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

[member_22872]

Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas

[johneeG]

Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas

Dr Kazanas seems awesome. Co-incidentally, I was thinking on this same model yesterday even though I didnt know lot of the supporting evidence provided by Dr Kazanas.
http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/svimarsha/v6/c2.pdf
He seems to have done lot of work to prove OIT.
He says that Anus went out of India. It corrobarates my theory identifying Annunaki with Anus.

[shiv]

He says that Anus went out of India.

I'm guessing this anus helped to spread H pylori
<humour off>

[johneeG]

He says that Anus went out of India.

I'm guessing this anus helped to spread H pylori
<humour off>

[ukumar]

Well, that's fine - I don't know manasataramgini/somasushma well.

The essential thing that has to be pinned down is the geographic area and era of origin of the Y-Chromosome R1a1 (M17) haplogroup. Research upto around 2013 tended to favor an Indian origin; now the pendulum seems to be swinging back to an out-of-India origin. I guess we need to stay on top of the published results, and create the large volume work for everyone else to try to rebut.

......

The Manasataramgini guy just beats about the bush and writes stuff that is difficult to read and he never really goes into detail What he publishes looks like a lot of detail to dazzle the reader but it often has little relevance, it only obfuscates the fact that he reaches conclusions without saying why.

The second link you have posted above is full of such bullshit and conclusions that he will not be able to prove - but he puts in such a large volume of bullshit and has so many followers from his pseudo-scientific "patriotism" that this posts are spread far and wide by those who get a warm fuzzy.

......

Now please locate the genetics papers that prove this as conclusively as the man claims either from the material he has posted or from elsewhere.

I will not even bother trying to rebut the sentence by sentence bullshit that he writes.

Sir, I have been long time follower of this forum and learnt a lot about happenings in India through insightful posts here. I have occasionally posted on this topic sometime back as well. I am not genetic experts but like others interested in Aryan question have been following the development over last few years. I have had same questions as raised here in the thread and thought to share few things I have learnt.

Population genetic is advancing at rapid pace. As more advance methods are developed, old papers becomes obsolete. Unfortunately nobody publishes correction to the old papers so one need to follow Blogs and discussion forums to understand what is still valid. One should ignore old papers using obsolete methodologies. Specially the coalescing dates used in old papers tends to significantly over estimate and should be ignored.

I concur that most researchers try to fit data to Kurgan model. You would be surprised but rest of the world believes in kurgan hypothisis. Ancient population genetic analysis has been a great break through lately and European story is more or less clear now and it is consistent with Kurgun model. So far there hasn’t been significant genetic evidence showing gene flow from India to Europe in pre historic time after 4000bc.

There is also clear genetic link between Steppe and India through R1a1a yDNA. Indian R1a1a is (so far) exclusively from Z93 branch. Whereas most other branches including Z93 has already turned up in ancient steppe population. To be fair, there hasn’t been any ancient DNA from south of Caspian sea and it may throw up even older R1a1a so Jury is still out. There has been news that Indus ( Rakhigarhi) DNA is imminent. Ancient DNA is the key and In next few years we would likely to see more ancient DNA from India and Asia. Thankfully, Ancient DNA is a science and irrespective of prevailing bias, truth would be out. Let’s see what Rakhigarhi DNA has in store for us.

One last comment on Manasataramgini. I came across his blog two weeks back on one of the active genetic blog site. Guy is arrogant and I wish he tones down language towards indian OIT scholars. They could be wrong about OIT but they did call bullshit of AIT misinterpretation of Rig veda and its geography and chronology in India. They are more right about India than AIT folks. But I have to say that Manasataramgini’s blog is more correct than anything I have read so far. Guy has very good grasp of latest genetic research and provides comprehesive narrative which is rare coming from India.

For reference, here are links to three recent ancient DNA papers which contains most up to date knowledge.

Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14317.html

Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians ( This one is a slight update over first paper)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 16152.html

Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians ( CHG component found here is key for Indian genetic)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15111 ... s9912.html

[johneeG]

How long before these 'up to date' papers become 'obsolete'? What does 'obsolete' mean? ... that they were wrong?

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Thing is, Europe also shows the invasion in the archaeological record, with discontinuity in culture. There is no such discontinuity in India.

[Prem]

http://varnam.org/2016/01/helicobacter- ... ia-theory/
Helicobacter pylori and Out of India Theory

This particular bacterium is found in the stomach of half of the world’s population and is more than 100,000 years old. When our ancestor left Africa on their worldwide migration, this bacterium was present in their stomach. Currently, that one strain has seven different variations tied to different geographies. Thus, there is a variation for Europe, few for Africa and a couple for Asia.The current strain which is found in Europeans came from two sources Ancestral Europe 1 and Ancestral Europe 2 (AE1 and AE2). It is believed that AE1 originated in Central Asia and AE2 in North-East Africa. The admixture of these two strains occurred sometime between 10,000 and 52,000 years back.A recent study, which looked at the gastrointestinal tract of a 5300 yr old iceman has revealed some interesting information about this person. This iceman lived in the Italian Alps and was probably a European farmer. When he was between 40 and 50 years old, he was murdered by someone using an arrow. He is called an iceman because his body was preserved by freeze drying in a glacier.Analysis of the bacterium revealed that he did not have the strain that most modern Europeans have. His strain was from India, especially North India. This strain was also the co-ancestor of the current European strain. What this tells us is that the India strain was present in Europe during the copper age; there was a movement of people into Europe during that period. This strain, which was found in the iceman’s body is also different from the strain that modern Indians have. This tells us that that people went from India to Europe, stayed there and were genetically isolated from the Indian population. This isolated group became ancestral to the European strain.
If you look at the age of the iceman, you will find that he lived in 3200 B.C.E. This was the Early Period of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization. According to the Invasion Theories, the invasion would happen almost a millennia later. Now evidence says that, while Sarasvati was flowing and many sites existed on its banks, there was an Indian strain of bacterium going Out of India. Was this iceman an original resident of North India who reached the Italian Alps or was he one of the descendants of an earlier migration? We don’t know. But the fact that Indians moved to Europe should not come as a surprise. If you look at the trading hubs of the ancient world, this movement was quite common.

Subhash Kak ‏@subhashkak1 8h8 hours ago Stillwater, OK
More: Iceman with Indian H. Pylori was 3300 BC. Sanskritic languages likely displaced Basque and Finnish families.

[ukumar]

How long before these 'up to date' papers become 'obsolete'? What does 'obsolete' mean? ... that they were wrong?

Sorry, It is bit complex to explain in writing. If you have specific paper conclusion in mind, I can explain. In general I would say that ancient DNA based papers are more accurate as they don't have to untangle genetic complexity of historic Migrations.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ If Indo-European languages drifted westwards over a dozens of centuries before reaching Europe, then the carriers of the language are no longer "Indian" any more than the English are Roman. If Saraswati-Sindhu was IE in 3500 BC, and the language drifted westwards to enter Europe 2000 BC, it could very well be through the Yamnaya culture.

[shiv]

^^^ If Indo-European languages drifted westwards over a dozens of centuries before reaching Europe, then the carriers of the language are no longer "Indian" any more than the English are Roman. If Saraswati-Sindhu was IE in 3500 BC, and the language drifted westwards to enter Europe 2000 BC, it could very well be through the Yamnaya culture.

Hold your horses sir. I have some comments on that paper coming up

[shiv]

For reference, here are links to three recent ancient DNA papers which contains most up to date knowledge.

Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14317.html

Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians ( This one is a slight update over first paper)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 16152.html

Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians ( CHG component found here is key for Indian genetic)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15111 ... s9912.html

Thanks. I am unable to access full text in the first link - maybe I will have to look at other sources, or manage with the abstract.

The first paper is interesting because it in no way goes against OIT. All the genetic and linguistic OIT dates are 5000 plus years ago. By OIT I means spread of Sanskrit speaking people to Russia and East Europe

But I have some reservations about the third paper. Let me explain.

The authors have taken exactly two pre-historic samples from small bone fragments of two individuals from two cave findings called Satsurbia and Kotias. The genetic material of these two samples have been classified by the authors as a group that they call "CHG" - Caucasian Hunter Gatherers. The authors have created a group of people from two samples. They date the origin of this group as around 20,000 years ago. They then say that this group "or some group near them" were related to another group that "have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC"

I hope people can understand the meaning of this. There is no real way of linking language with culture, but language has been linked with culture using basically fake methods - by saying Rig Veda was horse culture. Horse culture was in Pontic Steppe. And the genes of this paper are related to Pontic steppe genes. Therefore the CHG genes of this paper are related to Indo European languages. This paer is GIGO but it is not their fault. The fault lies in the earlier linking of Horse culture with Rig Veda (which is something I am addressing in by book )

It gets worse. Later in the paper they say that the Kotias bone is somewhat related to the "Ancestral North Indian Component of Indian genes and here they quote the Priya Moorjani paper to say:

It is estimated that this admixture in the ancestors of Indian populations occurred relatively recently, 1,900–4,200 years BP, and is possibly linked with migrations introducing Indo-European languages and Vedic religion to the region

These people pick up whatever they want from the papers they read. So let me quote from the original Priya Moorjani paper

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years

Like I have said time and time again - linguistic books have cooked up fake theories that genetics people clutch at and cling on to trying to create a connection with history and archaeology. Need to be very careful because there is a tremendous amount of bullshit floating about

[shravanp]

Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas

How easy was it to refute Müller’s

evidence was only a ghost story in Kathāsaritsagara which had one Kātyāyana whom Müller identified with the sūtra-writer of the 3rd cent BCE and so concocted the chronology in neat 200-year periods

[A_Gupta]

^^^ If Indo-European languages drifted westwards over a dozens of centuries before reaching Europe, then the carriers of the language are no longer "Indian" any more than the English are Roman. If Saraswati-Sindhu was IE in 3500 BC, and the language drifted westwards to enter Europe 2000 BC, it could very well be through the Yamnaya culture.

Hold your horses sir. I have some comments on that paper coming up

Well, the above statement is a bit paper-independent. Presumably the Saraswati-Sindhu culture was speaking Sanskrit or its ancestor around 3500 BC; the incursion of IE languages into Europe began around 2000 BC, which means that there is 1500 years for languages to drift westwards. That is ample time for what we would call today the ethnicity of the people with these languages to change. Doesn't change the site of origination.

[Prem Kumar]

ukumar: discovery of Europeans about a Steppe-invasion does nothing to disprove OIT. It only proves that there was an invasion of an alien people into Europe. But they extrapolate this to imply that India must also have been invaded.

So, here is the situation:

1) There is plenty of archaeological evidence of an Aryan invasion into Europe
2) There is zero evidence of Aryan invasion or even migration into India (archaeological, genetic, philological etc)
3) But Indian and European languages are deeply inter-connected

The above lead to only 1 conclusion. The Aryans migrated Out Of India into Europe. If the West weren't so ideologically blinkered, they would see the obvious truth

[Prem Kumar]

Let me post a very recent piece by Koenraad Elst. It must be read in its entirety. It talks about B. B. Lal's monumental discoveries in archaeology that buries (pun intended) AIT and provides strong evidence for OIT

http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2016/0 ... vated.html

They might, however, start to see the point by studying the European part of Indo-European archaeology. Around 2900 BCE, Central Europe witnessed an enormous upheaval caused by an invasion from the east, easily traceble in the material record, and a partial population replacement, now traceable with the new science of genetics. So that is what an Aryan invasion looks like. And that precisely is what is totally missing in the archaeological record of India. As robustly as the Aryan invasion of Europe has been proven, as conspicuously absent is the evidence for an Aryan invasion of India.

[Dipanker]

These people pick up whatever they want from the papers they read. So let me quote from the original Priya Moorjani paper

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years

Like I have said time and time again - linguistic books have cooked up fake theories that genetics people clutch at and cling on to trying to create a connection with history and archaeology. Need to be very careful because there is a tremendous amount of bullshit floating about

The recent study Priya Moorjani is refering to is Kivisild/Metspalu study from 1999. She does qualify her quoted observation by stating "(although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected)"

[Dipanker]

ukumar: discovery of Europeans about a Steppe-invasion does nothing to disprove OIT. It only proves that there was an invasion of an alien people into Europe. But they extrapolate this to imply that India must also have been invaded.

So, here is the situation:

1) There is plenty of archaeological evidence of an Aryan invasion into Europe
2) There is zero evidence of Aryan invasion or even migration into India (archaeological, genetic, philological etc)
3) But Indian and European languages are deeply inter-connected

The above lead to only 1 conclusion. The Aryans migrated Out Of India into Europe. If the West weren't so ideologically blinkered, they would see the obvious truth

The Aryan invading Europe were the Pontic Steppe Aryans, so OIT proponents would still need to prove that the migrating out of India Aryans populated the Pontic Steppe. Not done yet.

[johneeG]

ukumar: discovery of Europeans about a Steppe-invasion does nothing to disprove OIT. It only proves that there was an invasion of an alien people into Europe. But they extrapolate this to imply that India must also have been invaded.

So, here is the situation:

1) There is plenty of archaeological evidence of an Aryan invasion into Europe
2) There is zero evidence of Aryan invasion or even migration into India (archaeological, genetic, philological etc)
3) But Indian and European languages are deeply inter-connected

The above lead to only 1 conclusion. The Aryans migrated Out Of India into Europe. If the West weren't so ideologically blinkered, they would see the obvious truth

The Aryan invading Europe were the Pontic Steppe Aryans, so OIT proponents would still need to prove that the migrating out of India Aryans populated the Pontic Steppe. Not done yet.

Link

Dr Kazanas theory.

[Murugan]

Use of Toilet, Toiletaries and Toilet Decorum as descirbed in Vinaya Pitika 5th BC Text
Another Out-of-India gift to the world

http://quangduc.com/a52920/pali-canon-vinaya-pitaka-06

Toilet Duties
"If there is water, one should not not rinse after having defecated. Whoever should not rinse: an offense of wrongdoing." [C: If there is no vessel to dip in the water, that counts as 'there being no water.']

[Cv.VIII.9 ]




"One should not defecate in the toilet in order of seniority. Whoever should do so: an offense of wrongdoing. I allow that one defecate in order of arrival."

[Cv.VIII.10.1]




"Whoever goes to a toilet should, while standing outside, clear his throat. The one sitting inside should also clear his throat. Having put aside the (upper) robe on a bamboo pole or a cord, one should enter the toilet properly and unhurriedly. One should not pull up one's lower robe while entering (§). One should pull up one's lower robe while standing on the toilet shoes (§). One should not groan/grunt while defecating. One should not defecate while chewing tooth-wood. [C: This rule applies wherever one may be defecating, and not just in a restroom.] One should not defecate outside of the toilet, one should not urinate outside of the urinal. One should not spit into the urinal. One should not wipe oneself with a rough stick. One should not drop the wiping stick into the cesspool. One should cover oneself (with one's lower robe) while standing on the toilet-shoes (§). One should not leave hurriedly. One should not leave with one's lower robe pulled up (§). One should pull it up while standing on the rinsing-room shoes (§). One shouldn't make a smacking sound (§) while rinsing. One should not leave any water remaining in the rinsing vessel. [C: OK to leave water in the rinsing vessel if it's in a toilet for one's private use or if one is suffering from frequent diarrhea attacks.] One should cover oneself (with one's lower robe) while standing on the rinsing-room shoes (§).

"If the toilet is splattered it should be washed. If the basket/receptacle for wiping sticks is full, the wiping sticks should be thrown away. If the toilet is dirty it should be swept. If the outer corridor... the yard... the porch is dirty, it should be swept. If there is no water in the rinsing jar, water should be poured into the rinsing jar."


[Cv.VIII.10.3]

[Dipanker]

Link

Dr Kazanas theory.

Thanks for the link. Hopefully soon there will be some genetic study done to address this question for good by analyzing the samples from India as well as the Pontic steppe and in between.

[Prem Kumar]

Dipanker: no doubt we need to prove OIT happened via Steppes into Europe (if that's what the genetic studies reveal). So, its a multi step process:

1) Show that AIT into India did not happen. This has more or less been done. AIT/AMT into India have become laughing stock theories
2) Show evidence for OIT: Shri Talageri's work is a very important step in this. For the 1st time, there is philological evidence (Rig Vedic hymns) that categorically talk about Westward migration of specific tribes
3) I have not looked at Talageri's linguistic model in detail, but it may allow for migration via Steppes into Europe (this is my guess)
4) Genetics will also help in linking Out of India migrants to Europe

Scholarship is needed to build on the excellent base setup by Talageri to fill in the other gaps. This is what Koenraad Elst has also been arguing for. Talageri alone cannot do the job

[Prem Kumar]

Dipanker: there is a more recent paper (November 2011) by Metspalu that Priya Moorjani refers to. Link below. This paper states that there was no migrations at least until 12500 years before present. Pretty much nailing AIT!

Yes, of course, more studies might uncover new evidences of a later migration. But by far this is the most comprehensive genomic study done and it destroys AIT. I have not seen a single refutation of this paper. I threw this at Manasataramgini and he just shut up and said his mind is already made up about AIT

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9711004885

In terms of human population history, our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East. Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla15) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration.

[Prem Kumar]

Amazing find Murugan!!

[shiv]

The recent study Priya Moorjani is refering to is Kivisild/Metspalu study from 1999. She does qualify her quoted observation by stating "(although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected)"

Nothing new on that subject has been detected in the paper under discussion. Old statements have simply nbeen repeated. "The relatedness" of CHG in the 2015 paper to ANI is shown, but the timeline of the relatedness has been assumed by quoting one half of what Priya Moorjani said. Priya Moorjani also says that she cannot say that ANI/ASI mix could not have occurred earlier.

Meanwhile other papers give some indicator of gene flow into India - eg:
The "Underhill paper" from 2009 that shows that there was no discernible Y chromosome male flow into India in the last 5000 years.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/ ... 9194a.html

Importantly, the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene.

And thanks Prem Kumar for that Metspalu paper

[ukumar]

For reference, here are links to three recent ancient DNA papers which contains most up to date knowledge.

Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14317.html

Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians ( This one is a slight update over first paper)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 16152.html

Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians ( CHG component found here is key for Indian genetic)
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15111 ... s9912.html

Thanks. I am unable to access full text in the first link - maybe I will have to look at other sources, or manage with the abstract.

The first paper is interesting because it in no way goes against OIT. All the genetic and linguistic OIT dates are 5000 plus years ago. By OIT I means spread of Sanskrit speaking people to Russia and East Europe

But I have some reservations about the third paper. Let me explain.

The authors have taken exactly two pre-historic samples from small bone fragments of two individuals from two cave findings called Satsurbia and Kotias. The genetic material of these two samples have been classified by the authors as a group that they call "CHG" - Caucasian Hunter Gatherers. The authors have created a group of people from two samples. They date the origin of this group as around 20,000 years ago. They then say that this group "or some group near them" were related to another group that "have been implicated as vectors for the profound influx of Pontic steppe ancestry that spread westwards into Europe and east into central Asia with metallurgy, horseriding and probably Indo-European languages in the third millenium BC"

I hope people can understand the meaning of this. There is no real way of linking language with culture, but language has been linked with culture using basically fake methods - by saying Rig Veda was horse culture. Horse culture was in Pontic Steppe. And the genes of this paper are related to Pontic steppe genes. Therefore the CHG genes of this paper are related to Indo European languages. This paer is GIGO but it is not their fault. The fault lies in the earlier linking of Horse culture with Rig Veda (which is something I am addressing in by book )

It gets worse. Later in the paper they say that the Kotias bone is somewhat related to the "Ancestral North Indian Component of Indian genes and here they quote the Priya Moorjani paper to say:

It is estimated that this admixture in the ancestors of Indian populations occurred relatively recently, 1,900–4,200 years BP, and is possibly linked with migrations introducing Indo-European languages and Vedic religion to the region

These people pick up whatever they want from the papers they read. So let me quote from the original Priya Moorjani paper

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years

Like I have said time and time again - linguistic books have cooked up fake theories that genetics people clutch at and cling on to trying to create a connection with history and archaeology. Need to be very careful because there is a tremendous amount of bullshit floating about

First paper is available here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02783.pdf

I am afraid your skepticism is misplaced . Using 2 DNA samples is not a problem at all and they haven’t used any assumption about RigVeda or linguistic theories in their results. At most they have stated conclusion/statement from other papers/books which may support their interpretation. DNA samples and analysis tools they used are open source and anybody can scrutinize/repeat their results.

First two papers had shown that Yamnaya steppe population got a genetic input from south. 3rd paper is able to identify that genetic component (named CHG) in ancient genome from caucasus. This CHG component also is related to ANI in India. We need to wait for ancient DNA from India and central Asia to identify CHG carrying group entering steppe in 4th mil BC. Since steppe didn't get ASI like ancestry, it is unlikely to be from deep within India. Unless Rakhigarhi DNA is mostly ANI/CHG like.

BTW, this finding is not consistent with Kurgun model. It seems like Steppe was only source of IE languages in central Europe. They haven’t found genetic input from Steppe to Greece, Armenia or India, R1a1a connection not withstanding. They seem to imply that CHG carrying group was responsible for this. Things are just getting interesting and as more ancient DNA arrives, we’ll hopefully get clear picture.

[ukumar]

The recent study Priya Moorjani is refering to is Kivisild/Metspalu study from 1999. She does qualify her quoted observation by stating "(although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected)"

Nothing new on that subject has been detected in the paper under discussion. Old statements have simply nbeen repeated. "The relatedness" of CHG in the 2015 paper to ANI is shown, but the timeline of the relatedness has been assumed by quoting one half of what Priya Moorjani said. Priya Moorjani also says that she cannot say that ANI/ASI mix could not have occurred earlier.

Meanwhile other papers give some indicator of gene flow into India - eg:
The "Underhill paper" from 2009 that shows that there was no discernible Y chromosome male flow into India in the last 5000 years.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/ ... 9194a.html

Importantly, the virtual absence of M458 chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at least since the mid-Holocene.

And thanks Prem Kumar for that Metspalu paper

"Underhill paper" from 2009 was before Z93 was discovered and should be superseded by finding from new papers. Similarly 12500 date from Priya's paper and coalescing dates from underhill paper uses mutation rate which is known to be overestimating the age so should be used with caution.

3 papers are focusing on steppe genetics and you are right that they have only shown relatedness of CHG with ANI. They haven't given firm opinion on direction of gene flow with respect to India and we need to wait for future papers with asian ancient DNA.

[shiv]

they haven’t used any assumption about RigVeda or linguistic theories in their results. At most they have stated conclusion/statement from other papers/books which may support their interpretation

This is exactly what I am getting at. If the other writings are fake then their conclusions are fake.

These people have dated the 2 samples labelled as CHG as being 20,000 years old and then they pick up "other writings" which reach the questionable conclusions that I have mentioned about Rig Veda and horses and use the linguistic dates of 3500 years ago from linguistics references. The problem is when genetics is mixed up with archaeology and linguistics science stops working and speculation starts. This may not be the fault of the genetics paper authors - but unless I pin down and point out where the problem lies no one else might do that. If others do, that is fine. But if they don't I will continue to point out what is highly questionable

[shiv]

3 papers are focusing on steppe genetics and you are right that they have only shown relatedness of CHG with ANI. They haven't given firm opinion on direction of gene flow with respect to India and we need to wait for future papers with asian ancient DNA.

And I don't expect them to do that. But what I am trying to say is that things like "Aryan migration", "horse" and "chariot" which get mentioned in genetics papers such as this one are themselves speculation and often complete nonsense - but having already found a place in scholarly sources they are quoted even by genetics paper authors.

You have pointed out that mutation rate is questionable and you are right. But even this paper ("Upper Paleolithic genomes..) uses mutation rates to date their material.

We next dated the splits among WHG, CHG and EF using a coalescent model implemented with G-PhoCS15 based on the high-coverage genomes in our data set (Fig. 2b for a model using the German farmer Stuttgart1 to represent EF; and Supplementary Table 5 for models using the Hungarian farmer NE1 (ref. 3)) and taking advantage of the mutation rate recently derived from Ust’-Ishim10. G-Phocs dates the split between WHG and the population ancestral to CHG and EF at ~40–50 kya (range of best estimates depending on which genomes are used; see Supplementary Table 5 and Supplementary Note 5 for details), implying that they diverged early on during the colonisation of Europe16, and well before the LGM. On the WHG branch, the split between Bichon and Loschbour1 is dated to ~16–18 kya (just older than the age of Bichon), implying continuity in western Europe, which supports the conclusions from our previous analyses. The split between CHG and EF is dated at ~20–30 kya emerging from a common basal Eurasian lineage1 (Supplementary Fig. 2) and suggesting a possible link with the LGM, although the broad confidence intervals require some caution with this interpretation.

But did you know that linguists have cooked up a "mutation rate" of languages from which they have constructed elaborate theories and there is no one to question them? And their data is appearing in genetics papers? How can we accept that? The fact that geneticists question their own colleagues use of mutation rates does not seem to be echoed by linguists who are happy to continue to use approximate "rate of change" estimates for language and pronunciation changes.

And if you combine that with the conclusion that Rig Vedic people used horses in burial chambers and then calling Kurgan burial chambers as Rig Veda people - we are looking at some serious bullshit that has made its way into "scholarly literature" and is being further pushed into genetics papers

[peter]

.....

You have pointed out that mutation rate is questionable and you are right. But even this paper ("Upper Paleolithic genomes..) uses mutation rates to date their material.

I have a naive/stupid question/suggestion.

Why do we have to wait for some study to be done by someone else?

What is money/effort/expertise implication for launching our own study? Sponsored by this forum? Money collected/experts found and we do it.

Collect the largest sample of indian DNA and nail the issue.

[shiv]

.....

You have pointed out that mutation rate is questionable and you are right. But even this paper ("Upper Paleolithic genomes..) uses mutation rates to date their material.

I have a naive/stupid question/suggestion.

Why do we have to wait for some study to be done by someone else?

What is money/effort/expertise implication for launching our own study? Sponsored by this forum? Money collected/experts found and we do it.

Collect the largest sample of indian DNA and nail the issue.

Peter you have yourself read many of the Indian papers and all of them so far do not indicate any major gene influx in 5000 years. But only we are bothered about this. Most genetics researchers are least concerned about all this and they simply pick up old papers as cross references. Things will move, gradually

[ukumar]

3 papers are focusing on steppe genetics and you are right that they have only shown relatedness of CHG with ANI. They haven't given firm opinion on direction of gene flow with respect to India and we need to wait for future papers with asian ancient DNA.

And I don't expect them to do that. But what I am trying to say is that things like "Aryan migration", "horse" and "chariot" which get mentioned in genetics papers such as this one are themselves speculation and often complete nonsense - but having already found a place in scholarly sources they are quoted even by genetics paper authors.

You have pointed out that mutation rate is questionable and you are right. But even this paper ("Upper Paleolithic genomes..) uses mutation rates to date their material.

We next dated the splits among WHG, CHG and EF using a coalescent model implemented with G-PhoCS15 based on the high-coverage genomes in our data set (Fig. 2b for a model using the German farmer Stuttgart1 to represent EF; and Supplementary Table 5 for models using the Hungarian farmer NE1 (ref. 3)) and taking advantage of the mutation rate recently derived from Ust’-Ishim10. G-Phocs dates the split between WHG and the population ancestral to CHG and EF at ~40–50 kya (range of best estimates depending on which genomes are used; see Supplementary Table 5 and Supplementary Note 5 for details), implying that they diverged early on during the colonisation of Europe16, and well before the LGM. On the WHG branch, the split between Bichon and Loschbour1 is dated to ~16–18 kya (just older than the age of Bichon), implying continuity in western Europe, which supports the conclusions from our previous analyses. The split between CHG and EF is dated at ~20–30 kya emerging from a common basal Eurasian lineage1 (Supplementary Fig. 2) and suggesting a possible link with the LGM, although the broad confidence intervals require some caution with this interpretation.

But did you know that linguists have cooked up a "mutation rate" of languages from which they have constructed elaborate theories and there is no one to question them? And their data is appearing in genetics papers? How can we accept that? The fact that geneticists question their own colleagues use of mutation rates does not seem to be echoed by linguists who are happy to continue to use approximate "rate of change" estimates for language and pronunciation changes.

And if you combine that with the conclusion that Rig Vedic people used horses in burial chambers and then calling Kurgan burial chambers as Rig Veda people - we are looking at some serious bullshit that has made its way into "scholarly literature" and is being further pushed into genetics papers

IMO you are giving unnecessary importance to non genetic references. Yes, bias exists and they do influence researchers. But ancient DNA research is testable and repeatable. As such they know that truth would be evident eventually And they can't get away with bullshit for 150 years like llinguists. They have reputation and legacy to protect which is a great motivation to be objective. Sooner we get over the mistrust of this field and start rooting out facts and create our own narratives would be better for us.

Yes, I have seen some papers using language "mutation rates". This is one more sudo science .FWIW, timeline they came out was against kurgan model and they were coming under fire from all sides.

One advantage of ancient DNa is that we don't have to rely on mutation rate. With DNA snapshot from the past, we Have better confidence about location and time of perticular mutation. This would also help researchers fine tune "mutation clock" in future.

[ukumar]

.....

You have pointed out that mutation rate is questionable and you are right. But even this paper ("Upper Paleolithic genomes..) uses mutation rates to date their material.

I have a naive/stupid question/suggestion.

Why do we have to wait for some study to be done by someone else?

What is money/effort/expertise implication for launching our own study? Sponsored by this forum? Money collected/experts found and we do it.

Collect the largest sample of indian DNA and nail the issue.

http://www.ccmb.res.in/index.php lab In Hyderabad had some very good papers using modern population. Unfortunately modern DNA has reached a limit in answering historic questions. They haven't cracked ancient DNA technology yet but there were reports that they are working on it.

[KLP Dubey]

Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas

By the way, this reference to geographic regions is Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44.....not 18.4 as claimed in the above interview, nor 18.14 as claimed in the below article:

http://www.sanskrit.nic.in/svimarsha/v6/c2.pdf

[KLP Dubey]

2) Show evidence for OIT: Shri Talageri's work is a very important step in this. For the 1st time, there is philological evidence (Rig Vedic hymns) that categorically talk about Westward migration of specific tribes

Unfortunately there is no such evidence. It is all just conjecture. All that we really have in these RV suktas is a small list of nouns (names) connected by verbs whose meanings are often uncertain. The authors of sutras and puranas have taken these names and constructed fables and tales out of them. If we did not have the sutras and puranas in which these "tribes" are described, there would be absolutely no way anyone could independently assign these fragmentary references in the Veda to names of "historical tribes". It is ridiculous.

So it is a reverse-engineered and fake "history", in which people are starting from puranic references and trying to impose those on the veda, whereas in reality the names used in the puranas were lifted from the Veda and used to construct stories. The names in the Veda are simply derivatives of certain roots and their meanings are not to be taken as those of specific people or groups of people.

[shiv]

IMO you are giving unnecessary importance to non genetic references.

Not at all.

You are speaking only from the viewpoint of genetics, but when a genetics paper cites a reference which is in turn based on a nonsense archaeo-linguistic document it counts as a "cite". Sooner or later this genetics paper will be used as a cite in an archaeological or linguistics paper and then we have a gradual ecosystem of ever increasing "cites" of nonsense about language spread.

Unfortunately genetics can never ever prove language spread, but genetics papers that show migration of people from point A to point B are used to "prove" nonsensical hypotheses about language spread. The rigor of proof that geneticists and other scientists require for their work simply does not exist for linguists and archaeologists, but they often pass off nonsense as science. So it is important to call out and critique every single genetics paper (or any other paper) that cites nonsense references so people know and a red flag goes up the minute that reference is cited

[Nilesh Oak]

Not at all.

You are speaking only from the viewpoint of genetics, but when a genetics paper cites a reference which is in turn based on a nonsense archaeo-linguistic document it counts as a "cite". Sooner or later this genetics paper will be used as a cite in an archaeological or linguistics paper and then we have a gradual ecosystem of ever increasing "cites" of nonsense about language spread.

Unfortunately genetics can never ever prove language spread, but genetics papers that show migration of people from point A to point B are used to "prove" nonsensical hypotheses about language spread. The rigor of proof that geneticists and other scientists require for their work simply does not exist for linguists and archaeologists, but they often pass off nonsense as science. So it is important to call out and critique every single genetics paper (or any other paper) that cites nonsense references so people know and a red flag goes up the minute that reference is cited

+108

[Prem Kumar]

+100 Shiv

The circle-jerk that Shiv refers to happens not just in AIT but also in the field of Indology. A group of non-Hindu & Hinduphobic Western "academics" come up with laughable Freudian psychoanalysis of Ganesha's trunk and it gets referenced by another feku academic, who in turn gets referenced by another tenure-track, sold-out asst prof (preferably an Indian sepoy who wants the prestige of a Harvard of Columbia). All contrary views are severely criticized/condemned via various tools: political, career-stunting, ad-homiem, non-referencing of contrary papers, bribery, threats etc etc.

What gets built is called a "Hegemonic Discourse" (a term coined by Rajiv Malhotra). This discourse is fiercely protected. After enough time of such circle-jerking (in case of AIT, 150 years), the discourse gets established as "scholarly consensus". No proof is required. No dissent is tolerated. Contrary data is simply brushed under the carpet.

This is not academics. Its a mafia. This is exactly how the church operated. This is what they did to Galileo. The West paid a price for such behavior - its called the Dark Ages. However, in the case of Indology/AIT, it is Indians who pay the price.

So, we should vehemently insult any quackery. No quarter should be given. Academics aren't necessarily "nice people". Most of the Western ones in the fields of Indology are a nasty, passive-aggressive bunch

[shiv]

So, we should vehemently insult any quackery. No quarter should be given. Academics aren't necessarily "nice people". Most of the Western ones in the fields of Indology are a nasty, passive-aggressive bunch

Absolutely correct. One thing I have learned is that my early education taught me that pride in one's own culture is not something that should be worn on one's own shoulder because western academics are so neutral and so unbiased and that is "real scholarship"

I now realise that this so called neutrality and unbiasedness simply sits on top of a huge body of literature built up over 150 years proving their superiority in all ways anyway (ref Edward Said's "Orientalism"). For anything they appear to say "neutrally" today, there is a huge volume of texts written by earlier western authors who were perfectly biased and totally racist in their time, now quoted as great references for many decades, learned via hundreds of reference textbooks by the teachers of today's teachers, to bestow a veneer of great, ancient and solemn scholarship. This is particularly true of the social "sciences" - sociology, history, anthropology, linguistics and even archaeology. There is so much hack thoo bullshitting that it needs to be called out every millimeter of the way and no quarter given - particularly because too many Indians are bewitched by the maya of fake scholarship

[A_Gupta]

IMO, both Rajiv Malhotra ("purva-paksha") and S.N. Balagangadhara emphasize that to overthrow hegemonic discourse, we have to trace back to the false assumptions.