Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

[drrajpalsingh]

Mera abhipraya bharat ke adhunik historians se tha na ki yahan jo vartalap chal raha hai. Kya aap is baat se bilkul sahmat nahin hai ki bharat ke bade historian paschimi deshon ke historians ka hawala dene mein kuch garv sa mahsus karten hain chahe unki baat kitni galat hi kyon no ho?

Nehru Vishwavidyalaya Nayi Dilli aur Aligarh Vishwavidyalaya ke sabhi historians yeh maante hain ki Arya log bhar se aaye the aur unhone bharat per kabja kiya. Yeh log angrejon ka samarthan kar rahe hain. Aise vyvahar ke piche kya kaaran hai?

Friend,
JNU, Delhi and AMU Aligarh ke jin historian ne Aryan abode per anusandhan kiya hai, woh aap padh chuke hain to unke nishkroshon ko padhte huya aapne yah bhi paya hoga ki woh aisa manane ke liya kya tarak dete hain. Khair unhe chhodo woh kya kahate hain aur karate hain !

Aayiea aapni baat karate hain !

Samshya vastava mein yah hai ki aaj tak adhiktar log yah nahin samajh paye hain ki shabd 'Arya' kewal ek bhasha samuh suchak hai Jaati ya race ke liya iska dusproyoga hone ke karan samshya ki tah tak jaane mein dikkat ho rahi hai. Jin logon ko Arya label diya gaya hai woh sabhi philology ke adhaar pe ek samuh maana gaya hai lekin sudur prachin samaya mein jis bhasha ka woh prayog karate the woh Sanskrit, persian, greek, roman sabhi bhasha samuhon ki janani ke rup mein samajhi jane lagi aur in bhashaon ka prayog karane wale kisi purane zamane mein saath rahne ke sidhant ke rup mein samane aya hai. Woh konsa aisa sthan tha jahan woh log armbh mein rahe aur baad mein duniya ke anya hison mein bikhar gaye.

Ab sari samsya ka samaadhan is baat pe tika hua hai ki kya woh sthan bharat tha ya anya koi anya desh tha; aur yeh niskaraman kyon hua; kab hua.

Aur log jo kahen use chod dete hain ek taraf!!
Aap ka apna sodh is baare mein kya kahaaaata hai aur usko manane ka aadhar kya hai, kripya share kijiyaga !!

Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Ek vicharniya baat yeh hai ki Ramayan Mahabharat se pehle aati hai. Ramayan mein pashcimi bharta ka jayada varnan nahin hai. Mahabharata mein uttar paschimi bharata ka bahut varnana hai.[/COLOR]
Ramayan main madhya aur purvi bharta ka varnan hai.
Isse ky nishkarsh nikaalna chhaiye?......''


Friend,

Ramayana aur Mahabharata ka kal karam aap kya manate hain .

Bamiki krit Ramayana aur Vyas krit Mahabharata ka Jaya kab rachit huye;

Ye donon point lambe samaya se sodhkarataon mein vivad ka vishya chal rahen hain.

Aaj bhi is baare mein aam sahmati nahin ho payee hai.

Aap is baare mein kya sochate hain Ramayana ki rachna pahale hui ya Mahabharata ki !!

 

[nrao]

Can you cite the study which provided this particular conclusion. I have seen some studies but they do not conclude in this manner.

This newspaper article did appear in 2009, when a few studies about ANI and ASI were published:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_who-came-first-indians-or-europeans_1294860

Just keep in mind that we only are discussing ANI and ASI (associated with times like 60,000 BP - 40,000 BP (before present).

Genetics of South Asian people have two autosomal components : ANI(Ancestral North Indian) and ASI(Ancestral South India)
1. ANI component declines from NW to SE which is consistent with geography.
2. ANI declines from upper castes to lower castes, which points out migration of Aryan from North-West to South-East. Jats have more ANI than upper castes.
3. NEU(North European, a component within ANI) has a significant presence in Indian upper caste, and even more elevated among Jats, so it may tell connection to IE family.
4. Pakhtun and Baloch groups have sufficient genetic similarity with Jats and other NW South-Asians but they seem to acquire some components 'relatively little' though, absent in non-Muslim South Asians, because of result of Islamization. Iranian are genetically different though but they have less 'NEU'(component connected with Aryans) than upper caste NW south Asians and Jatts. I think in absence of caste system, Asura/Ahura worshiper Aryan elites of Iran mixed more with masses.
[/COLOR]

 

[bsbana]

Can you cite the study which provided this particular conclusion. I have seen some studies but they do not conclude in this manner.

This newspaper article did appear in 2009, when a few studies about ANI and ASI were published:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_who-came-first-indians-or-europeans_1294860

Just keep in mind that we only are discussing ANI and ASI (associated with times like 60,000 BP - 40,000 BP (before present).

Harappa Ancestry Project (HAP) - Razib Khan

 

[nrao]

Harappa Ancestry Project (HAP) - Razib Khan

Is there any particular paper that should be read. I do not see anything on his site, at least at first glance that will discuss ANI and ASI as you pointed in your posting earlier.

I also hope that we will not see a sales pitch for 23andme which has been done here before unnecessarily.

 

[bsbana]

Is there any particular paper that should be read. I do not see anything on his site, at least at first glance that will discuss ANI and ASI as you pointed in your posting earlier.

I also hope that we will not see a sales pitch for 23andme which has been done here before unnecessarily.

He writes a lot of blog on history of different genetic components. It's true that ANI has pre-Aryan presence but why upper castes (specifically in eastern and southern regions) have elevated ANI ? Second ANI itself is broken in many components, NEU is almost absent in south Indian lower castes. Moreover if Aryan migrated from India to elsewhere then why Europeans don't have ASI genes ? It is speculated that Aryan were prob. elites only who placed themselves on top of masses and they were heavily mixed even before they reached India with BMAC and other cultures.
what about Scythians ? Were Indian Saka and Scythian same people ? Were they Iranic or Turkic ? If they were Turkic then they don't have any connection to Jats.

 

[nrao]

He writes a lot of blog on history of different genetic components. It's true that ANI has pre-Aryan presence but why upper castes (specifically in eastern and southern regions) have elevated ANI ? Second ANI itself is broken in many components, NEU is almost absent in south Indian lower castes. Moreover if Aryan migrated from India to elsewhere then why Europeans don't have ASI genes ? It is speculated that Aryan were prob. elites only who placed themselves on top of masses and they were heavily mixed even before they reached India with BMAC and other cultures.
what about Scythians ? Were Indian Saka and Scythian same people ? Were they Iranic or Turkic ? If they were Turkic then they don't have any connection to Jats.

I think you may want to slow down a bit. You have created lot of confusion a very small paragraph.

First lets deal with dates. You have jumped from ANI/ASI (date around 60,000 BP - 40,000 BP somewhere around 50,000 BCE) to a much later time of Vedic and Aryans (around 3000 - 2000 BCE) to even much later time of say Kushans and like around 100 AD. Iranic groups influence was around 400 BCE and pre-muslim Turkic influence was around 500 AD (for about 30 years). I think Sakas were not outsiders at all and Scythians, at least in Indian context are just Sakas, who again are not outsiders. All of them influenced Jats and vice-versa. If you throw all of these groups in a single post then it will only create confusion.

Among these we know the areas of ANI/ASI, Vedic and Aryans (within present day India, Pakistan and maybe some areas of Afghanistan). Others can be debated. Sakas could be placed in Punjab and ancient Gandhara.

I am willing to go with better evidence if provided.

As I am not even remotely close to being a geneticist, I am again open to evidence. However, there are some good papers now available about ANI/ASI studies. In this forum, I think that Bharti Malik (?) can provide help as she understands genetic studies much better.

I did not find much from above blog as dates are missing and there is no idea as to who influenced who. Was it people migrating out or immigrating in. Both kinds can influence genetic data. It is like saying score is 100 for 3 wickets without knowing who is batting and who is fielding and is it a test, 1 day or T20 falanna dhimka....

 

[bsbana]

Iranic groups influence was around 400 BCE and pre-muslim Turkic influence was around 500 AD (for about 30 years).

Who were pre-Islamic Trurkic people ? Why Hindus don't show any influence from them ?

I think Sakas were not outsiders at all and Scythians, at least in Indian context are just Sakas, who again are not outsiders. All of them influenced Jats and vice-versa.

I think Saka rule was mostly in Gujarat and other parts of India than Punjab or Northern Rajputana.

Among these we know the areas of ANI/ASI, Vedic and Aryans (within present day India, Pakistan and maybe some areas of Afghanistan). Others can be debated. Sakas could be placed in Punjab and ancient Gandhara.

ASI genes are not present beyond Afghanistan and Iran, so if there was an out of India migration then there must be ASI genes in other IE speakers. Yes, I agree that all of ANI is not brought by Aryans, even lowest castes of Tamil-Nadu has 30% ANI. With greater sophistication, genetics-specialists are able to further break down ANI. Lot of SNPs are discovered within R1a sub-clade and there diversity also point toward migration to India.
Right wing scholars put too much emphasis on first migration from Africa to India (60000 years ago), who are ancestors of most non-Africans(including Europeans).

 

[drrajpalsingh]

For a lively discussion, congratulations to the participants.

It is hoped that this scientific aspect would further enrich our knowledge on the ancient history in deciding the chronology and ancient community of people !

Please keep up posting studies to crack the hard faced problem before the historians with the hammer of scientific tools !

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Harappa Ancestry Project (HAP) - Razib Khan

Friend,

It would be good if you kindly elaborate your information hinted at in the post under reference.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Can you cite the study which provided this particular conclusion. I have seen some studies but they do not conclude in this manner.

This newspaper article did appear in 2009, when a few studies about ANI and ASI were published:
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_who-came-first-indians-or-europeans_1294860

Just keep in mind that we only are discussing ANI and ASI (associated with times like 60,000 BP - 40,000 BP (before present).

Very interesting just two population groups ANI and ASI in India. Is it really so?

Does whole population of India fall in these two groups only and there exist no other type/s in population groups of India?

We were told in various history books and even in Gazetteers of India that several types of [say 6-7 types] of population groups inhabit in the country.

Thanks

 

[bsbana]

Very interesting just two population groups ANI and ASI in India. Is it really so?

Does whole population of India fall in these two groups only and there exist no other type/s in population groups of India?

We were told in various history books and even in Gazetteers of India that several types of [say 6-7 types] of population groups inhabit in the country.

Thanks

Actually different south Asian populations have different proportion of ANI and ASI. I don't remember correctly but from what I remember
TN Dalit- 30% ANI - 70% ASI (It's autosomal component, based on all 46 chromosomes unlike y-chromosome and mt-dna studies)
TN generic - 40-50% ANI 60-50%ASI
TN Brahmin - 60%ANI, 40% ASI
Meghwal(Rajasthan SC) -60-65%ANI, 40-35% ANI
Brahmins(UP-Bihar) - 65-68%ANI
Meena(Rajasthan) - 65% ANI
Brahmin(Kashmir,Punjab, Rajasthan) - 70-72%ANi
Jat(Indian Punjab, Haryana) - 76-77% ANI
Pakhtun(North Pakistan) - 78-80% ANI
There are other components as well but mostly in NE Indians and prob. some east-Indian population which is east-Asian component, we don't have any sizable proportion of that.
Now, Razib-Khan further broke down ANI in different components like Caucasas, West-Asian, North-European, Med., etc. ASI is mostly limited to South Asia and little in Iran(3-5%).

 

[bsbana]

Friend,

It would be good if you kindly elaborate your information hinted at in the post under reference.

Thanks.

Here is one of his blog,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...n-the-indian-genetic-layer-cake/#.UQq9xx30DOc
His project estimates proportion of different components in genetics.
Two comments to further clarify about ANI-ASI
1. ANI and ASI are not 'markers' but 'clusters'. The evidence is quite robust that ANI is closer to western Eurasian populations than to ASI while the latter is a population isolate. Since ANI is similar to western Eurasian populations, it is challenging to discern the genetic legacy of prehistoric and historic population movements into the Indian subcontinent in the ANI cluster. Another hypothesis with particular relevance to the Paleolithic is that the subcontinent acted as a population refuge during glacial maxima and as a pump during interglacials. This would mean that the subcontinent was both a source and receiver of population exchange with central and western Eurasia.

2. Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent. ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago, but the date of the ANI-ASI mixture is unknown. Here we analyze data from about 60 South Asian groups to estimate that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred 1,200-4,000 years ago. Some mixture may also be older—beyond the time we can query using admixture linkage disequilibrium—since it is universal throughout the subcontinent: present in every group speaking Indo-European or Dravidian languages, in all caste levels, and in primitive tribes. After the ANI-ASI mixture that occurred within the last four thousand years, a cultural shift led to widespread endogamy, decreasing the rate of additional mixture.
Note: Razib Khan thinks that ANI-ASI mixture dates back to 10,000 years.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Actually different south Asian populations have different proportion of ANI and ASI. I don't remember correctly but from what I remember
TN Dalit- 30% ANI - 70% ASI (It's autosomal component, based on all 46 chromosomes unlike y-chromosome and mt-dna studies)
TN generic - 40-50% ANI 60-50%ASI
TN Brahmin - 60%ANI, 40% ASI
Meghwal(Rajasthan SC) -60-65%ANI, 40-35% ANI
Brahmins(UP-Bihar) - 65-68%ANI
Meena(Rajasthan) - 65% ANI
Brahmin(Kashmir,Punjab, Rajasthan) - 70-72%ANi
Jat(Indian Punjab, Haryana) - 76-77% ANI
Pakhtun(North Pakistan) - 78-80% ANI
There are other components as well but mostly in NE Indians and prob. some east-Indian population which is east-Asian component, we don't have any sizable proportion of that.
Now, Razib-Khan further broke down ANI in different components like Caucasas, West-Asian, North-European, Med., etc. ASI is mostly limited to South Asia and little in Iran(3-5%).

Good information, Friend. But what does this data convey, laymen like me cannot make out easily. Kindly elaborate implications of the data please !

Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Here is one of his blog,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...n-the-indian-genetic-layer-cake/#.UQq9xx30DOc
His project estimates proportion of different components in genetics.
Two comments to further clarify about ANI-ASI
1. ANI and ASI are not 'markers' but 'clusters'. The evidence is quite robust that ANI is closer to western Eurasian populations than to ASI while the latter is a population isolate. Since ANI is similar to western Eurasian populations, it is challenging to discern the genetic legacy of prehistoric and historic population movements into the Indian subcontinent in the ANI cluster. Another hypothesis with particular relevance to the Paleolithic is that the subcontinent acted as a population refuge during glacial maxima and as a pump during interglacials. This would mean that the subcontinent was both a source and receiver of population exchange with central and western Eurasia.

2. Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent. ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago, but the date of the ANI-ASI mixture is unknown. Here we analyze data from about 60 South Asian groups to estimate that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred 1,200-4,000 years ago. Some mixture may also be older—beyond the time we can query using admixture linkage disequilibrium—since it is universal throughout the subcontinent: present in every group speaking Indo-European or Dravidian languages, in all caste levels, and in primitive tribes. After the ANI-ASI mixture that occurred within the last four thousand years, a cultural shift led to widespread endogamy, decreasing the rate of additional mixture.
Note: Razib Khan thinks that ANI-ASI mixture dates back to 10,000 years.

Thanks for the information !

 

[nrao]

Who were pre-Islamic Trurkic people ? Why Hindus don't show any influence from them ?

Pre-islamic Turkic groups are the White Huns or Heptalites in my opinion. In fact after their defeat by Yashodharman, they converted to Hinduism. This is also documented. Their influence on a section of India was about 20-25 years in total before most of them were either killed or pushed back. Few years ago, I had put a little posting on Jat History site, which may help:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4771

I forgot to mention that after their complete defeat by Yashodharman in which their rulers were killed, they were further defeated by the now fading rulers of Gupta empire. A small group of them, which I would call an advance party was cut off and isolated from the rest of the retreating group. They remained in India in area around modern Indore where they had extremely small principality for a few centuries, which is also documented.

I think Saka rule was mostly in Gujarat and other parts of India than Punjab or Northern Rajputana.

Since, I do not regard them as outsiders, it is possible that they were in Gujarat and Rajasthan also. The province of Sistan in modern day Iran is alleged to be named after them (maybe like this Sakastan -> Sistan). For a bit more please read this posting, which was put here few days back:

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ta-in-c-323-BC&p=323923&viewfull=1#post323923

ASI genes are not present beyond Afghanistan and Iran, so if there was an out of India migration then there must be ASI genes in other IE speakers. Yes, I agree that all of ANI is not brought by Aryans, even lowest castes of Tamil-Nadu has 30% ANI. With greater sophistication, genetics-specialists are able to further break down ANI. Lot of SNPs are discovered within R1a sub-clade and there diversity also point toward migration to India.
Right wing scholars put too much emphasis on first migration from Africa to India (60000 years ago), who are ancestors of most non-Africans(including Europeans).

For this we will have to look at some of the published papers but that will require certain expertise to understand them.

 

[nrao]

Very interesting just two population groups ANI and ASI in India. Is it really so?

Does whole population of India fall in these two groups only and there exist no other type/s in population groups of India?

We were told in various history books and even in Gazetteers of India that several types of [say 6-7 types] of population groups inhabit in the country.

Thanks

Rajpal ji, it will indeed seem interesting to a historian. However, the times for ANI and ASI, which are discussed are 60,000 - 40,000 BP or before present (something like 50,000 BCE). Please do not try to find history or anthropology in it as it is all pre-historic. Human presence in India, is not known prior to the ANI and ASI timeframes. Only thing related to these times are maybe the cave paintings of Bhimbetka, which is dated to around 30,000 BP if internet resources are to be believed.

From pure genetic point of view that is what research papers classify the whole existing population into 2 such groups: ASI (ancient south Indians) and ANI (ancient north Indians). ASI groups are older than ANI groups. All this is quite recent research, say at most 5-7 years. From anthropological point of view you may talk about 6-7 groups which is also being proved and most importantly disproved by these recent studies.

For easy comparison, we do not not even know the history of Harappans, which is comparatively 'much' recent, only 5000 - 8000 years ago, all we have is archaeology for this time frame. So far we have over 3500 archaeological sites which come under Harappan civ but we do not know its history (like names of people, events, their relationship to each other). We know about city planning, harbors, probably Havan/Yagya vedis. Some attempts have been made to 'decipher' seals to make sense but so far it is not conclusive. An attempt is also made to link them to Vedic and Mahabharat times but there is no conclusion at all.

Once again, this is my understanding. Others may provide information about it also.

 

[nrao]

Here is one of his blog,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...n-the-indian-genetic-layer-cake/#.UQq9xx30DOc
His project estimates proportion of different components in genetics.
Two comments to further clarify about ANI-ASI
1. ANI and ASI are not 'markers' but 'clusters'. The evidence is quite robust that ANI is closer to western Eurasian populations than to ASI while the latter is a population isolate. Since ANI is similar to western Eurasian populations, it is challenging to discern the genetic legacy of prehistoric and historic population movements into the Indian subcontinent in the ANI cluster. Another hypothesis with particular relevance to the Paleolithic is that the subcontinent acted as a population refuge during glacial maxima and as a pump during interglacials. This would mean that the subcontinent was both a source and receiver of population exchange with central and western Eurasia.

2. Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent. ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago, but the date of the ANI-ASI mixture is unknown. Here we analyze data from about 60 South Asian groups to estimate that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred 1,200-4,000 years ago. Some mixture may also be older—beyond the time we can query using admixture linkage disequilibrium—since it is universal throughout the subcontinent: present in every group speaking Indo-European or Dravidian languages, in all caste levels, and in primitive tribes. After the ANI-ASI mixture that occurred within the last four thousand years, a cultural shift led to widespread endogamy, decreasing the rate of additional mixture.
Note: Razib Khan thinks that ANI-ASI mixture dates back to 10,000 years.

The very last line is most important. He is putting his data to 10,000 years, whereas some papers have gone much further back to 60,000 years before present for ASI and about 40,000 years for ANI.

 

[narenderkharb]

Note: Razib Khan thinks that ANI-ASI mixture dates back to 10,000 years.

Did he ????

 

[bsbana]

The very last line is most important. He is putting his data to 10,000 years, whereas some papers have gone much further back to 60,000 years before present for ASI and about 40,000 years for ANI.

ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago.

60000 years ago, ANI and ASI separated from each other. Those who remained in warm environment evolved as ASI and those who went in colder environment evolved as ANI. Haplogroup F is ancestor of most of non-Africans(both ANI and ASI).