Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[ramana]

Modus Operandi

[brihaspati]

ramanaji, yes neurolinguistics.

Here is something interesting [not sure this has not been posted before]
ref: Haber M, Platt DE, Ashrafian Bonab M, Youhanna SC, Soria-Hernanz DF, et al. (2012) Afghanistan’s Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events. PLoS ONE 7(3): e34288. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034288

The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India.

MDS and Barrier analysis have identified a significant affinity between Pashtun, Tajik, North Indian, and West Indian populations, creating an Afghan-Indian population structure that excludes the Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the South Indian Dravidian speakers. In addition, gene flow to Afghanistan from India marked by Indian lineages, L-M20, H-M69, and R2a-M124, also seems to mostly involve Pashtuns and Tajiks. This genetic affinity and gene flow suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region’s first civilizations at the Indus Valley and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

Furthermore, BATWING results indicate that the Afghan populations split from Iranians, Indians and East Europeans at about 10.6 kya (95% CI 7,100–15,825), which marks the start of the Neolithic revolution and the establishment of the farming communities. In addition, Pashtun split first from the rest of the Afghans around 4.7 kya (95% CI 2,775–7,725), which is a date marked by the rise of the Bronze Age civilizations of the region. These dates suggest that the differentiation of the social systems in Afghanistan could have been driven by the emergence of the first urban civilizations.
[cautious discussion follows about timing estimates]

We have found limited genetic evidence of expansions previously thought to have left specific imprints in current populations.

[member_20317]

And a declining diversity of R1A1 lineage should indicate movement north westwards in a period well before 10.6 kya right?

In which case it means genetic movement is before the dates of written Indic Philosophical texts as accepted by RajeshA ji. Implying thereby that genetic migration was independent of knowledge migration.

[ramana]

So cant rely on PIE or cake?

[ramana]

Bji, in the Puranas or Vedas when did Goddess Saraswati become important? I think she is said to have given "vak" or speech to humans.

[Theo_Fidel]

Note that even these genetic lines far predate Kurgan peoples who leave Archeological evidence only from 4000 BC with classical migration as late as 2000 BC. Per AIT, Kurgans from 2000BC to about 500BC completely replaced entire European lineages, swamped North India and also produced completely different religious structures, wrote Veda's, wrote Zoroastrian texts, and technologies in one fell swoop. They also then proceeded to depopulate Central Asia to such an extent that there is almost no trace of R1a1a left in Central Asia at the place of supposed birth. Every single European language and many many lines besides are present in India. AIT claims that all the lines present in India just died out elsewhere. It is a sign of how little imagination these people have.

[ramana]

Theo,

It is a sign of how little imagination these people have.

How so? Make it clear so a new person can get it.

[svinayak]

ramanaji, yes neurolinguistics.

Here is something interesting [not sure this has not been posted before]
ref: Haber M, Platt DE, Ashrafian Bonab M, Youhanna SC, Soria-Hernanz DF, et al. (2012) Afghanistan’s Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events. PLoS ONE 7(3): e34288. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034288

The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India.

MDS and Barrier analysis have identified a significant affinity between Pashtun, Tajik, North Indian, and West Indian populations, creating an Afghan-Indian population structure that excludes the Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the South Indian Dravidian speakers. In addition, gene flow to Afghanistan from India marked by Indian lineages, L-M20, H-M69, and R2a-M124, also seems to mostly involve Pashtuns and Tajiks. This genetic affinity and gene flow suggests interactions that could have existed since at least the establishment of the region’s first civilizations at the Indus Valley and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

Furthermore, BATWING results indicate that the Afghan populations split from Iranians, Indians and East Europeans at about 10.6 kya (95% CI 7,100–15,825), which marks the start of the Neolithic revolution and the establishment of the farming communities. In addition, Pashtun split first from the rest of the Afghans around 4.7 kya (95% CI 2,775–7,725), which is a date marked by the rise of the Bronze Age civilizations of the region. These dates suggest that the differentiation of the social systems in Afghanistan could have been driven by the emergence of the first urban civilizations.
[cautious discussion follows about timing estimates]

We have found limited genetic evidence of expansions previously thought to have left specific imprints in current populations.

Bji
How is this explained. They can use the same information and twist it to show their version
link

Genetic anthropology

Main article: Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia


Distribution of R1a (purple) and R1b (red)
Unlike the Indo-European migration hypothesis, there is no clear genetic evidence for a prehistoric migration out of India. There is no evidence of widespread genetic displacement in Europe after the Paleolithic.[71][72] And Hemphill (1998) finds "no support for any model that calls for the ultimate origins of north Bactrian oasis Oxus Civilization populations to be inhabitants of the Indus Valley."
The virtual absence of India-specific mtDNA haplogroups outside of India argues against a large scale population movement out of India.[73] Tracing a possible "out of India" migration has therefore until recently focused upon Y-chromosome haplogroups. Concerning Y DNA, haplogroup R2 is characterized by genetic marker M124, and is rarely found outside India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern Central Asia. Outside of southern Eurasia, M124 was found at an unusually high frequency of 0.440 among the Kurmanji of Georgia, but at a much lower frequency of only 0.080 among the Kurmanji of Turkmenistan. The M124 frequency of 0.158 found among Chechens may be unrepresentative because it was derived from a sample size of only 19 Chechens. Outside of these populations and the Romani people, M124 is not found in Eastern Europe.[74]

Mass movements of people to or from India that might be associated with the spread of Indo-European languages have tended to revolve around Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1, which is identified with the M17 mutation. On the one hand, this Y lineage is found in higher levels amongst northern Indians and amongst higher castes, and is also found in modern populations in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.[75][76] On the other hand, the pattern within India is not always so clear, with lower castes and southern populations also sometimes showing high levels, and in fact several studies have proposed that the deepest roots of this lineage may be in or near India.[77]

The latest research conducted by Watkins et al. (2008) questions the use of uniparental markers such as the Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA, neither of which is immune to the effects of natural selection; they also argue for the need to analyze autosomal polymorphisms in conjunction with Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA in order to generate a more comprehensive picture of population genetic structure. The authors of the study write: "The historical record documents an influx of Vedic Indo-European-speaking immigrants into northwest India starting at least 3500 years ago. These immigrants spread southward and eastward into an existing agrarian society dominated by Dravidian speakers. With time, a more highly-structured patriarchal caste system developed ... our data are consistent with a model in which nomadic populations from northwest and central Eurasia intercalated over millennia into an already complex, genetically diverse set of subcontinental populations. As these populations grew, mixed, and expanded, a system of social stratification likely developed in situ, spreading to the Indo-Gangetic plain, and then southward over the Deccan plateau."[78]

Reich et al. (2009) indicates that the modern Indian population is a result of admixture between Indo-European (ANI) and Dravidian (ASI) populations. The authors of the study write: "It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke 'Proto-Indo-European', which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture." [79] Recent research indicates a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 1200 to 3500 years ago, "overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent."[80]

[brihaspati]

And a declining diversity of R1A1 lineage should indicate movement north westwards in a period well before 10.6 kya right?

In which case it means genetic movement is before the dates of written Indic Philosophical texts as accepted by RajeshA ji. Implying thereby that genetic migration was independent of knowledge migration.

There are serious problems with the linguistic "movements". Have been trying to point out the axiomatic nature of the premises - but experts are very sure of their conclusions. Linguists - when forced up the wall - point to archeologists as calibrators. Follow up and press archeologists - they point to linguistic assumptions. Both point to professional historians sure conclusions as the basis of their calibrations. Historians point to archeologists and linguists as basis for calibration. So the mutual back-scratching society cycles in interweaving loops.

So this will need much longer and patient removal of the wall brick by brick. No time at the moment - parikshaboards and grad droppings.

PS: the two latest studies attempting "dating" linguistically, [hierarchical adaptive Bayesian classifier] concludes most "likely" split from the hypothetical common parent at between 8.9 - 11.6 kya. So that may altogether point towards any possible PIE more likely around the neolithic splitting in west India. Words/elements describing individual items identified with a specific later period and location does not bring forward the entire language forward to a later date. I am sure words/fragments connected to the computer/web have become widely "spread" across modern languages. If horse and wheel places a language after horse and wheel can be archeologically traced, most currently used languages including English was invented only in the mid 20th century since it will be nearly impossible to find archeological traces of the modern computer before that period.

Note even if we accept all possible purely linguistic transformation [internal and external] assumptions, all that the reconstruction algorithms can conclude [under the necessary mutational axioms] is that some common parent existed. If that parent is no longer used by a living society, it can no longer be fixed in space. [Current or later spatial occupation of a language does not necessarily indicate its spatial origins - by the same logic so loudly claimed by AIT-ists].

[brihaspati]

Acharya ji,
that ref seems to be older compared to the one I cited. The genetics lobby was harried by the AIT lobby desperately throughout 2001-2010 period. More research, including those based on larger sets on SNP markers - are slowly problematizing older dogmas. Of course another research will come up probably trying to disqualify the ref I quoted. But that will no longer go uncontested since geneticists have tasted blood. In the end, the older dogmatists among both linguists and geneticists will have to accept defeat.

[Theo_Fidel]

B,

The geneticists are the ones who keep discovering these inconvenient details. It has been breathtaking how much they have push Indian genetics into deep time. The Geneticists are of the view that R1a1a was in India 20,000 years ago. The Dravidian lines were in India 30,000 years ago. The origin of the Dravidian lines too were in Northern regions. These two lines have been mixing or not mixing for 20,000 years. 90% of Indian Maternal lines were here 60,000 years ago.

This completely disagrees with the Kurgan model that the archeologists and linguist cling to dated to 2000BC.
-------------------------------------------

Ramana,

I know what you mean but there arn't too many newbies here.

[ramana]

Theo think of those who visit but dont register.

[brihaspati]

B,

The geneticists are the ones who keep discovering these inconvenient details. It has been breathtaking how much they have push Indian genetics into deep time. The Geneticists are of the view that R1a1a was in India 20,000 years ago. The Dravidian lines were in India 30,000 years ago. The origin of the Dravidian lines too were in Northern regions. These two lines have been mixing or not mixing for 20,000 years. 90% of Indian Maternal lines were here 60,000 years ago.

This completely disagrees with the Kurgan model that the archeologists and linguist cling to dated to 2000BC.
-------------------------------------------

Ramana,

I know what you mean but there arn't too many newbies here.

True. Both the Kurgan as well as the Anatolian become problematic.

[brihaspati]

ramana ji,
sarasvati<->language could be written based on a core memory of a much earlier period, and included as part of the narrative. Problem is that people latch on to words/objects which seem to be of later origins - as proof the everything in the text being described is of same later origin.

There is some reluctant acceptance of a possible stretch in the historical period covered in the extant form of the Rigveda. But that stretch is not to be allowed so far back that it jeopardizes the directional flow assumptions.

[ManishH]

They also then proceeded to depopulate Central Asia to such an extent that there is almost no trace of R1a1a left in Central Asia at the place of supposed birth.

Theo: you are totally missing data on "ancient" DNA here. DNA analysis of most Bronze age human remains in southern eurasian steppe have R1A1.

The explanation for why no trace of R1A1 is left today in central asia is the invasion of people speaking Altaic language speaking (Mongols etc) into southern eurasian steppes in Iron age.

For DNA data on Bronze age human remains of Eurasia, see:
"DNA Genealogy, Mutation Rates, and Some Historical Evidences Written in Y-Chromosome", Anatole A. Klyosov part 1 & 2

Excavations of some sites of Andronovo culture showed that eight inhabitants out of nine shared R1a1 haplogroup and haplotypes29 as follows, dating between 5,500 and 1,800 years

Also note that the controversial R1a1 is not the "white" gene.

Another very recent paper that points to steppe origin is:

"Phylogeography of R1a1 Y-chromosomal haplogroup and genetic history of Indo-Europeans." V. A. Stepanov. 2011

Recent discussion of the prehistoric spreading of the Indo-European language group has generally concentrated on two alternative hypotheses: so-called “Kurgan Culture” hypothesis, which places the homeland of proto-Indo-Europeans to the Steppe of Eastern Europe, and alternative hypothesis of the spread of farmers from the Near East (Anatolia) to Europe in the Neolithic times. Y-chromosomal haplogroup R1a1, lineage is thought to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, seems to be associated with the Kurgan culture. Three geographic areas with the highest frequency of R1a1 haplogroup were revealed: Eastern Europe; Southern Siberia and Hindustan where the highest diversity of microsatellite haplotypes was observed. Phylogenetic analysis of microsatellite haplotypes demonstrates the presence of three corresponding major clusters with the age of the generation of haplotytic diversity of 7.2-12.5 ky. The highest diversity in Hindustani is related to the presence of haplotypes of Indo-Pakistani and Southern Siberian clusters in the population from India and Pakistan, probably due to relatively recent migrations from Central Asia. The age of the cluster admittedly brought to Hindustan from Central Asia / Southern Siberia is 3,9 +/- 1,3 ky. Probably, the primary center of the generation of diversity and expansion of R1a1a was the territory of the Eastern European Steppe. With the spread of of R1a1 carriers, secondary centers of genetic diversity and population expansions were formed in the Southern Siberia and Hindustan.

If India is to be proven as the origin of R1a1, then some studies of excavated ancient human remains in India should have shown R1a1 right ? At least I'm not aware of any DNA study which shows human remains in India before 2nd millenium BC with R1a1. Such data is needed in order to counter very clear evidence from ancient DNA of southern eurasian steppe.

[member_20317]

Note that even these genetic lines far predate Kurgan peoples who leave Archeological evidence only from 4000 BC with classical migration as late as 2000 BC. Per AIT, Kurgans from 2000BC to about 500BC completely replaced entire European lineages, swamped North India and also produced completely different religious structures, wrote Veda's, wrote Zoroastrian texts, and technologies in one fell swoop. They also then proceeded to depopulate Central Asia to such an extent that there is almost no trace of R1a1a left in Central Asia at the place of supposed birth. Every single European language and many many lines besides are present in India. AIT claims that all the lines present in India just died out elsewhere. It is a sign of how little imagination these people have.

Theo ji, like yourself certain other members too have seen the sky. And even though there are not very many new members in BRF but whatever are there are meeting new people and gaining new knowledge every day. Please don’t loose faith. With BRF your knowledge is being taken across time too. I myself spent around 2-3 years on sizzle-fizzle with BRF archives providing new grounding every day. Though not strictly ‘on topic’ but I am sure this is what is going to happen to other threads too.

Take for example your small write up quoted above. I knew there were stars and there were blackholes but never had a view of the whole sky in such comprehensive ideation. It really is fantastic what is being proposed entirely out of line with understood history. ManishH ji has provided the example of Invasion again in an entirely different context – “The explanation for why no trace of R1A1 is left today in central asia is the invasion of people speaking Altaic language speaking (Mongols etc) into southern eurasian steppes in Iron age.”

What I now think is that we need to look into 'All of the Invasion history’ itself. If AIT has been used to do this
so much to India what would have happened to equally older people who had lesser chances of achieving of ‘critical civilizational mass’ unlike India.

Bah! Wish I had a lot of money to throw into this research.

[svinayak]

Ha Ha!
This topic is for people with imaginations.

[member_22872]

ramana ji,
sarasvati<->language could be written based on a core memory of a much earlier period, and included as part of the narrative. Problem is that people latch on to words/objects which seem to be of later origins - as proof the everything in the text being described is of same later origin.

There is some reluctant acceptance of a possible stretch in the historical period covered in the extant form of the Rigveda. But that stretch is not to be allowed so far back that it jeopardizes the directional flow assumptions.

Bji, Ramana garu, I too think what you said is correct, in the previous page, this is what I said:

But how does one verify that one particular sound we are analyzing was pronounced exactly the way it used to be when the language was born? what if the phonetics changed over time? how does one account for degeneration and/or varying of sounds? how does one know? through records? what if there are no written records? what if like vedic indians, many generations pass before the people of the region depend only on the word of mouth? then how can one pin point the age of a language just based on phonetic changes? how can one even know there were changes?
But how does one verify that one particular sound we are analyzing was pronounced exactly the way it used to be when the language was born? what if the phonetics changed over time? how does one account for degeneration and/or varying of sounds? how does one know? through records? what if there are no written records? what if like vedic indians, many generations pass before the people of the region depend only on the word of mouth? then how can one pin point the age of a language just based on phonetic changes? how can one even know there were changes?

and

I am beginning to think linguistics and calculating the age of a language is a big farce, one can't know how old a language is, one can only surmise based on records, if no records exists, there is no way to know for sure there existed phonetic changes from the time the language was born to the time the language was written, if there is a substantial age differential from the time a language is born to the time recording of the language was initiated, this whole age determination through linguistic study is nothing but an big assumption.

[Supratik]

Manish, the Stepanov paper did not come out in a very reputed journal and assumes AIT/AMT instead of letting the data speak for itself. Since the genetics is no longer agreeing with the AIT/AMT theory I expect the AIT/AMT theorists to change tack and say that the Aryans did not leave a genetic imprint but only their language and religion and this occurred around 2000 BC.

[disha]

If India is to be proven as the origin of R1a1, then some studies of excavated ancient human remains in India should have shown R1a1 right ? At least I'm not aware of any DNA study which shows human remains in India before 2nd millenium BC with R1a1. Such data is needed in order to counter very clear evidence from ancient DNA of southern eurasian steppe.

Manishji, the above is a specious argument.

First of all a DNA yielding specimen 4000-5000 year old is near impossible to find, and almost impossible in tropical settings. The soft tissue in the specimen has somehow to be preserved without mineralizing over time. In colder climes, particularly where there is more chances of preservation in ice which thaws rarely, you have some chances.

Also it is not the case of finding one specimen. A group of such specimens needs to be found across a geographic area (that is the sample size should not be from one location, it does not prove anything).

Given that the "absence of R1A1 in humans in Indian subcontinent 4000 years ago" is thus a specious argument.

The current genetic studies relies on the rate of change in the mutations within the genes. There is even some argument on how the rate of change itself is not constant and is subject to environmental pressures - so again it is a delicate science.

[disha]

I am writing a summarization of this pages in simple english to break apart the horse based hypothesis of AIT/AMT. This is important since I have seen journalists (yes journalists) become historical experts and talk about AIT/AMT on the basis of horse.

Several of AIT/AMT constructs are based on pseudo-science and clear fallacies and I think each of those construct needs to be taken away one at a time.

[Supratik]

From what I have gathered over the last 15 years the only hard evidence in favor of AIT/AMT is linguistic and to a smaller extent the horse. However, there are counter arguments for both. Remains to be seen how the AIT/AMT theorists reconcile genetics with their theory.

[brihaspati]

I think people need to understand molecular biology better before using R1A1 as a kind of a single marker - whose presence or absence indicates some particular ethnicity. It is more a particular partial sum of a cumulative [additive] track record of metabolically inactive mutations. Subclades [or sub-subclades etc] are about identifying more and more such mutations adding on to the partial sum.

Now assume that R1A1 emerged onlee in steppes, X kya. Then a mutation denoted say by K1 emerges X-1 kya. Since R1A1 emerged onlee in the steppes, the addition of K1 could not happen to anything resembling R1A1 anywhere else. Therefore R1A1+K1 can onlee emerge in the steppes.

So let there be a chain of such additions upto K(X-1) until the present age every 1000 years. Let us also be generous - assuming tha right after first emergence of R1A1 in the steppes, R1A1 community moved entirely 1000 kms and spawned K1 - and each new spawning emerged onlee in the new migration spots. You have to further assume that no new added partial sum is allowed to migrate back or remain in their instantaneous habitat.

In this way you can have R1A1+K1+....+K(X-1) now 1000X kms away from steppes, in a place where R1A1 never was originally or never emerged. But then this would leave an increasing accumulation of K's in the present population in the final destination [K2 for example will accumulate its own chain distinct from K1 etc]. Since the accumulations can be ordered in time - [without going into variable rates of mutation controversy] - this should therefore have the most recent additions conccentrated around in the final destination.

If R1A1 emerged in steppes - and landed up in India in the above manner which linguists may think is highly plausible [anything goes and is not a fantasy as long it upholds their pet position] - this is what we would expect. Unfortunately its the exact reverse that we see. The younger clades accumulate away from India - and this is what these geneticists are referring to when they say - "declining" proportions of a "subclade" related to R1A1 as you go away from India.

In fact if you have a more realistic story of migrations - adding on climate estimates - some people from the original stock would be left behind or therew ould be local backmigration - leading to survival of older clades closer to origin locations. Again this is not something we see for the steppes origin hypo.

[disha]

From what I have gathered over the last 15 years the only hard evidence in favor of AIT/AMT is linguistic and to a smaller extent the horse. However, there are counter arguments for both. Remains to be seen how the AIT/AMT theorists reconcile genetics with their theory.

Personally, I do not consider linguistics as any hard evidence. Linguistics as historical basis of human migration is a pseudo-science and farce. That cannot be used as a basis for AIT/AMT. There is the search for the PIE and the search for the uhermait (or whatever it is spelled as) to prove migration from a central place. However it is a difficult task to gather all contrary evidence to linguistics and cast that linguistic basis of migration into the dustbin. That is still work in progress.

Linguistics can at best be used to identify current patterns and put in theory now the future outcomes and see if the theory is validated when the future arrives.

[member_22872]

^^^Linguistic/Phonetic theories are based on written records, using that record as datum to compare and tack the progression of sound changes to describe the relative movement of people. Now if there were phonetic changes prior to records of sound pronunciation, that cant be accounted for because of lack of datum to compare to, so linguists are asking us to take the written record of initial pronunciation as the datum. I think that's where the fallacy lies. If one doesn't challenge that, you can't prove linguistic, phonetic theory of AIT/AMT wrong. ManishJi is that fair to say? or am I assuming too much?

[disha]

....If R1A1 emerged in steppes - and landed up in India in the above manner which linguists may think is highly plausible [anything goes and is not a fantasy as long it upholds their pet position] - this is what we would expect. Unfortunately its the exact reverse that we see. The younger clades accumulate away from India - and this is what these geneticists are referring to when they say - "declining" proportions of a "subclade" related to R1A1 as you go away from India.

In fact if you have a more realistic story of migrations - adding on climate estimates - some people from the original stock would be left behind or therew ould be local backmigration - leading to survival of older clades closer to origin locations. Again this is not something we see for the steppes origin hypo...

Thanks! The above makes sense, I still will have to read up on clades/sub-clades etc to understand the above even better. Any good reference material which I can refer to?

[brihaspati]

The problem that linguists mostly refuse to recognize is that their studies of change is based partially on modern experiments and recent historical records, and is highly empirical. They use a kind of physics-geology like unstated law that human society changes always in pre-fixed directions and the nature of these changes remain independent of attendant conditions just like physical laws [even physicists do not assume that theoretically] and reamin constant over time etc.

Second each historical change attribution has to be based on a calibratory assumption about who-took-from-whom which in ist turn is mostly calibrated by outside-linguistic propositions from archeology or history. If you really go deeper into the archeological and historical papers - they are most often based on linguistics [or each other] claims, when they are trying to identify the social-cultural aspects of what they find in the ground related to language. The arguments are therefore built in a loop.

I dont know why most linguists turn so arrogantly dismissive when faced with being pointed towards this very real auto-justification looping process.

[brihaspati]

Thanks! The above makes sense, I still will have to read up on clades/sub-clades etc to understand the above even better. Any good reference material which I can refer to?

Any good intro to molecular biology+paleoDNA will do. I will try to post later!
PS: also the final sum should better be denoted by \sum [Kj's and all their separate daughter branching chains]. K1 ->K2, but then K1 adds a K1K by the K3 stage, and K2 adds a K2K by K3 stage and so on..]

[disha]

Venug'ji., even with written records linguistic basis to explain large scale population/cultural migrations in past is at best inconclusive. It can talk about influences., but not migrations.

However linguistics can definitely be used to identify trade patterns and exchange/flow of ideas. Since trade and exchange of ideas rely on a common idioms of communications (language/symbols/practices) and that studying that gives us a study on how globalized the world was in terms of trade and exchange of ideas even before the word globalization was coined.

[Theo_Fidel]

Manish,

What you say is certainly plausible. But it remains a hypothesis. Evidence is incomplete. It do not agree with you that the Mongol invasion exterminated R1a1a in the steppes. There is no evidence for this at all. Just something someone made up showing remarkable amounts of imagination, I'll come back to this. Historically people in such situations get pushed out to neighboring areas. There is no such spike evidenced. Historically the Mongols did not fight many battles on the steppes. They had their eyes on the cities in the Middle East. Why would the steppe herders try to stop the Mongols? There is no historical evidence for such a thing, most groups quietly submitted. The Turks in Central asia suffered no such extermination. Also take a look at the R1a1a strains that are still actually found on the steppes. In most cases they are younger and show less diversity than India. Again evidence is lacking to show that the Kurgan brought R1a1a to India through an invasion.

Did some ongoing migration into India continue into the Holocene and up to even present times, yes it did/does. For instance Parsi's & the latest migration of Aghans into Delhi continues. I question the timeline of AIT. Genetics does not agree with all of it. Certainly there is little genetic support for the classical idea that ANI were pushed out by Kurgan peoples. Modern genetics shows impact was relatively minor compared to the over all population. Less than 10% in most cases yet 80% of ALL Indians are lactose tolerant, how come.

WRT DNA it is a problem that India is a tropical nation. It also does not help that cremation was practiced from a very early age. But India is not fully researched yet. The other problem is that the plains of India did not see agriculture till about 12,000 years ago. Till then the tribal groups were hunter/gatherer and extremely low in numbers. Very few tribal groups back then and even today practice burial. The vast majority cremate. Still occasional tiny snapshots leak out. There was a Meluhan burial site discovered at Haryana that shows that essentially all the people belonged to a single band and were from a Central Indian population group. The Meluhan cities were incredibly varied and yet the population groups were very HOMOGENOUS. It is obvious that very little mixing occurred between different bands in India. We know several tribal groups sprinkled through central and South India that have truly ancient R1a lines. There is no trace of these lines out side India.

I would say the evidence is very confusing so far. Yet AIT is orthodoxy, why. Could it be a deliberate lack of imagination?
----------------------------------

Meanwhile. Thought I should post this map of the spread of the Zebu cow domesticated first in India. Unless it just walked to Africa it was escorted there. Human genetics agrees. Note the convenient absence of the steppes. Somehow Steppes folk became lactose tolerant and yet did not bring their cow with them! Only Horse.

[ramana]

Can you find one for sugarcane?

[member_20317]

Theo ji, in the Zebu map you have posted, the darker parts are India, Yemen, South of Saudi Arabia and Horn of Africa. These are also the parts that are greener compared to their respective surroundings. But then again these are also the parts that are separated by the narrowest of straits.

Could it show trade in cattle across the seas, but then again this is possible only if Sainai was a desert during the time of Zebu migration.

[RamaY]

My thoughts on OIT

Musings on Indic origins of Abrahamic faiths

[member_20317]

RamaY ji these are just musings.

The following link, perhaps posted earlier in BRF is much more well rounded in its argumentation. While the whole paper is making an effort to do justice to the available evidence and is worth reading, but if you really want to turn fast the Conclusions section itself is pretty explicit. Seems like a lot of sharing of ideas was taking place.

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/AandG.pdf

For people more inclined towards pics

[member_22872]

A Review of Recent Molecular Genetics Evidence for Sugarcane Evolution and Domestication
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bi ... sequence=4 (2004) article

In 1987, J. Daniels and B. T. Roach published an exhaustive multidisciplinary review of evidence permitting the domestication and the early evolution of sugarcane to be traced. We try here to synthesize the new data that have been produced since, and their contribution to the understanding of the global picture. It is now highly probable that sugarcane evolved from a specific lineage restricted to current genus Saccharum and independent from lineages that conducted to genera Miscanthus and Erianthus. The scenario established by E. W. Brandes in 1958 is very likely the right one: Noble cultivars (ie. Saccharum officinarum) arose from S. robustum in New Guinea. Humans then spread these cultigens over large distances. In mainland Asia, natural hybridization with S. spontaneum occurred, and gave rise to the North Indian (S. barberi) and Chinese (S. sinense) cultivars. Relationships between S. spontaneum and S. robustum in situations of sympatry are still not well understood.

Sugarcane domestication:
The most popular scenario has been the one developed by E. W. Brandes: Noble cultivars were domesticated from S. robustum in New Guinea and were then dispersed in the Pacific and mainland Asia during human migrations. In mainland Asia they hybridized with local S. spontaneum giving rise to North Indian and Chinese cultivars (Brandes, 1958).

Alternative scenarios for the emergence of the North Indian cultivars have been proposed. The first one is a direct selection from S. spontaneum, for at least some of the forms, particularly the Saretha group. The second one is hybridization between S. officinarum and a species of the genus Erianthus, most probably E. elephantinus, which is confined to the foothills of Assam and Nepal

Molecular data that clarify relationships between cultivated sugarcane and wild related species have been accumulating in the last ten years or so. The data generally do not support an evolutionary path through distant crosses involving representatives of several genera. Current living species of the genera Saccharum, Erianthus and Miscanthus are clearly distinct

The genus Saccharum is the sole lineage from which cultivated sugarcane emerged, and is distinct from the closely related genera, Erianthus and Miscanthus.


The sympatry could result from recent events linked to human activity, for example, direct transport (wild Saccharum species are used by people for many purposes) or a natural expansion in habitats disturbed by human activities (S. spontaneum is considered as an invasive species in Asia and a growing number of other places). Indeed, S. robustum may only recently have extended to Kalimantan (Daniels and Roach, 1987), and S. spontaneum may only recently have extended to New Guinea (Berding and Koike, 1980). This would give late Pleistocene allopatric distributions for S. spontaneum and S. robustum. As the biogeography of South-East Asia and Melanesia is rich and complex with many islands and mountains, the speciation of Saccharum by isolation can easily be conceived.[\b] Moreover, as the Wallace line may have separated the putative ancestral distributions, so we can suggest a particular scenario for speciation. The Wallace line lies between two continental shelves, the Sunda shelf (mainland Southeast Asia, Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan) and the Sahul shelf (Australia, New Guinea and close islands). Each shelf was repeatedly unified into a single continental mainland during cyclic lowering of sea level that accompanied ice ages of quaternary era, but no earth bridge ever connected the two shelves. Ice age cycles gave opportunities to repeatedly establish genetic exchanges between separated populations on each shelf but exchanges between populations of the two shelves remained constantly limited during the three million years of the quaternary era. As a consequence, two sister species in the Saccharum lineage may have had the opportunity to differentiate in isolation after dispersal of a common ancestor thus giving rise to S. spontaneum on the Sunda shelf and S. robustum on the Sahul shelf. Recently, it has been becoming more and more obvious that quaternary climatic variation played an important role in the genetic structuring of populations and species that exist today (Hewitt, 2000).

This is how close I could get with respect to getting an image of Sugar cane cultivation


Still supports Oppenheimer's Genetic migration of man, Africa->SouthAsia->SouthEast Asia->Back to Asia etc. Please also note, Sugar domestication according to the map came late to the west, if AIT/AMT, then there would have been purple coloration from the west to east into India. during 1500BP. Sugar cane cultivation completely absent in most parts of Europe. Does it mean Aryans anyway came but didn't bring sugarcane cultivation with them?

[ManishH]

Manish,
What you say is certainly plausible. But it remains a hypothesis. Evidence is incomplete.

I think I agree with you that genetic evidence of R1a1 coming into India is incomplete.

It do not agree with you that the Mongol invasion exterminated R1a1a in the steppes.

But I hope you do agree that R1a1 is very extensive in the southern eurasian steppe throughout Bronze age and right upto the beginning of Iron age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Genetics

In a 2009 study, the haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area in Siberia dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the 4th century AD (Scythian and Sarmatian timeframe). Nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17

When there are so many ancient DNA studies pointing to Bronze age and even early Iron age human remains having R1a1, what could have made them vanish in the modern populations of these regions ? How come modern populations of southern eurasian steppe states all speak Altaic languages ...

Historically people in such situations get pushed out to neighboring areas. There is no such spike evidenced. Historically the Mongols did not fight many battles on the steppes.

They did. Look up "Battle of Samara Bend". Steppe people used rivers as bulwarks against Mongols. But history of southern eurasian conflict with Altaic people is older than Mongols. Conflicts between the two had started as early as Bronze age. See this Sintashta Arkaim fortification - the first extensive fortification in eurasia and one of the first to have standardized weapon production :



Sintashta, at the confluence of Ural and Tobol rivers was a strategic frontier between Altaic speaking people to the east and indo-european people. From Anthony's book ...

The geographic position of Sintashta societies at the eastern border of
the Pontic-Caspian steppe world exposed them to many new cultures,
from foragers to urban civilizations. Contact with the latter probably was
most responsible for the escalation in metal production, funeral sacrifices,
and warfare that characterized the Sintashta culture

Also take a look at the R1a1a strains that are still actually found on the steppes. In most cases they are younger and show less diversity than India.

Apples to apples please. When we compare diversity, modern R1a1 DNA in India does have more diversity than modern European R1a1. But, a similar comparison of ancient R1a1 DNA of bronze age southern eurasia hasn't been compared to contemporary ancient R1a1 DNA of India.

Only when we have ancient DNA samples from both regions, can one refute the invasionist claim.

Again evidence is lacking to show that the Kurgan brought R1a1a to India through an invasion.

Yes, I agree; evidence is sparse. But please don't deny that Bronze age populations of southern eurasian steppes was overwhelmingly R1a1.

I agree with you that DNA studies are not yet matured. Just from the conflicting papers one sees. There are 2 classes of DNA studies

1. Use samples from modern populations and project their age using rates of mutation
2. Use samples from ancient human remains

I think the latter is of much more import. There are several conflicts in the class #1, because of the methodology of calculating rates of mutation.

Saying the obvious about R1a1 - it's a male only gene. Most susceptible to vanish from a region in an invasion.

Less than 10% in most cases yet 80% of ALL Indians are lactose tolerant, how come.

See, cattle domestication has been independently done by many civilizations. I wouldn't be surprised if you find natives of pampas in south america very lactose tolerant too.

Very few tribal groups back then and even today practice burial. The vast majority cremate.

Cremation is a genuine problem you point out. But we do have several Harappan burial sites don't we. How come not a single report of R1a1 in Indus valley burial sites ?

There was a Meluhan burial site discovered at Haryana that shows that essentially all the people belonged to a single band and were from a Central Indian population group.

But we haven't seen reports of R1a1 here too. Unlike contemporary ancient DNA samples of southern eurasian steppes where it abounds.

[Supratik]

@disha

I meant the only hard argument that AIT/AMT theorists have is linguistics and to a smaller extent horse.

Any OIT had to happen prior to mixing of ANI and ASI, as ASI does not appear outside the subcontinent. So it could be more than 10000 years back. I am waiting for some comparison between ANI and CEU. Which one is more ancient. That could possibly give
us an idea of the direction of migration.

[member_22872]

See, cattle domestication has been independently done by many civilizations. I wouldn't be surprised if you find natives of pampas in south america very lactose tolerant too.

ManishH ji,

But why should we be worried about lactose tolerance of South Americans? we should ponder why Europeans are less lactose tolerant than Indians if that is so?

[Theo_Fidel]

Manish,

I hope we can both agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We are looking at history through a horribly imperfect filter. We know about Kurgans because they bury their dead. And in temperate areas that preserved DNA. We know almost nothing of the other groups there including the Altai because they did not. Similar things apply to India, we know of the Meluha because of their cities and that they bury their dead. BTW the absence of the R1a1a at the very late mature Haryana site actually could indicate the lack of 'invasion', no. Why weren’t 'they' here still? The answer I think is R1a1a tribes were in a separate stream and did not mix with Meluhans. But India is a big country and there is a lot to be explored. My bet is that of the thousands of known sites that have not been examined there will be a few that are almost pure R1a1a. This appears to be how the Meluhan towns were organized.

I hope you understand I talking of a time well before the iron age. Mesolithic or earlier is the dated antiquity of R1a1a. Yes genetic clocks are imprecise but diversity is key. In any case frequency has nothing to do with origins. How did R1a1a diversity reduce so much. 15% prevalence should have been enough to preserve diversity. Question is always diversity. Even R1A-M17 shows maximum diversity within India. The R1a1a in the steppes was never very diverse. This is the only plausible answer. The examples we have are of the groups that buried their dead and we are seeing a selection effect.

More later...

[brihaspati]

ManishH wrote

I agree with you that DNA studies are not yet matured. Just from the conflicting papers one sees.

DNA studies as a methodology and argument is quite mature, and like exact sciences, can be repeated independently and verified - and refined. They are not subject to dogmatic interpretation like linguistics.

There are 2 classes of DNA studies

1. Use samples from modern populations and project their age using rates of mutation
2. Use samples from ancient human remains

I think the latter is of much more import. There are several conflicts in the class #1, because of the methodology of calculating rates of mutation.

Unfortunately, the same "rate of mutation" argument will apply to class #2 too. Just because you think they are of greater "import" does not mean suddenly the variability of rates will vanish for class #2. Its physics and physical laws ultimately, so ultimately if they happen in one case - exactly same will happen for the other.

By the way, I have already suggested in my illustrative post on how ridiculous the steppes origin clamour will be based on the 2012 paper I cited [I am not harking back repeatedly to 2009, if you will note] - that order of appearance of mutation in time sequence still remains very obvious and clear - even if the time intervals between sequence points are claimed to be variable. It is not about relative time of ordering arguments that we were talking about - its about the accumulation of mutations.

The indirect inference - a tactic so staunchly supported by linguists when it goes in their favour - as I have outlined in my post, can still work back from current populations, and is not so crucially dependent on buried DNA.

Saying the obvious about R1a1 - it's a male only gene. Most susceptible to vanish from a region in an invasion.

I am not sure you would like bringing in the female side too. That would be even more obvious from the genetics and may land the steppenwolf fanclub in much greater embarrassment.