Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[RamaY]

Request gurus to help me understand what these guys are saying..

Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

[Agnimitra]

^^^ Already posted before. Here was Atri ji's comment on it:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1493928

[peter]

Well question still remains. How did "great Mahapurushas" got their gotras that are given in Rigved? Do not forget your position is that no historical rishi/gotra/brahmin/shudra in Rigved.

Have you been reading or not? It has already been pointed out that any such Mahapurusha would have taken for himself a monicker from the RigVeda, or been recognized as the living embodiment of that monicker by social agreement.

Guru, saadhu & shaastra has always been the threefold system for the validation of Vedic practice.

Dear you are not following the argument of Dwivedi. His claim is that any rishi clan mentioned in Rigved cannot be interpreted as a clan of rishis. Anyone who does that is misreading Rgveda. Infact he also says that any discussion of varna/caste in Purush sukta hymn is also an incorrect intrpretation.

Hence your thesis that mahapurusha got a clan name out of Rigved is wrong .

[peter]

Comeon. Kings do not follow others because someone told them so. Kings create their own rules.

For the sake of treaty diplomacy, they can. IMO. If it is just the ceremonial mention of some Gods in the treaty.

Sure. But in this case the other side did not mention any of the vedic gods on their portion of the treaty. Only the mItanni did. Besides this there is other evidence for their use of Sanskrit words. Consequently these guys knew the contents of Rigveda well and hence chose a certain gods from it.

Mention in a treaty is not a big issue IMO.

It is a very big issue. For starter there are many Gods mentioned in Rgved why choose only these four.
There are numerous other implications.

[peter]

How many Indian kings do you know who have studied Vedas? Many invoke slokas, many are scholars in their own right and yet you won't find many who had done that.

But you are speculating. Why not look at the evidence from Mitanni and reach a better conclusion. What is the need to argue without data?

[member_22872]

This much is certain. And it certainly points to their having studied Vedas.

And it is not a speculation to assume that Mittanis somehow had studied Vedas, since you say that they are kings and don't follow the customs of their citizens? What proof do you have for:
1. Mittanis or their kings studied Vedas? if they indeed had done that, how did they do it given that they were Mlecchas?
2. Studying Vedas is so intensive, how do you suppose they did it?..without answering these questions, any statement based on western scholarship that Mittanis had Vedic knowledge is an assumption at the best.

But you are speculating. Why not look at the evidence from Mitanni and reach a better conclusion. What is the need to argue without data?

Exactly, my point too. I merely said that you dont have data either...but you took it for granted that Mittanis had a reason for the order of Vedic Gods etc and it is not because the Gods were revered because of cultural exchange between people but they (MIttani Kings) indeed studied the Vedas. It is doubtful if the Vedas were even in textual form to just carry them and study at one's leisure. The view that Mittanis had any understanding of Vedas is suspicious, the burden is yours to prove they studied the Vedas.

There could be very simple explanation to the Mittani Kings' reverence to Vedic Gods, that is cultural interaction between people. If that is so, your connection of Mittani Kings and their treaties to Rg Vedic text dating is void because you are force fitting a pattern to prove your point without data.

[Agnimitra]

Not sure if this was posted here:

TED Talks - Rajesh Rao: Computing a Rosetta Stone for the Indus Script

[svinayak]

Request gurus to help me understand what these guys are saying..

Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India

The question to ask
Why do they need to study Indian genetic makeup

[Yayavar]

Though I confess I should read more before commenting but the terms 'NI' and 'SI', reference to Central asians and Europeans, and then the speculated dates of 1900-4200 years ago are very suspicious. All conveniently are within the confines of AIT/AMT theory which itself was constricted to stay within the bounds comfortable to the 19th century 'Bible' fearing historians.

[Murugan]

Harappan people used an older form of Brahmi script: Expert

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... pan-people

Sharma further strengthens his argument by quoting the DNA analysis carried out by Dr Lalji Singh, vice-chancellor, BHU. According to Sharma, the analysis by Singh suggests that the two ancient races Aryan and Dravidians were native of India and none of them came outside of our country. The Aryan and Dravidian races in India have the same genetic basis. This suggests that proto Dravidian and proto Aryan races were present in Harappan population and Harappan were using proto Dravidian and Sanskrit as their language and their script was proto Brahmi only.

[Agnimitra]

Not sure if this has been discussed here - Some Indologists such as Asko Parppola say that the Indus Saraswati civilization was more Mesopotamian than Indian. They base this stunning claim on very, very flimsy evidence. One such tenuous piece is that some seals show a hero with 3 locks or knots of hair. He says this conforms to a Mesopotamian hero fable, not an Indian one.

Don't we have a triple-knot sage type in Indic traditions, too? Off the top of my head, we have "Trijata" in the Ramayana, for example. Do gurus here have more on this?

Doesn't Lord Shiva have 3 matted locks also?

[Rony]

Some Indologists such as Asko Parppola say that the Indus Saraswati civilization was more Mesopotamian than Indian.

Its quite possible that Mesopotamia might had Indian origins. From Rajiv Malhotra's yahoo group.

Genetic link shown between India and Mesopotamia

Origins in the Indian subcontinent

The studied individuals carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.

The suggestion is that these analysed remains from Mesopotamia belonged to people with a genetic affinity to the Indian subcontinent as the distribution of identified ancient haplotypes indicates a solid link with populations from the region of South Asia-Tibet (Trans-Himalaya).

This may represent either that the individuals are descendants of migrants from much earlier times (Palaeolithic), spreading the clades of the macrohaplogroup M throughout Eurasia and founding regional Mesopotamian groups like that of Terqa, or they are from merchants moving along trade routes passing near or through the region.

The obtained data has enriched the modest database of Mesopotamian ancient DNA and suggests a possible genetic link of the region with the Indian subcontinent in the past. There are no traces in the modern Syrian population, which is explainable as the dental study showed, by later depopulation and recolonisation, but opens up the possibilities of further work to examine the routes of both populations and civilisations.

[ramana]

The problem of Wastern scholars is their Biblical framework.
Genesis says that God created the world in the Middle East and that is the cradle of civilization for them. So any other sources cause cognitive dissonance as the Bible would be factually incorrect. So they go through pretezel logic even while coming up with axioms "The simplest theory that fits the facts is the most appropriate!"

[Virendra]

With the Swastika, Om, Yogic postures and women wearing bangles .. I don't think Harappans were more Mesopotamian than Indian.
May be the script would answer some time in the future.
Or if not that, time travel would definitely.

[SwamyG]

I do not check this dhaaga, however as I was reading the book "Pre-Pauranika Hinduism" by Professor S.R. Goyal, I remembered this thread, and wanted to share his thoughts:

Excerpt from Page 45/46 of the above said book. All italics are from the book.

The present author finds it difficult to assume that the Aryans (whether they were a race, or a linguistic or cultural group) spread from India to Europe.. It needs to be remembered that the 'Aryan' or 'Indo-Europeans' emerge on the stage of world history in the first half of the second millennium B.C. - the history of Indo-Iranians of Iran, Kassites of Babylon, Mitannians and Hittites of Asia Minor, Achaeans and Mycenaeans of Greece etc. - shows it very pointedly. Therefore, the existence of Indo-Aryans in Indian in 3000 B.C. or earlier does not seem likely. On the other hand, the view that the 'Aryans' began to enter India in the first half of the second millennium B.C. fits well with the general history of the Aryans perfectly. Further, it is a well established fact that in India their movement and spread (as is the case with all subsequent movements) took places from the North-West towards Magadha and then to the South. According to the Satapatha Brahmana (I.4.1.10 ff.), Videgha Mathava, the King of Videhas, accompanied by his priest Gautma Rahugana carried the sacrificial fire from the banks of Sarasvati over Kosala eastwards across the Sadanira, and established a settlement known as Videha. The story preserves the tradition that the Videhas received their culture from the banks of Sarasvati in the West and the Kosala was Brahmanised before Videha. In the South the Vedic religion, culture and language were still struggling to establish themselves in the post-Buddha period. When the Ramayana was composed its author knew that the greater part of the Deccan and the whole of the Far South was devoid of the Vedic people and religion. There is no doubt some references in it to the asramas of rishis,but they are obviously interpolated passages. They are only as reliable as the reference to the belief of Hanumana of Kishkindha and Vibhishana of Lanka in the godhood of Rama even before they encountered Rama as a human price of Ayodhya! There is no instance when the movement of a people took place from the North-West of the Indian sub-continent towards West Asia and Europe.

[Murugan]

An ancient ecosystem locked in time

http://www.themetrognome.in/places/an-a ... ed-in-time

I had an opportunity to meet and discuss with Paleontologists of Deccan college recently. They have confirmed that horse's remains have been found in Manjra rive valley of Latur in Maharashtra. From their even hippo's fossils have been found, one can see these fossils in Deccan college lab too.

[member_22872]

It needs to be remembered that the 'Aryan' or 'Indo-Europeans' emerge on the stage of world history in the first half of the second millennium B.C. the history of Indo-Iranians of Iran, Kassites of Babylon, Mitannians and Hittites of Asia Minor, Achaeans and Mycenaeans of Greece etc. - shows it very pointedly. Therefore, the existence of Indo-Aryans in Indian in 3000 B.C. or earlier does not seem likely. On the other hand, the view that the 'Aryans' began to enter India in the first half of the second millennium B.C. fits well with the general history of the Aryans perfectly. Further, it is a well established fact that in India their movement and spread (as is the case with all subsequent movements) took places from the North-West towards Magadha and then to the South.

What are his reasons and assumptions for this conclusion? what about genetic studies?, genetic studies do suggest a movement from one continent to another even before second millennium BC, they were not 'pointed' which ever direction you see. So not sure on what basis he draws his conclusions. Anyway...

[Manny]

Anyone seen this?

This theory seems more reasonable than the idiotic AIT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjBlZl8RON8

[Prem Kumar]

SwamyG: the author (Goyal) seems to be trying too hard to support the AIT or AMT or ATT (last one courtesy Rajeev Srinivasan - the Aryan Tourist Theory). Doe he even define what Aryan is? As venug asks, what is being shown so "pointedly"?

[vishvak]

Pointedly, seem, likely, view, general history, perfectly, established etc etc are weasel words each. If you look at time scale for example in terms of BC then beyond 4000 BC there is no time in reference to Christ. Such themes abound in aryan horse theory, after invasion theory was transformed quietly to something else and now the invasion theory isn't even discussed.

It is not unknown that words like Sanskrit were absent in Europe before 17th century. But such reference is ignored as and when it doesn't fit. The word aryan is Sanskrit isn't it.

[SwamyG]

SwamyG: the author (Goyal) seems to be trying too hard to support the AIT or AMT or ATT (last one courtesy Rajeev Srinivasan - the Aryan Tourist Theory). Doe he even define what Aryan is? As venug asks, what is being shown so "pointedly"?

I will try to give a few more excerpts - as time permits, to give a picture of the author and his views

Page 8

When the hypothesis of an Aryan invasion and occupation of India was first proposed it was believed that the arrival of the Aryans in this country was the arrival of a white-skinned, blue-eyed and golden haired people into a land of the black-skinned non-Aryans on whom the Aryans imposed their superior religion, culture and language. It was also believed that all the better elements of Hindu culture and religion - in fact everything which is great, good and noble in it - came from the Aryans and whatever is dark, lowly and superstitious in Hindu religion and civilization represents only an expression of the suppressed non-Aryan mentality. This view is now being gradually abandoned. It is now generally admitted, particularly after a study of the bases of Dravidian and Aryan cultures through language and institutions, that the Dravidians contributed a great many elements of paramount importance to the evolution of Hindu religion and civilization.

More laterz.

[member_22872]

What is this obsession for dichotomy? dravidian and others who are not dravidian? if not white skin, the author seems to have this dichotomy based division: dravidian and non-dravidian which he called called Aryan may be of a shade lesser than 'white' so what?, so how does it matter, anyway you look at it, dung is dung even if your gift warp it to look better. First you create this fictitious dichotomy then weave a story to fit one's whims.

[Virendra]

Genetic Evidence in favor of OIT

Reposted from here.
American Journal of Human Genetics Volume 89, Issue 6, 9 December 2011, Pages 731–744

Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia [Download]
Authors: Mait Metspalu¹⁺²⁺¹³, Irene Gallego Romero³⁺¹³⁺¹⁴, Bayazit Yunusbayev¹⁺⁴⁺¹³, Gyaneshwer Chaubey¹, Chandana Basu Mallick¹⁺², Georgi Hudjashov¹⁺², Mari Nelis⁵⁺⁶, Reedik Mägi⁷⁺⁸, Ene Metspalu², Maido Remm⁷, Ramasamy Pitchappan⁹, Lalji Singh¹⁰⁺¹¹, Kumarasamy Thangaraj¹⁰, Richard Villems¹⁺²⁺¹², Toomas Kivisild¹⁺²⁺³

¹ Evolutionary Biology Group, Estonian Biocentre, 51010 Tartu, Estonia
² Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, 51010 Tartu, Estonia
³ Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK
⁴ Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Research Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Department of Genetics and Fundamental Medicine, Bashkir State University, 450054 Ufa, Russia
⁵ Department of Biotechnology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre, 51010 Tartu, Estonia
⁶ Department of Genetic Medicine and Development, University of Geneva Medical School, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
⁷ Department of Bioinformatics, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu, 51010 Tartu, Estonia
⁸ Genetic and Genomic Epidemiology Unit, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK
⁹ Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chettinad Health City, Chennai 603 103, India
¹⁰ Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad 500 007, India
¹¹ Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi 221 005, India
¹² Estonian Academy of Sciences, Tallinn, Estonia

Abstract:
South Asia harbors one of the highest levels genetic diversity in Eurasia, which could be interpreted as a result of its long-term large effective population size and of admixture during its complex demographic history. In contrast to Pakistani populations, populations of Indian origin have been underrepresented in previous genomic scans of positive selection and population structure. Here we report data for more than 600,000 SNP markers genotyped in 142 samples from 30 ethnic groups in India. Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed Haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP. Consistent with the results of pairwise genetic distances among world regions, Indians share more ancestry signals with West than with East Eurasians. However, compared to Pakistani populations, a higher proportion of their genes show regionally specific signals of high Haplotype homozygosity. Among such candidates of positive selection in India are MSTN and DOK5, both of which have potential implications in lipid metabolism and the etiology of type 2 diabetes.

Found this refutation to the Metspalu-Thangaraj paper at:
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... ambudvipa/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A recent paper by Metspalu et al in AHJG adds additional data to the growing material on the genetics of the Indians. The paper has several issues that are rather unsatisfactory – chief among them is the attempt to meaninglessly hand wave on OIT and AIT. The AIT is sitting right there in their data, yet they attempt to obfuscate the issue in somewhat amateurish ways [Appendix 1]. But that is not something we wish to discuss today because there is new work that might be published relatively soon that will smash the OIT theory for good. However, their paper does generate some new and useful data on positive selection and it is possible relationship to the insulin resistance related conditions in India...
...
...
Appendix 1: Since some people asked me about AIT/OIT, at the risk of repeating what we have said before on these pages let us go through the details again. In figure two of their paper the authors present an analysis with ADMIXTURE with 8 and 12 clusters (Figure 2). In the K8 analysis we have k5, which is shared by Indians, Iranians, many Indo-European speaking Europeans, Central Asians, West Asians, and Caucasians. It is found at similar levels in Northern and Southern brAhmaNa-s and northern kShatriya-s. It is absent in Africans, importantly the Sardinians (representatives of the Pre-Indoeuropean inhabitants of Europe (aka proto-Europeans), East Asians and Papuans. In India it is largely absent or low in the Austro-Asiatic Munda, eastern tribes like Khasis, Nihalis, Nagas and Garos and also in southern tribes like Paniyans, Pulliyars and Malayans. This corresponds in large part to the “ANI” component of Reich et al’s work; we may call it the Arya component. The other major component of interest among Indians is the k6@K8, which is found in majority of populations from the Indian sub-continent. This component is found at highest levels in Pulliyars, Paniyans, Malayans, Gonds and also the Munda tribesmen, in whom there is an additional east Asian admixture. This is in large part the “ASI” of Reich et al’s analysis; we may term it the niShAda component. This component declines both eastwards and westwards from the heart of India. Outside India it is only present at low levels in Iranians, Central Asians, Burmese and Cambodians. So in large part the Indians can be genetically reconstructed as differential admixtures of the k6@K8 and k5@K8 components – comparable to what was done by Reich et al.

Now given that k5@K8 is shared with Europeans, West Asians and Caucasians in principle both OIT and AIT are potential explanation. If OIT were the true explanation then we should see some proportion of k6@K8 being distributed to all the recipient populations of the OIT migration because all sub-continental populations share k6@K8. But this is not the case – only the populations in the immediate vicinity of India have k6@K8, consistent with Indian genetic material local spreading to the immediate periphery of the sub-continent. So if OIT happened it was confined to barely the immediate surroundings of the sub-continent, which is inconsistent with the spread of Indo-Aryan and Iranian, leave alone Indo-European. On the other hand k5@K8 is consistent with the spread of people from the general vicinity of the Caucasus to Europe, West Asia and the Indian sub-continent; several of the recipient populations also appear to share languages of the Indo-European family. This is basically AIT. It should be noted that k3@K8 and k4@K8 represent respectively early European and early West Asian populations that in Europe and West Asia mixed with the k5@K8 component. In India k5@K8 mainly mixed with the ancient Indian population represented by k6@K8. The authors use a simulation to claim that this admixture happened before 12,500 years. This result in our opinion is flawed because of certain early West Asian variants seeping into India and inflating the age of admixture. The k5@K8 signal in large part comes from the “ANI” component of Reich et al. Using that data one might conservatively estimate the age of admixture as being around 200 gens, which is consistent with an Indo-European influx into India bringing much of the ANI genetic signatures.

With respect to the linguistic landscape of India we might make the following comments based on the genetic data: The Austro-Asiatic Munda languages were not endogenous to ancient India. Instead, Austro-Asiatic speakers intruded from southeast Asia and penetrated deep into India, while mixing with local proto-India tribal populations. From this admixture emerged the Munda tribes who adopted the intrusive AA language, while retaining several words from the proto-India language. Given the dominance of the O2a Y-chromosome haplotype among the Munda, shared with southeast Asian AA speakers, this is another example of the father-tongue becoming mother tongue, whenever there is an male driven intrusion (e.g. Spanish or Portuguese decimating local languages in the colonial period). So there was no question of the Indus civilization being Munda or even “Para-Munda” for that matter. What we observe is that the common “inexplicable” vocabulary shared by IA, AA and Dravidian in the sub-continent is dominated by the kA, kI, ku class of words. Hence, these words belonged to the language X family proposed by Masica and not to Dr or AA. It is now becoming increasingly clear that this language X family was likely to have been a major language family of the proto-Indians, i.e. those who were the carriers of the original k6@K8 component. The footprints of the language X family indeed mirror the distribution of k6@K8 in cutting across the other linguistic families of the sub-continent though the family itself is extinct today. This leaves us with the question of Dravidian – was there a Dravidian invasion or did it emerge in situ? The uncertainty in the ultimate origin of Dravidian stems from how one treats the Brahui problem. If Brahui is considered a late secondary dispersal, then it is likely that Dravidian originated in peninsular India and spread upwards. Even if Brahui suggests an initial western origin, we suspect that there was a major episode of Dravidian expansion from peninsular India. On the whole we are currently tilted towards the hypothesis that both the language X and Dravidian families were representatives of the original linguistic diversification in the subcontinent that later expanded greatly to occupy large territories. But it appears that language X had a more north-western “center of gravity” relative to Dravidian, which was more south-eastern in its center of gravity.

Disclaimer: While we disagree with the authors’ conclusions on this matter we have nothing personal against them. We describe their attempts as amateurish because they reduce the Indo-European hypothesis to being a mere speculation of Max Mueller; to the contrary it is a rather robust hypothesis that has currently withstood all objective tests. It is also abundantly clear based on this hypothesis that it was intrusive into India rather than moving out of it. The only question is whether the ancient spread of the Indo-European languages to India was accompanied by a corresponding spread of genetic material. Unfortunately, the authors hardly present this issue clear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I don't know the G of Genetics but I'll try to dig in and weigh both sides on this genetic see-saw.
I suggest the better learned Gurus here to do the same.
Those who haven't been through the paper, would request them to first read and understand what it posits. Then only a thorough counter-counter is possible.

[shiv]

Virendra this "rebuttal" of metspalu and Thangaraj is 100% correct - except that it is not a rebuttal as it purports to be.

Metspalu and Tnagaraj themselves state very clearly that there was an ASI/ANI mixture and the very names ANI- Ancestral North Indian -which this man wants to call "Arya genes" and "ASI - Ancestral South Indian which this "rebuttal" wants to call "niShAda " means that there was a separate bunch of genes that are related to Europe and West Asia and another bunch of genes (ASI) related more closely to the Andmanese.

That is exactly what the original paper says.

But the original paper (and one subsequent paper by Priya Moorjani) comment on the fact that there is very thorough mixing of ASI and ANI among Indians and that includes Pakistanis. No South Indian, Dravidian speaking tribal lacks "ANI" genes and no "Aryan invader" Paki lacks the "ASI (South Indian niShAda)" genes

The Metspalu paper and subsequent papers have extrapolated this mixing of genes back to see when it could have occurred and it turns out that this mixing occurred long before the date 1500 BC that the "Aryan Invasion Theory" or AMT postulates.

The point is NOT that an admixture of genes from Europe and West Asia did not occur. The point is that admixture DID occur but started at very remote times in the past. Priya Moorjani's paper states that the admixture may have started as early as 30,000 years ago and another date is about 9000 years ago. She argues against a more recent admixture

It appears that
1. Metspalu and Thagaraj and co are better scientists than the author of this rebuttal
2. they have a better grasp of what has been said about AIT and the dates
3. The author of this blog has not understood the Metspalu paper or even the details of AIT/AMT as currently espoused
4. He has a clear political agenda in the nasty manner in which he starts by saying:

the attempt to meaninglessly hand wave on OIT and AIT.

and then posts this brain fart

Disclaimer: While we disagree with the authors’ conclusions on this matter we have nothing personal against them

Why, oh why on earth should a so called "academic refutation" of a purely scientific paper have setences like "we have nothing against them" or "hand wave" etc. I spend my entire life reading academic papers and know that only nasties with a political or personal agenda use such language. Hack thoo to you too sir. No wonder it's a blog and not a journal article.

Here is a post about the Priya Moorjani paper I made on DFI
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/reli ... post793692

[Prem Kumar]

I will try to give a few more excerpts - as time permits, to give a picture of the author and his views

More laterz.

SwamyG: dont bother. The mere fact that the author seems to take for granted that there is an Aryan & a Dravidian, makes his entire premise untenable. One of the key take-aways of this thread is that such a division is artificial and is not based on any evidence.

[SwamyG]

A few more paragraphs...:

Page 42/43

But recently a tendency has developed among some 'progressive' or Marxist historians to attribute motive to others. It has imparted political overtones to a purely academic debate. It appears that for some Marxists all those who believe in the indigenous origin theory of the Aryan people (whether as a race or as a cultural or a linguistic group) or in the identity or even contemporaneity of the Indus and Vedic civilizations are 'Hindutva' ideologues trying to prove that the Hindus are indigenous sons of India and Muslims and Christians are foreigners since their religion did not originate in India......
.....Such scholars obviously expect that others should either accept their interpretation of facts or be prepared to be branded as communalists or Hindutvavadins. But they forget that in history it is only 'facts' that are sacred, not their Marxist interpretation.

Page 43

Many of the Marxist historians have patently misinterpreted even archaeological facts to negate the possibility of a connection between the Vedic and Indus cultures..........Similarly, many assertions have been made by on-Marxists as well regarding the Aryan invasion on the Indian cities. Wheeler had asserted that the Aryans massacred the people of Mohenjodaro. In recent years many scholars have sharply criticized this assertion. But the whole controversy is pointless for we do not know the racial features of the Aryans (if they were a racially homeogenous group) which would enable us to find out whether or not the skeletons found at Mohenjodaro belong to the Aryans. For all we know, the massacred persons could themselves have been Aryans who had settled in Mohenjodaro.

Page 44

Then there is the question of the place of Dravidians in the Indian population. Even when one gives up the idea of 'race', he cannot entirely overlook the differences between the people of the Punjab, for instance, and the people of Tamil Nadu. Their languages despite their mutual impact, also could not have had the same origin.

It may also be remembered that even if the Aryans were not a race and did not come to this country as invaders, it does not necessarily follow that they were an indigenous people of the country. There may be numerous possibilities: They could have....

[SwamyG]

I will try to give a few more excerpts - as time permits, to give a picture of the author and his views

More laterz.

SwamyG: dont bother. The mere fact that the author seems to take for granted that there is an Aryan & a Dravidian, makes his entire premise untenable. One of the key take-aways of this thread is that such a division is artificial and is not based on any evidence.

You say the author takes for "granted"; have you read his works or are you concluding that based on the few paragraphs I quoted here? If it is from my paragraphs, then you have to take into account that I am just presenting a few choice paragraphs; and it is difficult to give a full picture of the author, his thoughts and sentiments he holds. I can provide only so many quotes, one more:

...it will be more appropriate to speak of language-cultures than of racial-cultures though a limited impact of a racial type on its culture can hardly be denied. Secondly, we should remember that from the beginning of history racial intermixture is going on continuously leading to profound modifications in every racial type. So far as India is concerned the present situation is that the six main races mentioned above with their various ramifications, which have gone to the formation of the people of India, are now included within one or the other of four distinct speech-families, namely, the Austric (Nishada, Kol or Munda), the Tibeto-Chinese (Kirata), the Dravidian and the Indo-European or Arya.

Based on B.S.Guha, Goyal lists the six races as:
1. Negrito
2. Proto-Australoid
3. Mongoloid
4. Mediterranean
5. Western Brachycephals
6. Nordic

S.R.Goyal seems to hold S.K.Chaterji and his work "The Vedic Age" in high regards.

[Nilesh Oak]

SwamyG,

What is his (Goyal) conclusion? Does he seem to have anything new to present?

I know you have quoted only few passages and there is limit to how much you can quote. Based on what you have quoted, (unless he has something original) he is wasting time, his and that of others..."Charvit charvanam"- "Chewing the Chewed" (You can see the flow from Sanskrti to English.... )

--------------
As Popper would say, who he (Goyal) holds in high regard is of little consequence. What evidence he presents for whatever he is proposing is all that matters.

[Prem Kumar]

SwamyG: I am going by what you have quoted. All your quotes have Goyal repeatedly use the word Aryan without defining it. And making a distinction between Aryan & Dravidian. Does he define these terms? Does he explain why he thinks these are 2 distinct cultures - race and/or language?

Also your latest quote has him saying that the Tamilians look different from Punjabis & speak a different language (which he claims could not have a common origin). Today's Norwegian and Kenyan look very different - dont they have the same ancestor? And if Goyal claims Punjabi & Tamil do not have the same origin, does he offer reasons why he comes to this conclusion?

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: does the Priya Moorjani paper explain why the Out of India hypothesis isnt a valid one? None of the 3 possibilities seem to refer to OIT. Are there genetic evidences against it?

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: I read the Priya Moorjani paper. Didnt understand the technical details but got some take-aways from the conclusions:

1) Period on or before 4200 - 1900 BP --> significant admixture between ANI & ASI, followed by isolation

2) Prior to admixture, ANI & ASI might have co-existed for 1000s or even 10s of 1000s of years without mixing. Evidence for similar patterns observed in central Europe

3) Admixture between 4200 - 1900 BP (or earlier) was local. No mixture between ANI & Eurasia till at least 12000 BP (as shown by a different study)

4) These are admixture dates. Migration dates were earlier

5) Multiple admixtures in North Indian population possible compared to single admixtures in South Indian population

6) Out of India cannot be shown by this study because it is interested in Indian ANI & ASI genes, not direction of gene flow between Indian and Europeans

[shiv]

Based on B.S.Guha, Goyal lists the six races as:
1. Negrito
2. Proto-Australoid
3. Mongoloid
4. Mediterranean
5. Western Brachycephals
6. Nordic

S.R.Goyal seems to hold S.K.Chaterji and his work "The Vedic Age" in high regards.

These names are outdated classifications that were used before modern anatomy, physiology and more recently genetics showed that they are completely useless in any form of human classification other than the racist use that they were employed for when they were in common use. These men are writing outdated stuff gleaned from age old books.

The names themselves are derive from nonsensical concepts like "anthropometry" and "physiognomy".

Anyone who uses this classification has absolutely no clue whatsoever about science and human biology and should not be talking about humans at all.

[shiv]

No Prem The Morrjani paper says that ASI / ANI admixture has been occurring for possibly 30,000 years and at least 9000 years. No ref to OIT

Moorjani says that the Eurasian and Indian genes diverged 30,000 years ago so the ASI/ANI mix may have started as early as 30,000 years ago - or more likely 9000 years ago. Least likely is 4000 years ago because human populations in India were very high then and it would be unlikely for such thorough mixing of ASI/ANI genes all over the Indian subcontinent, northto south, east to west in just 4000 years

Here is a quote from the paper taken form my own DFI post linked above:

Three different hy-
potheses (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 hypoth-
esis 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. Evi-
dence 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 peo-
ples 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 civi-
lization 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 subconti-
nent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by
this time India was a densely populated region with wide-
spread 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 migra-
tion. 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.

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: I read the summary and the rest of the paper (at least the parts where my eyes didnt glaze over!). Yes - they say that ANI/ASI has been around for 30-40K years BP. And populations could have been admixing all along. But the dates for the "latest" admixture that they detect in the sample they studied ranges from 4200 - 1900 YBP (the older dates for the South Indian population). They also say that their study can only detect the "latest" admixture and not ones prior to that (though they have some ideas on how to do it, with more tools/sampling).

See Table 1, Page 427 of this URL: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0002929713003248 ... 3e2b38b7e1

Also migration dates are earlier than admixture dates.

[Prem Kumar]

A couple of take-aways from the other paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711004885

1) > 12500 years BP admixture between Europe, Central Asia & India. Pretty much convincingly demolishes AIT/AMT/ATT

In terms of human population history, our oldest simulated migration event occurred roughly 12,500 years ago and predates or coincides with the initial Neolithic expansion in the Near East. Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla15) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration.

2) More genetic diversity in k5 & k6 (ANI and ASI) ancestry components in South Asia --> indicating an OIT flow

Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool.

[shiv]

Prem Kumar let me make a prediction about what is likely to be found - but for that I think it is a good idea to stop talking in terms of "OIT" ot "AIT" and just concentrate on what humans and the world was doing around 10,000 years ago.

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. When it started, humans in Europe migrated out to what current refs call as "refugia". But the ice age did not ice up India or the Indian ocean. In fact ocean levels would have dropped and the 10 meter deep waters from Gujarat to Arabia would have been exposed land.

It is very likely that humans travelled into tropical areas in the ice age to escape the cold. That may have led to an admixture 25 to 30,000 years ago. When the ice age ended about 10,000 years ago there was aa back migration into Europe and at least some of this would have been OIT - which would explain the presence of M17 haplotype which originated in Gujarat but is found all the way up to Poland. Ancient Eastern European legends speak of an "Indija Koromandija" and a far away warm land where crops grow twice a year. This is an undated legend and cannot be used as proof of anything. But it exists as a data point.

There may have bee a subsequent back migration of people to India around 9000 years ago along with argriculture because Moorjani says that evidence of Agriculture in South India is not as old as evidence of Agriculture in the North. After that there have been plenty of migrations into India which is not surprising given that India is a warm land where crops really do grow twice a year.

None of this fits into any AIT/OIT pattern. But it also essentially screws up the current AIT that says everything came from Europe 3500 years ago and that before that there was no influence or connection. That is nonsense. The genetic connections between Eurasian component of ANI genes and the ASI genes have been around for at least 8-9000 years. There s plenty of known and recorded history from 3000 years ago and there would have to be a massive invasion/migration into already populated and well settled areas along with population interbreeding all the way up to Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Kerala to explain the thorough admixture of genes. No such migration or invasion has taken place in living memory. The gene admixtures are very ancient and their connection with language is unknown. The fact is that Kashmri Pandit, Pathan TFTA and tribal adivasi all have ASI and ANI genes . TFTA have 60-70% ANI and 30-40% ASI. Tribal Dravidian speaking adivasis have 60% Ancestral South Indian (ASI) genes and 40 Ancestral "North Indian" (ANI) genes with European admixture. This has not occurred in the last 3000 years - and is likely to be 9000 years or older. That predates AIT as told by lingsists.

Ultimately linguistic theories have to account for the facts revealed by genetic findings. Genetic findings cannot be ignored or sidelined in favour of linguistic theories. It may well be that "Indo-European languages" existed earlier than 9000 years ago and the spread of people into and out of India simply caused and admixture of people who spoke similar languages. There may have been both into India and Out of India over a period of over 20,000 years. (I think we should stop using the terms AIT or AMT in favor of into India and out of India

The similarity of Sanskrit with Russian and Lithuanian which has been suggested to be a link older than 5000 years old (because of lack of a common word for metals), taken along with the M17 subclade suggests some OIT prior to 5000 years ago at which time the language was already developed. Whether the Rig Veda existed then or not is immaterial because it only means that the language associated with the Rig Veda was already there 5000 years ago and spoken by a population who were already thoroughly genetically mixed with peninsular people of the south.
This essentially calls into question the timeline of PIE as having existed in Europe 4500 years ago and having arrived in India about 3000-3500 years ago.

[Virendra]

Thanks shiv
I'll read the Moorajani paper. Tll now I've read the Metspalu-Thangaraj paper and this refutation.
Here's my view on the refutation :-
Putting up the Metspalu-Thangaraj paper's figure here for easier reference by all.

In the K8 analysis we have k5, which is shared by Indians, Iranians, many Indo-European speaking Europeans, Central Asians, West Asians, and Caucasians. It is found at similar levels in Northern and Southern brAhmaNa-s and northern kShatriya-s.

Wrong and misleading. Not just Brahmins or Kshatriyas, the (light green)k5 is found at similar and very healthy diversity levels all over India .. even in Chamars, Dhankars, Kol, Muslims and Kanjars. I don't know why the author forgot to mention them.

In India it is largely absent or low in the Austro-Asiatic Munda, eastern tribes like Khasis, Nihalis, Nagas and Garos and also in southern tribes like Paniyans, Pulliyars and Malayans.

The component is ofcourse found in Pulliyars, Malayans, Kannadis, Kunumbas, Kaliars at varying diversities. All are southern people. Barring Kerala, all other southern states give diversity levels comparable to Hazaras, Iranians etc. Barring Kerela, at none other southern region could it be called 'almost absent'.

This corresponds in large part to the “ANI” component of Reich et al’s work; we may call it the Arya component.

Why? How does ANI become Arya all of a sudden?

Now given that k5@K8 is shared with Europeans, West Asians and Caucasians in principle both OIT and AIT are potential explanation. If OIT were the true explanation then we should see some proportion of k6@K8 being distributed to all the recipient populations of the OIT migration because all sub-continental populations share k6@K8. But this is not the case - only the populations in the immediate vicinity of India have k6@K8

The blogger is assuming a one-time single wave OIT migration and is therefore expecting k6 in Europe just because k5 is there. The k6 component's reach to have completed in all the Indian populations, could well be a point in timeline that took place after the k5 departed as an early OIT wave.
Reasons are obvious from shiv's posts and become clearer when we read about Ice Age, late Pleistocene and Holocene.
I'd say k6's enveloping of entire India completed only in early Holocene. One could easily lookup the graph figure and try to ask themselves why k6 (dark green) is weaker in the Af-Pak and Iran region as compare to present India (specially Gujarat).
That is because it spread into these regions later. OTOH k5 light green is already at higher diversity levels in the same regions, indicating a past wave.
Based on these studies I think the true thorough India to Europe OIT wave happened in Pleistocene only. After that the India originated components are only spilling over to the neighboring regions.

On the other hand k5@K8 is consistent with the spread of people from the general vicinity of the Caucasus to Europe, West Asia and the Indian sub-continent; several of the recipient populations also appear to share languages of the Indo-European family. This is basically AIT

First fact : k5's haplotype diversity is higher in India than Europe-Caucasus.
Second fact : For a particular component (like k5) if there are remarkable differences in its haplotype diversity between two regions; it means the the gene migration from source region to destination region happened recently. Paper says within 12,500 yrs; lets say for sake of criticism or neutrality that there was exaggeration and this is only 5,000 yrs.
The diversity levels for k5 betwen Caucasus-Europe and India are very well comparable .. no big differences. Thus k5 didn't travel to and fro India in the last 5,000 years .. or say 12,500 yrs if we were not being skeptical. Where is AIT?

The authors use a simulation to claim that this admixture happened before 12,500 years. This result in our opinion is flawed because of certain early West Asian variants seeping into India and inflating the age of admixture. The k5@K8 signal in large part comes from the “ANI” component of Reich et al. Using that data one might conservatively estimate the age of admixture as being around 200 gens

ANI is >= 30,000 YBP. What does that tell about k5@k8?
And even if I were to accept the blogger's 200 generations argument .. 25 x 200 = 5000 years. ... How is an admixture at 3,000 BCE and migration before 3,000 BCE going to support AIT?

The Austro-Asiatic Munda languages were not endogenous to ancient India. Instead, Austro-Asiatic speakers intruded from southeast Asia and penetrated deep into India, while mixing with local proto-India tribal populations. From this admixture emerged the Munda tribes who adopted the intrusive AA language, while retaining several words from the proto-India language.

Proto-India ??
Anyway, fact about Austro-Asiatic / Munda languages is that they share ancient agricultural words with IE languages as well as the Dravidian language family. Such words are found in languages of as far away as the west Europe.
Regardless of which language family put the words into which .. it proves one thing. The early speakers of all the three language families were well in touch with each other.
Now comes the twist. There is no Munda or Dravidian even in west Asia. Then where did this ancient contact of three parties occur? No prize for answering that

Regards,
Virendra

[SwamyG]

Nilesh: My first post/quote is his conclusion of his first chapter. The book is part of a series of Hinduism; and this book is pre-pauranic hinduism. I do not see a need for authors to be original, if they do not claim so if the topic/book does not demand it. The reason I brought Chatterjee and Guha is because he uses their ideas as a strong basis. There was no appeal for authority by me or him.

[SwamyG]

Anyone who uses this classification has absolutely no clue whatsoever about science and human biology and should not be talking about humans at all.

Most of the humans do not know what they are talking about, including those in this forum. We all should sit at the feet of a few gyanis listen to them and sing their laurels.

[peter]

This much is certain. And it certainly points to their having studied Vedas.

And it is not a speculation to assume that Mittanis somehow had studied Vedas, since you say that they are kings and don't follow the customs of their citizens? What proof do you have for:
1. Mittanis or their kings studied Vedas? if they indeed had done that, how did they do it given that they were Mlecchas?

How were they Mlechhas? What is the evidence? Mitannis using Vedic Gods is proof enough for me that they read Vedas. Onus on you to prove otherwise.

2. Studying Vedas is so intensive, how do you suppose they did it?..without answering these questions, any statement based on western scholarship that Mittanis had Vedic knowledge is an assumption at the best.

Who is making a statement based on Western Scholarship? Mitanni treaties are known far and wide. To keep repeating "Mittanis had Vedic knowledge is an assumption at the best." shows you are not clear about what is written in Vedas.

One more try:
Please figure out why only the four gods were used by Mitanni on their treaty.

But you are speculating. Why not look at the evidence from Mitanni and reach a better conclusion. What is the need to argue without data?

Exactly, my point too. I merely said that you dont have data either...

If Mitanni tablets are not "data" what else ?

This is turning very silly. You refuse to comprehend the significance of the Gods used in Mitanni treaties. Till you understand this point I am afraid you won't understand what is being discussed.