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.
ukumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby ukumar » 03 Apr 2018 21:10

A_Gupta wrote:With this new preprint + the assumption that the Steppe ancestry is correlated with Indo-European languages, the story that Indo-European languages entered India post-IVC; that Vedas, Mahabharata etc., are at a maximum age of 3500 years before present, etc., is reiterated. Perhaps Rg Veda composition started in the Asian Inner Mountain Corridor, and the verses with geography references were added much later, etc. If Kaliyug began 3100 BC, that was somewhere in Central Asia.

There was no Out-of-India except for some Indus periphery folks, but these Indus periphery are outliers at BMAC, neither they nor what is supposed to be the original South Asian hunter-gatherer population didn't leave much of a trace outside of India.

"ANI and ASI were still largely unformed by 2000 BCE", and since most Indians are descended from ANI + ASI, it means the peopling of India really began after the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization. So this is either the triumphant hurrah or the last gasp of the invasionists, depending on which way you think this is going to play out.

PS: the "no significant incursion into India that left a genetic imprint in the last 14,000 years" goes obsolete.
AASI has been in India deep in time.
The "Iranian Agriculturalist" contributed to the Indus Periphery persons some 6500 years ago.
IVC people are taken to be a mixture of AASI and Iranian Agriculturalist from 6500 years ago.
The Indus Periphery persons have no Steppe ancestry, plus the Steppe has no AASI component it seems, so one cannot argue that "Steppe_MLBA" has some Indian-origin component.
Therefore the only OIT signal would be AASI, and there is no OIT signal in this model.

The argument that genes do not correlate with language is a truism; but can it work in this case? We'd have to postulate that there was a diffusion of Sanskrit or its precursors without movement of people from North India into Iran, BMAC and Steppes long before the Indus Valley Civilization (and from the Steppe people into Europe); and in particular that Sanskrit or precursors were one of the languages of the people of AASI origin. This could very well be true; but it is next to impossible to demonstrate. One might say this was just as hard to demonstrate before this preprint; but before this preprint one did not have to demonstrate language propagating outward while people were moving in the opposite direction.

If there is no aDNA from India that (a) has little AASI component and (b) can plausibly be ancestral to some component that is currently taken to be from outside India ("Iranian Agriculturalist", "Steppe EMBA or MLBA"), then IMO, the OIT story is over. Vedic Saraswati, archeo-astronomy dates etc., will have to find another explanation.

PS: tongue-in-cheek, some of what Talageri finds in the Rg Veda, e.g., names of various peoples that correspond to branches of IE-speaking people works if those parts of the Rg Veda are steppes-literature.


Very well put. Having AASI this early in north of subcontinent means genetic is not going support OIT. OIT at this point so unsupported that it just reinforces opposite models. Unfortunately they are falling in to Steppe contact == Arya trap all over again.

There is other possibility to explain earlier IA chronology in India. It is possible that IA spread from Iran and IVC peripherals and BMAC were already speaking IA languages. Steppe (R1a) could be in India after 1000bc, a second wave assimilated in to already expanding civilization. Mind you, earliest R1a they found in India is 400bc in Pakistan.

IMO, Something like this is best explanation http://new-indology.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... le-of.html

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Apr 2018 21:29

My edited comments on the paper have not been published - but I am hoping they will appear. Or else I will make them public in various ways.

One point is what Vagheesh said to me "Since steppe genes are common to everyone from Delhi to Dublin, and IE genes are common from Delhi to Dublin, it means that steppe is the origin of IE langauges"

Now let us look at what linguists have told us:

Greek and German have 25-40% IE words. The rest of the words are non IE including "substrates" of earlier languages. They all have steppe genes

But Sanskrit has 97% IE words. Indians have steppe genes. Does that mean that there was no earlier language?

How did steppe ancestry of genes and steppe origin of language lead to a nearly 100% IE words in Sanskrit but only 25-30 % in German?

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 03 Apr 2018 22:05

According to this paper, the steppe genes that are supposed to come to India after 1500 BC, were they direct from steppe or via Iran? If they are not from Iran, then how will it affect the neatly crafted IE language tree of Indo-Iranian language giving rise to Indic and Iranian languages?

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 03 Apr 2018 22:13

hanumadu wrote:According to this paper, the steppe genes that are supposed to come to India after 1500 BC, were they direct from steppe or via Iran? If they are not from Iran, then how will it affect the neatly crafted IE language tree of Indo-Iranian language giving rise to Indic and Iranian languages?


The paper has no idea about this. Before this paper it was posited that the steppe mixed with BMAC where Indo Iranian formed, and then from BMAC Indo Aryan formed as Indo Iranian spread south into Indus Valley while Iranian formed as Indo Iranian spread west. Now this paper is finding no BMAC or partial BMAC signal in Indians but rather finding Indus Valley signal in BMAC So at this point the "Steppe"'signal is magically appearing in 400bc Suvastu valley while it was absent in Indus Periphery and in BMAC, and also magically appearing in modern day Indians.

Of course, our position should be that this so called steppe signal is more than likely also very old inside the subcontinent but from further east like Gangetic plains, and the current analysis of Indus Periphery is hiding the steppe inside the un-derived AASI.
Last edited by bharotshontan on 03 Apr 2018 22:14, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Apr 2018 22:13

I think the paper says they came from Iran. Not from the BMAC (Bactria/Balkh)

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Apr 2018 23:02

Incidentally - the Swat samples were from 1000 BCE, 300 BCE and 1 CE. These were termed Indus periphery and were used to model all of India. This is just plain wrong. I will check where they got 140 modern day samples from India.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 03 Apr 2018 23:16

If you look at figure 2A from page 22 of the full paper (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/03/31/292581.full.pdf), there is an arrow from Kazakhstan (steppe MLBA) to just north of Kashmir but none from Iran (or Turan) to India. I don't know if the arrows are supposed to indicate people flow or DNA contribution of a particular region.

From figure 2B, there seems to be hardly any contribution from Iran to ANI. The contribution to ANI Cline is from Steppe MLBA while there is none from Steppe EMBA which is what Iran seems to be made up of.

From figure 3A - The genomic origin of Indians

Code: Select all

Sintashta_MLBA           0.2024
Srubnaya                     0.1877
Steppe_MLBA_West      0.1599
Steppe_MLBA_East       0.0834


No Steppe EMBA contribution meaning no steppe genes from Iran?


Figure 4 has a map of population flow.
The steppe gene flow to India is from directly up north (Kazakhstan) , but not from Iran. The flow from Iran is of Iran agricultarists after 7000 BC.
Also the Aryans did take a circuitous route judging from the map. They went from Yamnaya all the way North and East to Kazakhstan and then came south to India.

I think to model population flow over such a large area from less than 400 samples of which 40% are discarded is fraught with risks.

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 307
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 03 Apr 2018 23:22

shiv wrote:Incidentally - the Swat samples were from 1000 BCE, 300 BCE and 1 CE. These were termed Indus periphery and were used to model all of India. This is just plain wrong. I will check where they got 140 modern day samples from India.


They aren't using the Suvastu valley samples as representative of Indus Periphery. Rather they are using the three outliers, one in BMAC and two in eastern Iran as Indus Periphery as those are more in the IVC time frame and apparently have a subcontinental pull to them (hence also being termed as Indus diaspora, could be merchants or something). But again, problem is they are modeling these three as Iran_N plus x, and signing x as a hypothetical AASI, which also means they lose any connection that can exist between x and Steppe without Iran_n involvement.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 03 Apr 2018 23:33

shiv wrote:My edited comments on the paper have not been published


They are now published.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 03 Apr 2018 23:50

^^OK thanks. I need to read in better detail but I am looking for more detail

Following links are for my ref

The 1500 odd Indians for tis paper were obtained from data in the following paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... po=73.5294

The promise of discovering population-specific disease-associated genes in South Asia.
Nakatsuka N1,et al

The details of the people are there in this list. The Vagheesh paper has taken about 1500 people out of this list of 2500 or so. There seems to be a huge percentage of Brahmins (10% ot of 2500)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ent-2.xlsx

From the Vagheesh paper: supplementary material
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv ... 2581-1.pdf
Our analysis dataset consists of 1,789 present-day individuals from South Asia categorized
into 246 groups, genotyped at 597,573 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) on
the Affymetrix Human Origins array (72). We obtained the analysis dataset by filtering a
dataset previously published in a study focusing on opportunities for disease gene discovery
(73). We co-analyzed the data with published data from outside South Asia (1304 individuals
from 88 groups) (11, 72, 74, 75) and ancient DNA data (607 individuals; 357 of these are
newly reported in this study; Data S1) (11).
We first performed a step in which we removed individual samples that were outliers relative
to other samples from the same group in principal component analysis (PCA) (72). We then
filtered out 24 groups from further analysis for the following reasons:

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3139
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 04 Apr 2018 00:26

A_Gupta wrote:
But there is a problem in the paper. The "Iranian agriculturalists" who mixed with "AASI" around 4500 BCE to produce the Indus_Periphery persons were respectively the ancestors of the "Iranian agriculturalists" and "AASI" who mixed around 1700 BCE to produce the ancestors of today's Palliyar, unless "Iranian agriculturalists" and "AASI" kept their pristine "purity" between 4500 BCE and 1700 BCE, oblivious to the movements of people, the rise and fall of a far-flung urban civilization, incursion of BMAC or Steppes people into Iran, etc. etc.; yet it seems that is how the paper talks about it. That is why we get the paradox that with the very same ancestors ("Iranian agriculturalists", "AASI") IVC and Palliyar are nevertheless genetically distinct.


Well, that's not necessarily a problem.

The way Linkage Disequlibrium (LD) analysis works is: in general, because of Mendel's law of independent assortment, alleles are inherited independently of each other. However, because of mechanistic reasons related to the chromosomal crossover events that govern meiotic recombination, alleles that are sufficiently close together on a chromosome tend to be inherited together to a greater extent than would be expected by random chance. However, this so-called "linkage disequilibrium" effect between any pair of such alleles can be expected to decay over time, so that with more and more generations, their inheritance patterns tend to become progressively more "independent" of each other. So by looking at two such markers in a population, you can estimate how long since marker 1 was introduced into a population that previously only had marker 2.

So the introduction of Iranian Agriculturalist (Iran_N) genes into a mostly-AASI-descended population wouldn't necessarily have to come from a pure Iran_N population. It could have come from descendants of this supposed Indus_Periphery group that already had an ancestral mix of Iran_N and AASI DNA. The Palliyars I believe were chosen as a population representing the maximum fraction of Indus_Periphery ancestry (per Narasimhan et al's calculations) in a southern Indian tribe mainly descended from AASI (page 13) . The AASI input from a putative IV_Periphery group into the Palliyars would of course be masked in an LD analysis.
Last edited by Rudradev on 04 Apr 2018 03:09, edited 2 times in total.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3139
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 04 Apr 2018 00:31

gandharva wrote:

My knowledge is minimal on this topic but i have a question.Isn't AASI denotes hunters and gatherers, so how can they build a civilization? Shouldn't builders of IVC be this mixture between Iranians and AASI?


Gandharva ji, AASI doesn't denote any kind of population, because it doesn't really exist in terms of a representative sample actually found somewhere. A HUGE problem I have with this and other papers is the attribution of labels like "Agriculturists", "Hunter-Gatherers" etc. to different statistical clusters of genetic markers... something that of course has no genetic basis whatsoever.

AASI is a "catch-all" statistical cluster of markers that are not traceable to Iran or Steppe or anywhere else. The working assumption is that the Onge people of Andamans, geographically isolated and endogamous for nearly all of their known history, can be used as a model of an AASI-descended population with no discernible gene flow from other sources.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 04 Apr 2018 00:53

Rudradev wrote:
Gandharva ji, AASI doesn't denote any kind of population, because it doesn't really exist in terms of a representative sample actually found somewhere.


Why are they called Ancient Ancestral SOUTH INDIAN? Is it because the current south Indians are descendants of these people as found out by the genetic analysis of the current paper? What percent of the current south Indians have this AASI markers? What percentage of current south Indians have Iranian Farmer related genes? Where did the AASI and Iranian farmers mix to form ASI? Is it in Iran or else where?

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 04 Apr 2018 00:56

Image

From this picture, Iran contributed to Steppe EMBA but not the other way round. There is no flow of steppe DNA to Iran at all.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3989
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 04 Apr 2018 01:16

From the paper...
The Steppe
1. In the Kazakh Steppe and Minusinsk Basin during the Middle to Late Bronze Age, ancestry typical of
pastoralists in the western Steppe (Steppe_MLBA_West) admixed with ancestry related to earlier
West_Siberian_HG-related groups to form a distinctive Steppe_MLBA_East cluster.
2. Outlier analysis shows that by 1600 BCE in the Middle to Late Bronze Age of the Kazakh Steppe, there were
numerous individuals with admixture from Turan, providing genetic evidence of northward movement into the
Steppe in this period.

3. By 1500 BCE, there were numerous individuals in the Kazakh Steppe with East Asian-related admixture, the
same type of ancestry that was widespread by the Scythian period (34). This ancestry is hardly present in the
two primary ancestral populations of South Asia—ANI and ASI—suggesting that Steppe ancestry widespread
in South Asia derived from earlier southward movements


So Kazakh steppe got genes from Turan and not the other way round. Then how come the language flowed from Steppe to Iran? Then it must also mean R1a originated in Iran.

If ANI is formed by Steppe inflow into India before 1500 BC, it will also mess up with the time lines of AIT.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3139
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 04 Apr 2018 02:52

hanumadu wrote:Why are they called Ancient Ancestral SOUTH INDIAN? Is it because the current south Indians are descendants of these people as found out by the genetic analysis of the current paper? What percent of the current south Indians have this AASI markers? What percentage of current south Indians have Iranian Farmer related genes? Where did the AASI and Iranian farmers mix to form ASI? Is it in Iran or else where?


David Reich's lab had previously looked at whole genomes from many Indian samples and concluded that there are two ancestral components. They termed these components ASI and ANI (Moorjani et al, 2013) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/

Today's North Indians have about 60% ANI and 40% ASI components on average. For South Indians it is the inverse. So for the most part all Indians are mixed between ASI and ANI, there is just a slight predominance of one or the other set of components depending on where you hail from.

What the present paper is trying to do is provide evidence for certain assumptions about where ANI and ASI themselves descended from.

The assumptions are that ANI and ASI themselves are the result of intermixing between three groups. One that had some components shared with neolithic Iranian agriculturists, one that had components shared with people from the steppe, and one that does not have components shared with anyone else outside India. This last component, they have labeled as AASI.

The claim they are making is that these three groups intermixed in the Indus Valley region up to the collapse of IVC, creating a population that was similar to the three "outlier" aDNA samples they found, i.e. which had components from AASI (up to 42% in one of the three!), from Iranian Agros, and from a population they call "West Siberian Hunter Gatherers". This supposed "Indus Valley" population then split into two groups, which correspond to the statistical groupings of markers known as ANI and ASI.

@Arun,

To your question about Steppe_EMBA vs. Steppe_MLBA,

First off, I'd strongly recommend ignoring anything that idiot Davidski puts on his blog.

The assertion of Steppe_EMBA markers being "ubiquitously present among Indian populations" comes from Supplementary Info, Section 9 of Lazaridis et al, 2016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/

Steppe_MLBA consists of two subclusters according to the Narasimhan-Reich paper. Steppe_MLBA_West has 74% Steppe_EMBA components and 26% European Hunter-Gatherer components. Steppe_MLBA_East has in addition 8% of "West Siberian Hunter Gatherer" components, and proportionally less of the Steppe_EMBA and European Hunter-Gatherer components. Note, Steppe_EMBA is still the majority component of both Steppe_MLBA subclusters (West and East).

So why did Narasimhan et al go with Steppe_MLBA for their model? Their reasoning is explained on page 12. They decide that the ANI and ASI must have been more deeply descended from a minimum of three ancestral populations. The assumption of "three ancestral populations" seems to derive on this from the Lazaridis paper:

We show that it is impossible to model the ANI as being derived from any single ancient population in our dataset. However, it can be modelled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe; all sampled South Asian groups are inferred to have significant amounts of both ancestral types. The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry34,35 is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans.


Narasimhan et al use a combination of four groups of Indians: ANI-dominated Punjabis, ASI-dominated Malas, Iron-Age Swat valley samples, and Early-Historical Swat valley samples, as their reference Indian population. Then they use a statistical tool, qpAdm, to search for the triplet of source populations that could serve as a "best fit" for ancestry of this reference Indian population (note how many assumptions have been made here already).

They find that the "best fit" triplet is:
1- AASI,
2-"Indus Periphery" (based on three samples, the outliers from BMAC-Gonur and Iran-Shahr-i-Sokta, of which one was 42% AASI!),
3- and Steppe_MLBA.

So choosing Steppe_MLBA is supposedly based on a refinement of the statistical method used in Lazaridis et al, and would account for the previously-observed existence in Indian populations of Steppe_EMBA markers, because Steppe_EMBA is the majority component of Steppe_MLBA in any case. Narasimhan et al further justify their choice of Steppe_MLBA rather than EMBA for a supposed ancestral population for Indians with the circumstantial evidence that R1a-Z93, which is present in India and Steppe_MLBA, does not appear in Steppe_EMBA.

Meanwhile the three outliers from whom the entire statistical cluster "Indus Periphery" has been constructed are (the paper admits) heterogenous, with AASI ancestry ranging from 14-42%. Interestingly, the paper also admits that there is no evidence of input from the BMAC genetic cluster into India, but in fact the BMAC cluster has 5% AASI ancestry.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50205
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2018 04:23

Davidski = David Reich?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Apr 2018 05:46

Looks like my comments finally appeared
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

This paper has some of the following issues which I find interesting. I believe that geneticists are mistaken when any good work that they do is mixed with the unscientific hypotheses about language spread that linguists have established for the last 150 years. Genes do not code for language. Genetic fact should not be mixed up with tenuous linguistic hypotheses.

1.The linguistics dates of IE spread are taken from David Anthony (ref no 46) whose assumptions linking the archaeology of Andronvo grave pits and Sintashta culture with grossly erroneous translations of the Rig Veda are untenable. In particular Anthony’s linking of Rig Veda 10:18 with Kurgans is based on an incorrect translation, apart from other assumptions

2. This paper reinforces what was earlier suggested by Reich et al and Priya Moorjani (refs 44 and 45) that ASI-ANI mix occurred in the last 2000-4000 years ago. Both this paper and the earlier Reich paper suggest that there was lack of mixing of ASI and ANI before that. In fact this paper says that ASI and ANI were "largely unformed) 4000 years ago (page 14).

Now here is what is odd. If ANI and ASI ancestry represent IE speakers and Dravidian language speakers (respectively) and if they started mixing as recently as in the last 4000 years when the migrations are said to have occurred, but the admixture had NOT occurred before that date - it tears down all assumptions of a "Caste system" having been created by the migration of ANI/IE speakers displacing ASI/Dravidian language speakers. If they were mixing, there were not remaining separate. It is as simple as that.

If one assumes (probably wrongly) that IE languages came to India about 1500-2000 BCE then it appears that the real mixing of ASI and ANI started AFTER those people came contrary to all assertions by linguists that endogamy commenced in India with the arrival of IE speakers in India.

3. Of course all this ignores and fails to explain how the oldest IE language Sanskrit has references to hydronyms and the riverine geography of IVC area from 3000 BCE and the start of aridity in 2000 BCE - adding to the growing body of evidence that linguistic hypotheses have depended upon dubious assumptions.

It is notable that German and Greek have perhaps 25-40 % Indo-European language content, the rest of the words having a non Indo-European or pre- IE origin. However Sanskrit, the oldest known IE language has 97% Indo-European word content. This anomaly cannot be explained by saying that no language was spoken in India before the arrival of IE languages in 1500 BCE.

4. This paper makes statistical predictions about the entire Indian subcontinent with zero samples from IVC or anything east or south of that (as clearly admitted in the paper). The closest "south Asia" samples are from Swat in Pakistan. Swat is closer to "Turan" (Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan) than to major IE speaking areas of India like Bengal, south Gujarat, Maharashtra and the Eastern Gangetic plain. So linguistic conclusions connected to genetics need to be viewed with caution.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3139
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 04 Apr 2018 05:46

No, Davidski is the small-minded bigmouth who runs the Eurogenes blog.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Apr 2018 06:20

^^^ Thanks Rudradev & Shiv! May you long continue giving us clarity!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50205
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2018 06:52

Thanks guys. So the paper has tenuous data.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 04 Apr 2018 07:16

Email from Talegeri:
The movement and spread of languages or indeed of any cultural features are totally independent of genetic features:
1. All of us speak and write in English (as we are doing at this very moment). Do we have English DNA transmitted into our bodies from the English people who ruled us for well over a century?
2. The Sinhalese people to the south of Tamilnadu speak a language which sometimes contains linguistic data representing even older or more archaic Indo-European linguistic strata than does the Vedic language (e.g. the word "watura" for "water"). Does the DNA of the Sinhalese people show categorical "Indo-European" features missing, for example, in the DNA of the Tamil-speaking people to their north?
3. The Santali language of Jharkhand and neighbouring areas is related to the Vietnamese language (both belonging to the Austric family): e.g. Santali "mit, pa-ea, pon-ea" for "one, three, four" and Vietnamese "mot, ba, bon". Are there special distinctive DNA features linking the Vietnamese and Santali people to the exclusion of the other (Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, etc.speaking) people in the intervening areas?
Countless more examples could be given, not only in the fields of language. Did the spread of chess from India as the national game of every ancient Asian country (Arabic "shatranj", Vietnamese "chhoeu trang" and Mongolian "shatara", for example) lead to Indian DNA in all the people of these countries? Or the spread of Buddhism from India into China, Japan and Mongolia?

The history of the movement of anything from one area to another (even if logically carried by human beings rather than spreading through the air like pollen seeds) cannot be traced through DNA. At the most, when historical evidence (from linguistic evidence and historical records) fits in with blatantly obvious racial/genetic "evidence", it could be taken note of.

Here, however, evidence from the very fields of academic study which gave rise to the question of "Indo-European migrations", i.e. linguistics, textual analysis and archaeological material evidence, are now suddenly completely shunned. I have shown how the evidence from all these three fields now completely disproves the AIT/AMT and proves, beyond any doubt, the Indian Homeland theory (OIT, when considered in the context of the Indo-European languages outside India). So now all these three fields are being completely shunned, and specific or vaguely defined genetic pieces of data are being assigned linguistic identities ("Indo-European"), areal identities ("Iranian farmers", "Steppe pastoralists", etc) or even weirder casteist/provincial identities ("U.P.". "Tiwari", etc). Amazingly, the DNA of the Onge people (an Andamanese tribe) now also features in the discussions of linguistically totally unrelated peoples all over India and South-east Asia, when this very feature should make it clear that the DNA data (even if assumed to be analyzed with any degree of accuracy) can have no place in discussions of the historical movements of people identifiable in linguistic terms!
There are two linguistic factors which make the cock and bull story of the claimed DNA evidence for the AIT/AMT in "2100-1500 BCE" utterly untenable:
1. The linguistic fact that the 12 branches of Indo-European languages were together in the linguistic homeland till 3000 BCE and only started separating around that point of time.
2. The scientifically dated evidence from West Asia places the Mitanni people in West Asia (Syria-Iraq) at least as early as 1700 BCE, and already largely linguistically absorbed into the local Hurrian language culture of the area.
The Vedic-Avestan-Mitanni data makes it clear that the Old Books of the Rigveda go back to around 3000 BCE, and that the geographical data in the Old Books shows that the Vedic Aryans at the time were settled to the east of the Sarasvati (i.e. in Haryana) and were yet to expand into areas further westwards.
I append my article "The Chronology and Geography of the Rigveda". No-one will have the guts to seriously try to challenge this evidence. Finding languages, areas and specific years BCE embedded in DNA data by ignoring this relevant evidence is the only cowardly thing that these motivated scholars can do.

The powerful effect of all this political academics claiming to be objective scholarship is that the lay person can easily be mesmerized or intimidated into believing that this "genetic evidence" proves the AIT/AMT or disproves the OIT. No wonder people even on this list constantly keep advocating that it would be safer to avoid opposing the AIT and to somehow accommodate our views within an AMT paradigm!

What provoked me to write all this is that I received a cryptic telephone call today from a second cousin (actually the son of my father's late cousin Ramesh Balsekar who was a well known "spiritual" guru) seeming (I couldn't gauge the exact nuance) to express his condolences at what he insisted was the death or burial of the OIT! I haven't heard from him for years and years, and, after some rather cryptic comments (including references to chauvinistic people who want to derive everything from India, among whom he included RSS people but expressly stated that he "knew" I did not belong to that type!), he hastily ended the conversation with best wishes for my future preempting any explanations or clarifications from me on the academic aspects of the matter!

All this suggests some kind of triumphalism on the part of people who know nothing of the subject and want to know nothing of the subject, but are willing to accept the fatwas of vested interest groups in academia without question or examination.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Apr 2018 08:11

Apologies: This is for MY OWN reference
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
sources that ultimately combined to form the ancestry of South Asians today. We document a
southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the
archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle
Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the
Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily
descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main
BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities
integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with
a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a
distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers.
We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the
Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were
genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan.
By co-analyzing ancient
DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-
related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia—consistent with
the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the
ancestry of peoples of the IVC—and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South
Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-
related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how



193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
* “Anatolian agriculturalist-related”: represented by 7th millennium BCE western Anatolian
agriculturalists (6)
*“Western European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG)-related”: represented by Mesolithic western
Europeans (5, 10, 15, 16)
*“Iranian agriculturalist-related”: represented by 8 th millennium BCE pastoralists from the
Zagros Mountains of Iran (17, 18)
* “Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG)-related”: represented by hunter-gatherers from
diverse sites in Eastern Europe (5, 6)
* “West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (West_Siberian_HG)-related”: a newly documented deep
source of Eurasian ancestry represented here by three samples
* “East Asian-related”: represented in this study by Han Chinese
* “Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI)-related”: a hypothesized South Asian Hunter-Gatherer
lineage related deeply to present-day indigenous Andaman Islanders
(19)


BMAC
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
From Bronze Age Turan, we report 69 ancient individuals (2300-1400 BCE) from four urban
sites of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) and its immediate successors.
The great majority of individuals fall in a genetic cluster that is similar, albeit not identical, to the
preceding groups in Turan in harboring a large proportion of early Iranian agriculturalist-related
ancestry (~60% in the BMAC) with smaller components of Anatolian agriculturalist-related
ancestry (~21%) and West_Siberian_HG-related ancestry (~13%)
suggesting that the main
BMAC cluster coalesced from preceding pre-urban populations in Turan (which in turn likely
derived from earlier eastward spreads from Iran). The absence in the BMAC cluster of the
Steppe_EMBA ancestry that is ubiquitous in South Asia today—along with qpAdm analyses that
rule out BMAC as a substantial source of ancestry in South Asia
(Fig. 3A)—suggests that while
the BMAC was affected by the same demographic forces that later impacted South Asia (the
southward movement of Middle to Late Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists described in the next
section), it was also bypassed by members of these groups who hardly mixed with BMAC people
and instead mixed with peoples further south.
In fact, the data suggest that instead of the main
BMAC population having a demographic impact on South Asia, there was a larger effect of gene
flow in the reverse direction, as the main BMAC genetic cluster is slightly different from the
preceding Turan populations in harboring ~5% of their ancestry from the AASI.
(OIT!)



(SWAT, BMAC- No steppe)
lines: 266
267
268
West_Siberia_HG. Importantly, in the 3rd millenium BCE we do not find any individuals with
ancestry derived from Yamnaya-related Steppe pastoralists in Turan. Thus, Steppe_EMBA
ancestry was not yet widespread across the region.

lines276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
Third, between 3100-2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two
outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41
ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the
isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200-800 BCE). These individuals had
between 14-42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian
agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan
we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples
. In contrast to all
other Iran/Turan samples, we find that these individuals also had negligible Anatolian
agriculturalist-related admixture, suggesting that they might be migrants from a population
further east along the cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry.
(OIT???)While we do not
have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), based on (a)
archaeological evidence of material culture exchange between the IVC and both BMAC to its
north and Shahr-i-Sokhta to its east (27), (b) the similarity of these outlier individuals to post-
IVC Swat Valley individuals described in the next section (27), (c) the presence of substantial
AASI admixture in these samples suggesting that they are migrants from South Asia, and (d) the
fact that these individuals fit as ancestral populations for present-day Indian groups in qpAdm
modeling, we hypothesize that these outliers were recent migrants from the IVC. Without ancient


lines: 352
353
354
355
356
357
358
Second, samples from three sites from the southern and eastern end of the Steppe dated to 1600-
1500 BCE (Dashti-kozy, Taldysay and Kyzlbulak) show evidence of significant admixture from
Iranian agriculturalist-related populations, demonstrating northward gene flow from Turan into
the Steppe at the same time as there was southward movement of Steppe_MLBA ancestry
through Turan and into South Asia.
These findings are consistent with evidence of a high degree
of human mobility both to the north and south along the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor (32, 33).


383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
To shed light on the mixture events that transformed this minimum of three ancestral populations
into two (the ANI and ASI), we used qpAdm to search for triples of source populations—the
AASI, all sampled ancient Iran/Turan-related groups, and all sampled ancient Steppe groups—
that could fit as sources for South Asians. As South Asian test populations we used an Indian
Cline group with high ANI ancestry (Punjabi.DG), one with high ASI ancestry (Mala.DG), early
Iron Age Swat Valley samples (Swat Protohistoric Grave Type - SPGT), and Early Historic Swat
Valley samples (Butkara_IA). Fig. 3A shows that the only models that fit all four test South
Asians groups are combinations that involve the AASI, Indus_Periphery and Steppe_MLBA (in
the analyses that follow, we therefore pooled the Steppe_MLBA). The evidence that the
Steppe_MLBA cluster is a plausible source for the Steppe ancestry in South Asia is also
supported by Y chromosome evidence, as haplogroup R1a which is of the Z93 subtype common
in South Asia today (37, 38) was of high frequency in Steppe_MLBA (68%) (16), but rare in
Steppe_EMBA (absent in our data).


Fake connection based on David Anthony
489
490
491
492
Asia. Our documentation of a large-scale genetic pressure from Steppe_MLBA groups in the 2nd
millennium BCE provides a prime candidate, a finding that is consistent with archaeological
evidence of connections between material culture in the Kazakh middle-to-late Bronze Age
Steppe and early Vedic culture in India (46).
Last edited by shiv on 04 Apr 2018 14:55, edited 3 times in total.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 04 Apr 2018 10:40

Further a number of weeds and other wilde tax not only throw considerable light on the vegetation in the Sarasvati-Drishadvati divide in the late half of the fourth millennium BC but also indicating the integration of the site into the vast interaction sphere between the settlements of Kachhi plains and the central Gangetic plains.


From Rakhigarhi Excavation Report

Cereal cultivation is reported to have taken place in sixth millennium BC at Kunal Haryana. Samples collected from the mound located near Saraswati river. (from above report)

There are many interesting vedic and puranic references to Sarasvati in the initial part of the report.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 04 Apr 2018 11:16

gandharva wrote:Email from Talegeri:
The movement and spread of languages or indeed of any cultural features are totally independent of genetic features:
1. All of us speak and write in English (as we are doing at this very moment). Do we have English DNA transmitted into our bodies from the English people who ruled us for well over a century?
2. The Sinhalese people to the south of Tamilnadu speak a language which sometimes contains linguistic data representing even older or more archaic Indo-European linguistic strata than does the Vedic language (e.g. the word "watura" for "water"). Does the DNA of the Sinhalese people show categorical "Indo-European" features missing, for example, in the DNA of the Tamil-speaking people to their north?
3. The Santali language of Jharkhand and neighbouring areas is related to the Vietnamese language (both belonging to the Austric family): e.g. Santali "mit, pa-ea, pon-ea" for "one, three, four" and Vietnamese "mot, ba, bon". Are there special distinctive DNA features linking the Vietnamese and Santali people to the exclusion of the other (Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, etc.speaking) people in the intervening areas?
Countless more examples could be given, not only in the fields of language. Did the spread of chess from India as the national game of every ancient Asian country (Arabic "shatranj", Vietnamese "chhoeu trang" and Mongolian "shatara", for example) lead to Indian DNA in all the people of these countries? Or the spread of Buddhism from India into China, Japan and Mongolia?

The history of the movement of anything from one area to another (even if logically carried by human beings rather than spreading through the air like pollen seeds) cannot be traced through DNA. At the most, when historical evidence (from linguistic evidence and historical records) fits in with blatantly obvious racial/genetic "evidence", it could be taken note of.

Here, however, evidence from the very fields of academic study which gave rise to the question of "Indo-European migrations", i.e. linguistics, textual analysis and archaeological material evidence, are now suddenly completely shunned. I have shown how the evidence from all these three fields now completely disproves the AIT/AMT and proves, beyond any doubt, the Indian Homeland theory (OIT, when considered in the context of the Indo-European languages outside India). So now all these three fields are being completely shunned, and specific or vaguely defined genetic pieces of data are being assigned linguistic identities ("Indo-European"), areal identities ("Iranian farmers", "Steppe pastoralists", etc) or even weirder casteist/provincial identities ("U.P.". "Tiwari", etc). Amazingly, the DNA of the Onge people (an Andamanese tribe) now also features in the discussions of linguistically totally unrelated peoples all over India and South-east Asia, when this very feature should make it clear that the DNA data (even if assumed to be analyzed with any degree of accuracy) can have no place in discussions of the historical movements of people identifiable in linguistic terms!
There are two linguistic factors which make the cock and bull story of the claimed DNA evidence for the AIT/AMT in "2100-1500 BCE" utterly untenable:
1. The linguistic fact that the 12 branches of Indo-European languages were together in the linguistic homeland till 3000 BCE and only started separating around that point of time.
2. The scientifically dated evidence from West Asia places the Mitanni people in West Asia (Syria-Iraq) at least as early as 1700 BCE, and already largely linguistically absorbed into the local Hurrian language culture of the area.
The Vedic-Avestan-Mitanni data makes it clear that the Old Books of the Rigveda go back to around 3000 BCE, and that the geographical data in the Old Books shows that the Vedic Aryans at the time were settled to the east of the Sarasvati (i.e. in Haryana) and were yet to expand into areas further westwards.
I append my article "The Chronology and Geography of the Rigveda". No-one will have the guts to seriously try to challenge this evidence. Finding languages, areas and specific years BCE embedded in DNA data by ignoring this relevant evidence is the only cowardly thing that these motivated scholars can do.

The powerful effect of all this political academics claiming to be objective scholarship is that the lay person can easily be mesmerized or intimidated into believing that this "genetic evidence" proves the AIT/AMT or disproves the OIT. No wonder people even on this list constantly keep advocating that it would be safer to avoid opposing the AIT and to somehow accommodate our views within an AMT paradigm!

What provoked me to write all this is that I received a cryptic telephone call today from a second cousin (actually the son of my father's late cousin Ramesh Balsekar who was a well known "spiritual" guru) seeming (I couldn't gauge the exact nuance) to express his condolences at what he insisted was the death or burial of the OIT! I haven't heard from him for years and years, and, after some rather cryptic comments (including references to chauvinistic people who want to derive everything from India, among whom he included RSS people but expressly stated that he "knew" I did not belong to that type!), he hastily ended the conversation with best wishes for my future preempting any explanations or clarifications from me on the academic aspects of the matter!

All this suggests some kind of triumphalism on the part of people who know nothing of the subject and want to know nothing of the subject, but are willing to accept the fatwas of vested interest groups in academia without question or examination.


There is a lot of institutional backing for this type of thing in the West. Unfortunately for us, HRD is run by that imbecile Javadekar who doesn't have a clue or care in the world about what they write about us. We have people who are generating new ways of thinking about ourselves like CK Raju, Talageri, S Sanu, Balu, A Mitra but they don't seem to get any traction within education depts within the country. It's a very sad state of affairs and its worse when you realize that the direction could've changed for the better but didn't.

No matter how much archaeological, linguistic, genetic evidence you feed the other side they still think this whole debate is about which genes ended up where and when. This has NOTHING to do with the debate. It's all about firmly establishing the fact that there is ZERO evidence that Vedic culture was oppressive to the so called 'subcontinental native' and beginning the process of dismantling over 150 years of racist anthropology which amazingly persists to this day. The fact that all these papers rope in linguists shows the immense influence they have and how important it is to have the pieces nicely fit together to establish a 'cultural invasion' of Aryans between 2000-1500 BC. They try to hide the specific 1700 BC date in plain site so as to not draw attention to it and the FACT that the Mittani language is contained only within the new books of Rig Veda and not the old ones. This is the real battle and it's something that they can never refute. They can only win now by covering it up with as much genetic fluff as possible. They lost in the fields of archaeology and linguistics which can more accurately show language spread because you can actually see the script along with embedded cultural motifs and technology and accurately date them. They don't realize that had linguists not set the agenda with assertions not backed by evidence, geneticists could've written anything they wanted about Indian ancestry and we could've cared less. They could've told the world that we are actually the youngest civilization on Earth and that our ancestors were actually Swedish. As long as they stick to genetics only! But this escapes them completely. They think this is about hindu nationalist indians populating the planet in order to establish some sort of vague cultural dominance - It's not. It's about simply refuting the cultural and racial bigotry that sits on top of genetics.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Apr 2018 17:07

Am confused by the highlighted passages below. Shiv, Rudradev, can you help?

Suppose you said that X and Y had a similar ancestry profile of a Norwegian and Italian mix, except that Y also had 22% Japanese ancestry. It makes one wonder, what does a "similar ancestry profile" mean?

-Arun

PS:


276 Third, between 3100-2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two
277 outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41
278 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the
279 isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200-800 BCE). These individuals had
280 between 14-42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian
281 agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan
282 we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples. In contrast to all
283 other Iran/Turan samples, we find that these individuals also had negligible Anatolian
284 agriculturalist-related admixture, suggesting that they might be migrants from a population
285 further east along the cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry. While we do not
286 have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), based on (a)
287 archaeological evidence of material culture exchange between the IVC and both BMAC to its
288 north and Shahr-i-Sokhta to its east (27), (b) the similarity of these outlier individuals to post-
289 IVC Swat Valley individuals described in the next section (27), (c) the presence of substantial
290 AASI admixture in these samples suggesting that they are migrants from South Asia, and (d) the
291 fact that these individuals fit as ancestral populations for present-day Indian groups in qpAdm
292 modeling, we hypothesize that these outliers were recent migrants from the IVC.

449 Finally, we examined our Swat Valley time transect from 1200 BCE to 1 CE. While the earliest
450 group of samples (SPGT) is genetically very similar to the Indus_Periphery samples from the
451 sites of Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta, they also differ significantly in harboring Steppe_MLBA
452 ancestry (~22%). This provides direct evidence for Steppe_MLBA ancestry being integrated into
453 South Asian groups in the 2nd millennium BCE, and is also consistent with the evidence of
454 southward expansions of Steppe_MLBA groups through Turan at this time via outliers from the
455 main BMAC cluster from 2000-1500 BCE. Later samples from the Swat time transect from the
456 1st millennium BCE had higher proportions of Steppe and AASI derived ancestry more similar to
457 that found on the Indian Cline, showing that there was an increasing percolation of Steppe
458 derived ancestry into the region and additional admixture with the ASI through time.
Last edited by A_Gupta on 04 Apr 2018 17:44, edited 1 time in total.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10538
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 04 Apr 2018 17:44

Rudradev wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
But there is a problem in the paper. The "Iranian agriculturalists" who mixed with "AASI" around 4500 BCE to produce the Indus_Periphery persons were respectively the ancestors of the "Iranian agriculturalists" and "AASI" who mixed around 1700 BCE to produce the ancestors of today's Palliyar, unless "Iranian agriculturalists" and "AASI" kept their pristine "purity" between 4500 BCE and 1700 BCE, oblivious to the movements of people, the rise and fall of a far-flung urban civilization, incursion of BMAC or Steppes people into Iran, etc. etc.; yet it seems that is how the paper talks about it. That is why we get the paradox that with the very same ancestors ("Iranian agriculturalists", "AASI") IVC and Palliyar are nevertheless genetically distinct.


Well, that's not necessarily a problem.

The way Linkage Disequlibrium (LD) analysis works is: in general, because of Mendel's law of independent assortment, alleles are inherited independently of each other. However, because of mechanistic reasons related to the chromosomal crossover events that govern meiotic recombination, alleles that are sufficiently close together on a chromosome tend to be inherited together to a greater extent than would be expected by random chance. However, this so-called "linkage disequilibrium" effect between any pair of such alleles can be expected to decay over time, so that with more and more generations, their inheritance patterns tend to become progressively more "independent" of each other. So by looking at two such markers in a population, you can estimate how long since marker 1 was introduced into a population that previously only had marker 2.

So the introduction of Iranian Agriculturalist (Iran_N) genes into a mostly-AASI-descended population wouldn't necessarily have to come from a pure Iran_N population. It could have come from descendants of this supposed Indus_Periphery group that already had an ancestral mix of Iran_N and AASI DNA. The Palliyars I believe were chosen as a population representing the maximum fraction of Indus_Periphery ancestry (per Narasimhan et al's calculations) in a southern Indian tribe mainly descended from AASI (page 13) . The AASI input from a putative IV_Periphery group into the Palliyars would of course be masked in an LD analysis.


430 Using admixture linkage disequilibrium, we estimate a date of 107 ± 11 generations ago for the
431 Iranian agriculturalist and AASI-related admixture in the Palliyar, corresponding to a 95%
432 confidence interval of 1700-400 BCE assuming 28 years per generation

If Iran_N genes entered Pailliyar via descendants of Indus_Periphery there would be that many more generations of linkage disequilibrium possible.
i.e., Iran_N genes mixed with AASI around 4500 BCE per the preprint to produce Indus_Periphery observed 3100-2200 BCE. Then further linkage disequilibrium process continues decorrelating the linked markers for another thousand years, and Indus_Periphery descendants mix with AASI around 1500 BCE. But the above suggests that they are using the original Iran_N correlation of markers.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Apr 2018 19:16

A_Gupta wrote:
all with an ancestry profile similar to 41
278 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the
279 isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200-800 BCE). These individuals had
280 between 14-42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian
281 agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan
282 we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples. In contrast to all
283 other Iran/Turan samples, we find that these individuals also had negligible Anatolian
284 agriculturalist-related admixture, suggesting that they might be migrants from a population
285 further east along the cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry. While we do not
286 have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), based on (a)
287 archaeological evidence of material culture exchange between the IVC and both BMAC to its
288 north and Shahr-i-Sokhta to its east (27), (b) the similarity of these outlier individuals to post-
289 IVC Swat Valley individuals described in the next section (27), (c) the presence of substantial
290 AASI admixture in these samples suggesting that they are migrants from South Asia, and (d) the
291 fact that these individuals fit as ancestral populations for present-day Indian groups in qpAdm
292 modeling, we hypothesize that these outliers were recent migrants from the IVC.

449 Finally, we examined our Swat Valley time transect from 1200 BCE to 1 CE. While the earliest
450 group of samples (SPGT) is genetically very similar to the Indus_Periphery samples from the
451 sites of Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta, they also differ significantly in harboring Steppe_MLBA
452 ancestry (~22%). This provides direct evidence for Steppe_MLBA ancestry being integrated into
453 South Asian groups in the 2nd millennium BCE, and is also consistent with the evidence of
454 southward expansions of Steppe_MLBA groups through Turan at this time via outliers from the
455 main BMAC cluster from 2000-1500 BCE. Later samples from the Swat time transect from the
456 1st millennium BCE had higher proportions of Steppe and AASI derived ancestry more similar to
457 that found on the Indian Cline, showing that there was an increasing percolation of Steppe
458 derived ancestry into the region and additional admixture with the ASI through time.

Arun I am in the process of making a summary of the paper saying who has what genes - but what I understand of the passages you have quoted is as follows:

There were 3 "outliers" meaning probably that they did not conform to what the authors thought was "the norm" for that site. One outlier was in BMAC and the other 2 from Iran. Earlier the paper says that the further one gets from Anatolia (eastwards) the lesser the Anatolian agro genes. So near zero Anatolian genes is as far east as they can get (India/Pak)

The outliers had the following and have been decribed in the Abstract as "Indus periphery"
1. ASI genes (Onge Andaman ancestry implied) 14-42% (naturally in 3 samples one is 14, and another 42 and a third in between !)
2. Iran agri genes (as expected)
3. But no steppe genes.
According to this paper Iran agri genes should have Anatolian agro and West Eurasian genes. These outliers had No Anatolian genes but had Onge related genes from the east. So the authors guess that these outliers must have come from the east. But I am presuming that their lack of steppe gene (which authors feel is marker for India) makes these outlliers "Indus periphery" rather than Indian. Apparently these BMAC and Iran "outliers) were similar to early Swat genes is ASI genes, no steppe genes.

Apparently later Swat genes show a typical "Indian mix". The "Indian mix according to this paper is both ASI and ANI have 3 origins
1. Iran Agri - no anatolian (+ ??? unclear here -West Eurasian and Siberian components). Paper is unclear - will have to follow up the references which I will do in due course now that you ask
2. ASI (onge related)
3. Steppe genes

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

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

Postby shiv » 04 Apr 2018 22:26

:D
Here is what I think is a juicy post I have made in response to the Vagheesh paper on their site. Let's see if it gets published - no cussin there. But I post it here too

Here are some further thoughts on the findings presented in the paper. I will first quote lines 276 to 282 from the paper:

"Third, between 3100-2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200-800 BCE). These individuals had between 14-42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples."

The paper clearly states that earlier samples from Swat (taken 1200-800 BCE) did not show steppe ancestry, but had AASI. This must be correlated with what is known from history. By 500 BC Emperor Darius had erected the Behistun monument in Iran which was recorded in Old Persian - which developed after the earlier "Iranian" language Avestan. Avestan was spoken by early Zoroastrians and dates back to 1000 BCE in the Punjab region. Scholars like Darmetester and Mary Boyce show that the Zend Avesta - the holy Zoroastrian book post dated the Vedas and was almost identical to the Atharva Veda. That means that Indo European languages were already there in North West India (Gandhara/Swat area) by 1000 BC and earlier (since the Vedas are dated earlier)

Now the genetic picture uncovered by this paper shows that the people of the Swat area DID NOT have steppe ancestry in that period (1200-800 BCE). But Indo European Languages were already present in the area. This rules out the connection between steppe ancestry and Indo-European languages. In India, Indo-European languages pre-dated steppe ancestry.



..and may I add: Q.E.D.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5423
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 04 Apr 2018 22:45

So ASI and ANI formed and started mixing at the same time i.e. 4000 years back. Shouldn't formation itself take time. Seems confusing.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 05 Apr 2018 02:12

shiv wrote::D
Here is what I think is a juicy post I have made in response to the Vagheesh paper on their site. Let's see if it gets published - no cussin there. But I post it here too

Here are some further thoughts on the findings presented in the paper. I will first quote lines 276 to 282 from the paper:

"Third, between 3100-2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200-800 BCE). These individuals had between 14-42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples."

The paper clearly states that earlier samples from Swat (taken 1200-800 BCE) did not show steppe ancestry, but had AASI. This must be correlated with what is known from history. By 500 BC Emperor Darius had erected the Behistun monument in Iran which was recorded in Old Persian - which developed after the earlier "Iranian" language Avestan. Avestan was spoken by early Zoroastrians and dates back to 1000 BCE in the Punjab region. Scholars like Darmetester and Mary Boyce show that the Zend Avesta - the holy Zoroastrian book post dated the Vedas and was almost identical to the Atharva Veda. That means that Indo European languages were already there in North West India (Gandhara/Swat area) by 1000 BC and earlier (since the Vedas are dated earlier)

Now the genetic picture uncovered by this paper shows that the people of the Swat area DID NOT have steppe ancestry in that period (1200-800 BCE). But Indo European Languages were already present in the area. This rules out the connection between steppe ancestry and Indo-European languages. In India, Indo-European languages pre-dated steppe ancestry.



..and may I add: Q.E.D.


Lead author Narsimhan replied to abv point of Shiv Ji
https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/981630518537129984
Image

Nilesh Oak
BRFite
Posts: 1668
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Postby Nilesh Oak » 05 Apr 2018 07:11

Pulikeshi wrote:Nilesh,

Since you read/contribute on this thread. I just watched your presentation online at the Swadeshi conf.
First, congrats on a fantastic job on doing a purvapaksha and then demolishing the Dogma. You should plan to speak more :mrgreen:

If you are receptive, here are two points for you to consider:

  1. AIT/AMT are dogma as you correctly point out, perhaps even worse. However, in showing that Talgeri, Archeological evidence etc. have debunked dogma, you are merely arguing against a false religion. My very humble suggestion would be that if you also point out where Talgeri or Archeological evidence, etc. is lacking and where further research could provide stronger agama, if you will, to help generate better hypothesis, I think you will have a much more stronger case to make... this will make Patanjali’s way even stronger for either the researchers you are critical of (even if they are friends) or inspire other younger minds to keep the flame alive.
  2. Myths and Dogmas never die, they are replaced - if you buy this argument. Scholars such as yourself and others have the onus to provide atleast the kernel of the alternate myth or better yet hypothesis that can be validated by others... So it is not only critical that you do that, but also provide other scholars the intuition and insight of critical feedback.

Just some humble feedback for what that is worth...
Love that works you guys are doing! Keep it up!


Thank you. The reason for my delayed response has to do with me losing access to BRF (password and such). Thanks to great BRF team, I am back as of 5 min ago.

1.

If you noticed, subtly, very subtly, I alluded to the problems with any linguistic hypothesis (OIT or AIT), when I stated something like, "Shri Talageri showed, assuming the same rules employed by AIT linguistics team that if at all a language flow took place, it took place from India to outside.)

Shri Talageri (in spite of his remarkable analysis - logical, crips and deductive in arranging relative chronology of Rigveda Manadalas) has blundered on absolute chronology of Rigveda (3400 BCE - 1400 BCE) by falling into the trap of 'absence of evidence = evidence of absence' for chariot wheels and spoked wheels. In fact, during the panel discussion, he alludes that disagreement between him us. I wanted to ensure that (and so did he) that we do not confuse the audience.

2.

The alternate hypothesis will be coming. We did not want to do that (at least I did not want to do it) in the same breath. Shri. Talageri does refer to OIT emphatically in his writings. I claim the same but leave it unsaid....by rather focusing on 1000+ data points evidence from astronomy, geology, hydrology, oceanography, seismology (you will see these talks in one form or another in the near future) that establishes Sanskrit based civilization, inside India long before 2000 BCE (6000 BCE, 13000 BCE, 15000 BCE, 17000+ BCE)

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2304
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 05 Apr 2018 09:15

One of the references provided by Narsimhan, one of the lead author of the paper.

A Bayesian phylogenetic study of the Dravidian language family

"The history of these languages is crucial for understanding prehistory in Eurasia, because despite their current restricted range, these languages played a significant role in influencing other language groups including Indo-Aryan (Indo-European) and Munda (Austroasiatic) speakers. Here, we report the results of a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of cognate-coded lexical data, elicited first hand from native speakers, to investigate the subgrouping of the Dravidian language family, and provide dates for the major points of diversification. Our results indicate that the Dravidian language family is approximately 4500 years old, a finding that corresponds well with earlier linguistic and archaeological studies"


http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 504#sec-17

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 05 Apr 2018 10:17

Nilesh-ji,

To further elaborate on Pragyata - Shri Achar-ji related exchange:

1) Epoch of Arundhati is just not about one observation but observations of various combinations which occurred in certain time frame, strong point is observations' validations.

2) Arundhati walking ahead does not trigger bad omen automatically since the omens are man made, subjective and change value every 50-100 years. + It is itself (the observation) a trigger to write a book where other astronomical observations are confirmed.

3) One can use Planetarium or a voyager, but that cannot make one an astronomer. There is much more to his 'comments' which in no way do justice to the issue at hand, It is just shocking.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 05 Apr 2018 10:26

The Scroll article with Tony bhai, David bhai and other has 'some sort' of vagueness.

1) AIT is obsolete
2) AMT is on shaky ground
3) The new paper with so many inputs from so many scholars, which, according to scroll is still to be PEER reviewed, tries to prove that Some Sort of Aryan Migration (SSAM?) has happened. Also it is claimed that that SOME sort of Migration is KEY to South Asian Population. Paper is not reviewed, sort of 'Some Sort of' is not ascertained but already claimed to Be a KEY.

Perhaps, Probably and Therefore - PPT scholarship

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 05 Apr 2018 11:01

What an Effing fall of aryan theory

From Invasion to Migration to Some Sort of Migration

This wheeling of AIT started with Mortimer Wheeler not long ago in 1946, 72 (!) years have passed , spoke after spoke falling apart, it became a migration theory and since the horses of the chariots have left it is now Some Sort of Migration theory.

Mortimer Wheeler was the first PPT (Perhaps, Probably and Therefore) archaeologist in this game. PPT Scholar disciples are wheeling on his legacy sans spoked wheels, chariot and horses.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

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

Postby Chandragupta » 05 Apr 2018 14:04

Gurus, can someone who has been following the entire debate & knows the technicalities, please create a small document or a post where the current status of AIT is shown? Like what was initially claimed (the original AIT), what it was based on, how many legs of this theory have fallen & why since then, what are the glaring holes in this theory or whatever is left of it, what are the modern evidences that can or have debunked this theory, alternatives to this theory that make more sense etc etc. Basically a digest that the rest of us can read & propagate and use in debates with BIF.

If such a document/post/article exists, kindly do share.

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 05 Apr 2018 15:25

Can somebody Suggest what exactly constitutes steppe ancestry as used liberally in all such papers..something has to be a base ancient population.

And i am of the opinion that all such modelling is based on a predefined direction and hence what fits best even if that means dilution of earlier conclusions as long as they can somehow be still justified..these statistical exercises keep getting forced on us.

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 37
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 05 Apr 2018 16:28

The question that must be asked is how can BMAC have no genetic contribution to later south Asians but so called Andronovo pastoralist who crossed BMAC have and while somehow migrating across BMAC they don't pick any genetic input of this BMAC population but influenced later date south Asians so much so that as soon as they reached Punjab..started composing Vedas and all which they never thought of doing ever before

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4186
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

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

Postby Murugan » 05 Apr 2018 17:18

A good rejoinder by one Mr Adhikari

Dr. Narasimhan,
Respectfully submitting my two bits, some may not stand your scrutiny but a few may.

1. "While we do not have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC)".

With this admission, no concrete arguments can be proposed regarding the IVC. Also, since Indus_Periphery were assumed to be migrant (no other assumption can be made anyway, as admitted by the authors), therefore no theory can be proposed regarding the movement of IVC people southward. Maybe the IVC people were already present in the peninsular India and already mixing with AASI and there was no migration southward as proposed in the 'AIT'. At least this assumption by the authors cannot be used to propagate the AIT.

2. If it is very possible that wheat and barley agriculture as well as goat and sheep herding spread into South Asia after the 7th millennium BCE, then why is AASI and South Asian still termed as 'hunter gatherers' throughout the paper ?

Iranian agriculturalists, Steppe pastoralists but South Asian were hunter gatherers? Even after growing wheat and barley for millennia?

3. Dravidian languages could very well be derived from pre-Indus languages of peninsular India. Which means that,

- at least linguistics cannot be used to prove the spread of Dravidian languages into peninsular India, since these were already existing there prior to the decline of IVC, and therefore - the spread of IVC people into peninsular India cannot be deduced as a result of this.

- Also, this assumption cannot therefore be used to 'prove' that arrival of fair skinned Iranian agriculturalists and Steppe_MLBA people pushed the darker skinned Dravidian people into peninsular India.

4. Brahmins and Bhumihars are not the same. Bhumihars may not be the custodians of ancient texts, they were just landlords. North Indian Brahmins have nothing to do with South Indian Brahmins in the context of sharing the writing of ancient Sanskrit texts. The ancient Sanskrit texts, were all supposed to have been written in Southern India, therefore there can be no linkage proved between the arrival of Iranian agriculturists, Steppe_EMBA, Steppe_MLBA, their mixing with IVC to create ANI and using that to prove that Sanskrit language was passed on to Indians as part of IE language sharing. The texts were written much earlier and in South India, where no admixture sharing was found with the west asian or central asian immigrants. Thus if anything, this proves that the ancient knowledge originated within peninsular India. In any case, Sanskrit has more than 90% of the IE language words as compared to any other language in the world (ancient or modern), and so this very strongly suggests that the IE language moved outward from India and not moved in from outside.

5. South Asians have Steppe ancestry due to Steppe_MLBA cluster, and also high frequency of R1a haplogroup, both of which are absent in Yamnaya, which were of the Steppe_EMBA descent. So how does this lead to a suggestion that Late Proto-Indo-European was the language of the Yamnaya? This is no proof at all that IE was the language of the Yamnaya. And from there the authors go on to suggest that this proto-IE language was the precursor of the advanced Sanskrit language developed in Indian peninsula because of the arrival of the Steppe population in India?

6. Additionally, "there has not been ancient DNA evidence of the chain of transmission to South Asia".
So on what basis, is this theory of eastward transmission of language and knowledge is being propounded?

7. So the actual percentage of Brahmins with Z≥3 signals were 57% of 11% of the samples. That is 6% of the 74 groups analyzed. This fact is being used to prove that "ones having relatively more Steppe ancestry having a central role in spreading early Vedic culture"?

8. This is the theory being propounded for South Asia:

West Asian agricultural technology spread from an origin in the Near East in the 7th and 6th millennia BCE via the Iranian plateau, with the technological spreads mediated by movements of people. An admixed population was then formed by the mixing of incoming agriculturalists and resident hunter-gatherers in South Asia eventually giving rise to the Indus_Periphery and ASI. Populations related to the Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists arrived after this agriculturalist and hunter-gatherer admixture took place, interacting with local populations to produce mixed groups, which then mixed further with already resident agriculturalist populations to produce genetic groupings such as those found associated with Corded Ware and artifacts, and the ANI genetic cluster in South Asia.

9. This is what it enforces:

Prior to the arrival of west Asian agriculturists around 6th or 7th millennia, no agriculture or advanced technology existed in ancient India, even after thousands of years of temperate zone existence resulting in abundance of flora and fauna, abundance of river systems and fertile agricultural land and knowing now that hundreds of seeds were originally found only in the Indian peninsula. In spite of all this, all of India remained hunter gatherers without any idea of growing plants.

Next development in the spoken language only happened after the arrival of the Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists around 1300 BCE, who brought with them the gift of the advanced IE languages which resulted in the local population learning to speak Sanskrit and somehow developing it much more than the rest of the world did with their part of the IE group along with the highly developed Tamil language, both of which are part of the IE and have some of the most advanced literature written India.

10. This is what it misses:

No research has been quoted on who the AASI were or who the IVC people were (other than that these people originated from the Onge), how advanced their knowledge was prior to the arrival of any Iranians or Steppe population and if indeed these people were the originator of the knowledge systems and the IE group of languages which spread westward after the arrival of the Iranians and Steppe people.

It needs to be mentioned that neither the language, nor any advanced literature was written by either of the immigrant people in their lands of origin even after thousands of years of existence. It happened only in India. Not because of the arrival of the outsiders, but in spite of that.[


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bart S, saip, Shakthi, Supratik and 45 guests