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.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1407
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 04 Aug 2018 22:23

Going to hold my opinions till the papers and data are presented and read:

That said, very edjumacated injuns seem to miss the social engineering techniques of Al Hara-Ward bin Kitabi scholars:

1. If ASI or AASI was the substrate and background of India - why not called it Ancient South Asians (ASA)?
Side note: As much as South Asia creates a stench, it is lesser evil than this North Indian - South Indian business introduced by Harward with
Foolish sepoys like Tangaraj/Lalji (pbuh)

2. Please pick up a map and try to measure the walking distance even today to say Zargos Mountains in Iran or Samarkand or any of these
West Asian or Central Asian regions from Rakigrahi in Haryana. Then do the same to say Chennai or Kanyakumari or SriLanka.
If a peep from Chennai Can walk to a peep in Rakigrahi in less then a month and do the same to someone in Samarkand or Zargos Mountain -
what is the meaning of these Terms South Indian, North Indian versus Iranian or Uzbeki?

3. If they invented ANI and ASI - why not Ancestral West Indian (instead of Iranian Farmer)?

4. Someday someone will do some useful research on Ancestral East Indian (Tibet/Burma, etc.) influence on the sub-continent - AEI is a thing!

5. Its 1000-2500 KM from Rakigrahi to points of interest in South India as it is to Iran, Uzbekistan or other stans If I was a denizen of Rakigrahi,
then To me some from say Chennai is as much a brother as someone from Zargos, yet we have two today (this is important) treat one as
South Indian and the other as Iranian.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2058
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Aug 2018 00:36

+108. Spot on!

ANI & ASI are fake terminologies to look at the history through a certain lens. Same as the single-origin of language Tower of Babel mythology.

Words have power. We need to build up our own vocabulary - Western Indians, Deccan Hunter Gatherers etc. Indian knowledge production is key.

How many groups do you hear about in Genetics papers about piddly-shit Europe: WHG, EHG, MLBA, ELBA etc etc. Europeans have always done this: tiny Belgium has a "unique culture", but Africa is a mono-culture.

Shwetank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

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

Postby Shwetank » 05 Aug 2018 04:47

Prem Kumar wrote:Shwetank: what I see in your post is something that a lot of us Indians do.
...
Right now, you are still using AIT as a framework ...


I'm afraid you've interpreted my post in the opposite direction, frankly surprising after I went out of my way to re-iterate I'm not a rote AIT colonial mindset follower and kept referring to AIT supporters as people other than me. For the last time, I do not need convincing about colonial politics and framework of AIT, origins and continuity of Indian civilization (even more explicitly, I will state that with what little I have gathered if one were to look at Indian history starting from a clean slate, continuity of civilization from millennia back, including the mostly indigenous roots of "vedic" culture would be one's first reasonable and likely to occur hypothesis). Either way, I am not talking about frameworks or what is the actual truth.

I have a simple logical question, if A is true than does it prove B false? Here A is lack of central asian DNA and B is an aryan invasion around 1500 BC bringing vedic culture. Now if A is false, then B is definitely false, no matter how anyone spins it. This was even speculated about by some anti-AIT folks where DNA of any population which was regarded by the mainstream academic community to have arrived in India after AIT or well after Harappan age settlements was going to be found Rakhigarhi, in which case it would destroy AIT with no ambiguity.

But that did not happen, instead A was found to be true yet it was strongly stated that B is false and I'm asking what is the logic behind that. Again, I am not saying if A is true then B must be true, I am saying it doesn't tell you anything about B in that case (ie. there is no corollary for the if A false then B false case).

If somebody has an explanation (even if not as precise as that for the corollary but how it significantly moves evidence in other direction) then please tell me. If you don't have an explanation then you are in same boat as me and don't have to tell me other forms of evidence which point to B being false, I am specifically talking about how A changes validity of B (I'm not just referring to Prem here). If you think the whole question is invalid and one shouldn't even talk about B in any context then that's your choice, just don't reply. Repeating all kinds of rhetoric and arguments about the whole history which have already been covered multiple times in this thread is pointless. My own guess is there is not an answer to this question from forum members and only Rai or his inner circle can say why he made that strong statement. Also, DNA might never settle this, in which case other forms of evidence and logic will be used to dethrone AIT as the first and most prominent framework taught about ancient Indian history.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 05 Aug 2018 06:45

The vedic culture was shared between Persia and Indian subcontinent. Influx of steppe occurred afterwards.

The strongest evidence imo is the fact there are 0 traces of names for topography or urban settlements from asi lang fam found anywhere in North India except for balochistan which is a well recorded minor influx.

Genetics simply cant account for anomalies like this. imagine if europe had to credit its very lang fam and even parts of their culture to Indians. burnol shortage.

The only way to settle this debate is through decoding the indus script which i believe has already been partially done. its sanskrit which would put it to ~3000 BC at least.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6382
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 05 Aug 2018 08:14

Shwetank'ji, now you are into polemics of A and B and what is at the tail end of which. You missed the entire forest for few leaves by a wide margin.

Point is please do not buy into the Aryan BS. Think of it as this: Witchzel_Boneingher* is a pig and Aryan BS is its pigsty in which Witchzel_Boneingher will draw you into a fight and will beat you down with more BS, since they are experts at it.

There is no such thing as Aryan.

*Any resemblance to real life persons is purely coincidental.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2058
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 05 Aug 2018 10:54

RoyG: even the Steppe influx is bogus in my view.

Why? Because Steppe_MLBA and EMBA are artificial higher-level constructs that have been created recently (what's so "Steppe" about them and why that particular terminology)?

There is no evidence that the so-called Steppe DNA originated in the Steppes. The genes for "Steppe DNA" could very well have gone out of India or Iran

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6382
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 05 Aug 2018 22:05

Here is another find that puts floor under OIT

https://www.frontline.in/science-and-technology/stone-age-tools-raise-questions-on-migration/article10075304.ece

VERY old and sophisticated tools excavated from Attirampakkam, 60 kilometres from Chennai, have thrown up a major puzzle in the story of human evolution. In a significant archaeological finding, researchers led by Shanti Pappu of Sharma Centre for Heritage Education, Chennai, unearthed over 7,000 stone artefacts, some of them as much as 3,85,000 years old. The discovery that such a developed Middle Stone Age culture existed in a region now known as India may prompt a re-examination of the conventional view of early human migration out of Africa.

Shanti Pappu, whose team has been studying the Attirampakkam archaeological site for two decades, admitted that this was just “one piece in a big jigsaw puzzle”. One of the things that makes it difficult for the research team, which also included researchers from the Physical Research Laboratory (PRL) in Ahmedabad and the University of Lyon in France, to ascertain whether it was modern humans or their hominin cousins who had perfected this tool-making is the absence of skeletal remains at the site. The study appeared in Nature on January 31. “This is by far the oldest set of tools discovered in this part of the world,” Shanti Pappu said.

When first hominins left Africa at least 1.7 million years ago, they carried with them their signature oval and pear-shaped hand axes, which were called Acheulean hand axes. In an earlier research paper, Shanti Pappu and her co-workers had reported the discovery of such tools from Attirampakkam, which were dated to be more than one million years old.

But the second batch of implements which the PRL scientists found—through dating—belonged to a period between 3,85,000 years and 1,72,000 years ago were smaller and relatively more sophisticated compared with the Acheulean hand axes, and their crafting required significant advances in human cognition. This kind of technology, long associated with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in Europe, West Asia and Africa, was earlier thought to have arrived in India when humans reached South Asia about 100,000 years ago. This new discovery, however, upsets this theory. One hypothesis that this study points to could be that human migration might not have been a linear process and there could have been multiple waves of migration. It is still too premature to hazard any guess, said Shanti Pappu.


Just pushes the date of sophisticated humans in India (Attirampakkam) to @300 KY before current era.

Shwetank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 55
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

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

Postby Shwetank » 07 Aug 2018 03:48

disha wrote:Shwetank'ji, now you are into polemics of A and B and what is at the tail end of which. You missed the entire forest for few leaves by a wide margin.

Point is please do not buy into the Aryan BS. Think of it as this: Witchzel_Boneingher* is a pig and Aryan BS is its pigsty in which Witchzel_Boneingher will draw you into a fight and will beat you down with more BS, since they are experts at it.

There is no such thing as Aryan.

*Any resemblance to real life persons is purely coincidental.


Dishaji, I don't need to be addressed with the 'ji' as I'm not senior enough for that in any sense. I do hope you meant 'semantics' as I don't think I've engaged in anything which could be construed as 'polemics'. And that is the entire point, I am just specifically engaging in 'semantics' alone, not at all discussing the wider picture so the forest and trees do not come in. You do seem interested in that aspect (as am I), but I am not sure why you are engaging me with regards to my question. If I am getting into "what is at the tail end of which" as you say, so be it. You can simply choose not to get into such tail ends...

Most of all here are excerpts from my post you replied to:
For the last time, I do not need convincing about colonial politics and framework of AIT, origins and continuity of Indian civilization (even more explicitly, I will state that with what little I have gathered if one were to look at Indian history starting from a clean slate, continuity of civilization from millennia back, including the mostly indigenous roots of "vedic" culture would be one's first reasonable and likely to occur hypothesis). Either way, I am not talking about frameworks or what is the actual truth.


Especially after I wrote the bolded part, how you can say things like "Point is please do not buy into the Aryan BS" "There is no such thing as Aryan." is astonishing. I can only hope you skimmed through my (admittedly long) post and came to a (wrong) conclusion about my views based on your previous experience about "educated" Indians without actually processing what I was saying. While I appreciate your efforts in trying to "educate me", you are preaching to the choir here.

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6382
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 08 Aug 2018 03:13

Maybe it is my personal shortcoming., nowadays whoever says "Aryan" I just shout them down vocally with fingers firmly planted in my ears.

I understand where you are coming from and appreciate the time you are putting in to patiently explain your position/POV.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9218
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 08 Aug 2018 03:50

I read todin that 40% of DNA in the vicinity of StoneHenge is not from that region at all, but from far away. Desis, one presumes? Malloos?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 6382
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 08 Aug 2018 10:03

UlanBatori wrote:I read todin that 40% of DNA in the vicinity of StoneHenge is not from that region at all, but from far away. Desis, one presumes? Malloos?


^^Sintis? Or Sindhis?

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1193
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

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

Postby Virendra » 08 Aug 2018 18:47

It seems the Aryans of Mittani treaty worshipped Indra. Then enroute to India they stopped in Iran, had short term memory loss, hated Indra and loved Varuna.
But by god's grace when they reached India, memory flashed back and they returned to loving Indra :D

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9218
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby UlanBatori » 09 Aug 2018 02:09

disha wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:I read todin that 40% of DNA in the vicinity of StoneHenge is not from that region at all, but from far away. Desis, one presumes? Malloos?


^^Sintis? Or Sindhis?


I think this article is sheer pakistan. How can they tell that DNA is from, say, Lahore, not Murdike?

During his 1920s excavations, Hawley noted that some of the cremated remains in the Aubrey Holes were stored in leather bags, which led him to believe that they "had apparently been brought from a distant place for interment."
Perhaps their remains were brought from Wales and buried when the bluestones were being raised at Stonehenge, the study authors suggest. This knowledge is compelling to the researchers, given that a recent theory suggests the bluestones initially stood within the Aubrey Holes themselves.
Being able to connect the stones and human remains to Wales provides more intriguing theories and rare insight for researchers as well.
This suggests that the construction of Stonehenge required connections that were 140 miles apart. As early as 5,000 years ago, Neolithic people and materials were going back and forth between west Wales and Wessex to build and use Stonehenge.]I don't know which part of Pakistan they came from, but they settled in Wales apparently.


Per Googleswara, Stonehenge to Carmathen (center of Wales) is just 151 miles. By comparison, Mohenjodaro to Harappa is 424km, and they are grouped as one "civilization". Can they tell which terrist is from Gujranwala vs. Muridke, hain?

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 09 Aug 2018 06:00

Prem Kumar wrote:RoyG: even the Steppe influx is bogus in my view.

Why? Because Steppe_MLBA and EMBA are artificial higher-level constructs that have been created recently (what's so "Steppe" about them and why that particular terminology)?

There is no evidence that the so-called Steppe DNA originated in the Steppes. The genes for "Steppe DNA" could very well have gone out of India or Iran


If you say so. Genetics isn't my expertise. Rig Veda is all I need.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10462
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Aug 2018 18:36

Not strictly out-of-India, but must-read.
http://indiafacts.org/mahabharata-moder ... wa-adluri/

What has been the reaction to your work from Indologists? Have they responded to your criticisms? How do you think they will react to the new book? How has your criticism affected the field? How will it develop in future?

There has been no intellectual counterargument. Many Indologists were enraged that we provided a critique that situated them historically and identified their Protestant biases. There were several ad hominem attacks, suggesting that we were “angry” or that we were “Hindutva.” Eli Franco wrote a review of The Nay Science, painting the book in broad brush strokes and accusing us of things we had not said. We wrote a rejoinder titled “Theses on Indology.” The Nay Science exposed the nineteenth-century foundation on which the discipline of Indology rests: names like Rudolf von Roth, Albrecht Weber, Christian Lassen, Adolf Holtzmann Jr., Edward Washburn Hopkins, Hermann Oldenberg, Richard Garbe, etc. Philology and Criticism pursues this inquiry into the work of twentieth-century scholars. The questions that now arise are: (1) Why were these scholars cited as expert authorities, when their work was erroneous (269–74)? (2) Why did scholars fail to detect problems as grave as racism and anti-Judaic and anti-Brahmanic biases, when universities are supposedly bastions of liberal values such as non-discrimination and religious tolerance? (3) Why did academics, who are paid high salaries to discriminate between good and bad scholarship, not notice the many technical errors in their colleagues’ work? (4) Beyond nineteenth-century “‘historical’ method”, what methods and approaches do the Indologists now offer? (5) Why continue with the standard disciplinary hagiography (Pollock’s interview in The Indian Express is a good example) when the episteme is in shambles? (6) What contribution has Indology made to Sanskrit or to India aside from its historicist, interventionist concerns? (7) Finally, how have the Indologists contributed to pedagogy and ethics in their own countries? Except for claiming that certain sections of the Indian population require enhanced oversight, they have not contributed to pedagogy of Indians. Rather, they have used their institutional status to bait Indians, mock their values, seek the thrill of playing stereotypes of East and West against each other, and provoke phony outrage to propel their own careers. The texts have survived for centuries without the Indologists and their “critical” philology. They will continue to survive without them.

Let me now shift from your academic engagement with the Mahābhārata to your personal engagement with the text. What is the Mahābhārata to you as a person? How has the Mahābhārata influenced you in your personal life? Please share some insights that you have discovered in your long journey with the text.

The darkest hour in my life was my PhD at Marburg University. I faced horrific racism, disguised as “scientific” philology. As I struggled with my dissertation on the Mahābhārata, my friend and scholar Arbogast Schmitt consoled me, saying ‘Think of the heroes in your Mahābhārata: you must be heroic like them.’ The Mahābhārata saved my life. The German Indologists formed a powerful clique. No one wanted to antagonize them. People talk about how Ambedkar was refused education, but I had a similar experience, and no one objected. I was punished because, like Ambedkar, I didn’t believe these caste or race hierarchies should exist. I didn’t believe I was lower than the German professors, and I didn’t believe I should have to bow to them. I didn’t believe that, as an Indian, I had to follow their unscientific and uncritical episteme blindly and unthinkingly. I could have chosen the path of victimhood, killed myself or burned books. Instead, like Ambedkar, I chose to fight. I read all the Indologists’ works and crafted an intellectual critique. I chose to show how their episteme was responsible for othering. I chose to expose the unjust system. I chose to talk about my experience. I chose to show the collaboration of some Indian Sanskritists (for example, Bhandarkar, Bhargava, and Mehendale), which has perpetuated the legacy of colonialism in Sanskrit studies. Bhandarkar lectured the Indians, “Let us … sitting at the feet of the English, French, and German Ṛṣis, imbibe the knowledge that they have to give.” Can you imagine the scars this left on the minds of young Indians? What gratuitous cruelty! I can’t help thinking that some Sanskritists collaborated with the German Indologists in encouraging deference from the Indians. The Germans profited from this, and rewarded their collaboration (with grants, funding, invitations, semesters abroad, positions, honorary titles, publication venues, etc.).

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10462
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Aug 2018 18:40

^^^
I see the Twitter battles, the Marxist-baiting, the arguments over whether the Mahābhārata “really happened,” and the waste of resources determining the dates of the Kurukṣetra war or the moment Bhīṣma fell, and it saddens me. I see Indians at conferences knowing of no higher purpose for Sanskrit than to sing stutis praising their European colleagues, and it fills me with shame. I see the Indian government endowing Sanskrit chairs at foreign universities while institutes in India are destitute, and I despair. I see German scholars awarded grants and prize monies while Indian students go barefoot, and I wonder: will Indians ever learn? I hope that the path Joydeep and I have forged, the path of dedicated study, inspires others to pursue philosophy. Ultimately, identities and ideology must be set aside. A lot of so-called intellectual life or intellectual debate in India is so much self-righteous breast-beating. Indians need to rebuild their institutions and restart indigenous traditions of commentary. They should also overcome the East/West divide, which is a creation of modernity and reinforces a racial division with a cultural and epistemic one. Indian thought shares many features with ancient Greek thought: both cultures developed rich systems of polytheistic philosophy. Reading the history of the pre-Christian West helps us better understand Indian texts. Vice versa, looking at the Indian context helps us understand the history of the West better, especially how access to pagan thought was interrupted. My friend Ed Butler’s work serves as a good introduction. Colonization serves as an excuse only so long.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4794
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

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

Postby SBajwa » 10 Aug 2018 00:43


chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1161
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

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

Postby chanakyaa » 10 Aug 2018 08:33

Murugan wrote:

This is for Murugan saar.

Image

Mining, Metallurgy and Minting in the Middle Ages: Vol. I: Asiatic Supremacy, 425-1125

I came across a series of three volume research by Ian Blanchard on the subject of Metals, Mining, Metallurgy, and Coins. These books are rare and crazy expensive. The books cover period from 425-1450. The work gets into details of voyages across land masses, metal discoveries, wars, tribal dynamics, currency etc. etc. I've attempted to read some parts of Volume I. Problem is that the book gets so detailed of Africa, its regions, tribes that it was difficult timely finish it, plus beyond history economics/geopolitics/currency/waars/money my interests get thin so it was difficult for me to cross verify the claims in the books with other resource to express an opinion (whether good/bad). Anyway, I'm posting here for others who have any interest.

Other two volumes get into Europe and Asia.

Vol. 2: Afro-European Supremacy, 1125–1225
Vol. 3: Continuing Afro-European Supremacy, 1250–1450

syam
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

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

Postby syam » 10 Aug 2018 13:07

Found something interesting. . .
Mawphlang Sacred Forest, Meghalaya, India
Image
Image

Also few sacred groves, like game of thrones.
Image

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12750
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

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

Postby Lalmohan » 10 Aug 2018 14:38

amazing... my first reaction was that this is some druid circle from gaul...
on the other hand, piling stones up in geometrical orders is a basic human achievement and can be very common place

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5177
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 11 Aug 2018 00:47

Lalmohan wrote:amazing... my first reaction was that this is some druid circle from gaul...
on the other hand, piling stones up in geometrical orders is a basic human achievement and can be very common place


Yes, fascinating. Druid origins can be traced to Rig Veda. Their lore also reveals a lot about their culture. Ship borne people touched their shores. We had extensive trade network with Mediterranean people.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10462
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 16 Aug 2018 21:33

Dr Shiv has a great article: http://www.swatantramag.in/?p=2212
"Aryan Horse: Making Donkeys Out Of Indians "
Last edited by A_Gupta on 17 Aug 2018 01:47, edited 1 time in total.

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 17 Aug 2018 00:55

All this steppe Aryan crap is imho proven already by Narasimhan paper to be crap. I think modern central India level steppe in early Swat which should have been more like heyday blue eyed blond haired Aryan is showing steppe gene is nil correlation to Aryan culture. The steppe increases with time in Suvastu valley into Saka age, the Aryan age has negligible steppe and no R1a out of 400 plus bodies. They even find steppe mtdna.

What is clear to me is that these Vedic Aryas are adi Bharatiyas in the Punjab region. The various mleccha tribes in historical times like Huna Kamboja Saka etc are involved in giving their daughters to the Aryas in order to buy influence or honeytrap and gain entry and acceptance to Bharat. This might explain so called higher steppe content in Brahmins in Gangetic heartland and south (explained easily via historical time migrations of Brahmins around all of Bharat). Within Punjab/Haryana world higher steppe content actually goes to Jatt/Jat groups, not an upper caste at all. Either way the steppe dna entering Bharatiya groups is not via conquest and certainly not Aryan conquest but if anything more through a Sonia Gandhi style subversion.

I think we need to switch our guns. The Aryan battle has been more or less won in all the fields, genetics included. The matter on this is about putting the proper interpretation and packaging all of this data for mass global public consumption.

The battle needs to shift to Dravidian languages, wheat farming and the impetus of Indus valley civilization apparently being some Iranian farmer generated input. These mlecchas cannot leave us with anything it seems like. They are using some 9000bc fossils from Zagros mountains which they are calling Iran_N or Iranian Neolithic in full form, and positing them against modern day Andaman islanders and saying the Indus valley civilization was apparently because these Iranian farmers came and did jihad on the hapless Andaman islander like adi Bharatiya population. White fetish for an imagined history of raping blacks around the world is insane.

They can't digest that Bharat is an undisturbed population from the out of Africa hominid impulse, and whatever they are finding between Iranian farmer and Andaman islanders, is because geographically that is exactly what we would be. I am from West Bengal for example for at least 1000 years. But yes if you use a fossil from Bihar 200 years ago and from Bangladesh from today or also 200 years ago, it will show I am these specific two "ancestors" child. And yet we know that is not true. I'm just plotting between Bihar and Bangladesh because, well, West Bengal is between the two. I will also plot in between Syria and Japan. The fit will be poorer, but I'll plot there. In this case, the model for Bihari/Bangladeshi is "better" than Syrian/Japanese as far as R^2 or p value goes, but both models are ultimately garbage.

So let us start training our guns on this Iranian farmer non sense. Rajiv Malhotra in his discussion of the Hrithik Roshan starring film on Indus Valley has also deconstructed this so called West Asian impetus for Indus valley being purported. All these conclusions are designed to deliver Indians as biologically inferior and culturally requiring some form of conquering input from mlecchas to elevate our civilization. Now the Narasimhan paper is showing this Aryan/Steppe is non sense and they've almost gone mute about it and the steppe mitochondrial dna in Suvastu valley and complete lack of R1a. I personally think all the R1a etc are just guys deep in Gangetic region and actually further east of Indus Valley during that time anyway, and R1a just experienced expansion in Puranic times. There is also the very distinct possibility that very many lines may have actually been wiped out much further after Vedic era, i.e. what sort of impact did Islamist genocide or even Bengali famines by Brits have on the genetic profiles and who ended up surviving?

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 305
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 17 Aug 2018 01:38

I actually have a theory about why whites fetishize a history of subjugating blacks around the world. Previously we used to think about humans gradually losing dark complexions over generations as they migrated north from tropics towards colder climates. By losing, what I think we generally think of is that in the colder climate and lack of sunlight, the brother capable of developing fairer complexion has better chance of surviving and living on than the brother that has the darker complexion. And this process we thought would be tens of thousands of years old, never an overnight thing. This was a theory we had, either explicitly or subconsciously.

Except this does not explain groups like Eskimos who have the generic medium brown Indian complexions, and if they lived in the Indian sun, would be able to tan to significantly dark brown complexions. I have read explanations that Eskimos maintained diet of fish and so did not require the vitamin d replenishment mechanism that modern surviving Europeans have with white skins.

Either way, all the adi Europeans population fossils are indicating significantly dark brown complected individuals in Europe, well into even past the last ten thousand years and past the last ice age. Please check out cheddar man reconstruction. It seems like the white complexion actually ended up dominating the phenotype composition in Iraq to Iran area during the time frame of these folks picking up farming and starting to formulate Sumerian civilization etc. Relatively late. Essentially the modern European is the culmination of a black genocide that occurred on European continent not very long ago. Therefore not a previously imagined gradual process but indeed an overnight one. Another surprising find in these genetics is that the dark brown adi European populations also had the mutations for blue and green eyes. Ironically many in India don't know but there are tribes in the Borneo area that have pitch black complexions and bright yellow hair. So again, the world is much more complex than how we imagine phenotypes and ranges. The white skinned middle eastern and trans-caucasian region populations conducted brutal genocide on the adi Europeans (dark complexions with blue/hazel/green eyes) and out of the resultant survivors they allowed to survive were the white skinned ones, while I guess they didn't find the colored eyes as threatening as the dark skin.

Essentially Europeans have the pitridosha of black genocide in their own selves, and they are projecting their own story as it must be true for explaining the rest of the world (except it is not, note aforementioned exceptions of brown skinned Eskimos and also black skinned blond haired Melanesian tribes). Now the Europeans have run amok in the world and conducted further genocides on native Americans, Australian aboriginals and have not wiped out the Africans but killed them into the hundreds of millions as well, almost in a psychological coping attempt of showing "look this is what is natural, white must dominate black and brown".

This stuff about scientific racism and genes can and should easily be inverted by us, and no this isn't a matter of if a dog bites you should you bite back. There must be some problem gene that somehow managed to run wild and expand rapidly in the western Eurasia. Some natural behavior to this genetic expression is subconscious restlessness and umpteen capacity for violence in their failed quest to tame that restlessness (which I assert is generated from the pitridosha of genociding their own adi ancestors on their home continent).

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3126
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 17 Aug 2018 02:12

The issue of dark vs. light skin has been addressed before on this thread…

Variations that produce darker-skinned offspring amongst light-skinned populations are virtually nonexistent. Amongst populations in the low latitudes, dark skin is a precious adaptation developed at immense cost of many lives to natural selection.

Variations that produce lighter-skinned offspring amongst dark-skinned populations, by contrast, happen all the time. A simple point mutation in any one of five loci will do it.

Humans first evolved in subtropical regions, and evolved dark skin as a survival adaptation. They migrated out of Africa, and various diasporic populations lost the dark-skin adaptation to one or another extent via random mutations in the five genes that determine skin darkness.

The offspring of these mutants were able to survive and reproduce, giving rise to various lighter-skinned “races”… however, the degree of lightness does not necessarily correlate with the latitude they inhabit, because the loss could have occurred in any 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the five genes determining dark skin tone as a consequence of random mutations.

Light skin was NOT a directed evolutionary adaptation to less sunny environments; that’s why you have eskimos who are “browner” than Europeans despite living at higher latitudes, and native Americans who are “lighter” than Africans living at the same latitudes. The loss of colour occurred first; the continuing survival and further proliferation of mutant offspring populations (lighter-skinned peoples) happened despite the loss, not because of it.

viewtopic.php?p=2177129#p2177129
Rudradev wrote:From "The Paelo-Etiology of Human Skin Tone" by Frank W. Sweet
http://essays.backintyme.com/item/4

The darkness adaptation enhances folic acid (folate) synthesis. Too little epidermal melanin for low latitudes allows intense UV to penetrate the skin, preventing or degrading folic acid synthesis, thus reducing folate levels. In pregnant females this produces neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida. High levels of distributed epidermal melanin blocks UV and enables normal gestation at low latitudes (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000). Admittedly, some prior authors (Robins 1991, 210) had not seen evidence that fair-skinned residents of low latitudes suffered worse from folate deficiency than dark-skinned ones, but a collection of recent studies cited by Jablonski and Chaplin provide just such evidence. Hence, it seems confirmed that the darkness adaptation overcomes a threat to Darwinian fitness in its most unalloyed form—rate of successful reproduction.


Genetic evidence exists for the fact that sexual selection in low latitudes operated in favor of, not against, darker skin. Because darker skin, like weight within the normal range, was an indicator of superior fitness and a determinant of mating preference.

We have known that human pigmentation genes are additive and codominant because half the offspring of differently skin-toned parents have a complexion between that of their parents, no matter how similar the parents. We have known that at least three genes are involved because histograms of population skin reflectance yield continuous, not discrete, values (Stern 1973, 443-65), (Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer 1971, 527-31).

Where knowledge has improved over the past century has been in precisely how many genes are involved and their specific loci. As of 1998, five human pigmentation genes had been identified. Their symbols and genome loci are: “TYR” at 11q14-21, “TYRP1” at 9p23, “TYRP2” at 13q31-32, “P” at 15q11.2-12, and “MC1R” at 16q24.3 (Sturm, Box, and Ramsay 1998). Subsequent work has identified five non-synonymous polymorphisms at the MC1R site (Rana and others 1999). Polymorphisms have been related to phenotype (Harding and others 2000). And gene-enzyme-protein reaction chains have been identified (Kanetsky and others 2002).

Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation. Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark.


This is key to understand.

"Exposure to sun" does not easily produce darker skin. The darkness of skin of tropical peoples is a hard-won adaptation. Many genes at many different loci must collaborate to produce a dark skin which affords the protection from UV necessary at lower latitudes for the adequate production of folic acid. Evolutionarily, dark skin is something to be treasured among people of low latitudes.

On the other hand mutations causing fairer skin occur frequently (a random mutation in any one of FIVE loci can produce "fairness" in the extremity of albinism). The people inflicted with fairness-causing mutations would have been severely defective relative to the rest of the population; indeed, predisposed to
such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida.



Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests