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

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
banrjeer
BRFite
Posts: 229
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 14:39

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

Postby banrjeer » 05 Sep 2019 23:27

Some aspects of the Rakhigarhi seem to be leaked before the press conference:

https://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/ar ... a.2019.121

For what its worth the" Tony Joseph types" can now be told that theres no R1a because the lone sample is a female.

The writer seems pretty ignorant:
Heres an excerpt:
“Our findings do not prove a separate invention of farming in South Asia,” says geneticist David Reich

This has Nothing to do with the current study

yet in a different sentence:

"The analysis by Reich and colleagues also shows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the Indus Valley people split from the natives of Zagros Mountains in Iran before 8000 BCE. This is before crop farming began there around 7000–6000 BCE.
This suggests that the descendants of the world’s first farmers who lived in the Fertile Crescent have had no roles in introducing farming to South Asia."

One of the important parts:

"The profile, they say, has signs of Iranian-related ancestry but no evidence of pastoralists who lived in the grasslands of Asia and Europe. “We say ‘Iranian-related’ because we don’t know where they lived,” Reich says. They could have lived in the Iranian plateau, but the team’s data point to them having lived in South Asia for many thousands of years before the Indus Valley Civilisation, he adds."


This last part which is consistent with what Harvards Central Asia preprint:

The important thing to remember in that Swat and BMAC have smaller than modern steppe-MLBA profiles that seem to be female mediated not chariot riding invaders. The steppe MLBA seen in modern Indians does not get enriched till the historical period and is not correlated with any language shift.


My conjecture is that it's due to the shrinking indosphere of Central Asia during the buddhist period and with the onset of islam.
A large body of foreign(central asian) Sanskrit scholars got assimilated and took refuge through places like the Kashmir school, Nalanda and Taxila. In other words it has nothing to do with Andronovo. We see that happening today as well if you think of the pandit exodus from the Kashmir Valley.

Please see below:
https://medium.com/@subhashkak1/kumāraj ... 2c67006a8e

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 06 Sep 2019 00:07

Waiting for the paper. Haven't seen Reich's previous paper in detail as without ancient DNA from IVC one cannot co-relate. Rakhigarhi DNA is from approx 4500 YBP (years before present). One thing caught my eye - Rai says it is closer to ASI than ANI. Does it mean there was some ANI. If yes it means ANI was there much before when they are claiming Aryans arrived. I personally still maintain that most likely scenario is that IVC was an immigrant culture that developed from agriculture to urban lifestyle over thousands of years with different people arriving at different times. What remains to be determined is when they arrived and which component called themselves Arya. Is Arya a culture or race? Euro-centric researchers think it is a race which is why so much effort is spent on finding steppe genetic components.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11523
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

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

Postby A_Gupta » 06 Sep 2019 00:23

The New Narrative.
A History of South Asia, Told in Ancient DNA

A tiny ear bone from more than 4,000 years ago is shaping the story of migration and heritage in India.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... rs/597481/

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 08:54

Vagheesh has released a paper in Cell. Don't know if Niraj Rai is referring to the same paper or a different one. Check Twitter handle of vagheesh.

Niraj Rai has also tweeted, giving salient highlights of what today's presser & y'days paper is all about:

1) No Steppe DNA in Rakhigarhi individual. They tried hard to fit, but it wouldn't fit
2) Very similar to 11 other aDNA samples from Turkmenistan and Iran. They are now calling it the IVC Cline
3) All of them & all Iranian farming lineages had a common ancestor who most likely lived in India. The split happened way back in time
4) The IVC cline is indigenous. Apart from the above mentioned common ancestor, it also has Andamanese lineage
5) Because of (3) above, the earlier hypothesis about Iranians introducing agriculture into India is debunked. IVC & Gangetic plains independently developed agriculture. But we knew that already (from DNA of rice etc). The Reich fanboys seem to have come around to accepting this
6) Movement of people was from IVC to Central Asia in that timeframe. Pretty much established conclusively by analyzing the aDNA of Rakhigarhi & the 11 Central Asian/Iranian samples
7) There is no South Indian component to the Rakhigarhi DNA. Only Andamanese. So, the language they spoke was certainly not Tamil or Munda or any Witzel-inspired nonsense. Most likely it was Sanskrit or proto-Sanskrit
8.) Anatolian-PIE-origin hypothesis is debunked, per Vagheesh

Vagheesh, being the douche he is, added a mandatory but completely irrelevant paragraph in his paper that says that language was introduced by Steppe people later, which is a complete lie. There is nothing in Rakhigarhi aDNA or his own paper that suggests it.

He also claims that Anatolian-PIE-origin hypothesis is debunked, because Rakhigarhi aDNA has nothing from Anatolia. By that same logic, even Steppe hypothesis is debunked. But he wouldn't say that or his postdoc grant from Reich will be canceled.
Last edited by Prem Kumar on 06 Sep 2019 10:07, edited 6 times in total.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 09:03

By the way, the timing of the release of a 2nd paper by Vagheesh, analyzing 323 aDNA seems a little to coincidental. Its on the same day as Rakhigarhi aDNA paper. And it talks the same garbage as his earlier bioRxiv pre-print which never saw the light of day.

The 2nd paper's release has a particular agenda. It wants to establish how aDNA proves Steppe invasion. However it does nothing of that sort, because there is no aDNA from India in the 1500 BCE timeframe containing Steppe DNA.

The timing of the 2nd paper is to steal the limelight from the real breakthrough paper: the Rakhigarhi aDNA paper, which if anything, debunks AIT and Vagheesh's earlier preprint.

P.S. Priya Moorjani is a postdoc student under Reich & is one of the main authors of the 2nd paper. She was the same one who said no major influx into India since 12500 YBP. Likely candidate co-opted by the Aryan invasionist Reich gang.


Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Postby Arjun » 06 Sep 2019 09:20

Nice to finally see this long-awaited paper!

Does this study show that IVC DNA is linked to both ASI and ANI, and not just ASI? If that is the case, then AIT and language import is also disproved I presume.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 09:25

Paper doesn't say much about ASI or ANI. The invasionists will argue that the Steppe people came later, circa 1500 BCE. That nonsense is what Vagheesh's 2nd paper is all about. The final nail in the coffin will be when we extract Indus Valley aDNA from 1500 BCE and show no Steppe component. If that happens, I expect Reich's lab to conveniently lose the aDNA sample!

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 09:45

"Steppe" people brought nothing new..Neither Iron,Nor Horses Nor Chariots.

The bigger hit will be The Sanauli DNA of the Buried Warrior with His Chariot.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 09:55

Correct. The Rakhigarhi aDNA without Steppe component + Sanauli Chariot together demolish AIT. It shows the following:

1) That the Indus Valley people were indigenous & had horse-chariot technology circa 2500 BCE
2) By then, they had also independently invented & practiced agriculture for 1000s of years
3) The Indus Valley people were moving into Central Asia and Iran at that time
4) Since it was the "mature Harappan phase", they had a sophisticated civilization. Cities + a huge population + complex society!
5) They would have had a sophisticated language to support all of this
6) Oh, by the way: there is no South Indian component to the Rakhigarhi DNA. Only Andamanese. So, the language they spoke was certainly not Tamil or Munda or any Witzel-inspired nonsense. Most likely it was Sanskrit or proto-Sanskrit

So, what exactly did the Steppe nomads bring?
Last edited by Prem Kumar on 06 Sep 2019 10:09, edited 1 time in total.

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4428
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

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

Postby hanumadu » 06 Sep 2019 10:08

Doesn't AIT and PIE language theory say that Indian languages and persian are part of Indo Iranian sub tree. If the Iranian DNA in India has branched off greater than 10000 years ago, then how come Samskrit and Persian share a common Proto Indo Iranian parent language? If Steppe DNA came to India via some other route but not Iran, then the entire Indo Iranian language tree is wrong. There should be no Indo Iranian language family. These languages cannot be older than 2500 - 3000 BCE but separation of Indian and Iranian clines happened at 10000 years ago.

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 10:13

Prem Kumar wrote:Correct. The Rakhigarhi aDNA without Steppe component + Sanauli Chariot together demolish AIT. It shows the following:

1) That the Indus Valley people were indigenous & had horse-chariot technology circa 2500 BCE
2) By then, they had also independently invented & practiced agriculture for 1000s of years
3) The Indus Valley people were moving into Central Asia and Iran at that time
4) Since it was the "mature Harappan phase", they had a sophisticated civilization. Cities + a huge population + complex society!
5) They would have had a sophisticated language to support all of this
6) Oh, by the way: there is no South Indian component to the Rakhigarhi DNA. Only Andamanese. So, the language they spoke was certainly not Tamil or Munda or any Witzel-inspired nonsense. Most likely it was Sanskrit or proto-Sanskrit

So, what exactly did the Steppe nomads bring?



Yes

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 10:15

hanumadu wrote:Doesn't AIT and PIE language theory say that Indian languages and persian are part of Indo Iranian sub tree. If the Iranian DNA in India has branched off greater than 10000 years ago, then how come Samskrit and Persian share a common Proto Indo Iranian parent language? If Steppe DNA came to India via some other route but not Iran, then the entire Indo Iranian language tree is wrong. There should be no Indo Iranian language family. These languages cannot be older than 2500 - 3000 BCE but separation of Indian and Iranian clines happened at 10000 years ago.


Again Yes.

And we need people like Talageri ,Kak etc who can push forward these Arguments along with Vasant Shinde.

We must leave Rai and Choubey to do the Good Job at the Birbal Sahni Institute w :D

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 06 Sep 2019 14:08

I have to read the papers in detail. But clear genetic evidence of out-of-India migration. The only thing that is not clear is what ancestry does this aDNA match ANI or ASI. My guess would be ANI. There may have been heavy steppe gene flow much later but nothing to do with PIE or Aryan culture. Now they should look for Andamanese gene flow in aDNA samples much further in Europe. They may find traces or the branching off happened much earlier before they mixed with the Andamanese. My hunch is that these IVC people were the Aryans and IE speakers. What needs to be found out is from whom they descended. R1a1 and steppe came later and mixed.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 06 Sep 2019 14:28

They should look for the IVC cline in modern and ancient Europeans and the Yamnaya who are thought to have brought IE languages to Europe.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 06 Sep 2019 14:42

Literature, archaeology and genetics are all coming to the same conclusion. Previously in the subcontinent we had literature (Vedas, etc) that had no archaeology and archaeology (IVC) that had no literature according to AIT/AMT proponents which led them to postulate they they are unrelated. Many OIT proponents had said that they are connected and they had found evidence. Now the genetics is linking them together although some more work needs to be done. If we find IVC cline much wider say in European populations everything falls in place. If not it may have been elite domination. If the later then Yamnaya are IE but later intruders.

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 15:54

People must work on modelling Steppe Ancestry with this new IVC genome too..check how much deviation is there.
Mind You the so called Steppe Ancestry has a large Iran Chalcolithic Component.

Plus This so called Iran Neolithic or Iran Farmer Must be modeled as admixture of this Pure IVC population and other contributing Population to start a new and proper debate

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 06 Sep 2019 16:05

Yes, the center of gravity should move to this IVC cline which may be 12500 years old.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 06 Sep 2019 16:14

The Sarhauli DNA will also be important as it is estimated to be 3000 BC and with chariot. If it is IVC cline one more proof of OIT.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 19:19

Anshuman.Kumar wrote:People must work on modelling Steppe Ancestry with this new IVC genome too..check how much deviation is there.
Mind You the so called Steppe Ancestry has a large Iran Chalcolithic Component.

Plus This so called Iran Neolithic or Iran Farmer Must be modeled as admixture of this Pure IVC population and other contributing Population to start a new and proper debate


Anshuman: can you elaborate on this thought? This is what I am trying to get to the bottom of:

1) Is Steppe Ancestry (EMBA, MLBA etc) really Steppe? Or did they just give a convenient sounding label to genes which originated in Iran/India?
2) When Vagheesh claims that 30% of modern day Indians have Steppe_MLBA components, what does it really mean? Can the SNPs be shown to have originated in the Steppes and nowhere else? If they are nothing more than Indian/Iranian mutations, then of course, modern Indians will have them

Its like going to a pizza joint in Italy and saying that the pizza originated in the U.S

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 06 Sep 2019 21:08

@ Prem..
I am not a geneticist..so cant explain it properly in genetic terms,

But to me it looks like That steppe MLBA/EMBA is essentially iran chalcolithic or IVC people mixing with few other populations during the expansion phase,ending up in steppe .Now The statisticians take Steppe Population as a whole subsuming all earlier contributions,name it as Steppe MLBA /Steppe EMBA .now The IVC people which were the Original Population while mixing with other population after decline of IVC would show varying percentages of Steppe EMBA/MLBA depending upon who they mixed with..whatever "Average" you may like to call it..

But since we always talk according to statistical models and not real genetic make up..there is lot of Obfuscation

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 07 Sep 2019 00:13

I will take a stab at it. When you try to study population genetics you need something to compare to. So various signatures give rise to various populations which are given different names e.g. Iran neolithic, Steppe MBLA, Ancestral North Indian, etc. When you study a new study you try to compare with these existing signatures and try to co-relate and say so and so component is present in this population. You can also estimate when they arose, when they arrived and when different populations mixed. In the case of the Indian population we already know it is a heavily mixed population. So it is like peeling an onion with each peel revealing something new. First we knew there was R1a1, then we found there were two ancestral populations ASI and ANI, then we found that these were themselves mixtures of AASI, Iran neolithic, Steppe. The present study has found another peel a new one which is even more ancient and is found in about 2/3 to 3/4 of the Indian population the IVC cline which has no Steppe but a little Andamanese. Plus what they thought came from Iran neolithic actually went in the other direction. This means that there was an ancient population in the IVC which forms the substratum of a majority of Indians. All other mixtures came later. R1a1 and Steppe which are pretty widespread specially in north India came later.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 07 Sep 2019 00:45

Plus genetic evidence that the IVC cline is present in Iranian and central asian populations which means they migrated out of the subcontinent i.e. out-of-India.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3507
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

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

Postby Rudradev » 08 Sep 2019 03:34

I would strongly suggest that people read every sentence, table, and data point in Neeraj Rai's paper before mouthing off inordinately regarding its conclusions.

The fraud Vagheesh Narasimhan's paper had been available as a pre-print for years before Dr. Priyadarshi, for example, was able to identify the lacunae in it.

This is not a subject where the usual "Breaking News" mentality of low-IQ, quick-and-dirty analyses is worth anything. Let us go over the damn thing in excruciating detail. Let us identify the weak spots in which Left-Wing Qtiyas are likely to try and poke holes. Let us reinforce them one at a time. The results are clearly destructive of the BIF narrative at 1st glance. I think it is important that every one of us should be able to explain, even in our sleep, why that is the case for each claim the authors appear to arrive at.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

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

Postby Pulikeshi » 08 Sep 2019 12:18

^^^ along those lines of careful scrutiny :

The paper in Science Sept 6th:
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

The paper in Cell Sept 5th:
An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers

Still digesting the papers, but can someone shed light on why two papers — is Vageesh the only overlap?
Also anyone looked into why Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Russian Science Foundation are interested in funding these with Harvard?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 13:03

Rudradev: agreed. I had gone through Niraj Rai's paper in detail before posting my excerpts above. Going to review the 2nd paper by Vagheesh today.

Looking forward to your analysis.

Pulikeshi: see my post above, on why there is a 2nd paper and its curious timing.

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 13:49

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^ along those lines of careful scrutiny :

The paper in Science Sept 6th:
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

The paper in Cell Sept 5th:
An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers

Still digesting the papers, but can someone shed light on why two papers — is Vageesh the only overlap?
Also anyone looked into why Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Russian Science Foundation are interested in funding these with Harvard?


Both papers..primary Authors are from Harvard

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 14:53

aDNA paper's 1st author is Vasant Shinde. Not from Harvard. But 2nd author is Vagheesh.

Dr. Vasant Shinde explained in a video interview that they had analyzed the DNA in CCMB but wanted to ensure that it got a 2nd validation from Reich's lab, which has better equipment. Because of this, Harvard people are in the aDNA paper.

If our Ministry of Science, Culture etc have even half a brain cell, they will invest and create a world class aDNA lab in India. We ain't seen nothing yet. More aDNA is going to come from all parts of India and we will need to analyze it a put together a map of who we are ............. without having to depend on Harvard/Reich, who have a clear agenda.

See interview below of Vasant Shinde


Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 18:43

May be I am wrong.
Anyways The R1a paper from G Choubey is not far away.
R1a is in a way crucial to delink language from Genes .Confirmation of autuchtonous origins of R1a in India will totally delink Languages from genes or Europeans will have to accept OIT and the antiquity of Vedic language

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 18:44

aDNA lab is coming up pretty good at Birbal Sahni Institute

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 22:13

Anshuman.Kumar wrote:Anyways The R1a paper from G Choubey is not far away


What is this paper?

Also, there is an upcoming aDNA paper that Niraj tweeted about earlier this year, which he says will show that there were horses in IVC

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 08 Sep 2019 22:40

It sheds light on antiquity of indian R1a and the tentative results show that l657 or Indian R1a has local origins

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 09 Sep 2019 10:51

Guys: please read this NYT article in detail, especially the last few paragraphs to know the modus operandi of that snake Reich. We see every single trick described here being played out by Vagheesh & Co in the Rakhigarhi aDNA episode. To name a few:

1) Publishing an average paper (with political overtones) on the same day that a pathbreaking paper is published
2) Publishing a preprint well ahead of the pathbreaking paper, to steal the limelight
3) Making grandiose claims to answer "Entire population histories" with little or no data
4) Preference for simplistic, sweeping models of migrations over a short time, rather than a more complex back-and-forth exchange over centuries/millenia
5) Using their clout (money power, academic cabals) to get half-baked papers published by Nature, overriding previous rejections & serious peer-review concerns

Its all there guys. Laid out threadbare.

What is very clear is that India must castrate this cabal. We must build our own aDNA factory & our own academic evaluation criteria, without relying on these snakes. I wouldn't be surprised if they even delay/destroy/contaminate samples in order to protect their agenda.

Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths — or Falling Into Old Traps?

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

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

Postby Rony » 09 Sep 2019 20:41

1. Indians are mostly descendants of Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization (SSC).
2. Agriculture arose independently in SSC
3. No major contribution from Steppes neither genetic wise nor material culture wise. Although to satisfy his AMT folks, he parrots "little obvious material connection" after conceding he is no archaeologist.
4. Then contradicts himself and says there is no "Aryan civilization" in Steppes there by conceding Vedic civilization is indigenous

Isn't Reich grudgingly conceding here that AIT/AMT is dead without saying it directly ?


Image

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 09 Sep 2019 21:39

Image didn't come through.

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 09 Sep 2019 21:50

Here's the image:

Image

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2293
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

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

Postby Prem Kumar » 09 Sep 2019 21:56

Rony wrote:Isn't Reich grudgingly conceding here that AIT/AMT is dead without saying it directly ?


Reich is being a slimeball. He didn't say there was no AMT/AIT. Vagheesh's paper says that, just like how Central Europe bell-beaker culture survived even after Yamanaya invasion, even if there is no material culture change, the incoming population can introduce genes and language.

He is telling what the interviewer wants to hear, while maintaining that there is non-inconsequential Steppe gene flow, which introduced language to India. Vagheesh's paper is all about how Yamanaya pastoralists introduced language to India.

This interview is an eyewash

ashbhee
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 97
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:05

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

Postby ashbhee » 10 Sep 2019 01:33

Dawn is reporting new IVC script found engraved in Khirthar mountains in Sindh.

https://images.dawn.com/news/1183645/sc ... -mountains

Anshuman.Kumar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 08 Sep 2016 20:16

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

Postby Anshuman.Kumar » 10 Sep 2019 14:55

Is Siberian Hunter Gatherer genome a close proxy of Andaman or South East Asian Hunter Gatherer ??

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6302
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

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

Postby Supratik » 11 Sep 2019 22:31

Niraj Rai interview

https://youtu.be/U__2851gcR4


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TKiran and 56 guests