some one with your reputation to give in without protest, I thank you.

Now that you appear receptive to new ideas, I will leave you with some quotes from Romila Thapar, one of the best known and recognised authorities on Ancient Indian History.

You did not have thousand upon thousands of people coming from the Khyber Pass and settling down in the Punjab. You had multiple points, from the Swat valley all the way down to the Quetta valley and you had small groups of people who come in and settle, what one scholar, Anthony has called a leap frogging migration, i.e., A moves to X , a section of A moves a little further down to Y, a section of B moves still further to Z. and these are small groups moving. They are interrelated up to a point, they are not related. They are moving some distances, they are moving in different directions. So the idea is not that there is a huge displacement of people and culture but a kind of slow trickling in of people bringing in new technology, new ideas.

If you read the hymns the plea to the gods Indra, Agni, whosoever it is, is help us go and attack this 'dasa' village or this 'dasapura', help us get the cattle of the 'dasa'. It is always the cattle that they are wanting. There is no question of help us go into battle and take over a whole territory. It is limited to small areas of attack. They are mobile pastoralists and the cattle raids and the predatory raids are surrogate for warfare. There are in fact no great battles or campaigns.

Wealth, as far as Rgveda is concerned, is computed in horses and cows. Given this, migration becomes extremely important because of the need to be continuously searching for two things - good pastures, access to water for the animals. We often forget we keep on talking about how water is important for irrigation for cultivators, but water is equally important for pastoralists, because animals need to have access to water and the shifting river courses in the Punjab obviously would create problems. You have a river like the Sutlej which is constantly changing its shape and size. So what are the pastoralists on the banks of the Sutlej to do. They have to be moving all the time. Once they are moving ,they are looking for good pastures, and if somebody else is over there, there is a fight and they throw them out. And the prayers are frequently for rain for this is in fact a semi-arid region. Possibly even the migration eastwards was for better pastures.

Now in this situation there has to be, anybody who's raiding, is coming in and is a raider and is building his wealth on the basis of a raid, there has to be a dependence on the host society. They have to settle in the vicinity in order to carry out the raids. And they need to negotiate relationships with the host society. The negotiations may be - I'll come and bash you and take away all your cattle. But the negotiations may also be - let's come to some agreement, over pastoral lands, over water over agriculture, over whatever it may be. Given the terrain of inhospitable mountains there would be a tendency to migrate in small groups, which means there would be a tremendous mixture of people, language and ways of life. You're not getting a huge bunch of people coming in the thousands. Small bunches of people means that there is much more intermixing.

What was their relationship to the sedentary agriculturalists once they arrived in the fertile areas? One was the immediate relationship, which was to raid the local people, and the Rigveda is the great text describing a constant wish to raid and get wealth. It would seem that the Aryans are not very successful to being with because there is this continuous plea to the gods, pleas come and help us, please go and kill our enemies for us, please do this and please do that. It is as if there is bewilderment about how they are to set about doing it.

Did the existing sedentary agriculturalists appeal to an incoming pastoral chief for protection? You have these sedentary groups, they are people coming in who are attacking cattle keepers and sedentary groups. So what does the sedentary agriculturalist do? Doesn't he turn to the chief of this raiding tribe and say, please don't raid me, let's negotiate a settlement. The pastoral chiefs come in at a level of dominance in terms of their relationship with the local population. But it is not a dominance based only on conquest. It is not a dominance based only on raids. It does include the possibility of some other kind of negotiation. This would then have galvanized the long-term relationship between them.
One of the interesting aspects of the linguistic study that has been done of vedic Sanskrit words is that a number of words that relate to agricultural processes --some very common words like lingula which means plough, words that come from non Indo Aryan languages. They are either proto Dravidian or Austro Asiatic. So clearly there is a lot of mixing at that level for these words to come into Indo Aryan. Secondly, Indo Aryan itself reflects features of proto Dravidian. For example, what are called the retroflexive consonants--ta tha da dha, na. These are not Indo European, these are proto Dravidian. They only occur in Vedic Sanskrit. They do not occur in any other Indo European language. The third is that, in a number of what are called syntactic forms, grammatical forms, morphologies, the form of the language, phonetics, the use of this little word iti, which is very common in Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit and later on in classical Sanskrit, this is a typical proto-Dravidian form, and again it is being argued that this is what comes into Indo_Aryan. What I am trying to suggest then is that if there is already in the Rigveda, and this entry of non- Indo Aryan increases in the later Vedic texts. If there is already the presence of non Indo Aryan in Indo Aryan in the Rig Veda there must have been some kind of negotiation other than just raiding.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

I am happy that we have agreed that hinduism wasn't brought to India peacefully, Guess the "islamist" point of view has some credentials.

I am a bit disappointed to see that you have reverted to random dumps of information to appear as if you are providing a rebuttal.

Anyway in Conclusion : The Aryans came in Mobs and set up the caste system.

Everyone's happy.

 

[moumotta]

I am a bit disappointed to see that you have reverted to random dumps of information to appear as if you are providing a rebuttal.

It is not random. You notice I deleted the portions that referred to an all male army.

To suit your attention span I am reducing the information to bullet point form. It is still a bit long but, for once please have the patience to read.

· You did not have thousand upon thousands of people coming
· You had multiple points,
· and these are small groups moving.

· There is no question of help us go into battle and take over a whole territory.
· It is limited to small areas of attack.
· raids are surrogate for warfare.
· There are in fact no great battles or campaigns.

· They have to be moving all the time.
· Possibly even the migration eastwards was for better pastures.

· tendency to migrate in small groups,
· tremendous mixture of people, language and ways of life.
· You're not getting a huge bunch of people coming in the thousands.
· Small bunches of people means that there is much more intermixing.

· What was their relationship to the sedentary agriculturalists once they arrived
· It is as if there is bewilderment

· It is not a dominance based only on raids.
· So clearly there is a lot of mixing at that level for these words to come into Indo Aryan.
· must have been some kind of negotiation other than just raiding

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

As you have been so couteous to take my small attention span into consideration I will make this very simple and precise to cater for your inability to follow an argument.

Using Romalis argument is also not going to get you anywhere because Romali herself has refuted many scholars in her little piece and I can just conjure up their articles to refute yours and we can have a good old fashioned copy and paste-off. However if you want to hide behind someone else then feel free to do so.

If you read Romalis paper which I have despite my minute attention span you will notice that she is claiming to introduce a lot of ideas, meaning these ideas are not widely acclaimed or accepted.

Now for someone who has so many times argued that the genetic evidence is against the established history, you should not be supporting such a notion, but it's unlike you to be consistent so anyway.


The most striking new idea is the retranslation of the word Dasyu. Romali is suggesting or leaning towards the theory that there were no two races but just one. The people known as Dravidians slowly became the lower race.

Romali has accepted that this is an idea she is presenting. However she is really struggling with the evidence from the vedas of two races and she has ventured into every theory accept the most obvious.

I may be incorrect on this, but I would nevertheless like to float it. There are one or two places where the word arya is used in a verbal sense--aryanti, they honour, and the root dasa is used again in a verbal sense--dasati--to treat with hostility. If these words, arya and dasa can be used not only as nouns and adjectives, but also as verbs, it is most unlikely that the can be interpreted as races.

Most of the references are used in a symbolic sense. You have the varna of the dawn, of the day, of the night, and of the clouds, and there is frequent reference to the dasas as the dark ones. They could be evil. They don't have to be necessarily always black skinned.

so in the Avesta you have references to the Airia and the Daha which is the Dasa, and Dahyu which is the Dasyu. They are not mentioned as being black skinned. They are simply mentioned as being people in the neighbourhood.

So
Dasyu is a verb
It could mean they are evil
It could mean they are in the neighbourhood.

It could definitely not mean that they are black which is the most widely accepted translation.

Furthermore...

compositions the composers would say that these dasa who are black skinned, thick lipped, bull jawed etc. all the descriptions, but no, the descriptions come in the tail end in the second half of the first book and the tenth book of the Rgveda.

So from the first book to the middle one the Dasyu who were the same race as the Aryas have acquired black skins, thick jaws and thick lips.

You can wriggle and struggle all you like, you have accepted that the Aryans used force and there is no way out of this.

All this latest post is doing is glossing up the violence of the aryans and dressing it down with the mention of negotiation.

After an invasion or subjugation you have two main possibilities, you negotiate with the weaker yet larger in number hosts or you commit a genocide using your superior strength.


When the muslims came to India they didn't kill all the hindus, they used their better organised armies, their military might and formed alliances with the major Hindu rajas through marriage into their families or an offer of protection, to enforce their law and make their language (persians) the defacto official language in India.

When the Xtians came to India they didn't kill all the hindus and the muslims. They formed alliances with the strong muslim leaders, they took control of the hindu caste system and the top of the hierarchy, they used their technological and military superiority to enforce their law and their language.

By mentioning the fact that there may have been negotiations between the aryans and the dravidians you are not bringing anything new to the discussion, you are only prologing it after it has reached a conclusion.

It wasn't as if the aryas and the Dasyu sat around a table and negotiated the transfer of cattle and land in exchange of covertible bonds in the greater India.

The dasyus brought their land and assets to the table and the aryans brought violence.

Aryans enforced their will through violence that is the end of the debate.

I will however let Romali have the final word in this post.

But it is not a dominance based only on conquest. It is not a dominance based only on raids. It does include the POSSIBILITY of some other kind of negotiation.

 

[moumotta]

Let’s keep Romali out of it. He is doing splendidly on the cricket forum, let him remain there.

As for Romila, I like your confidence as you already seem know the answers to her questions. Let me put it more simply to you. Are we certain that Aryans were the first migrants to enter India from West. If not then is it possible that Aryans met these earlier entrants in India. Romila has the courage to ask questions and the perseverance to search for answers. Don’t use it to some how pretend that every thing in her article is new.

You can wriggle and struggle all you like, you have accepted that the Aryans used force and there is no way out of this.

I will only need to wriggle out if I had claimed that there was no force used.

If you recall your interests have been in discussing mythical conquests of south India and all male invading armies.

If you now want to restate your position then that’s your right but don’t try to make it look like you have forced me in to a new position.

The lines you closed your post with were included in my ‘history dump’. If you are some how trying to read ‘include the POSSIBILITY’ as ‘includes no POSSIBILITY’ then that’s your comprehension problem.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

The debate has already been settled, the aryans used force to have their ways accepted.

The debate started with Butcher claiming that forced conversions or oppression by the invaders was something specific to the abrahamic invaders mainly the muslims.

We have accepted that the aryans used force to get their way,
and we know that the vedic roots of hinduism are the most popular making up more than half of the hindu population.

Therefore my original point stands, The introduction of hinduism to India is no different.

You can deny every piece of evidence for oppression, you can deny any piece of evidence for different races, you can call an army a mob if you like. But what you refer to as the "Islamist" point of view, has credibility and I thank you for accepting that.

 

[moumotta]

We have accepted that the aryans used force to get their way, and we know that the vedic roots of hinduism are the most popular making up more than half of the hindu population.

Therefore my original point stands, The introduction of hinduism to India is no different.

You can deny every piece of evidence for oppression, you can deny any piece of evidence for different races, you can call an army a mob if you like. But what you refer to as the "Islamist" point of view, has credibility and I thank you for accepting that.

I guess your propaganda department has taken over from your discussion faculties.

It is an army because thats what the Islamic view says. I guess that pretty much fixes your position and you will twist what ever facts you have to inorder to call a population movement from a number of entry points, lasting over a long period an all male army.

An army that reaches south india in a couple of hundred years and then marries local women. You know how silly you sound.

Care to explain what you mean by vedic roots forming 50% of Hindu population.

 

[Wazeeri]

An army that reaches south india in a couple of hundred years and then marries local women. You know how silly you sound.

Yes that is absolutely ridiculous,
An Army marrying local women is completely unheard off.
Good spot, well done.

Care to explain what you mean by vedic roots forming 50% of Hindu population.

The hindu population which follows Gods originating from vedic texts.

 

[moumotta]

Yes that is absolutely ridiculous,
An Army marrying local women is completely unheard off.
Good spot, well done.

An all male army on march for a couple of hundred years is not ridiculous?

The hindu population which follows Gods originating from vedic texts.

Is that exclusively gods originating from vedic texts? Please support with figures and what it means to the topic under discussion.

 

[Wazeeri]

An all male army on march for a couple of hundred years is not ridiculous?

You may need to get back to basics.
Reading properly would be a good start.

"in a few hundred years" does not equal "for a few hundred years"

Is that exclusively gods originating from vedic texts? Please support with figures and what it means to the topic under discussion.

580 million Vishnavites, worshipping Vishnu, Raam, Rudhra and Brahma.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Hinduism

Relevance to the debate = Small mobs became the majority ==> Aryans enforced their beliefs onto the inhabitants.

Your exclusivity argument has been answered, see discussion on trimurti on both threads.

 

[moumotta]

Clearly you have run out of ideas and are now reduced to mere sparring

You may need to get back to basics.
Reading properly would be a good start.

"in a few hundred years" does not equal "for a few hundred years"

Let me put it the way it will please you. Please revise if it is still not to your satisfaction.

'An all male army entered India and campaiged its way to reach Andhra in a few hundred years where it married local women.'

580 million Vishnavites, worshipping Vishnu, Raam, Rudhra and Brahma.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Hinduism

Relevance to the debate = Small mobs became the majority ==> Aryans enforced their beliefs onto the inhabitants.

Your exclusivity argument has been answered, see discussion on trimurti on both threads.

Haven’t we done this before. When I reminded you that these classifications are rather meaningless as most hindus will worship both Visnu and Shiva, you replied that we should ignore what ordinary people do and listen to scholars. Now you want to go back to using population figures of ordinary folks.

You should have also been aware at this stage in our discussion (if you have cared to read another of my ‘random history dump’ ) that the present size of Hindu population and its vedic influence is largely a result of Shankaracharya’s revival in late first millennium AD. It is a poor indicator of the beliefs of early Hindus over two thousand years ago.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

Your modus operandi
Call things ridiculous, not accept any arguments, post random information and ofcourse start another thread when you feel you have made a mess.

Fine let's go back to things which you can no longer back down from,

Aryans were violent
Aryans set up the caste system
Point proven.

You can argue like a child about Rama and how all hindus worship all gods (even though the Vishnavites see non aryan gods as subordinates) and try to explain genetic information which you don't understand but you have already accepted two points which are fatal to your position.

Aryans are violent
Aryans set up the caste system

 

[moumotta]

Moumotta

Your modus operandi
Call things ridiculous, not accept any arguments, post random information and ofcourse start another thread when you feel you have made a mess.

Fine let's go back to things which you can no longer back down from,

Aryans were violent
Aryans set up the caste system
Point proven.

You can argue like a child about Rama and how all hindus worship all gods (even though the Vishnavites see non aryan gods as subordinates) and try to explain genetic information which you don't understand but you have already accepted two points which are fatal to your position.

Aryans are violent
Aryans set up the caste system

Wriggling out of replying to the rest of the post are we?

 

[Wazeeri]

No I am avoiding another month of you diverting the argument into every which direction after realising that your position is very weak.

The rest of the post doesn't need replying anyway because you have already accepted

Aryans were violent
Aryans imposed the caste system.

I repeat you can try to draw me away from this fact but POINT PROVEN

 

[moumotta]

No I am avoiding another month of you diverting the argument into every which direction after realising that your position is very weak.

The rest of the post doesn't need replying anyway because you have already accepted

Was just curious to know if you were comfortable with the concept of 200 year old soldiers of the all male army marrying their young brides once they reached Andhra.

Aryans were violent
Aryans imposed the caste system.

I repeat you can try to draw me away from this fact but POINT PROVEN

and yet there were no armies. The raids, feuds and disputes were happening at people to people level.

There was no military invasion of south. The cultural assimilation owed a lot to the Mauryan empire and the popularity and expansion of Buddhism and Jainism.

Your attempts to rewrite history based on google sources have failed. Case closed.

 

[Wazeeri]

Was just curious to know if you were comfortable with the concept of 200 year old soldiers of the all male army marrying their young brides once they reached Andhra.

I hope you realise that with the above poor attempt at a joke, if there is any laughing it is at you rather than with you.

and yet there were no armies. The raids, feuds and disputes were happening at people to people level.

People to People level?

I thought there were unruly mobs.

You have accepted what you claim to be the islamist point of view and you can't back out of it now.

 

[moumotta]

I hope you realise that with the above poor attempt at a joke, if there is any laughing it is at you rather than with you.

Just because you do not think through your arguents does not make my question a joke.

You need to explain how an all male army could perpetuate and reporoduce itself for several hundred years.

What sort of human behaviour and motivation would require it to do that and how.

People to People level?

I thought there were unruly mobs.

If there are no armies and political organisation to represent either side then what follows?

You have accepted what you claim to be the islamist point of view and you can't back out of it now.

If you revise it to agree with our conclusions-

no armies
tribal migrations
emergence of a mixed culture and religion with very significant local input

 

[Wazeeri]

You need to explain how an all male army could perpetuate and reporoduce itself for several hundred years.

By marrying local women and displacing local men. That's what an invasionary force does.

What sort of human behaviour and motivation would require it to do that and how.

The sort of motivation displayed in the Vedas. The aryans are begging for their god to help them take all the cattle and land.

If there are no armies and political organisation to represent either side then what follows?

The mob dictates it's terms which it feels are practical.

emergence of a mixed culture and religion with very significant local input

It's impossible for the host to stay the majority and not have any influence in the communal culture.

The muslims have accepted (or retained post conversion) many hindu customs and cultures. Events such as a birth of a child, marriage, death...etc provide perfect opportunity to witness this.

Hence even if I accept this what you call the "Islamist" POV holds.

 

[moumotta]

emergence of a mixed culture and religion with very significant local input

It's impossible for the host to stay the majority and not have any influence in the communal culture.

The muslims have accepted (or retained post conversion) many hindu customs and cultures. Events such as a birth of a child, marriage, death...etc provide perfect opportunity to witness this.

Hence even if I accept this what you call the "Islamist" POV holds.

That’s good. We are moving closer. I am not expecting us to entirely agree on the relative degrees of violence Vs socio-economic assimilation. So long as we agree that there were both aspects to varying degrees that is fine.

I notice that you left out the no army and tribal migrations from your agreement. Can we now agree to this as the only point for the remaining discussion.

I will start with your reply above and then try to summarise and itemise where we are at on this point.

By marrying local women and displacing local men. That's what an invasionary force does.

Just to make sure we both understand- the scenario you are proposing here is, an all male army entered north-west India. Majority of them moved east wards over a period of a thousand years. One small branch moved south and reached there in a few hundred years. This branch remained all male when it reached Andhra. What you are then proposing is that over its course of journey it kept on marrying local women and dumping the females borne out of those marriages while the males, once young and able moved on to the next stage of assault. You are also proposing that they did it for wealth (read cattle as that was the primary form of wealth known to Aryans) and land.

Do you agree.

We will come back to this when I get your confirmation or your revised scenario. Let me now summarise the various points we have discussed relating to an all male army scenario.

1. A 1996 study found that among females “all of the caste groups were similar to Asians, the underlying population” where as among the males “the lower castes are most similar to Asians, and the upper castes are more European than Asian”. We can not lay hands on this study, the only references available are in a short one page report in papers.

2. You agreed that small sample size can result in differences in results. Subsequent studies by pretty much the same team have showed that differences do exist between females of different castes. See table 1 of Bamshad study quoted in post #20
and reproduced below>

Table 1. MtDNA

Upper Caste- .100
Middle Caste- .086
Lower Caste- .113

3. I have explained how there is an asymmetry between upper caste male and female gene flow due to the social customs that work to the disadvantage of female genes.

4. We have also discussed the upward mobility of females of lower castes. You think it is not significant. I did show that even a 1 in 40 dilution in a generation can reduce upper caste female gene representation by 92% in 100 generations. An event 4000 years ago is likely to be 200 generations ago and would equate to a 99% dilution.

5. The pattern of migration is strongly against an all male army invasion from Iran (see #post 29).

6. There are also question marks about an all male army reproducing itself for a couple of hundred years- see earlier section of this post.

 

[Wazeeri]

Once again you are trying to put the argument into a circle even though you have agreed to a very big extent to the POV you started off arguing against but I don't mind continuing this circle because so far it has been fun.

Just to make sure we both understand- the scenario you are proposing here is,

I am proposing the following
A few armed MOBs entered India through Iran or Afghanistan.
Their aim was to loot
They managed to subvert the local populations through violence.

They installed the caste system and gave the locals the lower ranks of the hierarchies
They managed that through force.

1. A 1996 study found that among females “all of the caste groups were similar to Asians, the underlying population” where as among the males “the lower castes are most similar to Asians, and the upper castes are more European than Asian”. We can not lay hands on this study, the only references available are in a short one page report in papers.

2. You agreed that small sample size can result in differences in results. Subsequent studies by pretty much the same team have showed that differences do exist between females of different castes. See table 1 of Bamshad study quoted in post #20
and reproduced below>

Table 1. MtDNA

Upper Caste- .100
Middle Caste- .086
Lower Caste- .113

Here are a few lines from Bamshad straight after the table you have reproduced

the mtDNA genome can
be treated as a single locus with multiple haplotypes.
However, even if this assumption is made, mtDNA distances
do not differ significantly from one another
even at the level of the three major continental populations
(Nei and Livshits 1989), the standard errors being
greater than the genetic distances. Considering
that the distances between castes and continental
populations are less than those between different continental
populations, the estimated mtDNA genetic
distances between upper castes and Europeans versus
lower castes and Europeans would not be significantly
different from each other.

Ie the resulting differences do not mean anything.
Just for reference here is a comparison of the differences in Male and Female populations.

                   F         M
Upper Caste-      .100       0.0092
Middle Caste-     .086       0.0108
Lower Caste-      .113       0.0108

3. I have explained how there is an asymmetry between upper caste male and female gene flow due to the social customs that work to the disadvantage of female genes.

The flaws in your explanation have been made apparent by the fact that male to female ratio is in favour of the females.

Polygamy was not a norm, it's rarity denies it any siginificance in this argument.

Despite the mentions of occurences of female infanticide it could not have been a norm as you have been suggesting in your calculations because basic economies rely too heavily on females to be able to handle such a cull.

4. We have also discussed the upward mobility of females of lower castes. You think it is not significant. I did show that even a 1 in 40 dilution in a generation can reduce upper caste female gene representation by 92% in 100 generations. An event 4000 years ago is likely to be 200 generations ago and would equate to a 99% dilution.

I have not said it is not significant in fact I am arguing the opposite. I think majority of these females were lower caste.

As far as the genetics argument goes I have provided the conclusion from one of the team members of the team which carried out the Bamshad study. Why are you completely ignoring Lornde's comments?

Besides this latest post of yours is an attempt at some consolation victory. You have already inadvertently dilluted your original point.

Aryans forced their ways on to the local population as the muslims and Christians after them. They just managed to do the job a lot better.

 

[moumotta]

Once again you are trying to put the argument into a circle even though you have agreed to a very big extent to the POV you started off arguing against but I don't mind continuing this circle because so far it has been fun.

Besides this latest post of yours is an attempt at some consolation victory. You have already inadvertently diluted your original point.

I have already had my victories in topics that you stated with utmost convictions and are now too embarrassed to even talk about. I had my victories when I demonstrated that you do not have the basic understanding to differentiate myths from reality or to differentiate history from popular entertainment news.

You don’t even know what your Islamic view is, you rely on me to define it for you and yet feel duty bound to defend it.

You have been chopping and changing your stance yet you want to announce to the world that you made me change mine.

I find it funny how you start playing to the galleries from time to time and claim false victories when it is clear that your knowledge of history is as deep as the first 20 topics in a google search.

Let me ask you if you want a serious discussion at all or are you just interested in playing to the galleries. Choice is yours.

 

[Wazeeri]

I find it funny how you start playing to the galleries from time to time and claim false victories..................

Playing to the galleries as in when one starts avoiding points which refute their argument, when one makes ridiculous categorisations, when one splits hairs by appointing a different name to events and items to somehow appear as if one has made a point?

Am I the one who keeps on pretending that I am some doctor of ancient history by pasting random copy and paste jobs with one line accompanying them?

Am I the one hiding behind experts?

Am I the one who accepted that I don't know what MtDna is and then pasted a random piece from a genetic study in order to pretend as If I had a point?

Am I the one who started a brand new thread because I made a complete mess of the old one?

Am I the one who rejected a joint study done by about a dozen universities because I couldn't explain it and it refuted my position?

Am I the one who keeps on calling everyone else a Google warrior when half of my posts are reworded articles from revisionary India nationalists?

If anyone has been playing to the galleries my friends it is you, and if you want you can start another thread.

This latest sissy fit is again an indication of your depleted source of answers.

I have already had my victories in topics that you stated with utmost convictions and are now too embarrassed to even talk about. I had my victories ..................

These victories you speak off was me trying to get to a conclusion because you were unwilling to budge. I accepted your renaming the armies to mobs, I left Raam as a non aryan god, I even left the genetic studies because you were struggling against them in order to reach an agreement.

But even after we agreed on a conclusion you felt self conscious as it appeared that you have given up on your stance and decided to start the whole argument once again.

You don’t even know what your Islamic view is, you rely on me to define it for you and yet feel duty bound to defend it.

If I remember correctly I stated my opinion which was a precurser to the whole debate and you baptised it as the islamist point of view. You may have noticed that I have been typing ISLAMISTS in quotation marks.

It is not as If all of us tache-less Beardies got together and created our own version of history (unlike the Indian hindu nationalists).

Let me ask you if you want a serious discussion at all or are you just interested in playing to the galleries. Choice is yours.

As far as I am concerned you have already accepted the "islamist" point of view. If you have any other points which you feel will add to the debate and allow you to backtrack, please bring them forward.

 

[moumotta]

Playing to the galleries as in when one starts avoiding points which refute their argument,

Really, then you have been playing to the galleries even before I realised it. The way you move away when it becomes too embarrassing for you and then try and sneak already defeated points some posts later in the hope that discussion might evolve differently next time.

when one makes ridiculous categorisations, ?when one splits hairs by appointing a different name to events and items to somehow appear as if one has made a point?
Am I the one who keeps on pretending that I am some doctor of ancient history by pasting random copy and paste jobs with one line accompanying them?
Am I the one hiding behind experts? ?

You just confirm my point on your lack of rudimentary understanding.

Any detailed analysis is splitting hair.

You lack the depth to understand the relevance of information. I have to show you the context.

Quoting and expert is hiding behind names. Again your discomfort is visible. You are only comfortable quoting masala sources.

Am I the one who accepted that I don't know what MtDna is and then pasted a random piece from a genetic study in order to pretend as If I had a point?

Again you take pride in your lack of attention span and inability to see relevance. If it hasn’t dawned on you yet the study I provided is the only full study we have on table. You yourself have started quoting for it and yet it proves to you that I don’t understand genetics and you are an expert on it.

Am I the one who started a brand new thread because I made a complete mess of the old one?

You know why the new thread was created. So that we can avoid the acrimony that gets created by your taking bows during the discussion, playing to galleries- anyone. It hasn’t achieved the purpose because you again start squirming when it becomes too hot. You are already in a tangle with your all male army travelling from north west to Andhra.

These victories you speak off was me trying to get to a conclusion because you were unwilling to budge. I accepted your renaming the armies to mobs, I left Raam as a non aryan god, I even left the genetic studies because you were struggling against them in order to reach an agreement.
But even after we agreed on a conclusion you felt self conscious as it appeared that you have given up on your stance and decided to start the whole argument once again.

You also accepted that the mythological war between Rama and Ravana has no relevance to any history.

You also accepted that Ravana was not a god.

I then asked you if you were still holding on to your all male army theory. That made you squirm because you thought you had wriggled out of it.

Here is the deal. Accept you have moved away from all male army invasion or prove it- with historical evidences I mentioned in my first post- including genetics, a field that you have mastery in.

 

[Wazeeri]

Really, then you have been playing to the galleries even before I realised it. The way you move away when it becomes too embarrassing for you and then try and sneak already defeated points some posts later in the hope that discussion might evolve differently next time.

I am sorry Moumotta but there was only one person who was embarrassed enough to start a new thread in an attempt to hide the old one.

Quoting and expert is hiding behind names. Again your discomfort is visible. You are only comfortable quoting masala sources.

Quoting a random article without explaining your point is hiding behind an expert.

It would have been fair enough if the articles and papers you quoted were of any relevance but all you have done is post random paragraphs without understanding or even reading them yourselves.

May I ask you the relevance of the genetic study you quoted in the Butcher thread and said here is your answer?

That was the most embarrassing thing I have witness in this argument so far.

Here's the said post reproduced

Here is the genetic evidence tackled. Enjoy.

Quote:
For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes

Quote:
Analysis of mtDNA Suggests a Proto-Asian Origin
of Indians

MtDNA HVR1 genetic distances between caste populations and Africans, Asians, and Europeans are significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal that, regardless of rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans (Table 1). The genetic distances from major continental populations (e.g., Europeans) differ among the three caste groups, and the comparison reveals an intriguing pattern. As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste- European distance. These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size (n = 10) of each of these castes. Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank. Conventional estimates of the standard errors of genetic distances assume that polymorphic sites are independent of each other, that is, unlinked. Because mtDNA polymorphisms are in complete linkage

You clearly don't even understand what you have produced yet you quoted it.

If it hasn’t dawned on you yet the study I provided is the only full study we have on table. You yourself have started quoting for it and yet it proves to you that I don’t understand genetics and you are an expert on it.

I have been quoting the study from the last thread. Unlike you I am not rejecting any studies done by nearly a dozen universities.

Here is the deal. Accept you have moved away from all male army invasion or prove it- with historical evidences I mentioned in my first post- including genetics, a field that you have mastery in.

Once again tackling only the issues which you could put into a spin. I moved away from this point because you were struggling with it and it was no longer relevant as the argument had ended with you accepting that the aryans used violence to impose their beliefs.

The Genetics study prove that an all male army (which you thought you could win points on by calling a mob) set up the caste system in the south.

I also provided the conclusion from one of the scientists who carried out the study which you quoted. However you feel that you understand their results better then them.

It's a shame that this thread is now on it's second page yet you are yet to acknowledge the conclusion of L.ornde.

At the end of all this I will repeat what we have agreed upon

Aryans used Violence
Aryans imposed the caste system onto the local hosts
The biggest branch of hinduism was brought to India violently

That is the end of the debate unless you wish to backtrack on this.

If you feel that we need to discuss the genetics studies then fine, we will start that debate as long as you agree with the above three lines.

So if we agree with what I have highlighted above, we can now move onto the sub argument re: the genetics studies.

 

[TAK]

Words like bhratra in Sanskrit, biradar in Farsi and brother in English are so similar that their speakers must have been in contact in ancient times. Did they originate from same group of men or did they learn it by means such as trade contacts.

paani - aab - water

 

[moumotta]

paani - aab - water

Paani has sanskrit roots but not sure if it is used in other indo-european langages. For aab and water check below.

Aab- is linked with Ap
Ap (áp-) is the Vedic Sanskrit term for "water", in Classical Sanskrit occurring only in the plural, āpas (sometimes re-analysed as a thematic singular, āpa-), whence Hindi āp. The term is from PIE (Proto-Indo-European) hxap "water". The Indo-Iranian word survives also, as the Persian word for water, Aab, .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap_(water)

Water-
WORD HISTORY Water is wet, even etymologically. The Indo-European root of water is *wed–, “wet.” This root could appear in several guises—with the vowel e, as here, or as *wod–, or with no vowel between the w and d, yielding *ud–. All three forms of the root appear in English either in native or in borrowed words. From a form with a long e, *wēd–, which by Grimm's Law became *wēt– in Germanic, we have Old English wǣt, “wet,” which became modern English wet. The form *wod–, in a suffixed form *wod-ōr, became *watar in Germanic and eventually water in modern English. From the form *ud– the Greeks got their word for water, hud-ōr, the source of our prefix hydro– and related words like hydrant. The suffixes *–rā and *–ros added to the form *ud– yielded the Greek word hudrā, “water snake” (borrowed into English as hydra), and the Germanic word *otraz, the source of our word otter, the water animal.
http://www.answers.com/topic/water

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/phonetics/word4.html

 

[moumotta]

I will not waste any more time on your shadow boxing. Let me just point out that the genetic study dump included points that rebutted no European DNA among females, that caste differences were noticed among females as well and also included telling comments on limitations due to the small size of sample. If you couldn’t pick them up then too bad.

For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes

Analysis of mtDNA Suggests a Proto-Asian Origin
of Indians

MtDNA HVR1 genetic distances between caste populations and Africans, Asians, and Europeans are significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal that, regardless of rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans (Table 1). The genetic distances from major continental populations (e.g., Europeans) differ among the three caste groups, and the comparison reveals an intriguing pattern. As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste- European distance. These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size (n = 10) of each of these castes. Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank. Conventional estimates of the standard errors of genetic distances assume that polymorphic sites are independent of each other, that is, unlinked. Because mtDNA polymorphisms are in complete linkage

Aryans used Violence
Aryans imposed the caste system onto the local hosts

I will repeat my earlier comments.

I am not expecting us to entirely agree on the relative degrees of violence Vs socio-economic assimilation. So long as we agree that there were both aspects to varying degrees that is fine.

The biggest branch of hinduism was brought to India violently

We have talked about it and my reply remains as before, quoted below for reference. Only thing I will add is to ask you make sure you stand by the authenticity of your reference. Your link also mentions Ahmadiyya as the third biggest sect of Islam.

580 million Vishnavites, worshipping Vishnu, Raam, Rudhra and Brahma.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Hinduism

Relevance to the debate = Small mobs became the majority ==> Aryans enforced their beliefs onto the inhabitants.

Your exclusivity argument has been answered, see discussion on trimurti on both threads.

Haven’t we done this before. When I reminded you that these classifications are rather meaningless as most Hindus will worship both Vishnu and Shiva, you replied that we should ignore what ordinary people do and listen to scholars. Now you want to go back to using population figures of ordinary folks.

You should have also been aware at this stage in our discussion (if you have cared to read another of my ‘random history dump’ ) that the present size of Hindu population and its Vedic influence is largely a result of Shankaracharya’s revival in late first millennium AD. It is a poor indicator of the beliefs of early Hindus over two thousand years ago.

Let’s get on with the discussion with some semblance of professionalism.

 

[Wazeeri]

However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes

That is what annoys me Moumotta you post something and don't bother reading the reply.

As I told you earlier you have misunderstood the above quote. 20-30% of Indian MtDNA halotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups. That doesn't mean that 20-30% of Indians have these haplotypes, it is just the percentage of the range of different types of DNA.

For example we have the following population
Murali, Warne, Mcgrath, Razzaq, Pollock, Asif, Munaf.
50% of the bowling styles were spin (as there are only two types of bowling styles but only 2/7 of the population was spinners).

As for the caste based differences I provided the answer a few posts ago. Right after the table you re-produced, the paper says that the distances are so large that their relativity to each other provides us with nothing.

Aryanism Vs Vishnavism

You keep on repeating that most hindus would worship all, fine let's accept that (even though most vishnavite schools hold shiva as inferior to Vishnu, but shivites don't hold a similar opinion towards vishnu).

Did the shivites worship or even accept Vishnu, Rudra...etc as gods before the arrival of the aryans? Did the majority worship gods based in Vedic literature before their arrival?

Does the majority worship gods based in vedic literature now?

 

[Idris Gogen]

Let moumotta and wazeeri argue and debate fiercely and us on the side line starts voting.
I think so far Moumotta is winning. What do you think???

 

[TAK]

chaand - metaab (mah) - moon

 

[moumotta]

Aryanism Vs Vishnavism

You keep on repeating that most hindus would worship all, fine let's accept that (even though most vishnavite schools hold shiva as inferior to Vishnu, but shivites don't hold a similar opinion towards vishnu).

Did the shivites worship or even accept Vishnu, Rudra...etc as gods before the arrival of the aryans? Did the majority worship gods based in Vedic literature before their arrival?

Does the majority worship gods based in vedic literature now?

I have never argued that Hinduism is 100% pre aryan. It arose from the synthesis of various cults and beliefs.

What you have to realise is that while Siva is a non-aryan god he is not hundred % non-aryan. He has shades of Rudra in him. Similarly the Vishnu that is worshipped by Hindus is not 100% Aryan. You can see it in how his personality and traits have changed from the Vishnu that was one of Aryan Adityas.

When Huien Tsang arrived in India in 642AD he noticed that Shiva cult was dominating among Hindus. Vaishnav cult was much weaker. In addition both cults were facing serious challenges from Buddhism and Jainism.

Vaishnavites tried to bring Buddhists on side by declaring Buddha the tenth incarnation of Vishnu. Later from 12th to 16th century the Bhakti cult swept India. Some very talented poet saints- Chaitanya,Tulsidas, Surdas, Meera, Narsi etc- composed and sang devotional songs of Rama and Krishna. These gods with their human character were more in sync with poetic imagination than a remote non-personal Shiva. The poet saints turned Rama and Krishna in to folk heroes. Their songs became the folk songs of India.

The Vaishnav figures you quote are pre-dominantly Rama, Krishna worshippers and represent this cahnge in popularity of cults.

To summarise the point is that the popularity of cults today gives us no idea of the relative influences of Aryan and non-aryan religions many centuries ago. If anything there are reasons to believe that similar to Buddhism, Jainsism and many other cults of the time classical hinduism also rose as a challenge to vedic brahmanism.

I will try and summarise my views and questions on the genetic study in a separate post as soon as I can. Bear with me please.

 

[moumotta]

chaand - metaab (mah) – moon

Chand or Chandra is clearly the odd one out. Let me thorw in another hindi term here.

Maas.in common usage means month however it originates form moon (month, lunar month, a full circle of moon). We can see remnants of old meaning in Amavas (new moon) and Puranmasi (full moon).

Amavas -> a + maas -> No moon
Puranmasi -> purna + maas -> full moon.


We have seen earlier that S in Indian becomes H in old Persian.

Maas – mah - mahtab – moon


Tak, stop testing me, you are one step away from exposing my hoax

 

[moumotta]

Wazeeri,

Coming back to the genetic evidence

1. From your earlier post-

As I told you earlier you have misunderstood the above quote. 20-30% of Indian MtDNA halotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups. That doesn't mean that 20-30% of Indians have these haplotypes, it is just the percentage of the range of different types of DNA.

For example we have the following population
Murali, Warne, Mcgrath, Razzaq, Pollock, Asif, Munaf.
50% of the bowling styles were spin (as there are only two types of bowling styles but only 2/7 of the population was spinners).

How do you then interpret the following

Collectively, the mtDNA haplotype evidence indicate that contemporary Indian mtDNA evolved largely from proto-Asian ancestors with Western Eurasian admixture accounting for 20%–30% of mtDNA haplotypes.​

2. This is the evidence for all male Kshatriya/ warrior army.

As might be expected if West Eurasian males appropriated the highest positions in the caste system, the upper caste group exhibits a lower genetic distance to Europeans than the middle or lower castes. This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya (an upper caste), whose members served as warriors, are closer to Europeans than any other caste

The paper then quietly, almost innocently reveals that this observation is based on a sample size of 10 kshatriyas.

These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size ( n = 10) of each of these castes.​

How convincing does it sound to conclude an all male warrior army based on a sample size of ten.

Further the whole study is based on a total sample of 265 (including all castes). I know that academics can do what ever they like with their grants and it is rude to question them but if it were not a university team, say it was a commercial exercise, how would they react to some one reaching conclusions on a population of 1 billion based on a sample size of 265.

3. This was your reply to my suggestion on upward mobility of females.

Your upward movement of the lower caste females theory suggests that atleast 5% of the aryan women were killed off (10% if you take the fact that natural ratio is 100 : 106). So every 20th or 10th aryan female was killed off.natural ratio is 100 : 106). So every 20th or 10th aryan female was killed off.

However the geneticists conducting the studies tend to agree with me

BAMSHAD

Furthermore, the frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes in the founding middle and upper castes may be underestimated because of the upward social mobility of women from lower castes (Bamshad et al. 1998). These women were presumably more likely to introduce proto-Asian mtDNA haplotypes into the middle and upper castes.​

JORDE

By studying both sets of genetic markers, the research team found clear evidence echoing what is still seen socially, that women can be upwardly mobile, in terms of caste, if they marry higher-caste men. In contrast, men generally do not move higher, because women rarely marry men from lower castes, the researchers said.


So the genetic results are "consistent with historical accounts that women sometimes marry into higher caste, resulting in female gene flow between adjacent castes. In contrast, males seldom change castes, so Y chromosome" variation occurs only as a result of natural mutations, Jorde said.​

Clearly upward mobility of females is an internationally observed phenomenon despite your view that it results in culling of females. I come back to my point that for upper class hindus it should be more significant because of

-preference for male child and
-ban on widow marriages​

4. What is the science behind dating the arrival of european genes to 4000 years ago. Was it based on some genetic code or is it based on their understanding of history. If it on their understanding of history then all the tools of studying history become relevant. They all become part of the game rather than incidental to it.

The report starts with the following telling comments:

The origins and affinities of the 1 billion people living on the subcontinent of India have long been contested. This is owing, in part, to the many different waves of immigrants that have influenced the genetic structure of India. In the most recent of these waves, Indo-European-speaking people from West Eurasia entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the subcontinent.​

The team might be good geneticists but clearly their knowledge of history is rather limited. Every one knows that Aryans were not the last wave of migration. Nor were they the first. How then does one ascertain that the study is showing changes brought about by Aryan genes- not the migrations before or after them.

 

[Wazeeri]

Moumotta

I think we need to clear up the argument before we start sparring again because points are not being answered.

We had a discussion over how a lot of hinduism was brought to India in the same way as Hindu nationalist claim islam and christianity was brought to India.

We have agreed that this was the case and there was violence involved certainly in the vedic contribution to hinduism. We have agreed to disagree on the extent of the violence.

Now there are two sub-arguments going on, one regarding the prevalence of vishvanism and the other the genetic study.

The former argument is now no longer required as we have agreed that there was violence in the propogation of vedic ideas, we have agreed that there were compromises and mixing of ideas in our discussion of trimurti and smartism....etc.

We are not going to agree on the contribution of violence to the above. But I would like to make one final point on why I feel violence was such a big factor in the following posts

 

[Wazeeri]

I have never argued that Hinduism is 100% pre aryan. It arose from the synthesis of various cults and beliefs.

What you have to realise is that while Siva is a non-aryan god he is not hundred % non-aryan. He has shades of Rudra in him. Similarly the Vishnu that is worshipped by Hindus is not 100% Aryan. You can see it in how his personality and traits have changed from the Vishnu that was one of Aryan Adityas.

Yes Ram and Krishna are the main deities/gods being worshipped by the majority of hindus, but both these gods are incarnations of Vishnu who is an Aryan/Vedic god.

Vishnu may have been a lower god but that doesn't mean he is not an Aryan god. He later gained prominence over Indra and Mithra....etc for whatever reason but the fact remains that Vishnu was an aryan god.

Vishnu and Shiva are later on found in stories in direct conflict of each other. There are mentions of indirect wars between the two. Both the sides are seen to be trying to show their god as superior. This suggests that there must have been some sort resistance to accepting each others gods as supreme.

You have quoted Huen Tsang as saying that shivaites were in the majority and now we now that Vishvanites are now in the majority.

I am not denying the mixing of ideas but we have to give some thought to the fact that an alien religion has contributed the most to hinduism. All sets of religions collectively known as hinduism are fairly similar in ideology and concepts, so it was not as if the vedic teachings were intellectually superior or more appealing in any other way to drive people towards it or it's off shoots.

The vedic religion installed the caste system, the caste system placed the followers of vedism at the top of the hierarchy. The higher caste is known to block the lower castes from reading and writing, violence is used against the lower caste to this day to keep them within the hierarchy.

A system and environment such as this which is built on violence, fear and oppression is bound to promote the religion of the stronger group as we have seen.

 

[Wazeeri]

Collectively, the mtDNA haplotype evidence indicate that contemporary Indian mtDNA evolved largely from proto-Asian ancestors with Western Eurasian admixture accounting for 20%–30% of mtDNA haplotypes.

As I explained to you earlier 20-30% MtDNA haplotypes means that out of all the haplotypes found, 20-30% of them were West Eurasian. That doesn't mean that 20-30% of the people have west european ancestory.

The above paragraph is stating that the MtDNA found is mainly what they call proto-Asian with European contributions.

Please see my bowler analogy to understand what the 20-30% haplotype comment represents.

The paper then quietly, almost innocently reveals that this observation is based on a sample size of 10 kshatriyas.

There were many castes included, 10 people from one caste is good enough to witness a pattern in all of the 20 odd castes tested. Yes it is possible that one or two caste may have been unlucky enough to have a sample which is misrepresentative of the whole population but what are the odds of that happening across the board?

A sample of 230 odd people from across the board is good enough to assess a pattern despite the possibility of irregular variations in each caste.

Clearly upward mobility of females is an internationally observed phenomenon despite your view that it results in culling of females. I come back to my point that for upper class hindus it should be more significant because of

-preference for male child and
-ban on widow marriages

You are misrepresenting my comments and this type of a debate leads to the type of posts we have just been through at the top of this page.

Let's just clear the two arguments up.
I am suggesting that there were very few women from the upper castes at the start.
You are suggesting that women and men came together.

May I also remind you that you provided statistics(assumed) of 5% of women from lower castes replacing the upper caste women.

I suggested that as women are expected to outnumber men the what happens to the women who are losing out to the lower caste women?

You said that this was due to polygamy, we know that ploygamy was looked down upon hence not prevalent and therefore insignificant to take into consideration (Even if this was the case you got your math wrong but we won't go into that right now)

You then said that there was a practice of female infanticide. On this point you are agreeing with my suggestion that there needs to be a cull to explain this phenomena (If as you state the migration started with a significant number of women)

I don't agree with that as well because even though there are mentions in the vedas of people, who are found to be doing this, it can not be assumed to be a normal occurence neither can it be assumed that this is a practice suggested by the religious literature.

People aren't evil enough to kill their daughters because of custom. Female infanticide is down to poverty and I would doubt the upper caste was the poorer of the two castes.

My position is that ofcourse these women are upwardly mobile. They made up the first of the females in the upper castes as the men who made up the upper caste did not bring many women with them.

I will once again produce Lyne Jorde's statement, you haven't commented on that still.

Today's genetic patterns, the researchers explained, vividly reflect a historic event, or events, that occurred 3,000 or 4,000 years ago. The gene patterns "are consistent with a historical scenario in which invading Caucasoids, primarily males,established the caste system and occupied the highest positions, placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in lower caste positions."

"there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago", said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah. Along with Jorde, the research team included Michael Bamshad, W.S. Watkins and M.E. Dixon from Utah and B.B. Rao, B.V.R. Prasad and J.M. Naidu, from Andhra Pradesh University.

What is the science behind dating the arrival of european genes to 4000 years ago. Was it based on some genetic code or is it based on their understanding of history.

I can't find their reasoning but from the little reading I have done on MTDna and Y-Chromosome I know that MtDna mutates roughly every 10,000 years and the Y-chromosome also has a time frame of mutation (I can't find what it is).

The theory is that the closer the match between two people the less generations have passed since they had a common ancestor. Using the differences, the time frame of mutations and maybe some Bayesian mathematics you can come to an estimate.

 

[moumotta]

Yes Ram and Krishna are the main deities/gods being worshipped by the majority of hindus, but both these gods are incarnations of Vishnu who is an Aryan/Vedic god.

Vishnu may have been a lower god but that doesn't mean he is not an Aryan god. He later gained prominence over Indra and Mithra....etc for whatever reason but the fact remains that Vishnu was an aryan god.

Vishnu and Shiva are later on found in stories in direct conflict of each other. There are mentions of indirect wars between the two. Both the sides are seen to be trying to show their god as superior. This suggests that there must have been some sort resistance to accepting each others gods as supreme.

You have quoted Huen Tsang as saying that shivaites were in the majority and now we now that Vishvanites are now in the majority.

I am not denying the mixing of ideas but we have to give some thought to the fact that an alien religion has contributed the most to hinduism. All sets of religions collectively known as hinduism are fairly similar in ideology and concepts, so it was not as if the vedic teachings were intellectually superior or more appealing in any other way to drive people towards it or it's off shoots.

The vedic religion installed the caste system, the caste system placed the followers of vedism at the top of the hierarchy. The higher caste is known to block the lower castes from reading and writing, violence is used against the lower caste to this day to keep them within the hierarchy.

A system and environment such as this which is built on violence, fear and oppression is bound to promote the religion of the stronger group as we have seen.

I don't think it is entirely correct to merely regard cultural evolution as a process of conflict between communities. There are also inner-community conflicts that you should take into account. After all Buddhism and Jainism were both propagated by kshatriyas and flourished with the support of wider kshatriya communities.

This is where it becomes an exercise in reconstruction. All we can do is come up with hypothesis and in the absence of any field work they will just remain hypothesis and possibilities.

PS: The incarnation thing, in my mind is just a clever way of bringing various local legends and beliefs within vaishnav fold. Krishna was certainly a local legend or a number of legends weaved into one story. If you go through the list of incanations you can see that most of them have tribal traits rather than vedic.

 

[moumotta]

As I explained to you earlier 20-30% MtDNA haplotypes means that out of all the haplotypes found, 20-30% of them were West Eurasian. That doesn't mean that 20-30% of the people have west european ancestory.

The above paragraph is stating that the MtDNA found is mainly what they call proto-Asian with European contributions.

Please see my bowler analogy to understand what the 20-30% haplotype comment represents.

That would suggest that it is a universally applying factor for a population. How do we then explain that it varies by community.

the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes​

There were many castes included, 10 people from one caste is good enough to witness a pattern in all of the 20 odd castes tested. Yes it is possible that one or two caste may have been unlucky enough to have a sample which is misrepresentative of the whole population but what are the odds of that happening across the board?

A sample of 230 odd people from across the board is good enough to assess a pattern despite the possibility of irregular variations in each caste.

I will have to differ on that. Such a small sample will only work with a very homogeneous population. Extrapolating the results from such a sample to the a country of India’s size and diversity is extremely unscientific.

You are misrepresenting my comments and this type of a debate leads to the type of posts we have just been through at the top of this page.

Let's just clear the two arguments up.
I am suggesting that there were very few women from the upper castes at the start.
You are suggesting that women and men came together.

May I also remind you that you provided statistics(assumed) of 5% of women from lower castes replacing the upper caste women.

I suggested that as women are expected to outnumber men the what happens to the women who are losing out to the lower caste women?

You said that this was due to polygamy, we know that ploygamy was looked down upon hence not prevalent and therefore insignificant to take into consideration (Even if this was the case you got your math wrong but we won't go into that right now)

You then said that there was a practice of female infanticide. On this point you are agreeing with my suggestion that there needs to be a cull to explain this phenomena (If as you state the migration started with a significant number of women)

I don't agree with that as well because even though there are mentions in the vedas of people, who are found to be doing this, it can not be assumed to be a normal occurence neither can it be assumed that this is a practice suggested by the religious literature.

People aren't evil enough to kill their daughters because of custom. Female infanticide is down to poverty and I would doubt the upper caste was the poorer of the two castes.

My position is that ofcourse these women are upwardly mobile. They made up the first of the females in the upper castes as the men who made up the upper caste did not bring many women with them.

OK. Let us stay clear of the acrimonious argument now. (edit: what was the math wrong thing. Just curious)

Upward mobility has been accepted by the researchers as a factor to explain reduced continuation of original upper caste female genes. How much dilution it explains can be open to debate. It is a bit far fetched to say that there was near hundred % mobility on day one.

Absence of females in the original cohort is some thing that needs to be proved by you rather than merely stated.

I will once again produce Lyne Jorde's statement, you haven't commented on that still.

Today's genetic patterns, the researchers explained, vividly reflect a historic event, or events, that occurred 3,000 or 4,000 years ago. The gene patterns "are consistent with a historical scenario in which invading Caucasoids, primarily males,established the caste system and occupied the highest positions, placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in lower caste positions.""there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago", said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah. Along with Jorde, the research team included Michael Bamshad, W.S. Watkins and M.E. Dixon from Utah and B.B. Rao, B.V.R. Prasad and J.M. Naidu, from Andhra Pradesh University.

As you know I am questioning their reasoning behind coming to that conclusion (btw even in this quote they are saying primariliy males, not all males). They do agree with the concept of upward mobility- and I am sure they are not talking of your scenario of “did not bring many women with them”- . From what I see their argument should lead to ‘more males than females’ rather than ‘primarily males’. I am not trying to play with words but don't you think their conclusion does not match their results and arguments.

What is the science behind dating the arrival of european genes to 4000 years ago. Was it based on some genetic code or is it based on their understanding of history.

I can't find their reasoning but from the little reading I have done on MTDna and Y-Chromosome I know that MtDna mutates roughly every 10,000 years and the Y-chromosome also has a time frame of mutation (I can't find what it is).

The theory is that the closer the match between two people the less generations have passed since they had a common ancestor. Using the differences, the time frame of mutations and maybe some Bayesian mathematics you can come to an estimate.

If there is a scientific reasoning then it has not been mentioned at all. There does seem to be some reliance on history based on the history quotes in the study and the history they quote is seriously flawed.



I have done some further research on their study and it appears that there are some serious doubts raised over the validity of it.

I will quote some excerpts from a Kivisild paper on the subject.

In contrast, the majority of Indian paternal lineages do not share recent ancestors with eastern Asian populations but stem from haplogroups common to (eastern) European or western Asian populations. This finding has recently been interpreted in favour of the classical Indo-Aryan invasion hypothesis. Here, we show that this interpretation is probably caused by a phylogeographically-limited view of the Indian Y-chromosome pool, amplified because of current inconsistencies in the interpretation of the temporal scale of the variability in the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY)

The Genetics of Language and Farming Spread in India Dravidian-speaking Telugus suggests strongly that the origin of the endogamous caste system should not be traced to a simple model of a putative Indo-Aryan invasion some 4700 years ago. If one wants to maintain an Aryan invasion scenario, then one must at least assume that the incoming female lineages were absorbed selectively into an already existing profound stratification. One should also keep in mind possible differences in sizes of migrant/ local populations: for example, if the entire population of the British Isles would in corpore emigrate today to India, it would, assuming random admixture, leave a genetic impact of no more than 5 per cent on average.

There are differences in caste affinities for European Y-chromosomal varieties - - in Telugus, higher castes reveal shorter distances from Europe-(Bamshad et al. 2001). This sex-specific difference may be interpreted as resulting from a predominantly male-specific recent gene flow into the upper castes, not necessarily from Europe as such, but perhaps from western and/or central Asia. More specifically, Quintana-Murci et al. (2001) suggested that NRY marker 12f2 (haplogroup 9) indicates a Neolithic spread of farmers into India that is, with a short tandem repeat (STR) diversity in the background of M9G-SRY1532A (haplogroup 3), consistent with an Indo-Aryan migration from Central Asia.Thus, both these studies suggest a substantial western malespecific gene flow to India during the Holocene.

However, several aspects of these genetic distance and haplogroup-wise comparisons should be considered with caution. First, the affinities of higher caste Telugus to European populations are not informative alone in telling from which source and when a putative migration took place. When comparing the Y-chromosomal affinities of Indian, western Asian and European populations in detail (Bamshad et al. 2001), it becomes apparent that 'higher' caste Telugus have, in contrast to 'lower' and 'middle' castes, a higher frequency (45.5 per cent) of haplogroup 3. Further typing of NRY markers in Indian populations has now revealed that a high frequency of this haplogroup is, however, characteristic not only of (eastern) European populations, but also of northwest India, where haplogroup 3 is characteristic of about half of the male population and is also frequent among western Bengalis (Table 17.2). Therefore, the Y-chromosomal origin of 'higher' caste Telugus (i.e. high frequency of this particular NRY lineage among them) is not necessarily related to migration to India from outside and least likely from Iran and/or Anatolia, where haplogroup 3 is apparently much less frequent than among most of the Indian populations investigated in this respect.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf

 

[moumotta]

Moumotta

I think we need to clear up the argument before we start sparring again because points are not being answered.

We had a discussion over how a lot of hinduism was brought to India in the same way as Hindu nationalist claim islam and christianity was brought to India.

We have agreed that this was the case and there was violence involved certainly in the vedic contribution to hinduism. We have agreed to disagree on the extent of the violence.

Now there are two sub-arguments going on, one regarding the prevalence of vishvanism and the other the genetic study.

The former argument is now no longer required as we have agreed that there was violence in the propogation of vedic ideas, we have agreed that there were compromises and mixing of ideas in our discussion of trimurti and smartism....etc.

We are not going to agree on the contribution of violence to the above. But I would like to make one final point on why I feel violence was such a big factor in the following posts

I hope it does not get messy again but when you say we have agreed there was violence involved that creates an impression that I had earlier some how said it did not. For the record, this is where I got involved in the Butcher thread- post #27 in that thread.

Originally Posted by Wazeeri
The muslim conversions however were nothing compared to the forced conversions by the Brahmins when they took over India.

People who worshipped Ravan suddenly started worshipping Raam, Whole of India unanimously accepted the race taking over them as spiritually superior and we have directions in the brahmin hindu text of maintaining the lower caste illiterate and under control.

The debate has been about military invasion Vs an uncoordinated movement of people that lacked a central authority- the assumption being that the former would prove the point of Aryans being worse than muslims.

That is what was underlying all the posts about Rama- Ravana, all male Vs male-female mix etc.

 

[Wazeeri]

PS: The incarnation thing, in my mind is just a clever way of bringing various local legends and beliefs within vaishnav fold. Krishna was certainly a local legend or a number of legends weaved into one story. If you go through the list of incanations you can see that most of them have tribal traits rather than vedic.

The fact that they chose Vishnu instead of Shiva is a matter of great interest.

That would suggest that it is a universally applying factor for a population. How do we then explain that it varies by community.

the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes

I don't understand the question.

I will have to differ on that. Such a small sample will only work with a very homogeneous population. Extrapolating the results from such a sample to the a country of India’s size and diversity is extremely unscientific.

Other than the Human genome project and studies on some Jewish tribes I don't know of a bigger sample. 230 odd people are good enough for most surveys and studies and I would assume that the geneticists themselves would have a good idea of sampling techniques and requirements, and that they would have considered the risk of error.

We are least qualified to question a sample deemed adequate by over 7 universities.

PS: the extrapolation is not on India but Andhra Pradesh.

Math error explained in a seperate post

It is a bit far fetched to say that there was near hundred % mobility on day one.

Absence of females in the original cohort is some thing that needs to be proved by you rather than merely stated.

It is not far fetched if you are proposing that an army took over the region. This is what happens after most invasions, see the Pathans Vs Maratha wars, Alexander's army and the northern Pakistani population....etc.

Absence of females is the default conclusion, the existence of females is what needs to proven and that is what you have presented with the theory of polygamy and murder of children.

As you know I am questioning their reasoning behind coming to that conclusion (btw even in this quote they are saying primariliy males, not all males).

I have interchanged between all male and mainly male throughout the debate mostly down to typing quickly and thinking slowly but they are not much different. It is very probable that post an invasion further migration was witnessed to consolidate the gains. These further migrations may have brought females but their numbers appear to be very small.

I will quote some excerpts from a Kivisild paper on the subject.

Kivisilid was a commentator of the 7 mothers of Europes study. He has personal losses involved with the idea of aryan movement into India as he has written books claiming that it was infact Indians who invaded Europe. This is called the out of India theory which is supported by many anti-Imperialist Hindu nationalists as well as Kivislind who want to propose the idea of all the pure Vedas having origins in Bharat.

The information can be interpreted in this way because essentially the genetic evidence only points to when the two populations parted ways. So genes can tell you relationships but they don't provide the directions of human movement. The fact that the West Eurasian haplotypes are in the majority in India suggests that they were the ones who migrated to India rather than the other way around. But some historians want to suggest otherwise.

I hope it does not get messy again but when you say we have agreed there was violence involved that creates an impression that I had earlier some how said it did not. For the record, this is where I got involved in the Butcher thread- post #27 in that thread.

You quoted my whole post which gave me the impression that you were arguing against the suggestion that hinduism had violent roots.

The debate has been about military invasion Vs an uncoordinated movement of people that lacked a central authority- the assumption being that the former would prove the point of Aryans being worse than muslims.

I wouldn't make that assumption because military or non military there is forced conversion.

Maths error to follow.

 

[Wazeeri]

(edit: what was the math wrong thing. Just curious)

Maths Error

Quote:
Let us take a very conservative assumption that in each generation one in twenty females have moved from a lower caste to an upper caste. Assuming we start with an all-European female population- as a most unfavourable scenario. In the next generation the European gene is 95%, the ratio drops to 90% in second generation and 86% in the third. Repeat this over a 100 generations and the European gene ratio is down to 0.6%.

Moot point but

If polygamy is the answer then 100 women become 105 women

If abortion is the answer then the dillution needs to take into account the killing of babies from the lower caste women brought in, in previous periods.

 

[moumotta]

The fact that they chose Vishnu instead of Shiva is a matter of great interest.

It could be that the Shaivites were in strong position centuries before Huien Tsang noticed it in the seventh century and had no reason to look for out of the box solutions. Or one sect came up with a brilliant marketing idea. One can theorise as one likes. I don’t think it will lead to anything.

I don't understand the question.

This is your analogy.

50% of the bowling styles were spin (as there are only two types of bowling styles but only 2/7 of the population was spinners)

If it only shows the proportion of total possibilities then why do the possibilities vary with caste?

However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes.​

Other than the Human genome project and studies on some Jewish tribes I don't know of a bigger sample. 230 odd people are good enough for most surveys and studies and I would assume that the geneticists themselves would have a good idea of sampling techniques and requirements, and that they would have considered the risk of error.

I have a strong feeling that the sample size limitation is driven by funding constraints rather than by choice.

Here is what a geneticist Cavalli-Sforza has to say “the low numbers tested in genetics, the poor representiveness of the samples, the uncertainties of the methods available and the rush to publish make the majority of current statements rather unsatisfactory”

We are least qualified to question a sample deemed adequate by over 7 universities.

I don’t see why. In addition to the sample sizes there are other problems as well.

They make no comment on the fact that a caste is not a homogeneous grouping of people. In India there is a varna and within each varna there are many separate endogamous jatis. Varna or catse is the four level classification that Westerners are familiar with. The social affinity group is at jati level with each jati having its separate history and genetic imprint. Unless a stratified sampling takes that into account they run the risk of obtaining results that only apply to jatis included in the sample.

The researchers may be expert geneticists. They may have good advice on general sampling techniques but it begs the question whether they had good advice on history and sociology.

From what we have seen they fail on history part and there are no comments on sociology even to suggest they took it into account in their sampling.

PS: the extrapolation is not on India but Andhra Pradesh.

And yet all the history they quote is from Aryan arrival in the north west. You have also been using it to suggest Aryans invaded India (not Andhra) with an all (or majority) male army.

Are you now coming to a view that the study only suggests a male dominated migration in Andhra and says nothing about the rest of India.

The heterogeneity with in castes would mean that the applicability of the study should be restricted further to the sub-castes (jati) represented in the sample.

Incidentally Andhra also has a population of 80 million, so the small sample size still remains an issue.

It is not far fetched if you are proposing that an army took over the region. This is what happens after most invasions, see the Pathans Vs Maratha wars, Alexander's army and the northern Pakistani population....etc.Absence of females is the default conclusion, the existence of females is what needs to proven and that is what you have presented with the theory of polygamy and murder of children. I have interchanged between all male and mainly male throughout the debate mostly down to typing quickly and thinking slowly but they are not much different. It is very probable that post an invasion further migration was witnessed to consolidate the gains. These further migrations may have brought females but their numbers appear to be very small.

Let us park it for the moment. It may become irrelevant following the questions about the quality of the study and the scope of its application.

Kivisilid was a commentator of the 7 mothers of Europes study. He has personal losses involved with the idea of aryan movement into India as he has written books claiming that it was infact Indians who invaded Europe. This is called the out of India theory which is supported by many anti-Imperialist Hindu nationalists as well as Kivislind who want to propose the idea of all the pure Vedas having origins in Bharat.The information can be interpreted in this way because essentially the genetic evidence only points to when the two populations parted ways. So genes can tell you relationships but they don't provide the directions of human movement. The fact that the West Eurasian haplotypes are in the majority in India suggests that they were the ones who migrated to India rather than the other way around. But some historians want to suggest otherwise.

Interest groups will latch on to what ever research can be twisted to their agenda. That is not researcher’s fault.

Let us just focus on his science unless you can show that Kivisild him self holds an ideological bias (I mean ideological bias, not a bias to defend his own research for every scientist does that. We have seen how Jorde et al twisted and misrepresented history to support their research).

Bamshad and company took similarities with east Europe to mean an Aryan affinity. Comparisons in table 17.2 with Iran and Anatolia/Caucasus (which according to history should be more representative of Aryan populations) clearly show that assumption is invalid.

You quoted my whole post which gave me the impression that you were arguing against the suggestion that hinduism had violent roots.

The portions I quoted were not about Aryan violence. They were about Aryan violence being worse than muslim violence and about Ravana worship.

Any way, now that it has been cleared let this not be quoted as the reason for the long debate.

I wouldn't make that assumption because military or non military there is forced conversion.

There is no evidence that Aryans were actively proselytizing.

If you define ‘forced’ to include economic and social factors and compulsions then that will also change our view of the extent of forced conversions to Islam and Christianity.

In any case as we have seen there was a lot more give and take and assimilation in this time than under Islamic rule. As an example this phase included acceptance of each other’s gods, which is totally missing in Islamic times.

If polygamy is the answer then 100 women become 105 womenIf abortion is the answer then the dillution needs to take into account the killing of babies from the lower caste women brought in, in previous periods.Maths error to follow.

If it is polygamy all through then you are right it should be 100/105 or 95.2% instead of 95%. The impact is non- material, it requiring 105 generations instead of 100 to get the dilution down to below 6%.

The second point on abortion is not correct. I am working with proportions rather than actual number of females. What ever mortality rates apply to the whole group of females (overall or age specific, as the case may be) applies to each segment of it.

 

[Wazeeri]

It could be that the Shaivites were in strong position centuries before Huien Tsang noticed it in the seventh century and had no reason to look for out of the box solutions. Or one sect came up with a brilliant marketing idea. One can theorise as one likes. I don’t think it will lead to anything.

I think the marketing point is key but how much part do you think is reasonable to conclude violence played in the conversion?

If it only shows the proportion of total possibilities then why do the possibilities vary with caste?

However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes.

1) As I said in my last post, it is possible that an insignificant number of females accompanied the migrants to consolidate their holdings.

2) You missed the conclusion to the evaluation of MtDna data which I posted at post#50

the mtDNA genome can
be treated as a single locus with multiple haplotypes.
However, even if this assumption is made, mtDNA distances
do not differ significantly from one another
even at the level of the three major continental populations
(Nei and Livshits 1989), the standard errors being
greater than the genetic distances. Considering
that the distances between castes and continental
populations are less than those between different continental
populations, the estimated mtDNA genetic
distances between upper castes and Europeans versus
lower castes and Europeans would not be significantly
different from each other.

Up here the paper agrees that the differences are too large to provide us with any conclusions and that is why the Y-Chromosome makes up most of their study.

I am about to present another analogy to explain this (not a very good one but it should help in understanding why great differences don't provide any evidence).

Let's say we had a similar theory based on people's surnames.
Assume
Everyone's surname stays the same, no one adopts a new surname EVER
One letter of the surname is changed every 100 years or one letter is added to the surname every 100 years

Smith in a 100 years becomes Smithe or Gmith
Using the above data it is safe to deduce that Smithe/Gmith and Smith had a common ancestor about 100 years ago.

Smith Vs ABCDE
The difference is really big and it is possible that 500 years ago ABCDE and Smith had a common ancestor. It is equally possible that ABCDE had a common ancestor with Allen 500 years ago.

The information obtained does not provide any conclusive evidence but it does show that whatever contribution made by the Eurasians to the MtDna it was not significant.

I have a strong feeling that the sample size limitation is driven by funding constraints rather than by choice.

Unfortunately that is the evidence we have, No evidence is going to be conclusive, especially pre-historic. If we find a distinct pattern as we have done in the Y-Chromosome study then I believe that it is safe to accept it.

In India there is a varna and within each varna there are many separate endogamous jatis.......

From what we have seen they fail on history part and there are no comments on sociology even to suggest they took it into account in their sampling.

With 7 well educated Indians involved in a study I am sure atleast one of them had some idea of castes and sub castes. I don't think it is safe to make assumptions about the researchers without knowing who they are.

And yet all the history they quote is from Aryan arrival in the north west. You have also been using it to suggest Aryans invaded India (not Andhra) with an all (or majority) male army.

Are you now coming to a view that the study only suggests a male dominated migration in Andhra and says nothing about the rest of India.

The study is Andhra specific so obviously you can deduce only Andhra related conclusions from it. However it does give an indication of the reach of any migration.

Ps: I don't think I have claimed that the Aryans took over all of India, There are only two or three empires which managed that.

Let us just focus on his science unless you can show that Kivisild him self holds an ideological bias (I mean ideological bias, not a bias to defend his own research for every scientist does that. We have seen how Jorde et al twisted and misrepresented history to support their research).

His bias is towards the out of India theory and that is the reason he felt he needed to rebut the study. The fact that someone like him needed to rebut the theory adds further respect to the siginificance of this research.

You have been using the assumption that Aryans came in from the NW to counter the Bamshad conclusion. Klivisid goes against that theory so you should have reservations against his position as well.

There is no evidence that Aryans were actively proselytizing.

No the Aryans were reluctant for anyone else to worship their gods. Their modus operandi was to enforce the opinion that their Gods were better and as they worshipped better gods they were better.

There are instructions in the vedas on what to do when you find people from the lower caste reading or listening to the vedas. It subscribes driving a metal rod through the ears or the eyes. (I can't provide reference this is from memory).

Abrahamic conversion was far better which made the converts equal.

If you define ‘forced’ to include economic and social factors and compulsions then that will also change our view of the extent of forced conversions to Islam and Christianity.

In any case as we have seen there was a lot more give and take and assimilation in this time than under Islamic rule. As an example this phase included acceptance of each other’s gods, which is totally missing in Islamic times.

That's because the islamic rule and Christian rule was complete. It did not go through periods of rule from the Shiva worshippers or other hindus when they were compelled to accept their ideas.

Now that most muslims are under the rule of secularists you can see them accepting secular ideals like freedom of speech...etc.

Like I said earlier the acceptance of trimurti and Smartha is more to do with different people being in power at different times.

Maths

Moot point so I will not go into it.



Can we please clarify as well that you are happy that the conclusion I reached from the study is correct.

You just don't agree with it because you are unhappy with the sampling technique and you feel the skills and knowledge in the researchers was too specialised yet limited.

 

[moumotta]

I think the marketing point is key but how much part do you think is reasonable to conclude violence played in the conversion?

This is where historians can safely hand over to story writers.

1) As I said in my last post, it is possible that an insignificant number of females accompanied the migrants to consolidate their holdings.

2) You missed the conclusion to the evaluation of MtDna data which I posted at post#50

1 is an assumption based on a study which is being disputed.
I understand the conclusion (2) due to a large standard error, which again is a function of small sample size.

Can you confirm if your example refers to dating of DNA change or to the materiality of female DNA variance.

Unfortunately that is the evidence we have, No evidence is going to be conclusive, especially pre-historic. If we find a distinct pattern as we have done in the Y-Chromosome study then I believe that it is safe to accept it.

See summary at the bottom.

With 7 well educated Indians involved in a study I am sure atleast one of them had some idea of castes and sub castes. I don't think it is safe to make assumptions about the researchers without knowing who they are.

The well educated Indians failed to point out the historic inconsistencies. I don’t want to diss them without knowing who messed up where but when it comes to giving credit I can only go by what is mentioned in the report. However, if the study was going to highlighted the kshatriya genetic print then don’t you think it should have been examined more thoroughly.

Following is an extract from their acknowledgements. Not a flattering endorsement of their official channels of advice.

We acknowledge the contributions of an anonymous reviewer who suggested that the Kshatriya and Vysya be analyzed separately from the other upper castes.​

The study is Andhra specific so obviously you can deduce only Andhra related conclusions from it. However it does give an indication of the reach of any migration.

Yes but which migration.

Ps: I don't think I have claimed that the Aryans took over all of India, There are only two or three empires which managed that.

I was referring to Aryan armies invading India (from north-west), which is what Jorde meant when she referred to historical accounts of Aryans. Obviously there are no historical accounts of Aryans invading Andhra- it is only Jorde’s hypothesis but she supported it by quoting an event that happened thousand of miles away.

I did mention several times that you were mixing up between north-west and south so that may explain the confusion with your position. Though I did clearly ask you about the links between north-west and Andhra in case you wanted to clarify your position. Remember the question on all male army making way to Andhra. You could have clarified that the all male status you were referring to was only for the Andhra section and not to the arrival in north-west.

His bias is towards the out of India theory and that is the reason he felt he needed to rebut the study. The fact that someone like him needed to rebut the theory adds further respect to the siginificance of this research.
You have been using the assumption that Aryans came in from the NW to counter the Bamshad conclusion. Klivisid goes against that theory so you should have reservations against his position as well.

You have done enough of beating the messenger. Claerly the Bamshad study over looked a number of important points and Kivisil has picked up on them. If Bamshad has replied to this criticism then I would be keen to know his side of the story.

No the Aryans were reluctant for anyone else to worship their gods. Their modus operandi was to enforce the opinion that their Gods were better and as they worshipped better gods they were better.

There are instructions in the vedas on what to do when you find people from the lower caste reading or listening to the vedas. It subscribes driving a metal rod through the ears or the eyes. (I can't provide reference this is from memory).

Abrahamic conversion was far better which made the converts equal.

That's because the islamic rule and Christian rule was complete. It did not go through periods of rule from the Shiva worshippers or other hindus when they were compelled to accept their ideas.

Now that most muslims are under the rule of secularists you can see them accepting secular ideals like freedom of speech...etc.

Like I said earlier the acceptance of trimurti and Smartha is more to do with different people being in power at different times.

That’s a whole lot of political spin. We can go in endless circles about it without actually getting anywhere.

Our discussion is almost over. The studies have their limitations and have restricted applicability. The genetic similarity with Europeans does not extend to similarities with the people in countries that Aryans travelled through. The conclusion is pretty clear to me.

Can we please clarify as well that you are happy that the conclusion I reached from the study is correct.

You just don't agree with it because you are unhappy with the sampling technique and you feel the skills and knowledge in the researchers was too specialised yet limited.

Let me summarise it-

Too small a sample- both in the local study as well as for the overseas population and lack of clarity on sampling techniques.
Evolving science application- conflicting results from different studies
Geographically restricted study hence impossible to generalise
European similarity used as a proxy for Aryan
Erroneous historical understanding of patterns and stages of migration

 

[Wazeeri]

Can you confirm if your example refers to dating of DNA change or to the materiality of female DNA variance.

Both but it was intended for the latter.

The difference is so large that no conclusion can be derived from it or the relativity of differences.

Following is an extract from their acknowledgements. Not a flattering endorsement of their official channels of advice.

We acknowledge the contributions of an anonymous reviewer who suggested that the Kshatriya and Vysya be analyzed separately from the other upper castes.

That is more a request than advice.

Yes but which migration.

The one which brought these people to Andhra,
Dates have been estimated for distinction.

Remember the question on all male army making way to Andhra. You could have clarified that the all male status you were referring to was only for the Andhra section and not to the arrival in north-west.

Your questions were not clear and that is why I made the comment about you mixing me up with Isr and KB.

You have done enough of beating the messenger. Claerly the Bamshad study over looked a number of important points and Kivisil has picked up on them. If Bamshad has replied to this criticism then I would be keen to know his side of the story.

Have you not been beating the messenger by questioning the knowledge and expertise of a team of scientist without actually knowing them?

You haven't answered my question re: where you stand on Kivisil's Out of India theory.

That’s a whole lot of political spin. We can go in endless circles about it without actually getting anywhere.

You haven't answered my question re: how much a factor violence and the oppression of lower castes has played in the majority vishvanism has attained in India.

 

[Wazeeri]

ANOTHER SUMMARY

You asked for me to prove my claim,
I provided you a study done by nearly a dozen universities.

You tried explaining them

and now you are just questioning the expertise of the scientists behind the study.

To support it you have provided a rebuttal by someone whose version of events you don't agree with.

Please comment.

 

[moumotta]

That is more a request than advice.

It is an acknowledgement that shows that there formal advice line wasn’t even clear on how the two communities should be treated.

Your questions were not clear and that is why I made the comment about you mixing me up with Isr and KB.

It is never too late. Do we now agree that you were not talking about a male dominated invasion of north-west.

Have you not been beating the messenger by questioning the knowledge and expertise of a team of scientist without actually knowing them?

I have been questioning the quality of the study, not the person. My questions are supported by geneticists-

From the side of genetics, Cavalli-Sforza acknowledges that “the low numbers tested in genetics, the poor representiveness of the samples, the uncertainties of the methods available and the rush to publish make the majority of current statements rather unsatisfactory​

You haven't answered my question re: where you stand on Kivisil's Out of India theory.Quote: That’s a whole lot of political spin. We can go in endless circles about it without actually getting anywhere.

On the Aryans out of India theory I am on record saying that it does not agree with linguistic evidence- the very first post in this thread where I lait out my broad positioning on ancient history.

Is Kivisild proposing out of India theory (and we are talking about Aryans Out of India- not some other out of India migration) or is hindutva brigade using his research and putting a spin on it. If you can provide a link to whatever research you are talking about then I can comment on it in moredetail. Remember it is much easier to review a report than odd references here and there. We have seen it in case of Jorde references Vs Bamshad report.

Regardless, his comment and data in table 17.2 on the genetic differences between Europeans Vs Iranians & Caucasians/ Anatolians is just scientific data. There is no spin there.

You haven't answered my question re: how much a factor violence and the oppression of lower castes has played in the majority vishvanism has attained in India.

I thought that has been answered. The answer is a resounding No to any violence.

The current Vaishnav majority is a result of a hindu ‘revival’ starting from Adi Shankaracharya in 8th century AD and culminating with saint poets. Shankaracharya’s movement was one of propagating his philosophy through discourses and debates. The saint poets wouldn’t even hurt a fly- they were like the hindu version of sufis.

If you wanted to prove Aryan violence then you asked the wrong question.

ANOTHER SUMMARYYou asked for me to prove my claim,I provided you a study done by nearly a dozen universities.

A minor correction. You only provided an article based on a Jorde study. We still haven’t seen this study in itself. I then provided a Bamshad study which is what we have been discussing.

You tried explaining them
and now you are just questioning the expertise of the scientists behind the study.
To support it you have provided a rebuttal by someone whose version of events you don't agree with.
Please comment.

The rebuttal relies on more than just the Kivilsid study. I have commented on Kivilsid above.

 

[Wazeeri]

It is never too late. Do we now agree that you were not talking about a male dominated invasion of north-west.

No I have not specified areas, my argument was always re: the use of force to promote vedaism. Specific areas were brought into the debate with the study.

I don't understand where you got the idea of north west from.

I have been questioning the quality of the study, not the person. My questions are supported by geneticists-

From the side of genetics, Cavalli-Sforza acknowledges that “the low numbers tested in genetics, the poor representiveness of the samples, the uncertainties of the methods available and the rush to publish make the majority of current statements rather unsatisfactory

That's a big statement to make based on one comment isn't it?

Is Kivisild proposing out of India theory (and we are talking about Aryans Out of India- not some other out of India migration) or is hindutva brigade using his research and putting a spin on it.....

If you can provide a link to whatever research you are talking about then I can comment on it in moredetail..........

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2000PhD.pdf

6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher diversity than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive from the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

The current Vaishnav majority is a result of a hindu ‘revival’ starting from Adi Shankaracharya in 8th century AD and culminating with saint poets. Shankaracharya’s movement was one of propagating his philosophy through discourses and debates. The saint poets wouldn’t even hurt a fly- they were like the hindu version of sufis.

Come on Moumotta, that is an obvious line. The 8th Century revival you speak off is more of a loss of budhism and jainism rather than Vishvanisms win over all other religions.

Shankaracharya's views are more consistant with Smarthism then Vishvanism. He accepts the worship of Shiva as one of the 5 gods.

I am always biased when it comes to an islamic debate and I am open about it. I cast serious doubts on your impartiality with the above comment. You are not willing to even consider the widespread violence against the worshippers of Shiva in your assessment.

This is an attempt to paint a rosy picture of inter-hindu conversions.

A minor correction. You only provided an article based on a Jorde study. We still haven’t seen this study in itself. I then provided a Bamshad study which is what we have been discussing.

"there was a group of males with European affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or 4,000 years ago", said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of Utah. Along with Jorde, the research team included Michael Bamshad, W.S. Watkins and M.E. Dixon from Utah and B.B. Rao, B.V.R. Prasad and J.M. Naidu, from Andhra Pradesh University.

 

[Wazeeri]

PS: You still haven't commented on the fact that you

first tried to explain the study

and then

You started questioning the eligibility of the study.

 

[moumotta]

No I have not specified areas, my argument was always re: the use of force to promote vedaism. Specific areas were brought into the debate with the study.

Don’t you think you should now that you say the study only applies to Andhra.

I don't understand where you got the idea of north west from.

NW is the entry point for Aryans coming from Iran to India.
(edit: it is natural that all references to aryan army invasion will refer to NW unless specifically qualified.)

That's a big statement to make based on one comment isn't it?

The comments are pretty specific. Most self admissions are short and pithy, almost legalistic brevity.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publicatio...sild2000PhD.pdf

6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher diversity than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive from the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

Where does it talk about Aryans originating in India. All I see is India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them. For an Aryan out of India you will need to delete ‘Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them for that comment and make the timing between 3000 to 5000 years.

Come on Moumotta, that is an obvious line. The 8th Century revival you speak off is more of a loss of budhism and jainism rather than Vishvanisms win over all other religions.

Shankaracharya's views are more consistant with Smarthism then Vishvanism. He accepts the worship of Shiva as one of the 5 gods.

I am always biased when it comes to an islamic debate and I am open about it. I cast serious doubts on your impartiality with the above comment. You are not willing to even consider the widespread violence against the worshippers of Shiva in your assessment.

This is an attempt to paint a rosy picture of inter-hindu conversions.

Please! I did tell you that you were asking wrong questions. Don’t blame me if the answers are not to your liking.

If there was no revival of Hinduism you wouldn’t have a hindu majority which in time led to a Vaishnavite majority among hindus. That is the only relevance of Shankaracharya.

Vaishnavite majority among Hindus is a result of bhakti movement, which almost by definition couldn’t be violent.

You ask about a time which is arguably the most non-violent period and a time of intorspection in hindu history. Wrong question I did point out.

PS: You still haven't commented on the fact that you

first tried to explain the study

and then

You started questioning the eligibility of the study.

Are you suggesting that points can not be expanded as one gets deeper in a discussion.

The explanations I provided on the observed dilution of female dna still remains and upward mobility has been supported with comments from the researchers.

You denied upward mobility at that time. Can I argue that you denied the study earlier and are now supporting it.

PS: What does the list of names at the bottom of post 78 prove. You are not suggesting that the Bamshad study is the same as the Jorde study in the article referred by you?