It's not necessary that his real name was even Porus, it could have been a Persianization or Hellenization of his real name (Muslims also name their kids Sikandar, Alexander wasn't a Muslim); and since much of world history (espc the versions taught in the academic centers of the west) rely on Greek history/sources - it would not be unusual for them to use Porus as the de facto name for an Indic king whose name was actually something else. The same way Sindhu is now permanently Indus.
The Collision that Formed India: What genetics reveals about Indian origins
- Thread starter vsdoc
- Start date
- Status
It's not necessary that his real name was even Porus, it could have been a Persianization or Hellenization of his real name (Muslims also name their kids Sikandar, Alexander wasn't a Muslim); and since much of world history (espc the versions taught in the academic centers of the west) rely on Greek history/sources - it would not be unusual for them to use Porus as the de facto name for an Indic king whose name was actually something else. The same way Sindhu is now permanently Indus.
I would not be surprised if it turns out "Porus" was a Brahmin, I'm pretty confident that Raja Dahir of Sindh, and a lot of the Hindu Kings of Eastern Afghanistan were also Brahmins.
If you read the early vedic history and system of varnas, you will realise that Brahmin and Kshatriyas have identical Gotras among Suryavanshi. You as a Rathore are a Suryavanshi. Those who chose to pursue knowledge became Brahmins and those who chose warfare became Kshatriyas. But among the Suryavanshis, the Gotras are same.
Sirji, there is nothing to know anything about us. The research concludes that the ANI component in 6 brahmin samples remained unchanged i.e, the people remained secluded.
Talk about yours,sir.
Give me your (Parsi) genetic admixture details. This is the third time I am asking u?
Why are u skipping my question?
Worse is Cyrus. His name is supposedly Kurosh/Kurus according to Old-Persian. And even modern Parsis use the westernised name. Sad.
We Sanatan Dharmi people take pride to be Sanghis or from the Parivaar, and are the native of this land called Bharat.
Now we need a white man, some media and few of his paid pimps to analyze our heritage and make us understand who we are?
Let the white Dickinson and his dickara spend time to understand their own past and their present rather than doctoring theories to promote their malacious agenda against others.
Last edited:
It's not so much me rubbing it in as dickraa asking for it. He plays the same monotone here as he's been since I've first seen post online on these matters.You have a special gift for rubbing it in
The Persian Empire building was the greatest of all empires.
Zoroastrianism the first & best monotheistic faith.
Islam ideology was/ is poisonous and their conquest of Persia devastating to both the empire and the religion.
Zoroastrianism predated the Vedas just as the Iranic ppl are the Forebearers of the Indics and the Vedic people.
The Vedic ppl developed from a schism in the Indo Iranic people and consequently Zoroastrianism.
The Zoroastrians in India are ethnically pure.
And on & on...
His entire online existence is dedicated & designed to data mine all such papers which are aligned to his way of thinking.
So did you read the essay.
Comments?
I think the debate is settled.
And it's pretty clear the games behind the ANI ASI fig leaf.
But I'd like to hear your views.
Seriously.
Neither of us changes as a person either ways.
Let's discuss the paper.
I'll summarize the salient points too.
Read my signature.
Cheers, Doc
Nobody has heard of what happened to Yazdegird's descendants after a couple of generations. If you think China was a safe haven and Sogdiana, Bactria & the Tocharian regions were your fall back option, please read the Battle of Talas and acquaint yourself with it's outcome.
I would say that this is how an individual personally experiences megalomania?
This Bharat varsha with over 10,000 years of heritage is not about the envy of a white man's fabrication which are further plead by some pimps.
It lies in the treasure of Bharat's cultural heritage. Before you even starts to debate first go learn India's heritage and culture so you present facts with right perspective. There is no big deal about DNA diversity in India. It is a natural outcome of mass rape by the Islamic invaders and the White Imperialists for nearly 1000 years.
Yes we know.
They were followed and killed.
But that was not the point I was making.
I was merely refuting yours that India was the only land standing at the time that had not (yet) fallen to the Muslim invasions.
China never did. Ever.
Cheers, Doc
That is so not true.
Please let us have a debate instead of name calling.
And let us limit ourselves to this HUGE piece of the puzzle that is the topic here.
It's clear where the migration came from.
Regardless of whether political compulsions call it "ancestral" ....
Or others say Aryan and Dravidian. Like me and most of the rest of the world.
This is what I have ALWAYS said.
India is two main racial groups colliding.
Two main language groups colliding.
This is the collision that made India.
Bharat.
Hindustan came a lot lot lot later.
Cheers, Doc
I told what I thought of it even before you asked me so. I've read the paper earlier and have the book which I haven't managed to read.
I'm also of the opinion that genetics while a new discipline with the potential to cast a different light on an old debate is still in its nascent stages. After all Reich himself states that the pioneer of archaeogenetics And His guru Sforza was entirely wrong with his methodology. What's to prevent some other geneticist from coming along a decade later with a completely different interpretation of these readings or come up with a radically new methodology.
I'm inherently allergic to any one discipline asserting they have all the answers to this vexed question.
China wasn't within your reach too. Ever. That's my whole point. You had no option besides India.
So you agree with my summarisation above?
That a predominant part of the influx of genetics from the west (not north as earlier also postulated) was male.
More socially powerful.
The admixture ratios differ regionally.
The southern population of today shows older admixture to the northern.
This probably just indicates that the southern population was once northern and got pushed or migrated south more remotely.
What is this if not the AIT or if you prefer the AMT?
Remember. These are CCMB samples. By Indians. This is not "white man" research.
Cheers, Doc
Why didn't you follow the royals then? Why did you make the journey via the sea route? Why don't you read on the Battle of Talas and ask yourself did the fleeing of the Royal entourage to China precede or succeed the occupation of Bactria & Sogdiana by the Arabs?
- Status