Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

[RoyG]

Dinesh,

Look at this paper which came out last year:

http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/ ... 000150.pdf

In the present study we have extended the field of detection of
haplotype XI/haplogroup R1a subject to other countries previously
uncovered in our preceding articles [9,10]: these countries are mainly
Northern Europe, Georgia and Armenia, Near/Middle East, NorthAfrica,
Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. We found high
haplotype XI frequencies values in Afghanistan (18.4%), in Iran
(26.5%), in Pakistan (28% and 30.4%) and in India; in this last subcontinent,
the maximal value of 61.3% was found in Punjab.
We have refound in our samples the clear distinction initially
established by Pamjav et al. [21] between Indian Z93 populations and
European Z280 populations: all our South Asian populations are Z93,
while almost all our European populations are Z280. Datations show
that the Z93 Pakistano-Indian group is the most ancient (about 15,5 K
years); in Europe, the Eastern populations are the most ancient (about
12,5 K years) and the Northern ones the most recent (about 6,9 Kyears).

Now if you look carefully at this and the M17 data you will notice something very interesting. It is true that the R1a1a1a frequency is confined mainly to Europe BUT we are the most ancient wrt R1a1a1b (Z93) and M17. Now how can this be? It actually makes perfect sense!

The R1a tree is actually younger than R1b.

If you take a look at this paper you will see something very interesting wrt frequency distribution of R1a1a (M17):

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/ ... 09194a.pdf

Also take a look at abstract:

Human Y-chromosome haplogroup structure is largely circumscribed by continental boundaries. One notable exception to this
general pattern is the young haplogroup R1a that exhibits post-Glacial coalescent times and relates the paternal ancestry of
more than 10% of men in a wide geographic area extending from South Asia to Central East Europe and South Siberia. Its
origin and dispersal patterns are poorly understood as no marker has yet been described that would distinguish European R1a
chromosomes from Asian. Here we present frequency and haplotype diversity estimates for more than 2000 R1a chromosomes
assessed for several newly discovered SNP markers that introduce the onset of informative R1a subdivisions by geography.
Marker M434 has a low frequency and a late origin in West Asia bearing witness to recent gene flow over the Arabian Sea.
Conversely, marker M458 has a significant frequency in Europe, exceeding 30% in its core area in Eastern Europe and
comprising up to 70% of all M17 chromosomes present there. The diversity and frequency profiles of M458 suggest its origin
during the early Holocene and a subsequent expansion likely related to a number of prehistoric cultural developments in the
region. Its primary frequency and diversity distribution correlates well with some of the major Central and East European river
basins where settled farming was established before its spread further eastward. Importantly, the virtual absence of M458
chromosomes outside Europe speaks against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India, at
least since the mid-Holocene.

Migrations out of India into Central Asia occurred which then slingshot into Europe. Somewhere over Central Asia the R1a marker appeared alongside R1b which explains why they possess both. It is IMPOSSIBLE to say that we are recipients of large influx when the oldest Z93 marker is found in Punjab along w/ the oldest M17 marker found in Afghanistan in the Pakhtoon.

Now it is possible that we were recipients of smaller migrations from central asia later on but this was not enough to significantly alter the gene pool.

[gandharva]

I have a question abt Moorjani's paper.

Here they say:

"The dates we report have significant implications for
Indian history in the sense that they document a period
of demographic and cultural change in which mixture be-
tween highly differentiated populations became pervasive
before it eventually became uncommon. The period of
around 1,900–4,200 years BP was a time of profound
change in India, characterized by the deurbanization of
the Indus civilization, 39 increasing population density in
the central and downstream portions of the Gangetic sys-
tem, 40 shifts in burial practices, 41 and the likely first
appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion
in the subcontinent. 18,19 The shift from widespread
mixture to strict endogamy that we document is mirrored
in ancient Indian texts. The Rig Veda, the oldest text in In-
dia, has sections that are believed to have been composed
at different times. The older parts do not mention the caste
system at all, and in fact suggest that there was substantial
social movement across groups as reflected in the accep-
tance of people with non-Indo-European names as kings
(or chieftains) and poets. 42 The four-class (varna) system,
comprised of Brahmanas, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras,
is mentioned only in the part of the Rig Veda that was
likely to have been composed later (the appendix: book
10). 42 The caste (jati) system of endogamous groups having
specific social or occupational roles is not mentioned in
the Rig Veda at all and is referred to only in texts composed
centuries after the Rig Veda, for example, the law code of
Manu that forbade intermarriage between castes. 43 Thus,
the evolution of Indian texts during this period provides
confirmatory support as well as context for our genetic
findings."

But then in the next para they say:

It is also important to emphasize what our study has not
shown. Although we have documented evidence for
mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years
BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into
India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study
that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related
to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence
for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West
Eurasia within the past 12,500 years 3 (although it is
possible that with further sampling and new methods
such relatedness might be detected).......

So what caused that profound change? The way they are collating their genetic findings with evolution of Rigveda, it appears like an Aryan invasion. This is what someone from MT's group claimed to me.

[shiv]

I have a question abt Moorjani's paper.

Here they say:

likely first
appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion
in the subcontinent[/b]. 18,19

So what caused that profound change? The way they are collating their genetic findings with evolution of Rigveda, it appears like an Aryan invasion. This is what someone from MT's group claimed to me.

Many pages ago on this thread I was pointing out that genetics researchers and all researchers have to quote from earlier papers. Earlier papers in linguistics, archaeology and history which were themselves based on 19th century racist theories.

Now in your quote above from the Moorjani paper look at the two references cited - i.e. numbers 18 and 19. I reproduce them here:

18. Trautmann, T.R. (2005). The Aryan Debate (New Delhi: Ox-
ford University Press).

19. Bryant, E.F., and Patton, L.L. (2005). The Indo-Aryan Contro-
versy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History (London:Routledge).

Neither is a genetic ref. No 19 is a history book and we know how history books have been written

The point I want to emphasize is that geneticists will do their work imagining that AIT is true simply because AIT has already been declared as fact by Eurocentric linguists and racist historians. And when geneticists find that their genetics findings conflict with AIT - they cite both and do not get into a fight, or say that AIT is probably not supported. But they quote AIT because AIT is already "truth" because of racist history writing. That is what we are all up against. That is what we are all fighting against

[RoyG]

As Shiv said,

It is a linguistic hold. Notice how your first quote doesn't cite any genetic data as backup.

[gandharva]

I have a question abt Moorjani's paper.

Here they say:

likely first
appearance of Indo-European languages and Vedic religion
in the subcontinent[/b]. 18,19

So what caused that profound change? The way they are collating their genetic findings with evolution of Rigveda, it appears like an Aryan invasion. This is what someone from MT's group claimed to me.

Many pages ago on this thread I was pointing out that genetics researchers and all researchers have to quote from earlier papers. Earlier papers in linguistics, archaeology and history which were themselves based on 19th century racist theories.

Now in your quote above from the Moorjani paper look at the two references cited - i.e. numbers 18 and 19. I reproduce them here:

18. Trautmann, T.R. (2005). The Aryan Debate (New Delhi: Ox-
ford University Press).

19. Bryant, E.F., and Patton, L.L. (2005). The Indo-Aryan Contro-
versy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History (London:Routledge).

Neither is a genetic ref. No 19 is a history book and we know how history books have been written

The point I want to emphasize is that geneticists will do their work imagining that AIT is true simply because AIT has already been declared as fact by Eurocentric linguists and racist historians. And when geneticists find that their genetics findings conflict with AIT - they cite both and do not get into a fight, or say that AIT is probably not supported. But they quote AIT because AIT is already "truth" because of racist history writing. That is what we are all up against. That is what we are all fighting against

Dr Saab, so the change they talked abt between 1900-4000 BP was due to internal reasons? For a lay person like me those paras are quite confusing.

[gandharva]

As Shiv said,

It is a linguistic hold. Notice how your first quote doesn't cite any genetic data as backup.

Can u check your telegram messengers?

[shiv]

Gandharva you need to look at every numbered reference to see where they got the information from. In your post
the reference numbers quoted are: 39, 40, 41, 18, 19, 42 and 43. Let me post them. I have already posted 18 and 19 above


Note that they are all history/archaeology papers/books. One is a book about Manu. Witzel's name is there. And this is a genetics paper

In case you have not done modern scientific research I will make a post to try and summarize how modern western information sharing works and how it can be good and how it also can propagate bullshit

39. Meadow R.H., ed. (1991). Harappa Excavations 1986-1990: A

Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millenium Urbanism

(Madison: Prehistory Press).


40. Lawler, A. (2008). Unmasking the Indus. Indus collapse: the

end or the beginning of an Asian culture? Science 320,

1281–1283.

41. Sarkar, S.S. (1964). Ancient Races of Baluchistan, Panjab, and

Sind (Calcutta: Bookland).

42. Witzel, M. (1995). Early Indian history: linguistic and textual

parameters. In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Lan-
guage, Material Culture and Ethnicity, G. Erdosy, ed. (Berlin:

de Gruyter), pp. 85–125.

43. Naegele, C.J. (2008). History and influence of law code of

Manu. SJD thesis, Golden Gate University School of Law,

San Francisco, CA.

44. Haak, W., Forster, P., Bramanti, B., Matsumura, S., Brandt, G.,

Ta ̈nzer, M., Villems, R., Renfrew, C., Gronenborn, D., and Alt,

K.W. (2005). Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in

7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310, 1016–1018.

[gandharva]

Gandharva you need to look at every numbered reference to see where they got the information from. In your post
the reference numbers quoted are: 39, 40, 41, 18, 19, 42 and 43. Let me post them. I have already posted 18 and 19 above


Note that they are all history/archaeology papers/books. One is a book about Manu. Witzel's name is there. And this is a genetics paper

In case you have not done modern scientific research I will make a post to try and summarize how modern western information sharing works and how it can be good and how it also can propagate bullshit

39. Meadow R.H., ed. (1991). Harappa Excavations 1986-1990: A

Multidisciplinary Approach to Third Millenium Urbanism

(Madison: Prehistory Press).


40. Lawler, A. (2008). Unmasking the Indus. Indus collapse: the

end or the beginning of an Asian culture? Science 320,

1281–1283.

41. Sarkar, S.S. (1964). Ancient Races of Baluchistan, Panjab, and

Sind (Calcutta: Bookland).

42. Witzel, M. (1995). Early Indian history: linguistic and textual

parameters. In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Lan-
guage, Material Culture and Ethnicity, G. Erdosy, ed. (Berlin:

de Gruyter), pp. 85–125.

43. Naegele, C.J. (2008). History and influence of law code of

Manu. SJD thesis, Golden Gate University School of Law,

San Francisco, CA.

44. Haak, W., Forster, P., Bramanti, B., Matsumura, S., Brandt, G.,

Ta ̈nzer, M., Villems, R., Renfrew, C., Gronenborn, D., and Alt,

K.W. (2005). Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in

7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310, 1016–1018.

Got it Hakim Saab. So is it safe to conclude that Moorjani et al have detected a profound change between 1900-4000 BP but have remained silent on its causes and outright denying it to be due to any influx of genes from Eurasia?

[shiv]

For those who do not do research at all in the modern scientific field I would like to make a post about how "modern knowledge" is researched and shared. This is done by lakhs of researchers in millions of papers. But if you go back just 100 years there were very few researchers and only a few hundred books if not papers. And many old references are still taken as gold in a way that I will explain below.

For example suppose I want to do an original research study on "Diet and floatation of shit in toilet bowl"

Now I must have a reason for doing such a study and I have to do the study in a very structured way and write up my results in a very structured way and then have my study published in a reputed journal. I cannot say "In the last two days I had two craps - one floated after I ate beans and the other sank after I ate meat". This is an anecdote. Not a scientific study.

Supposing I say that floating of sinking of shit has a bearing on health and can be assessed from the toilet bowl - So the research work is divided up as follows and written up in this way:

1. Aims and Objectives: The reason why I want to study shit flotation
2. Review of existing literature: What information already exists about this subject in previously published studies.I first have to search through whatever information exists in previous studies of the subject. If no previous studies exist I need to mention that.
3. Material and methods: How I did the study - how many people, how was the toilet bowl assessed, how was the diet documented
4. Findings: what were the findings in my study, tables, graphs, statistical analysis
5. Discussion: It is the discussion part where I compare my own study findings with other pre existing studies and state whether my findings agree with them or conflict with them, or whether I have found some new little point. If I have found a new point or if my study conflicts with most earlier studies, many other researchers will have to do studies similar to mine to either confirm that I am right or wrong. So one "seminal study" may not always mean that it has discovered the truth.

In genetics studies of Indians people are constantly looking for explanations of caste and "Indo-Aryan language migration" and anyone who quotes "earlier studies" (Point number 2 in the list above) will inevitably have to quote AIT because ALL books and research before 1980 or so going all the way back to 1750 have accepted AIT as a fact.

We had better get used to this and understand why AIT keeps cropping up

[shiv]

Got it Hakim Saab. So is it safe to conclude that Moorjani et al have detected a profound change between 1900-4000 BP but have remained silent on its causes and outright denying it to be due to any influx of genes from Eurasia?

I think Priya Moorjani actually says that the 1900-4000 period is too recent because the subcontinent was so full of people by then that the influx of migrants could not have significantly altered the genetic make up. Will try and look for that

[Prem Kumar]

Gandharva: what Priya Moorjani concludes is pretty clear (the 2nd para you quoted). She says that, though there was significant hex between ANI and ASI populations in India, it was a local affair. No foreign genes were involved. AIT-wallahs like to jump the gun and claim that this is proof of AIT. It is not. If my Iyengar daughter has hex with a Bengali, it does not mean that the Bengali was an invader from outside India (though, with Bengal, one cannot be sure in the coming days!)

The 1st paragraph is a bit ambiguous and has to do with the phenomenon that Shiv is describing. Geneticists are trying to place their findings "in context" and the only context they have available is AIT. So, they try to somehow dovetail their results into the AIT framework even though their own results say otherwise.

But we got to appreciate Priya's forthrightness in saying that her results do not mean AIT. And she quotes the Metspalu paper (which I have linked to in my previous post) that says that any ANI-Eurasian common ancestry is at least 12500 years old

[Prem Kumar]

Shiv: interesting point you made about references to non-genetic works in a genetics paper. I happened to notice is earlier today. Was reviewing one of the genetic papers and checked out the references. Voila - it references articles/books/papers from linguistics or other fields! One of them referred to a Gimbutas paper (she's an archaeologist and mother of the Kurgan hypothesis) in a genetics paper which proved nothing whatsoever about the Kurgan hypothesis. It was done "just to provide a context".

There are only a handful of geneticists like Metspalu who openly take a stance against AIT. The rest don't have a pair (or don't care)

[shiv]

Prem- mostly don't care but also they have to stick to "known, peer reviewed literature" which means that Harvard and racist linguists are automatically in along with existing racist theories which will not go away until we knock them down

Meanwhile see this (old one poster earlier from 2015)

It shows that Pakistanis have 25% Bhil/Gond Tribal genes
Genetic Affinity of the Bhil, Kol and Gond Mentioned in Epic Ramayana
Gyaneshwer Chaubey1*, Anurag Kadian2, Saroj Bala3, Vadlamudi Raghavendra Rao4

In conclusion, our high resolution analysis portraying the three ancient tribal populations,

strongly rejects any incoming genetic signal of large scale recent (during the post-Neolithic)

migration either of the present Dravidian or the Indo-European speaking populations to

the subcontinent. We also concluded that the Indian populations preserve strong genetic

signatures in support of a common ancestry.

[Prem Kumar]

Yes - I saw this. Was from a recent report. Great study!

Just noticed that Kalavai Venkat (in response to FB posts) keeps referring to a new paper that he claims

They show that the massive expansion of R1a happened in India coevally with that of R1b in Europe and both the Indian and the European R1 haplogroups occur together only in the ancient steppe DNA recovered by Reich in the time range of 5,500-4,000 YBP.

The paper is here but behind a paywall. I am not paying $32 to access it! http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... .3559.html

[shiv]

Yes - I saw this. Was from a recent report. Great study!

Just noticed that Kalavai Venkat (in response to FB posts) keeps referring to a new paper that he claims

They show that the massive expansion of R1a happened in India coevally with that of R1b in Europe and both the Indian and the European R1 haplogroups occur together only in the ancient steppe DNA recovered by Reich in the time range of 5,500-4,000 YBP.

The paper is here but behind a paywall. I am not paying $32 to access it! http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... .3559.html

4000-5500 ybp puts it as 3500-2000 BC. This would be the end of the "Aryan invasion theory" as we know it because Aryans are derived from a European interppretation of a word in the Rig Veda and the RiG Veda did not appear in India till 1200 BC as per the Aryan Invasion theory. Even the RiG Vedic Gods mentioned in Mitanni did not appear till 1800 BC (as per AIT)

So whoever came to India in the 4000-5500 ybp (2000-3500 BC) period cannot be Aryan and there was no Rig Veda so the word Arya had not yet been invented.

If Venkat or his chamchas argue that RiG veda existed 4000-5500 ybp, then the AIT date of RiG Veda (3000 ybp) is wrong and all the theories of horses, wheel and chariots are wrong. Or else Venkat has to accept that horses and Chariots were in Harappa by then and that it was a Vedic civilization and linguist like Witzel etc are all wrong

Too many holes. That man stays in a blog because his ideas will be ripped to shreds if he allows anyone else to talk to him at a level where he does not enjoy the "talking down" advantage of a blog

[Prem Kumar]

I got this snippet from the paper (behind the firewall), that seems to send AIT-wallahs like Kalavai into a frenzy.

In South Asia, we detected eight lineage expansions dating to ~4.0–7.3 kya and involving haplogroups H1-M52, L-M11, and R1a-Z93 (Supplementary Fig. 14b,d,e). The most striking were expansions within R1a-Z93, occurring 4.0–4.5 kya. This time predates by a few centuries the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization, associated by some with the historical migration of Indo-European speakers from the Western Steppe into the Indian subcontinent 27. There is a notable parallel with events in Europe, and future aDNA evidence may prove to be as informative as it has been in Europe

I suspect its the same old game: because there was a lot of admixing going on circa 4000 kya (due to drying up of Saraswati), its assumed that this must have been due to Aryan invasion. Z93 is an Indian haplogroup. If there are expansions within it, I don't see how it proves AIT (unless someone can show that this expansion was caused by an external gene influx).

[shiv]

associated by some with the historical migration of Indo-European speakers from the Western Steppe into the Indian subcontinent 27.

That ref 27. That is the key. It will (and I bet my right testimonial this time) a history book

[gandharva]

Yes - I saw this. Was from a recent report. Great study!

Just noticed that Kalavai Venkat (in response to FB posts) keeps referring to a new paper that he claims

They show that the massive expansion of R1a happened in India coevally with that of R1b in Europe and both the Indian and the European R1 haplogroups occur together only in the ancient steppe DNA recovered by Reich in the time range of 5,500-4,000 YBP.

The paper is here but behind a paywall. I am not paying $32 to access it! http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... .3559.html

Hakim Saab and Prem Ji, People are saying that lot of the information is in supplementary information which available here free. (119 pages).
Supplementary Text and Figures
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... 559-S1.pdf

Supplementary Data
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... 559-S2.zip
Supplementary Data on SNVs, CNVs, STRs, haplogroups, phylogenetic analyses, functional annotations, mtDNA analysis, and expansion analyses.

And posts here have many quotes from the paper.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread. ... Y-chr-quot
From the paper

"As the haplogroup expansions we report are among the most extreme yet observed in humans, we think it more likely than not that such events correspond to historical processes that have also left archaeological footprints. Therefore, in what follows, we propose links between genetic and historical or archaeological data. We caution that, especially in light of as yet imperfect calibration, these connections remain unproven. But they are testable, for example, using aDNA. First, in the Americas, we observed expansion of Q1a-M3 (Supplementary Figs. 14e and 17) at ~15 kya, the time of the initial colonization of the hemisphere21. This correspondence, based on one of the most thoroughly examined dates in human prehistory, attests to the suitability of the calibration we have chosen. Second, in sub-Saharan Africa, two independent E1b-M180 lineages expanded ~5 kya (Supplementary Fig. 14a), in a period before the numerical and geographical expansions of Bantu speakers, in whom E1b-M180 now predominates22. The presence of these lineages in non-Bantu speakers (for example, Yoruba and Esan) indicates an expansion predating the Bantu migrations, perhaps triggered by the development of ironworking23. Third, in Western Europe, related lineages within R1b-L11 expanded ~4.8–5.9 kya (Supplementary Fig. 14e), most markedly around 4.8 and 5.5 kya. The earlier of these times, 5.5 kya, is associated with the origin of the Bronze Age Yamnaya culture. The Yamnaya have been linked by aDNA evidence to a massive migration from the Eurasian Steppe, which may have replaced much of the previous European population24,25; however, the six Yamnaya with informative genotypes did not bear lineages descending from or ancestral to R1b-L11, so a Y-chromosome connection has not been established. The later time, 4.8 kya, coincides with the origins of the Corded Ware (Battle Axe) culture in Eastern Europe and the Bell–Beaker culture in Western Europe26. Potential correspondences between genetics and archeology in South and East Asia have not been investigated as extensively. In South Asia, we detected eight lineage expansions dating to ~4.0–7.3 kya and involving haplogroups H1-M52, L-M11, and R1a-Z93 (Supplementary Fig. 14b,d,e). The most striking were expansions within R1a-Z93, occurring ~4.0–4.5 kya. This time predates by a few centuries the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization, associated by some with the historical migration of Indo-European speakers from the Western Steppe into the Indian subcontinent27. There is a notable parallel with events in Europe, and future aDNA evidence may prove to be as informative as it has been in Europe. Finally, East Asia stands out from the rest of the Old World for its paucity of sudden expansions, perhaps reflecting a larger starting population or the coexistence of multiple prehistoric cultures wherein one lineage could rarely dominate. We observed just one notable expansion within each of the O2b-M176 and O3-M122 clades (Supplementary Fig. 14d)."

Present day geographical distributions provide strong support for the correspondences we proposed for the initial peopling of most of Eurasia by fully modern humans ~50–55 kya and for the first colonization of the Americas ~15 kya. For later male-specific expansions, we should consider the consequences of alternative mutation rate estimates, as pedigree-based methods relying on variation from the most recent several centuries8,10,28 may be more relevant. The pedigree-based estimate from the largest set of mutations8 would lead to a ~15% decrease in expansion times, increasing the precision of the correspondences proposed for E1b and R1a. For R1b, a 15% decrease would suggest an expansion postdating the Yamnaya migration. Using either mutation rate estimate, the lineage expansions seem to have followed innovations that may have elicited increased variance in male reproductive success29, innovations such as metallurgy, wheeled transport, or social stratification and organized warfare. In each case, privileged male lineages could undergo preferential amplification for generations. We find that rapid expansions are not confined to extraordinary circumstances30,31 and that the Y chromosome resulting from these rapid expansions can predominate on a continental scale and do so in some of the populations most studied by medical geneticists. Inferences incorporating demography may benefit from taking these male–female differences into account.

[gandharva]

associated by some with the historical migration of Indo-European speakers from the Western Steppe into the Indian subcontinent 27.

That ref 27. That is the key. It will (and I bet my right testimonial this time) a history book[/quote]

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/n ... .3559.html

Bryant, E.F. & Patton, L.L. The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History (Routledge, 2005).

[gandharva]

Here is an interesting post from the supplementary data.




http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread. ... 2c225c3e3f

[shiv]

Expansion of R1a-Z93 means zilch. Z93 is a branch of M17 that originated in India ~12000 years ago. Z93 is most common in India and another paper dated it back 10,000+ years. If it suddenly expanded from 5,500 to 4000 years ago it means that an existing gene proliferated. That's all

[gandharva]

Here is a download link for the Poznik's paper.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwi53z1yy3zmk ... -.pdf?dl=0

[RoyG]

Expansion of R1a-Z93 means zilch. Z93 is a branch of M17 that originated in India ~12000 years ago. Z93 is most common in India and another paper dated it back 10,000+ years. If it suddenly expanded from 5,500 to 4000 years ago it means that an existing gene proliferated. That's all

Correct. It was a later expansion following the migratory pattern out of the subcontinent.

[shiv]

Here is a download link for the Poznik's paper.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwi53z1yy3zmk ... -.pdf?dl=0

Thanks. Got it. As predicted the reference to Aryan Invasion is taken from a history book (Ref 27)

The book itself is downloadable here (pdf)
https://archive.org/download/EdwinBryan ... (2005).pdf

It has chapters by BB Lal, Kak, Koenrad Elst, Talageri and Witzel. Looks like a good book. But these genetic authors have clearly not read the book.

[RajeshA]

Published on May 10, 2016
By Vikram A
A Mahishasuramardini from Iran: MyInd.net

This silver rhyton has been discovered at Deylaman, Northern Iran. The inscription as well as leading art historians identify the artefact as representing “Durga mahishasuramardini”

[Prem Kumar]

The Aryan Theory has become a catch-all spider web.

Any movement/population-growth/population-replacement anywhere in the globe at any point in the past = Look ma! Aryans!

Looks like most geneticists have no idea that the Aryan theory has a:

1) A specific & narrow chronology
2) A migration pattern

....into which the genetic data must fit. So, when geneticists say "Z93 growth = Aryan Invasion", they are talking crap and are actually bringing disrepute to their fields. Sure enough, they use words like "purported AIT", "possibly pointing to AIT" & all such disclaimers. But it doesn't wash. They can get away with it because the hegemonic discourse is in favor of AIT and there is no one who will take them to task for over-reaching.

[vishvak]

Here is a download link for the Poznik's paper.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwi53z1yy3zmk ... -.pdf?dl=0

Thanks. Got it. As predicted the reference to Aryan Invasion is taken from a history book (Ref 27)

The book itself is downloadable here (pdf)
https://archive.org/download/EdwinBryan ... (2005).pdf

It has chapters by BB Lal, Kak, Koenrad Elst, Talageri and Witzel. Looks like a good book. But these genetic authors have clearly not read the book.

I posted a message a few days back
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=6880&p=2015209#p2015209
about proof of outward movement from India as per Archaeological data. Is it okay just to ignore Archaeology sometimes just because it would not fit current narrative?

The narrative has not changed, however, from days of barbaric colonial times, even though entire fields of inspections have been made available, including genetics. That AIT is referred to in genetics 'for building up context' (i.e. creating) shows that the narrative is bogus.

[shiv]

Is it okay just to ignore Archaeology sometimes just because it would not fit current narrative?

No it is not OK. But Archaeological data cannot be accepted without examination of the validity of that data in a manner that is neutral to all parties. That is because from the 1800s right up to this date archaeological data that favours AIT is accepted and anything against is rejected. This is not because of lack of validity but plain bias and reluctance to come up with new theories when the new data says that the old theory (made up by linguists and Indologists) is wrong.

A classic case is that of a horse bone expert called Bokonyi who was greatly praised for his work in Europe but was criticized because he said that horse bones were found in Harappa.

There is a deeper issue here that we all must learn. Many of us who have done research and worked in the West may have instinctively understood the meaning of bias. In India we grow up with the idea that research in the west and published papers are totally scientific and completely unbiased. This is simply not true. There are huge biases in the way certain findings are presented and highlighted based on vested interests.

[shiv]

The narrative has not changed, however, from days of barbaric colonial times, even though entire fields of inspections have been made available, including genetics. That AIT is referred to in genetics 'for building up context' (i.e. creating) shows that the narrative is bogus.

This is the "structure" of Western scholarship where they will forever quote their "gurus" who may have been racist mofos of the 19th and early 20th centuries

[johneeG]

Shiv: interesting point you made about references to non-genetic works in a genetics paper. I happened to notice is earlier today. Was reviewing one of the genetic papers and checked out the references. Voila - it references articles/books/papers from linguistics or other fields! One of them referred to a Gimbutas paper (she's an archaeologist and mother of the Kurgan hypothesis) in a genetics paper which proved nothing whatsoever about the Kurgan hypothesis. It was done "just to provide a context".

There are only a handful of geneticists like Metspalu who openly take a stance against AIT. The rest don't have a pair (or don't care)

My impression is that Genetic papers directly or indirectly mention non-genetic subjects because genetic information is ambiguous. Linguistics is an even more ambiguous field. Archaeology is a more independent and credible field. But, the information provided by archaeology about ancient past tends to be in bits and pieces. So, all these fields then depend on History field which studies the ancient literature. So, all these fields have to be brought together to make some sense of the whole information. Now, if Ancient Literature(history) is excluded from this, then I think its pretty difficult to disprove AIT based only on genetics, linguistics & archaeology. Its quite ambiguous. On the other hand, if ancient literature(history) is included, then AIT can be easily disproved and even the possibility of OIT established.

[Prem Kumar]

johneeG:

1) Agree with you that, to get a complete picture, all fields need to be brought together. And this is where AIT completely unravels. Each field is bring in more & more evidence against invasion/immigration. The accumulating evidence is the reason why AIT became AMT, which in turn has become "trickling-of-Aryans". In parallel, there is increasing evidence of OIT

2) Disagree that genetics or archaeology cannot disprove AIT: Archaeology has already done that. B. B. Lal & others' excavations have established archaeological continuity from literally neolithic/paleolithic times through Harappans through Gangetic civilizations through today. There are no discontinuities/new-material-culture that would have been noticed if there was an Aryan influx. As Elst mentions, if we want to know what an Aryan invasion looks like, look at Europe. Both genetically & archaeologically, there are tell-tale signs of an Aryan invasion.

3) Coming to genetics, once again, there is substantial evidence against AIT. Bottomline, there is not a single genetics paper that demonstrates that there was an Aryan influx into India. All old papers that made such claims have been disproved because they picked insufficient/non-representative sample sizes. All new papers talk about the antiquity of the Indian gene pool & native rise of the caste system. Apart from archaeology, this is the 2nd elephant in the room

[Nilesh Oak]

^Nothing is sacred and/or untouchable

Archaeology, Genetics, astronomy, Hydrology (rivers and such), geology (change in courses, appearances and disappearance of rivers), climatology (ice ages and glaciers melting), anthropology, linguistics...

All of them can falsify certain aspects of 'AIT statements ' (Location (where), timing (when), direction (In vs. out), identity (who), quantity (how many), very basis (e.g. Linguistics.. to explain spread of Indic languages).

[gandharva]

Shiv: quick question. A point that Kalavai Venkat raises is that, if ANI & ASI were admixed in India before OIT began, we should see some ASI-related genes in Central Asia and Europe. He claims we don't see it.

Kalavai Venkat is a bullshitter who has not understood the point of definition of a set of genes called ASI and ANI. They are unique to India. This is in the Reich paper and I will post 2 data graphs from that paper to illustrate.

In the image below the left half shows Indian all genes ASI+ANI among all groups, North/South/Upper/Lower caste) clustering in the upper part of the graph. European genes are at bottom right. Chinese at bottom left. Indian genes are slightly closer to European ones except Nyshi and Naga tribes. Europe has no ASI or ANI genes. China has no ASI or ANI genes. ASI and ANI are unique to India and extend up to Afghanistan and Burma

The tree on the right explains how this might have happened. Comon human genes at the apex split into a left side African group and a right side Andaman Onge group. The right Andaman Onge group gave off a branch that later split into 2 groups - one Eruropean and the other ANI. Slightly later the same right Onge Andaman group gave off an ASI branch. The ASI and ANI branch mixed. The Onge group in the Andamans went on and stayed "pure" and has shown no admixture for 48000 years

Neither ASI nor ANI appear in Europe, but it is the Y chromosome M 17 (and Z 93 IIRC) that appear in Europe. This shows male migration from India to Europe but no major migration either into or out of India.

Can some one tell me where the r1a1a1a(Z280), r1a1a1b(Z93) and M-17 will fall on the tree structure shown in figure 4 abv?

[RoyG]

Shiv,

This is what happens when you don't look at all the data together. They are simply cherry picking genetic data to fit into a theory cooked up by linguists. It is so blatantly obvious that they are ignoring all major genetic findings in the last 10 years.

[shiv]

Neither ASI nor ANI appear in Europe, but it is the Y chromosome M 17 (and Z 93 IIRC) that appear in Europe. This shows male migration from India to Europe but no major migration either into or out of India.

http://i.imgur.com/e75NxrU.jpg

Can some one tell me where the r1a1a1a(Z280), r1a1a1b(Z93) and M-17 will fall on the tree structure shown in figure 4 abv?

Z280/Z93 are from the male Y chromosome (sex chromosome) . The above map is of autosomes - which are neither X or Y chromosomes. So they do not show up on the map above.

That map is very interesting because it suggests some very very ancient genes that split into 2 branches. One went to (or stayed in) Africa and the other went off to Andamans as Onge. On the way to Andamans two branches came off. One branch further split up and one part went to Europe and the other went to India as ANI - explaining the ANI-Europe similarity. The Andaman-Onge branch gave birth to one more branch that went to India as ASI. The two branches ASI and ANI mixed in India a very long time ago so that people from Afghanistan to Srilanka and Gujarat to Burma have some proportion of ASI and ANI. That means all these people have some proportion of genes from the Onge branch that went to Europe as well as some proportion of Onge that went to Andamans.

May I point out that the name ASI and ANI are themselves bad names because they "sort of suggest" AIT. But the actual origins could be original migrations like the ASI branch coming via coast to South India en route to Andamans and the ANI branch coming to India via a northern route. I have forgotten the ref about when ASI/ANI mixed together but it was more than 10-12000 years ago - maybe 20,000 years ago. This is the real AIT - except that there is no such thing as "Aryan" although some ancient Hindu astronomic dates go back 12000 years. There is an outside chance that ancient Hindu narratives speak of the experiences at that time. But our texts do not speak of ASI/ANI warring with each other killing and driving people away. The genetic picture suggests much lovemaking plenty of "hukku-pukku" leading to a thorough mixing of ASI/ANI genes.

Until now no one has suggested human origin in India - but outside India - whether it is in Africa or elsewhere is moot. Coastal migrations would surely have brought people to the Baluchistan, Sindh and Gujarat coasts apart from peninsular India and they would have been within striking range of the Sindhu river. Migrations via the land route - say across the Hindu Kush would also have ended up near the Sindhu river. These people fcuked. They did not fight. There were few people and plenty of land and a lovely, fertile warm land.

Among male Y chromosome studies:
Z93 is a branch of M17. M17 has its oldest genetic presence in India, but has spread out to Russia, East Europe. As pointed out many times before, two of the daughter branches of M17 show up separately in Europe and India. Z 93 is India, while M 458 is found in Europe only. That means M17 evolved in India and migrated north to Russia/East Europe. M458 appeared around 6000 years ago in Poland and never came to India. That means there has been no serious migration from Europe to India in 6000 years.

I call the M17 the 'Sanskrit gene". It is found in areas where daughter languages of Sanskrit are spoken: India, Russia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Ukraine, Wrong or right I take credit for that expression here and now.

[hanumadu]

Is M 458 a branch of M17? What about Z280?

As pointed out many times before, two of the daughter branches of M17 show up separately in Europe and India.

The two branches here are Z93 and M458?

[hanumadu]

Shiv, In the book you are writing, can you please include a (detailed) primer on all this genetic stuff?

[csaurabh]

May I point out that the name ASI and ANI are themselves bad names because they "sort of suggest" AIT. But the actual origins could be original migrations like the ASI branch coming via coast to South India en route to Andamans and the ANI branch coming to India via a northern route. I have forgotten the ref about when ASI/ANI mixed together but it was more than 10-12000 years ago - maybe 20,000 years ago. This is the real AIT - except that there is no such thing as "Aryan" although some ancient Hindu astronomic dates go back 12000 years. There is an outside chance that ancient Hindu narratives speak of the experiences at that time. But our texts do not speak of ASI/ANI warring with each other killing and driving people away. The genetic picture suggests much lovemaking plenty of "hukku-pukku" leading to a thorough mixing of ASI/ANI genes.

The thing is that AIT is not just about India ( ASI/ANI ). It is also about Europe and quest for ancient European identity.

Pre-Christian European history has mostly been lost. In its place, they tried to claim the ancient Hindu scriptures - Veda, Upanishads, etc. as their own, via the 'Aryans' theory ( that Aryans came from Europe or they came from somewhere else to Europe ). This was based on so called linguistic connections between Sanskrit and European languages that are actually quite dubious.

So it is not only Aryan/Dravidian bogus conflict that needs to be debunked, but also all the historical distortions of other so called 'Indo-Europeans' ( eg. Syria, Iran, Russia, etc. )

[gandharva]

Neither ASI nor ANI appear in Europe, but it is the Y chromosome M 17 (and Z 93 IIRC) that appear in Europe. This shows male migration from India to Europe but no major migration either into or out of India.

http://i.imgur.com/e75NxrU.jpg

Can some one tell me where the r1a1a1a(Z280), r1a1a1b(Z93) and M-17 will fall on the tree structure shown in figure 4 abv?

Z280/Z93 are from the male Y chromosome (sex chromosome) . The above map is of autosomes - which are neither X or Y chromosomes. So they do not show up on the map above.

Are ANI & ASI defined based on autosomes or chromosomes?

Is it possible to find composition of ANI & ASI in this tree ?
http://i.imgur.com/79092TC.jpg

[shiv]

Is M 458 a branch of M17? What about Z280?

As pointed out many times before, two of the daughter branches of M17 show up separately in Europe and India.

The two branches here are Z93 and M458?

Here is a useful diagram - from a paper by Underhill.
At the bottom you can read R R1, R1a, R1a1 etc

M17 is R1a1a
Z280 is R1a1a1a
Z93 is R1a1a2