Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 16 May 2017 02:30

ESHG 2017 abstracts

The titles are already up but the abstracts will only be available this Saturday, May 13. The programme planner and abstract search engine are here. Below are links to a few random abstracts that caught my eye.

To be brutally honest, I suspect that the Rai et al. presentation on South Asian population history (first link below) won't amount to much more than a preemptive strike against the impending confirmation via ancient DNA that the Aryan invasion really did happen. In other words, I expect them to argue for strong genetic continuity in South Asia since at least the Neolithic and against the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical and I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but I think it's a good bet, considering the many papers put out by Indian scientists over the past 15 years or so arguing that both the Indo-Aryans and "Aryan" Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a are native to South Asia. At best this is naive, and at worst plain crazy, but that doesn't seem to bother many of our Indian friends. Nevertheless, the ancient DNA sequenced as part of the Rai et al. study, when analyzed properly, should be very useful and I look forward to seeing it...................


http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/05/es ... racts.html

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9614
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 16 May 2017 02:56


gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 16 May 2017 08:11

This latest paper. What do authors mean by the following line"

"The results of our computer simulations are compared to recent genetic data so as to better correlate the migratory patterns of various populations; they suggest that the initial populations started to coalesce around 4,000 YBP before the commencement of a period of relative geographical isolation of each population group"

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0176985

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 16 May 2017 09:34


Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 16 May 2017 22:29

The paper uses a mathematical model based on Fisher's equation (a reaction diffusion equation with positive constant parameters) to estimate patterns of population migration, and admixture, in the Indian subcontinent starting from 10kya.

It begins with the assumption that at least three of the five ancestral groups identified by Moorjani et al (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/) and Basu et al ( http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full.pdf) using genome-wide analysis: Ancestral North Indian (ANI), Ancestral South Indian (ASI), and Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) began diffusing throughout the subcontinent from putative locations of origin around 10kya. Some would say this is actually a low estimate; according to the authors they may have arrived as many as 60 kya, but 10kya is the late-bound hypothesis they go with.

Note: The fourth group identified by the Moorjani and Basu studies is Ancestral Tibeto Burman (ATB), which probably only entered the subcontinent much more recently than the first three; and the fifth is almost entirely restricted to the Andaman Islands. However, virtually every Indian likely harbors genetic markers from both the ANI and ASI groups.

Using a computer simulation of preferential migratory patterns in which various parameters of Fisher's equation are modeled using satellite data: altitude, slope of land, proximity to water etc, the authors show that by 4000 years ago, ASI, ANI, and AAA had moved ALL over the subcontinent and admixture of populations had already begun. In effect, their data support the hypothesis that, even if ASI/ANI/AAA had begun diffusing from singular places of origin only 10kya, they would have spread all over the subcontinent, and commenced interbreeding with each other, as of 4 kya. Importantly, the authors note that 4 kya is roughly contemporaneous with the IVC.

Meaning: By the time IVC (and putatively, Saraswati civilization) were in existence, the "Ancestral North Indian" population (with many markers in common with Central Asian and European populations) and "Ancestral South Indian" population had already intermingled. The genetic admixture we see of ANI and ASI markers throughout India, had already happened as of IVC. In fact, in one of the simulations run by the authors, it is already occurring by 6 kya.

Therefore: the ANI population migrated into India well before dates of "Aryan Invasion Theory" posited by race-mongering Western Indologists (1500 BCE or thereabouts). After all if ANI and ASI had already intermingled by 4000 years ago, then both groups must have been present in India very long before that.

The "relative geographical isolation" refers to the Fisher-equation based model hitting a steady state at about 4 kya (in a simulation that begins 10 kya) where the overall level of migration becomes less extensive and more discontinuous, probably because tribes had staked out their pieces of territory separated by natural barriers like mountains or rivers. With less migration comes less admixture.

This is distinct from the deliberate practice of endogamy, also indicated by genetic sampling of caste and tribe groups, to have begun around 70 generations (~1600 years) ago during the Gupta era. That was a normative preference rather than a product of geographical isolation.

None of this has any bearing on the validity of an "Out of India" hypothesis... indeed, the paper builds on a body of evidence arguing that the ANI group clearly migrated from somewhere else into India at some later date than the ASI and AAA groups.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 16 May 2017 22:57

The OOI has two major sections of archaeological & literary evidence that is being ignored:

1. The IVC site of Shortugai, on the Amu Darya, represents the first, irrefutable 'trans-Hindu Kush' crossing of a culture. Ie, it is the first archaeological evidence of a culture crossing the Hindu Kush, in any direction.

2. The Greek sources **CLEARLY** mention that the Persians first became kings of Anshan, under Tiespes, father of Cyrus I, who is father of Cambyses I, who is the father of Cyrus II, also known as Cyrus the Great, founder of the Achaemenid Empire. Cyrus I is also called 'king of Anshan' by his Assyrian overlords.
Anshan is East of Persepolis, Susa, Pasargadae, etc. This shows an east-to-west movement of the Persians, who if Indian epic literature can be trusted, would've been inhabitants of the Sistan basin, i.e. modern day Zaranj-Qandahar region.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 17 May 2017 03:21

People keep forgetting that OOI doesn't mean that ANI is indigenous to the subcontinent. What is indigenous is the vedic culture which once established went OOI. Nothing else. Once you go past 1700 BC AIT is dead. At the most you can argue AMT >1700 at the very least which later became OOI. But even that is a bit stupid considering that every single ethnic group on earth isn't technical indigenous to their respective territorial domains. They all came from somewhere, mixed w/ other groups, went back and forth, etc.

Talegeri already proved that Hittites were one of these groups who went out. The loan words in the new books and their absence in the old books are proof. Also, endogomy only goes back 70 generations so it couldn't have been a vedic invention (I still have a problem however w/ the 22.5 number they chose)

All this genetics business is just time pass shit. It matters to a few linguists/indologists with a lot of clout who hold onto AIT or Pollockian theory.

Hopefully w/ this paper we can just put this issue to rest and move away from this AIT/Pollockian nonsense. You can come up w/ millions of permutations for population mixing and transfer to give you that 5 sec ooo ahh. We are one of the great if not greatest civilization of the world. We have enough to worry about. Rest easy. All those old colonial theories are already refuted.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 17 May 2017 03:51

RoyG wrote:People keep forgetting that OOI doesn't mean that ANI is indigenous to the subcontinent. What is indigenous is the vedic culture which once established went OOI. Nothing else. Once you go past 1700 BC AIT is dead. At the most you can argue AMT >1700 at the very least which later became OOI. But even that is a bit stupid considering that every single ethnic group on earth isn't technical indigenous to their respective territorial domains. They all came from somewhere, mixed w/ other groups, went back and forth, etc.

Talegeri already proved that Hittites were one of these groups who went out. The loan words in the new books and their absence in the old books are proof. Also, endogomy only goes back 70 generations so it couldn't have been a vedic invention (I still have a problem however w/ the 22.5 number they chose)

All this genetics business is just time pass shit. It matters to a few linguists/indologists with a lot of clout who hold onto AIT or Pollockian theory.

Hopefully w/ this paper we can just put this issue to rest and move away from this AIT/Pollockian nonsense. You can come up w/ millions of permutations for population mixing and transfer to give you that 5 sec ooo ahh. We are one of the great if not greatest civilization of the world. We have enough to worry about. Rest easy. All those old colonial theories are already refuted.


Indeed. AMT just doesn't make sense in so many levels.

We can show a close correlation between Vedic sanctity and geography of the IVC.

What is often ignored in the Rig Vedas in IVC/pre-IVC is the interesting literary reference in the Smritis about 'Brahmavarta'- where the Vedas themselves are composed(or passed down) allegedly, corresponding VERY CLOSELY to the ancestral heart of IVC: which is western Haryana/Northern Rajasthan.

a)This is the archaeological location of IVC's nucleus : first proto-IVC site is here (Bhirrana). First large scale city is here : Rakhigarhi (total size is largest city of IVC, oldest city of IVC as well, being about 1500+ years older than Mohenjo Daro).

b) This is also the location of Brahmavarta : the land bordering Kuru, Panchala, Matsya and Surasena makes it an arc of NE Rajsthan to NW Rajasthan, including SW Haryana. Our texts extoll this region as 'central' to Vedic culture.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 17 May 2017 09:20

RoyG wrote:
All this genetics business is just time pass shit. It matters to a few linguists/indologists with a lot of clout who hold onto AIT or Pollockian theory.

.


Hardly.

Genetics, like paleoastronomy or textual analysis or carbon dating, is a tool for gathering data. As with any other tool, the data one can gather with genetics is only as useful as one's ability to interpret it correctly.

Indeed, if negating Aryan Invasion Theory is all one wants to achieve, a considerable body of work in pop gen has already done as good a job of that as the present study with its mathematical model of migration and admixture. Here is a summary of it by Michel Danino, posted previously on this thread:
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/ ... yan-debate

It would be entirely self defeating to dismiss genetics as the exclusive province of the Pollockians and AIT mongers, because ignorance of the field will only make it easier for them to pass off their jaundiced interpretations and snake-oil conclusions without challenge.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 17 May 2017 10:36

Rudradev wrote:
RoyG wrote:
All this genetics business is just time pass shit. It matters to a few linguists/indologists with a lot of clout who hold onto AIT or Pollockian theory.

.


Hardly.

Genetics, like paleoastronomy or textual analysis or carbon dating, is a tool for gathering data. As with any other tool, the data one can gather with genetics is only as useful as one's ability to interpret it correctly.

Indeed, if negating Aryan Invasion Theory is all one wants to achieve, a considerable body of work in pop gen has already done as good a job of that as the present study with its mathematical model of migration and admixture. Here is a summary of it by Michel Danino, posted previously on this thread:
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/ ... yan-debate

It would be entirely self defeating to dismiss genetics as the exclusive province of the Pollockians and AIT mongers, because ignorance of the field will only make it easier for them to pass off their jaundiced interpretations and snake-oil conclusions without challenge.


In my experience, AIT-mongerer's primary weapon is their flawed understanding of linguistics. Genetics is secondary to them, as most of the AIT proponents are western academia historians and not biologists/geneticists.
What we need, in order to make sense of genetics, is a larger timeframe than 5-6K YBP.
For eg, R1a apparently arose 24-22K YBP. A genetic study needs to look at these kind of timeframes to be of any use.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 17 May 2017 20:51

SriJoy wrote:
In my experience, AIT-mongerer's primary weapon is their flawed understanding of linguistics. Genetics is secondary to them, as most of the AIT proponents are western academia historians and not biologists/geneticists.


Pollock and his acolytes are anything but scientists. However, they will not hesitate to (ab)use the findings of genetics to claim corroboration for their views. Ignorance of genetics on the part of their opponents will only allow them to claim whatever they want, without being challenged on their distortive interpretations of the data and its implications.

In the ecosystem of Western academia, the hierarchy of influence ranges in the opposite direction. Pollockian and AIT charlatans are the arch-gurus who have established what the discourse must be. Their narrative is used as a first-principle assumption by many population geneticists, pre-emptively introducing confirmation bias into their interpretations of what they find. People like Spencer Wells are typical of this syndrome: not genuine scientists, but lab-mercenaries whose entire agenda is to fabricate what looks like genetic evidence for the AIT, while obfuscating any results that do not serve to validate their preconceived notions.

What we need, in order to make sense of genetics, is a larger timeframe than 5-6K YBP.
For eg, R1a apparently arose 24-22K YBP. A genetic study needs to look at these kind of timeframes to be of any use.
]

Just because one particular genetic marker is estimated to have emerged at one particular time in history... you conclude it is valid to generalize its time frame of origin to ALL types of data in this field of study?

A little reading of basic population genetics will inform you that this is not the case. STRs, for example, typically resolve on a very different temporal order (~few centuries) than unique-event SNPs like the T->A point mutation which defined R1a. And while many of the earliest discovered Y-SNPs were thought of as having arisen tens of millennia ago, Big-Y and Full-Y sequencing tests have revealed the existence of several SNPs that are various orders of magnitude more recent than that, some even fewer than 1000 years old.

With progressively more robust and high-throughput sequencing techniques, the number and variety of recognized polymorphisms continues to grow exponentially, providing markers that resolve across the whole gamut of timescales that may be of interest.

That said, any technique of gathering data is only as useful as one's ability to interpret it... and that requires a little knowledge up front regarding what the data actually means and is capable of telling you.

Genetics will probably never provide solid, unimpeachable dating of historical events with any significant degree of accuracy, because that is simply not the nature of the data it can be used to gather or analyze... absolute times of clade origins, for example, are a matter of fairly broad speculation. Textual techniques like Talegeri's linguistic analysis or archaeo-astronomical cross referencing, if available, are much likelier to date an event in absolute terms.

However, genetics can provide excellent corroboration of many things, including the temporal order of historical events (if not their exact dates) and trends of migration and admixture. Indeed, in the paper we have been discussing on this page of the forum, Vahia et al (2017) have used genetic analysis of various Indian tribal groups to corroborate the conclusions derived from their mathematical model of population diffusion. Genetics can also demonstrate a total absence of the observations that would necessarily be expected if a theory like the AIT were historical fact.

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 18 May 2017 00:29

Rudradev wrote:Pollock and his acolytes are anything but scientists. However, they will not hesitate to (ab)use the findings of genetics to claim corroboration for their views. Ignorance of genetics on the part of their opponents will only allow them to claim whatever they want, without being challenged on their distortive interpretations of the data and its implications.

In the ecosystem of Western academia, the hierarchy of influence ranges in the opposite direction. Pollockian and AIT charlatans are the arch-gurus who have established what the discourse must be. Their narrative is used as a first-principle assumption by many population geneticists, pre-emptively introducing confirmation bias into their interpretations of what they find. People like Spencer Wells are typical of this syndrome: not genuine scientists, but lab-mercenaries whose entire agenda is to fabricate what looks like genetic evidence for the AIT, while obfuscating any results that do not serve to validate their preconceived notions.


Indeed. Slowly but surely, this narrative is changing, predominantly because people are slowly starting to question the linguistic model.

Many moons ago, i sat in a lecture by the infamous Michael Witzel while visiting a friend in Harvard. A few simple questions about linguistic chronology is all it took to get him bent out of shape- tried to tell me that I don't understand science (poor fellow assumed i am an Arts student coz i sat in his lecture room) but then resorted to cheap name-calling as a 'nationalist and hinduvta' when i pointed out that my education is in engineering, i know WAY MORE science than him and a mathematical dating cannot be scientific without an error range- which, none of the linguists can provide for a language that isn't documented. Had atleast one student going 'i am questioning the time-line validity of PIE or such constructed language models'.

The fight is real, but we simply do not have enough Desis in the western world who care to engage the western academia and expose their biases. Almost all of them are from India, which helps the western academia muddy the waters through divisive name calling like nationalist or hinduvta.

To the western academia/Malsis, i am hinduvta. To a hinduvta, I am a 'libtard'. Kind of makes one chuckle.
:P

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9614
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 18 May 2017 02:14

By the way, we're all aware of this problem, I think. I'll cast it in terms of the Aryan Invasion Theory. Emphasis added.
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017 ... moats.html

I don't know why academic literatures are so often referred to as "vast" (the phrase goes back well over a century), but it seems like no matter what topic you talk about, someone is always popping up to inform you that there is a "vast literature" on the topic already. This often serves to shut down debate, because it amounts to a demand that before you talk about something, you need to go read voluminous amounts of what others have already written about it. Since vast literatures take many, many hours to read, this represents a significant demand of time and effort. If the vast literature comprises 40 papers, each of which takes an hour to read, that's one week of full-time work equivalent that people are demanding as a cost of entry just to participate in a debate! So the question is: Is it worth it?


The next question is: Can a misinformative vast literature be used intentionally as a tactic to win political debates? It seems to me that in principle it could. Suppose you and your friends wanted to push a weak argument for political purposes. You could all write a bunch of papers about it, with abstracts and numbered sections and bibliographies and everything. You could cite each other's papers. If you wanted to, you could even create a journal, and have a peer review system where you give positive reviews to each other's B.S. papers. Voila - a peer-reviewed literature chock full of misinformation.


So if there's a fundamentally bad argument that many people embrace for political reasons, there's an incentive for academics (or would-be academics) to contribute to a vast literature that is used to push that bad argument.

And in the world of intellectual debate, this vast literature can function as a mud moat. That is a term I just made up, sticking with the metaphor of political arguments as medieval castles requiring a defense. A mud moat is just a big pit of mud surrounding your castle, causing an attacking army to get trapped in the mud while you pepper them with arrows.


Now here's the important way of getting past the mud moat:

So when I want to talk and think and argue about an issue, and someone says "How about you go read the vast literature on this topic first?", I'm presented with a dilemma. On one hand, reading the vast literature might in fact improve my knowledge. On the other hand, it might be a waste of time. And even worse, it might be a trap - I might be charging headlong into a rhetoritician's mud moat. But choosing not to read the vast literature keeps me vulnerable to charges of ignorance. And I'll never really be able to dismiss those charges.

My solution to this problem is what I call the Two Paper Rule. If you want me to read the vast literature, cite me two papers that are exemplars and paragons of that literature. Foundational papers, key recent innovations - whatever you like (but no review papers or summaries). Just two. I will read them.

If these two papers are full of mistakes and bad reasoning, I will feel free to skip the rest of the vast literature. Because if that's the best you can do, I've seen enough.

If these two papers contain little or no original work, and merely link to other papers, I will also feel free to skip the rest of the vast literature. Because you could have just referred me to the papers cited, instead of making me go through an extra layer, I will assume your vast literature is likely to be a mud moat.

And if you can't cite two papers that serve as paragons or exemplars of the vast literature, it means that the knowledge contained in that vast literature must be very diffuse and sparse. Which means it has a high likelihood of being a mud moat.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46927
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby ramana » 18 May 2017 03:10

^^^
A_Gupta bravo.

I can see multiple uses for your two papers rule to bridge mud moats of arguments.

We can call them two sources rule too.

Will call this "A_Gupta Two Papers/Sources Rule"!!!

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9614
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 18 May 2017 04:46

^^^It is "Noah Smith's Rule". He was applying it to particular topics in economics; but I think it also applies to Indology.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6734
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 18 May 2017 11:17

>>To the western academia/Malsis, i am hinduvta. To a hinduvta, I am a 'libtard'. Kind of makes one chuckle.

This is in fact becoming more and more of a problem. You can track it on Twitter, winding its way like a vicious virus through segments of the twitterati - and it is as dangerous as the leftist and psecular versions. Lazy intellects love labels.

I am also certain that some of it is deliberately fanned by the dominant elites in order to have convenient straw-men. But it is up to those who feel they are actually loyal to the motto of "Satyam Eva Jayate" to notice it. It may require a little more attention from some of the well-meaning folk who tend to shoot from the hip now and then. People like Tavleen Singh and Sadhanand Dhume are getting creamed on line for expressing a point of view which is not 100% aligned with some imagined hard-right position. Not that they are always right or cannot be questioned, but when it gets personal it does not help the civilisation we are trying to protect, safeguard and nurture.

In any case, it is also part of the game. With my limited knowledge of the our own traditions and scriptures, one wonderful takeaway I have is black's admonition to white: think not of the reward, do your duty (paraphrasing). That's what I try to do. But I do admit, sometimes it is tiresome.

Added later: Sh1t just saw what thread it is - sorry for the OT boys/girls. I should be the one moderating :-? :roll:

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9614
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 19 May 2017 04:40

^^^ But an excellent reminder, JEM!

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9614
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 19 May 2017 16:40

http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/au ... ralia.aspx
Four Thousand Years Ago Indians Landed in Australia

PS:
Sorry, this dates from 2013:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1803.full
Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4954
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

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

Postby RoyG » 20 May 2017 07:15

Hardly.

Genetics, like paleoastronomy or textual analysis or carbon dating, is a tool for gathering data. As with any other tool, the data one can gather with genetics is only as useful as one's ability to interpret it correctly.

Indeed, if negating Aryan Invasion Theory is all one wants to achieve, a considerable body of work in pop gen has already done as good a job of that as the present study with its mathematical model of migration and admixture. Here is a summary of it by Michel Danino, posted previously on this thread:
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/ ... yan-debate

It would be entirely self defeating to dismiss genetics as the exclusive province of the Pollockians and AIT mongers, because ignorance of the field will only make it easier for them to pass off their jaundiced interpretations and snake-oil conclusions without challenge.


You misunderstand. Genetics doesn't prove that vedic culture was oppressive. How can it? The endogamy paper was the last nail in the coffin. If endogamy began 70 generations ago rather than in 1700-1500 BC than how can you say that the racist fascist sh*thead brahmin that everyone in the academy seems to hate oppressed the negro in IVC? They seemed to be mixing just fine.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 20 May 2017 09:03

RoyG wrote:
You misunderstand. Genetics doesn't prove that vedic culture was oppressive. How can it? The endogamy paper was the last nail in the coffin. If endogamy began 70 generations ago rather than in 1700-1500 BC than how can you say that the racist fascist sh*thead brahmin that everyone in the academy seems to hate oppressed the negro in IVC? They seemed to be mixing just fine.


That is obvious.

What I don't understand (and was responding to) is why, given this, you referred to genetics as "time pass shit". That endogamy finding is from a study examining differential block lengths of ancestral haplotypes by Basu et al... showing that genetics is a good source of corroboration for this and for many other facts that bust the AIT mafia's canards.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1273
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 20 May 2017 11:52

European Invasion Theory

There is a dire need to scientifically evaluate "European Invasion Theory" -
this weaseling out that there is no one pure - itself reeks of rasicms that there ought to be 'pure' but unfortunately there is'nt :evil:

His team studied DNA from 51 Europeans and Asians who lived 7000 to 45,000 years ago. They found that most of the DNA in living Europeans originated in three major migrations, starting with hunter-gatherers who came from the Middle East as the glaciers retreated 19,000 to 14,000 years ago. In a second migration about 9000 years ago, farmers from northwestern Anatolia, in what is now Greece and Turkey, moved in.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 20 May 2017 17:34

Eagerly looking forward to 28th May. I thought the ancestral DNA from Rakhigiri had still not been analyzed & received back from South Korea. If Rai et al have done some analysis with it, it should be mighty interesting.

Rudradev Ji: the ANI & ASI dates are so ancient (40-50 KYA) that they have no bearing on AIT/AMT/ATT (last one is Aryan Tourist Theory). ANI/ASI have to do with Out of Africa migrations.

The interesting thing about the latest paper by Mayank et al, is that it seems to directly contradict Priya Moorjani's paper. The latter claimed that admixture happened in the 4200 - 1900 YBP timeframe (Priya however cautioned that this admixture does not mean AIT. Its very likely a local affair). In Mayank's paper, the authors claim that admixture had happened pre-4000 YBP and after that, there is a period of isolation.

Maybe there is a nuance that I am missing.

Mayank's paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176985

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5923
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

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

Postby disha » 21 May 2017 01:57

JE Menon wrote:People like Tavleen Singh and Sadhanand Dhume are getting creamed on line for expressing a point of view which is not 100% aligned with some imagined hard-right position. Not that they are always right or cannot be questioned, but when it gets personal it does not help the civilisation we are trying to protect, safeguard and nurture.


Since you broached it up and forgot your 'raj dharma' :D ., you will pay the price of listening to me in this thread where there is passing relevance.

Tavleen singh did the equivalent of gutter inspection in Gorakhpur, UP. And Dhume along with Alyssa Ayres Fmr. Assistant secretary of state are crypto-BI forces. Particularly Dhume and Alyssa want to give credence to "Daleeet as indigenous and oppressed" line of thinking.

$$$$

There is the narration of an Indian in roman times who has to pay fines in gold in rome when after a bar room brawl. Point is., Indians went all the way to Australia some 4-5000 years ago. They might have also used the sea route to Yemen/Socotra (sukhadara) and up the red sea to egypt and then on to greece/rome.

So as glaciers receded, the reservoir of humanity from India went back and repopulated Eurasia and rest of the world. In a nutshell Out-of-India migration.

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 21 May 2017 12:26

JEM Ji: forgive this indulgence.

People like Dhume are being taken to the cleaners, not because he doesn't toe a particular line, but because he tweeted crap. It went something like "In 2011, only morons predicted that Modi will become PM" (well, Cho Ramaswamy predicted it in 2009). Dhume himself famously "predicted" that BJP might have a chance in 2014 if they dropped Modi as PM candidate.

When someone displays such bufoonery, they should expect their ass handed to them.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6734
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 21 May 2017 21:51

Guys this is OT here. Got to take it elsewhere, maybe the NGO, Media watch threat in GDF...

OK, I've moved Disha's post there. Prem Kumar, please copy paste your post there too if you wish.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6734
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 21 May 2017 22:30

Has anyone seen this??? Stunning. How come no one has heard of this? I haven't read of this anywhere so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebYNIaqtfi8

Is it a fake or something? Someone placed it there recently to take a photo and claim "temple"? It is unlikely that it "fell off a ship"... Then there would be other artefacts nearby. Highly unlikely it fell off and landed perfectly postured.

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 28 May 2017 04:11

Results

Haplogroup U, with a founder age around 50 kya, is one of the oldest clades of macrohaplogroup R in western Asia. The main branches of U expanded in successive waves across West, Central and South Asia before the Last Glacial Maximum. All these dispersions had rather overlapping ranges. Some of them, as those of U6 and U3, reached North Africa. At the other end of Asia, in Wallacea, another branch of macrohaplogroup R, haplogroup P, also independently expanded in the area around 52 kya, in this case as isolated bursts geographically well structured, with autochthonous branches in Australia, New Guinea, and the Philippines.

Conclusions
Coeval independently dispersals around 50 kya of the West Asia haplogroup U and the Wallacea haplogroup P, points to a halfway core area in southeast Asia as the most probable centre of expansion of macrohaplogroup R, what fits in the phylogeographic pattern of its ancestor, macrohaplogroup N, for which a northern route and a southeast Asian origin has been already proposed.

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/a ... 017-0964-5

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6734
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 28 May 2017 10:31

I don't know if this was posted here before, so just in case it has not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l7VsR-dW-c

Dr. P. Priyadarshi at IITK- History of Ancient India over last 1 lakh years

An utterly hopeless speaker in my opinion, faster acting than chloroform. But still listen for the facts.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6734
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 28 May 2017 13:28

Following up from the above talk, check this one out (don't know if posted earlier). Well worth watching.

The Journey of Man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xTG6VXlIQ

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6734
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

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

Postby JE Menon » 29 May 2017 13:53

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5mp_y ... gest-vrecs

The Yoga of Yoda by Dr. Jeffrey Long. In my opinion sympathetic (so far, haven't seen it all yet).

Also out of India happening as we speak...

Prem Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1961
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 May 2017 00:44

Any news on the ancient DNA presentation by Rai, Thangaraj et al, which was supposed to happen on the 28th?

Googleswara returned nothing

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 30 May 2017 09:20

This is a new paper published in MArch 2017.

Genetic signals of Indo-European expansions

Contrary to earlier studies [99, 100], recent analyses of Y-chromosome sequence data [55, 58, 94] suggest that haplogroup R1a expanded both west and east across Eurasia during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age. R1a-M17 (R1a-M198 or R1a1a) accounts for 17.5% of male lineages in Indian data overall, and it displays significantly higher frequencies in Indo-European than in Dravidian speakers [55].
There are now sufficient high-quality Y-chromosome data available (especially Poznik et al. [58]) to be able to draw clear conclusions about the timing and direction of dispersal of R1a (Fig. 5). The indigenous South Asian subclades are too young to signal Early Neolithic dispersals from Iran, and strongly support Bronze Age incursions from Central Asia. The derived R1a-Z93 and the further derived R1a-Z94 subclades harbour the bulk of Central and South Asian R1a lineages [55, 58], as well as including some Russian and European lineages, and have been variously dated to 5.6 [4.0;7.3] ka [55], 4.5–5.3 ka with expansions ~4.0–4.5 ka [58], or 4.7 [4.0;5.5] ka (Yfull tree v4.10 [54]). The South Asian R1a-L657, dated to ~4.2 ka [3.3;5.1] (Yfull tree v4.10 [54]]), is the largest (in the 1KG dataset) of several closely related subclades within R1a-Z94 of very similar time depth. Moreover, not only has R1a been found in all Sintashta and Sintashta-derived Andronovo and Srubnaya remains analysed to date at the genome-wide level (nine in total) [76, 77], and been previously identified in a majority of Andronovo (2/3) and post-Andronovo Iron Age (Tagar and Tachtyk: 6/6) male samples from southern central Siberia tested using microsatellite analysis [101], it has also been identified in other remains across Europe and Central Asia ranging from the Mesolithic up until the Iron Age (Fig. 5).

The other major member of haplogroup R in South Asia, R2, shows a strikingly different pattern. It also has deep non-Subcontinental branches, nesting a South Asian specific subclade. But the deep lineages are mainly seen in the eastern part of the Near East, rather than Central Asia or eastern Europe, and the Subcontinental specific subclade is older, dating to ~8 ka [55].

Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia, although dated aDNA evidence will be needed for a precise estimate of its arrival in various parts of the Subcontinent. aDNA will also be needed to test the hypothesis that there were several streams of Indo-Aryan immigration (each with a different pantheon), for example with the earliest arriving ~3.4 ka and those following the Rigveda several centuries later [12]. Although they are closely related, suggesting they likely spread from a single Central Asian source pool, there do seem to be at least three and probably more R1a founder clades within the Subcontinent [58], consistent with multiple waves of arrival. Genomic Y-chromosome phylogeography is in its infancy compared to mitogenome analysis so it is of course likely that the picture will evolve with sequencing of further South Asian Y-chromosomes, but the picture is already sufficiently clear that we do not expect it to change drastically.


https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/a ... 017-0936-9

SriJoy
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 20 Apr 2017 23:21

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

Postby SriJoy » 30 May 2017 11:40

^^^
This article claims exactly the opposite:

Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists

Sanghamitra Sengupta, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Roy King, S.Q. Mehdi, Christopher A. Edmonds, Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow, Alice A. Lin, Mitashree Mitra, Samir K. Sil, A. Ramesh, M.V. Usha Rani, Chitra M. Thakur, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder'Correspondence information about the author Partha P. MajumderEmail the author Partha P. Majumder, Peter A. Underhill
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)62353-2

gandharva
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2285
Joined: 30 Jan 2008 23:22

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

Postby gandharva » 31 May 2017 20:37

Is this near east Arab lands?

The first genome data from ancient Egyptian mummies

The study, published in Nature Communications, found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with Sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Near East


https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot ... cient.html

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 31 May 2017 22:17

Prem Kumar wrote:Eagerly looking forward to 28th May. I thought the ancestral DNA from Rakhigiri had still not been analyzed & received back from South Korea. If Rai et al have done some analysis with it, it should be mighty interesting.

Rudradev Ji: the ANI & ASI dates are so ancient (40-50 KYA) that they have no bearing on AIT/AMT/ATT (last one is Aryan Tourist Theory). ANI/ASI have to do with Out of Africa migrations.


Prem Kumar ji, this is by no means a conclusively proven fact. Indeed, if you read the very same Priya Moorjani paper that you refer to below, it says clearly:

Although genetic studies and other lines of evidence are consistent in pointing to mixture of distinct groups in Indian history, the dates are unknown.

Three different hypotheses (which are not mutually exclusive) seem most plausible for migrations that could have brought together people of ANI and ASI ancestry in India.

The first hypothesis is that the current geographic distribution of people with West Eurasian genetic affinities is due to migrations that occurred prior to the development of agriculture. Evidence for this comes from mitochondrial DNA studies, which have shown that the mitochondrial haplogroups (hg U2, U7, and W) that are most closely shared between Indians and West Eurasians diverged about 30,000–40,000 years BP.3,14

The second is that Western Asian peoples migrated to India along with the spread of agriculture; such mass movements are plausible because they are known to have occurred in Europe as has been directly documented by ancient DNA.15,16 Any such agriculture-related migrations would probably have begun at least 8,000–9,000 years BP (based on the dates for Mehrgarh) and may have continued into the period of the Indus civilization that began around 4,600 years BP and depended upon West Asian crops.17

The third possibility is that West Eurasian genetic affinities in India owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that Indo-European languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI.18,19

It is also important to recognize that a date of mixture is very different from the date of a migration; in particular, mixture always postdates migration. Nevertheless, a genetic date for the mixture would place a minimum on the date of migration and identify periods of important demographic change in India.


In other words the source of various markers associated with the ANI population, identified as being of W.Eurasian/Caucasian origin, is still up for debate.

The OOI people will go with the first or second hypothesis outlined above (pre-agricultural, or agricultural-age in-migration of ANI into the Indian subcontinent).

The AIT people would like to use the third hypothesis to claim that these W.Eurasian/Caucasian genetic markers came into the Indian subcontinent only 3000-4000 years ago, i.e. arriving after the Indus Valley Civilization had peaked, and bringing in the Vedas/Hinduism/Sanskrit etc. with them from the Steppes, etc.


Prem Kumar wrote:The interesting thing about the latest paper by Mayank et al, is that it seems to directly contradict Priya Moorjani's paper. The latter claimed that admixture happened in the 4200 - 1900 YBP timeframe (Priya however cautioned that this admixture does not mean AIT. Its very likely a local affair). In Mayank's paper, the authors claim that admixture had happened pre-4000 YBP and after that, there is a period of isolation.

Maybe there is a nuance that I am missing.

Mayank's paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176985


Not a nuance, it is just that the two papers use entirely different methodologies to arrive at their respective conclusions.

Moorjani et al is a purely genetic study. It considers a dataset of over 500,000 SNPs covering both Indian and non-Indian populations, analyzed using what they call a "rolloff statistic". For each pair of SNPs at a known genetic distance from each other, the authors calculate a weighted covariance between them, which is then use to estimate the linkage disequilibrium caused by population admixture (gene flow between genetically distinct populations can create what is known as "admixture linkage disequilibrium" among all loci hat have different allele frequencies in the founding populations). By plotting weighted covariance against genetic distance for different pairs of SNPs, and fitting these data to an exponential function in ALDER software (more on that technique here: http://www.genetics.org/content/193/4/1233.full ) the authors determine upper and lower bounds for number of generations ago that the ANI and ASI populations mixed.

They conclude:

By fitting an exponential function using least-squares (via rolloff), our point estimates for the dates range from 64 to 144 generations ago, or 1,856 to 4,176 years assuming 29 years per generation


Mayank Vahia et al, on the other hand, use a completely different methodology which I have briefly reviewed in this previous post: viewtopic.php?p=2157220#p2157220

It is based on geographical data and estimates migratory patterns for three founder populations: ANI, ASI, and AAA (Ancestral Austro-Asiatic), diffusing from different starting points. The diffusion is simulated using a computer model based on Fisher's equation with different parameters that determine how desirable any given location would be (climate, water availability, altitude etc.)

Their finding is that the three populations would necessarily have been intermingled geographically by 6000 years ago and definitely by 4000 years ago.

So while Moorjani et al place an "early bound" of 4200 years for genetic admixture between ASI and ANI, Vahia et al place a "late bound" of 4000 years for intermingling between ASI and ANI populations as a result of migration.

These are NOT contradictory results. Unless we accept the highly unlikely premise that ASI and ANI populations were physically/geographically intermingled by 4000 years ago BUT for some reason never had any interbreeding for centuries or millennia after that (which Occam's Razor would obliterate), the conclusion is that ASI and ANI populations mostly mixed together in the time period circumscribed by geographic and genetic studies i.e. between 4200 and 4000 years ago. This would be around the time that IVC/Sarawsati civilzation were rising or at their apex... and several centuries before even the earliest estimates of "Aryan Invasion" touted by the AIT charlatans.

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 31 May 2017 22:52

Please note that those findings also state that ANI has been separated from its closest West-Eurasian relatives by 20,000 YBP. So if ANI is AIT/AMT/ATT, then ANI was not intermingling with fellow West-Eurasians for 20,000 years but as soon as entering India they vigorously mixed with local ASI's? That sounds ludicrous.

I think what the findings are showing is that by the advent of last Ice Age, both ANI and ASI are inside of Indian subcontinent, and well stabilized and isolated geographically both from each other as well as outside groups. The vigorous mixing showing up genetically from 4000 YBP is from IVC collapsing from drying up river beds and ANI's moving southeast. Also keep in mind that ASI or ASI by way of Austro-Asiatic rice-farmers are also expanding from the east at the same time.

Either way, genetically the overall subcontinent looks like it hasn't had any substantial outside inputs since last Ice Age. Both ANI and ASI are pre-agricultural and Indian. However I don't think genetics has to have any bearing on which direction culture or languages moved. Subcontinent Muslims, even the ones that claim Arab or Persian blood, generally turn out 100% indigenous when they take DNA tests. Yet they follow a West-Asian religio-cultural system. Blacks in US are 25% Euro on average only and 75% African, but they speak European languages, have Euro-derived names, and their Christianity is by way of Europe as well. A major aspect of Spaniard cultural legacy is the Flamenco dance and music, which was brought by Indian originated Gypsy communities, but now it is a part of Spaniard culture. Doesn't mean that Spaniards have Indian blood genetically. Similarly Tango dance and music of Argentina was created by African slaves, but Argentina is <1% black and possibly the most European country genetically as a whole in the entire Western hemisphere, more so than US and Canada even. Yet cultural legacy of Africans remains.
Basically what I'm saying from above is that the AIT/AMT/ATT is neither proved nor disproved by genetics. Genetically we're all here from original OOA migrations, and ANI-ASI mixture is a purely intra-Indian mixture in terms of time histories from when civilization/agriculture etc began, and still the source of the Proto-Indo-European language can lie in the Caspian Sea, and have made its way to the subcontinent via cultural diffusion and small local conquests and assimilations.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 31 May 2017 23:06

SriJoy wrote:^^^
This article claims exactly the opposite:

Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists

Sanghamitra Sengupta, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Roy King, S.Q. Mehdi, Christopher A. Edmonds, Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow, Alice A. Lin, Mitashree Mitra, Samir K. Sil, A. Ramesh, M.V. Usha Rani, Chitra M. Thakur, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder'Correspondence information about the author Partha P. MajumderEmail the author Partha P. Majumder, Peter A. Underhill
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(07)62353-2


This paper (from 2006) looks at barely 70 haplogroup-defining SNPs, all from the Y-chromosome.

The one posted by Gandharva ji
https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/a ... 017-0936-9
Looks at mitochondrial DNA, 500,000 genome-wide SNPs, and a large number of Y-chromosome HGs.

However, if one reads the entire article beyond the introduction it is clear that they have f*ck-all new evidence to support AIT. They admit that the data show there were at least four different waves of in-migration into India since the Last Glacial Maximum.

They also bury these nuggets deep down in the "DIscussion" section (where it will not be seen by the Wikipedia EJs who rely on people reading no further than the Abstract).

Even so, the spread of Indo-European within the Subcontinent seems to have been mainly male-mediated, in agreement with recent X-chromosome analyses [102] and as indicated by the high frequency of West Eurasian (mainly R1a) paternal lineages across the region—varying in the 1KG data from ~25% in the northwest and ~20% in the northeast to ~14% in the south, but much more dramatically when taking caste and language into account (from almost 50% in upper-caste Indo-European speakers to almost zero in eastern Austro-Asiatic speakers) [12, 56, 59].

This present-day distribution cannot be directly correlated with language replacement, however, since the signal is also strong in Dravidian-speaking populations (Fig. 3).

Note how they use phrases like "MUCH MORE DRAMATICALLY" when comparing R1a frequency in "Upper-Caste Indo European Speakers" vs. the poor isolated tribes of the Andamans :lol: but then quietly let slip that the R1a signal is also strong in so-called "Dravidian" populations. Clear evidence that this piece of junk was authored by an intellectually dishonest Evangelical scumbag

The last four millennia witnessed major cultural changes in the Indian Subcontinent, with the decline of the Indus Valley civilisation and the rise of Vedic religion, based on a strict caste system, often associated with the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers. This is an assertion straight out of the AIT pseudohistory-books, and supported by NOTHING in their data. The authors include it as Divine Axiom, for no other reason than that they are a bunch of RCC Brazilians, Portuguese and Italians (with some EJ anglos mixed in) who are unified in their service of a soul-harvesting agenda. :P

The mix of autochthonous and immigrant genetic lineages seen across South Asia, however, suggests a gradual merging of male-dominated Andronovo/BMAC immigrants with the indigenous descendants of the Indus Valley civilisation [12], possibly associated with the spread of the Megalithic culture as far south as Sri Lanka in the first century Before Common Era (BCE), prior to the establishment of the full jāti caste system very roughly ~2 ka [12, 103]. Basu et al. [26] date the “freezing” of India’s population structure to ~1.5 ka. IOW, they cannot find $hit to support the AIT view of "Aryans" coming in with "Vedic Hinduism" and oppressing "Dravidians" by conquering them and imposing a "caste system" on them.

...
We see no evidence that the caste system emerged in the wake of the arrival of Indo-Aryan speakers from the north, in agreement with formal admixture analyses [24, 26]. :roll: Sorry that the evidence crushingly disappointed your confirmation-bias, mofos Higher-ranking castes do seem closer genetically to Pakistan and ultimately Caucasus and Central Asian populations, but this proximity was most likely established over millennia, by several distinct migratory events—indeed, a sizeable fraction of the non-R1a West Eurasian Y-chromosome lineages (e.g. R2a-M124, J2-M241, L1a-M27, L1c-M357) were most likely associated with the spread of agriculture or even earlier expansions from Southwest Asia, as with the mtDNA lineages [55, 59]. The tribal groups are generally more divergent from other South Asian groups and in particular from western South Asians, but the particular genetic diversity of tribal groups might have been due to isolation [20], and not necessarily because of more recent strict social boundaries enforced by newly-arriving groups imposing a new system, which in its historical form was likely established much more recently, not more than around 2000 years ago [12, 24, 26, 103]. IOW, they have NOTHING to contradict the conclusions of earlier studies from Vahia, Moorjani, Basu, or even Sengupta et al. This group of authors is about as intellectually honest as Pravin Swami or Siddharth Vardarajan... they begin the article by shouting agenda-driven and unsubstantiated BS in bold print, but bury the conclusions that can actually be supported by the evidence somewhere deep in the interior of the article, presumably as an escape hatch should anyone call them out on fabricating what is essentially a propaganda piece in scientific guise.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 31 May 2017 23:19

bharotshontan wrote:Please note that those findings also state that ANI has been separated from its closest West-Eurasian relatives by 20,000 YBP. .

Which findings, and exactly where is this stated?

bharotshontan
BRFite
Posts: 289
Joined: 19 Oct 2016 00:19

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

Postby bharotshontan » 01 Jun 2017 00:07

Rudradev wrote:
bharotshontan wrote:Please note that those findings also state that ANI has been separated from its closest West-Eurasian relatives by 20,000 YBP. .

Which findings, and exactly where is this stated?


Same Moorjani article, and I had a different topic in my head regarding 20k YBP, it is instead 12.5k YBP, but still prior to last Ice Age:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/
It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years3 (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.15,16,44,45


Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2768
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 01 Jun 2017 02:55

^^That's a separate finding, from a 1999 paper by Kisilvid, Bamshad et al (cited as reference [3] in the Moorjani article.)

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/ful ... 60-9822(00)80057-3?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982200800573%3Fshowall%3Dtrue


Using this to conclude that ANI population was already within India at the time of the last Ice Age is problematic for several reasons:

1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the paper itself admits. But further to that, let's look at the exact sort of evidence that is putatively absent.

2) The Kisilvid study referenced by Moorjani et al looked primarily at a mitochondrial haplogroup, U, and its subclusters. Mitochondrial DNA is strictly a marker of maternal inheritance, mother to daughter only. However, "ANI" and "ASI" by their very definition are population groups predicated on the appearance and frequencies of Autosomal SNPs (markers present on non-sex-chromosomal DNA, and hence capable of having been inherited through either parent). These categories are not very well correlated with mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, a priori. See the Reich et al paper which originally defined ANI and ASI for more details. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/

3) The Reich paper further showed that ANI is closely correlated with (though not defined by) the Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a. The subclade R1a-M417, which has a coalescence time of ~6000 years ago (http://www.academia.edu/13830063/The_ph ... ogroup_R1a ) is shared by ANI-descendants, Europeans, and Central Asian populations. Note, Y-chromosomal markers are inherited strictly father-to-son.

4) So even if ANI doesn't share mitochondrial DNA markers with Western Eurasians, it certainly does correlate with the frequency of Y-chromosomal markers shared with West Eurasians, implying that ANI and West Eurasians have a much more recent MALE common ancestor than their most recent FEMALE common ancestor.

How is this possible? Well, because migrating groups almost always preserve paternal lineages much longer than maternal lineages, which become thinned out and eventually erased by (a) random genetic drift and population bottleneck effects (b) displacement by new mitochondrial markers, whenever the male-dominated migrating population interbreeds with female bearers of new mitochondrial lineages whom they encounter along the way.

Let's remember that migration was an excruciatingly slow process whereby resettling a population even a hundred miles could take centuries, and yet, even a distance of a hundred miles could effectively ensure the reproductive isolation of the migrating population from its population of origin. Based solely on the Kisilvid evidence, is entirely feasible that the ANI groups left Western Eurasia (defined in the Kisilvid paper as Armenia, Georgia, Russia, and points further west into Europe) around 12500 years ago; migrated in tiny increments of distance over several millennia, interbreeding with local females and thus diluting whatever mitochondrial DNA markers they shared in common with West Eurasia, but still carrying West Eurasian DNA in their chromosomes; and finally arrived in India by 9000 or 6000 or even 4000 ybp, according to the theories summarized in the Moorjani article.

This is what you're missing when you say:
So if ANI is AIT/AMT/ATT, then ANI was not intermingling with fellow West-Eurasians for 20,000 years but as soon as entering India they vigorously mixed with local ASI's? That sounds ludicrous.


It's not as if the ANIs were living right next to the West Eurasian populations examined by Kisilvid et al for 20000 (or 12500) years, not mating with them, and then one day boarded a flight to India :)

At any rate, it will take more genetic evidence (and other types of evidence) to prove conclusively that ANI were here long before any AIT/AMT timeframe. But the Moorjani, Basu, and Vahia articles are all great steps that direction.

You may have a point regarding the transmission of cultural influences in absence of actual mass-migrations of populations leaving genetic evidence in their wake. But again, that is much more easily achieved in the relatively "modern" age when African slaves could be transported by the millions across the Atlantic in a voyage that took only a few months... which applies to your examples of the tango, or other aspects of Afro-American culture.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atmavik, Bart S, Mihaylo, sanjayc and 46 guests