Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 01:17

ramana garu,

considering the scope of ancient India, present India is really the South!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 01:21

shiv saar,

Since you wish to research R2 haplogroup, one place to get a feel for it is at r2dna.org. I think it is also a part of the Family Tree DNA undertaking.

There seem to be others, from outside of India, who do have R2 as well - mostly Iranians, Jews, some Greeks, some Italians, etc.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 19 Oct 2012 03:33

Per Sulllivan code, this SSVC seal, from right to left.

Ra-na-va-ha-an, RaNa -vAhan (carrier during the war, travel, and many other meanings). Of course just because there is a engrvign of bull, does not mean it refers to Bull as Rana-vahan

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 19 Oct 2012 03:39

A_Gupta wrote:
New developments in genetics, archaelogy, ... are leading to an exciting new picture of the Indian past. They indicate that Indians are and were much more one people than previously suspected. ... (try not to mention the Aryan, Dravidian stuff at all). As per current science, humans originated in Africa, and populated the rest of the world from there. India was an important way stop in this process. Humans arrived in India, perhaps in two waves, some 70,000-50,000 years ago, and modern Indians are a result of the well-mixing of these two waves, neither of the two ancestral lineages exists any more. Instead there is are geographical gradients of these mixtures. There is no evidence of any significant arrivals in terms of numbers of people in India after 10,000 BC....

Gupta ji,
I like it. Only suggestion I would have is not to bother even mentioning stuff such as 'There is no evidence of any significant arrivals in terms of numbers of people in India after 10,000 BC"

My point being.. why go on defensive...even mildly. (As someone quoted story of two Buddhist monks.. We not only should carry AIT on our head, but not even wear as shoes). Of course this is not to place it under the carpet and pretend it does not exist. However, if a work of above kind is intended, let the onus be on others (N and Sepoys) who have to raise the issue.. "But what about AIT?" and then our response "What about it?"

My $0.02

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Oct 2012 03:47

Nileshji, Is there a collection of the Indus scripts in one location from all the sites: Mohenjadaro, Harappa, Lothal etc?

And can we start decoding using the Sullivan code?

Its amazing that even then we had vowels to make pronunciation easy!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 06:03

ramana wrote:Nileshji, Is there a collection of the Indus scripts in one location from all the sites: Mohenjadaro, Harappa, Lothal etc?

And can we start decoding using the Sullivan code?

Its amazing that even then we had vowels to make pronunciation easy!

I think the man who collected up and classified the signs was one Iravatham Mahadevan who s now old and not keeping well. However he seems to have collaborated more with the IISc group than Sullivan.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 06:14

RajeshA wrote:By Paul Kekai Manansala

A New Look at Vedic India

One thing one notices is that this whole dialogue that we are carrying out here, and which has been carried out over the last two hundred and more years on history is really between Europeans and Indians, and that too with Indians voices often emasculated. In this dialogue we discuss Central Asia, North Asia, West Asia and Europe.

However historically perhaps we have been closest with Southeast Asia. When Southeast Asia again regains the top spot as our primary region of reference, than we Indians would come of age (again).

Perhaps one reason is that scholarly research into history, culture and religion has been so become dominated by Europeans that it has blocked out all the rest. What Europeans have managed to do is to push themselves right into the middle of the spoked-wheel, such that every end of the spoke has to look for its bearings from the West and to make reference to other cultures also making recourse to works of the West. I would plead so much ignorance on my part that I am not even much aware of writers from Southeast Asia and really don't know what they have to say! Shame on me!

But Southeast Asia is the region of our cultural strategic depth, which we have not yet even started researching in full earnest.

In this context, it is a welcome sign to see a Filipino trying to understand Vedic India and trying to look for ancient cultural connections between Southeast Asia and India.

Interesting idea and the guy's awareness of how the Indian view has been brushed aside is accurate

http://www.thehindu.com/arts/history-an ... ?css=print

A fragmentary pottery inscription was found during excavations conducted by the Thai Fine Arts at Phu Khao Thong in Thailand about three years ago. (Dr. Berenice Bellina of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France, sent me a photograph of the object: Figure 1)

The discovery of a Tamil-Brahmi pottery inscription of about the second century CE at the same site was reported earlier (The Hindu, July 16, 2006). One can presume that the present inscription is also from the Tamil country and belongs approximately to the same period. The two characters incised on the pottery now reported are not in the Brahmi script. They appear to be graffiti symbols of the type seen on the South Indian megalithic pottery of the Iron Age-Early Historical Period (second century BCE to third century CE).

Image caption:Pottery Inscription from Thailand with Indus-like symbols, probably on South Indian Megalithic Pottery.

Image caption:Megalithic symbol at Sanur in Tamilnadu (extreme left) and Signs. 47 & 48 in the Indus texts at Kalibangan (right top) and Harappa (right bottom).

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 19 Oct 2012 07:34

shiv wrote:
Image caption:Megalithic symbol at Sanur in Tamilnadu (extreme left) and Signs. 47 & 48 in the Indus texts at Kalibangan (right top) and Harappa (right bottom).

# 3, right bottom, per Sullivan code.. appears to be (from right to left) Kan-nta-pri-an i.e. something along the lines of Kantpriya, Kantapriya, kantaprian etc.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 08:35

ramana wrote:RajeshA,

We all are South Indians and PIE is proto-Tamil!

Ramana, I have been having some thoughts t (you guessed it, a pisko issue!) in relation to the so called Dravidian languages. I am no Dravidian language expert, but I state my views nevertheless. While the antiquity and identity of Tamil is unique, one of the reasons why Tamil gets set aside as "Dravidian" more than Kannada or Telugu might relate to the political "Dravidian" movement in Tamil Nadu from the 1950s. In terms of antiquity I think Kannada and Telugu, and Tulu as well have a really ancient past. I mention Tulu because of this link - in which the "barbarian" language in an ancient Greek play has been thought to be either Kannada or Tulu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charition_mime
(The explanation does not look like any Kannada I know and I don't know Tulu)

Malayalam and Kannada IMO both serve as a link up between Sanskrit and Dravidian languages in terms of the extensive Sanskrit use in both languages. Tamil too has a lot of Sanskrit but to my non expert ear Tamil has incorporated less Sanskrit than Kannada. (I guess I will have to read Bhadiraju Krishnamurti's book).

I think Tamil Nadu has always been more poitically active and aware of its identity and hence tends to get noticed more. Much to the chagrin (and envy?) of Kannadigas who are not noticed and are lumped with Tamil Nadu at a time when Kannadigas are plotting to choke off water supply to the dratted Tamilians who want "our" Kaveri!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 15:14

shiv saar,

At the moment when one looks at discussions on genetics and ancestry, several forums and projects in the West are busy drawing on maps, and showing that R1a1a has its origins in either Europe or West Asia. They are doing this simply on the basis of extensive genetic testing, and after finding out some individuals which test positive for some haplogroups and paragroups in their region, they shift the weight westwards.

For example because due to sparse testing on the Indian population, if certain haplogroups are not found in India (yet) they conclude they are and were not there in India and hence the origins are to be looked for further in the West.

There have been some great papers which have shown Indian population to have a deep antiquity, but these conclusions are still early and there are AIT-Nazis who are busy trying to find a way to still prove AIT even on the basis of genetics.

Here is one such effort! Here is another!

Some Indian initiative on the lines of Family Tree DNA would go a long way in bolstering Indian position.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 15:23

Genetic Evidence in favor of OIT (Cont.)

Comptes Rendus Palevol, Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages 665–678 (November 2011)

After Last Glacial Maximum: The third migration
Author: Narendra Katkar¹

¹ International Research Center for Fundamental Sciences (IRCFS), 4-158/41, Plot Nr.41, Sai Puri, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, 500094 Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract
A critical analysis of “Real World” data concerning the genetic origins of people, archaeology and palaeoclimatic conditions, demonstrates possibilities of population migration for third time in ancient history, from East to West after Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), which gave the foundations of modern human civilization.

_____________

A pity we don't have the article in full. This would be interesting to read.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 16:21

I have been reading a bit on forumbiodiversity.com, and the latest effort by AIT-Nazis is to show that the Indian R1a1a is actually descended from the European R1a1a. The challenge they are posing is as follows:

1) Little R1a* has been seen within India, mostly has been tested in the West, so R1a subclades cannot have an origin in India, i.e. R1a1 is not from India. R1a* was found mostly in West Asia.

2) Little R1b has been found in India. R1b seems to have originated in West Asia.

3) R1a1a subclades found in India would be descendant subclades to European R1a1a.

4) No ancient R1a1a DNA has been found in India to show since when R1a1a is present in India.

_____

AIT-Nazis would not give up so easily! And neither should the Indics!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 17:01

International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG)

Y-DNA Haplogroup R and its Subclades - 2012

For Reference

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 18:17

RajeshA wrote:I have been reading a bit on forumbiodiversity.com, and the latest effort by AIT-Nazis is to show that the Indian R1a1a is actually descended from the European R1a1a. The challenge they are posing is as follows:

Rajesh. Mine is bigger. I am saying it on this forum. That means nothing. Show some scientific papers and we will study them. All this forum shorum stuff is garbage

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 18:41

In Andronovo, some human remains were found which were genetically tested. The findings were thus, as per Wiki:

Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one Haplogroup C (Y-DNA)(xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.

What is interesting is the Haplogroup C (xC3). The "xC3" means "excluding C3". Now C3 is widely spread among the Mongolians, who are not that far away from the region, so it means most probably that Hg C (Y-DNA) specimen did not come from Mongolia. Now Hg C itself is considered a part of the Great Coastal Migration from Out-of-Africa all the way to Japan. In India the frequency of C is not that high, but it is available. Here is what Wikipedia says:

Haplogroup C seems to have come into existence shortly after SNP mutation M168 occurred for the first time, bringing the modern Haplogroup CT into existence, from which Haplogroup CF, and in turn Haplogroup C, derived. This was probably at least 60,000 years before present. Although Haplogroup C attains its highest frequencies among the indigenous populations of Mongolia, the Russian Far East, Polynesia, Australia, and at moderate frequency in the Korean Peninsula and among the Manchus, it displays high diversity among modern populations of India. It is hypothesized that Haplogroup C either originated or underwent its longest period of evolution within India or the greater South Asian coastal region. The highest diversity is observed in Southeast Asia, and its northward expansion in East Asia started approximately 40,000 years ago.

Actually it is too bad, that the researchers are not very specific about the subclades of R1a that they found in Andronovo.

However looking at the mtDNA, one would think they were of the European stock.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 19:06

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote:I have been reading a bit on forumbiodiversity.com, and the latest effort by AIT-Nazis is to show that the Indian R1a1a is actually descended from the European R1a1a. The challenge they are posing is as follows:

Rajesh. Mine is bigger. I am saying it on this forum. That means nothing. Show some scientific papers and we will study them. All this forum shorum stuff is garbage

shiv saar,

I sense that among the AIT-Nazis there is a level of desperation and increased louder rhetoric. The papers on genetics and ancestry has really put them on the back-foot, so they are looking for some escape, some way to keep up their pretense.

Europeans are simply obsessed with ancestry. Indians may be too, but it has not yet manifested itself in the field of Subclades and SNPs testing. AIT-Nazis will use any little crevice, any higher complexity, any multiple interpretability of data to obfuscate and squeeze through their narrative. However a higher focus on data gathering and data analysis also destroys their case as it takes away the mystery of the past, which they were using to obfuscate and make a case.

So at the moment AIT-Nazis are again busy using various platforms of genetic ancestry to push their cases.

The question is why are forums important!

I think they are important to glean the various arguments the AIT-Nazis are offering in support of their case. Such arguments can come from any AIT-Nazi literature - books, journals, online articles, forums, where ever! Using such arguments they will keep the AIT alive, at least in their minds and in their societies, and GoI too would oblige them by keeping AIT alive in India as well. So one way to go about is to win each and every argument and take away their last chaddi!

There are of course other ways as well to kill AIT, but that involves waking up the Indian deracinated elite, and that is an equally uphill task, so we need to work on both!

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 19 Oct 2012 20:13

RajeshA wrote:The question is why are forums important!

RajeshA ji, Most of these forums seem to be populated by Russian equivalents of American Rednecks....If any of the participants even had some iota of academic credibility in archeogenetics, why wouldn't they have utilized their arguments for at least a paper or book that reasons out their argument for Europe as origin of R1a1a ?

At the moment, India is most definitely winning the war in the realm that matters - ie in science / genetics journals. Here's a summary of the pro / against paper count I had posted sometime back:

Just to collect in one place the various papers that confirm S. Asian origin of R1a1a: Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009), Underhill et al. (2009), Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), Sharma et al. (2009 & 2012), and Thangaraj et al. (2010)

The only hold-outs, though evidence is weak, seem to be: Cordaux et al. (2004) & Zhao et al (2009).

You are absolutely right in that if one visits the majority of these forums populated by self-proclaimed 'recreational bioinformaticians' of European / Russian origin - the OIT case seems to be totally lost. But is taking on the redneck variety all that important when the Indian argument is well-positioned in the right realms ? I am not necessarily questioning your conclusion - just trying to see if there is a proper case that can be made out for it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 20:27

RajeshA wrote:In Andronovo, some human remains were found which were genetically tested. The findings were thus, as per Wiki:

Actually it is too bad, that the researchers are not very specific about the subclades of R1a that they found in Andronovo.

However looking at the mtDNA, one would think they were of the European stock.

Rajeshji have you seen this? I have posted this twice before on this thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

Subsequent studies on ancient DNA tested the hypothesis. Skeletons from the Andronovo culture horizon (strongly supposed to be culturally Indo-Iranian) of south Siberia were tested for DNA. Of the 10 males, 9 carried Y-DNA R1a1a (M17).

I have a screenshot of that page taken before a Wiki Nazi reads this and changes it

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Oct 2012 20:33

Rajesh ji:

After Last Glacial Maximum: The third migration
Author: Narendra Katkar¹

paper

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 20:45

Here is the Andronovo grave DNA paper

The Y chromosome is stated to be R1A1 M417 plus M17

The bodies are said to be light haired caucasian in physical appearance BUT check the text:

Human pigmentation gene SNP analysis
In order to deepen the search of the geographic origin of the
Siberian specimens under study, we typed SNPs located in
human pigmentation genes. Ten SNP markers located in
genes that have been described as accounting for variation
in human hair, eye and skin color but also in ethnogeo-
graphic ancestry were thus selected and a minisequencing-
based assay was developed on modern samples (Bouakaze
et al. 2009). This assay was subsequently applied on the
ancient Siberian samples so that complementary informa-
tion provided by phenotype-associated SNPs could add to
previous anthropological and genetic Wndings. The pheno-
type and ancestry of the ancient Siberian specimens under
study are indicated in Table 6 (genotype details for each
investigated marker is given in Bouakaze et al. 2009). Sur-
prisingly, the typing of a SNP associated to eye color
(rs12913832) shows that at least 60% (15/25) of the Sibe-
rian specimens had blue (or green) eyes (S27 cannot be
tested because bone sample and DNA extract were used
up). Moreover, the pigmentation SNP analysis showed that
all except three specimens exhibited a European ancestry,
even when they bore an Asian mtDNA haplotype as is the
case for samples S25, S26, S28, S33 and S36, demonstrat-
ing the importance of studying both maternal and paternal
lineages. These results also show that two individuals car-
rying the same mtDNA haplotype can be classiWed in oppo-
site ethnogeographic groups

These people desperately want those dead bodies to be white blonde blue eyes. Fukin losers

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Oct 2012 20:52

shiv ji, it is my guess that skin color and eye color are related in a way, the cold regions could trigger a genetic mutation to take care of UV rays both in skin color and eye coloration, and as you know skin color change to white is recent ad gradation of skin color as you have pointed out a while back is from east to west because of lack of an amino acid(?).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Oct 2012 21:09

Arjun,

The only hold-outs, though evidence is weak, seem to be: Cordaux et al. (2004) & Zhao et al (2009).

Did anyone read them to understnad why they are holding out?
In other words what are their facts?

ramana

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 19 Oct 2012 21:23

venug wrote:shiv ji, it is my guess that skin color and eye color are related in a way, the cold regions could trigger a genetic mutation to take care of UV rays both in skin color and eye coloration, and as you know skin color change to white is recent ad gradation of skin color as you have pointed out a while back is from east to west because of lack of an amino acid(?).

Fact is eye color was not tested because they did not have enough bone.

fact is that the bodies had genetic makers for - (and you need to read the language used here - another Freudian slip ) "oppo-
site ethnogeographic groups". Asian and European are "opposite ethnogeographic groups". white/black- fair/dark
Interesting use of language.

Forget the mutation etc business - just see the way these researchers approach the findings. They feel Asian would be "opposite" of European. You get blue/green eyes in India as well - especially Northwest. Pathan sites have photos of Kareena Kapoor and Aishwarya Rai to show their genetic stock. Heck even Dravidian stock Wingco Suresh had green eyes. No big deal. Many of those Kurgan bodies were from one family.

What impresses me is the way Indians are accused of being jingoistic but every goddam line - be they linguists or geneticists or archaeologists - they all have this deep need to fluff up their own self pride while Indians are accused of Hindutvadis.

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 19 Oct 2012 22:32

venug wrote:shiv ji, it is my guess that skin color and eye color are related in a way, the cold regions could trigger a genetic mutation to take care of UV rays both in skin color and eye coloration, and as you know skin color change to white is recent ad gradation of skin color as you have pointed out a while back is from east to west because of lack of an amino acid(?).

Skin color: Mutation in gene SLC24A5
eye color :OCA2 variation for eg threonine in 419 position gives green color, other amino acids at 419 give brown, blue eyes are due to mutation at the 5 prime end of DNA

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Oct 2012 22:39

Are there any genetic markers of Adam And Eve to study ? Many Non Indians may find their ancestoty to these fellows.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 19 Oct 2012 22:40

shiv ji, I see your point.

Anantha ji, thanks, interesting and educational about eye color, sometime back we discussed about the skin color gene.

Virendra · Post by **Virendra** » 19 Oct 2012 22:57

It is futile to conclude geographic, genetic or racial origin of people on basis of physical appearence. The visible characteristics of genes are not scientific way to figure out the underlying genetics. Will always lead to contradicting conclusions.
One should segregate between genotype and phenotype wherever physical appearances are in picture.
A phenotype is an organism's observable characteristics or traits. While the Genotype of an organism is the inherited instructions it carries within its genetic code.
Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike (pheno) necessarily have the same genotype.
A particular genotype, in a particular environment, having a particular type of interaction with that environment - will lead to a particular phenotype materialized.
Phenotypes and geography can give us varied physical appearance under the same genotype.

Regards,
Virendra

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 23:41

shiv wrote:Many of those Kurgan bodies were from one family.

One comment to that: They may have had in total 2 fathers, but those two fathers certainly had as many as 8 women, to produce the fellows whose bodies were tested.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 23:44

shiv wrote:What impresses me is the way Indians are accused of being jingoistic but every goddam line - be they linguists or geneticists or archaeologists - they all have this deep need to fluff up their own self pride while Indians are accused of Hindutvadis.

They still often speak of the blond red-haired mummies from Tarim Basin!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 19 Oct 2012 23:50

venug wrote:Rajesh ji:

After Last Glacial Maximum: The third migration
Author: Narendra Katkar¹
paper

venug ji,

it is good to have your resourcefulness on board!

Thanks a lot!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 20 Oct 2012 00:07

RajeshA wrote:
venug ji,

it is good to have your resourcefulness on board! Thanks a lot!

Venug, I second what RajeshA has said. Great paper and your magically resourceful presence in extracting it and making it available here.! Thank you.

Also, do visit
'Archeo-astronomy thread and Dating of Indian text' thread. initiated by RajeshA.

Don't miss the parallel of most of India turning from Tropical to grassland (LGM - Narendra Ketkar Paper) and Agastya migration to south and corroboration of 'timing' based on LGM/geology/weather patterns with that of 'Acheo-astrnonomy...visibility of Agastya=canopus' in Vindhya region.

BTW, these coincident parallels DONOT validate Agastya migration.. either timing or rationale (but as Kivisild paper states...

“If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu
haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of
this table (Table 17.3), then the straightforward suggestion
would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and
Indo-European languages arose in India and from there,
spread to Europe” (Kivisild et al., 2003).

the weak logic and coincident parallel is much more logical than any logic of AIT knucleheads related to horse, chariot, and languages.

In fact I am stating that Agastya migration occured 'BEFORE 17,000 BC, and not in 17,000 BC, nor near 17,000 BC. My detailed explanation is on 'Archeo-astrnomy' thread.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 20 Oct 2012 00:15

Rajesh ji and Niesh ji, thanks, but please don't thank me. I just have access to local university library, from which I can order papers. Nilesh ji, I do find your book interesting, however, I haven't finished yet

, but certainly I am reading your other threads too, great to learn from you and others.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Oct 2012 00:44

shiv wrote:Rajeshji have you seen this? I have posted this twice before on this thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
Subsequent studies on ancient DNA tested the hypothesis. Skeletons from the Andronovo culture horizon (strongly supposed to be culturally Indo-Iranian) of south Siberia were tested for DNA. Of the 10 males, 9 carried Y-DNA R1a1a (M17).
I have a screenshot of that page taken before a Wiki Nazi reads this and changes it

shiv saar,

I have read it, but as far as I see it the Kurgan hypothesis was established to explain AIT. However since then there have been many developments in genetics. Many new SNPs have been found, and today haplogroups are defined to eight levels. At that time perhaps one could say that R1a1 in India and R1a1 in Europe is the same thing, but now we has to be much more specific.

European R1a1a7 found in Poland is not the same thing found in India-Iran region, so the migration does not fit the model. However even R1a1a7 was redefined in 2010, I think, as R1a1a1g. And now some things are being reconsidered again in favor of AIT. We know there is nothing to it! But AIT-Nazis would look for any straw they can find.

My Kurgan hypothesis is that in that area Indians met up with East Europeans. The East Europeans may in fact have been also Indians from a few thousand years before.

The reason I say this is because of that specimen with Hg C(xC3) Y-DNA. In that area otherwise one wouldn't really find such kind of specimen, other than if he came from India. The Chenchus, Kurumbas and Santhal from India for example have Hg C (Y-DNA). You don't have any Hg C in Europe. So I think the people would have been from India. However some of the mtDNA are European. So it could have been a place where two populations mixed. Of course the specimen were in this case not first generation migrants from India.

As one sees in the map, other than C3, there really isn't any other Hg C (Y-DNA) in the neighborhood, but the Hg C (Y-DNA) found in the human remains at Andronovo were Hg C (Y-DNA) but not C3, i.e. Hg C(xC3) (Y-DNA).

If this is the case, then it also points to the fact that during Andronovo culture (1800 BCE - 1400 BCE), Indians of various Hg were already mixed, e.g. R1a1 population also had Hg C (Y-DNA) people. One would presume that C should belong to the ASI, the way it has spread, but according to the Reich et al. (2009) paper, Hg C (Y-DNA) is categorized as ANI, even though there are no Europeans (CEU) with Hg C.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Oct 2012 07:26

RajeshA wrote:
My Kurgan hypothesis is that in that area Indians met up with East Europeans. The East Europeans may in fact have been also Indians from a few thousand years before.

The reason I say this is because of that specimen with Hg C(xC3) Y-DNA. In that area otherwise one wouldn't really find such kind of specimen, other than if he came from India. The Chenchus, Kurumbas and Santhal from India for example have Hg C (Y-DNA). You don't have any Hg C in Europe. So I think the people would have been from India. However some of the mtDNA are European. So it could have been a place where two populations mixed. Of course the specimen were in this case not first generation migrants from India.

As one sees in the map, other than C3, there really isn't any other Hg C (Y-DNA) in the neighborhood, but the Hg C (Y-DNA) found in the human remains at Andronovo were Hg C (Y-DNA) but not C3, i.e. Hg C(xC3) (Y-DNA).

If this is the case, then it also points to the fact that during Andronovo culture (1800 BCE - 1400 BCE), Indians of various Hg were already mixed, e.g. R1a1 population also had Hg C (Y-DNA) people. One would presume that C should belong to the ASI, the way it has spread, but according to the Reich et al. (2009) paper, Hg C (Y-DNA) is categorized as ANI, even though there are no Europeans (CEU) with Hg C.

Very interesting. You have moved ahead of me in identifying and placing genetic markers on populations and I take your word for it because you are on my side

. I will cross check only AIT Nazi assertions
The interesting point here is that "nation states" and national identities are a phenomenon that are very recent. Even 5000 years ago people could migrate freely and take wives/husbands/partners from new lands without being asked if they were black haired or blonde.

The Indian tribal Y DNA with European derived mtDNA suggests exactly that.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 20 Oct 2012 07:37

shiv wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Very interesting. You have moved ahead of me in identifying and placing genetic markers on populations and I take your word for it because you are on my side . I will cross check only AIT Nazi assertions
The interesting point here is that "nation states" and national identities are a phenomenon that are very recent. Even 5000 years ago people could migrate freely and take wives/husbands/partners from new lands without being asked if they were black haired or blonde.

The Indian tribal Y DNA with European derived mtDNA suggests exactly that.

Besides, don't foget the genetically driven attaction of European women for Mexican looking men!

peter · Post by **peter** » 20 Oct 2012 08:47

brihaspati wrote:peter ji,
no, it doesnt. I suggested stellarium on this thread, and I have used it for some time. When you zoom in it fixes on the point you selected, and keeps it fixed with respect to the viewing frame - which to you appears to be relative to its supposed position of rising etc. There is no position of rising as such. To see why zoomed in figure compensates for the seasonal/precessional changes - you have to magnify only to the scale that keeps both the North cardinal marker on the horizon as well as the binary within your display's frame. Then just bring up the date-time dialogue and use your cursor/mouse to roll back the years and see how the whole orientation changes when you change the years but keep month+day+time fixed.

You still dont get it that using the same Julian day and time within the year - but spaced >1000 years apart, changes the entire orientation relative not only to the virtual instantaneous north, but also the binary's own orientation changes. If you zoom in, you lose this change from view because the software rotates the sky wrt your zoom point and compensates to keep the binary within the frame at the same relative position.

If you are determined not see any changes, you will not see one anyway, hence no point in discussing perhaps.

There is a series of steps that can be done to give a counter example to your claim:
a) Fire up stellarium
b) Set Hansi , India as the default location
c) Search for Alcor
d) Set date to: -4058/10/19 22:57:27. Do you see Alcor? Yes!
e) Set date to: 2012 /10/19 22:57:27. Do you see Alcor? No!

What does this tell you?

peter · Post by **peter** » 20 Oct 2012 08:56

Dr Abhyankar in his paper: Agastya a sage and a star has conclusively shown that Agastya (Canopus) became visible in the Vindhya around 4500 BC (Checked it in Stellarium and it jives). This could help date the travel of Agastya to South India and further help in dating the Vedas .

What is interesting is that Mahabharata mentions the visibility of Canopus (Agastya) in North India. This event took place around ~3000 BC in north India. Prior to ~3000 BC Canopus was not visible in Northern India. This further corroborates Mahabharat date of ~3000 BC. If you read the paper you will see that Abhyankar has an ingenious argument about the date of the war based on Bhishma's departure. His date has a small error because he focusses on Dhanishtha while at the time of Mahabharata war we have equinox points at Rohini and Jyeshtha and winter solstice at Shathbhisha (not dhanishtha).

peter · Post by **peter** » 20 Oct 2012 09:00

shiv wrote:Rajeshji have you seen this? I have posted this twice before on this thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
Subsequent studies on ancient DNA tested the hypothesis. Skeletons from the Andronovo culture horizon (strongly supposed to be culturally Indo-Iranian) of south Siberia were tested for DNA. Of the 10 males, 9 carried Y-DNA R1a1a (M17).
I have a screenshot of that page taken before a Wiki Nazi reads this and changes it

RajeshA wrote:shiv saar,

I have read it, but as far as I see it the Kurgan hypothesis was established to explain AIT. However since then there have been many developments in genetics. Many new SNPs have been found, and today haplogroups are defined to eight levels. At that time perhaps one could say that R1a1 in India and R1a1 in Europe is the same thing, but now we has to be much more specific.

European R1a1a7 found in Poland is not the same thing found in India-Iran region, so the migration does not fit the model. However even R1a1a7 was redefined in 2010, I think, as R1a1a1g. And now some things are being reconsidered again in favor of AIT. We know there is nothing to it! But AIT-Nazis would look for any straw they can find.

My Kurgan hypothesis is that in that area Indians met up with East Europeans. The East Europeans may in fact have been also Indians from a few thousand years before.

The reason I say this is because of that specimen with Hg C(xC3) Y-DNA. In that area otherwise one wouldn't really find such kind of specimen, other than if he came from India. The Chenchus, Kurumbas and Santhal from India for example have Hg C (Y-DNA). You don't have any Hg C in Europe. So I think the people would have been from India. However some of the mtDNA are European. So it could have been a place where two populations mixed. Of course the specimen were in this case not first generation migrants from India.

As one sees in the map, other than C3, there really isn't any other Hg C (Y-DNA) in the neighborhood, but the Hg C (Y-DNA) found in the human remains at Andronovo were Hg C (Y-DNA) but not C3, i.e. Hg C(xC3) (Y-DNA).

If this is the case, then it also points to the fact that during Andronovo culture (1800 BCE - 1400 BCE), Indians of various Hg were already mixed, e.g. R1a1 population also had Hg C (Y-DNA) people. One would presume that C should belong to the ASI, the way it has spread, but according to the Reich et al. (2009) paper, Hg C (Y-DNA) is categorized as ANI, even though there are no Europeans (CEU) with Hg C.

With lot of text comes lot of confusion, at least for a not so smart like me, can you please put all this data about haplogroups in a diagram? I am happy to help if you publish raw data I can diagrammize it.

And I do agree that genetic war is not won yet. We should not declare victory yet.

peter · Post by **peter** » 20 Oct 2012 09:10

Virendra wrote:It is futile to conclude geographic, genetic or racial origin of people on basis of physical appearence. [..]

This is a fair point and often overlooked. IMHO genetics has put anthropologists out of work for precisely this reason.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 20 Oct 2012 11:36

venug wrote:Rajesh ji:

After Last Glacial Maximum: The third migration
Author: Narendra Katkar¹
paper

Very good paper. The argument of Levant and Middle East having extreme climatic conditions over most of the Ice Age is key here - and points towards India to Eastern Iran region as being the original crossroads of the world, not the Middle East as generally considered. Arguments are well presented for this region acting as refuge during the LGM and civilization having really gotten a start through the re-population of increasingly hospitable regions over last 12K years from this refuge.

Would have been good to see Mount Toba also being considered in this paper, but given that was supposed to be more than 50K YBP may not be directly relevant.