Genetic evidence points to what? A migration out of Africa? Beyond that, it is pick & choose. I never said that the Iranians were never aware of western Iran, only that the Avesta is unaware of it. It is fundamentally important to any claims of migration from up North. You have zero idea of what is the prevailing linguistic theory & the dates attached, yet you insist on coming up with the same stuff repeatedly. There is no arguing that vedic & Avestan scriptures show same names? Really? I'm sure no argument from you but no else seems to buy that. The only names common between the two are those of the sub continent. There is no mention in the Rg veda of any geography outside that.
There is no picking & choosing, the sources that I mentioned for the genetic study are in fact quite recent, I will explain that later on in this post. The most important thing to any claim of an Indo-Iranian migration is genetic, archaeological, linguistic, & historical evidence. I don't see how the Avesta being unaware of Western Iran makes much of a difference whatsoever. The author from one of the sources in my previous post has provided a lot of evidence from the Avesta that you might want to go through again.
As in the previous post, note that all of my quotes from other sources in this post are in Italic form.
Persia not Part of the Original Listing of Vendidad Lands
The Vendidad, and indeed the entire Avesta, does not mention Persia or Media. This was because Persia and Media became nations after the Avestan canon was closed. However, The Achaemenian Persian Kings (c. 700 - 330 BCE) repeatedly proclaimed their Aryan heritage.
It's you who has zero ideas regarding pretty much any theory I have discussed including the Kurgan hypothesis & the Paleolithic Continuity theory. At this point you have failed to provide us with any credible evidence discrediting the Indo-Iranian migrations. I never said that every fuking geographical name in the Vedas & Avesta are identical, my claim was that they do mention similar geographical areas. You may want to check your own posts again, because you have made a similar point earlier.
You still haven't disproved the claims made by other sources in my previous posts. Repeating the same stuff over & over does not help your cause.
The Aryan Migration Theory: Last Word
It has been known for 150 years now that the Indo-Aryan languages came from outside of India. The evidence is overwhelming, primarily linguistic, but there is also some archeological evidence. In scholarly circles, there is no debate on the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) and there has been little debate for 150 years. It is only among Indian nationalists and a few hacks and kooks that it is not accepted.
No memories of an Aryan migration. Another OIT line. First of all, it is quite typical of most people to have no memories or false memories of wherever they came from. The Romans said they came from Greece. The Gypsies say they came from Egypt.
However, the Vedas do contain vague references to former habitations, such as what appears to be the BMAC and there are references to journeys over mountains and mountain passes. Many place names in Afghanistan are from proto-II words from Central Asia and often lead back to ancient Central Asian enemies of the Arya referred to in the Vedas. One of these is the Parni, associated with the BMAC and later with a northern Iranian group. They had stone forts and well-built cow stables in northern Iran that look a lot like earlier BMAC structures.
The route of migration did not take place over the high passes of the Himalayas and the Pamirs. Few groups have migrated over these treacherous mountains in the last 2000 years. Instead, the migration went from the BMAC down through northern Iran to Herat in West Afghanistan to the Gomal River in near Ghazni in East Afghanistan to the Swat Valley.
There are frequent references in the Vedas to southward and eastward movements of various groups of Arya. There are no references to westward groups as would be required by the OIT. Some of these movements to the south and east are described in military terms as victorious conquests. There are also references in the late Vedas of movements of the Arya east from the Afghan/Pakistan border to Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and all the way to Bihar.
This is utter nonsense. You are indulging in the most blatant form of lying yet have no compunction accusing others of doing so. Prove it if you can. No Avestan scholar disagrees with what I said. The best that Rg veda scholars who support the AIT have been able to do is suggest that somehow the 8th Mandala was an early one but that has been conclusively rubbished. Very few want to go down that path.
I haven't lied about anything, it's you who should feel guilty for coming up with worthless claims.
This is what I stated previously:
I have heard of the 8th Mandala being the most similar to Avestan, but that isn't a claim by every scholar, it's only a claim made by some. So please do not provide us with false information. Regardless, I doubt any of us are experts in Sanskrit & Avestan, but if it's true that the 8th Mandala is most similar to Avestan, it would make no difference whatsoever. Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways.
You have claimed earlier that
every scholar notes the similarities between 8th Mandala & Avestan. The burden of proof to prove that every scholar has made such a claim is on your shoulders. The point that I made earlier was simple, it makes absolutely no difference if the 8th Mandala is similar to Avestan. It does not disprove the Indo-Iranian migration. The only reason you are quoting text out of context is because you have failed in every way to disprove the Indo-Iranian migrations.
The Wikipedia page on
Mandala 8 has this to say:
According to some scholars, the 8th Mandala has the most striking similarity to the Avesta.
In any case, I don't care if such a similarity exists because it makes no difference & languages evolve or change pretty much everywhere. Your attempts at using linguistic evolution to disprove migration have failed.
By the way, some sources even claim that the 10th Mandala is the youngest, that may give rise to the possibility of hymns being mixed. That could account for linguistic difference between Sanskrit & Avestan. In any case, I don't care because changes in languages are common.
You seem to have comprehension issues & an inability to read beyond what is convenient for your argument.
Those comprehension issues are actually applicable to you, not me. You have failed at every post to conclusively disprove any of the evidence that I have provided, including genetic evidence.
Never said that they didn't go separate ways, pointed out that one of the homelands mentioned in the Avesta is the Punjab and that was the point of contact.
I never claimed that you stated that the Iranians & Vedic Aryans didn't part ways. You may want to read my post again, in fact
I have stated a portion of my previous post below:
Languages evolve over time, they borrow from each other, & the Indo-Iranian tribes were naturally in contact. Sanskrit borrowed many loan words from unknown languages, the point is that the evolution of a language in no way implies that the Indo-Iranian people didn't go their separate ways. Plenty of evidence points to their similar origins. Another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures.
Please do not bother with issuing certificates. You can assume whatever you want. Your sources are suddenly the only ones that can be "trusted" ? You are picking those"sources" which you think will advance your argument. Doesn't make them correct.
I am not issuing any certificates, your views do seem to indicate that you are a supporter of the Out of India Theory (OIT). There is plenty of evidence against the theory you seem to be supporting, while most of your arguments generally tend to be against the Aryan Invasion Theory. The Aryan Invasion Theory has been discredited, everyone's focus should remain on Indo-Iranian migrations. Why aren't my sources trustworthy? Is there something wrong with the genetic studies I provided you with in my last post? I am not cherry picking sources at all, those sources are credible, it's just you that denies genetic evidence.
Standard AIT rubbish. This is so old as not even to be funny.
There are none, forget frequent. This chicanery has long been exposed leaving only the likes of you to clutch at those straws.
You have been dismissing claims as "rubbish" in previous posts as well without conclusively disproving anything. There is no deceit here, & I am not clutching at straws.
This theory is not even trotted out by the AIT proponents anymore, this was the original invasion idea.
The text that you quoted was from a source attempting to disprove the Out of India Theory (OIT). The Vedic Aryans did migrate towards the east from the Indus Valley, there is no point denying that.
The Rg veda is written on the banks of the Sarasvati, not the Indus area. All the geographic names in the oldest mandalas are largely those of Haryana. The rest is the usual humbug. So outdated that it is not even funny.
There is no deception involved, but you are trying hard to deceive people by even denying data from genetic sources. You need to learn to give references for all of your claims.
Anyway, here is some general information regarding the Rigveda.
Rigveda
It is one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 17001100 BC (the early Vedic period). There are strong linguistic and cultural similarities with the early Iranian Avesta, deriving from the Proto-Indo-Iranian times, often associated with the early Andronovo and Sintashta-Petrovka cultures of c. 2200 1600 BC.
The geography described is consistent with that of the Greater Punjab: Rivers flow north to south, the mountains are relatively remote but still visible and reachable (Soma is a plant found in the high mountains, and it has to be purchased from tribal people). Nevertheless, the hymns were certainly composed over a long period, with the oldest (not preserved) elements possibly reaching back to times close to the split of Proto-Indo-Iranian (around 2000 BC) Thus there was some debate over whether the boasts of the destruction of stone forts by the Vedic Aryans and particularly by Indra refer to cities of the Indus Valley civilization or whether they rather hark back to clashes between the early Indo-Aryans with the BMAC in what is now northern Afghanistan and southern Turkmenistan (separated from the upper Indus by the Hindu Kush mountain range, and some 400 km distant).
While it is highly likely that the bulk of the Rigvedic hymns were composed in the Punjab, even if based on earlier poetic traditions, there is no mention of either tigers or rice[38] in the Rigveda (as opposed to the later Vedas), suggesting that Vedic culture only penetrated into the plains of India after its completion.
Ya, that was what I pointed out. The 8th Mandala
I never denied that Sanskrit & Avestan are sister languages, in fact I do not recall anyone denying that. Those languages are bound to be similar, another relevant example would be that of Arabic & Hebrew.
No relevance to a migration/invasion theory. The Rg veda speaks of the subcontinent including Afghanistan. Panini came much later.
The text you quoted was from a source that I referred to, go back & read it again.
Archaologists simply accept no major migration to the subcontinent. No amount of cherry picking will change that. Even AIT scholars like Witzel accept that archaeologist do not agree with any migration.
The views of archaeologists change over time, that also makes it clear that you need to provide a time line for their claims. At this point more evidence has been dug up, including the evidence I provided you with earlier, but your bias keeps you from accepting that evidence. Go back & read all of the archaeological evidence I provided in my previous posts. Read up on the Sintashta culture as well, since it's relevant to proto-Indo-Iranians. As far as cherry picking sources goes, it's you who is doing that.
Obviously, not clear to you. It wasn't to highlight religious differences, it was to give you a link to the connection between the Rg veda & the Avesta & what major Avestan scholars say about it. Where the separation takes place was what we were discussion and that was in support. Essentially, if you still don't get it, it means that Avestan scholars agree that the Rg veda predates the Avesta & that the Avesta corresponds to a later part of the vedic period. essentially questioning the idea of the AIT as commonly suggested. This includes some of the above references that you brought in. Answers that.
That paragraph seems to be a lot more focused towards evolving religious differences. Actually, that paragraph doesn't answer much, & one of the links I provided contains lots of detailed information regarding the Avestan scriptures from what seems to be a Zoroastrian source. Yeah, it's true that the Rigveda is considered to be older than the Avesta, but it doesn't do much to disprove the idea of an Indo-Iranian migration. All it emphasizes is that the Iranians broke off from the Indo-Iranian tribes. Keep referring to the Aryan Invasion Theory all you want, I simply don't care about that theory's concept of invasion at this point.
What rituals? You seem to labour under the belief that no one apart from you can read. I can & so can most archaeologists. They still don't agree that there is any migration Btw, on the one hand you dismiss "Max Mueller" dates and on the other hand you bring up supposed evidence saying something similar in dating. Problem with cherry picking arguments.
If I thought that no besides me could read, I wouldn't be having this discussion with an ignoramus such as yourself. If you had bothered to read my previous posts, you would have read the quote from the article referring to the unearthing of Aryan cities. That article is from the year 2010 by the way so this discovery is quite recent, & is evidence of the relations between Indo-Iranian tribes & others in Andronovo.
The place where Europe began: Spiral cities built on remote Russian plains by swastika-painting Aryans
'These ancient Indian texts and hymns describe sacrifices of horses and burials and the way the meat is cut off and the way the horse is buried with its master.
'If you match this with the way the skeletons and the graves are being dug up in Russia, they are a millimetre-perfect match.'
Recent discoveries & the genetic evidence is changing the views of many researchers, including archaeologists. Archaeological evidence does exist for a migration & I have mentioned it in my previous post. Once again, don't accuse others of cherry picking arguments or evidence before reading up on the evidence from an unbiased perspective. I never brought up Max Mueller's dates from the Aryan Invasion Theory, & sources do point out to the fact that Max Mueller came up with various dates to conform to his religious beliefs. He ensured that any date for the Aryan Invasion to be chosen would be that after the Biblical flooding of humanity.
I haven't used Max Mueller's dates. The dates provided by those studies in my previous post, as in the one referring to the mixture of ANI-ASI that occurred between 1900 to 4200 years ago has been proven by a recent genetic study. Besides, another important point to note is that the Median Empire began in 678 BCE, just over 2000 years ago, & there is no mention of them that I know off during the Elamite period. The Elamites are considered Semites by some sources, including the Hebrew scriptures. These dates as in the case of the origins of the Median civilization are just historical facts.
My dear chap, there is a pattern required for the linguistic expansion. you cannot make your own theories of who went where & when.
The authors caution about this evidence of admixture:
It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.
I did not come up with any theories of my own whatsoever. You should always post the source of your quotes as well. Anyway, I did some research of my own, & skimmed through the article "
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India" to find your quote.
There is a great response to that text below.
The most important thing to note is that the authors's own study indicates that there was mixture between 1900-4200 years ago. The reason that they entered that warning was to simply point out that another study failed to find such evidence. That is also why they refer to the need for further sampling & new methods to discover ancestry. However, it does not disprove the fact their own results indicates that the mixture took place around 1900-4200 years ago.
Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)
"It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe."
"This is of course true, because admixture postdates migration and it is conceivable that the West Eurasian groups might not have admixed with ASI populations immediately after their arrival into South Asia. On the other hand, a long period of co-existence without admixture would be against much of human history (e.g., the reverse movement of the Roma into Europe, who picked up European admixture despite strong social pressure against it by both European and Roma communities, or the absorption of most Native Americans by incoming European, and later African, populations in post-Columbian times). It is difficult to imagine really long reproductive isolation between neighboring peoples.
Such reproductive isolation would require a cultural shift from a long period of endogamy (ANI migration, followed by ANI/ASI co-existence without admixture) to exogamy ~4.2-1.9kya (to explain the thoroughness of blending that left no group untouched), and then back to fairly strict exogamy (within the modern caste system). It might be simpler to postulate only one cultural shift (migration with admixture soon thereafter, with later introduction of endogamy which greatly diminished the admixture.
The authors cite the evidence from neolithic Sweden which does, indeed, suggest that the neolithic farmers this far north were "southern European" genetically and had not (yet) mixed with contemporary hunter-gatherers, as they must have done eventually. But, perhaps farmers and hunters could avoid each other during first contact, when Europe was sparsely populated. It is not clear whether the same could be said for India ~4 thousand years ago with the Indus Valley Civilization providing evidence for a large indigenous population that any intrusive group would have encountered. In any case, the problem of when the West Eurasian element arrived in India will probably be solved by relating it to events elsewhere in Eurasia, and, in particular, to the ultimate source of the "Ancestral North Indians"."
"A second interesting finding of the paper is that admixture dates in Indo-European groups are later than in Dravidian groups. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the rolloff figure on the left. Moreover, it does not seem that the admixture times for Indo-Europeans coincide with the appearance of the Indo-Aryans, presumably during the 2nd millennium BC: they are much later. I believe that this is fairly convincing evidence that north India has been affected by subsequent population movements from central Asia of "Indo-Scythian"-related populations, for which there is ample historical evidence. So, the difference in dates might be explained by secondary (later) admixture with other West Eurasians after the arrival of Indo-Aryans. Interestingly, the paper does not reject simple ANI-ASI admixture "often from tribal and traditionally lower-caste groups," while finding evidence for multiple layers of ANI ancestry in several other populations.
My own analysis of Dodecad Project South Indian Brahmins arrived at a date of 4.1ky, and of North Indian Brahmins, a date of 2.3ky, which seems to be in good agreement with these results.
The authors also report that "we find that Georgians along with other Caucasus groups are consistent with sharing the most genetic drift with ANI". I had made a post on the differential relationship of ANI to Caucasus populations which seems to agree with this, and, of course, in various ADMIXTURE analyses, the component which I've labeled "West Asian" tends to be the major west Eurasian element in south Asia."
Genetics Proves Indian Population Mixture
"A new study indicates that population admixture in the pre-caste era occurred, shedding light on our understanding of present-day Indian populations
Scientists from Harvard Medical School and the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, provide evidence that modern-day India is the result of recent population mixture among divergent demographic groups.
The findings, published August 8 in the American Journal of Human Genetics, describe how India transformed from a country where mixture between different populations was rampant to one where endogamythat is, marrying within the local community and a key attribute of the caste systembecame the norm.
Only a few thousand years ago, the Indian population structure was vastly different from today, said cosenior author David Reich, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. The caste system has been around for a long time, but not forever.
In 2009, Reich and colleagues published a paper based on an analysis of 25 different Indian population groups. The paper described how all populations in India show evidence of a genetic mixture of two ancestral groups: Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who are related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), who are primarily from the subcontinent.
However, the researchers wanted to glean clearer data as to when in history such admixture occurred. For this, the international research team broadened their study pool from 25 to 73 Indian groups.
The researchers took advantage of the fact that the genomes of Indian people are a mosaic of chromosomal segments of ANI and ASI descent. Originally when the ANI and ASI populations mixed, these segments would have been extremely long, extending the entire lengths of chromosomes. However, after mixture these segments would have broken up at one or two places per chromosome, per generation, recombining the maternal and paternal genetic material that occurs during the production of egg and sperm.
By measuring the lengths of the segments of ANI and ASI ancestry in Indian genomes, the authors were thus able to obtain precise estimates of the age of population mixture, which they infer varied about 1,900 to 4,200 years, depending on the population analyzed.
While the findings show that no groups in India are free of such mixture, the researchers did identify a geographic element. Groups in the north tend to have more recent dates and southern groups have older dates, said co-first author Priya Moorjani, a graduate student in Reichs lab at Harvard Medical School. This is likely because the northern groups have multiple mixtures.
This genetic datatells us a three-part cultural and historical story, said Reich, who is also an associate member of the Broad Institute. Prior to about 4000 years ago there was no mixture. After that, widespread mixture affected almost every group in India, even the most isolated tribal groups. And finally, endogamy set in and froze everything in place.
The fact that every population in India evolved from randomly mixed populations suggests that social classifications like the caste system are not likely to have existed in the same way before the mixture, said cosenior author Lalji Singh, currently of Banaras Hindu University, in Varanasi, India, and formerly of the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. Thus, the present-day structure of the caste system came into being only relatively recently in Indian history.*
But once established, the caste system became genetically effective, the researchers observed. Mixture across groups became very rare.
The Harappa Ancestry Project reported
that study conducted in 2013 over
here.
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India
"The third possibility is that West Eurasian genetic affinities in India owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that IndoEuropean languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI.18,19 It is also important to recognize that a date of mixture is very different from the date of a migration; in particular, mixture always postdates migration. Nevertheless, a genetic date for the mixture would place a minimum on the date of migration and identify periods of important demographic change in India."
My previous sources explaining the date quite accurately have been repeated below.
Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, and waves of admixture (migration?)
"I want to highlight one aspect which is not in the abstract: the closest population to the Ancestral North Indians, those who contributed the West Eurasian component to modern Indian ancestry, seem to be Georgians and other Caucasians. Since Reconstructing Indian Population History many have suspected this. I want to highlight in particular two genome bloggers, Dienekes and Zack Ajmal, whove prefigured that particular result. But wait, theres more! The figure which I posted at the top illustrates that it looks like Indo-European speakers were subject to two waves of admixture, while Dravidian speakers were subject to one!
The authors were cautious indeed in not engaging in excessive speculation. The term Indo-Aryan only shows up in the notes, not in the body of the main paper. But the historical and philological literature is references:
The dates we report have significant implications for Indian history in the sense that they document a period of demographic and cultural change in which mixture between highly differentiated populations became pervasive before it eventually became uncommon. The period of around 1,9004,200 years BP was a time of profound change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of the Indus civilization, increasing population density in the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic system, shifts in burial practices, and the likely first appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion in the subcontinent. The shift from widespread mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored in ancient Indian texts.
"What these results imply is that there was admixture between very distinct populations in the period between 0 and 2000 B.C. By distinct, I mean to imply that the last common ancestors of the Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians probably date to ~50,000 years ago. The population in the Reich data set with the lowest fraction of ANI are the Paniya (~20%). One of those with higher fractions of ANI (70%) are Kashmiri Pandits. It does not take an Orientalist with colonial motives to infer that the ancient Vedic passages which are straightforwardly interpreted in physical anthropological terms may actually refer to ethnic conflicts in concrete terms, and not symbolic ones.
Finally, the authors note that uniparental lineages (mtDNA and Y) seem to imply that the last common ancestors of the ANI with other sampled West Eurasian groups dates to ~10,000 years before the present. This leads them to suggest that the ANI may not have come from afar necessarily. That is, the Georgian element is a signal of a population which perhaps diverged ~10,000 years ago, during the early period of agriculture in West Asia, and occupied the marginal fringes of South Asia, as in sites such as Mehrgarh in Balochistan.
This should be more than enough genetic evidence for an Indo-Iranian migration, & the interesting thing is that the people in the northwestern regions of the Sub-Continent have mixed with other Indo-Europeans more than once.
Dr Lalji Singh quoted the facts from a study published in the journal 'Nature' in August 2009.
The study had been conducted by Singh and Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, Hyderabad, in collaboration with David Reich of Harvard Medical University and Nick Patterson and Alkes L Price of the Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"We studied 1 million genetic markers in 132 individuals from 25 groups of Indians to conclude that they all were mixtures of ANI as well as ASI. ANI shows some lineage to the Europeans," said Singh.
Questioning the Aryan Dravidian theory, he added: "If true, the theory would imply that only the upper castes of India should have European lineage."
"But the study clearly shows that the mainland populations of India, irrespective of caste and tribe, have a European lineage, along with being a mixture of ANI and ASI."
Picking & choosing has problems.
You have been cherry picking sources & quotes to somehow prove your biased point of view. The sources above disprove those claims & I shall add one more source to disprove the Out of India Theory. As far as the quote above goes, it seems that you didn't understand it all. The reason many people in the Sub-Continent have a degree of both ANI & ASI mixture is because the Indo-Iranian migrants married many of the local women. That is already know, & it doesn't discredit the fact that the majority of their settlements remained in the northwestern & northern regions of the Sub-Continent.
Origins of R1a1a in or near Europe (aka. R1a1a out of India theory looks like a dud)
Ten years ago, Passarino et al. released a paper focusing on the origins and spread of R1a1a (back then known as Eu19). They did this by studying the frequency and diversity of the 49a,f/TaqI haplotype 11, which appeared to be linked to R1a1a. The conclusion was that R1a1a most likely originated in present day Ukraine, and expanded from there into Europe and Asia. However, a couple years later, STR diversity became the method of choice for studying Y-DNA haplogroup origins and expansions, and the information provided by 49a,f/TaqI Ht11 was basically ignored.
Despite lots of quirky results since then, like placing the ancestors of some modern populations far in Northern Europe when it was still covered with massive ice sheets (see here), no one in academia attempted to challenge the new methodology until this year (see here). However, in the meantime, it was "discovered" that India harbored the greatest diversity in R1a1a STRs, and was thus hailed as the place of origin of this widespread paternal marker.
It seems we've now come full circle, because latest work on the SNP structure within R1a1a shows that India has very low R1a1a diversity. For instance, all Indians tested to date for newly discovered R1a1a SNPs, mostly as part of various private Y-DNA projects, have come back positive for the Z93 mutation. This marker is not upstream to any European R1a1a subclades. In fact, most Eastern Europeans tested to date have come back ancestral for Z93.
This information gels very well with ancient DNA results, which show a movement of light-pigmented European-like groups deep into Asia during the early metal ages from somewhere in West Eurasia (see here).
The news just in, courtesy of the R1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project, is that the Z283 SNP ties together the three major European R1a1a subclades. These are R1a1a1-Z284, largely found in Scandinavia, R1a1a1-M458, characteristic of Western Slavic and Eastern German populations, and R1a1a1-Z280, of Central and Eastern Europe. The primary distribution of Z283 shows an uncanny resemblance to that of the former Corded Ware cultural horizon of Northern Europe. Below is a map of the Corded Ware zone from Haak et al. 2008, which describes the discovery of R1a1a in the ancient remains from a Corded Ware burial in what is now Eastern Germany.
Ancient Siberians carrying R1a1 had light eyes - take 2
"Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization."
There are 3 major hypothesis regarding the spread of proto-Indo-Europeans in Europe. The Kurgan hypothesis, the Anatolian hypothesis, & the Paleolithic continuity theory. The Kurgan hypothesis suggests that proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from a region above Anatolia towards Europe, Central Asia, & eventually our lands. It initially suggested some sorts of invasions as Indo-European horse riders spread their patriarchal & warfare filled culture. While there is genetic & to some extent historic & archaeological evidence for this theory, there is no archaeological evidence of major wars, that suggests what was more likely to have occurred is migration. The Anatolian hypothesis refers to Indo-Europeans expanding for agricultural reasons, but the theory fails linguistically due to differences in vocabulary between Indo-European languages for agricultural terms.*
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory focuses on Europe & determines that 80% of European genetic stock has existed since Paleolithic times. This suggests that there were other Indo-Europeans that lived in Europe before the expansion of other proto-Indo-Europeans from Central Asia & the East. Uralic people & the speakers of Uralic languages are evidence of the fact that Indo-Europeans had been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The problem with this theory is that there are considerable genetic variations in Europe itself. So as far as Europe is concerned, the population's origins are a mix of Indo-Europeans from Paleolithic times combined with certain migrations from Central Asia in Eastern Europe. The proof of those migrations comes from the genetic study regarding Croatians that I mentioned previously. However, as far as our lands are concerned, the Indo-Iranians arrived in Afghanistan, Iran, & Indus from Central Asia, Southern Russia, or Andronovo as per the evidence gathered so far. This should be sufficient evidence to prove that the Indo-Iranian tribes migrated. I think more than enough evidence has been provided to prove the existence of ancient Indo-European people in Andronovo as well.
We will have to disagree on this. I will call you out every time you make claims on either the Rg veda or the Avesta supporting your conjecture but beyond that, there is no point in this discussion. We have no meeting ground and nor is one likely.
Every time you call me out, I will have the data available to refute & annihilate your worthless claims. You have failed in your attempts to disprove an Indo-Iranian migration. At this point, all the linguistic, archaeological, & overwhelming amount of genetic evidence points to an Indo-Iranian migration. Plenty of material for migration is present in
this apparently Zoroastrian source, & it refers to the Avesta & even the Vedas many times. Some sources that I provided in my previous post have managed to use the Vedas to refer to other regions as in the BactriaMargiana Archaeological Complex. The unearthing of those Aryan cities also indicates the similarity between Vedic culture & that in Andronovo. It is easy proof of a relation between the Indo-Aryan people & those that resided in Andronovo. Basically, it's your worthless conjecture that you have failed to defend. If you do not want to continue this discussion, then stop replying to me. The only reason there is no meeting ground is because you display considerable bias against the idea of Indo-Iranian migrations in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence in its support. People may choose to deny any amount of evidence, but denial of evidence does not change reality.
There is no doubt that more research is needed & I am sure that future research shall provide people with even better answers.
. As far as rice not being mentioned, no direct mention of any other grain is made. Rice preparations are mentioned though.
The early books which should have been the ones with any memory of any such sacrifice, not an evolution of the myth in the late books generations later. How does this fit in with the facts? Direction of transference is based on what here ? Only on a subscription to a theory of migration in the first place and to a specific direction of migration. This is similar to the supposed linguistic evidence from the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic languages often cited. Not only is the direction of transference one way(towards the Uralic), it also supposedly has words for Bactrian camels which the supposedly migrating Indo-Iranians were yet to come across till they reached centrals Asia.
