Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2
Posted: 05 May 2018 21:26
^^^ Plato wrote that Phrygian sounded like Greek. How dare you doubt that ancient philosopher, Dr. Shiv?


Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
This is very interesting. Can anyone give the transcription of what is said ( in Arabic and Sanskrit ) and translation into English?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.
Would you know how come all humans are descended from africans and yet our languages have no memory of an african homeland?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.
Because that was 100,000 years ago?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?
And supposedly the aboriginals can't even count! How does one fit this paper in to the discussion:A_Gupta wrote:Because that was 100,000 years ago?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?
PS: for a case of long memory, see this:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... r-millenia
Would you know how solid is the evidence for dating of dispersal of humans from africa? And what is this evidence?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.
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: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.
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?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?
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... n-science/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
![]()
Absolutely!!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.
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."
However this conclusion is reached, the Ebla language is Semitic, not Indo-European.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.
If you register, this article is free.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.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.
I agree, not worth disputing them, but I just posted excerpts of the new round of papers.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.
Yes. It is cherry-picking and also some issue, IMO, with projecting the clustering of points in very high dimensional spaces into two dimensions.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.
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.A_Gupta wrote:I agree, not worth disputing them, but I just posted excerpts of the new round of papers.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.
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 bitA very flexible thing a reconstructed language is
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
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
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.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.