Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions

[bsbana]

Did he ????

Yes.
1) ASI, circa ~10,000 years BP
2) ANI enters the subcontinent from the northwest, synthesis with ASI
3) The ancestors of the Munda enter from the northeast, synthesis with ANI + ASI in their region
4) A subsequent group of West Eurasians, related to the ANI, so I will term them ANI2, enters from the northwest and overlays the ANI + ASI synthesis. In the northeast quadrant of the subcontinent this group marginalizes the Munda people, who are either assimilated or escape to more remote locations. I believe that ANI2 is likely the Indo-Europeans, but it may be Dravidians as well
5) A second group of Austro-Asiatic peoples enters from the northeast, and synthesizes with the AN2 + ANI + ASI. In some regions they are absorbed (Assam), but in other regions they are culturally dominant (Meghalaya)

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Yes.
1) ASI, circa ~10,000 years BP
2) ANI enters the subcontinent from the northwest, synthesis with ASI
3) The ancestors of the Munda enter from the northeast, synthesis with ANI + ASI in their region
4) A subsequent group of West Eurasians, related to the ANI, so I will term them ANI2, enters from the northwest and overlays the ANI + ASI synthesis. In the northeast quadrant of the subcontinent this group marginalizes the Munda people, who are either assimilated or escape to more remote locations. I believe that ANI2 is likely the Indo-Europeans, but it may be Dravidians as well
5) A second group of Austro-Asiatic peoples enters from the northeast, and synthesizes with the AN2 + ANI + ASI. In some regions they are absorbed (Assam), but in other regions they are culturally dominant (Meghalaya)

Friend,

I am interested to understand the significance of point four of the post under reference. Do these types of studies allude to the chronology of the entry of group four [ANI 2]. If yes, kindly share so that the same could be compared /co-related with the 'Aryan' question of chronology.



Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Yes.
1) ASI, circa ~10,000 years BP
2) ANI enters the subcontinent from the northwest, synthesis with ASI
3) The ancestors of the Munda enter from the northeast, synthesis with ANI + ASI in their region
4) A subsequent group of West Eurasians, related to the ANI, so I will term them ANI2, enters from the northwest and overlays the ANI + ASI synthesis. In the northeast quadrant of the subcontinent this group marginalizes the Munda people, who are either assimilated or escape to more remote locations. I believe that ANI2 is likely the Indo-Europeans, but it may be Dravidians as well
5) A second group of Austro-Asiatic peoples enters from the northeast, and synthesizes with the AN2 + ANI + ASI. In some regions they are absorbed (Assam), but in other regions they are culturally dominant (Meghalaya)

Friend,

In spite of going through several times to grasp the meaning of the last sentence in para 4 i.e. " I believe that ANI2 is likely the Indo-Europeans, but it may be Dravidians as well.'' I could not make out its clear meaning.

I am afraid this sentence instead of clarifying the puzzle itself does not convey concrete and pure scientific result [In science we are told that H2 +O =Water].

Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

About the chronology of Indian History, Shri Ravi Chaudhary has posted a very interesting and important information, based on Kalhan's Rajtarangini regarding Mahabharata and Yudhistra.

log in please for details:

http://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=am7antrpp6k5d#mail

Any other finding is welcome on any aspect of chronology of Indian History.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Rajarangini by Kalhan is famous book as a source of Indian History which could be used to solve many a vexatious issues if used with caution and without prejudice and compared with archaeological and other literary sources including traditions..


For Kalhan's-- Rajatarangini-- online please log in :

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Kalhana_s_Rajatarangini.html?id=4rcwLQDFh-EC&redir_esc=y


Thanks and regards

 

[bsbana]

Friend,

In spite of going through several times to grasp the meaning of the last sentence in para 4 i.e. " I believe that ANI2 is likely the Indo-Europeans, but it may be Dravidians as well.'' I could not make out its clear meaning.

I am afraid this sentence instead of clarifying the puzzle itself does not convey concrete and pure scientific result [In science we are told that H2 +O =Water].

Thanks

Well, there were several waves of ANI in India who mixed with people having ASI + ANI. Original dravidian were not same as modern day Dravidian speaker. Even Brahui(dravidian language speaker in Balochistan) look almost similar to Baloch and not like SIs. Original Dravidians were also ANI carrier. I read somewhere that Dravidians were related to Sumerians.

 

[nrao]

Well, there were several waves of ANI in India who mixed with people having ASI + ANI. Original dravidian were not same as modern day Dravidian speaker. Even Brahui(dravidian language speaker in Balochistan) look almost similar to Baloch and not like SIs. Original Dravidians were also ANI carrier. I read somewhere that Dravidians were related to Sumerians.

That seems correct. There probably is no 100% ASI left in India anymore. Closest are a few remote groups in Andaman and Nicobar who have NO ANI.

This paper in Nature may have started it all few years ago:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html

 

[bsbana]

That seems correct. There probably is no 100% ASI left in India anymore. Closest are a few remote groups in Andaman and Nicobar who have NO ANI.

This paper in Nature may have started it all few years ago:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html

People of Andmaan are neither ANI nor ASI. Their genetics is different, Onge is not ASI.

 

[nrao]

That seems correct. There probably is no 100% ASI left in India anymore. Closest are a few remote groups in Andaman and Nicobar who have NO ANI.

This paper in Nature may have started it all few years ago:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture08365.html

People of Andmaan are neither ANI nor ASI. Their genetics is different, Onge is not ASI.

I think we should probably stop discussing this topic in this thread as it does not relate to it, but your assertion above is not correct. For instance, please check this news article from TOI:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat..._incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes

specific quote:

"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan.''

So Andamanese are the oldest in this line, maybe Onge are not but there are several indigenous groups on A&N islands. Onge is just one, Jarawa, Sentelese and the Great Andamanese (Jeru, Bea, Bo, Khora, Puchikwar) are few other groups. My understanding is that none of them have any ANI. Quite possible that Tibeto-Burmese may have more influence on them.

Another paper on this very topic is following:
http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(11)00488-5

A quote from the abstract - "Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP."

People can come up with AN2, AN3 so on so forth and that is ok. If you say what about major groups like Iranic, Kushans, Indo-Greeks and Turkic but that is much later time and they did influence India but its scope and impact was limited in area meaning certain areas were more influenced by it than others. In fact if we take Hindu Kush as the boundary of ancient India then extreme north-west was most impacted and this impact was reduced as we go inland, till the time when Europeans colonizers arrived by sea route and then it will be southern and eastern India impacted the most. Some outsiders that influenced extreme northwest may not have influenced most of rest of India, groups such as Chionites and Kidarites, who were present in Gandhara and maybe in some areas of western Punjab, present Pakistan, just before White Huns but may have little impact outside of that area.

 

[bsbana]

So Andamanese are the oldest in this line, maybe Onge are not but there are several indigenous groups on A&N islands. Onge is just one, Jarawa, Sentelese and the Great Andamanese (Jeru, Bea, Bo, Khora, Puchikwar) are few other groups. My understanding is that none of them have any ANI.

I think other Andamanese tribes will be similar in genetics to Onge. These populations are sometimes used as proxy to ASI but there is lot of genetic distance between Onge and ASI. Most Andamanese have haplogroup D which is not found in main-land Indians. Moreover, genetics is an emerging field, so no result can be said final result. Initially haplogroup L and R2 were considered as ASI haplogroup, later this theory was discarded, now haplogroup H,F* and mt-dna M are considered as source of ASI.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Yes.
1) ASI, circa ~10,000 years BP
2) ANI enters the subcontinent from the northwest, synthesis with ASI
3) The ancestors of the Munda enter from the northeast, synthesis with ANI + ASI in their region
4) A subsequent group of West Eurasians, related to the ANI, so I will term them ANI2, enters from the northwest and overlays the ANI + ASI synthesis. In the northeast quadrant of the subcontinent this group marginalizes the Munda people, who are either assimilated or escape to more remote locations. I believe that ANI2 is likely the Indo-Europeans, but it may be Dravidians as well
5) A second group of Austro-Asiatic peoples enters from the northeast, and synthesizes with the AN2 + ANI + ASI. In some regions they are absorbed (Assam), but in other regions they are culturally dominant (Meghalaya)

Friend,

I am interested to understand the significance of point four of the post under reference. Do these types of studies allude to the chronology of the entry of group four [ANI 2]. If yes, kindly share so that the same could be compared /co-related with the 'Aryan' question of chronology.

Thanks

Returning back to the basic discussion related with Aryan migration/immigration chronology, could anybody give some clue from the discussions/studies on genes' which might lead to solve the mystery of ancient Indian history!

 

[romar]

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 !!

Mahabharata mein ek yodha tha Brihadbala. Isko Arjun ke ladke Abhimanyu ne paraast kiya tha. Brihadbala Ramayan ke Ram ke parivar mein janma tha. Puranon ke anusaar Kush aur Brihadbala mein 27 pidiyon ka antar tha.

Isse to yahi pratit hota hai ki Ramayan Mahabharata se pehle hui thi.

 

[romar]

@Romar

This post of BSBana was for you.

Read and try to understand it.

Kuch jyada samajh mein to aaya nahin. 50,000 saal pehle agar ANI aur ASI ki utpatti hui to isse aaj kal ki jan sankhya ka kya lena dena hai?

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Mahabharata mein ek yodha tha Brihadbala. Isko Arjun ke ladke Abhimanyu ne paraast kiya tha. Brihadbala Ramayan ke Ram ke parivar mein janma tha. Puranon ke anusaar Kush aur Brihadbala mein 27 pidiyon ka antar tha.

Isse to yahi pratit hota hai ki Ramayan Mahabharata se pehle hui thi.

Good information Friend.

It would be better if you could cite proper reference of the Purana which states this event of fight between Abhimanyu and Brihadbala and also the identification of the person if he really belonged to the line of Kusha's successors or any other person with the identical name.

Secondly, if this assumption is accepted as true, this will create another sort of chronological juxtaposition !

The Ramayana or Rama's period is traditionally associated with Treta and the Mbt period as Dwapar. This means there was just a gap of less than 700 yrs* between these two yugas. The Kaliyuga which is said to have began after MBT leaves a meager span of time in between Treta and Kaliyuga.

[*The calculation is based on the assumption that each succeeding generation of Kusha is given an average of 25 years. hence 27x25=675].

Kindly share your views on this aspect of ancient traditions of India as contained in literary sources as available today.

Thanks

 

[bsbana]

Good information Friend.

It would be better if you could cite proper reference of the Purana which states this event of fight between Abhimanyu and Brihadbala and also the identification of the person if he really belonged to the line of Kusha's successors or any other person with the identical name.

Secondly, if this assumption is accepted as true, this will create another sort of chronological juxtaposition !

The Ramayana or Rama's period is traditionally associated with Treta and the Mbt period as Dwapar. This means there was just a gap of less than 700 yrs* between these two yugas. The Kaliyuga which is said to have began after MBT leaves a meager span of time in between Treta and Kaliyuga.

[*The calculation is based on the assumption that each succeeding generation of Kusha is given an average of 25 years. hence 27x25=675].

Kindly share your views on this aspect of ancient traditions of India as contained in literary sources as available today.

Thanks

Sir,
According to Puranas that Kaliyuga is of 4 lakh and some thousand years. Dwapar Yuga is twice of Kaliyuga and so on.
I think, on basis of genealogy correct age of each Yuga can be determined.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Sir,
According to Puranas that Kaliyuga is of 4 lakh and some thousand years. Dwapar Yuga is twice of Kaliyuga and so on.
I think, on basis of genealogy correct age of each Yuga can be determined.

You are absolutely correct that if the Pauranic genealogy lists of the ruling dynasties and the risi dynasties' comparative lists are given due attention beginning from the verses composers of Rigveda, many of the chronological issues will stand cleared.

While making calculations on this basis other tools of scientific tools as applicable in the research in history may be applied.

I have seen a few good studies undertaken on this pattern to settle the date of Mbt battle. Presently I am trying to verify its correctness by comparing it with other studies on the same event.

Thanks

 

[nrao]

I am sorry to thrown in a wrong name in this thread. The person, I thought who could help with making sense of genetics related paper is Urmila Duhan and not Bharti Malik. I went through some old posts and found her name. I apologize for this mix up and to the person, Bharti.

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]

I am sorry to thrown in a wrong name in this thread. The person, I thought who could help with making sense of genetics related paper is Urmila Duhan and not Bharti Malik. I went through some old posts and found her name. I apologize for this mix up and to the person, Bharti.

I have read some of her posts but her posts were more about haplogroups than history, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[nrao]

Returning back to the basic discussion related with Aryan migration/immigration chronology, could anybody give some clue from the discussions/studies on genes' which might lead to solve the mystery of ancient Indian history!

Here is another study, done in 2006, which does not support the idea that there was recent genetic input from Central Asia. Furthermore, it contends that variation in majority of India haplogroups exceed 10,000-15,000 years, which attest to the regional variation. Here is a specific quote -

"Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000–15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707623532

Maybe inhouse genetic experts can share their thoughts. Would like to know what Urmila thinks too. I am surprised that no college or institute or scholar from Haryana is part of any of these studies. Really strange, how can it be a future educational hub. Maybe future such studies can have local input. That will be very interesting.

 

[bsbana]

What I believe is :-
1. There was a migration from Africa to India.
2. A group of this migration went toward Central-Asia and West Asia, these people evolved as ANI.
3. Those who remained in India evolved as ASI.
4. ANI started to migrate in India in several waves which include 1. Pre-dravidian 2. Dravidian 3. Indo-European 4. Scythian(controversial) 5. Greeks(seems to limited to Pakhtun only) 6. Hunas(seems minor ancestry in Kashmiri and Pakhtun, IMO) 7. Muslims(confined to some Muslim castes) 8. Zoroastrians(confined to Parsi) 9. British(confined to Anglo-Indians).