Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[A_Gupta]

A discontinuity between earlier and later steppe populations is also suggested by the shift from an R1b Y-chromosome gene pool into an R1a-dominated one in the Srubnaya (Supplementary Data Table 1). We caution that this does not mean that new populations migrated into the steppe as R1a was also detected in Eneolithic Samara and an outlier Poltavka individual (Supplementary Data Table 1); it is possible that R1a males continued to abide in the Samara region but were not included in the rich burials associated with the Yamnaya and Poltavka elites in the intervening period

IMO, either R1a were always there at Srubnaya but were not elite and overthrew the R1b just in time to gallop off towards India per AIT, or else, R1a arrived there (from where?).

Here's the R1b:

Code: Select all

Unique ID    Archaeological culture    Date (2-sigma)  Min Date Max Date Y haplogroup
RISE546      Yamnaya_Kalmykia               ..            ..      ..     R1b1a2
RISE548      Yamnaya_Kalmykia               ..            ..      ..     R1b1a2a2
I0429        Yamnaya_Samara            3339-2917 BCE     5354    4932    R1b1a2a2
RISE550      Yamnaya_Kalmykia          3334-2635 BCE     5349    4650    R1b1a2
I0439        Yamnaya_Samara            3305-2925 BCE     5320    4940    R1b1a2
I0370        Yamnaya_Samara            3300-2700 BCE     5315    4715    R1b1a2a2
I0443        Yamnaya_Samara            3300-2700 BCE     5315    4715    R1b1a2a
I0444        Yamnaya_Samara            3300-2700 BCE     5315    4715    R1b1a2
I0438        Yamnaya_Samara            3021-2635 BCE     5036    4650    R1b1a2a2
I0231        Yamnaya_Samara            2910-2875 BCE     4925    4890    R1b1a2a2
RISE547      Yamnaya_Kalmykia          2887-2634 BCE     4902    4649    R1b1a2
I0440        Poltavka                  2885-2665 BCE     4900    4680    R1b1a2a2
I0371        Poltavka                  2875-2580 BCE     4890    4595    R1b1a2
I0126        Poltavka                  2867-2484 BCE     4882    4499    R1b1a2a2
I0374        Poltavka                  2800-2200 BCE     4815    4215    R1b1a2a

[hanumadu]

There seems to be a pattern in all this. Every time a new field or new discovery is made, the assorted Indologists and linguists claim that as proof for AIT. By the time the rest of the folks catch up and point out the flaws, they move on to a more recent discovery and say why this is correct and supersedes the old research without as much as acknowledging that they were wrong with the earlier findings.

I am hoping that this is general comment and not directed at me. I am no AIT person. I deeply want Indologists to get egg on their face.

I just wanted you smart folks to be aware of key facts. Like it or not, genetics is very happening field. New findings are made every few months. Any attempt to create a narrative without factoring in latest learning is doomed to backfire. Last word is not written on this debate yet so it is not too late.

No, this is not aimed at you.

[A_Gupta]

The more I think about this, the more it bothers me:

it is possible that R1a males continued to abide in the Samara region but were not included in the rich burials associated with the Yamnaya and Poltavka elites in the intervening period

How did the R1b == elite with burials, and R1a != elites, and no burials happen, yet R1a-s eventually displaced the R1b elite? Did R1a-s invent chariots and domesticate horses? Were the R1a-s and R1b-s physically distinct? etc., etc.

[shiv]

The more I think about this, the more it bothers me:

it is possible that R1a males continued to abide in the Samara region but were not included in the rich burials associated with the Yamnaya and Poltavka elites in the intervening period

How did the R1b == elite with burials, and R1a != elites, and no burials happen, yet R1a-s eventually displaced the R1b elite? Did R1a-s invent chariots and domesticate horses? Were the R1a-s and R1b-s physically distinct? etc., etc.

Good catch.

Here is another revealing sentence of the way the minds of the authors work

Further evidence for a connection between
the Srubnaya and populations of central/south Asia—which is absent in ancient central
Europeans including people of the Corded Ware culture and is nearly absent in present-day
Europeans 23 —is provided by the occurrence in four Srubnaya and one Poltavka males of
haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in present-day central/south Asians and Bronze Age
people from the Altai 24 (Supplementary Data Table 1). This represents a direct link between
the European steppe and central/south Asia, an intriguing observation that may be related to
the spread of Indo-European languages in that direction.

M17 spread out in a much earlier era. M417 may have originated in the Iran region. But there is actual archaeological evidence of exchange between Iran and India going back to the days of Harappa - 4000 - 4500 years ago. Sanskrit language (and the Saraswati river) were there and tumultuous events of the Mahabharata war with violent gendercide (men killing men) has probably already occurred by then. The mixing of back-migrated Z93 (if that is correct) would have already occurred by then.

There is some suggestion of Sanskrit and Slovenia being connected more than 5000 years ago because the languages share a lot but there is no common word for metal. On the other hand there is little evidence of Indo-European in Europe until about 3500-4000 years ago. I hypothesize that Z282 carried the language to Europe via Iran.

We need to look out for
Z93/Z282 among Parsis
Z93 among Indian Muslims
Caste wise assay of Z93

Just my thoughts

[A_Gupta]

Dendrochronology perhaps places the "Hittite" tablets to ~1750 BC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kültepe

[shiv]

Dendrochronology perhaps places the "Hittite" tablets to ~1750 BC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kültepe

Tanks for digging up this gem Useful info

That is worse than I had expected. In some cases clay has been dated by finding pieces in ash used for firing the clay that contains carbon for carbon dating. Or otherwise straw embedded in clay can be dated. In this particular case I would be as sceptical of the methods used as they are of any Indian saying anything. They have not dated the archaeological layer that the tablets were found in, but another layer and used "dendrochronology" LOL - tree ring dating. This technique is not necessarily accurate - and needs "cross dating" to compare rings of trees of known date.

The link has references to Hittite names. Which Hittite names prove IE origin? The only Hittite names I have seen are Semitic (non-IE) or Vedic (IE)

[peter]

..

Since the tree shows 417 is one node up from z282 and z93 one possibility is everyone who has z282 or z93 has m417 but not all m417 have z93 or z282?

I think so, but now that you ask, I will work on understanding the actual algorithms and analysis that is done.

Any light you can throw on your analysis thus far?

But in the full genome there would certainly be more such genes showing similar sought of relationships. Have we gone through them? How does one go through this data? And where does such data exist?

The whole genome, for reasons mentioned above, is much more complicated to analyze for lineage. I'm not sure my simple mental model applies any more.

Do you know if data exists that one could look at? For whole genome of Indians I mean.

Furthermore What if there is a natural process by which mutation m417 reverses itself? In such a scenario how would one distinguish m417 as parent of z93?
In otherwords is it possible someone have m515 and z93 and not m417?

The error rate is very tiny, I think Underhill mentions a range of 1 per 100 years or 1 per 122 years and so on. It is very unlikely that m417 reverses itself. Remember also, that all this is in the non-functional DNA, where mutations are neutral in their effect. Mutations in working genes very likely change the odds of survival and reproduction, and that complicates matters enormously.

But how would they test that the mutation has reversed?
What does error rate of 1 in 100 years signify for our discussion? Assume they tested 200 desi individuals (not sure if this is kosher).
We are talking a span of 6000 years? 4000 BC to now?
So 6000/100 we should see 60 reversals?
How does it impact the stats of any of the DNA of the 200 desis tested?

And I read recently that this unused part of DNA actually does play a role in diseseases and is just not well understood. I will post the link if I can dig it up again.

[A_Gupta]

But how would they test that the mutation has reversed?

I don't know how exactly stable mutations in humans are identified.

What does error rate of 1 in 100 years signify for our discussion?

If in my analogy of books copied from father to son, there is a copying error 1 in 100 years, and two current books differ in 60 places, then it is possible that the two current books had a common ancestor around 3000 years ago, since then each lineage would have accumulated 30 errors; since the books are really long and the errors are random, the chance that the same error occurred in both books (which would not show up as a difference between the two books) is very small. Any such common error would push back the first common ancestor book.

And I read recently that this unused part of DNA actually does play a role in diseseases and is just not well understood. I will post the link if I can dig it up again.

If there are any selection effects from this unused DNA, then I think the simple model can no longer work.

[gandharva]

Genetic and Cultural Reconstruction of the Migration of an Ancient Lineage
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/651415/

"Our findings are consistent with the speculative
possibility that mainstream orthodox Brahmins (Indra, Agni,
and Soma) and LPK lineages (Mitra) correspond to these
two coextant traditions within the ancient Sarasvata tribe in
Harahvaiti."

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Supports AIT for Saraswat Brahmins.

[shiv]

Genetic and Cultural Reconstruction of the Migration of an Ancient Lineage
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/651415/

"Our findings are consistent with the speculative
possibility that mainstream orthodox Brahmins (Indra, Agni,
and Soma) and LPK lineages (Mitra) correspond to these
two coextant traditions within the ancient Sarasvata tribe in
Harahvaiti."

The genetic information may well be correct but the story connecting "Rig" Veda/Rg Veda with Registan (Rgistan/Desert) is laughable. The Haraxwati fails on many counts is is just a semen stain from Witzelian masturbation.

If Rig in Rig Veda stands for Registan then Vindhya mountains and the Prayag (joining of 3 rivers) cannot be explained by Haraxwati except by Witzelian callisthenics. The power that Harvard wields over Indian minds - even from faltu depts like linguistics and other social sciences is amazing.

This paper strictly speaking does not support AIT - but this Haraxwati bullshit and AIT will always remain valid until Indian mental colonization by western universities is removed. We still have people who automatically assign greatness if some lesson is to be learned from a western source.

[shiv]

Genetic and Cultural Reconstruction of the Migration of an Ancient Lineage
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/651415/

"Our findings are consistent with the speculative
possibility that mainstream orthodox Brahmins (Indra, Agni,
and Soma) and LPK lineages (Mitra) correspond to these
two coextant traditions within the ancient Sarasvata tribe in
Harahvaiti."

Not really if you look at the dates. 2000 BC Harappan era is accepted by the paper. AIT with PIE and Hittite of 1800 BC means "Indo-Iranian" after 1800 BC (1500?) and Rig Veda around 1200 BC Punjab.

This paper does nothing to refute the outmigration of M17, and it supports the development of Z93 in the Iran region and the back-migration of M17-Z93 to India that I had mentioned earlier. A 6000 BC (5800 BC) date for Z93 is absolutely fine. Ancient records show that there was cultural and trade exchange with Arabia in the past. Nowadays people with hatred for "desert religions" and Islam etc don't like the idea but the fact is ancient India extended from Eastern Iran/Afghanistan to the Indus and beyond. If Afghanistan was uttara madra with Madri and Gandhari from there - there is no doubt that Afghanistan was one of the mahajanapadas (Vedic people). Balkh was Bahlika. Madra was what was known as the Medes to the Greeks - known to them via Zoroastrians.

Now if Goud Saraswat Brahmins were Vedic people even from 1800 BC in Afghanistan, they pre-date the AIT story of Iran with Avestan bullshit. Apart from stupid conclusions in the paper - I am beginning to like the data in this paper.

AIT has always been about language and dates and a European attempt to claim the richly developed language and say tech (wheels) and language came from there. Kill their dates (as this paper does) and AIT is dead.Don't forget the AIT story of how PIE branched off into Hittite in 1800 BC and then moved to Iran where it split into 2 giving rise to Avestan in the 1500-1200 BC era and Rig Veda in 1200 BC. Indian anxiety about AIT revolves around not being aware of what AIT actually is.

Incidentally I think Aishwarya Rai may be a Goud saraswat brahmin.

[ukumar]

Please check these three samples:

Samara Eneolithic Russia Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433/SVP 46] M 4700-4000 BC R1a1 -> M459

Corded Ware Germany Bergrheinfeld [RISE446] M 2829-2465 BC R1a1a1 -> M417 CTS7278+, CTS10993+, FGC2547+, FGC2550+), xCTS4385 (Z2461-), xZ645 (Z647-)

Poltavka outlier Russia Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara [I0432/SVP 42] M 2925-2536 BC R1a1a1b2a -> Z94


M459 is ancestral to M417.
M417 (+Z645) is ancestral to Z93
R1a1a1b2a (Z94) is ancestral to most Z93 sub clades in India. This Poltavka sample is very close to ~3500bc expansion date of Z93.

But how does any of this prove that z93 originated out of India or Iran?

it is very clear that Steppe and India share R1a1a parental line and last shared ancestry was when M417 split in to z283 and Z93. Most indian Z93 also have Z94. Z94 was born around same time when it is found in Poltavka sample above. This is a strong indication that Z94 was born outside India somewhere close to Poltavka. I also believe that it was further south in Iran but I wouldn't say it is proven until ancient DNA from India, Iran and Central asia are examined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogrou ... 5.2014.jpg

Note: I wanted to add this as Image but can't figure out how.

How does ancestral DNA help more than how current DNA cannot? What additional hypotheses can be drawn about migration into India or out of India from ancient DNA that current DNA cannot provide?

Ancient DNA removes two big assumption (Date and location) and also shows extinct clades which are so valuable in understanding population movement. Details of European genetic history available today wouldn't be possible without ancient DNA.

What is your reading (or other researchers) of the ancient DNA results so far wrt origin and age of M17, M417, Z280, Z93?

If the origin of a haplogroup i 50000 ybp, what difference does ancient DNA that is 10000 ybp make vis a vis present DNA?

I would reserve any judgment on M417 without ancient DNA from Asia. However Z280 seems to be spread from Steppe and likely arose there first.

[hanumadu]

But how does any of this prove that z93 originated out of India or Iran?

it is very clear that Steppe and India share R1a1a parental line and last shared ancestry was when M417 split in to z283 and Z93. Most indian Z93 also have Z94. Z94 was born around same time when it is found in Poltavka sample above. This is a strong indication that Z94 was born outside India somewhere close to Poltavka. I also believe that it was further south in Iran but I wouldn't say it is proven until ancient DNA from India, Iran and Central asia are examined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogrou ... 5.2014.jpg

Note: I wanted to add this as Image but can't figure out how.

So, In other words, z417 or one of its subclades after moving to Poltavka or wherever branched into z94 and some z94 came back to India and admixed with z93? What is the parent of z94? This tree here shows z94 is a sub clade of z93, so how can anybody have z94 without z93?

[ukumar]

it is very clear that Steppe and India share R1a1a parental line and last shared ancestry was when M417 split in to z283 and Z93. Most indian Z93 also have Z94. Z94 was born around same time when it is found in Poltavka sample above. This is a strong indication that Z94 was born outside India somewhere close to Poltavka. I also believe that it was further south in Iran but I wouldn't say it is proven until ancient DNA from India, Iran and Central asia are examined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogrou ... 5.2014.jpg

Note: I wanted to add this as Image but can't figure out how.

So, In other words, z417 or one of its subclades after moving to Poltavka or wherever branched into z94 and some z94 came back to India and admixed with z93? What is the parent of z94? This tree here shows z94 is a sub clade of z93, so how can anybody have z94 without z93?

#1 M417 split in to two sub clades z93 and z283 around 4000bc.
#2 Few centuries later z93->z94 was born.
#3 few centuries later z93->z94->l657 was born. Most Indians belongs to this sub clade.

Poltavaka sample belongs between #2 and #3.

You are right that one can't have z94 without z93. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

[hanumadu]

#1 M417 split in to two sub clades z93 and z283 around 4000bc.
#2 Few centuries later z93->z94 was born.
#3 few centuries later z93->z94->l657 was born. Most Indians belongs to this sub clade.

Poltavaka sample belongs between #2 and #3.

You are right that one can't have z94 without z93. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

Z94 was born around same time when it is found in Poltavka sample above. This is a strong indication that Z94 was born outside India somewhere close to Poltavka.

Thanks for your patient answers.
So, if z94 is found both in India and Poktavka, what gives the direction of migration is from Poltavka to India? Especially when its parent z93 is found only in India and Siberia and Indian z93 is the oldest.
Is the Poltavka z93/z94 older than what is determined in India from present DNA?

[ukumar]

A discontinuity between earlier and later steppe populations is also suggested by the shift from an R1b Y-chromosome gene pool into an R1a-dominated one in the Srubnaya (Supplementary Data Table 1). We caution that this does not mean that new populations migrated into the steppe as R1a was also detected in Eneolithic Samara and an outlier Poltavka individual (Supplementary Data Table 1); it is possible that R1a males continued to abide in the Samara region but were not included in the rich burials associated with the Yamnaya and Poltavka elites in the intervening period

IMO, either R1a were always there at Srubnaya but were not elite and overthrew the R1b just in time to gallop off towards India per AIT, or else, R1a arrived there (from where?).

Here's the R1b:

Code: Select all

Unique ID    Archaeological culture    Date (2-sigma)  Min Date Max Date Y haplogroup
RISE546      Yamnaya_Kalmykia               ..            ..      ..     R1b1a2
RISE548      Yamnaya_Kalmykia               ..            ..      ..     R1b1a2a2
I0429        Yamnaya_Samara            3339-2917 BCE     5354    4932    R1b1a2a2
RISE550      Yamnaya_Kalmykia          3334-2635 BCE     5349    4650    R1b1a2
I0439        Yamnaya_Samara            3305-2925 BCE     5320    4940    R1b1a2
I0370        Yamnaya_Samara            3300-2700 BCE     5315    4715    R1b1a2a2
I0443        Yamnaya_Samara            3300-2700 BCE     5315    4715    R1b1a2a
I0444        Yamnaya_Samara            3300-2700 BCE     5315    4715    R1b1a2
I0438        Yamnaya_Samara            3021-2635 BCE     5036    4650    R1b1a2a2
I0231        Yamnaya_Samara            2910-2875 BCE     4925    4890    R1b1a2a2
RISE547      Yamnaya_Kalmykia          2887-2634 BCE     4902    4649    R1b1a2
I0440        Poltavka                  2885-2665 BCE     4900    4680    R1b1a2a2
I0371        Poltavka                  2875-2580 BCE     4890    4595    R1b1a2
I0126        Poltavka                  2867-2484 BCE     4882    4499    R1b1a2a2
I0374        Poltavka                  2800-2200 BCE     4815    4215    R1b1a2a

As you observed there are two possibilities. If R1a1a was hiding in Steppe and eventually made its way to India would be strong argument in favor of AIT. However the key I suspect is in studying autosomal DNA. It points towards population movement from caucus/Armenia. Ancient DNA from Maikop, India and Greece would be a key. Hopefully it would be available this year.

"We caution that the location of the proto-Indo-European9,27,29,30 homeland that also gave rise to the Indo-European languages of Asia, as well as the Indo-European lan- guages of southeastern Europe, cannot be determined from the data reported here (Supplementary Information section 11). Studying the mixture in the Yamnaya themselves, and understanding the genetic relationships among a broader set of ancient and present-day Indo- European speakers, may lead to new insight about the shared homeland"

https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/ ... e14317.pdf

"a major ancestral component linked to CHG was carried west by migrating herders from the Eurasian Steppe. The foundation group for this seismic change was the Yamnaya, who we estimate to owe half of their ancestry to CHG-linked sources. These sources may be linked to the Maikop culture, which predated the Yamnaya and was located further south, closer to the Southern Caucasus. Through the Yamanya, the CHG ancestral strand contributed to most modern European populations, especially in the northern part of the continent.

Finally, we found that CHG ancestry was also carried east to become a major contributor to the Ancestral North Indian component found in the Indian subcontinent. Exactly when the eastwards movement occurred is unknown, but it likely included migration around the same time as their contribution to the western European gene pool and may be linked with the spread of Indo-European languages. However, earlier movements associated with other developments such as that of cereal farming and herding are also plausible."

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15111 ... s9912.html

[ukumar]

Especially when its parent z93 is found only in India and Siberia and Indian z93 is the oldest.
Is the Poltavka z93/z94 older than what is determined in India from present DNA?

Do you have reference to the parent Z93 ( without L657 mutation) in India? To my knowledge, all Indian Z93 are sub clades of Z94 (L657 or its sister clades (Y40,Z2121,Z2124)).

[peter]

it is very clear that Steppe and India share R1a1a parental line and last shared ancestry was when M417 split in to z283 and Z93. Most indian Z93 also have Z94. Z94 was born around same time when it is found in Poltavka sample above. This is a strong indication that Z94 was born outside India somewhere close to Poltavka. I also believe that it was further south in Iran but I wouldn't say it is proven until ancient DNA from India, Iran and Central asia are examined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogrou ... 5.2014.jpg

Note: I wanted to add this as Image but can't figure out how.

So, In other words, z417 or one of its subclades after moving to Poltavka or wherever branched into z94 and some z94 came back to India and admixed with z93? What is the parent of z94? This tree here shows z94 is a sub clade of z93, so how can anybody have z94 without z93?

#1 M417 split in to two sub clades z93 and z283 around 4000bc.
#2 Few centuries later z93->z94 was born.
#3 few centuries later z93->z94->l657 was born. Most Indians belongs to this sub clade.

Poltavaka sample belongs between #2 and #3.

You are right that one can't have z94 without z93. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

Let us say there is an individual who has z94.
Does it mean if someone tests him for z93 they will find him to have z93 for sure?

Or does it mean that z94's presence implies z93 and he may not have z93 if one specifically looks for z93 in him?

[hanumadu]

Especially when its parent z93 is found only in India and Siberia and Indian z93 is the oldest.
Is the Poltavka z93/z94 older than what is determined in India from present DNA?

Do you have reference to the parent Z93 ( without L657 mutation) in India? To my knowledge, all Indian Z93 are sub clades of Z94 (L657 or its sister clades (Y40,Z2121,Z2124)).

Thats the impression I got from this forum. I guess it means not z93 by itself but its subclades are mostly found in India and Siberia. And the age of z93 in India is determined to be the oldest in India by Lucotte (and UnderHill too?). Even if the dates are exaggerated, the relative antiquity of z93 in India vs elsewhere should still hold. It still does not give a direction of migration.

[A_Gupta]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogrou ... 5.2014.jpg

If the dates on that image are correct, i.e., Z283-Z93 split occurred at 4000 BC, then it becomes rather interesting for AIT.

If Z283-Z93 split took place at 4000 BC, the two populations of Z283s and Z93s were separated a thousand years before the domestication of the horse, which is commonly given as 3000 BC. If PIE ever was a real thing, it was spoken a thousand years before the domestication of the horse.

[shiv]

As you observed there are two possibilities. If R1a1a was hiding in Steppe and eventually made its way to India would be strong argument in favor of AIT.

Please. No.

I think too many people on BRF are confusing genetics with language.

AIT is a theory based on the spread of language, Genetic evidence of migrations is not evidence of spread of language unless you know how old the language is and know that people with certain genes spoke that language. Two unknowns to be established here:
1. Age of language
2. Connection of genes/migration with that language

First: How old is the language?

If we remove ALL blinkers from our minds and assume for a minute that the precursor language to Sanskrit that gave rise to Sanskrit and Russian is 10,000 years old then the language spread could be linked to the outward migration of M17 long before M458, M417, Z280 or Z93

What is the evidence that the language is older than 5000 years old?
1. Genetic and literary information:The paper posted earlier by Gandharva about Goud Saraswat Brahmins dates them in Afghanistan to 2000 BC. If we assume that there were endogamous Brahmins and were carriers of the Vedas - then the Vedas existed in Afghanistan in 2000 BC. This is not such a great conclusion to reach. We know from the Mahabharata that Afghanistan was one of the Maha Janapadas where Vedic people lived. The Goud Saraswat Brahmin date of 200 BC gives one date for that Vedic group. That means that Vedas existed in 2000 BC. Pre Vedic languages must pre-date 2000 BC (Older than 5000 years)

2. Linguistic evidence:
http://korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik01/p ... j_indo.pdf

Divergence of Sanskrit and Slovenian
Despite of numerous similarities in the two languages, there is no common recognizable terminology for metals. The discovery and dating of the 'Ice Man' in the South Tyrol with his copper axe, indicates that metals were known 5,200 years ago. This could be construed that the two languages separated before metallurgy became known.

3. Astronomical and archaeological dates: Many people have dates for the Mahabharata war. For convenience I will take Nilesh Oak's date of 5000+ BC. Even other dates (such as Aihole inscription) put it as 3000+ BC. So we are talking about an established language in the 3100 to 5500 BC period.

If Sanskrit records of a war date from 5-7000 years ago (3100-5500 BC) and that war is geographically linked to North India by toponyms and hydronyms (names of mountains, places and rivers), it means that any precursor language must be older than that. If any language is over 5800 years old it pre dates M417 and therefore pre-dates Z282/283 and Z93/94

4. Archaeological evidence: There is established archaeological evidence of trade between the Harappan civilization and the BMAC (Central Asia) as well as middle east. Harappan artefacts have been found in those places while Harappans imported suff (Lapis lazuli? copper?) from those places. Harappa is dated from 4000 BC to 2000 BC. That means Harappa approximately coincides with the formation of M417 at a time when there was established trade and movement of people from central Asia and west Asia. But the language itself appears to be older, given the points that put the language in an older era, A common or similar language and two-way migration would have facilitated trade.

5. How old is the Rig Veda? It predates the drying up of the Saraswati so it definitely pre-dates 1800 BC (3800 years ago). Taking Mahabharata dates and Ramayana dates - it is entirely possible that the Rig Veda itself, composed as it is of a "lost language" whose meanings are not clear, may be 7-10,000 years old. It definitely refers to the geography of the Punjab region. It may be part of a group of languages that spread from somewhere to somewhere. If M17 is linked to the Rig Veda then language was out of India.

But all this means that the rubbish we have heard about language coming with horse and chariot as "Proto Indo-European" later splitting to 'Indo-Iranians" and laterv Avestan and Sanskrit is total rubbish. Any Sanskrit in India before 1500 BC kills AIT

[shiv]

If the dates on that image are correct, i.e., Z283-Z93 split occurred at 4000 BC, then it becomes rather interesting for AIT.

If Z283-Z93 split took place at 4000 BC, the two populations of Z283s and Z93s were separated a thousand years before the domestication of the horse, which is commonly given as 3000 BC. If PIE ever was a real thing, it was spoken a thousand years before the domestication of the horse.

M417 split into Z93/Z283 5800 years ago (3800 BC) as per Underhill. Lots of proof of language being much older. The language was already in India when the Z283/Z93 split occurred

AIT is as dead as the Dodo even with back migration of Z93 to India.

I have noted earlier that Z93 occurs in about 30-40% of NW India males and 20-30% in others. So while Z93 has a significant presence in India it is not total - more like 1/3rd .

[A_Gupta]

^^^^ yes! notice z283 went to Europe and Z93 to India if AIT holds.

[Arjun]

Incidentally I think Aishwarya Rai may be a Goud saraswat brahmin.

She's a Bunt

Speaking of which, why aren't we digging more into Jains here? Many historians believe Jainism to date back to 3 - 4K BC and that it was widespread in IVC....if that is the case, what does the genetic evidence on GJ / RJ Jains indicate...? That they were originally 'Aryans' who gave up on their Vedic Gods to adopt the religion of the local land, or that they are of 'local' origin?

[shiv]

^^^^ yes! notice z283 went to Europe and Z93 to India if AIT holds.

Every piece in the AIT story is carefully constructed to make sure that the most highly developed Indo-European language ever somehow originated Europe-side.

I was doing a thought experiment to see if Hittite was not created at all and that those old texts were either not found at all or were a known Semitic language. That in itself would serve as a blow to AIT because without Hittite the Sanskrit/Rig Veda story becomes hard to explain from an AIT viewpoint. There is a huge time gap between PIE and Sanskrit which has been filled with linguistic bhusa - putting "IndoEuropean" Hittite in 1800 BC and then "Indo_European Avestan"

What is absolutely astounding is the naked bias by which linguists have protested against Sturvetant's classification of the Hittite Language as an "Indo-Hittite" rather than a proper IE. The objection raised was "Oh yeah? Are we then going to call every language we meet as "Indo-this" or "Indo-that"?" But then Linguists have had no problem whatsoever in cooking up a language called 'Indo-Iranian" which split into fake Avestan and Sanskrit after 1200 BC.

Just look at the dates. In AIT "Indo-Itanian" was entering India and Iran - from Afghanistan/central Asia in 1500 BC. Correlating that with genetic information - we are looking at 3500 ybp - which is 9000 years after M17 wandered out of India, 4000 years after M458 was born in Poland and never came back to India. It is also 1500 years after Z93 and Z283 split off. It is 500 years after the dates of Goud Saraswat Brahmins in Afghanistan. "Brahmin" by definition is Vedic - which means the language was already there 600 years before the AIT date.

I suggest that Indo-European languages went to Europe in two separate waves. The "Old wave" went with M17 into Eastern Europe and Russia. The second wave went from the Iran region into Europe with M283.

[A_Gupta]

^^^^ yes! notice z283 went to Europe and Z93 to India if AIT holds.

....
I suggest that Indo-European languages went to Europe in two separate waves. The "Old wave" went with M17 into Eastern Europe and Russia. The second wave went from the Iran region into Europe with M283.

This makes much more sense to me than a steppes population that neatly separated out into "Z283 went west" and "Z93 went east".

AITers can try to argue for the mirror image of what you wrote above. They can try

[ukumar]

Let us say there is an individual who has z94.
Does it mean if someone tests him for z93 they will find him to have z93 for sure?

Or does it mean that z94's presence implies z93 and he may not have z93 if one specifically looks for z93 in him?

Z93, Z94 and l657 etc are separate mutations and can be tested independently. Person with l657 would also have z94 and z93 mutations. This is what makes them belonging to one clade.

[ukumar]

Do you have reference to the parent Z93 ( without L657 mutation) in India[/b]? To my knowledge, all Indian Z93 are sub clades of Z94 (L657 or its sister clades (Y40,Z2121,Z2124)).

Thats the impression I got from this forum. I guess it means not z93 by itself but its subclades are mostly found in India and Siberia. And the age of z93 in India is determined to be the oldest in India by Lucotte (and UnderHill too?). Even if the dates are exaggerated, the relative antiquity of z93 in India vs elsewhere should still hold. It still does not give a direction of migration.

Comparing two papers is tricky and need to account for methodology used to derive relative age. As I have tried to explain in my previous posts Lucotte and others used variance to determine relative age. That method is not accurate when comparing nodes with different level of mutation between them. High variance in Indian R1a1a is actually variance in l657 and not useful to derive direction of migration considering that Steppe had upstream r1a1a by ~3000bc.

[ukumar]

But all this means that the rubbish we have heard about language coming with horse and chariot as "Proto Indo-European" later splitting to 'Indo-Iranians" and laterv Avestan and Sanskrit is total rubbish. Any Sanskrit in India before 1500 BC kills AIT

Completely Agree. To support AIT, R1a1a has to arrive in India from Steppe around 1500bc. This is easy to forget/misunderstand and thanks for reiterating it.

[hanumadu]

Comparing two papers is tricky and need to account for methodology used to derive relative age. As I have tried to explain in my previous posts Lucotte and others used variance to determine relative age. That method is not accurate when comparing nodes with different level of mutation between them. High variance in Indian R1a1a is actually variance in l657 and not useful to derive direction of migration considering that Steppe had upstream r1a1a by ~3000bc.

Even UnderHill using complete DNA puts Indian z93 at 5800BC. How can you use ancient DNA to determine age when you don't have ancient DNA from India and all other places where z93 exists. And you cannot tell if any ancient DNA found is absolutely the oldest. What is to say if the same subclade did not exist 10000 yrs earlier? Given the nature of how rare it is to find ancient DNA and how it becomes less and less likely as age increases, claiming this is the earliest sample found and at this place, so it is where it originated sounds simplistic.

[RoyG]

When is the analysis of the dna from skeletons coming out? Rajiv Malhotra hinted that one of the researchers associated w/ the project had told him that it will rewrite migration history.

[RoyG]

Comparing two papers is tricky and need to account for methodology used to derive relative age. As I have tried to explain in my previous posts Lucotte and others used variance to determine relative age. That method is not accurate when comparing nodes with different level of mutation between them. High variance in Indian R1a1a is actually variance in l657 and not useful to derive direction of migration considering that Steppe had upstream r1a1a by ~3000bc.

Even UnderHill using complete DNA puts Indian z93 at 5800BC. How can you use ancient DNA to determine age when you don't have ancient DNA from India and all other places where z93 exists. And you cannot tell if any ancient DNA found is absolutely the oldest. What is to say if the same subclade did not exist 10000 yrs earlier? Given the nature of how rare it is to find ancient DNA and how it becomes less and less likely as age increases, claiming this is the earliest sample found and at this place, so it is where it originated sounds simplistic.

I think at some point indologists will have to be taken on more visibly. Whether 2500, 3000, 5000, 7000 bc etc. AIT gets squashed. There simply is no evidence to show that our ancestors oppressed one another w/ caste, "hinduism", or any of this jesuit contrived bs. I feel as though there needs to be more effort to making this point more visible w/ the help of GoI. No matter how much genetic evidence there is, if you don't create a more scientifically sound theory borne out of a rigorous peer review process, they will continue operating within a cocoon and churning out racist theories. This whole alternative thing is still a bit of kichdi, although better tasting than this Euro sh*t.

[A_Gupta]

What is to say if the same subclade did not exist 10000 yrs earlier?

If a subclade existed long ago, then it would have branched out quite a bit by today. Either we have not found those branches because of undersampling of the modern population of descendants; or else most of the branches went extinct (which is not entirely impossible).

[shiv]

I think at some point indologists will have to be taken on more visibly. Whether 2500, 3000, 5000, 7000 bc etc. AIT gets squashed. There simply is no evidence to show that our ancestors oppressed one another w/ caste, "hinduism", or any of this jesuit contrived bs. I feel as though there needs to be more effort to making this point more visible w/ the help of GoI. No matter how much genetic evidence there is, if you don't create a more scientifically sound theory borne out of a rigorous peer review process, they will continue operating within a cocoon and churning out racist theories. This whole alternative thing is still a bit of kichdi, although better tasting than this Euro sh*t.

It has got to be kichdi - because the truth is often never simple. AIT was too simple and too contrived a story.

The caste bit was designed to kick Hindu butt and promote Christian values. This part of history is documented in hundreds of sources by western authors who see no need to hide it. I read it most recently in Dalrymple's "Last Mughal" Only idiotic secularism in India and the idea that Christians will feel bad if we tell the truth and that it is OK to keep on kicking Hindu butt makes us shy away from pointing out how ideas of European Christian supremacy ruled supreme when AIT was cooked up and established.

The kichdi is quite complex.

AIT claims that Aryans wanted to keep their race pure and did not mix. That fails to explain how ASI and ANI are mixed thoroughly from Afghanistan to the peninsula. How did Pashtuns get 30% ASI Onge Andaman genes? OK so let is say Onge Andaman types were living in Indus Valley. Then how did tribals of Orissa, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu get 30% ANI genes? There has been thorough mixing going on for thousands of years.

And then there were two recent papers that pointed out that endogamy among jatis became common only 1500 years ago. 1500 years ago is 1500 years after the fake AIT date for "caste system".

There is another aspect to this discussion that is yet to come up both on here and in genetics studies. I will start looking out for whatever information I can get. It appears that mitochondrial DNA in India is mostly endogenous and has no Eurasian links. But Y chromosomal links in the form of Z93/94

That means that men may have been back migrating as bachelors and making babies with women in the Indian mainland. It is likely that the same process occurred with Z283 going to Europe - so need to look at European/Eurasian mDNA in the areas where Z283 is common.

Once again this should not be confused with language. Language itself appears to be much older and the picture is not at all clear. There are "Dravidian language" hints all the way along the coast from Arabia and in Baluchistan as well as well as parts of Europe like Finland etc. The problem is that linguists have not joined mainstream science and are unable to express in real terms why the reject or accept some theory and why they make up a new law every time they come across an inconvenient fact.

If Rig veda is accepted as a valid source for stuff like "Haraxwati", or "Dasyu/Aryan", or that the description of pine trees and mountains means Europe then old Sanskrit texts should be perfectly credible for Astronomical dates and narratives that are consistent across texts. Indians have been too reticent and ashamed of our own past to argue against mofos who made up our history for us. Everything suggests a linguistic past that is at least 7-10,000 years old. We need to get used to the idea that this entire Rig veda business is likely to date back that far.

There is a European Christian dominated narrative that says that humans were barbarians in the past and gradually things got more civilized. we seem to agree with that and in one sweep we have declared our own past as "Undeveloped barbarian" because white man told us so. The science behind Sanskrit grammar as well as astronomy and math dating back thousands of years has nothing "undeveloped and barbarian" about it.

[ukumar]

Comparing two papers is tricky and need to account for methodology used to derive relative age. As I have tried to explain in my previous posts Lucotte and others used variance to determine relative age. That method is not accurate when comparing nodes with different level of mutation between them. High variance in Indian R1a1a is actually variance in l657 and not useful to derive direction of migration considering that Steppe had upstream r1a1a by ~3000bc.

Even UnderHill using complete DNA puts Indian z93 at 5800BC. How can you use ancient DNA to determine age when you don't have ancient DNA from India and all other places where z93 exists. And you cannot tell if any ancient DNA found is absolutely the oldest. What is to say if the same subclade did not exist 10000 yrs earlier? Given the nature of how rare it is to find ancient DNA and how it becomes less and less likely as age increases, claiming this is the earliest sample found and at this place, so it is where it originated sounds simplistic.

Sorry but you are creating a straw man argument. I never made any claim that ancient DNA samples we have are oldest. And I also said that ancient DNA from Asia is required before making any definitive conclusions.

Also Underhill is not making claim for "Indian Z93". He is giving 5800bp as coalescing date between Z280 and z93. He also claims that M417 diversified in Iran.

[Prem Kumar]

ukumar: you are indirectly (maybe inadvertently) stating that. Reason I say this is because you compared Z93 & M417 in Steppe ancient DNA with Z94 in today's Indians. That's apples and oranges.

How many of today's Steppe people or even Europeans have M417 - I bet no-one.

Like you say, without ancient DNA from India, the picture is majorly incomplete

[Prem Kumar]

The 2nd fallacy is the one Shiv posted & one that I call out in my MyInd piece as well: i.e. we cannot take any random gene movement and claim Look ma, Aryans!.

If the gene data shows, to give a hypothetical example, that Z93 moved to India in 3000 BCE, that's not AIT. In fact, if that's the only time genes moved into India, such a finding would kill AIT.

AIT is 1500 BCE. Any gene movement has to support that date.

(Too many people get into paroxysms of agony or ecstasy seeing gene movement, without taking into account the dates)

[shiv]

(Too many people get into paroxysms of agony or ecstasy seeing gene movement, without taking into account the dates)

True. This is because AIT has been promoted as "people movement" although its original intent was only language movement. If Europeans had come to India and found Xhosa or Swahili they would not have given a flying fuk about India just like they see Africa today.

The real problem was that they found
1. A highly developed language with the world's finest grammar rules
2. For years European knew that languages in Europe were somewhat similar. The "discovery" of Sanskrit and detailed grammar suddenly made them realize why European languages were all related and how they were related.

Initially they accepted Sanskrit as a mother language like PIE. But this became untenable in a racist Christian Europe who did not want to be told that they got their language from black Hamites in India any more than they wanted to accept that they were descended from apes.

That is when AIT had to be cooked up to show a route from "Urheimat"(a German compound of Ur- "primitive, original" and Heimat "home, homeland")the "original home" of the language assumed to be in Europe to India. That Original home "Urheimat" was simply cooked up out of thin air. I have pointed out time and time again that Euroepans in general and Germans in particular were deeply shocked to find archaeological evidence in Syria and Iraq of stuff older that their Bible. This was deeply insulting to their own self esteem as world dominating European races. Finding an "older" Sanskrit that was related to their languages was God's gift. They only had to make a story to show that the language went from Europe to India. That story was made up right at the beginning by one of the very first guys - William Jones himself. That story requires that "conquerors" and world dominators spread from Europe in the old days, just as Europeans were civilizing and Christianizing the world in the 18th and 19th centuries.

That is what AIT is all about.

Indian/Hindu self esteem and sense of honour is so low that we are embarrassed and shamed by people who question what white man tells us and are afraid to say that he may have been racist and biased.

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: you have e-khabar(s)