Showing posts with label European History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European History. Show all posts

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Out of India after Africa? Nat Geo now supports this theory

"Modern humans migrated out of Africa via a southern route through Arabia, rather than a northern route by way of Egypt, according to research announced at a conference at the National Geographic Society this week.

“Evolutionary history shows that human populations likely originated in Africa, and the Genographic Project, the most extensive survey of human population genetic data to date, suggests where they went next…Modern humans migrated out of Africa via a southern route through Arabia, rather than a northern route by way of Egypt,” said a news statement released by IBM."


“The divergence of a common genetic history between populations showed that Eurasian groups were more similar to populations from southern India, than they were to those in Africa. This supports a southern route of migration from Africa via the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in Arabia before any movement heading north, and suggests a special role for south Asia in the ‘out of Africa’ expansion of modern humans.”

Full Story 

Other links:

Genographic Project confirms humans migrated from Africa through Arabia 

 

Friday, February 19, 2010

Jews of Haplogroup R2

Haplogroup R2 is rather rare outside India, where it accounts for about 90% of all men on Earth having R2. In India it has been observed in about 10% of male population, in Pakistan – about 7-8%.  In Tadzhikistan, neighboring India, haplogroup R2 is met in about 6% of the population. Some singular percentage of population having R2 can be met in the area of Caucasus, among Azerbaidzhanians, Armenians, Georgians, Chechens. It is conjectured that in these areas haplogroup R2 was introduced by the Gypsies, who carry haplogroup R2 with frequency of more than 50% of their population. The next main haplogroup in the Gypsies is H, as it was described in the preceding paper in this issue with an example of Bulgarian Gypsies. It is surmised that haplogroup R2 was originated some 25 thousand years ago.

The Gypsies have brought haplogroup R2 to Europe in medieval times, some 500-700 years ago, apparently first to Bulgaria, Germany and Austria (under the Gypsies names of Sinti and Roma), and then spread over Europe. This haplogroup was recently found among the Jews, and immediately it was suggested by the scholars that it came from the Khazars. No justifications and no time estimates were given.   

Recently (Sengupta et al, 2006) a large set of Indian and Pakistani haplotypes was published, including more than 900 haplotypes. 81 of them belonged to haplogroup R2. Since as many as 21 of identical six-marker haplotypes (the base haplotypes) from those 81 are observed, as follows 

14-12-23-10-10-14

it is rather obvious that these haplotypes cannot be too old. Indeed, ln (81/21)/0.0096 = 141 generations (163 with correction for back mutations) to a common ancestor. All 81 haplotypes contain 108 mutations from the above base haplotype, which gives 108/81/0.0096 = 139 generations (161 with correction for back mutations). It is a practically absolute fit, indicating that it was a single ancestor who originated the lineage of R2 haplogroup in India 4,000 years BP.

However, it seems that the actual time of origination of R2 haplogroup was much earlier. The R2 section of YSearch data base contains 34 haplotypes of individuals. Half of them are ethnic Indians, plus some Scotts, French, Italians, Armenians. Twelve individuals have names of their predecessors as Abraham, Isaac, Lebe, Mordecai, etc., and some of them presented supplementary information indicating that they are Ashkenazi Jews.  The most frequent 6-marker haplotype among those 39 individuals is

14-12-23-10-10-14

which is exactly the same as that the base haplotype of haplogroup R2 in India- Pakistan, shown above. However, if to remove the Jewish haplotypes (which, as it is shown below, are derived from a recent ancestor), the remaining 22 haplotypes contain 35 mutations, that translates into 198 generations from a common ancestor. In 22 of the 12-marker haplotypes there were 101 mutations, which give 236 generations from a common ancestor. In 7 of the 37-marker haplotypes amount of mutations in the 12-, 25- and 37-marker panels corresponded to 282, 259 and 207 generations to a common ancestor. These four figures being averaged give 246±32 generations, that is about 6,200±800 years to a common ancestor of the non-Jewish individuals of R2 haplogroup in YSearch database. This might be a good indication that haplogroup R2 had originated not in India, since the Indian R2 haplogroups were derived from a significantly “younger” ancestor who lived about 4,000 years BP (see above), that is some 2,000 years later that an older bearer of the R2 haplogroup. In any case, this question needs more detailed studies.

And when a common ancestor of the Jews of haplogroup R2 had lived?

The most frequent 12-marker haplotype among those 34 individuals, Jewish and not, is 

14-23-14-10-13-20-12-12-11-14-10-29

which is exactly the same as that for the Jewish individuals of haplogroup R2 in YSearch database.  

Let us now consider the Jewish haplotypes in more detail.  

6-marker haplotypes  

11 of the 12 Jewish R2 haplotypes are identical to each other (Fig. 50), and their
6-marker base (ancestral) haplotype is

14-12-23-10-10-14

that is the same as the most popular among known bearers of R2 haplogroup in India and elsewhere in the world.

Figure 50. The 6-marker haplotype tree for 12 Jewish haplotypes of haplogroup R2. A “commercial” set (YSearch database)

Formally, 11 base haplotypes out of 12 give ln(12/11)/0.0096 = 9 generations, and one mutation in all twelve 6-marker haplotypes gives 1/12/0.0096 = 9 generations to a common ancestor, and the identity of these figures point out at a single ancestor for all 12 individuals in  the set of their 6-marker haplotypes. However, as it has happened before, this tentative conclusion should be examined with more extended haplotypes. It is too often when 6-marker haplotypes, particularly in small haplotype sets, do not reveal mutations which occur in more extended panels of the haplotype.   

12-marker haplotypes 

Indeed, a move to the 12-marker tree (Fig. 51) immediately shows that there are two groups of the Jewish haplotypes, with an “older” and a “younger” haplotypes, descending from the same ancestor. Half of all 12 haplotypes still represent the base (ancestral) haplotype

14-23-14-10-13-20-12-12-11-14-10-29

Since their other mutations will be revealed by moving to more extended haplotypes, an estimate of a time span to the common ancestor based on the 12- marker haplotypes will be only tentative.

Figure 51. The 12-marker haplotype tree for 12 Jewish haplotypes of haplogroup R2. A “commercial” set (YSearch database)

This 12-marker base haplotype is exactly the same as the most frequent 12- marker haplotype in YSearch database,  only one-third of which represent the Jewish haplotypes.

6 base haplotypes from the total 12 Jewish haplotypes would point to 29 generations to a common ancestor, since ln(12/6)/0.024 = 29. The other 6 haplotypes contain 15 mutations with respect to the above base haplotype. This would lead to 15/12/0.024 = 52 generations to a common ancestor. This mismatch (29 and 52) indicates that there were more than just one common ancestor for the Jews in R2 haplogroup. In fact, Fig. 51 makes it rather obvious.

As it turned out, many more mutations have occurred in the 13-37 marker panel of the distant branch, which distinctly separates the two branches. However, even the 12-marker tree shows the principal separation of the two groups of haplotypes.

37-marker haplotypes 

The 37-marker haplotype tree is shown in Fig. 52. It reveals a striking feature of R2 Jewish haplotypes. Though there are only 7 haplotypes on the tree, they clearly show that Jewish R2 haplotypes splits indeed into two quite distant groups. Statistics is insufficient to perform detailed analysis, however, there are still enough data available to make some principal conclusions. One group of haplotypes, which are located on the right-hand side of the tree (Fig. 52) and much closer to the trunk of the tree (that is, to the present times), has the same 12- marker base haplotype as shown immediately above and in the Table, and corresponds to the group of the base haplotypes around the 12-marker tree (Fig. 51). This 4-haplotype branch has only 9 mutations with respect to the base 37- marker haplotype, and refers to a common ancestor who lived only 26 generations BP, 650±50 years ago, in the 14th  century.

Figure 52. The 37-marker haplotype tree for 7 Jewish haplotypes of haplogroup R2. A “commercial” set (YSearch database)

Another group of Jewish R2 haplotypes, represented with three distant haplotypes on the left-hand side in Fig. 52, shows a base 12-marker haplotype (the 37-marker haplotype is shown in the Table):

14-23-14-10-13-20-12-12-10-13-10-31

It turned out that these three haplotypes (the left-hand side in Fig. 52) have only two mutations in their 37-marker haplotypes, that is among 111 alleles. This formally places their common ancestor only 7 generations BP, that is about two hundred years ago. All three are relatives within seven generations.

Overall, there are 21 mutations between these two base (ancestral) haplotypes in the 37-marker format. This means that these two haplotypes are separated by thousands of years of separate mutations, and, more specifically, this separation is approximately equivalent to 305 generations between the two, that is about 7,600 years. This places their common ancestors about 4,200 years BP, and fits pretty well with the common ancestor of Indian R2 haplogroup of 4,000 years BP, see above. It is very likely that the both lineages, “young” and the ancient one, are derived from the Gypsies in Europe. The “young” is traced down to the invasion time or a bottleneck time to the Jewish community, and the “older” is traced down to the ancient common ancestor in India. At any rate, both Jewish ancestral haplotypes, shown above in their 12-marker format and in the Table 2 in a 37-marker format are derived from two quite unrelated individuals, whose haplotypes had evolved from the very initial survivors in haplogroup R2, but traced down in millennia apparently to India, through the Gypsies.

Some historical conjectures

Here is a plausible story of the Jewish haplotypes of R2 haplogroup. Its ancestral haplotype  

14-23-14-10-13-20-12-12-11-14-10-29

shown here in the 12-marker format, is about 4,200 years old, that corresponds to the age of this haplotype in India (see above). This haplotype had arrived to Europe apparently with the Gypsies, in the Medieval times, some 800 years BP, and got into the Jewish community. About 30-40% of the present day Jews, bearers of R2 haplogroup, are direct descendant of those Gypsies, or the Indians, on that matter. Approximately 650 years ago, apparently during the Black Plague times, in the 14th century, a bearer of this haplogroup, albeit in the mutated form had survived and fled to the Eastern Europe. This was a bottleneck for this particular haplotype. Close to half of present day Jews are descendants of that individual.

This story is a mirror one of the Jewish Q haplotypes story (see the preceding section). Apparently, the 14th  century, the Black Plague times, created a number of bottleneck situations for the Jews of a number of haplotypes, and not for the Jews only.   
 
The second Jewish R2 haplotype

14-23-14-10-13-20-12-12-10-13-10-31

in the 12-marker format, got to the Jewish community quite recently, merely two hundred years ago. It is very different from the first one. Its three bearers lived in the 19th century in Hungary, Romania and Lithuania. Their current descendants probably do not know that they are rather close relatives. Two of them differ by only 3 mutations in their 66-marker haplotypes.


From
Origin of the Jews via DNA Genealogy
Anatole A. Klyosov

Monday, January 11, 2010

Vedic Origins of the Europeans: The Children of Danu

By David Frawley
(link)

Many ancient European peoples, particularly the Celts and Germans, regarded themselves as children of Danu, with Danu meaning the Mother Goddess, who was also, like Sarasvati in the Rig Veda, a river Goddess. The Celts called themselves “Tuatha De Danaan”, while the Germans had a similar name. Ancient European river names like the Danube and various rivers called Don in Russia, Scotland, England and France reflect this. The Danube which flows to the Black Sea is their most important river and could reflect their eastern origins.

In fact, the term Danu or Danava (the plural of Danu) appears to form the substratum of Indo-European identity at the base of the Hellenic, Illyro-Venetic, Italo-Celtic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic elements. The northern Greeks were also called Danuni. Therefore, the European Aryans could probably all be called Danavas.

According to Roman sources, Tacitus in his Annals and Histories, the Germans claimed to be descendants of the Mannus, the son of Tuisto. Tuisto relates to Vedic Tvasthar, the Vedic father-creator Sky God, who is also a name for the father of Manu (RV X.17.1-2). This makes the Rig Vedic people also descendants of Manu, the son of Tvashtar.

In the Rig Veda, Tvashtar appears as the father of Indra, who fashions his thunderbolt (vajra) for him (RV X.48.3). Yet Indra is sometimes at odds with Tvashtar because is compelled to surpass him (RV III.48.3-4). Elsewhere Tvashtar’s son is Vishvarupa or Vritra, whom Indra kills, cutting off his three heads (RV X.8.8-9), (TS II.4.12, II.5.1). Indra slays the dragon, Vritra, who lays at the foot of the mountain withholding the waters, and releases the seven rivers to flow into the sea. In several instances, Vritra is called Danava, the son of the Goddess Danu who is connected to the sea (RV I.32.9; II.11.10; III.30.8; V.30.4; V.32).

In the Brahmanas Vishvarupa/Vritra is the son of Danu and Danayu, the names of his mother and father (SB I.6.3.1, 8, 9). Clearly Vritra is Vishvarupa, the son of the God Tvashtar and the Goddess Danu. Danava also means a serpent or a dragon (RV V.32.1-2), which is not only a symbol of wisdom but of power and both Vedic and ancient European lore have their good and bad dragons or serpents.

In this curious story both Indra and Vritra appear ultimately as brothers because both are sons of Tvashtar. We must also note that Tvashtar fashions the thunderbolt for Indra to slay Vritra (RV I.88.5). Indra and Vritra represent the forces of expansion and contraction or the dualities inherent in each one of us. They are both inherent in Tvashtar and represent the two sides of the Creator or of creation as knowledge and ignorance. As Vritra is also the son of Tvashtar and Danu, Indra must ultimately be a son of Danu as well. Both the Vedic Aryans and the Proto-European Aryans are sons of Tvashtar, who was sometimes not the supreme God but a demiurge that they must go beyond.

The Danavas in the Puranas (VaP II.7) are the sons of the Rishi Kashyapa, who there assumes the role of Tvashtar as the main father creator. Kashyapa is a great rishi connected to the Himalayas. He is the eighth or central Aditya (Sun God) that does not leave Mount Meru (Taittiriya Aranyaka I.7.20), the fabled world mountain. Kashyapa is associated with Kashmir (Kashyapa Mira or Kashyapa’s lake) and other Himalayan regions (the Vedic lands of Sharyanavat and Arjika, RV IX.113.1-2), which connects the Danavas to the northwest. The Caspian Sea may be named after him as well. The Proto-Europeans, therefore, are the sons of Tvashtar or Kashyapa and Danu, through their son Manu. They are both Manavas and Danavas, as also Aryas.

In the Rig Veda, Danu like Dasyu refers to inimical people and is generally a term of denigration (RV I.32.9; III.30.8; V.30.4; V.32.1, 4, 7; X.120.6). The Danavas or descendants of Danu are generally enemies of the Vedic people and their Gods. Therefore, just as the Deva-Asura or Arya-Dasyu split is reflected in the split between the Vedic Hindus and the Persians, one can propose that the Deva-Danava split reflects another division in the Vedic people, including that between the Proto-Indian Aryans and the Proto-European Aryans. In this process the term Danu was adopted by the Proto-Europeans and became denigrated by later Vedic people.

We should also remember that in the Puranas (VaP II.7), as in the Vedas the term Danavas refer to a broad group of peoples, many inimical, but others friendly, as well as various mythical demons. In the Rig Veda, the Danavas are called amanusha or unhuman (RV II.11.10) as opposed to human, Manusha. The Europeans had similar negative beings like the Greek Titans or Celtic Formorii who correspond more to the mythical side of the Danavas as powers of darkness, the underworld or the undersea region like the Vedic Asuras and Rakshasas. Such mythical Danavas can hardly be reduced to the Proto-European Aryans or to any single group of people.

The Celtic scholar Peter Ellis notes, “Irish epic contains many episodes of the struggle between the Children of Domnu, representing darkness and evil, and the Children of Danu, representing light and good. Moreover, the Children of Domnu are never completely overcome or eradicated from the world. Symbolically, they are the world. The conflict is between the ‘waters of heaven’ and the ‘world.’” The same thing could be said of the Vedic wars of Devas and Danavas or the Puranic/Brahmana wars of Devas and Asuras.

The Good Danavas (Sudanavas)

The Maruts in the Puranas (VaP II.6.90-135) are called the sons of Diti, a wife of Kashyapa, who is sometimes equated with Danu. Her children are called the Daityas which term we have found also connected to the Persians, as the name of the river in their original homeland (Vendidad Fargard I.3). While meant to be enemies of Indra, the Maruts came to be his companions and were great Gods in their own right, often referring to the Vedic rishis and yogis. As wind Gods they had control of Prana and other siddhis (occult powers). They are also the sons of Rudra-Shiva called Rudras, much like the Shaivite Yogis of later times. They were great sages (RV VI.49.11), men (manava) with tongues of fire and eyes of the Sun (RV I.89.7). They were free to travel all over the world and were not obstructed by mountains, rivers or seas (RV V.54.9; V.55.9).

The Rig Veda contains many instances where Danu has a positive meaning indicating abundance or even standing for divine in general. Danucitra, meaning the richness of light, occurs a few times (RV I.174.7; V.59.8). The Maruts are called Jira-danu or plural Jira-danava or quick to give or perhaps fast Danus or fast Gods (RV V.54.9). This term Jiradanu occurs elsewhere as the gift of the Maruts in the last line of most of the hymns of Agastya (RV I.165-169, 171-178, 180-186, 189, 190). Mitra and Varuna are said to be Sripra-danu or easy to give and their many gifts, danuni, are praised (RV VIII.25.5-6). The Ashvins are called lords of Danuna, Danunaspati (RV VIII.8.16). Soma is also called Danuda and Danupinva, giving Danu or overflowing with Danu (RV IX.97.23), connecting Danu with water or with rivers.

The Maruts are typically called Sudanavas, good to give or good (Su) Danus (RV I.85.10; I.172.1-3; II.34.8; V.41.16; V.52.5; V.53.6; VI.66.5; VIII.20.18, 23). Similarly, the Vishvedevas or universal gods are called Sudanavas (RV VIII.83.6, 8, 9), as are the Adityas (RV VIII.67.16), the Ashvins (RV I.117.10, 24) and Vishnu (RV VIII.24.12). The term also occurs in a hymn to Sarasavati (RV VII.96.4), where Sarasvati is called the friend or companion of the Maruts (Marutsakha; RV 96.2). Most importantly, there is a Goddess called Sudanu Devi (RV V.41.18), which is probably another name for the mother of the Maruts. The Maruts in particular or the Gods in general would therefore be the sons of Sudanu or Sudanavas. This suggests that perhaps Danu, like Asura, was earlier a positive word and meant divine. There was not only a bad Danu but a good or Sudanu. In the Rig Veda the references to the Sudanavas are much more than those to Danava as an inimical term.

The Maruts are called Sumaya (RV I.88.1), having a good (Su) or divine power of Maya, which stands for magical power, or Mayina (RV V.58.2), possessed of Maya power. Danu is probably, in some respects, a synonym of Maya, a power of abundance but also of illusion. Like the root Ma, the root Da means “to divide” or “to measure”. Maya is the power of the Danavas (RV II.11.10). The Danavas, particularly Ahi-Vritra, are portrayed as serpents (RV V.32.8), particularly the serpent who dwells at the foot of the mountain holding back the heavenly waters, whom Indra must slay in order to release the waters. Maya itself is the serpent power.

The Maruts as wind gods are powers of lightning, which in Vedic as in most ancient thought was considered to be a serpent or a dragon. The Maruts are the good serpents, shining bright like serpents (RV I.171.2). The Maruts help Indra in slaying Vritra and are his main friends and companions. Indra is called Marutvan, or possessed of the Maruts. Their leader is Vishnu (RV V.87), who is called Evaya-Marut. With Rudra (Shiva) as their father and Prishni (Shakti) as their mother, they reflect all the Gods of later Hinduism. As Shiva’s sons they are connected with Skanda, Ganesha and Hanuman.

Perhaps these Sudanavas or good Danus are the Maruts, who in their travels guided and led many peoples including the Celts and other European followers of Danu. As the sons of Rudra, we note various Rudra like figures such as Cernunos among the Celts, who like Rudra is the lord of the animals and is portrayed in a yoga posture, as on the Gundestrop Cauldron. If the Maruts were responsible for spreading Vedic culture, as I have proposed, they could have called their children, the children of Danu, in a positive sense. We could also argue that the Sudanavas were the Maruts, Druids and other Rishi classes, while the peoples they ruled over, particularly the unruly Kshatriyas or warrior classes could become Danavas in the negative sense when they refused to accept spiritual guidance.

We know from both Celtic and Vedic texts that the early Aryans, like other ancient people, were always fighting with each other in various local conflicts, particularly for supremacy in their particular region. This led to various divisions and migrations through the centuries, which we cannot always take in a major way, just as the warring princes of India or Ireland remained part of the same culture and continued to intermarry with one another. Therefore, whatever early conflict might have existed between the Proto-European Aryans and those in the interior of India, was just part of various clashes between the different princely families that occurred within these same groups as well. It was forgotten over time.

The European Aryans had Gods like Zeus, Thor and Jupiter that serve as the counterparts of Indra as the God of heaven, the God of the rains, the thunderbolt and the lightning. Therefore, we cannot read the divide between the Rig Vedic Aryans and the Danavas as a rejection of the God Indra by the Proto-Europeans. In addition, the Proto-European Aryans continue to use the term Deva as divine as in Latin Deus and Greek Theos, unlike the Persians who make Asura mean divine and Deva mean demon. They also know Manu, which the Persians seem to have forgotten and only mention Yima (Yama). Unlike the Persians, who developed an aniconic (anti-image) and almost monotheistic tradition, the Proto-European Aryans maintained a pluralistic tradition, using images, and worshipping many Gods and Goddesses, like the Vedic. This suggests that their division from the Rig Vedic people occurred long before that of the Persians or Iranians, and that they took a larger and older form of the Vedic religion with them.

Migrations Out of India or Central Asia

We have noted Danu or Danava as a term for an inimical people or even an anti-god, like Deva and Asura, probably reflects some split in the Aryan peoples. This could be the conflict the Purus, the main Rig Vedic people located on the Sarasvati river near Delhi, and the Druhyus, who were located in the northwest by Afganistan, who fought quite early in the Rig Vedic period.

Certainly we can only equate the Proto-Europeans with the northwest of India or greater India that extends into Afghanistan and Central Asia. If they can be connected to any group among the five Vedic peoples it must be the Druhyus.

However, we do find Druhyu kingdoms continuing for some time in India and giving names to regions like Gandhara (Afghanistan) and Aratta (Panjab) connected more with Iranian or Scythian people. Yet, we do note a connection between the Scythians and the Celts, whose Druid priests connect themselves with the Scythians at an early period. The Scythians also maintained a trade from India to Europe that continued for many centuries. In this regard the Proto-Europeans could have been a derivation of Aryan India by migration, cultural diffusion, or what is more likely, a combination of both.

Though the Druhyus and Proto-Europeans may be connected, it is difficult to confirm, particularly as the Europeans were a very different ethnic type (Nordic and Alpine) than most of the Indians and Iranians, who were of the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasian race.

However, it is possible that European ethnic types were living in ancient Afghanistan or Central Asia, even Kashmir, where we do find some of these types even today. The evidence of the Tokharians suggests this. The Tokharians (Tusharas) were a people speaking an Indo-European language closer to the European (a kentum-based language), and also demonstrate Nordic or Alpine, blond and red-haired ethnic traits. They lived in the Tarim Basin of western China that dominated the region to the Muslim invasion up to the eighth century AD, by which time they had become Buddhists. They may be related to the European featured mummies found in that area dating back to 1500 BCE. They were also present in Western China around Langchou in the early centuries BCE. The Tokharian language is possibly related to the Celtic and Italic branches, just as their physical features resemble northern Europeans. The Tarim Basin region was later regarded as the land of the Uttara Kurus and as a land of the gods. So such groups were not always censured as barbarians at the borders but were sometimes honored as highly advanced and spiritual.

The evidence does not show an Aryan invasion/migration into India in ancient times, certainly not after the Harappan era (c. 3000 BCE) and probably not before. No genetic or skeletal or other hard evidence has been found to prove this. Similarly, we do not find evidence of migration of interior Indic peoples West, the dark-skinned people that were prominent on the subcontinent to the northwest. But if the same ethnic types as the Europeans were present in Western China, Afghanistan or in northwest Iran, like the Fergana Valley (Sogdia), such a migration west would be possible, particularly given their familiarity with horses. In this case the commonality of Indo-European languages would not rest upon a common ethnicity with the interior Indo-Aryans but on a common ethnicity with peripheral Aryans on the northwest of India.

It is also possible that the European people derived their Aryan culture from the influence of Vedic peoples, probably mainly Druhyus but also Scythians (who might themselves be Druhyus), who migrated to Central Asia and brought their culture to larger groups of Europeans already living in Europe and Central Asia. The Europeans could have picked up an Aryan influence indirectly from the contact with various rishis, princes or merchants, without any significant genetic or familial linkage with Indic peoples. Or some combination may have existed. Such peoples with more Vedic cultures like the Celts could derive mainly from migration, while those others like the Germans might derive mainly from cultural diffusion. In any case, various means of Aryanization existed that can explain the spread of Vedic culture from the Himalayas to Europe, of which actual migration of people from the interior of India need not be the only or even primary factor.

We do note the names of rivers like the Don, Dneiper, Dneister, Donets and Danube to the north of the Black are largely cognate with Danu. This could reflect such a movement of peoples from West or Central Asia, including migrants originally from regions of greater India and Iran. At the end of the Ice Age, as Europe became warmer, it became a suitable land for agriculture. This would have made it a desirable place of migration for people from the east and the south, which were flooded or became jungles.

European and Iranian Peoples of Central Asia and Europe: Sycthians and Turanians

The northern Iranian peoples, called Turanians or Scythians, dominated the steppes of Central Asia from Mongolia to Eastern Europe. By the early centuries BC they had set up kingdoms from the Danube in the West to the Altai Mountains in the East. They were the main enemies of the Persians. Unlike the Persians, their religions had more Devic elements and affinities to the Vedic with a greater emphasis on Devas, Sun worship, drinking of Soma and a greater variety of deities like the Vedic. We could call these Turanians or Scythians the main Proto-European Aryans. Some would identify them with the original Slavic peoples as well, who were likely always the largest and dominant Indo-European group in Europe.

Curiously in the early centuries AD we find the Scythians entering into north India and creating some kingdoms there, with both Hindu and Buddhist influence. It is possible that such contacts with India were transmitted to Central Asia and West, much as from previous Vedic eras.

It is probable that the Danavas, Scythians and Turanians were largely the same group of people with Vedic affinities and connections to Vedic culture through various kings, rishis, traders and movements of both people and cultures. Later the Turks came into Central Asia and displaced the Scythian peoples driving them south and west.

Western Indo-European scholarship is obsessed with these eastern Scythian and other possible European elements. Some like Parpola even see the Vedic peoples of the Rig Veda as a migration of the Scythians into India. However, these Central Asian Vedic people were just one branch of a greater Vedic people that included several branches within India itself.

Much of the search for a Proto-Indo-European language or PIE could be more correctly regarded as a search for the proto-European people. What has been reconstructed through it is more the homeland of the Danava-Druhyu branch of the Vedic people after their dispersal from India rather than all the Indo-European speakers. It is at best only a recontruction of the western branch of the Vedic peoples and even that in a limited and distorted manner.

Therefore, we need not stop short with reconstructing Scythian and Central Asian Aryan culture, we must take it into India itself, where other Vedic branches existed using many of the same cultural forms like Fire worship, Sun worship, the sacred plant or Soma cult, the cult of the sacred cow and horse, symbols like the sacred tree and swastika, worship of rivers as Goddesses. The philosophical, medical and astronomical knowledge that we find in European peoples like the Celts and the Greeks also mirrors that of India such as we find in the Upanishads, Ayurvedic medicine and Vedic astrology.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Genographic Project Censorship

Got home last night, switched on my computer, went through my email and later on logged onto Facebook to check out who's 'poking' who. I happen to be a 'fan' of the Genographic Project on Facebook and noticed a post by them about a museum exhibit at the  San Diego Museum of Man that's being set up. I have a special interest in the Genographic Project since I had a DNA test done through the organization.

The Genographic Project tests your DNA for a fee and sends you a report on your 'deep ancestry' based on which Haplogroup you belong to. I'm sure that my DNA results from them were accurate enough, but the report that accompanied my results is based purely on speculation and unproven hypotheses of human migration. For instance, the 'story' of Haplogroup R(I belong to a 'sub-clade' of haplogroup R) is modelled to fit with the Aryan Invasion Theory - a racist 19th century colonial theory with no scientific backing. After doing further research I realised that their reports are highly biased towards a Eurocentric view of human history.

A couple of months ago the Genographic Project aired a program called 'The Human Family Tree'. In this program they sampled the DNA of random people of different ethnicities in the neighborhood of Queens, New York. Of course, their politically correct motto was that we all came from Africa in the very distant past, but I noticed that racial stereotypes were being used to portray people of different ethnicities. A Pakistani taxi driver, Thai waitress and restaurant owner, a Black body builder and a Greek(European) mayor of that neighborhood in Queens were a few of the subjects in that show. If that is not stereotyping then what is?

I posted a comment on their Facebook fan page about their incorrect portrayal of racial stereotypes on that show and mentioned that Spencer Wells(director of the Genographic Project) should just stick to his job as a geneticist and refrain from racial stereotyping. The comment was promptly removed even though it was not in the least bit offensive to anyone.

Friday, October 30, 2009

The Cradle that is India - Subhash Kak

Ideas about early Indian history continue to play an important role in political ideology of contemporary India. On the one side are the Left and Dravidian parties, which believe that invading Aryans from the northwest pushed the Dravidians to south India and India's caste divisions are a consequence of that encounter. Even the development of Hinduism is seen through this anthropological lens. This view is essentially that of colonial historians which was developed over a hundred years ago.


On the other side are the nationalist parties, which believe that the Aryan languages are native to India. These groups cite the early astronomical dates in the Vedas, noting these texts are rooted firmly in the Indian geographical region. But Leftist scholars consider such evidence suspect, politically motivated, and chauvinistic.
In recent years, the work of archaeologists and historians of science concluded that there is no material evidence for any large scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800 BC, implicitly supporting the traditional view of Indian history. The Left has responded by conceding that there were probably no invasions; rather, there were many small scale migrations by Aryans who, through a process of cultural dominance, imposed their language on north Indians.


The drama of text-book revisions, both during the NDA and the current UPA governments, is essentially a struggle to impose one or the other of these viewpoints. In any other country, such a fight would have fought in the pages of academic journals; but in India, where the government decides what history is, it is a political matter.


Now, in an important book titled The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa (New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003), the prominent Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer has synthesised the available genetic evidence together with climatology and archaeology with conclusions which have bearing on the debate about the early population of India. This work has received great attention in the West, and it will also interest Indians tremendously.


Much of Oppenheimer's theory is based on recent advances in studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the mother, and Y chromosomes, inherited by males from the father. Oppenheimer makes the case that whereas Africa is the cradle of all mankind; India is the cradle of all non-African peoples. Man left Africa approximately 90,000 years ago, heading east along the Indian Ocean, and established settlements in India. It was only during a break in glacial activity 50,000 years ago, when deserts turned into grasslands, that people left India and headed northwest into the Russian steppes and on into Eastern Europe, as well as northeast through China and over the now submerged Bering Strait into the Americas.


In their migration to India, African people carried the mitochondrial DNA strain L3 and Y chromosome line M168 across south Red Sea across the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula. On the maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is tentatively placed by him in southern Iran or Baluchistan. One Indian Manju subclan in India is as old as 73,000 years, whereas European man goes back to less than 50,000 years.
Considering the paternal side, Oppenheimer sees M168 as having three sons, of whom Seth was the most important one. Seth, in turn, had five sons which are named by him as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishna. Krishna, born in India, is the ancestor of the peoples of East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (through the M17 mutation). This is what Oppenheimer says about M17:

South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find 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.'

Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia.



Oppenheimer argues that the Eurocentric view of ancient history is also incorrect. For example, Europeans didn't invent art, because the Australian aborigines developed their own unique artistic culture in complete isolation. Indian rock art is also extremely ancient, going back to over 40,000 BC, so perhaps art as a part of culture had arisen in Africa itself. Similarly, agriculture didn't arise in the Fertile Crescent; Southeast Asia had already domesticated many plants by that time.


Oppenheimer concludes with two extraordinary conclusions: 'First, that the Europeans' genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the Europeans' ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.'


This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian family and the Korean and the Japanese.


Perhaps this new understanding will encourage Indian politicians to get away from the polemics of who the original inhabitants of India are, since that should not matter one way or the other in the governance of the country. Indian politics has long been plagued by the Aryan invasion narrative, which was created by English scholars of the 19th century; it is fitting that another Englishman, Stephen Oppenheimer, should announce its demise.


(Link)

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Indo Aryan and Slavic Linguistic and Genetic Affinities Predate the Origin Of Cereal Farming

Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda, Snejina Sonina,  Ratnakar Narale
Paper read at: The Sixth International Topical Conference: Origin of Europeans
Ljubljana, Slovenia June 6th and 7th 2008.

Abstract:

Linguistic comparisons between Indo-Aryan languages, Vedic Sanskrit in particular, and Slavic languages show evidence of remarkable similarities in words of elemental nature and those describing the process of domestication of animals specially the terminology regarding the sheep and the cattle. Similarly, Haplogroup (Hg) R1a1 (HG3 in Rosser’s nomenclature), the male lineage Y-Chromosome genetic marker found at high frequencies both in the Slavic and the Indo-Aryan male populations points to a common genetic origin of a large percentage of speakers of Slavic and Indic languages. Judging from the linguistic evidence, the separation of these Indo-European branches appears to predate the advent of cereal domestication. Applying Alinei’s ‘Lexical Self-Dating’ (LSD) methodology to date the linguistic and the genetic evidence, we estimate that the split between Indo-Aryans and the ancestors of Slavs occurred, afer the domestication of the sheep and cattle, about 10,000 years ago, but before cereal farming became a common industry amongst the ancestors of Slavs in Europe and Indo-Aryans on the Indian sub-continent. Moreover, the genetic evidence does not indicate that there were any major migrations of people from Europe, including the ancestors of the present day Slavs, to the Indian sub-continent during the last 8,000 years. The migration appears to have come from the Indian sub-continent to Europe. However, there is a record of many military incursions over the millennia into the sub-continent.

Furthermore, based on the linguistic, genetic, zoo-archaeological and population growth evidence, the coalescence of R1a1 in an ancestor common to many Indo-Aryans and Slavs, probably occurred during the hunting-gathering era and there is evidence that the close contact between the ancestors of Indo-Aryans and Slavs continued during the sheep and cattle domestication, up to and including the nomadic pastoral age. Based on this evidence, the major population expansion from the Indian sub-continent into Europe appears to have come, before the age of cereal farming.

Also the patrilineal Y-Chromosome genetic marker Hg R1a1, that accompanied this expansion, appears to be more than 100,000 years old, based on its relative high frequency, diversity and wide distribution extending from the Balkans to the Bay of Bengal. This estimated age, based on the reproductive rates of historical individuals, is considerably older than the molecular ages calculated on the basis of mutation rates as reported in literature.


Conclusion:

  • In many instances, the Slovenian language appears to be grammatically closer to Sanskrit than other Slavic languages and even Indic languages such as Hindi, Bengali and Gujarati.
  • Genetic and linguistic afnities between the Indo-Aryan and Slavic speaking populations indicate that a large percentage of their ancestors had a common sojourn during the pre-pastoral and also during the pastoral age.Linguistic evidence suggests that the separation of the Indo-Aryans and the ancestors of present day Slavs occurred prior to the innovation of the cereal farming in agriculture.
  • Hg R1a1-M17 lineage appears to have come to Europe, via the ancestors of the present day Slavs, from the Indian sub-continent, before the spread of farming ~9000 years ago.
  • Genetic evidence does not support a large scale invasion of India from Europe during the prehistoric times, since no evidence of Hg R1*-M173, Hg I-M170 or of Hg N3-TAT has been found in India, although these Haplogroups are very frequent in Europe (Rosser et al. 2000, Sengupta et al. 2006).
  • The coalescence of Hg R1a1, the most frequent genetic marker in Indo-Aryan and Slavic populations, very likely occurred more than 100,000 years ago. Only if the most recent common ancestor of such a large percentage of Indo-Aryans and the Slavs lived more than 100,000 years ago, could the male population with this genetic marker grow to such high absolute numbers of 325 million men representing more than ~10 % of the world’s total male population.
Link to full article

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Sanskrit and Lithuanian

One of the most important stimuli for the emergence of historical-comparative linguistics was the acquaintance of Europeans with Sanskrit, the old language of India. Europeans believed that a Sanskrit scholar could understand and be understood by a Lithuanian farmer.

In 1786, William Jones (1746-1794), an English Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Calcutta, read a paper before the Asiatic Society, founded by himself, in which he proclaimed that Sanskrit, this "wonderfully structured old language of India" is derived from the same source as Greek, Latin, and perhaps even Gothic and Celtic. This was a very bold idea, which produced a veritable revolution in linguistics.

European scholars turned their attention to Sanskrit, and started with old European languages. They created precise methodology which enabled them to understand phonetic changes and distinguish original words from loans. They taught themselves through the comparison of related words in different languages to reconstruct the extinct forms, which were very often similar or even identical with Sanskrit forms.

Linguists believed that comparative linguistics without Sanskrit is like astronomy without mathematics.

It is not difficult therefore to imagine the surprise of the scholarly world when they learned that even in their time somewhere on the Nemunas River lived a people who spoke a language as archaic in many of its forms as Sanskrit itself. Although it was not exactly true that a professor of Sanskrit could talk to Lithuanian farmers in their language, coincidences between these two languages were truly amazing, for example:

Sanskrit sunus son - Lith. sunus;
Sanskrit viras man - Lith. vyras;
Sanskrit avis sheep - Lith. avis;
Sanskrit dhumas smoke - Lith. dumas;
Sanskrit padas sole - Lith. padas.

We can be safe in asserting that these Lithuanian words have not changed their forms for the last five thousand years.

The most prominent European linguists visited Lithuania in order to learn this archaic language from the lips of Lithuanians themselves, which helped them investigate the history of other Indo-European languages.

Today, there is no doubt that Lithuanian has retained many ancient Indo-European forms. It is hard to say whether it was due to the character of the Lithuanians or of geographic position that their language has changed so little in the course of several thousand years. Scholars often make references to the Lithuanian language when conducting research on the history of other languages.


From "Lithuania in the World", 1996 No1.

Lithuanian words similar or exact to Sanskrit

  • Lithuanian du/dvi, Sanskrit dvi/dve, Greek duo/dwo/tyu, Latin duo ("two")
  • Lithuanian trys, Sanskrit tri/traya, Greek trios/tria/treis, Latin tres ("three")
  • Lithuanian penki(os), Sanskrit páñcan, Greek pente/pende(cis) ("five")
  • Lithuanian šeši(os), Sanskrit sas, Greek heks/hecs/hex, Latin secs/sex ("six")
  • Lithuanian septyni(os), Sanskrit saptahn/sapta, Greek hepta(cis)/septa, Latin septem ("seven")
  • Lithuanian aštuoni(os), Sanskrit ashtan/ashta, Greek akto/okto/oktu(cis), Latin octo ("eight")
  • Lithuanian dešimt(is), Sanskrit dasham, Greek deka/deca(cis), Latin deci/decem ("ten")
  • Lithuanian žiema, Sanskrit hima ("winter")
  • Lithuanian derva/darva, Sanskrit druma/taru ("tree")
  • Lithuanian vilkas, Sanskrit vrika ("wolf")

  • Lith. and Skt. sūnus (son)
  • Lith. and Skt. avis and Lat. ovis (sheep)
  • Lith. dūmas and Skt. dhumas and Lat. fumus (smoke)
  • Lith. antras and Skt. antaras (second, the other)
  • Lith. vilkas and Skt. vrkas and Lat. lupus (wolf)
  • Lith. ratas and Lat. rota (wheel) and Skt. rathah (carriage).
  • Lith. senis and Lat. senex (an old man) and Skt. sanah (old).
  • Lith. vyras and Lat. vir (a man) and Skt. vira (man, hero).
  • Lith. angis and Lat. anguis (a snake in Latin, a species of snakes in Lithuanian)
  • Lith. linas and Lat. linum (flax, compare with English 'linen')
  • Lith. ariu and Lat. aro (I plow)
  • Lith. jungiu and Lat. iungeo (I join)
  • Lith. gentys and Lat. gentes (tribes) and Skt. jánas (genus, race).
  • Lith. mėnesis and Lat. mensis and Skt masa (month)
  • Lith. dantys and Lat. dentes and Skt dantas (teeth)
  • Lith. naktys and Lat. noctes and Skt. nakt (night)
  • Lith. sėdime and Lat. sedemus (we sit) and Skt. siedati (sits).