Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Indigenous Aryans? A new myth in making!


Image result for aryans

There is a serious problem with the migration theorists, no matter whether they are Indigenous Aryan or Aryan Migration Theorists. Both use the same data drawing convenient inferences from literary, archeological or genetics. After the publication of an article in Hindu, indigenous Aryan theorists have come forward to refute Tony Joseph’s claim that the Indo-Aryans entered India from the west. Both, A.L. Chavda1 and Anil Kumar Suri have tried to disprove Tony Joseph while pushing forth Indigenous Aryan Theory. They not only use genetic pieces of evidence in their favor by sheer misinterpretation or even lies but drag literary evidence to prove that the Vedas were authored by the indigenous Aryans and were composed on the banks of the now defunct Ghaggar River to which they identify with Vedic Sarasvati.

Before getting into their concocted and misinterpreted genetic evidence, let us first take stock of Chavda’s other arguments those he has forwarded in favor of the Indigenous Aryan Theory.

Chavda boldly claims that the family that conquered the world…originated in India. He also carelessly claims that remote ancestor of the R1a family lived in India 15,450 years ago. He does not forget to inform the caste of the origin…and yes, it is Brahmin. He goes further to use the mythical mother of demons, Danu, and her children, the Danava clan to tell us how the Danavas were defeated and banished by Devas and that they ended up in Ireland!  

He, to prove his theory, tells us the various river names those are closely related with the Mother River Goddess Danu, such as Danube, Don, Dnieper and few others. These river names are derived from the Rig Vedic Sanskrit root Danu. Danu, in Sanskrit, meant fluid or drop. In Old Persian Danu meant river. Hence the river names could have been derived from the Persian Danu or Vedic Danu because, anyway, they were close inhabitants.

In Rig Veda Danu was the mother of Vritra, an Asur and not Danavas. Danu also is another name of Soma in Rig Veda. (Rig. 10.43.7) It is used in many senses like cloud, rain, drops, giver etc. and she is not evil but is praised at many places. 

The relationship between Danu and Danavas is not clear in the Rig Veda. It is far later literature she has been shown as the consort of Kashyap and mother of Danavas. There is none relationship between her name and her being as any River Goddess. In India, there is no river named after Danu. What rivers we have related to her name are all flow from Central Asia and Europe.

Had Aryans been originated in India and Danavas being a clan of Indo-Aryans as claimed by Chavda, why there is not a single river named after mythical Danu, though her name survived in the literature adorning different character? How large was the population of the Danavas to spread and settle over a large part of Eurasia? And why except river names and Irish mythological story, there is no trace of the Danavas in any literature except mention of Danu in Avesta?

This is the contrast that rather tells us that the mythological Vedic stories flowed in India from the west, i.e. Iran and were not originated in India. Danu-Danava relationship was developed in far later course of the time. The original enmity was between Devas and Asuras, the people of opposing faiths and we get series of the stories of the wars fought between Deva and Asuras, i.e. Vedic Aryans and Zoroastrians those took place in ancient Iran and not in India.

Chavda has forwarded this myth to prove migration of the Indo-Aryan clan named Danava from India is completely flawed and so is his other so-called genetic evidence.

He has cited a report 2 to make out his claim that the oldest example of the haplogroup R1a is found in India and it is 15, 450 years old! First of all author of the paper informs that the sub-group Z93 of R1a is ancient, not R1a. We have the proofs that the R1a-M417 subclade diversified into Z282 and Z93 about circa 5,800 years ago.3 R1a is as old as 22,000 or 25,000 years old.

Now, when Z93 was not evolved at all during the time claimed, how it can be claimed Z93 existed 15,450 years ago? Isn't it a blatant lie and misrepresentation of the research to anyhow prove the baseless theory?

This makes Chavda’s story a most concocted and a lie to mislead the people to the Indigenous Aryan Theory! Aryans, if they existed cannot be proved indigenous using the genetics or any other source, may it be archeology or literary!

Why they blatantly lie or misinterpret the proofs? The only reason is they want to claim authorship of the Indus-Ghaggar civilization and prove the Vedics, and that too Brahmins among them were superior of all those even reached Europe to spread their language and culture! This is albeit supremacist, racial approach which is dangerous to the good science

(In next article we will discuss the article of Anil Kumar Suri and another article by Mr. A. L. Chavda.)

Ref: 


And


2. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi--haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf


2 comments:

  1. Hello,

    Although genes don't speak languages , but combining aDNA from different periods and of course by larger sampling from modern population of S Asia , we will get a good picture of migrations and ancestries . I think harmonizing Genetics, Archaeology and Ancient Texts is the key .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Origin of the languages is altogether different issue. The similarities and dissimilarities in the gene pool of the large populations does not prove the migrations, but the similar geological and geographical environment that causes evolutions of the haplogroups and sub-groups in particular regions. Finding a old specimen at some place does not prove that was the place of origin of any haplogroup. If we have the samples of the DNA belonging to every region of same time in particular geological region we still will find the subgroups depending on the local geological features. I do not deny the migrations, but I deny considering a reason for spread of the language and culture . Both are in a way independent issues related by entirely different link we are not yet ready to acknowledge. Ancient texts help us in many way, for example travel of the original ideas of myths and religious and technical concepts. But they cannot be solely attributed to the migrations. Migration is overrated issue that want to find simple answer to the complicated question.

      Delete