No. This tree is for male sex chromosome (Y chromosome) onlygandharva wrote: Are ANI & ASI defined based on autosomes or chromosomes?
Is it possible to find composition of ANI & ASI in this tree ?
http://i.imgur.com/79092TC.jpg
Genetic timelines and Archaeological(or historical) timelines are totally in mismatch. Genetics is based on Evolution theory and comes up with a very huge time lines which are no connection to much smaller timelines of Archaeology and History.Prem Kumar wrote:johneeG:
1) Agree with you that, to get a complete picture, all fields need to be brought together. And this is where AIT completely unravels. Each field is bring in more & more evidence against invasion/immigration. The accumulating evidence is the reason why AIT became AMT, which in turn has become "trickling-of-Aryans". In parallel, there is increasing evidence of OIT
2) Disagree that genetics or archaeology cannot disprove AIT: Archaeology has already done that. B. B. Lal & others' excavations have established archaeological continuity from literally neolithic/paleolithic times through Harappans through Gangetic civilizations through today. There are no discontinuities/new-material-culture that would have been noticed if there was an Aryan influx. As Elst mentions, if we want to know what an Aryan invasion looks like, look at Europe. Both genetically & archaeologically, there are tell-tale signs of an Aryan invasion.
3) Coming to genetics, once again, there is substantial evidence against AIT. Bottomline, there is not a single genetics paper that demonstrates that there was an Aryan influx into India. All old papers that made such claims have been disproved because they picked insufficient/non-representative sample sizes. All new papers talk about the antiquity of the Indian gene pool & native rise of the caste system. Apart from archaeology, this is the 2nd elephant in the room
LinkIn his 2002 book, The Saraswati Flows On, Lal refutes the earlier Aryan invasion/migration theory, arguing that the Rig Vedic description of the Sarasvati River (which dried up by 2000 BCE) as "overflowing" contradicts the claim made by certain previous historians that the Indo-Aryan migration occurred 300 years after they contend the Sarasvati River dried up (in 1500 BC) and which they also contended had led to the end of the Indus Valley Civilization.[4]
- the Aryans apparently transferred the same name to the Indian Saraswati river. Except somehow this didn't happen for the other river-names in the Nadistuti Sukta! Aryans sought it fit to name the mighty Saraswati after a creek in Afghanistan (& Saraswati was not even the Indian first river that they had come across)Thank You Hakim Saab. I got the answer for my confusion.shiv wrote:No. This tree is for male sex chromosome (Y chromosome) onlygandharva wrote: Are ANI & ASI defined based on autosomes or chromosomes?
Is it possible to find composition of ANI & ASI in this tree ?
http://i.imgur.com/79092TC.jpg
ANI and ASI are autosomes
Human genome consists of 22 pairs (total 44) of chromosomes plus an X & Y for men, or X & X for women - total 46.
Precisely.JE Menon wrote:>>May I point out that the name ASI and ANI are themselves bad names because they "sort of suggest" AIT.
I would venture further to suggest that the names themselves "Ancestral South Indian" and "Ancestral North Indian"... Why not ancestral east and west? As we know, migrations happened through the last two millennia into South East Asia from across the eastern Indian seaboard. There is a subtle radical and divisive element at play that infuses pretty much all European (and recently American) literature on the subject, with the exception of a few...
+100. Excellent.gandharva wrote:Arguments of Hakim Saab and others now in a blog challenging MT's AIT thesis.
https://vogonpoem.wordpress.com/2016/05 ... a-revisit/
Link is not working as it was removed to be republished on https://www.myind.net/. tomorrow.gandharva wrote:Arguments of Hakim Saab and others now in a blog challenging MT's AIT thesis.
https://vogonpoem.wordpress.com/2016/05 ... a-revisit/
Great idea.gandharva wrote:Link is not working as it was removed to be republished on https://www.myind.net/. tomorrow.gandharva wrote:Arguments of Hakim Saab and others now in a blog challenging MT's AIT thesis.
https://vogonpoem.wordpress.com/2016/05 ... a-revisit/
Is it at all possible to draw a tree diagram just like the y chromosome tree?shiv wrote:No. This tree is for male sex chromosome (Y chromosome) onlygandharva wrote: Are ANI & ASI defined based on autosomes or chromosomes?
Is it possible to find composition of ANI & ASI in this tree ?
http://i.imgur.com/79092TC.jpg
ANI and ASI are autosomes
Human genome consists of 22 pairs (total 44) of chromosomes plus an X & Y for men, or X & X for women - total 46.
Not within my capability.peter wrote: Is it at all possible to draw a tree diagram just like the y chromosome tree?
ilThe debate on the achievements of ancient India in science and technology continues unabated. There have been assertions, some seemingly outlandish, and counter-assertions. For instance, Union minister of science and technology, Dr Harsh Vardhan’s statement that the Pythagoras theorem and algebra were ancient India’s contribution was pooh-poohed as stretching the facts. Is it really so? Or, is their something in the contentions? We bring you the contribution of the ancient Indians – the ones acknowledged and beyond reproach. Take a peek!
1. The age of the earth
An early metrical work of Hinduism, Manusmriti, calculates the age of the earth as described in two verses where the age of earth is made in reference to the life span of Brahma. (Brahma is revered as the god of creation in Hinduism).Professor Arthur Holmes, a geologist and a professor at the University of Durham writes in his book, The Age of Earth (1913), “Long before it became a scientific aspiration to estimate the age of the earth, many elaborate systems of the world chronology had been devised by the sages of antiquity. The most remarkable of these occult time-scales is that of the ancient Hindus, whose astonishing concept of the earth’s duration has been traced back to Manusmriti, a sacred book.“
In the 5th century, the ancients Indians had stated that the earth was 4.3 billion years as compared to the Europeans who believed that our planet was about 100 million years old. But modern science has calculated the age of the earth to be about 4.6 billion years, incredibly close to the 4.3 predicted by the ancients almost 15 centuries earlier.Today, scientists across the world believe that the solar system and the earth is about 4.54 billion years, deciphered by the radiometric reading.
2. Concept of relativity
Alan Watts, a professor, graduate school dean and research fellow of Harvard University, drew heavily on the insights of Vedanta. He said, "To the philosophers of India, however, Relativity is no new discovery, just as the concept of light years is no matter for astonishment to people used to thinking of time in millions of kalpas - A kalpa is about 4,320,000 years.”
3. Trigonometry and optics
Varāhamihira, an astronomer, mathematician, and astrologer, of the 5th century defined the concepts of refraction and reflection. He also defined the algebraic properties of zero as well as of negative numbers. A L Basham, an Australian Indologist, writes in his book, The Wonder That was India, "The world owes most to India in the realm of mathematics, which was developed in the Gupta period to a stage more advanced than that reached by any other nation of antiquity.”
4. Discovery of gravity
More than 5,000 year-old, Rig Veda stated through verses that the gravitational force held the universe together and the sun was at the center of the universe; thousands of years before Newton and Copernicus discovered it. This finding is supported by an American writer, Dick Teresi, in his book – Lost Discoveries. The book is a comprehensive study of the ancient non-western foundations of modern science.
5. Pythagoras theorem
It was ancient Indian mathematician Baudhāyana who wrote about a theorem similar to the modern Pythagoras theorem in the book Baudhāyana Śulbasûtra in 800 BC. The book is also said to be the oldest books on advanced mathematics. It is also speculated that Pythagoras travelled extensively and even visited India, after which he is said have revealed the Pythagoras theorem. In a six-page essay on the book written by Kim Plofker, Mathematics in India, ( a western historian of mathematics), Brown University Mathematician, David Mumford, writes, “There is the use of Pythagoras’ famous theorem in the construction of pillars in India, some centuries before the Greek philosopher is said to have postulated it.”
6. The zero
The so called Arabic numerals and positional decimal numeral system, originated in India. However, it was popularized by the Arabs, who later took it to the west. The superiority of this number system stems from the fact that the roman numerals did not have a zero, making it difficult to carry out mathematical calculations. It was Aryabhata, who is said to have discovered zero and clearly defined the usage of decimal system. He names the first 10 decimal places and gives algorithms for obtaining square and cubic roots, utilizing the decimal number system. Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace, an 18th century French mathematician, philosopher, and astronomer, stated, “It is India which gave us the ingenious method of expressing all numbers by 10 symbols.”
7. Cotton fabric
The fibre that clothes the modern world, finds its mention in a Rig Veda hymn as “threads in the loom.” Historians also believe that when Alexander invaded India, his soldiers found the new fabric, cotton, much more comfortable that the traditional leather and wool that they were used to. They then popularized the fabric in ancient Europe. Herodotus, an ancient Greek historian, describes Indian cotton as "a wool exceeding in beauty and goodness that of sheep.”
8. High-quality steel
Ancient India’s expertise is metallurgy is reiterated in the form of its architecture marvels. It was said that as early as 200 BC, high quality steel was being produced in India, through what the Europeans would call as the crucible technique.William James Durant, an American writer, historian, and philosopher writes in his famous book, The Story of Civilization, “Something has been said about the chemical excellence of cast iron in ancient India, and about the high industrial development of the Gupta times, when India was looked to, even by Imperial Rome, as the most skilled of the nations. By the sixth century the Hindus were far ahead of Europe in industrial chemistry; they were masters of calcinations, distillation, sublimation, steaming, fixation, the production of light without heat, the mixing of anesthetic and soporific powders, and the preparation of metallic salts, compounds and alloys. The tempering of steel was brought in ancient India to a perfection unknown in Europe till our own times.”
9. Takshashila University
Around 800 BC, a giant University at Takshashila (often called Taxila) existed in the north-western region of India. At that time even the concept of University was unknown to the world.Joseph Needham, a British scientist, historian and sinologist known for his scientific research and writing, wrote in his book, Within the Four Seas: The Dialogue of East and West, "When the men of Alexander the Great came to Taxila in India in the fourth century BC they found a university there the like of which had not been seen in Greece, a university which taught the three Vedas and the eighteen accomplishments and was still existing when the Chinese pilgrim Fa-Hsien went there about AD 400.”
10. Chess (Chaturanga)
Chaturanga is a Sanskrit word which was used to refer to an ancient Indian strategy game, the ancestor to Makruk, Xiangqi, Janggi and finally the modern game of chess. It was said to have been developed during the Gupta period between 6th and 7th century AD in India. The game, primarily based on a battle plan, comprised of four parts of the army – elephants, chariots, horses and foot soldier; apart from the king and the minister.Harold James Ruthven Murray, an English educationalist and a prominent chess historian was among the first few modern historians who proposed the theory that chess originated in India. Published in 1913, A History of Chess, is a comprehensive book on the subject.
Sir, you have good argument for M17 but missing one crucial point for Z93. Z93, its parent (M417,z85,z645,z651) and cousin (z283,z280) are found in steppe ancient DNA. Whereas there is no report of parent (M417,z85,z645,z651) and cousin (z283,z280) in India so far. As such, Z93 probably came from outside. But arrival date is outside AIT window and its argument against AIT.shiv wrote: Z93 is a branch of M17. M17 has its oldest genetic presence in India, but has spread out to Russia, East Europe. As pointed out many times before, two of the daughter branches of M17 show up separately in Europe and India. Z 93 is India, while M 458 is found in Europe only. That means M17 evolved in India and migrated north to Russia/East Europe. M458 appeared around 6000 years ago in Poland and never came to India. That means there has been no serious migration from Europe to India in 6000 years.
I call the M17 the 'Sanskrit gene". It is found in areas where daughter languages of Sanskrit are spoken: India, Russia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Ukraine, Wrong or right I take credit for that expression here and now.
Did you not read lucottes paper that has been referenced consistently? The oldest z93 marker is found in PunjaI which either meant that it came from India or we have migration of earliest marker. m417 branched into r1a1a1a and r1a1a1b2 in pontine steppe. Highly possible we could have had bulk flow of the earliest z93 marker which then went out of India again which would explain why we don't have m417 and r1a1a1a but have the oldest z93 marker while Europeans have the yyoungest. This would also explain why the have the yoingest m17 while pakhoons have the oldest.ukumar wrote:Sir, you have good argument for M17 but missing one crucial point for Z93. Z93, its parent (M417,z85,z645,z651) and cousin (z283,z280) are found in steppe ancient DNA. Whereas there is no report of parent (M417,z85,z645,z651) and cousin (z283,z280) in India so far. As such, Z93 probably came from outside. But arrival date is outside AIT window and its argument against AIT.shiv wrote: Z93 is a branch of M17. M17 has its oldest genetic presence in India, but has spread out to Russia, East Europe. As pointed out many times before, two of the daughter branches of M17 show up separately in Europe and India. Z 93 is India, while M 458 is found in Europe only. That means M17 evolved in India and migrated north to Russia/East Europe. M458 appeared around 6000 years ago in Poland and never came to India. That means there has been no serious migration from Europe to India in 6000 years.
I call the M17 the 'Sanskrit gene". It is found in areas where daughter languages of Sanskrit are spoken: India, Russia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Ukraine, Wrong or right I take credit for that expression here and now.
That is a useful data point. Taking images from 2 different Underhill papers we can map out M17 first and then M282 and M93.ukumar wrote:Sir, you have good argument for M17 but missing one crucial point for Z93. Z93, its parent (M417,z85,z645,z651) and cousin (z283,z280) are found in steppe ancient DNA. Whereas there is no report of parent (M417,z85,z645,z651) and cousin (z283,z280) in India so far. As such, Z93 probably came from outside. But arrival date is outside AIT window and its argument against AIT.shiv wrote: Z93 is a branch of M17. M17 has its oldest genetic presence in India, but has spread out to Russia, East Europe. As pointed out many times before, two of the daughter branches of M17 show up separately in Europe and India. Z 93 is India, while M 458 is found in Europe only. That means M17 evolved in India and migrated north to Russia/East Europe. M458 appeared around 6000 years ago in Poland and never came to India. That means there has been no serious migration from Europe to India in 6000 years.
I call the M17 the 'Sanskrit gene". It is found in areas where daughter languages of Sanskrit are spoken: India, Russia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Ukraine, Wrong or right I take credit for that expression here and now.
Ancient DNA from 3 German males circa 4600 years ago (Corded Ware culture), who geneticists think, carried R1a1a*gandharva wrote: And these are the abv mentioned links (got from a MT's follower) .
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02783.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15111 ... ms9912.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14507.html
I don't find R1a even mentioned except in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02783.pdf .
What experts say?
Lucotte G's paper(2015) is after UnderHill's 2014 paper and it says z93 is 15k years ago.Prem Kumar wrote:I guess he is referring to the Underhill paper from 2014 which we've been discussing above. If Underhill is stating that M417 coalescence is 5800 YBP, it means that Z93 mutation happened at that timeframe. But I don't see how that supports AIT.
Free (but slow) link to 'Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia', the third paper in the list above.gandharva wrote: And these are the abv mentioned links (got from a MT's follower) .
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02783.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15111 ... ms9912.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 14507.html
I don't find R1a even mentioned except in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02783.pdf .
What experts say?
Here is the myind.net link.gandharva wrote:Link is not working as it was removed to be republished on https://www.myind.net/. tomorrow.gandharva wrote:Arguments of Hakim Saab and others now in a blog challenging MT's AIT thesis.
https://vogonpoem.wordpress.com/2016/05 ... a-revisit/
Off the cuff - in all science, if any one person says that the latest paper "supercedes" an earlier one he is bluffing or is desperate to be taken seriously.gandharva wrote:MT says that he tweeted links to the new research superseding the results of Lucoute's paper
Underhill unlike manasataramgini is talking like a pure researcher. He is not claiming that 5800 years is the ultimate truth. He only says that there were only 4 or 6 people in the Iran region who showed a coalescence time of M 417 of 5800 ybp. So as per that paper the oldest evidence of M417 is 5800 ybp. This is contradicted by other info that shows Z93 to be 15,000 years and Z 282 to be 12000 years (or some such thing)Prem Kumar wrote:I guess he is referring to the Underhill paper from 2014 which we've been discussing above. If Underhill is stating that M417 coalescence is 5800 YBP, it means that Z93 mutation happened at that timeframe. But I don't see how that supports AIT.
These "Iranians" may have been part of early migrations that contributed to ANI because they went and mixed with ASI/Onge Andaman genes that are 24,000 years old in India (and 48,000 years old in Andamans)Prem Kumar wrote:I
In summary, it looks like Iranians moved to India sometime after 25000 years ago. Then the R1a1a* (M17) mutation arose in India (don't know when). Then, sometime circa 5800 years ago, the Z280 (European) & Z93 (South Asian) mutations arose. The German graves are after this.
What we are seeing above is bullshit-in-action. Priya Moorjani states that her results don't imply an invasion. Metspalu states that ANI common-ancestry to Indians & Europeans is at least 12500 years ago. Yet these duffers in the new paper create a mish-mash, call Kotias as ANI (what dates one may askIt has been proposed that modern Indians are a mixture of two ancestral components, an Ancestral North Indian component related to modern West Eurasians and an Ancestral South Indian component related more distantly to the Onge25; here Kotias proves the majority best surrogate for the former 28,29 (Supplementary Table 10). 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 28
) & simultaneously claim that this is somehow related to 4200-1900 years ago! This is crapology! Tomorrow, someone else will quote this idiot and build up more theory. This is how the Aryan Theory has been built - crap-assumption upon crap-assumption. This is also how a hegemonic discourse (that Rajiv talks about) gets builthttps://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/ ... e16152.pdfTo understand population transformations in the Eurasian steppe,
we analysed a time transect of 37 samples from the Samara region
spanning ~5600–1500 bc and including the Eastern hunter-gatherer
(EHG), Eneolithic, Yamnaya, Poltavka, Potapovka and Srubnaya
cultures. Admixture between populations of Near Eastern ancestry
and the EHG7
began as early as the Eneolithic (5200–4000 bc), with
some individuals resembling EHG and some resembling Yamnaya
(Fig. 1b and Extended Data Fig. 2). The Yamnaya from Samara and
Kalmykia, the Afanasievo people from the Altai (3300–3000 bc), and
the Poltavka Middle Bronze Age (2900–2200 bc) population that followed
the Yamnaya in Samara are all genetically homogeneous, forming
a tight ‘Bronze Age steppe’ cluster in PCA (Fig. 1b), sharing predominantly
R1b Y chromosomes5,7
(Supplementary Data Table 1), and
having 48–58% ancestry from an Armenian-like Near Eastern source
(Extended Data Table 2) without additional Anatolian Neolithic or EEF
ancestry7
(Extended Data Fig. 2). After the Poltavka period, population
change occurred in Samara: the Late Bronze Age Srubnaya have
~17% Anatolian Neolithic or EEF ancestry (Extended Data Fig. 2).
Previous work documented that such ancestry appeared east of the Urals
beginning at least by the time of the Sintashta culture, and suggested
that it reflected an eastward migration from the Corded Ware peoples
of central Europe5
. However, the fact that the Srubnaya also had such
ancestry indicates that the Anatolian Neolithic or EEF ancestry could
have come into the steppe from a more eastern source. Further evidence
that migrations originating as far west as central Europe may not have
had an important impact on the Late Bronze Age steppe comes from the
fact that the Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y chromosomes
(Supplementary Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka
male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is common in central/
south Asians12, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all
ancient central Europeans studied to date.
We show that the Bronze Age was a highly dynamic period involving large-scale population migrations and replacements, responsible for shaping major parts of present-day demographic structure in both Europe and Asia. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesized spread of Indo-European languages during the Early Bronze Age. We also demonstrate that light skin pigmentation in Europeans was already present at high frequency in the Bronze Age, but not lactose tolerance, indicating a more recent onset ofpositive selection on lactose tolerance than previously thought.
- Reveals intent of fitting genetic data into linguistic theory.
Spread of the Indo-European languages
Historical linguists have argued that the spread of the Indo-European
languages must have required migration combined with social or
demographic dominance, and this expansion has been supported by
archaeologists pointing to striking similarities in the archaeological
record across western Eurasia during the third millennium BC15,18,31.
Our genomic evidence for the spread of Yamnaya people from the
Pontic-Caspian steppe to both northern Europe and Central Asia
during the Early Bronze Age (Fig. 1) corresponds well with the
hypothesized expansion of the Indo-European languages. In contrast
to recent genetic findings32, however, we only find weak evidence for
admixture in Yamnaya, and only when using Bronze Age Armenians
and the Upper Palaeolithic Mal’ta as potential source populations
(Z 5 22.39; Supplementary Table 12). This could be due to the
absence of eastern hunter-gatherers as potential source population
for admixture in our data set. Modern Europeans show some genetic
links to Mal’ta4 that has been suggested to form a third European
ancestral component (Ancestral North Eurasians (ANE))10. Rather
than a hypothetical ancient northern Eurasian group, our results
reveal that ANE ancestry in Europe probably derives from the spread
of the Yamnaya culture that distantly shares ancestry with Mal’ta
(Figs 2b and 3b and Extended Data Fig. 3).
- Yamnaya culture being constructed into ANE to explain influx of Z93 into Europe. They will try to combine it w/ other markers and bury it. This new ANE can then stand on its own and expand from Pontine Steppe into Europe.
- I predict they will begin using “South Asian” more and combine European markers w/ Z93 to keep gene outflow from India within confines of Subcontinent.
- Thus ANE and South Asian are both being used to construct a new history of Europe and India.
It is clear from our autosomal, mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome
data (Extended Data Fig. 6) that the European and Central
Asian gene pools towards the end of the Bronze Age mirror
present-day Eurasian genetic structure to an extent not seen in
the previous periods (Figs 2 and 3; Extended Data Fig. 1 and
Supplementary Fig. 6). Our results imply that much of the basis
of the Eurasian genetic landscape of today was formed during the
complex patterns of expansions, admixture and replacements during
this period.
- Another instance of carefully constructing new European history w/ this new Eurasian group.
He was gung ho and invested too much into this without deep study. Or he knew he was lying but carried on nevertheless. He is cracking and going by his tweets he is looking for support from others like Kalavai Venkat. But KV has his own doubts now.shiv wrote:I think the intense pressure is beginning to get to manasataramgini - he was uncontested till recently.
Already posted above, sir. Its a slow link. You are better off downloading it to your hard drive first.RoyG wrote:Taken from Nature Volume 522 Issue # 7555 (If anyone can get online PDF that would be great):
hanumadu wrote: Free (but slow) link to 'Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia', the third paper in the list above.
https://vk.com/doc165613123_399763838?h ... 56c69d3847
Roy it gets easier to understand how that paper approaches the subject if you look at what the authors do. Look at the number of authors of this "genetics" paper who are from Archaeology and Anthropology depts - the very "specialsts" who screwed up Indian history. No wonder these people are trying to look for genetic evidence of the history they have written. They will cling on to the smallest chance of something that fits the history written by linguists and anthropologists and OrientalistsRoyG wrote:I noticed that as well.
Shiv look at page 5 of the second paper. They simply combined all non-asi markers and called it "South Asian" LOL. This is so that the map wouldn't light up. If they had properly looked at the Z93 marker separately like Lucotte did, they would have discovered where the unknown marker from the "East" is located.
Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
2
Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, (wha?)Institute of Biochemistry
and Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Stra
e 24–25, Potsdam 14476, Germany.
3
Department of Biology and Evolution, University of Ferrara,
Via L. Borsari 46, Ferrara I-44100, Italy.
4
School of Archaeology and Earth Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
5
Department of
Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK.
6
Integrative Systems Biology Laboratory, Division of Biological and Environmental Sciences &
Engineering, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal 23955-6900, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
7
Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural
History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5–7, Copenhagen 1350, Denmark.
8
Georgian National Museum, 3 Rustaveli
Avenue, Tbilisi 0105, Georgia.
9
Department of Anthropology,(Anthropology is a racist mumbo-jumbo specialty) Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
10
Laboratoire
d’archeozoologie, Universite de Neucha
tel, Neucha
ˆ
tel 2000, Switzerland.
11
Office du patrimoine et de l’archeologie de Neucha
ˆ
tel, Section arche
́
ologie,
LATE
́
NIUM, Hauterive 2068, Switzerland.
12
Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91905, Israel.
13
Israel Antiquities Authority, PO Box
586, Jerusalem 91004, Israel.
14
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology & the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford
OX1 3QY, UK.
15
Laboratory of Anthropology, Genetics and Peopling History (AGP), Department of Genetics and Evolution - Anthropology Unit, University of
Geneva, Geneva 1227, Switzerland. * These authors contributed equally to this work. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed t
o
D.G.B. (email: dbradley@tcd.ie) or to R.P. (email: ron.pinhasi@ucd.ie) or to A.M. (email: am315@cam.ac.uk)
Or perhaps because of what I posted on BRF about him.Intelorant No. 1 @hanumadu 7h7 hours ago
@blog_supplement @Dirghakarna But u did claim the earlier papers support AIT. So do you agree your understanding of them was incorrect
In the comments section of Prem's article I have made a detailed rebuttal of archaeology and linguistics and AIT and have stated how it could mean OIT alsohanumadu wrote:He was gung ho and invested too much into this without deep study. Or he knew he was lying but carried on nevertheless. He is cracking and going by his tweets he is looking for support from others like Kalavai Venkat. But KV has his own doubts now.shiv wrote:I think the intense pressure is beginning to get to manasataramgini - he was uncontested till recently.
And you are to blame for his predicament.
Yes, I have read it. It's based on modern DNA and its STR based TMRCA dates are known to be over estimated by 3 times. STR variance based analysis is outdated and superseded by better methodology ( whole genome analysis, ancient DNA etc)RoyG wrote:Did you not read lucottes paper that has been referenced consistently? The oldest z93 marker is found in PunjaI which either meant that it came from India or we have migration of earliest marker. m417 branched into r1a1a1a and r1a1a1b2 in pontine steppe. Highly possible we could have had bulk flow of the earliest z93 marker which then went out of India again which would explain why we don't have m417 and r1a1a1a but have the oldest z93 marker while Europeans have the yyoungest. This would also explain why the have the yoingest m17 while pakhoons have the oldest.
