Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jun 2012 21:52

Science Magazine
April 20, 2007 Issue

By Ann Gibbons
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests

Alternative link

Researchers have disagreed for decades about an issue that is only skin-deep: How quickly did the first modern humans who swept into Europe acquire pale skin? Now a new report on the evolution of a gene for skin color suggests that Europeans lightened up quite recently, perhaps only 6000 to 12,000 years ago. This contradicts a long-standing hypothesis that modern humans in Europe grew paler about 40,000 years ago, as soon as they migrated into northern latitudes. Under darker skies, pale skin absorbs more sunlight than dark skin, allowing ultraviolet rays to produce more vitamin D for bone growth and calcium absorption. “The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe,” molecular anthropologist Heather Norton of the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in her talk.

The genetic origin of the spectrum of human skin colors has been one of the big puzzles of biology. Researchers made a major breakthrough in 2005 by discovering a gene, SLC24A5, that apparently causes pale skin in many Europeans, but not in Asians. A team led by geneticist Keith Cheng of Pennsylvania State University (PSU) College of Medicine in Hershey found two variants of the gene that differed by just one amino acid. Nearly all Africans and East Asians had one allele, whereas 98% of the 120 Europeans they studied had the other
(Science, 28 October 2005, p. 601).

Norton, who worked on the Cheng study as a graduate student, decided to find out when that mutation swept through Europeans. Working as a postdoc with geneticist Michael Hammer at the University of Arizona, she sequenced 9300 base pairs of DNA in the SLC24A5 gene in 41 Europeans, Africans, Asians, and American Indians.

Using variations in the gene that did not cause paling, she calculated the background mutation rate of SLC24A5 and thereby determined that 18,000 years had passed since the light-skin allele was fixed in Europeans. But the error margins were large, so she also analyzed variation in the DNA flanking the gene. She found that Europeans with the allele had a “striking lack of diversity” in this flanking DNA—a sign of very recent genetic change, because not enough time has passed for new mutations to arise. The data suggest that the selective sweep occurred 5300 to 6000 years ago, but given the imprecision of method, the real date could be as far back as 12,000 years ago, Norton said. She added that other, unknown, genes probably also cause paling in Europeans.

Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years—a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College.

Such recent changes in skin color show that humans are still evolving, says molecular anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City: “We have all tacitly assumed for years that modern humans showed up 45,000 years ago and have not changed much since, while this and other work shows that we continue to change, often at a very fast rate.”

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 26 Jun 2012 21:55

More problems for R1a1==AIT people
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/11/r1a1-a ... urasia.php

Initially, researchers such as Spencer Wells assumed that R1a1 signaled the arrival of Indo-Aryans to the Indian subcontinent, its frequencies decline in a northwest-to-southeast gradient, and from high to low castes. In Europe the modal frequencies are among Slavic groups, with a high representation among Germanic-speakers. The frequency of R1a1 declines sharply in Western and Southern Europe. It is very common in Central Asia as well as eastern Iran and Afghanistan. One parsimonious explanation would be that R1a1 spread with Kurgan males, along with Indo-European languages, on the order of 4-5,000 years ago.

There is a problem with this model though. One of the new papers reiterates the finding that the coalescence of the European and South Asian lineages is on the order of 10,000 years ago: Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a (R1a1 is the dominant clade within R1a). A second paper reports the finding that R1a1 is very diverse in India, indicating deep time depth: The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system. For both R1a1 &"Ancestral North Indians" (ANI) in Reich et al.: the frequency seems intuitively way too high among tribal populations, even in South India. Remember that the low bound for ANI was ~40%. R1a1 is found at frequencies as high as 25% or so among some South Indian tribals. If this lineage arrived with the Indo-Aryans it is peculiar that it is found in such high frequencies in populations which were marginal and isolated from the dominant non-Indo-Aryan populations of South India. Back to Europe, here is a section from the abstract of the first paper:

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.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 26 Jun 2012 21:58

We know one thing, that migration took the Southern route from Africa reaching Indian subcontinent around 85k years ago. So this also explain the dark shade of pretty much every SDRE. Now there was a mutation in SLC24A5 gene. Threonine made the European skin white, this is a recent change around 5,300 to 6,000 years ago. This means that there indeed was a migration of 'dark skinned' people into Europe sometime earlier(atleast before 5500 years). A direct migration from Africa was ruled out by Oppenheimer. This means the people of Europe happened before skin color change. Now all the migration theories and horse plays and linguistic studies are either starting 6000Bc or later. So AIT/AMT people are basically saying that there was a second migration of people after 'turning white' into India. But...but there is one problem I see with this AIT/AMT, solely based on SLC24A5, that is if there is a migration of white skinned european Aryans into India, how come *almost* all Indian genes lack threonine? if any migration theory has to be true, predominantly most of North Indians should have threonine to make them 'whiter' . The lighter shades of skin color one sees in North Indians mainly due to latitude than this genetic mutation.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 26 Jun 2012 21:59

Sorry didn't see earlier posts on this. I apologize if I opened my mouth without paying attention.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jun 2012 22:01

This paling of color is not simply limited to Indo-Europeans, but one sees that in Indonesia/Thailand/Cambodia people too are much darker than say Mongols. In the Americas the native Americans living in say Mexico or Brazil are much darker than say the Eskimos.

I can't say the above examples are the color gradation of basically the same race or not, but the appearance of it seems to suggest so.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 26 Jun 2012 22:34

Ok venuji the link provided by A_Gupta ji does not mention the most important of all communication. Between Tushratta & Amenhotep 4 aka Akhenaten. It gives only the preamble to one such communication. In fact the letter to Tiy or Tiye is shown which kind of gives away why the letters to the son of Tiye are not mentioned.

Now RajeshA ji has give the link which basically mentions a possibility of Akhenaten being influenced by Mitannis into the worship of Sun and he in turn being reflected in some old Christian Texts.

I am afraid I have a different hypothesis here.

See
1) Amenhotep 3 is friend of Tushratta. Both have big Pantheons. Lot of gifts exchanged. Marriage only one way. Women from Tushratta’s family getting married on request to Amenhotep 3. But apparently the gifts are given more one way then the other. Mitannis could have been the dominant partner (evidence : Tushratta letter to Tiy).
2) Akhenaten (born Amenhotep 4) revises the pantheon. Demotes the big guy god Amen and promotes sun god Aten. Changes name. Goes even to the extent of trying to rub off the name of his own father from the sundry temples. Seems like a pissed off guy not wanting the older order. Seems like the older order of Egyptians was not successful in overtaking the older order of Mitannis.

To me it looks like this could be the reason why the Monotheistic religions took on the mantle of Akhenaten and gave themselves a history. Pretty much like what is sought to be done today by the Uropains.

Coincidently even the superset of Mitannis ie. the Vedics also revered the Sun. Creates a clash. Hein ji. So they keep travelling, give up the Sun god & such like. Eventually go on to male biatch kind of vindictive God. They basically changed their own history from Amen to Aten and then later to whatever. Eventually they realize their political needs (or do they actually!) then get fossilized into what gave them victory (or so they thought!). Unfortunately on the other end is the real big guy. Something derived from the Vedics. Something that goes on and on and on in time. The huge non-convertible Hindu population with a poor, sorry life, but a truly great Pantheon. Now the Nuevo-converts feel like imbeciles. Like they gave up their true identity for just a material world that they know cannot make them invincible. Which is what they wanted to be in the first place. So the only alternative that now remains is to do what has been done earlier. Change histories, this time of others since they themselves are already fossilized. You change the history you change the Gods. Digest these gods and then the Gods or rather his qualities can be give to the male biatch without there being any precedence. This strategy too I believe goes downhill with the advancement of Sciences and Technologies that put people in touch. That allow people to share ideas and concerns. So now what are you left with except make friends with the SDRE Hindu with the aim to use him as the cannon fodder for their own rivalries. It is here that we are standing at present.

I think the Uropain history is not with the Greeks and the PIE, that is something they wish. Their history starts with Akhenaten. That is what their real actions are. To understand it better if tomorrow, all the Tibetans inside Tibet decide to Han-ize themselves they will be able to do that but then they would no longer by Tibetans (collaborators perhaps, giver uppers or if the odds are truly unsurmountable, then smart perhaps but surely not Tibetans). Only the ones outside Tibet will remain true Tibetans (or as true as they can be). The split basically creates two new origins. Kind of like the day after falling beyond event horizon.

PS :
IMHO, if you want to know history of Mitannis through the Amarna Correspondence and its relevance to OIT, then you need translations to following:
EA# 25 Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep 4
EA# 26 Mitanni king Tushratta to widow Tiy
EA# 27 Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep 4
EA# 28 Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep 4
EA# 29 Mitanni king Tushratta to Amenhotep 4

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 26 Jun 2012 23:11

Does anyone one know how to/where to upload a pdf file?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 26 Jun 2012 23:24

venug ji,

You can use scribd.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 26 Jun 2012 23:30

Thanks Rajesh garu. Arun Gupta ji asked for an article on horse "A comment on horse remains from Sukotada by Sandor Bokonyi a Meadow article. I was able to get a 9 page article.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98327620

Haven't read it yet myself.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 26 Jun 2012 23:33

So, that gene stats also indicate modern humans about 50K years old, and the theory of many SDRE literature and myth stories of lost kingdoms submerged under the Indian Ocean is pretty valid.

After all, myths are stories of real events with no exact data to validate and verify... does not mean, the event did not happen. we didn't know when that is all., or any exaggeration of the event is a possibility too.. just for the kicks and stories so that we aams believe about the event at least did happen.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Jun 2012 00:06

Saik garu, it's pretty much agreed up on that migration route to Indian subcontinent from Africa happened much much earlier around 85 Yrs back, but it is about the recent migrations that is being debated about because they already committed themselves to 1500 BC date for Aryan migration theories and all the 'civilization' started around that time(or 1000 years earlier). So it is about claim. It has become more about which people should be considered as progenitors of all human civilization. Witzel makes no bones about it in his sarcasm, he chides that Indians say India is the cradle of civilization. His chiding tells you how much he doesn't want India to be cradle of civilization. But at this time if we argue about truth about mythological theories, we may loose credibility. Already these guys think we are bunch of amateur idiots to go against the current to disprove what is taken as granted - AIT.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2012 00:17

Can shiv, RajeshA, Ravi_G and Bji, sit together and write up the story so far? And can ManishH be the critique of that? Say in four months from now?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 00:23

Are the dates correct here: for the scripts?

http://www.ancientscripts.com/ws_types.html

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 27 Jun 2012 00:24

From the paper shiv posted earlier.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Jun 2012 01:03

There is much knowledge to be mined in our scriptures including in the secular fields of astronomy, history, religious studies, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, political sciences, linguistics and on other various subjects from the various smritis.

Right now everything is bundled into mythology and then denigrated as useless fiction and supersticious stuff.

If we treat our sciptures with the due respect unlike Western Indologists without relegating these only to the fields of spirituality, as dharmic compass or children's stories, important though they are, we could bring the Indian story into modernity.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 01:04

^pakis will be thrilled with that map.

Rajesh, you are right.. we should move away from this mythical world to more on facts. New authors must start writing things like text books, and perhaps look at selling them to schools in Amrika/western landscape.. that would make our people in the land raise eye brows, and change of approach may be seen.

institutional seal is important especially like that would come up in nat geo. our people will buy firangi concepts. let us make the firangi concepts so that they buy it as ordained from a firangi setup.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 02:46

So, how should I read that '0' for Kerala in the frequency of M17 Y-chromo?

Dan Mazer · Post by **Dan Mazer** » 27 Jun 2012 02:51

All theories that are based on reading the Rig Veda as some sort of historical record, albeit with some fantasies, exaggerations and distortions thrown in, whether of the AIT or OIT variety are simply pseudo-science. In order to make their case the proponents of these theories first need to present a solid theory on the basis of which they make this assumption and not simply take it for granted as some sort of obvious fact. They need to show us why we need to accept a hypothesis about the Rig Veda being a record of history by showing what problems it can solve.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 03:21

what? did you read the thread, especially what venug has said about one of the major problem it can solve? btw, have you lived in India and experienced life in desh?

Dan Mazer · Post by **Dan Mazer** » 27 Jun 2012 03:45

SaiK wrote:what? did you read the thread, especially what venug has said about one of the major problem it can solve? btw, have you lived in India and experienced life in desh?

The word 'problem' in my post wasn't used in a general sense (i.e. social, economic, etc...). It was used in the sense of 'a gap in our understanding'. All I meant is this: We need good reasons to adopt the hypothesis that Rig veda is a historical record. These reasons should be independent of that which is sought to be explained by this hypothesis i.e. the spread of the so-called Indo-European languages.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 27 Jun 2012 03:49

SaiK wrote:So, that gene stats also indicate modern humans about 50K years old, and the theory of many SDRE literature and myth stories of lost kingdoms submerged under the Indian Ocean is pretty valid.

For sure in conclusion ,Yindians have been migrating , arguing and fighting many big, small wars for the last 50k years. Indian mind is inquistive and thirst for Gyan keep it gunning, wont let it rest til A to Z is known from every possible angle.

sanjeevs · Post by **sanjeevs** » 27 Jun 2012 04:13

To make matters more interesting ( from http://imgpublic.mci-group.com/ie/PCO/A ... _FINAL.pdf:)
As a FYI, from what I've read, this study used a analysis tool whose accuracy for age estimations is not widely accepted.

P-2033 Estimating a date of mixture of ancestral South Asian populations
Priya Moorjani1,2, Nick Patterson2, Periasamy Govindaraj3, Danish Saleheen4, John Danesh4, Lalji Singh*3,5, Kumarasamy Thangaraj*3, David Reich*1,2 1Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2Broad Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 3Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India, 4Dept of Public Health and Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 5Genome Foundation, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India
Linguistic and genetic studies have demonstrated that almost all groups in South Asia today descend from a mixture of two highly divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners and Europeans, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not related to any populations outside the Indian subcontinent. ANI and ASI have been estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor as much as 60,000 years ago, but the date of the ANI-ASI mixture is unknown. Here we analyze data from about 60 South Asian groups to estimate that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred 1,200-4,000 years ago. Some mixture may also be older—beyond the time we can query using admixture linkage disequilibrium—since it is universal throughout the subcontinent: present in every group speaking Indo-European or Dravidian languages, in all caste levels, and in primitive tribes. After the ANI-ASI mixture that occurred within the last four thousand years, a cultural shift led to widespread endogamy, decreasing the rate of additional mixture.
*- These authors co-mentored the project.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Jun 2012 04:23

venug wrote:Thanks Rajesh garu. Arun Gupta ji asked for an article on horse "A comment on horse remains from Sukotada by Sandor Bokonyi a Meadow article. I was able to get a 9 page article.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98327620

Haven't read it yet myself.

Venug, many thanks!

I quickly scanned it, leaving a careful reading for later. The gist of the argument is that if you don't want those remains to be those of a true horse, you can argue all of them away. Not by a single argument (e.g., of such an example would be that all the finds are explained by a larger than extant hemione variety) but a case-by-case argument which, IMO, is much weaker.

In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before more datable horse remains are found, even though I expect them to be very rare. Eventually I expect the preponderance of evidence will be that the domesticated horse was there in mid-to-late Indus-Saraswati Valley civilization.

----
I read with interest the genetic stuff above, and it seems to be in inline with the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm. In line with the dates suggested by the genetic data, it puts the dispersal of Indo-European languages into the Mesolithic age; and the languages existed already in the Paleolithic age.

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/ ... y%20Theory

---
FYI, here is a review of David Anthony's book, The Horse, the Wheel and Language:
http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/ ... eback.html

http://languagecontinuity.blogspot.com/ ... opean.html

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Jun 2012 04:37

shiv wrote:No need for anyone to jump to any conclusions about R1a1.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/ ... 9194a.html

(Entire paper is here)
Indo-Europeans

A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans ....... it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.

mid-Holocene = 7,000 to 5,000 years ago
Nail in coffin of AIT/AMT and maybe even OIT.

Forget the chronology pushed by the linguists. The domesticated horse came to India pretty much like television or the mobile phone came to India - in the sense all of these came without any significant flow of human genes.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 27 Jun 2012 05:36

A_Gupta JI, could not get the article. There is a journal by the name "South Asian Studies" published by Quaidi Azam Univ., Lahore. I thought that is the one but not. This article seems to be very hard to get hold of. May be venug garu can get it for you. Sorry

Added Later: I see he got it. That is good.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 06:24

A_Gupta wrote: The domesticated horse came to India pretty much like television or the mobile phone came to India - in the sense all of these came without any significant flow of human genes.

there is a difference... one is a pure verifiable fact [television], but not the horse.
another difference... it is a product that came in the globalized market/trade, where as

horse domestication would be on a different role playing aspect.. it may not be even trade.

so, what is your answer?

PS: they still have an argument on the writing scripts. how are you going to say, that is not imported?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 06:37

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote:No need for anyone to jump to any conclusions about R1a1.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/ ... 9194a.html

(Entire paper is here)
mid-Holocene = 7,000 to 5,000 years ago
Nail in coffin of AIT/AMT and maybe even OIT.

Forget the chronology pushed by the linguists. The domesticated horse came to India pretty much like television or the mobile phone came to India - in the sense all of these came without any significant flow of human genes.

I notice that some of the comments by people arguing on one side or the other about the R1a1 question shows that some people have no idea of the actual issues discussed. For BRFites who read such papers I just want to make the following clarification.

The issue being discussed is whether there was an "Aryan" migration into north India in the last 3500 years. Note the word "North India" because the same theory that says that such a migration occurred says that the migration brought "Indo-European" language speaking people (from central Asia) into north India. Why not south India? Because south India does not speak "Indo-European" langauges, but "Dravidian" languages. You see, if the Indo European people had gone to the south, you cannot explain why the south speak a non Indo-European language. Including the south kills the migration theory. The south must be excluded. Part of the theory is that the dark skinned people who went to the south where the fair skinned European migrants did not go became the lowest caste people of India while the descendants of the migrants from Europe became the highest caste people of India.

If this theory is correct, then you should have a common set of genes that are seen in central Asian people and north Indian people, especially the high caste, but the gene should be virtually absent in the lowest caste people of the deep south of India who not only speak Dravidian languages but do not have the admixture of TFTA European sperm that north Indian women are alleged to have readily accepted according to the AMT/AIT.

What has been found in the case of the R1a1 is that it occurs in high frequency in upper caste north Indians but is also present in 25% of the lowest caste tribals of south India. That percentage is close to the percentage in north Indian groups. If "Indo-European" genes went to south India, the language clearly did not go. So there cannot be a link between language and gene. Add to this the fact that the gene spread of this particular gene took place more than 7000 years ago, long long before the domesticated horse findings of central Asia. And thousands of years before "PIE"

Note also the point made about the M17 gene (picture above) which says that some gujju bhai impregnated most of Europe starting 16,000 years ago. Now who was it? Fess up.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 06:58

SaiK wrote:
PS: they still have an argument on the writing scripts. how are you going to say, that is not imported?

SaiK, writing scripts are probably imported. No controversy. But those scripts are very recent in origin. The only patent India holds is rules to remember a language perfectly without writing it down starting from long before good and widespread scripts were devised.

Everyone has language. Scripts means education, which everyone could not have (even today). The Indian patent was to have an education cum info sharing system sans script.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 Jun 2012 07:07

shiv wrote:
Note also the point made about the M17 gene (picture above) which says that some gujju bhai impregnated most of Europe starting 16,000 years ago. Now who was it? Fess up.

I protest, it has to be a Sindhi Manu. Bhagwan Gidwani has a book called Return of the Aryans. Although the book would not stand up to the scrutiny of exacting sciences, yet, it is a fascinating account of how Aryans migrated out of India and impregnated the world. I have a copy. It mixes fact with fiction, exactly the way the western Indologists have but in the opposite direction.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 07:08

May I ask a rhetorical question that poses a dilemma somewhat like this 200 year old Aryan Migration myth?

It's like this.

You wake up one morning and find that the floor of your house is ankle deep in urine. Someone has pissed, and there is a lot of piss covering carpets and sloshing around at floor level.

There are two problems here
1. Who filled your house with piss? Was it your pet elephant, or your neighbour's horse?
2. How to clean up the piss and remove the stains and stink.

These two problems are independent of each other. Even if you prove that it was your own elephant that pissed, the mess in the house needs cleaning up.

The mythical Aryan migration story and the nonsensical dates created by linguists is a mess that has spread far and wide into academia and common consciousness. Cleaning that up is going to take time long after the AIT/AMT is trashed.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 07:20

ShauryaT wrote:
shiv wrote:
Note also the point made about the M17 gene (picture above) which says that some gujju bhai impregnated most of Europe starting 16,000 years ago. Now who was it? Fess up.
I protest, it has to be a Sindhi Manu. Bhagwan Gidwani has a book called Return of the Aryans. Although the book would not stand up to the scrutiny of exacting sciences, yet, it is a fascinating account of how Aryans migrated out of India and impregnated the world. I have a copy. It mixes fact with fiction, exactly the way the western Indologists have but in the opposite direction.

I forgot about Bhagwan Gidwani. He is our secret weapon!

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Jun 2012 07:31

^^^ Shiv, look around, the discussions of the paper you linked to go both ways - namely that neither South Asia has contributed much genes to Europe and nor has Europe contributed to South Asia in the last 7000 years. So AIT/AMT/OIT all based on linguists and reading of the Rig Veda and presence & absence of horse fossils evaporates.

If one accepts the Indian and European languages are related to each other and to Hittite and Tocharian but much less related to Tamil, then this relationship has to have happened without major movements of people post-mid-Holocene. It makes sense then that

a. reject the dates imposed by the linguists. It means that languages in the distant past were much more conservative - less likely to change than in more recent times.

b. the dispersion of languages happened before the mid-Holocene. Among the reasons that would cause movement of people was the end of the previous ice-age and the rise of sea levels by more than 100 meters over a period of around 1000 years as the icesheets melted. It would mean a lot of archaeological evidence is under 100 meters of sea; it would mean that Indo-European languages were present in India before 7000 years ago.

c. Wherever the IE languages originated, whether in India or elsewhere, if the IE speaking population was present in India even before 7000 years ago, then there is enough time for sufficient genetic mixing to account for the findings today.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 07:43

venug wrote:
So from above what distinguishes white skin from the SDRE skin? presence of threonine. So this when present gives you white color of skin, lack of it makes your skin dark because of melanin pigmentation. So AIT/AMT now prove why European Aryans who displaced dark skinned Indians couldn't completely make Indians' skin white? but only the north Indians have comparatively lighter shades of brown color?

No, it's not threonine. It is a mutation found in most Europeans that replaces the alanine of dark skinned people with threonine. That in turn is associated with less skin pigmentation.

When a mutation survives, it means that it gives a survival advantage. That mutation probably gave white skins a significant survival advantage in northern areas where sunlight is low compared with the tropics. Sunlight is required for the manufacture of Vitamin D in the skin. Low Vit D leads to weak, deformed bones, reduced immunity and children can die early. In pre historic times the prime killers of humans, especially the young before they could bear children and pass on their genes was infections diseases and predators. Your immunity and good bones - so you can run and climb are both useful for survival and Vitamin D is common to both. In pre-historic humans a mutation that allowed children to survive in low sunlight areas was probably crucial in ensuring that more paler skinned children survived as opposed to darker skinned ones.

But among those people with the dark skin gene, fairness and dark skin are related to sun exposure. There are probably other unknown factors that have not yet been figured out.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Jun 2012 08:23

shiv wrote:
SaiK wrote:
PS: they still have an argument on the writing scripts. how are you going to say, that is not imported?
SaiK, writing scripts are probably imported. No controversy. But those scripts are very recent in origin. The only patent India holds is rules to remember a language perfectly without writing it down starting from long before good and widespread scripts were devised.

Everyone has language. Scripts means education, which everyone could not have (even today). The Indian patent was to have an education cum info sharing system sans script.

This should be the first fact in a new history text book about ourselves.

second perhaps: One does not need scripts to learn any Indian language.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 08:44

A_Gupta wrote: b. the dispersion of languages happened before the mid-Holocene. Among the reasons that would cause movement of people was the end of the previous ice-age and the rise of sea levels by more than 100 meters over a period of around 1000 years as the icesheets melted. It would mean a lot of archaeological evidence is under 100 meters of sea; it would mean that Indo-European languages were present in India before 7000 years ago.

c. Wherever the IE languages originated, whether in India or elsewhere, if the IE speaking population was present in India even before 7000 years ago, then there is enough time for sufficient genetic mixing to account for the findings today.

There is one aspect of language that i have not seen much discussion about, either in academic circles or in lay gossip.

The fact that two very old but dissimilar language sets survived in India, and cross pollinated each other significantly in India for millennia but did not replace each other suggests that there might have been some factor inherent in each language group that made its survival without change easy.

I suspect that the factors that do not seem to get academic attention are factors that lead to language stability rather than language change. What created the stability of Sanskrit over much of north India? What caused the stability of south Indian languages over south India?

Change is lack of stability, and stability is lack of change. People have been going apeshit talking about migration, horses, climate, invasion, subjugation etc as causes of change. No one seems to have spent academic much time on what causes stability. Clearly India served as a place where two old and great language groups have survived stably from a time before known scripts were developed.

It so happened that one of those language groups has sisters found across west Asia and Europe. Once again there might be some factor related to the durability of language in human society that is playing a role. I am guessing language durability has more to do with a micro level survival advantage in terms of commercial activity fostered by learning a language than by a macro level "invasion" or replacement of entire populations.

Commercial activity in turn fosters language spread and is associated with settled people, agriculture and trade. The cities that indicate human civilization were already present in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Bactria and India by 3000 BC. In Britain only Stonegenge was being built at this time - a time when great cities, literature and arts wer commonplace across west Asia and India and parts of central Asia too. Ancient Greek cities came 2000 years later.

There is every possibility that Proto-Indo-Eurpean is a Sanskrit like language spoken from India to Mesopotamia in 2000 BC

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 09:01

Why did Arabic not replace Persian after Islam spread across Persia? Why did Persian not replace other Indian languages in India? Why did Spanish (and Portuguese) pretty much replace other languages in South America despite making little genetic changes in the population? Why did English become a "Lingua Franca" in India with negligible genetic change? Why did eastern China not become Japanese? Why do Koreans speak Korean and not Japanese? Why do Indonesians, Thai and Malays speak Indic infleunced languages?

In every case the answer seems to lie in choices made by people to learn a language based on the commercial survival advantages it gave them. Killing people, raping them, subjugating them or driving them away does not impose language. But giving them commercial, trade alternatives that ensures individual survival encourages the spread of language.

If this hypothesis is correct, take it back 5000 years and ask where the commercial activity was then and where it went later. IOW, follow the money. That will tell you which way languages went.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 27 Jun 2012 09:10

Shiv garu, one thing I am thinking why one language couldnt be imposed or forced on another I guess is language is more of a skill? the ability required to learn some language could be pretty steep that there could be a large inertia for people to even attempt? so one can migrate to another place but unless his/her own sustenance is impossible because of not able to speak local language, one might not learn. It might not be true for marriages etc. the comfort one feels in one's mother tongue is so much that even our thought processes are in the language we are comfortable with? so looking at that angle too I guess unless one sees an incentive, one doesnt want to learn a new language.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 09:20

venug, you don't need language to kill or rape. Short periods of rule can be imposed by a collection of cooperating despots using the same foreign language. But for long term survival in a society language is needed for trade. Where do you buy food? Who grows it? How is it transported to the market? Who makes pots and pans? Who knows how to dig wells? Who knows the local materials to build houses? Who knows how to treat local diseases and tame local animals? All this civilised commercial activity needs a common language.

Brahmins are those who teach the language and skills of commerce. Vysyas are CEOs of business houses. Kshatriyas range from administrators to soldiers and police. The rest are Shudras of different types. These are categories in a settled, peaceful society.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Jun 2012 09:25

Rahul Mehta?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Jun 2012 09:28

ramana wrote:Rahul Mehta?

Politician. Leader. Kshatriya.