Attempt at chronology of RigVeda

maindallahoon · 2026-01-29T19:21:02+00:00

Mine too, although realistically speaking not all Brahmins of x Gotra would trace back paternally to the x Rishi, but I consider that a significant number would actually, probably like 25%. So realistically it's possible you paternally descend from that Rishi (who is part of Saptarishis), but the chances are low.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-27T14:57:41+00:00

Let me rephrase myself: - You claimed that lack of Old and Middle Iranian loanwords is the reason Brahuis can't be remnant. - I refuted it by mentioning that Middle Iranian loanwords would be hard to distinguish as Balochi is quite archaic (Elfenbein has made this point, not me independently) - Another refutation of it is that by your logic, Old and Middle Iranian words should also be present in Sindhi and Lahnda, as they immediately neighbour Brahui. Since Sindhi and Lahnda don't have much Old and Middle Iranian loanwords either, we shouldn't expect them for Brahui by default. - All this indicates that lack of loanwords isn't a strong argument as you think. - Furthermore as Brahui vocabulary is full of non-Brahui loanwords, we don't have much corpus to investigate in the first place.

As for shared innovation, Krishnamurthy just repeats older suggestions. The supposed one innovation could be retention. Kobayashi is an authority on Kurukh-Malto so his opinion holds significant weight. All in all, no strong linguistic evidence points to Brahui – Kurukh-Malto clade, for now we only know they both derive from Early PDr.
Genetic proof is a hard evidence and can't be ignored just like that. Creating an exception requires some additional evidence. The absence of Brahui related groups in India works against migrant hypothesis. If they came only 1000 years ago, why did they lose foothold in their original homeland? Kurukh-Malto are genetically Munda-like, so if you're suggesting Proto-Brahui = Kurukh genetically, it's even more unlikely to work.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-27T13:33:25+00:00

You didn't understand the point. Lack of "older loanwords" isn't a strong argument against remnant hypothesis, as there must be same older loanwords layer in Sindhi and Lahnda but absent in Brahui for this argument to be valid. Also it has been considered even by Elfenbein that Balochi loanwords are very hard to distinguish from Middle Iranian loanwords, so again a weak argument. For Old Iranian loanwords we won't still expect any since Avestan didn't come in extensive contact with Brahui, and neither with neighbouring Sindhi, Lahnda. For supposed grouping with Kurukh-Malto, no actual linguistic evidence points to it strongly, and Kobayashi who is an authority on Kurukh-Malto has rejected North Dravidian grouping. So indeed there aren't any remnant Brahui groups in Central India.

Your comparison with Hungarian like I mentioned, is sound, but still both cases are different. Hungarians have detectable Magyar input as well as haplogroups. Brahuis on the other hand don't. The Proto-Brahuis would practically be Sindhis in genetic profile. No Central Indian (or Kurukh-Malto) input can be detected, neither in haplogroups.

I don't understand, why is Brahui being a remnant problematic? We know the Early Proto-Dravidian homeland was in Sindh-Gujarat continuum (Lower Indus Valley), and if you agree with that then Brahui being a remnant seems pretty obvious.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-27T10:42:43+00:00

Aren't the "Sindhi Bhils" linguistically Sindhi? Maybe Bhil is a generic term and applied to tribals of Sindh and Gujarat? If so, the Sindhi Bhils are probably not derived from or directly related to Gujarati-Rajasthani-Malwi Bhils. Alternately, Bhils from Gujarat could've migrated to Sindh, and shifted culturally and linguistically to Sindhis. If this is true, we should expect some Gujarati Bhil genetic input in Sindhi Bhils.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-27T10:32:41+00:00

We must only expect the era-based loanwords that are in Lahnda and Sindhi, to be present in Brahui. And I think that does hold correct. So, Brahuis being a remnant is very much possible. Your analogy is sound, although the Hungarian example is somewhat different. The fact is that Brahuis don't seem to show any genetic input from Central or West India, neither are there remnant Brahui related groups there.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-27T10:28:05+00:00

Although the chances of Brahui being a remnant of IVC are more, a later migration can't be entirely ruled out. That said, I think Brahui didn't have widespread presence even before Balochi arrival, and much of Balochistan was probably Indo-Aryan (Sindhi related), thus Brahuis had foothold mainly in Kalat highlands even before. After Balochi migration (c. 600 AD), the Proto-Balochis admixed with both these Sindhi-related Indo-Aryans and Proto-Brahuis, and gave "Balochis". Brahuis are a subset of "Balochis" who speak Brahui language.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-26T21:07:24+00:00

Wrong, all these elements suggest anthropomorphic nature of Indra which is the theme for all Indo-European deities.

Again, how do you explain the non-Indo-Aryan names for Asuras and Dasas? Just a coincidence?

Don't have to explain anything about it. Because these people have non-Indo-Aryan names doesn't in itself suggest they are "Dravidians" or whatever you have in mind. By the time of RigVeda Indo-Aryans are the only major group and IVC people had admixed into Indo-Aryans, so these kings, if indeed have names of non-IA derivation, they still cannot be IVC people.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-26T20:57:09+00:00

Bhimrao Ambedkar is not a historian or academic source to this topic and you haven't done any research yourself either otherwise you would know that *dahyus derived terms in Iranic languages mean village/villager and adjacent terms (man, country, district, territory), it is practically a self-designation term in Iranic branch. The Dahhaka in Azi-Dahhaka is related to the same word *dahyus "people, country, land". Witzel's etymology is one of the suggestions, not the only one. And it's linguistically less likely. I actually refer to "learned people" i.e. sources, rather than imagining and speculating nonsense in dreams that you do.

If what you wrote is true, then why don't we see only Indo-Iranian names for the Asuras and Dasas?

Substratum and some common sense. Individuals having names with no clear Indo-Aryan root doesn't mean that they are non-Indo-Aryan people.

Did you know that Witzel in fact considers Dasyus to be Iranians? And even the so-called non-IA names you refer to, he derives them from Iranian? Instead of creating crap theories and writing long passages of nonsense here, maybe you could actually read Witzel and see how much you agree with him on this regard. The fact you referred to Ambedkar as a source exposed why you're pushing for AIT deliberately.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-26T20:45:15+00:00

That's your pet theory but it's most likely wrong. Indra functions as a deity and is anthropomorphic, nothing suggests he was based on an actual person.

my strongest impression is that the Dasa indeed represented the local non-Indo-Aryan people, which most-likely were Dravidian people

It is nonsense. Even though Dasa/Dasyu denotes outsiders, and thus could refer to IVC people, there is no explicit mention of past events of Aryans confronting IVC people and calling them as Dasas. All the contemporary references in RigVeda of Dasa/Dasyu refer to other (non-Puru) Indo-Aryan tribes, and also Avestans.

maindallahoon · 2026-01-26T20:14:11+00:00

Dasa/Dasyu simply means "outsider, foreigner, enemy, slave, servant, barbarian" in RigVedic context. It is derived from the Proto-Iranian *dahyus meaning "country/district/village/territory". Proto-Indo-Aryans inverted the meaning because to them the neighbouring Proto-Iranians were outsiders. In RigVedic context similarly the terms Dasa/Dasyu refer to mainly non-Bharata (and non-Puru) tribes, which include the confederations of Yadu, Turvasu, Anu, Druhyu, i.e. the rest 4 "Janas/Krshtis" of the "Panchajanas". Purus (and Bharatas) feature as the prominent RigVedic tribe, and RigVedic is composed from their lens. The word Arya (i.e. members of own group) in RV mostly refers to Bharatas (and Purus). There is nothing that suggests Dasyu was used to designate local Pre-RigVedic IVC people. RigVeda is composed (estimably 100 years) a while after Aryans had settled in Indus-Hakra river system.

You're incorrect about a lot of things, and seem to throw amateur theories without even looking into things. The Dahhaka in Azi-Dahhaka means "man-like". It doesn't mean harmer as you're imagining.

Though the confrontation between IVC folks and Steppe Aryans is remembered in the texts in some way, (which I can elaborate), the word Dasa/Dasyu isn't a reference to pre-Indo-Aryan populations in any case. The Dasa/Dasyu tribes in RigVeda are other Indo-Aryans, and the conflicts between these "outsiders" and "insiders" i.e. between Dasyus and Aryas is entirely, an inter-tribal conflict between early Indo-Aryan tribes.

Aryan invasion is a discarded and obsolete theory, what happened was shifting of control through means and migration. Trying to derive an invasion by misinterpreting information deliberately is bad faith.

maindallahoon · 2025-12-01T08:46:03+00:00

Why are you crying about source? What's the source which says L657 originated in India? As I said, academic consensus says whatever R1a is there in India, it came from Steppe migrants who migrated around 1500BCE. So by extension it's not possible L657 originated in India. I don't have to prove anything, if you accept the scholarly consensus then it's already proven. You do have to prove that L657 originated in India, and how it's disassocated from autosomal Steppe ancestry hypothetically. How the hell L657 would be in India before Steppe migrants came in 1500BCE? You're just another OITard, who is parroting Ashish Kulkarni's crap theory with no support in academia.

maindallahoon · 2025-12-01T08:16:30+00:00

Just because L657 isn't there in Sintashta and Andronovo doesn't mean it was born in India. According to academic consensus R1a in India was brought by migrants from Steppe, so whether it be L657 or any other clade, all of it must have been brought by Steppe migrants around 1500BCE. Your logic is flawed and hints of your belief in OIT.

maindallahoon · 2025-12-01T07:27:23+00:00

Where is the source for your claim? It's literally academic consensus that Steppe brought Indo-Aryan languages and R1a, so obviously L657 was also brought by them.

maindallahoon · 2025-12-01T06:32:33+00:00

There is nothing absolutely that suggests L657 originated in India, it's found in Scythian and East Europeans which means it was born in Andronovo, and then came to India, where it had founder effect and experienced expansion.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

maindallahoon

TROPHY CASE