Bharat Rakshak

^^^ Plato wrote that Phrygian sounded like Greek. How dare you doubt that ancient philosopher, Dr. Shiv?

Murugan wrote:Mahmud of Ghazni had to try hard for pushing Arabic in India (Punjab)

To gain acceptability, he issued coins in Bi-Script (Arabic-Sharda), Bi-lingual (Arabic-Sanskrit) fashion


(courtesy: classical numismatic gallery, Ahmedabad)

The obverse has Kalima in Arabic
The reverse has Kalima in Sanskrit, inscribed in Sharada script Awyaktamekam Muhammad Awatara and Nrpati Mahamuda in centre. Iyam Tankam Ghatitam Mahmudpure Tajikyer Samvat....... in the margin around.

Minted at Mahmudpur (Lahore)

That is, before getting acceptability in invaded/migrated land, one needs to know the local language (and script) first. That is true for pillagers and tyrants too.

This is very interesting. Can anyone give the transcription of what is said ( in Arabic and Sanskrit ) and translation into English?

A_Gupta wrote:Might need to register to see this article; but the key points are:
https://www.genomeweb.com/scan/fewer-wh ... u29i8jaufc

The lack of diversity in genomic research is not exactly new news, of course, and a 2016 study in Nature found that 87 percent of participants in genomics research globally were of European descent.

Smithsonian also notes that the 87 percent figure is an improvement from a 96 percent figure calculated by Duke University researchers in 2009. But even that 87 percent number is open to scrutiny as most of the non-European representation is from studies conducted in China, Japan, and South Korea, and the increase in diversity didn't include other ethnic groups. People of African descent made up only 3 percent, and Hispanics didn't even reach 1 percent, one of the authors of the Nature study says.

Would you know how come all humans are descended from africans and yet our languages have no memory of an african homeland?

Would the ASI/ANI authors know the answer to this?

peter wrote: Would you know how come all humans are descended from africans and yet our languages have no memory of an african homeland?

Would the ASI/ANI authors know the answer to this?

Because that was 100,000 years ago?

PS: for a case of long memory, see this:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... r-millenia

peter, I think Garden of Eden is Africa.

There is nothing like that in the desert regions of West Asia.
And the migration to Egypt.

https://detechter.com/10-interesting-fa ... HcI.buffer
( NO Cut and paste allowed)

A_Gupta wrote:

peter wrote: Would you know how come all humans are descended from africans and yet our languages have no memory of an african homeland?

Would the ASI/ANI authors know the answer to this?

Because that was 100,000 years ago?

PS: for a case of long memory, see this:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... r-millenia

And supposedly the aboriginals can't even count! How does one fit this paper in to the discussion:

"Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia"
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110

Since ASI ANI date of origin keeps changing are the aboriginals ASI or ANI or a mix?

ramana wrote:peter, I think Garden of Eden is Africa.

There is nothing like that in the desert regions of West Asia.
And the migration to Egypt.

Would you know how solid is the evidence for dating of dispersal of humans from africa? And what is this evidence?

Everyone concurs out of Africa is about 90K years ago.

Link: First human migration out of Africa more geographically widespread than previously thought

And others of same genre.

Scientists have discovered a fossilized finger bone of an early modern human in the Nefud Desert of Saudi Arabia, dating to approximately 90,000 years ago. The discovery is the oldest directly dated Homo sapiens fossil outside of Africa and the Levant and indicates that early dispersals into Eurasia were more expansive than previously thought.

ramana wrote:Everyone concurs out of Africa is about 90K years ago.

Link: First human migration out of Africa more geographically widespread than previously thought

And others of same genre.

Scientists have discovered a fossilized finger bone of an early modern human in the Nefud Desert of Saudi Arabia, dating to approximately 90,000 years ago. The discovery is the oldest directly dated Homo sapiens fossil outside of Africa and the Levant and indicates that early dispersals into Eurasia were more expansive than previously thought.

How do we situate this:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... y-science/

peter wrote: Would you know how come all humans are descended from africans and yet our languages have no memory of an african homeland?

Would the ASI/ANI authors know the answer to this?

This is easy. We don't remember our African homeland just like we don't recall our steppe-fathers' homeland. But brain memory killing bacteria are destroyed by the hot sun of south so the southern blackies remember their Lemooria very well. Those southie aboriginals can count up to one I guess?

Bunkum Feku language rode horse from steppe theory gets a kick in the teeth
https://twitter.com/IndianInterest/stat ... 8006536192

We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there." In other words, Reich et al.'s claim that Indo-European languages came into India via "migration" from the Steppe is incorrect.
https://t.co/A7PSmzjyIa

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... n-science/

^^
This is big. If true (can't see full article as it's behind a paywall)... it suggests that the very construct of "Steppe_EMBA", which (per Lazaridis 2016) is modeled as a mixture of Anatolian HG and Iranian Neolithic, is bull$hit.

Hence Steppe_MLBA (modeled by Vagheesh et al as 74% Steppe_EMBA, 26% European_Middle Neolithic) is also bull$hit.

Hence every model on the strength of which Vagheesh et al claim that "Steppe_MLBA, not Steppe_EMBA, is responsible for Steppe Ancestry contribution to ANI... therefore Steppe Aryans came to India for the first time AFTER IVC Collapsed" is revealed to be absolute garbage.

Rudradev wrote:^^
This is big. If true (can't see full article as it's behind a paywall)... it suggests that the very construct of "Steppe_EMBA", which (per Lazaridis 2016) is modeled as a mixture of Anatolian HG and Iranian Neolithic, is bull$hit.

Hence Steppe_MLBA (modeled by Vagheesh et al as 74% Steppe_EMBA, 26% European_Middle Neolithic) is also bull$hit.

Hence every model on the strength of which Vagheesh et al claim that "Steppe_MLBA, not Steppe_EMBA, is responsible for Steppe Ancestry contribution to ANI... therefore Steppe Aryans came to India for the first time AFTER IVC Collapsed" is revealed to be absolute garbage.

Absolutely!!

This has been a question since long as what exactly is this steppe ancestry construct.

And how it keeps changing ..


Thankfully everything they keep on pushing have enough holes which make these Steppe Theories always questionable and not a certainty

RD, you have so far been good at language of discourse.

Its 'erroneous' not bull $hit.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 185446.htm

Gojko Barjamovic, Senior Lecturer on Assyriology at Harvard University, explains:

"In Anatolia, and parts of Central Asia, which held densely settled complex urban societies, the history of language spread and genetic ancestry is better described in terms of contact and absorption than by simply a movement of population."

He adds:

"The Indo-European languages are usually said to emerge in Anatolia in the 2nd millennium BCE. However, we use evidence from the palatial archives of the ancient city of Ebla in Syria to argue that Indo-European was already spoken in modern-day Turkey in the 25th century BCE. This means that the speakers of these language must have arrived there prior to any Yamnaya expansions."

The study also shows that the spread of the Indo-Iranian languages to South Asia, with Hindi, Urdu and Persian as major modern offshoots, cannot result from the Yamnaya expansions. Rather, the Indo-Iranian languages spread with a later push of pastoralist groups from the South Ural Mountains during the Middle to Late Bronze Age.

Prior to entering South Asia, these groups, thought to have spoken an Indo-Iranian language, were impacted by groups with an ancestry typical of more western Eurasian populations. This suggests that the Indo-Iranian speakers did not split off from the Yamnaya population directly, but were more closely related to the Indo-European speakers that lived in Eastern Europe.

In this study, geneticists, historians, archaeologists and linguists find common ground -- pointing to increased interaction between the steppe and the Indus Valley during the Late Bronze Age as the most plausible time of entry of Indo-European languages in South Asia. Several authors of the paper had radically conflicting views before the final interpretation was achieved.

Lead author on the article, Peter de Barros Damgaard, who is a geneticist working at the University of Copenhagen comments:

"The project has been an extremely enriching and exciting process. We were able to direct many very different academic fields towards a single coherent approach. By asking the right questions, and keeping limitations of the data in mind, contextualizing, nuancing, and keeping dialogues open between scholars of radically different backgrounds and approaches, we have carved out a path for a new field of research. We have already seen too many papers come out in which models produced by geneticists working on their own have been are accepted without vital input from other fields, and, at the other extreme, seen archaeologists opposing new studies built on archaeogenetic data, due to a lack of transparency between the fields."

"Data on ancient DNA is astonishing for its ability to provide a fine-grained image of early human mobility, but it does stand on the shoulders of decades of work by scholars in other fields, from the time of excavation of human skeletons to interpreting the cultural, linguistic origins of the samples. This is how cold statistics are turned into history."

Guus Kroonen adds:

"The recent breakthrough in ancient genomics poses challenges for archaeologists, linguists and historians because old hypotheses on the spread of languages and cultures can now be tested against a whole new line of evidence on prehistoric mobility. As a result, we now see that geneticists are driven by key questions from the humanities, and that research within the humanities is energized by the influx of new data from the sciences. In the future, we hope to see more cross-disciplinary co-operations, such as the one leading to this study."

^^^ How do the Ebla tablets ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla_tablets ) show that I.E. in Turkey in 2500 BCE?

Shiv Take a look


https://knowstorm.wordpress.com/2018/04 ... ssion=true

Ebla and its archives (PDF)
https://www.baytagoodah.com/uploads/9/5 ... s-2015.pdf
Can you find in that comprehensive publication evidence that Ebla had an I.E. language?

Sorry, but prima facie this new paper is as much B.S. as the previous one.

PS:

The numerous personal names known to us from the Ebla texts show that throughout Syria, from the Antioch plain and the Karasu valley as far as Antep in the north, beyond the region of Qaṭna to the south, possibly including all of Palestine, in the valley of the Balīḫ and north of Ḫarran; in the Ḫābūr Triangle as far as the Tigris region (Ḫamazi); in the valley of the Middle Euphrates (Tuttul, Mari) and in Babylonia (Kiš), a homogenous, Semitic language was spoken with various local dialects. The northern Syrian dialect, in the version set down by the scribes of Ebla, is the only one known to us to date.

However this conclusion is reached, the Ebla language is Semitic, not Indo-European.

I have a theory on how they will weasel out of these conflicting studies:

1) Anatolia got IE due to "exchanges" and "elite dominance". There was some interaction with Steppe_EMBA, but genetically undetectable
2) Anatolia IE is early
3) South Asia got its DNA via "invasion". It was from Steppe_MLBA. I don't know what they mean by "Yamanaya culture time". Steppe_MLBA will be argued to be post that date
4) South Asia Indo-Iranian languages are therefore "late IE" languages

Agree with A_Gupta that geneticists are looking like jokers because

1) They rely on fake lingusitic theories to "make sense" of their own data
2) They are not being true scientists because they don't publish assumptions & alternate explanations
3) They prematurely ejaculate and leak to the press even though they don't have enough data & new data is still coming in. Each group wants to be "the one" which proves AIT

Now we know how the AIT theory-making happened in Europe with no one to challenge it. As the Copenhagen professor said, they keep trying one bullshit after another till they "come to a consensus". Much like the Nicea council which "agreed" upon the interpretation of a hypothetical dead Jew

Rudradev wrote:^^
This is big. If true (can't see full article as it's behind a paywall)... it suggests that the very construct of "Steppe_EMBA", which (per Lazaridis 2016) is modeled as a mixture of Anatolian HG and Iranian Neolithic, is bull$hit.

Hence Steppe_MLBA (modeled by Vagheesh et al as 74% Steppe_EMBA, 26% European_Middle Neolithic) is also bull$hit.

Hence every model on the strength of which Vagheesh et al claim that "Steppe_MLBA, not Steppe_EMBA, is responsible for Steppe Ancestry contribution to ANI... therefore Steppe Aryans came to India for the first time AFTER IVC Collapsed" is revealed to be absolute garbage.

If you register, this article is free.

The paper says
- Namazga_CA: 4 south Turkmenistan samples from Namazga period III (~3300 BC)

- "We are not able to reject a two population qpADM model using Namazga_CA and Onge for 9 modern southern and predominantly Dravidian-speaking populations.

- "In contrast, for 7 other populations belonging to the northernmost Indic- and Iranian- speaking groups this two population model is reject, but not a three-population model including an additional Late Bronze Age (~2300-1200 BCE) steppe source."

- "Thus we find that ancestries deriving from 4 major separate sources fully reconcile the population history of present-day South Asians, one anciently South Asian, one from Namazga or a related population, a third from Late Bronze Age (~2300-1200 BCE) steppe pastoralists, and lastly one from East Asia.

- "Our finding that the Copper Age (~3300 BCE) Namazga- related population from the borderlands between Central and South Asia contains both "Iran Neolithic" and EHG ancestry, but not CHG-specific ancestry provides a solution to problems concerning the Western Eurasian genetic contribution to South Asians. Rather than invoking varying degrees of relative contribution of "Iran Neolithic" and Yamnaya ancestries, we explain the two western genetic components with two separate admixture events."

- "The first even, potentially prior to the Bronze Age, spread from a non-IE-speaking farming population from the Namazga culture or a related source down to Southern India. Then the second came during the Late Bronze Age (~2300-1200 BCE) throug established contacts between pastoral steppel nomads and the Indus Valley, bringing European Neolithic as well as CHG-specific ancestry, and with them, Indo-Iranian languages into northern South Asia. This is consistent with a long-range South Eurasian trade network around 2000 BCE, shared mythologies with steppe-influenced cultures, linguistic relationships between Indic spoken in South Asia and written records from Western Asia from the first half of the 18th century BCE onwards".

- "Current linguistic estimations converge on dating the Proto-Anatolian split from residual PIE to the late 5th or early 4th millenia BCE and place the breakup of Anatolian IE inside Turkey prior to the mid-3rd millenium.

Following the citations on this paper is going to be important.

^^^ In particular this:
https://zenodo.org/record/1240524#.WvStuSmWzkh

^^^ The evidence from Ebla is the evidence of Anatolian names that are like Anatolian Indo-European names. That is, tablets in Ebla from 2500 BCE

"a small group of ca. twenty names connected to Armi build on what appear to be well-known Anatolian roots and endings, such as -(w)anda/u, -(w)assu, -tala, and -ili/u....... they clearly fall within the Anatolian Indo-European family".

Note that the claim is that 2500 BCE is the oldest written attestation of I.E., and that the nature of the written evidence is that the I.E. is much older. This is many hundreds of years before the Mitanni.

Fig. 2 Principal component analyses using ancient and present-day genetic data.
(A) PCA of ancient and modern Eurasian populations. The ancient steppe ancestry cline from EHG to Baikal_EN is visible at the top outside present-day variation, while the YamnayaKaragash_EBA sample has additional CHG ancestry and locates to the left with other Yamnaya and Afanasievo samples. Additionally, a shift in ancestry is observed between the Baikal_EN and Baikal_LNBA, consistent with an increase in ANE-related ancestry in Baikal_LNBA. (B) PCA estimated with a subset of Eurasian ancient individuals from the steppe, Iran, and Anatolia as well as present-day South Asian populations. PC1 and PC2 broadly reflect West-East and North-South geography, respectively. Multiple clines of different ancestry are seen in the South Asians, with a prominent cline even within Dravidians in the direction of the Namazga_CA group, which is positioned above Iranian Neolithic in the direction of EHG. In the later Turkmenistan_IA sample, this shift is more pronounced and toward Steppe EBA and MLBA. The Anatolia_CA, EBA and MLBA samples are all between Anatolia Neolithic and CHG, not in the direction of steppe samples.


From: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/e ... ce.aar7711

Notice the nature of the genetics results.
3 "outliers" from ~2200 BC found in BMAC sites - Gonur Turkmenistan, and Shahr-i-Sokta, Iran, and they become ancestors of Indians.
Then 4 individuals found from ~3300 BC at Namazga Turkmenistan, and they become ancestors of Indians.

Also notice that Indic line in Figure B above, Onge certainly are there, but the line suggests there should be an ancestral population at the spot on the X-axis marked 0.04. Where is that?????

Rudradev wrote:^^
This is big. If true (can't see full article as it's behind a paywall)... it suggests that the very construct of "Steppe_EMBA", which (per Lazaridis 2016) is modeled as a mixture of Anatolian HG and Iranian Neolithic, is bull$hit.

Hence Steppe_MLBA (modeled by Vagheesh et al as 74% Steppe_EMBA, 26% European_Middle Neolithic) is also bull$hit.

Hence every model on the strength of which Vagheesh et al claim that "Steppe_MLBA, not Steppe_EMBA, is responsible for Steppe Ancestry contribution to ANI... therefore Steppe Aryans came to India for the first time AFTER IVC Collapsed" is revealed to be absolute garbage.

Vagheesh replies to your observation.



https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/994688133676568576

Yeah, solid rebuttal "You don't understand the genetics, therefore I am right". Not a circular argument at all.

Again, I have to wonder why you guys think it's worthwhile engaging these sepoys and clowns on Twitter.

Arun, also observe that in Fig B the Steppe EMBA are AS far removed from the brick-red Indic cline, if not more so, than the Tibeto Burmans and Australo Asiatics (on PC1) and both these groups are orthogonal to the Onge-Indic-IranN-Anatolian line (along PC2).

Now think back to why Honest Vagheesh claims he threw out nearly 40% of modern day Indian samples in his analysis (some 104 out of 246 IIRC?) That's right, because they had Tibeto Burman and other ancestry that increased "statistical noise". So that's not allowed but Steppe MLBA is!

This is pure cherry-picking and gerrymandering from start to finish.

Rudradev wrote:Yeah, solid rebuttal "You don't understand the genetics, therefore I am right". Not a circular argument at all.

Again, I have to wonder why you guys think it's worthwhile engaging these sepoys and clowns on Twitter.

I agree, not worth disputing them, but I just posted excerpts of the new round of papers.
As you said, don't tell 'em what you're thinking.

I think that P.I.E. just got pushed back from 3000 BCE in the Steppes to 5000 BCE in the Caucasus/Steppes in order to account for Anatolian I.E. and the non-finding of Steppes ancestry in ancient Anatolians. That is worth thinking about a bit A very flexible thing a reconstructed language is

Rudradev wrote:Arun, also observe that in Fig B the Steppe EMBA are AS far removed from the brick-red Indic cline, if not more so, than the Tibeto Burmans and Australo Asiatics (on PC1) and both these groups are orthogonal to the Onge-Indic-IranN-Anatolian line (along PC2).

Now think back to why Honest Vagheesh claims he threw out nearly 40% of modern day Indian samples in his analysis (some 104 out of 246 IIRC?) That's right, because they had Tibeto Burman and other ancestry that increased "statistical noise". So that's not allowed but Steppe MLBA is!

This is pure cherry-picking and gerrymandering from start to finish.

Yes. It is cherry-picking and also some issue, IMO, with projecting the clustering of points in very high dimensional spaces into two dimensions.

Good news. Vagheesh has blocked me on Twitter. The IE reference is fake but if he removes that steppe-IE ref his paper is destroyed. To that extent I am a mortal enemy of his paper

Good

A_Gupta wrote:

Rudradev wrote:Yeah, solid rebuttal "You don't understand the genetics, therefore I am right". Not a circular argument at all.

Again, I have to wonder why you guys think it's worthwhile engaging these sepoys and clowns on Twitter.

I agree, not worth disputing them, but I just posted excerpts of the new round of papers.
As you said, don't tell 'em what you're thinking.

I think that P.I.E. just got pushed back from 3000 BCE in the Steppes to 5000 BCE in the Caucasus/Steppes in order to account for Anatolian I.E. and the non-finding of Steppes ancestry in ancient Anatolians. That is worth thinking about a bit A very flexible thing a reconstructed language is

The paper is toast. A lot of hype but will die with not even a whimper. But of course, you don't need genetics to prove it. Sanskrit has the max number of loan words of any indo-european lang. How is it that these weren't preserved by civilizations north of us? The percentage of loan words should decrease as you make your way down. Not increase. Language spread doesn't require large scale migrations. Spread of sanskrit with buddhism is proof of this.

shiv wrote:Good news. Vagheesh has blocked me on Twitter. The IE reference is fake but if he removes that steppe-IE ref his paper is destroyed. To that extent I am a mortal enemy of his paper

Good

Which reference?

shiv wrote:Good news. Vagheesh has blocked me on Twitter. The IE reference is fake but if he removes that steppe-IE ref his paper is destroyed. To that extent I am a mortal enemy of his paper

Good

Sorry to say "I told you so" Shiv. Vagheesh (and more importantly his handlers) have gleaned enough from your tweets to suss out the contours of your line of attack... so now they have blocked you.

Honestly I don't think this thread should be publicly accessible at all. There is too much at stake. The enemy cannot, must not know what we know and are thinking.

I would ask Bradmins to move it to the burqa forum (ex GDF) as the only live thread there. Accessible only to registered members.

There is too much valuable research, expertise, and analysis here (on the part of users like Shiv, Arun Gupta, Nilesh Oak & others) to be compromised by laying it out in full public view.

Almost as important as the research and analysis themselves is the strategy for making it public. We need to be able to discuss and formulate that in private.

Gandharva ji one humble request. I am honoured that you have, in the past, tweeted my observations on your Twitter timeline. I would, however, ask you not to do that anymore.

This is an information war. We need to coordinate our efforts at least as carefully as the enemy does... because they certainly have more resources to devote towards publication than we do, by many orders of magnitude. They control the instruments of discourse almost completely.

Rudradev wrote:Gandharva ji one humble request. I am honoured that you have, in the past, tweeted my observations on your Twitter timeline. I would, however, ask you not to do that anymore.

This is an information war. We need to coordinate our efforts at least as carefully as the enemy does... because they certainly have more resources to devote towards publication than we do, by many orders of magnitude. They control the instruments of discourse almost completely.

Whatever, once its out there, its out there. It's all crashing down. They thought they had the last laugh. IMO, its just getting started. Once you separate the linguistics from the genetics, everything begins to make more sense.

RD - nothing stops a motivated person from accessing GDF.

You have to operate under the assumption that everything you say, under any handle, is all public.

It's better all of this is open source. Allows all the ideas presented to undergo a far more rigorous 'peer review'