01-03-2012, 06:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-03-2012, 08:19 AM by dhu.)
The quote from Witzel in #521 should be taken seriously. Regarding Metspalu:
We know from the haplogroup studies that the entire "West Eurasian" genome is derived from India. At the level of mtDNA, the N and U types found in W. Eur were wintering in the Indus region prior to AMH's first venture to the West. From Metspalu it is clear that these groups have very low autosomal diversity in comparison to populations east. this fact has interesting consequences for the intermediate diversity component (K5) found in the west: it cannot have been generated in regions through which the low diversity WE groups necessarily resided and must signal secondary flow from regions further east. Supportive is Metspalu's evidence regarding the very weak cline of K5 in India from the Indus basin, versus the robust cline westwards including across the refugia of the Caucasus:
"However, considering the geographic spread of this component within India, there is only a very weak correlation (r = 0.4) between probability of membership in this cluster and distance from its closest core area in Baluchistan. Instead, a more steady cline (correlation r = 0.7 with distance from Baluchistan) of decrease of probability for ancestry in the k5 light green ancestral population can be observed as one moves from Baluchistan toward north (north Pakistan and Central Asia) and west (Iran, the Caucasus, and, finally, the Near East and Europe)."
Probably it was this intermediate component which pushed out the initial low diversity components (which themselves could not have arisen anywhere else but at the edges of S Asia) to the West in the first place. Additionally, the cline runs *across* the Caucasus from an immediate origin in C Asia. The C Asian component in turns seems to derived from the Makran coast/Baluchistan/Sindh (immediately West of the Indus) and is the logical and evidenced origin point for these migration types. The Sindh> C Asia> West scenario was even proposed by Elst as generally characteristic of the out-of-India route:
"A look at the map suffices to show the improbability of any other route from India to Iran: rather than to go in a straight line across the mountains, substantial groups of migrants would follow the far more hospitable route through the fertile Oxus valley to the Aral Lake area, and then proceed south from there."
So we have in Metspalu a very basic genetic parsing, reflecting these geographical divisions and as formed by the out-migrations.
Any contrary scenario (out of Caucasus for example) would have the intermediate component K5 going against the "diversity cline" (with S Indian K6 as the most diverse) into the NW region of the subcontinent which we know independently from mtDNA evidence had harbored an "effective population size" of considerable antiquity (see Atkinson, Gray, Drummond http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/2/468.abstract). It is quite obvious that such a scenario would be near impossible especially without producing any appreciable cline in India. To counter this fact of paleolithic time ranges required for the generation of diversity (as required by the highest diversity component in Paleo S India), the familiar elite and quasi-monotheist scenarios need to be brought in.
More interestingly, the K5 components in Russia and France appear to have directly come from S Asia rather than the Caucasus and it is this specifically which is the out-of-india IE component and corresponds to the now well-attested r1a1 migration westwards.
What we are seeing with the autosomal evidence of an India-specific group is merely the restrictedness of mtDNA macro-haplogroup M to India and further East. Of course this does not mean that N and R did not arise in India, they most definitely did as well. It is a different matter, that N and R can be *labeled* as "West Eurasian" and the aryans can thus be ushered in against all phylogeny- and trajectory-based analyses.
The Reichs and even Metspalus are wedded to the idea of an implied separate origin for WE phenotype being a proxy for AIT. One of Reich's follow-up papers even posits an acceleration of ANI/ASI interaction at 1500 BC and this is supposed to be the AIT!! Romero's LP paper required an Aryan reading of Reich's ANI to "determine" LP introgression into S Asia from the West, overlooking the fact that LP is highly selective as a Vitamin D substitute away from the tropics. The high allele frequency in Europe would be significant only if it were not for an highly selective trait and in such a case the locus would by diametrically opposite to the region of selection! From Reich's and Romero's follow-up papers, it is quite clear that they were using errant and normative reading of 'terms' designated for the paleolithic scenario to *re-interpret* problematic data. I counted 3 non-trace unique LP haplotypes for Pakistan, 1 non-trace and 3 trace for the Near East, and 1 trace for Europe in Romero's Table 3. But in spite of the allele diversity data available, Romero and Reich have used ANI plausibility arguments to "determine" introgression against the selection cline (LP is not selective in Pakistan/NE)
Apart from Reich's normative use of the term ANI, another trick is to use the artifactual clines formed by divergence isolation to overrule the informative diversity clines. Also used is Fst closeness among the migrated out populations and to use intermediate positions on PCA for the source/transit populations (intermediate positions are seen when the migrations are into a well established populations, e.g., in the "admixed" Tajiks compared to the WE-tranformed Turkmen in the case of migrating Turkics; i.e., Turkmen are Tadjiks who have completed the transit).
Even non-wave/non-phylogenetic (non-contextual) Parsi and sea-borne, Roman, British, and Pondicherian era haplogroups are being recruited for the cause. For the latter two, the monotheist elite paradigm is obvious while the first was a fugitive which was sheltered. Significantly, for the Pondicherian, there is a confirmatory mirror in European colonization of the Caribbean. The recent TMRCA for the Pondicherian, and in more general terms for monotheism itself, is one of the limiting criteria for AIT date speculation.
R is anchored in interior Asia if not by anything (due to coeval spreads), then by P definitively. Nonetheless, asiatic R1a1 intrudes into Europe and forms a distinct 2nd wave; European R1a1 which is under one or two SNPs and is delimited to Europe is almost definitely derived from a 1st wave into Europe from the same eastern source: the definite clue is the known trajectory of the 2nd wave intruding into Europe from the East . This dovetails perfectly with Talageri's well-argued theses for the 2nd wave: placing the Iranians out of Kashmir onto the Parusni, clashing with the interiors on the Saraswati, and then out into C Asia and into Iran (also Mittanis, Kassites trajectories; Semitic/Hurrian preponderance in the NE, etc). Via Nichols, we know that the combined Indo-Iranian homeland is also the IE one. The wave trajectory from Asia is now well known for R1b, and the same also holds true for R1a1.
01-06-2012, 04:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2012, 04:12 PM by pusan.)
[quote name='Virendra' date='28 December 2011 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1325077311' post='114102']
I don't remember any linguistic/archeological finding that shows Sanskrit (substantial Sanskrit) being found in the central Asian region which is considered the original home of Aryans.
Even after assuming that Aryans developed Sanskrit after coming to India:
If I would consider they invaded us, then their majority would still have stayed at that base location.
If I would consider they migrated, there is no calamity or other drastic cause to suggest they migrated entirely leaving no population behind.
In both the cases we should have seen Sanskrit in Central Asia, but there is no trace. There is also no mention from the Aryans about their base land (central Asia) even once in the Vedas that they wrote.
[/quote]
Linguistic arguments appear to be OT to this thread still ...
- After the dispersal of Indo-European languages, Eurasian steppes were swept by people speaking Altaic languages, so no trace of IE derived languages are spoken there.
- Bronze age Eurasia did not have major city states where population could settle for a reasonable time period. It's mostly camp sites. Longer term settlements are found to the eastern (Sintashta) and western extremes (Cucutenyi Tripolye).
- Sanskrit definitely developed on the Indian subcontinent. It has elements not found in any other sister IE languages.
- Reconstruction of PIE (Proto-Indo-European), the parent language of Sanskrit, Greek, Romance, Slavic, Germanic, Lithuanian etc is sound science based on principles of phonetics and phonology. It cannot determine the precise homeland, but it does indicate that neither of the daughter languages (that includes Sanskrit) could have given birth to other languages. So there definitely was a parent language.
- Calamities aren't the sole cause of language dispersals. Greater mobility provided by horse domestication on the steppes is a more likely cause.
Expecting modern residents of Central Asia understanding Sanskrit is akin to the modern residents of Indus valley understanding the script of the Indus Seals.
01-07-2012, 05:52 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2012, 05:52 AM by acharya.)
The Sanksrit if deeply set in a perticular region will still have influence in that region.
Central asian region do not show any signs of the language at all. Even if other cultures and religion had overrun it should still retain some clues.
Also this business of proto- languages are really manufactured and has no basis on science or archeology
[quote name='acharya' date='07 January 2012 - 06:00 AM' timestamp='1325895739' post='114152']
The Sanksrit if deeply set in a perticular region will still have influence in that region.
[/quote]
Sanskrit as we know it, was formed on the Indian subcontinent, not on the eurasian steppes. It's not realistic to expect Sanskrit on the eurasian steppes. What existed on the Eurasian steppes were various forms of the Proto Indo European language. To illustrate my point, the homeland of Finno-Ugric languages is the forest region north of the Eurasian steppes, but one does not expect Finnish to be spoken in modern Russia.
Quote:Also this business of proto- languages are really manufactured and has no basis on science or archeology
It's good to be skeptical of any theory. A theory becomes a science when evidence shows up, eg. the "business of proto-languages" is based on the Comparative Method. This method was what predicted the Laryngeal - decades before epigraphic evidence was found in Hittite texts. It predicted labiovelars - way before they were discovered in tablets of Mycenaean Greek (predecessor of classical Greek).
The "business of proto-languages" also predicts proto forms of Sanskrit declensions, forms which are preserved in Greek; forms which surprise surprise, match Panini's rules for Guna and Vrddhi.
But still, we should not trust the comparative method and the whole discipline of Historical Linguistcs - only in the case of Sanskrit :-)
First of all, linguistics is not an exact science. It is only a half science or pseudo science, like economics. This can not be the basis for drawing any conclusions on matters such as race.
The so-called linguistic evidence was taken care of by Johanna Nichols quite ably. Her conclusion was that IE originated in the Eastern part of the Southern arc and the trajectories are all westwards into the linguistic refugia of Europe. There is even a westward sanskritic trajectory: the Mittani/Kassites, and the oft "overlooked" Pontic Sindoi (Sinti) who carelessly intrude right into the herrenvolk home base. The environment is such that none have even dared asked what happened to these Sindoi.
[quote name='Pusan' date='06 January 2012 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1325846297' post='114145']
- Bronze age Eurasia did not have major city states where population could settle for a reasonable time period. It's mostly camp sites. Longer term settlements are found to the eastern (Sintashta) and western extremes (Cucuteny[/quote]
This displays a profound ignorance of heathen social forms. Sindoi/Sinti did not require any state structure much less state propaganda unlike Alexander.
Quote:- Calamities aren't the sole cause of language dispersals. Greater mobility provided by horse domestication on the steppes is a
Latest on horse domestication is here:
[url="http://news.discovery.com/animals/horse-domestication-saudi-arabia-110825.html"]Horses Domesticated 9,000 Years Ago in Saudi Arabia[/url]
The Arabian horse is related to the E. Sivalensis in tropical Asia and to the Barb in Africa which was pointed out by PK Manansala long ago. K. Elst also anticipated the Arabian findings: "Even supporters of the AIT have admitted that the horse was known in Mohenjo Daro, near the coast of the Arabian Sea..."
[quote name='dhu' date='08 January 2012 - 08:21 AM' timestamp='1325990598' post='114160']
The so-called linguistic evidence was taken care of by Johanna Nichols quite ably. Her conclusion was that IE originated in the Eastern part of the Southern arc and the trajectories are all westwards into the linguistic refugia of Europe.
[/quote]
No one denies westward trajectories from the eurasian steppes into Europe. Please cite the paper where it gives IE origins in South Asia. Does it actually mention Sanskrit as origin of IE languages like Greek, Latin ?
Quote: There is even a westward sanskritic trajectory: the Mittani/Kassites,
Do you mean Mitanni languages are derived from Sanskrit ? :-)
Quote:Latest on horse domestication is here:
[url="http://news.discovery.com/animals/horse-domestication-saudi-arabia-110825.html"]Horses Domesticated 9,000 Years Ago in Saudi Arabia[/url]
The Arabian horse is related to the E. Sivalensis in tropical Asia and to the Barb in Africa which was pointed out by PK Manansala long ago. K. Elst also anticipated the Arabian findings: "Even supporters of the AIT have admitted that the horse was known in Mohenjo Daro, near the coast of the Arabian Sea..."
This shows a profound ignorance of archaeological parameters needed to conclude Horse domestication. Either horse furniture (in form of bit), or bit wear data on the molars is needed. The article talks of none. Mere statue of horse doesen't prove domestication. Note that the same criteria are applied even in Eurasian steppes - horse imagery and remains are found way before the claimed date of horse domestication (in Botai). The established date for domestication is based on bit wear on horse molars.
Bokonyi's paper whom Elst quoted, also said that the very rare horse remains found in Indus sites are imported, not indigenous to India.
E Sivalensis is an extinct species whose last known remains are 75,000 YBP. There is a huge gap between then and Indus Valley civilization of 5000 YBP where horse is missing in Indian fossil record. Situation is not different from continental US where fossil remains of Pleistocene horses are found. That doesen't mean Native American tribes rode the descendants of Pleistocene horses :-)
@Pusan, Mittani is derived from sanskrit
Their kings had names like Dasaratha and Chitraratha
Their numbering system, 1 was Eika, as in Sanskrit and not Eiva as in Iranian
The white pigmentation of Europeans is due to a mutation in gene SLC24A5, and this is dated to 4000BC by dna analysis, and the earlier version of this SLC24A5 gene is in India
Meaning, no white skin anywhere in the world before 4000bc, and no european grave has R1A or R1B before 2600bc
The other funny aspect of Y-DNA analysis is that the gotra system is entirely bogus
For example, the modal Y-DNA for brahmins and most upper castes is R1A
Meaning a single male is the direct ancestor of most brahmins
This sort of negates the gotra system wherein it is assumed that a dozen male brahmins started the gotras
The other funny aspect is that a sizeable minority of upper castes are male-descended from H1 ( north Indian OBC ) and L1 ( South Indian OBC )
meaning they got cuckolded to some degree
[quote name='shamu' date='08 January 2012 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1325972051' post='114159']
First of all, linguistics is not an exact science. It is only a half science or pseudo science, like economics. This can not be the basis for drawing any conclusions on matters such as race.
[/quote]
Kindly elucidate on which principles of linguistics you found to be a non-science.
Only principles please, not the conclusions. Thanks.
[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='08 January 2012 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1326007954' post='114162']
@Pusan, Mittani is derived from sanskrit
[/quote]
Their kings had names like Dasaratha and Chitraratha
[/quote]
Please. None of the Anatolian language families are derived from the present form of Sanskrit. Anatolian language family is considered the oldest daughter of the IE family. I'll summarize why (details are in any elementary IE Linguistics text book eg. one by Ben Fortson):
- Hittite still preserves laryngeal sounds which are lost in Sanskrit as well as other sister languages
- Hittitle has regular occurance of verb conjugations with r/n stems - these are vestigial even in Vedic. Totally lost in classical Skt.
- Where are the retroflexes in Anatolian ? Why do cognates travel westwards after undoing the sanskrit sandhi ? :-)
Quote:Their kings had names like Dasaratha and Chitraratha
The correct original names are Tus'ratta (unrelated to Dasaratha) - the correct Sanskrit cognate (not root) is Tvesa-ratha (having an attacking chariot). It's basic phonetics that 'u' sound changes to 'v' (glide), not otherwise. The rule is quite well known by Indian linguists in antiquitiy - eg Panini (the rule is called samprasarana). If 'Tus' meant 10 in Mitanni, then we have an absurd result:
Sanskrit (dasha) > Mitanni (tus) > Greek (Deka)
How does it lose the initial 'd' sound transforming into 't' and then regain the 'd' sound ?
Linguistic reconstruction is not about "apparent" similarity but regularity of sound change. Otherwise we get incorrect results (Goropoianism).
Presence of apparently Sanskrit proper names doesen't tell us directionality. It needs deeper linguistic analysis. Hittite has other names like Biriyamedha (Skt cognate Priyamedha).
Quote:Their numbering system, 1 was Eika, as in Sanskrit and not Eiva as in Iranian
It was "aiga-" in Hittite (ref wikipedia), that's directly derived from PIE *Hoikwo
Quote:The white pigmentation of Europeans is due to a mutation in gene SLC24A5, and this is dated to 4000BC by dna analysis, and the earlier version of this SLC24A5 gene is in India
Meaning, no white skin anywhere in the world before 4000bc, and no european grave has R1A or R1B before 2600bc
Thanks. I entirely agree with you on this. Claim is not that "white" western europeans invaded India. Claim is that from somewhere in Eurasian steppes, movement of people and sometimes only linguistic influence radially outwards (to europe, anatolia, india, tarim basin) happened.
@Pusan, by DNA, every single Indo-European is descended from a Punjabi R1A, SLC24A5
The more simpler possibility is that Vedic Sanskrit is not the root but a branch very very close to the root, and
when the IE migration happened out of Punjab at 4000 bc, the language extant at that time was Indo-Hittite-European
and the earliest split is between Hittite and Indo-European languages
DNA shows virtually no back-migration from central asia from 6000 bc
[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='09 January 2012 - 03:36 AM' timestamp='1326059886' post='114167']
@Pusan, by DNA, every single Indo-European is descended from a Punjabi R1A, SLC24A5
[/quote]
I have no knowledge of genetics. But if genetics has unequivocally concluded so, please do pass me pointers to articles (preferably for genetics laymen like me). I'd be glad to read up. Thanks.
[quote name='Pusan' date='09 January 2012 - 08:54 AM' timestamp='1326079015' post='114170']
I have no knowledge of genetics. But if genetics has unequivocally concluded so, please do pass me pointers to articles (preferably for genetics laymen like me). I'd be glad to read up. Thanks.
[/quote]
Go to wikipedia and search for R1A and for SLC24A5
01-13-2012, 10:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2012, 10:40 AM by dhu.)
[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='09 January 2012 - 03:36 AM' timestamp='1326059886' post='114167']
The more simpler possibility is that Vedic Sanskrit is not the root but a branch very very close to the root, and
when the IE migration happened out of Punjab at 4000 bc, the language extant at that time was Indo-Hittite-European
and the earliest split is between Hittite and Indo-European languages[/quote]
Nichols actually predicted Oppenheimer's Southern route using her linguistic modeling of
1. paleo expansion into tropical asia and creation of extreme diversity due to a long-standing effective population size
2. much later followed by expansions to the eurasian extremes (Europe),
2a. contraction during the ice age, and
3. convergence during the neolithic, including her findings of Europe being the refugia of eastern expansions and the steppe being merely an extinction chamber.
The above has been modeled as consistent with serial founder effects from Asia leading to the ME/western populations. Metspalu actually shows these "budding offs" of the ME/W genomes (least diverse) from S Asia (most diverse). The more basic genome split with E Asia is due to the Toba line which was never overcome.
Prior to the ice age and even after, European linguistic diversity would have been expected to be about half that of Melanesia/Guinea, in other words, European diversity would have been quiet a bit -- Europe is however situated at the receiving end of Eastern expansions which erased the aboriginal european diversity. t
Elst notes the same about familial-level diversity being the most important indication of the locus in his Update.
Also, it is worth repeating that all R lines are anchored in S Asia by P and MNOPS.
Not only have these jokers destroyed S Asian history but also that of native ME.
[quote name='Pusan' date='07 January 2012 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1325944300' post='114154']
Sanskrit as we know it, was formed on the Indian subcontinent, not on the eurasian steppes. It's not realistic to expect Sanskrit on the eurasian steppes. What existed on the Eurasian steppes were various forms of the Proto Indo European language. To illustrate my point, the homeland of Finno-Ugric languages is the forest region north of the Eurasian steppes, but one does not expect Finnish to be spoken in modern Russia.
[/quote]
I know Sanskrit was formed and written first only in India. The hypothesis was to bring forth the fallacy that someone called Aryans came in from Central Asia, invented Sanskrit here and wrote our vedas etc.
On one side Central Asia is believed to be the homeland of Aryans and then there is absolutely no trace of Sanskrit at all. The Sanskrit that supposedly they invented.
Recently read a blog post commenting on some of the recent genetic research.
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/200...-genetics/
Excerpts:
Quote:...So the proto-Indians appear to represent a very early wave of Homo sapiens emanating from Africa and moving into the sub-continent and all the way to Andamans where they go isolated for at least 25,000 years. It would be interesting in this context to investigate the vedda-s of shrI lankA. At some point early Austro-Asiatic speakers appeared to have moved into India from the East and admixed with the proto-Indians giving rise to tribes such as Kharia and Santhal. Much latter the eastern Tibeto-Burmans appear to have invaded in northeastern parts of the country probably in several distinct waves. These together constitute the line connecting the Indian populations with the Chinese. On the other side as we have discussed here before multiple times Western Eurasians started entering India through the northwest. There might have some early invasions of this population that mated with the proto-Indians contributing the Western Eurasian ancestry perhaps even in the Neolithic. Archaeology suggests that the IVC/SSVC and associated chalcolithic spread was one major contributor of Western Eurasian genes, while linguistics points to the spread of Indo-Aryan languages and culture as a major contributor. After the entry of the Western Eurasian peoples, there appears to have been further admixture between them and the already established Austro-Asiatic-proto-Indian tribal admixture (e.g. in North Indian groups like saharia, tharu and satnAmI)...
...However, interestingly, the relationship between the archaeological attested Western Eurasian intrusion (SSVC/IVC) and the linguistic one (Indo-Aryan) still remains somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, the case for the intrusion of western Eurasian genes is now rather strong based this new data, along the lines of the arguments we have earlier presented here (e.g. there is clearly no evidence for the proto-Indian population to have dispersed into Western/Central Eurasia which would be required for the ââ¬ÅOut of Indiaââ¬Â theories). A study of Indo-Aryan tradition shows that they clearly originated in northern climes outside India. This, combined with the constantly streaming genetic data on Indians indicates that most parsimoniously the Indo-Aryan language and tradition that defines India (bhArata) was actually carried along with the ââ¬Ågenesââ¬Â by the invading western Eurasian contribution to India. This puts to death the Talagerian fantasies (shared by many confused Hindus) of out of India movements of Indo-European. It also largely crushes the language teacher model of certain indologists, like a notorious German from Harvard, wherein the Indo-Aryan language but not genes are contributed to the proto-Indians. The study of vedic argues against Dravidian being a substratum to Old Indo-Aryan. The genetic data argues against Austro-Asiatic having been a substratum. This incidentally kills another hypothesis of the same Harvard Hindu hater. This leaves us with little room with respect to the language of SSVC/IVC and associated chalcolithic cultures ââ¬â it was either indeed the distinctive language X or Indo-Aryan. The Dravidians only much later entered the Indo-Aryan cultural complex in Southern India as the wave of Aryanization spread southwards...
...Next on some Indian internet fora that I visit I noticed that many had berserk. There were the usual brahmadviS-s who were hurling venom on the foreign and North Indian brAhmaNa-s forgetting all the while that the paper had suggested that even they might be up to half Western Eurasiatic in their origins. Yet other assorted Hindus well crying conspiracy and invoking assorted specters ranging from Talageri to the old dead Germans like mokShamUla to their modern counterparts haunting the rooms of Harvard and Columbia. They insisted that the Aryan invasion was dead and OIT was destined for a long life, not realizing that their much cherished OIT had just been blown to smithereens. Others posing as geneticists and statisticians claimed that they had already established AIT to be false that this new data was of no consequence ââ¬â little did they realize that this new data was merely confirm what was already clear from other analysis...
Regards,
Virendra
[quote name='Virendra' date='14 January 2012 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1326552537' post='114207']
Recently read a blog post commenting on some of the recent genetic research.
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/200...-genetics/
Excerpts:
Regards,
Virendra
[/quote]
You are quoting the Reich study and Dhu here has blown holes in it.
It is OIT all the way, including for orientals
Are the holes blown by Dhu all in this thread itself? I can read from the scratch but if you could please guide me to some posts as highlights it would be great.
[quote name='Virendra' date='16 January 2012 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1326704513' post='114221']
Are the holes blown by Dhu all in this thread itself? I can read from the scratch but if you could please guide me to some posts as highlights it would be great.
[/quote]
Yes, it is in this thread, you just have to dig through it
It is very technical
Also, the recent Spencer Wells Study in National Geographic, uses a more accurate method than Reich,
And Dhu referred to this also.
Spencer Wells study says - out of africa into India
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/...ia-arabia/
On a very simple level, Europe is primarily R1A and R1B and R2
R, the Parent of R1A, R1B, R2 is in India
P the grandfather of R1A, R1B is in India - The Madia Gond tribe near Mumbai
R2 is rooted in bengal
The earlier form of R1A is in Punjab and the later form in Russia
|
