Today i came across a very handy website filled with some very interesting articles from genetics.
Genetic Links in the Indus Valley
 

  This month’s feature article explores genetic links in the Indus Valley, the location of the Bronze Age Harappan Civilization. The historical background section includes a discussion of emerging new models of South Asian prehistory. This new research challenges the traditional academic theory of a "Vedic invasion"  from outside of India, and suggests instead local continuity in South Asia dating to the expansion of Neolithic cultures from West Asia.

 The Old Theory (Vedic Invasion): Despite this vivid archaeological record of Harappan life, the
ancient Harappan language (or languages) is unknown, because the Indus Script remains undeciphered.
When the ancient cities of Harappa were excavated, Western archaeologists generally assumed that the
ancient Harappan culture had been replaced by invaders from the Eurasian Steppe and Central Asia at the
end of the Harappan period around 1700-1300 BCE. The new Central Asian invaders were thought to be
the composers of the Rigveda and other Vedic literature written in the Sanskrit language, ancestral to
Hindi and other languages spoken throughout South Asia to the present day.
This “invasion theory” remains the traditional academic model for Indian prehistory, in part
because it explains the similarity of Sanskrit to ancient Greek and Latin. However, archaeologists have
not found clear evidence for a culture from the Eurasian Steppe or Central Asia that influenced South
Asia in the relevant period. The best effort to address this lack of archaeological evidence is currently the
“Kulturkugel” model, in which invaders spread a new Indo-European language without noticeably
impacting the material culture of South Asia. Similarly, linguistic evidence for any pre-Vedic “substrate”
language of the Indus Valley is somewhat limited.

 A New Model (Vedic Harappans): To address this lack of evidence for Vedic invaders from
Central Asia, some scholars are beginning to explore evidence for greater antiquity of the Vedic culture
(dating to the Harappan period) and a South Asian geographical setting for the Rigveda and other texts.
Proposed evidence for the antiquity of Vedic cultures has included astronomical references in
Vedic texts that date to 2,500 BCE and possibly older based on changed star positions (due to the
precession of the equinoxes). Geographical terms in the Rigveda suggest a South Asian setting, including
areas near the Indus Valley and as far east as the lower Ganges. Similarly, river names in the Punjab
suggest the local antiquity of Sanskrit speaking cultures in northern India.2
Most importantly, the Rigveda itself does not mention any migration to northern India. In
contrast, related Zoroastrian texts from Central and West Asia do mention a migration from an earlier
homeland (possibly near the Hindu Kush Mountains). Early evidence from outside of India also includes
West Asian Mitannian and Kassite cultures (contemporary with the Harappan Civilization), which used
Rigvedic like deity names and the peacock (a South Asian animal) as an artistic motif. Taken together,
this suggests the possibility that Vedic cultures were indigenous South Asians (possibly one of several
Harappan cultures), appearing in West Asia through the trade links known to archaeologists.

 The Language Puzzle and Evidence for Early Migrations: A new model of “Vedic
Harappans” would however, create a new puzzle: if there was no Vedic invasion, how did Indo-European
languages find their way to both Europe and South Asia? Archaeological evidence supports two major
expansions into South Asia: (1) a Neolithic expansion (possibly from West Asia) between 6,000-4,500
BCE; and (2) an Iron Age expansion (possibly from Central Asia) between 800-200 BCE.
Neolithic (Pre-Harappan) Expansion: One possibility is that food producing cultures of West
Asia brought Indo-European languages to South Asia during the Neolithic expansion (6,000-4,500 BCE).

 This early date for the languages ancestral to Sanskrit would not contradict the Neolithic date for the
Proto-Indo-European language that has been proposed by some linguists

 It was going nice unill got struck by this funny and idiotic assumption-

 Iron Age (Shakya) Expansion: The second expansion dating to 800-200 BCE has been
associated with Shakya or Saka (Scythian related) cultures from Central Asia that influenced early
Buddhist culture in India. For instance, the Sanskrit scholar Michael Witzel has suggested Central Asian
links for some Shakya customs, such as the use of burial mounds (stupas) and Zoroastrian concepts in
Buddhist literature.
First emerging in Śākyamuni’s native kingdom of Lumbini (in present day Nepal), Buddhism
eventually spread outward from the Indian Subcontinent and flourished in the mercantile Silk Road oasis
settlements of Central Asia. In the context of a “Vedic Harappans” model, these Shakyas might have been
peripheral Harappan or Vedic influenced cultures from Central Asia that returned to the core Vedic
location of India during the Iron Age.

This shakya-saka connection theory is an old one with recently regenerated by Indologists like Michael Witzel but has no real base at all. Now just see the vital conclusion-

 Both STR and SNP based analyses indicated substantial genetic links between the Indus Valley
and both the interior of the Indian Subcontinent and West Asia. Archaeological evidence for a population
expansion (possibly from West Asia) between 6,000 and 4,500 BCE might relate to genetic links with the
Mesopotamian region (STR) and Caucasus-Anatolian region (SNP). Expansions of food producing
cultures during this period might have provided an opportunity for the Indo-European languages
(ancestral to Vedic Sanskrit) to reach the Indian Subcontinent.
In contrast, genetic links with Siberian populations were smaller. These included relatively small
Altaian (STR), Baltic-Urals (SNP), and Mongolian (SNP) genetic components. These genetic links might
express later and less extensive population expansions from the Eurasian Steppe and Central Asia, such as
possible Shakya migrations during the Iron Age.
In addition, results also suggested genetic expansions from India to Central Asia. This included
South India components identified in Kalash, Tajik, and Turkmen populations near the periphery of the
Indus Valley region. These genetic links might express population expansions from South Asia, such as
during the period of the Bronze Age Harappan Civilization. Future research might explore South Asian
genetic links in more distant locations (such as the BMAC and Urals), where evidence for Vedic
influences in material culture have been suggested by archaeologists.
In summary, results are consistent with emerging alternative models of South Asian prehistory, in
which the Vedic cultures were descended from indigenous Harappans already resident in South Asia.
Rather than a putative “Indo-European invasion” from Central Asia in the late Bronze Age, results
suggest the possibility of an earlier and more peaceful “Indo-European diffusion” of food producing
cultures from West Asia during the Copper Age.

yog

 My conclusion:

Atleast the age of Indo-European language here is getting older which i think is correct and yes Rikved should be pushed 6-5 centuries deeper than its current date of around 1700-1100 B.C.

  About the 800 B.C. intrusion( should be close to 600b.c. instead of 800b.c. See the BMAC post link) i think they were related to the Parthians or to the  Dasa-Dasyu people mentioned frequently in the Rikved  rather than the saka people.

As we should know the scythian related people started to venture here only from the middle 2nd century b.c.

We should also remember that Chandragupta  with the help of his teacher Chanakya  aka Vishnu Gupta aka kautilya  estabilished an unified Indian empire the legacy of which lasted  untill 185 B.C. starting from 322B.C. so i don't see  much of intrusional admixtures happening during that period!

so the 800-200 b.c. idea is not that promising at all.

And at the last the age of the components is more vital than the proportion on certain populations.

  

 

 

 

 

 

Harappan people used an older form of Brahmi script?

VARANASI: Is Brahmi the oldest script of India. The mysterious script of Indus Valley civilization, which is not deciphered yet may have some ancestral connection with Brahmi script can be deciphered in coming years.
A palm leaf manuscript discovered from Harappan site in Afghanistan has strengthened the belief of existence of a proto Brahmi script, which was used by Indus Valley people. This discussion was raised by Dr DP Sharma, Harappan archaeologist and director, Bharat Kala Bhawan, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) in the International Conference on Harappan Archaeology held recently in Chandigarh.

According to Sharma, who has carried out research works on the palm leaf manuscript with Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for last five years, the palm leaf has Harappan as well as Kohi script engraved. "Kohi symbols and letters have an affinity with the Harappan script and hence can be very significant in the decipherment of Harappan scripts. At the same time the palm leave manuscript has seven lines, which is the longest script recovered from any Harappan site. So far the scripts or the signs of Indus Valley script engraved on tablets, seals, potteries and other objects had not more than 18 letters or pictures," informed Sharma.
Sharma also said, "The script on the palm leaf runs from right to left while Brahmi script runs from right to left. The objects discovered from excavation sites indicate that they were using two scripts as few objects have right to left run of the script while some objects have left to right written scripts. However, no traces of objects with bilingual scripts has been found so far of Harappan period, which suggests that there was only one script called Brahmi and the script that Harappan people used was an older form of Brahmi called 'proto Brahmi'. During the mature Harappan period (2700 BC to 2000 BC) the direction of Harappan writing system was right to left and later on around 2000 to 1500 BC they started their writing system from left to right. The existence of no long manuscript had posed the difficulty in deciphering the Harappan script, however, the manuscript on palm leaves may solve this problem".
Sharma further strengthens his argument by quoting the DNA analysis carried out by Dr Lalji Singh, vice-chancellor, BHU. According to Sharma, the analysis by Singh suggests that the two ancient races Aryan and Dravidians were native of India and none of them came outside of our country. The Aryan and Dravidian races in India have the same genetic basis. This suggests that proto Dravidian and proto Aryan races were present in Harappan population and Harappan were using proto Dravidian and Sanskrit as their language and their script was proto Brahmi only.
According to Sharma, during the conference, his research works in deciphering the Harappan scripts were also consolidated by BR Mani additional director general, ASI. "These new researches can help a great deal in deciphering the Harappan script and once the script is deciphered a number of mysterious seals, square pieces, pottery, coins and other objects can be read and hence we can know about their trade, literature, art and other aspects of civilization," informed Sharma.

 yog
However, according to  Prof. Dr. Roland Bielmeier of University of Bern the artefact is probably a fake! as he suggests-

 Whether this last statistic also indicates that the signs encode similar phonetic and
logographic values in the two systems, remains unclear however. It just seems too
problematic to judge with any certainty, whether the Kabul text could exhibit this
pattern of sign frequency overlap, if the symbols represented entirely different linguistic
units in the Indus corpus. One would need to decide, whether sign frequencies could
coincide in this manner, if a non-Indus people had stumbled upon a collection of Indus
inscriptions and merely adopted the shapes of some of the most common symbols for
their script without adopting their encoding value. If this scenario could be discounted
on the basis of signs frequencies, then it could be assumed that a number of Kabul
graphemes share the same value as their matching Indus symbols. This, in turn, would imply that the Indus symbols belong to a speech-encoding writing system and the
hypothesis of the non-linguistic Indus symbol system would be refuted.
If this problem were solved, then researchers would need to establish whether the
Kabul text employed the exact same writing system as the Indus Civilization or whether
the system was modified in any way. The manuscript might represent a later simplified
stage of the Indus script for instance. This hypothetical stage could contain a reduced
number of logographs and rely predominantly on syllables instead. Evolutionary
patterns of other scripts show that this development is a widespread phenomenon.

 A large portion or maybe even all of the Kabul signs might therefore encode
syllables. The amount of proposed Kabul graphemes would not rule out either of these
possibilities because the total of Kabul graphemes might increase drastically, or merely
a little, if a larger corpus than 172 graphs were available for examination. This
relatively limited corpus simply does not allow predictions on the matter. Therefore, it
would certainly be worthwhile uncovering and analysing the other layers of bark to find
out how many more graphemes would join the 62 already visible graphemes.

 It would also be extremely interesting and potentially revealing to compare the
frequencies of particular signs sequences. If it could be demonstrated that the most
common Indus grapheme sequences also occur relatively frequently in the manuscript,
then it would seem likely that the Kabul penman not only used the Indus script but that
the text encoded the language, or one of the languages, of the Indus Civilization. As it
stands the manuscript might encode a non-Indus language and merely utilise the Indus
writing system.

 Many issues therefore still remain unresolved and numerous aspects beg further
investigation. So far, a graphemic analysis of the Kabul manuscript has only enabled the
positing of a Kabul grapheme list and its subsequent comparison to the symbols of the
Indus corpus has merely lead to the definite conclusion that the majority of the signs on
the analysed birch bark were borrowed from the collection of Indus symbols. It should
also be kept in mind that any of the contentions that were presented in this thesis would
be invalidated if the Kabul manuscript proved to be a forgery. As all arguments hinge
on the assumption that the manuscript is not a fake, establishing the date of the strip of  birch bark would certainly head the list of top priorities, which need to be addressed in
any further examination of this intriguing artefact.

yog
So, a simple radiocarbon dating would have been ideal to solve this debate.
The debate also reminds me of the late  veteran scholar S.R. Rao who found the IVC script to be Indo-Aryan contradicting the popular views of Munda and of course Dravidian.
There is also a debate of whether the script represents a language or not!.
But if you ask me there is a direct player waiting to unleash, the player is  the aDNA of an ancient harappan site in  Farmana which i think holds the key to solve the indo-european riddle and to give the field of indology a true direction, a revolution which already have been started with some academic indologists like here.
Happy 2013 to all.

The origins of iron-working in India:
new evidence from the Central Ganga
Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas-
Rakesh Tewari

Recent excavations in Uttar Pradesh have turned up iron artefacts, furnaces, tuyeres and slag in
layers radiocarbon dated between c. BC 1800 and 1000. This raises again the question of whether
iron working was brought in to India during supposed immigrations of the second millennium
BC, or developed independently.
Keywords: India, Early Iron Age, Iron working, Ganga Valley, Eastern Vindhyas
yog

Mehrgarh was not the the farming seed of South Asia:

Early Farming at Lahuradewa

This paper embodies an outcome of investigations emanated from the excavations carried out at the lakeside settlement of
Lahuradewa, from 2001 to 2006, in district Sant Kabirnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India. The continuous occurrence of microcharcoal in the lakebeds justifiably mitigate the human activities that persistently set fire to the vegetation in the area during
past  ca. 10,000 years. Palynological studies from lakebeds helped in reconstruction of  vegetational history, sequential
changes in the climate and early agricultural activities from early  Holocene and onwards in Middle Ganga Plain. The human
groups at that early date, who subjected the vegetation to fire for environmental management, were those who brought into
being a settled early farming culture at Lahuradewa  – characterised by cord-impressed pottery. Primordially, the record of
domesticated rice in the opening phase of Lahuradewa settlement, prima facie constitutes the evidence of early Holocene
agriculture in Middle Ganga Plain.

yog

Sindhu civilization is more old than you knew...

Indus Valley Civilization as Old as 7380 BC: ASI

A new discovery has thrown new light on the age of Indus Valley Civilization making it older by another 2,000 years. This makes our native civilization older than that of Egypt and Babylon. The current findings revealed at the “International Conference on Harappan Archaeology”, organised by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in Chandigarh place the date of the origin of the Indus Valley Civilisation at 6,000 years before Christ. The discovery puts at dispute the ongoing theory that settlements came up at an approximate of 3750 BC.
In connection with the current research, BR Mani, ASI joint Director General, and KN Dikshit, former ASI Joint Director General said,”The preliminary results of the data from early sites of the Indo-Pak subcontinent suggest that the Indian civilisation emerged in the 8th millennium BC in the Ghaggar-Hakra and Baluchistan area. On the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon go back to 7380 BC to 6201 BC.”
The current excavations have been carried out at two sites in Pakistan and Bhirrana, Kunal, Rakhigarhi and Baror in India. The previous set of excavations done in 1920 at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro showed Indus Valley Civilisation to be almost as old as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia.
yog

All you need to know on BMAC and its ''Aryan relation'' (with some key info on Indian History)

Well BMAC is been connected with Arya culture by quite a few scholars including its founder Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi or Victor Sarigiannides but as we know or should know there is a difference between assumption and satya so i give you folks a speech by B.B.Lal, enjoy it...

Let not the 19th century paradigms continue to haunt us!

Inaugural Address delivered at the 19th International Conference on South Asian Archaeology,held at University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy on July 2-6, 2007.

Distinguished fellow delegates and other members of the audience,

I am most grateful to the organizers of this conference, in particular to the President, Professor Maurizio Tosi, not only for inviting me to participate in this Conference but also for giving me the additional honour of delivering the Inaugural Address. Indeed, I have no words to thank them adequately for their kindness. Perhaps this is the first occasion when a South Asian is being given this privileged treatment by the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists.

The conference hall is full of scholars from all parts of the world – from the United States of America on the west to the Land of the Rising Sun, Japan, on the east. All these scholars have contributed in a number of ways to our understanding of the past of South Asia, and I salute them with all the humility that I can muster. However, I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that some amongst us have not yet been able to shake off the 19th-century biases that have blurred our vision of South Asia’s past.

As is well known, it was the renowned German scholar Max Muller who, in the 19th century, attempted for the first time to date the Vedas. Accepting that the Sutra literature was datable to the 6th century BCE, he gave a block-period of 200 years to the preceding three parts of the Vedic literature, namely the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Vedas. Thus, he arrived at 1200 BCE as the date of the Vedas. However, when his contemporaries, like Goldstucker, Whitney and Wilson, objected to his ad-hocism, he toned down, and finally surrendered by saying (Max Muller 1890, reprint 1979): “Whether the Vedic hymns were composed [in] 1000 or 1500 or 2000 or 3000 BC, no power on earth will ever determine.” But the great pity is that, in spite of such a candid confession by the savant himself, many of his followers continue to swear by his initial dating, viz. 1200 BCE.

The ultimate effect of this blind tenacity was that when in the 1920s the great civilization, now known variously as the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, was discovered in South Asia, and was dated to the 3rd millennium BCE, it was argued that since the Vedas were no earlier than 1200 BCE, the Harappan Civilization could not have been Vedic. Further, since the only other major linguistic group in the region was the Dravidian, it was held that the Harappans were a Dravidian-speaking people.

Then came the master stroke. In 1946, my revered guru Mortimer Wheeler (later knighted) discovered a fortification wall at Harappa and on learning that the Aryan god Indra had been referred to as puramdara (destroyer of forts) he readily pronounced his judgment (Wheeler 1947: 82): “On circumstantial evidence Indra [representing the Aryans] stands accused [of destroying the Harappan Civilization].” In further support of his thesis, he cited certain human skeletons at Mohenjo-daro, saying that these were the people massacred by the Aryan invaders. Thus was reached the peak of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory.

And lo and behold! The very first one to fall in the trap of the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory was none else but the guru’s disciple himself. With all the enthusiasm inherited from the guru, I started looking for the remains of some culture that may be post-Harappan but anterior to the early historical times. In my exploration of the sites associated with the Mahabharata story I came across the Painted Grey Ware Culture which fitted the bill. It antedated the Northern Black Polished Ware whose beginning went back to the 6th-7th century BCE, and overlay, with a break in between, the Ochre Colour Ware of the early 2nd millennium BCE. In my report on the excavations at Hastinapura and in a few subsequent papers I expressed the view that the Painted Grey Ware Culture represented the early Aryans in India. But the honeymoon was soon to be over. Excavations in the middle Ganga valley threw up in the pre-NBP strata a ceramic industry with the same shapes (viz. bowls and dishes) and painted designs as in the case of the PGW, the only difference being that in the former case the ware had a black or black-and-red surface-colour, which, however, was just the result of a particular method of firing. And even the associated cultural equipment was alike in the two cases. All this similarity opened my eyes and I could no longer sustain the theory of the PGW having been a representative of the early Aryans in India. (The association of this Ware with the Mahabharata story was nevertheless sustainable since that event comes at a later stage in the sequence.) I had no qualms in abandoning my then-favourite theory.

But linguists are far ahead of archaeologists in pushing the poor Aryans through the Khyber / Bolan passes into India. In doing so, they would not mind even distorting the original Sanskrit texts. A case in point is that of the well known Professor of Sanskrit at the Harvard University, Professor Witzel. He did not hesitate to mistranslate a part of the Baudhayana Srautasutra(Witzel 1995: 320-21). In 2003 I published a paper in the East and West (Vol. 53, Nos. 1-4), exposing his manipulation. Witzel’s translation of the relevant Sanskrit text was as follows:

"Aya went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava(migration).(His other people)stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parasu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group).

Whereas the correct translation is:

Ayu migrated eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas. This is the Ayava (migration). Amavasu migrated westwards. His (people) are the Ghandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu (migration).

According to the correct translation, there was no movement of the Aryan people from anywhere in the north-west. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that it was from an intermediary point that some of the Aryan tribes went eastwards and other westwards. This would be clear from the map that follows...

yog

“We are all immortal”

Psychiatrist and past life regression therapist Brian Weiss tells Nona Walia why he firmly believes in the continuity of individual souls.

It was quite by chance that psychiatrist Dr Brian Weiss started believing in past life regression. It was back in the mid-1980s, when he was treating a woman patient. During psychotherapy, he asked her to look into her past when she was a child, but she went back a thousand years to another life, with vivid memories of herself as another person. After successfully treating her, Weiss started researching on the subject and came out with his bestseller Many Lives, Many Masters. Since then, he has written several books, Through Time Into Healing, Only Love is Real, Same Soul, Many Bodies, among others. In his latest book, Miracles Happen, he talks about everyday miracles in people's lives, which they fail to recognise. "Our rational minds often attempt to minimise or negate the mystical encounters. We forget the power of our experiences. We mustembrace the reality of that event, which is a miracle," says Weiss. Excerpts from an interview:

Do people find it difficult to believe in reincarnation?

I have been documenting physical and emotional healings in my patients and workshop participants over the past 32 years. These are amazing accounts of the power of past life memories to transform people's lives. The Greeks and Indians have always believed in thetheory of reincarnation. I firmly believe karma is not punishment but an opportunity to learn our lessons. If the lessons have not been learnt in a previous lifetime, we come back to work on them. The lessons are about love, compassion, non-violence, patience, understanding and non-prejudice.

When do we attain moksha?

When the lessons and learnings are complete. Then there's no reincarnation.

Why don't we remember our previous lives?

I see that changing, that's what my past-life therapy is all about. We're trying to remember our past lives and learn from our mistakes. In my experiments, people are remembering through therapeutic techniques such as hypnosis, dreams and meditation. According to mythology, if you were born again and you drank from the River of Lethe, you would forget your previous lives.

You say, before we are born, our soul plans the trajectory of the life that lies ahead. How?

Every individual soul chooses the significant people in that life. Destiny will place you in the particular circumstance; it will dictate that you will encounter a particular person, at a certain time, place. The people it arranges you to meet are frequently the people with whom you have lived or have known in your past life. Once you meet them, you then exercise your free will: Do you stay? Or do you leave? You may love them, work with them, befriend them, or marry them. Or you might reject them. These are your choices and this is how you learn. Everything is part of the master plan of the soul's growth. We are here to learn deep lessons.

What is the biggest thing that stops people from living their lives in the present moment? Fear and we must learn how to overcome fear.

How can people eliminate their fears, which often draw them back?

Understanding dissolves fear. When we understand the true nature of our being, fears dissipate. We are spiritual beings, not human beings.

Your belief is that miracles may be large that affect an entire group, or they may be small and silent. How do we recognize miracles?

It is not the size of the healing or transformation that matters. It is the powerful spiritual effect that manifests at the physical or emotional level. It is evident when it occurs.

How can we go back in our past lives?

We can pray and ask for divine intervention but to experience the transformational power of past life memories, one needs to experience a regression. The human body is a vessel for the soul. With each life, we complete some part of the whole learning process. That's why I believe human beings are essentially immortal.

How can we experience magic?

You can experience magic when you are mindfully living in the present moment. It's a matter of awareness and mindfulness. It's also important not to live with any regrets of the past or worries of the future.

In what way does past life regression help a person?

It's very important to remember and remind yourself of the unfulfilled goals from your past lives. It eventually helps you get past all the obstacles of the present life. Past life regression therapy permanently heals the body and the mind.You have to know about the exact nature of the problem before seeking answers or solutions to overcome them.

We are living in a world full of anxieties that cripple us. How can we heal and be free of them?

This is a matter of recognising our true nature. We are spiritual beings. We are immortal and eternal. Anxieties and other negative emotions are merely temporary states.

yog