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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

Wotsissain wrote: if we assume that new variations are created at the same rate from a given set of DNA (implying that a group will larger variations will continue to have larger variations over time)...just my understanding of this...trying to see if that sounds right.
You are correct. The point where it fails is the assumption of a rate at which mutations occur.

But with the recent H Pylori study there is no such problem because the corpse itself and its H Pylori were both old anyway and there was no question of guessing dates by rate of mutation
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

johneeG wrote:
No Horse was domesticated in the steppe of Kazakhstan, west Siberia and Ukraine: DNA study
It is just as possible that the Aryans invaded Jambudvipa riding on ass-driven chariots, or may be Santa lent them some reindeer-driven chariots!

If Thor can beat everybody to pulp just riding on a chariot pulled by two goats, Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr, why not the other Aryans?! In fact, come to think of it, it must have been mountain-goat driven chariots that Aryans used, as they had to cross those pesky Himalayan hills.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Post by johneeG »

RajeshA saar,
:mrgreen:

About textual evidence, I think you are right. Not just Europeans, but most of the world lacks ancient textual history (even if corrupted by legends and myths). Even if there are texts, they are unreadable or not fully available giving plenty of room for speculations. Indians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Chinese and Jews seem to be few ancient people with textual evidence. Of these, Egypt and Assyrian civilization are gone. Thus, anyone can distort their history without any protest. Using these distorted versions, one can proceed to distort the history of others. So, I think the first step should be to undistort Egyptian and Assyrian history. I think Velikovsky did this job using Jewish textual evidence.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

johneeG wrote:RajeshA saar,
:mrgreen:

About textual evidence, I think you are right. Not just Europeans, but most of the world lacks ancient textual history (even if corrupted by legends and myths). Even if there are texts, they are unreadable or not fully available giving plenty of room for speculations. Indians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Chinese and Jews seem to be few ancient people with textual evidence. Of these, Egypt and Assyrian civilization are gone. Thus, anyone can distort their history without any protest. Using these distorted versions, one can proceed to distort the history of others. So, I think the first step should be to undistort Egyptian and Assyrian history. I think Velikovsky did this job using Jewish textual evidence.
The idea that texts will be true and folk memories bullshit is a post Christian Protestant construct so that history begins after Christ. Most of world history is not textual.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Post by johneeG »

There is less chance of corruption of written word compared to spoken words. As for memory, time corrupts it.. And this is just common sense. Oral traditions and other such unreliable historical sources have to be resorted if written records don't exist.
prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2832
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

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

Post by prahaar »

Shivji 1008+. If you take a case in point, if in future only the FB and twitter database is retained, while rest of the civilization is destroyed, would FB incorporate all the things happening in this world? Even less in pre-Facebook era, relying solely on MSM. So relying ONLY on text and denying every verbal source is a ploy.

Finnish is an ancient language, but because a person called Mikael Agricola codified it in text form in 16th century, today he is called Father of Finnish. The worst part is that Finnish people do not notice the discrepancy. Similar is the case with most Indians.
member_29218
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29218 »

johneeG wrote:............. Anyway, this out of africa theory has now been debunked. Genetic studies show that russian all non-africans have no african markers. So, africans can't be there ancestors. So, Asians are the ancestors of Human beings non-africans. Question is: which Asians? Answer is: Most probably Indians. Genetics, linguistic, historical and archeological evidence shows that Indians are the ancestors of non-Africans.
JohneeG Ji, there WAS probably some kind of communication, even a rudimentary language the ancient humans possessed 50,000 yrs ago, but I bet it was nothing like what we have today, in any case there is no evidence to be found at this time. Similarly, there is no history associated with that era. Ditto for archeology - there are no human structures from beyond 25K BP.

The only thing we can find is skeletal remains, which as I've said are hardly reliable. You cannot construct an entire species and its movement on the planet 50 millennia ago from a fragment of a skull embedded in the wall in some cave.

That just leaves genetic material. Very hard to come by and the evaluation/interpretation is even more difficult. Given the trouble we have with contamination of present human DNA even in modern forensic labs, it is not hard to imagine somebody goofing up with the minuscule amount of ancient DNA that may be available.

As far as being 'debunked', last time I checked, the American Museum of Natural History, in its Hall of Mankind still has the Out of Africa theory of human origins on the wall (beautiful display, BTW, I highly recommend it to anybody visiting New York). Granted, this does not make it any more authentic than a Western History Textbook pushing the AIT, but it is as mainstream as it can get.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Post by johneeG »

Primus wrote:
johneeG wrote:............. Anyway, this out of africa theory has now been debunked. Genetic studies show that russian all non-africans have no african markers. So, africans can't be there ancestors. So, Asians are the ancestors of Human beings non-africans. Question is: which Asians? Answer is: Most probably Indians. Genetics, linguistic, historical and archeological evidence shows that Indians are the ancestors of non-Africans.
JohneeG Ji, there WAS probably some kind of communication, even a rudimentary language the ancient humans possessed 50,000 yrs ago, but I bet it was nothing like what we have today, in any case there is no evidence to be found at this time. Similarly, there is no history associated with that era. Ditto for archeology - there are no human structures from beyond 25K BP.

The only thing we can find is skeletal remains, which as I've said are hardly reliable. You cannot construct an entire species and its movement on the planet 50 millennia ago from a fragment of a skull embedded in the wall in some cave.

That just leaves genetic material. Very hard to come by and the evaluation/interpretation is even more difficult. Given the trouble we have with contamination of present human DNA even in modern forensic labs, it is not hard to imagine somebody goofing up with the minuscule amount of ancient DNA that may be available.

As far as being 'debunked', last time I checked, the American Museum of Natural History, in its Hall of Mankind still has the Out of Africa theory of human origins on the wall (beautiful display, BTW, I highly recommend it to anybody visiting New York). Granted, this does not make it any more authentic than a Western History Textbook pushing the AIT, but it is as mainstream as it can get.
Saar,
No, out of africa is debunked. Non-africans don't have any african markers. Its just that there is still inertia. So, it is similar to AIT. Its clear that non-africans originated in asia. Now, India is most probable source based on multiple fields.

To be clear: I dont place much credence in these huge timelines. But, I think genetics can definitely inform us if group A is related to group B or not. It seems that non-africans dont have african markers.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8264
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Post by disha »

Virendra wrote:Are we talking about haplo group diversity?
I read in a paper that haplo group diversity is not always (i.e. 100 %) accurate in calculating age and direction of migration.

Regarding Out of Africa vs Out of India origin .. is it possible that :
-- a line went from India to Africa.
-- their left overs in India get decimated, no trace.
-- one branch from those Africans came back later as part of 'Out of Africa'.

I don't quite remember the exact specifics from his video. :oops: But it was remotely something like this perhaps :roll:
Do a reverse:

1. A line went from Africa to India
2. That line bounces around to S. E Asia
3. A volcanic event buries most of the world, causes upheavals in climate, human population is reduced to few thousand
4. A line from India then bounces back into CA/Europe following receding glaciers, goes east - crosses bering straight and into US.

This line 4 starts migrating some 60-50k years before present.

Why is not this theory plausible? Both #1, #2 and #3 have substantial proof.
member_29218
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29218 »

I was just thinking.......

It does seem likely that the Indians (Hindus) who moved out of the Saraswati basin into Afghanistan/Iran in the 6000BP era then gave birth to the hordes that descended upon India and caused so much slaughter and mayhem. It is also interesting that there is no record of this rapacious behavior until they became one with the pi$$ful in the 8th century. So for about 5000 years there is free trade, exchange of scholars etc then it is all rape and plunder.

Hmmm...... makes you wonder.....
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Post by RoyG »

More horse sh*t from Scroll. :rotfl:

Video: an animated map shows how Sanskrit may have come to India

Contrary to Hindutva myth-making, evolutionary biologists at the University of Auckland find that Indo-European speakers may have come into India from modern-day Turkey.

Shoaib Daniyal · Jun 10, 2015 · 01:30 pm

People in a vast swathe of the Eurasian continent, from Britain in the west to Bengal in the east, are speakers of languages that belong to the same linguistic group, the Indo-European family. About half of the planet’s population today speaks an Indo-European language.

This is a remarkable fact: it means that around 3 billion people speak tongues that descended from what was, once upon a time, a single language and was spoken by a group of nomads whose numbers wouldn’t have been larger than that of a tribal confederation.

Indo-European expansion

How did this single language, which linguists have taken to calling Proto-Indo-European, spread across the word, giving rise to entities as diverse as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, French, Persian and Bhojpuri?

The nomadic tribes that spoke the language spread through large parts of the known world around 6,000 years ago. In the words of anthropologist David W. Anthony, writing in his fantastic book on the spread of the Indo-Europeans, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World:
The people who spoke the Proto-Indo-European language lived at a critical time in a strategic place. They were positioned to benefit from innovations in transport, most important of these being the beginning of horseback riding and the invention of wheeled vehicles.

Horses, wagons and chariots gave these Indo-Europeans certain advantages militarily over the existing settled societies of Europe and Asia. Another innovation was biological: Indo-Europeans developed a gene mutation that allowed them to digest milk even after being weaned, thus providing these nomads with a continuous and mobile source of nutrition. We can see echoes of these historical facts in the culture of the early Vedic people who venerated horses and frowned upon the killing of milch cattle.

Where was the Indo-European homeland?

While this much the experts agree on, there are two competing hypotheses for the place of origin of these Indo-Europeans (or, as they were earlier know, the Aryans). The conventional view places their homeland in the Pontic steppe, which corresponds to modern-day Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. An alternative hypothesis claims that the Proto-Indo-Europeans spread from Anatolia in modern-day Turkey.

The latter hypothesis was recently backed up by a seminal study led by evolutionary biologist Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the journal Science. Here’s an animated map that illustrates the results of that research.

Politics behind the theory

For a dry thesis on human prehistory, the Indo-European theory of migration has caused enormous upheavals in the modern world. Because these initial Indo-European speakers had been able to get about and, in many cases, managed to spread their culture around, a certain Mr Hitler, who considered himself a descendant of these people – the Aryans – mangled the theory into one of racial supremacy.

Race as a concept is mostly nonsense but the damage that Hitler caused with it meant that academics stopped using the word “Aryan” lest anyone think they were talking of a blue-eyed, blonde-haired alpha people (although Indian text books are yet to get the memo). “Indo-European” is the correct term now.

While the Nazis had gone overboard in their acceptance of Aryan migration, at the other end of the spectrum, many of the very people who had coined the word “Aryan” have rejected it completely.

The Hindutva out-of-India myth

In India, driven by the 20th-century ideology of Hindutva, which made nationality a matter of historical association with the subcontinent, a few people vehemently dismissed this now-standard academic consensus of migrants from the north-west bringing into India key cultural markers such as the nascent Vedic religion and early forms of Sanskrit, the liturgical language of modern Hinduism.

Instead, hemmed in by doctrine, Hindutva ideologues such as Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst try and explain the massive spread of Indo-European languages by postulating that the original home of these Aryans was India – a theory almost as ridiculous today as Intelligent Design or a Flat Earth Hypothesis.

With the Hindutva ideology gaining popularity, you now have a huge number of people who consider this sort of dodgy stuff to be authentic. And as we can see from peeping across our western border, believing in a wonky, made-up history can have terrible consequences.

http://scroll.in/article/732899/video-a ... e-to-india
Experts please rip this apart and comment.
member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29325 »

Quentin Atkinson

This Quentin Atkinson is using languages as the source of theories, so his being an evolutionary biologist is not relevant. He is not using any sort of genetic sciences to counter the genetic research for out of India.
TKINSON: OK. Well, the short story is - in the paper we apply methods from evolutionary biology and epidemiology that had been used to trace the origin of virus outbreak by studying DNA of the viruses, working out how viruses are related. And then if you know where you found the different samples of virus around the world, you can trace back along - excuse me - the family branches of the tree and trace all the way back to the root of the tree, to the origin.

And so what we did was apply the same approach to languages. So there's this, as you mentioned, this enormous family of related languages, the Indo-European languages, stretching from Iceland in the west, to - as far as Sri Lanka in the east. And we used these methods to - so rather than looking at viruses, we're looking languages. And rather than looking at the DNA of the viruses to work on how they're related, we're looking at the words of the languages, build the family tree of the languages, and then look at where they are today in trace back along the branches of the family tree to the origin.
This is some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo -- if you are an evolutionary biologist, you will use the basic tools of the trade in that domain to prove things. This Quentin is applying methods in evolutionary biology to linguistics -- that is similar to apply techniques in carpentry to working steel, just because you can create works of art with both of them.

I mean, how credible is it to use techniques of virus spreading to languages and then prove that your claims are correct? Has this Quentin proved that viruses and languages are exactly the same? If not, what good is his pseudo-scientific cr@p?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

A thousand pranaams for this link. This is a very useful one.

Earlier I had spoken of R1A- M17. This link studies that further. The whole paper is here
http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/ ... 000150.pdf

To understand this paper you need to look at an image that Peter had posted earlier
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/ ... 1450f1.jpg
The above image is sourced from an earlier 2015 paper by Underhill
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 01450a.pdf

But this paper goes deep down and finds that the branch that starts as R1a (M420) - and then branches off into M17 (which was older in India as per an earlier paper) then goes down and looks at two branches from M17 called Z280 and Z93

It appears that Z93 is the oldest and occurs with greatest frequency in India - particularly Punjab where it is there in 60% of people.

Z93 (India) is about 15,000 years old
Z280 (Europe) is about 12000 years old in Eastern Europe and 7000 years in Northern Europe

Tthis paper notes (quoting other studies)
The haplogroup R1a arose in Central
Asia (apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions) around
20 Kyears; not later than 12 Kyears (kyears=1000 years) bearers of R1a1 already was in
the Hindustan
, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor
apparently between 10 and 9 Kyears, and around 9-8 Kyears they arrived
to the Balkans and spread over Eastern Europe to the British Isles
Will look at more links later and post. M17 may be the Sanskrit gene. It was in "Hindustan" - later East Europe and still later North Europe
Last edited by shiv on 24 Jan 2016 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29325 »

FLATOW: ... how do you do your detective work that way?

ATKINSON: Right. So what we use are what are called cognates. And so we're looking at the words in the different languages. And within the words, we're looking for a cognate. We've looked at about 200 different meanings, basic vocabulary terms like hand, foot, mother, father, fire, water, mountain, that kind of thing, across about, well, over 100 of the Indo-European languages. And through all these meanings, we're looking for these cognates. These are words that show similar form that linguists deduced indicate that they're related by a common ancestry.

So an example would be the kind of words that you mentioned in your introduction, words for mother in some of the different languages, or the word five is another example of the word that cognate across many in the European languages. So English uses five, German uses funf, Swedish is fem, Dutch is vijf. There are old Germanic languages. The subgroup is Indo-European. And the fact that they share these forms indicates that they're related by a common ancestry.

So we were able to build up a large set of these cognates, over 6,000 across the 200 meanings in the 100 languages. And from that, we can build this - or it's a data matrix, we call it. And so if you imagine down the left-hand side of the data matrix, you've got all your languages. And then along the top of the data matrix, you've got all the possible cognates that we've identified. And you fill in that matrix by putting a zero if that language has a - doesn't have the cognate, and one if the language does have that cognate. And if you fill that in for all the cognates, you get this sequence of ones and zeroes for each language. And it's a bit like telling the sequence of DNA for each language. And that's the data that we then input into our analysis.
So these buggers are using the same principle used in H Pylorii studies in genetics to come up with their nonsense.
DNA sequences are incredibly detailed by orders of magnitude (in the order of millions or billions) compared to this "matrix of cognates" with a few thousand entries, and the entire thesis based on the assumption that cognates will not "mutate". Because if that was possible, it is not possible to just draw a matrix and do some maximal set calculation and figure out the "mother language" -- the fundamental premise of languages behaving the same as viruses is utter conjecture and apparently the basis for this nonsense.

BTW, all of this nonsense is from 2012, so any genetic-research on this topic is enough refute it.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Post by RoyG »

Shiv,

Anything I can do to help. My genetics is actually quite good thanks to medical basic sciences coursework. Following your posts closely. Cheers.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

shiv wrote: Will look at more links later and post. M17 may be the Sanskrit gene. It was in "Hindustan" - later East Europe and still later North Europe
If this is not OIT I don't know what is

http://file.scirp.org/Html/17707.html

The paper linked above, from 2012, is a perfect example of a genetics paper that takes old linguistic conclusions about Aryans coming to India with language in 1500 BC and then tries to prove it.

It is, as I said earlier, an example of petitio principii where the premise is the same as the conclusion

But this paper has an interesting twist. They say R1a originated in Northern China and then went to Russia, then down to India via Tibet, and then moved west
At some point in time, the bearers of R1a1 began migration to the west, over Tibet and the Himalayas, and not later than 12,000 ybp they were in Hindustan. They continued their way across the Iranian Plateau, along Anatolia and Asia Minor apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp. By 9000 - 8000 they arrived in the Balkans and spread westward over Europe and to the British Isles.
But then the paper says that the same people moved back to India with the language as AIT. Whatis wrong with this?

Basically this 2012 paper takes only the Z280 and M458 marker found only in Europe and leaves out the much older Z 93 branch as shown by the paper that RoyG linked earlier.

In fact it is likely that Sandkrit developed in the Punjab reagion 12,000 years ago and migrated west as shown in this paper. there is, as yet no evidence of a reverse migration - especially because of the absence of much younger M458 and Z280 in India.

However the lies of the linguists remains and this paper still looks for the signs of "military migrations" from Russia to India in 1500 BC. But the paper Roy posted has disproves that by showing that the same genes that this paper lists as present in Russia is much older in Punjab. So the movement was reverse.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12121
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Shiv,
Z93 (India) is about 15,000 years old.
Z280 (Europe) is about 12000 years old in Eastern Europe and 7000 years in Northern Europe
.

Is Z280 a descendant of Z93? or are Z93 and Z280 two separate branches from a common ancestor?

Also, given the time depth from genetics, which does not at all correspond to the time depth from the linguistic theories, requires logically, separation of two ideas: spread of people (genes) and spread of language.

If we want to correlate the spread of people and the spread of languages, then the time depth given by linguistics is all wrong. I.E. languages were in India 15K years ago and in Europe 12K years ago; and the linguistic clock is all wrong - languages in the past were much more conservative and changed ten times slower than previously assumed.

But languages may spread without any significant spread of people. As a modern example, English is widespread in India, despite no significant influx and genetic imprint of the English people. But then, as this modern example shows, the imprint of the pre-existing languages will be there; and the very tiny imprint of other languages on Sanskrit suggests that the Indian homeland was the original.

We should also note that suppose India was the original home of IE languages, then IE languages can round-trip; the modern example of English shows an IE language that has round-tripped. I suppose 15K years allows plenty of time for round-tripping galore. It seems to me that the type of theories discarded by the linguists - that there is no language tree, but rather a long series of interactions cross-fertilizing the languages spoken in two neighboring regions, may need to be revisited.

i.e., http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2013/0 ... trees.html
That is, the evolutionary trees, deduced by the linguists, is only because of the very low resolution that the linguistic evidence provides.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Post by RoyG »

Shivji and others,

A very professional youtube video should be put together pooling together all the latest genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and historical research. I can talk to a relative of mine who made it big in the digital media industry. He currently puts together very polished advertisements for a particular US political party. It just so happens he is also interested in this debate.

It would also be much easier to circulate on twitter. Let me know what you think.
ukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by ukumar »

shiv wrote: It appears that Z93 is the oldest and occurs with greatest frequency in India - particularly Punjab where it is there in 60% of people.

Z93 (India) is about 15,000 years old
Z280 (Europe) is about 12000 years old in Eastern Europe and 7000 years in Northern Europe
I would caution against using these dates. There are over estimating by 4x to 5x. Z93 and Z283 are contemporary cousins to each other. Z280 is expected to be few century later than z283.

https://www.facebook.com/R1a1a/photos/a ... permPage=1

r1a1a starts showing up in ancient DNA around 3000bc. Dates in above r1a1a group Facebook page is likely close to truth. Pls ignore the tribe labels in that image just check the dates.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

ukumar wrote:
shiv wrote: It appears that Z93 is the oldest and occurs with greatest frequency in India - particularly Punjab where it is there in 60% of people.

Z93 (India) is about 15,000 years old
Z280 (Europe) is about 12000 years old in Eastern Europe and 7000 years in Northern Europe
I would caution against using these dates. There are over estimating by 4x to 5x. Z93 and Z283 are contemporary cousins to each other. Z280 is expected to be few century later than z283.

https://www.facebook.com/R1a1a/photos/a ... permPage=1

r1a1a starts showing up in ancient DNA around 3000bc. Dates in above r1a1a group Facebook page is likely close to truth. Pls ignore the tribe labels in that image just check the dates.
Thanks ukumar, but as discussed earlier if genetics dates are approximate, linguistic dates are nonsense. Yet, in the paper linked below that I have quoted from. linguists dates are taken as "support and confirmation" of genetic dates. Unfortunatey it stops being science and becomes speculation. In a genetics paper geneticists say "Oh we trust the linguists so we can use their work." And linguists say "Geneticists have confirmed what we say". A self feeding loop of scientists latching onto compulsive bullshitters.

The problem is geneticists are willing to question dates put up by other geneticists, but who checks the linguists? This genetics paper does not even bother to give a reference to their quote of what linguists say? How can we trust what is in this paper?

Who is there who will say that:
"Lingiuists call the Rig Veda a horse culture, and they say Horse culture existed in some other place and therefore the language must have been the same."
This is the fundamental problem we face.
http://file.scirp.org/Html/17707.html
At some point in time, the bearers of R1a1 began
migration to the west, over Tibet and the Himalayas,
and not later than 12,000 ybp they were in Hindustan. They continued their
way across the Iranian Plateau, along Anatolia and Asia Minor
apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp. By 9000 - 8000 they
arrived in the Balkans and spread westward over Europe and to
the British Isles. At that point, R1a1 still had DYS392 = 13 in
their haplotypes, as did their brother haplogroup R1b1. This
marker is very slow, and mutates on average once in 3500 con-
ditional generations. Somewhere on this extended timescale,
bearers of R1a1 (or the parent, upstream haplogroups) devel-
oped Proto-IE language and carried it along during their jour-
ney from Central Asia to Europe. The earliest signs of the lan-
guage in Anatolia were detected by linguists, and dated by 9400
- 9600 - 10,100 ybp, which coincides with the data of DNA
genealogy that is described in this paper.

The arrival of R1a1 in Europe might b
chaeological cultures in the Balkans and Central/Eastern
Europe, dated back to 9000 - 7000 ybp. Yet they also can be
attributed to other ancient haplogroups, such as I, J, E, G.
As the bearers of haplogroup R1b1a2 began to popu
urope after 4,800 ybp (the Bell Beakers and other R1b1 mi-
gratory waves to Europe, including perhaps the Kurgan people,
though their identification and haplogroup assignment remains
unclear), haplogroup R1a1 had moved to the Russian Plain
around 4800 - 4600 ybp. From there R1a1 migrated (or moved
as military expeditions) to the south, east, and south-east as the
historic Aryans. Dates for these movements are strikingly simi-
lar, and they span 4200 and 3600 ybp. As a result, in Anatolia
and Mitanni, South Ural, Iran, India, and beyond the Ural
Mountains, in South Siberia, in all those areas today’s linguists
find the same languages: the Aryan, or the Indo-European lan-
guage, or the Iranian family of languages. They all have the
same Aryan roots. They founded common horse breeding ter-
minology and shared essentially the same vocabulary for
household items, gods and religious terms, although sometimes
twisted due to “human factor” as found in India and Iran.
Last edited by shiv on 25 Jan 2016 14:23, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

RoyG wrote:Shivji and others,

A very professional youtube video should be put together pooling together all the latest genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and historical research. I can talk to a relative of mine who made it big in the digital media industry. He currently puts together very polished advertisements for a particular US political party. It just so happens he is also interested in this debate.

It would also be much easier to circulate on twitter. Let me know what you think.
This is an attractive idea.

I think the most important messages that need to come out are
  • Dating of languages is inaccurate guesswork
  • The oldest known language vedic Sanskrit has been given a date of 1500 BC based on guesswork that does not take into account the internal evidence in old Indian texts
  • Rig Veda has been said to represent horse culture and an area where horse grave have been found have simply been assumed to be speakers of a precursor language to the Rig Veda
  • The language of an oral record (Rig Veda) from India with plenty of local geographic references to India has been connected up to a land where only graves have been found with no clue about language. That connection has no rational basis and is completely unsupportable. But it is taken as established fact.
The problem as I see it is that these are old and well known arguments. One more video will be useful but in the long term we simply have to keep on hammering away. For a long long time. No one is going to change 150 year old fake beliefs when you find geneticists who have been though school being taught AIT and now quote AIT in their papers as support for genetics findings.

That's how far things have gone.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Post by Virendra »

RoyG wrote:Shivji and others,

A very professional youtube video should be put together pooling together all the latest genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and historical research. I can talk to a relative of mine who made it big in the digital media industry. He currently puts together very polished advertisements for a particular US political party. It just so happens he is also interested in this debate.

It would also be much easier to circulate on twitter. Let me know what you think.
Good idea. It would be best if such a video surfaces in synch with other efforts in the larger picture .. like around shiv's book release for example; rather than in isolation. Twitter and other SM publicity also we can drive/co-ordinate collectively from BRF here.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Post by RoyG »

Virendra wrote:
RoyG wrote:Shivji and others,

A very professional youtube video should be put together pooling together all the latest genetic, linguistic, archaeological, and historical research. I can talk to a relative of mine who made it big in the digital media industry. He currently puts together very polished advertisements for a particular US political party. It just so happens he is also interested in this debate.

It would also be much easier to circulate on twitter. Let me know what you think.
Good idea. It would be best if such a video surfaces in synch with other efforts in the larger picture .. like around shiv's book release for example; rather than in isolation. Twitter and other SM publicity also we can drive/co-ordinate collectively from BRF here.
Good idea. In the mean time, I checked with my relative. He is on board to make video(s) free of cost as a side project starting sometime in July or August. We can have a video out by November and then with subsequent edits have the final version in December. We'll have to put together a team of graphics designers, narrator, etc. I can maybe reach out to Malhotra and some others and get a team of experts including Shiv and others on BRF and phd's in the various disciplines.

He can adjust dates according to Shiv's book release. Says may come out sooner or later but it will happen.

We'll have to keep tabs on the DNA analysis of the skeletal remains unearthed from one of the settlements. Malhotra mentioned in the video that his friend and expert will be releasing a paper on the findings and he hinted it is positive for OIT.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

^^
I am totally stuck with a family wedding until mid Feb. Will polish up after that.
member_29218
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29218 »

johneeG wrote:
-----
“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.in/201 ... unked.html
johneeG wrote:Humanity originated in Asia, not Africa.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... heory-out/
johneeG wrote:Thanks Virendra saar for that lead. :)
The First Civilization of the World

https://priyadarshi101.wordpress.com/20 ... the-world/

JohneeG Ji:

I've been looking at this issue for a few days now. I cannot find my original books on this, must have lent them to somebody - as usual they don't come back :cry:

The original paper by Cann et al was published in Nature in 1987 where they first proposed the 'Out of Africa' theory. It was criticized by several people and the original authors responded to this quite satisfactorily (my conclusion). I have the original pdf but cannot share them due to restrictions.

Subsequently a whole lot of work has gone into this and as with anything else, there are a lot of 'alternative' theories proposed.

Your first link is just one of those, based on 'research' done by the Russian chemist Anatoly Klyosov. Here are a group of Russian geneticists writing about their compatriot


Here is what a skeptic thinks about the same thing.

I found another criticism of the OOA theory, specifically the original paper in Nature.
Here is their website - unfortunately the original article by these fellows is not available on their website at present.

My point is that when the 'Flat Earth Society' makes a scientific claim or 'debunks' an established (or at least generally accepted) fact about science, you are less likely to accept their argument. The 'scientists' in the above website (most of them hold PhDs), are all proponents of the Creationist version of the universe. Hard to accept anything they say or argue as valid after that.

So I looked at work that was published in peer-reviewed journals or accepted outlets of scientific thought, like Science, Nature, Genome Biology etc. I went back to the publications of Stoneking, one of the authors of the original paper in Nature in 1987.

I also bought Dr. Priyadarshi's book you mention in your last link. I could only get the latest one 'In Quest of the Dates of the Vedas', published in 2014 which is obviously newer than his book 'The First Civilization of the World'. In the preface itself, he acknowledges Stephen Oppenheimer as his friend.

He then goes on to say "

The DNA of the humans have (sic) revealed that once evolved in East Africa, man used the Arabian southern coast as a land bridge to reach India and then all further human expansion and dispersal took place from there. This has been proved (sic) again and again that this was the sole route out of Africa. That the man (sic) came out from Africa through the Sinai land bridge has been ruled out by an infinite number of DNA studies
"

And then, from your own link above,

"It was appreciated that man did not enter North Africa (from East Africa) at all until quite late, and actually man came to India about 100,000 years before present (B.P.) from where he migrated to the rest of the world including West Asia or even North Africa. It was actually India which played a central role in populating the world, and it was by back migration from India to East Africa that much of language and culture arrived into East Africa later."

It appears to me that Priyadarshi is talking about a later migration out of India at the start of the LGM, just before the Holocene, around 15,000 years ago and not that modern man left India 60,000 yrs ago. To me it does not appear that he is contesting the origins out of Africa, simply the route they took.


My belief is that modern man did come out of Africa, possibly in three distinct waves, the first one being over 100,000 years ago, possibly 150,000, then again around 90,000 and finally around 50-60,000 years ago. Contrary to early beliefs, he did not completely replace or annihilate the older Homo Erectus or Neandarthal/Denisovan groups but intermingled with them to a variable extent. This 'leaky replacement' is probably the more likely scenario and is being studied extensively at present.

I can go on about all the other data I have looked at, but will rest it here for now, unless you have other sources to cite regarding the debunking of the Out of Africa theory.

Regards.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Post by Pulikeshi »

Interesting article for the group...

Somebody was on Sulawesi before 118,000 years ago
Conceivably, a very early emergence of African or West Asian people—maybe even those evidenced at Qesem Cave—may have spread into India or Southeast Asia, bringing signs of affinities with a more modern-like population.
The biogeographic islands within Southeast Asia may have retained some Homo erectus-like populations, but almost certainly the dispersal corridors across the region would have been dominated by events coming from the large population of the Indian subcontinent to the west.
OIT may have happened multiple times along multiple vectors to the East and to the West...
The limitation of viewing things as AIT or OIT is that it assumes one date and one vector!
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

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

Post by johneeG »

Primus' saar,
I think your scepticism is misplaced. You should be first sceptical about out of africa theory itself. out of africa was first proposed by darwin himself. At the same time, out of asia was also proposed by some German. There is no proof to support out of africa theory as far as I understand, atleast there was none when darwin proposed it. It is just assumed to be true. The whole theory is based on speculation over speculation just like AIT.

The reference to east africa as origin seems to be based on bible.

As for the sceptic version you linked, he didn't give one good point relevant to the issue. His whole scepticism seems to be based on the site's other content. In short, he would believe it if mainstream media reports it.
Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1670
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Nilesh Oak »

Pulikeshi wrote:Interesting article for the group...

Somebody was on Sulawesi before 118,000 years ago
Conceivably, a very early emergence of African or West Asian people—maybe even those evidenced at Qesem Cave—may have spread into India or Southeast Asia, bringing signs of affinities with a more modern-like population.
The biogeographic islands within Southeast Asia may have retained some Homo erectus-like populations, but almost certainly the dispersal corridors across the region would have been dominated by events coming from the large population of the Indian subcontinent to the west.
OIT may have happened multiple times along multiple vectors to the East and to the West...
The limitation of viewing things as AIT or OIT is that it assumes one date and one vector!
I agree 100%.
member_29218
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29218 »

johneeG wrote:Primus' saar,
I think your scepticism is misplaced. You should be first sceptical about out of africa theory itself. out of africa was first proposed by darwin himself. At the same time, out of asia was also proposed by some German. There is no proof to support out of africa theory as far as I understand, atleast there was none when darwin proposed it. It is just assumed to be true. The whole theory is based on speculation over speculation just like AIT.

The reference to east africa as origin seems to be based on bible.

As for the sceptic version you linked, he didn't give one good point relevant to the issue. His whole scepticism seems to be based on the site's other content. In short, he would believe it if mainstream media reports it.
JohneeG Ji, wouldn't you agree though that if somebody claims in one breath that the Sun revolves around the Earth and then claims humanity came out of India, you would be skeptical? Moreover, the website that 'debunks' OOA bases its conclusions on the work of the Russian chemist who has been thoroughly discredited by his own countrymen as per the reference I posted.

Granted, Darwin first proposed a single origin for humanity but it was all speculation until 1987 when the seminal paper by Cann et al was published.

You have, with respect not yet put forward any scientific evidence that modern humans did NOT come of Africa but instead came out of India as you claim. I have already said that there may well have been waves of humans going out of India to the rest of the world AFTER they had come there from Africa originally.

The question here is whether modern, homo sapiens sapiens came out of Africa originally or there was a 'multi-regional' evolution going on simultaneously OR if, as you claim India was the cradle of this particular 'civilization'. Even Priyadarshi himself admits humans entered India from Africa and then dispersed elsewhere.

I have, in my limited search, not found any credible evidence to support an Out of India theory for humanity.

Will post some more links to support the OOA belief. As I said, the likely scenario is a 'leaky replacement model'.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

johneeG wrote:
The reference to east africa as origin seems to be based on bible.
This is unlikely.

Old testament - from which Christianity arose says that God made man. Not evolution in Africa. Later Noah (of Noah's ark) had 3 sons Ham, Shem and Japheth.

Ham apparently saw his father Noah naked (presumably he was fkcuing) and Noah got so angry that he cursed his son Ham and said all Ham's descendants would be slaves.

Christianity has considered Africans and blacks as "Ham-ites" - sons of Ham - fit only to be slaves. The descendants of Noah's sone Shem became "Shemites" - or Semites - i.e. Arabs and Jews. European Christians are descendants of Japheth - considered as the most superior people. In fact European Christian Orientalists (Germans, British, French) were extremely upset when they found very ancient ruins in Iraq/Syria that were older than their bible. That is why they were so thrilled when the "found" Sanskrit - which was older than those ruins. They then claimed Sanskrit as theirs or a descendant language of the European Christians. I have academic references for all this and they will appear in my book.

So the idea that out of Africa came from the bible is wrong.
member_29325
BRFite
Posts: 542
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29325 »

Don't have premium access to this site but this looks relevant:

Genetic history of Indians

Seems to be reprise of the usual AIT nonsense going by the uses of the phrase "upper-caste Indo europeans" which seems to be a longer way to say "aryans".
Gene exchange was widespread among ancestral groups but replaced by strict endogamy, particularly among upper-caste Indo-European speakers, around 70 generations, or 1,575 years ago;
member_29218
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29218 »

The more I read about this, the more convinced I am of the following:

1. Modern man came out of Africa - the rift valley probably - and crossed from Djibouti into Yemen and then into India.
2. From India they went everywhere else, including Australia, Europe, China etc.
3. The exodus from India occurred several times including as recently as 4500 yrs ago.

Here is something that should warm the cockles of the proponents of the OIT, of which I am one. Apologies if this has been posted here before.

One of the most vocal critics of the OOA theory is Alan Templeton and he does make some interesting issues. However, when somebody lists their own work as valid references the whole thing becomes somewhat suspect. Still, at least it's a more forceful argument than that made by the Flat Earth Society.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12121
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Thanks, Primus, for your link above:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803. ... tent-block
We also detect a signal indicative of substantial gene flow between the Indian populations and Australia well before European contact, contrary to the prevailing view that there was no contact between Australia and the rest of the world. We estimate this gene flow to have occurred during the Holocene, 4,230 y ago.
One question to the "language travels with genes" folks is what language(s) this "substantial gene flow" carried? Have desi scholars studied the aboriginal languages of Australia to look for traces of language flow?
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12121
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

Thanks, Primus, also for this second link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 164.x/epdf
(the Alan Templeton one).

There is a diagram there, figure 2, showing the original multi-regional model of human evolution. Please take a look at it. IMO, language evolution is more like that figure 2, than the clean tree structures that the historical linguists favor. It is not entirely their fault -- because of the sparsity of data, the only structure you can constrain with the data is a tree. But they tend to forget that fact, that what they have is merely the model that the very limited data can sustain.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Post by shiv »

ThiruV wrote:Don't have premium access to this site but this looks relevant:

Genetic history of Indians

Seems to be reprise of the usual AIT nonsense going by the uses of the phrase "upper-caste Indo europeans" which seems to be a longer way to say "aryans".
Gene exchange was widespread among ancestral groups but replaced by strict endogamy, particularly among upper-caste Indo-European speakers, around 70 generations, or 1,575 years ago;
Gene exchange was widespread among ancestral groups but replaced by strict endogamy, particularly among upper-caste Indo-European speakers, around 70 generations, or 1,575 years ago; the timing coincides with the reign of the Guptas, whose ruling Hindu elite espoused and enforced the Vedic Brahminism religion.
This information is well known and I have seen earlier genetic studies that say a similar thing. What is new is the date i.e 1575 years ago

That would be about 400-500 AD. There are other studies that point out that "caste" was not a result of any "Aryan invasion" - we have posted them on here. But equally it is well known that at some point in time castes became islands with little gene exchange except some upper caste genes filtering into lower castes and tribals but not the other way around. This is easily explained by caste men fckuing lower caste woman but not allowing the opposite to happen. The fact that this might have happened I had read in a study out of Karnataka about a decade ago.

This paper and earlier papers that rule out both an "invasion" and noted lack of much difference between the ASI/ANI mix of upper and lower castes indicate that the story that Aryan invaders came is wrong on 4 counts
1. Time count - no major mixture for last 12000 years
2. Thorough mixing + similarity of unique Indian upper and lower caste genes at a remote period that is not suggestive of caste being brought in by invaders
3. Unlikelihood of such thorough mixing being possible as recently as 1500-1200 BC when Indian subcontinent was already heavily populated with documented civilizations that were trading with BMAC and Syria
3. This paper documenting the effect of caste staring as recently as 500 AD and not 1500 BC as claimed by Aryan Invasion Theory
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12121
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

I received this comment about the Lucotte paper:
The Lucotte (2015) paper uses Y-STR based mutation rate estimates to arrive at the coalescent times of R1a sub-clades. The Y-STR based mutation rate was proposed way back in 2004 by Zhivotovsky et al, which has since been known to overestimate coalescent times.

These days, any decent study uses whole Y-chromosome based sequencing to arrive at TMRCA estimates. The authoritative paper on age of R1a sub-clades is

"The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a" - Underhill et al, 2014, which says about Y-STR based TMRCA estimation:

"Y-STR-based coalescent time estimation, the results of which (Supplementary Table 5) demonstrate the unsuitability of the pedigree mutation rate, The second approach was TMRCA estimation based on whole Y-chromosome sequencing data. Alternatively times based on the evolutionary mutation rate, 48 which is prone to overestimation"

Using while Y-chromosome sequencing data, they arrive at TMRCA for R1a-M417 to be:

"We estimate the splintering of R1a-M417 to have occurred rather recently, ~5800 years ago"

Another paper that uses the same approach of whole Y-chromosome based TMRCA estimation is:

"Large-scale recent expansion of European patrilineages shown by population resequencing", Batini et al, 2015

This paper (Table 1) arrives at TMRCA of 5.8-6.9 kya for R1a-M198.

There is no way that Z93 or Z280, which are subclades of R1a-M417 and R1a-M198, can be as old as 15kya or 12kya.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12121
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^
Quote: We caution against ascribing findings from a contemporary phylogenetic cluster of a single genetic locus to a particular pre-historic demographic event, population migration, or cultural transformation. The R1a TMRCA estimates we report have wide confidence intervals and should be viewed as preliminary; one must sequence tens of additional R1a samples to high coverage to uncover additional informative substructure and to bolster the accuracy of the branch lengths associated with the more terminal portions of the phylogeny. Although some of the SNPs on the lineages we have defined by single SNPs are undoubtedly rare (eg, the Z2125 sub-hg M434, Figure 1, Supplementary Table 4), it remains possible that future genotyping effort using the SNPs in Supplementary Data File 1 may expose other substructure at substantial frequency, commensurate with more recent episodes of population growth and movement. In addition, high coverage sequences using multiple male pedigrees sampled across various haplogroups in the global Y phylogeny will be needed to more accurately estimate the Y-chromosome mutation rate. Nonetheless, despite the limitations of our small sample of R1a sequences, the relative shortness of the branches and their geographic distributions are consistent with a model of recent R1a diversification coincident with range expansions and population growth across Eurasia.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/ ... 1450a.html
The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, Underhill et. al. 2014.

Depending on how you read it, they constructed their result to be consistent with the pre-existing demographic expansion model, but are weaseling their way out of stating it explicitly with their first caution.
member_29218
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_29218 »

One of the problems I am seeing in newer papers is that the whole genome sequencing and SNP (so simple to do, 23andme is selling kits like hot cakes) data is being viewed through the lens of long held prejudices and preconceived notions.

For example, Mark Stoneking of the original OOA fame (Nature 1987) writes in his latest paper on Genome-Wide Insights Into the Genetic History of Human Populations:
These results suggest that ASI represents an older, indigenous Indian ancestry, and that ANI represents a later migration of people into northern India from elsewhere..........................An important caveat to note is that this sort of analysis assumes a single pulse of admixture, so if admixture has been continuous over time or has occurred multiple times, the resulting dates are only for the most recent admixture. So, the actual migration that brought ANI ancestry to India could have occurred considerably earlier than 2,000 to 4,000 years ago.
He then goes on with the usual 2+2=6
Nonetheless, the overall time frame suggested by the analyses of the genome-wide SNP data is consistent with the hypothesis that ANI ancestry was brought to India along with IE languages and farming. It does seem rather reasonable to assume that when people migrate, they bring with them their language and cultural practices such as farming
He bases his arguments on the papers by Moorjani et al(discussed here earlier I believe, but just in case) and subsequent work by Chambers, although that is more to do with immunity, skin color and infections and does not deal with North vs South Indians. Interestingly, he does comment that the Romani are originally of Northwestern Indian origin, something that most Roma themselves agree upon.

The problem I am having with all of these papers is that the findings are immediately correlated with less proven or assumed data to tie two completely separate facts. Thus, when a difference between Ancestral North India genetic material and Ancestral South Indian genetics is found, the immediate conclusion is that the North Indians must have driven the South Indians from their original homes in the North and furthermore, that the same North Indians were actually Europeans coming in from the Steppe.

And how exactly does one connect genes with culture and language?
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Post by Lalmohan »

linguistics i think needs to be taken with a bucket of salt - i.e. given that india and america are the biggest exponents and dispersers of the english language, i can argue that there is a multi-origin theory for the english language in north america and the indian subcontinent, etc. or at least it may look like that a 1000 years from now...

with genetics, the stuff above is slightly too technical for me, but i seem to be missing the migration element, particularly multi-way migration. You can go north and then you can come south and then maybe go somewhere else, etc. the genetic maps reflect the current location of those peoples and some indication of time related relationships to other peoples who may or may not have been in the locations where they have been measured today.

archeological evidence with accurate dating and dna mapping to establish timelines are probably what is required, but even then it will be indicative.

i suspect that a lot of the nandi-droppings coming out of academia on these topics is driven by the desire to attract eye-balls and funding and not real science
Post Reply