matrimc wrote:
Supratik ji, this could be just coincidental. AIT may not be ruled out but it is not ruled in either unless causality is established.
I did not say Bokonyi discovered those many horse remains. Hardly likely. He would have been consulted on the interpretation of a great many finds of others.shiv wrote:No disagreement with this. But tell me, all the horse findings in Central Asia, were they all discovered by people who had the skills and experience of Bokonyi. If not can they be accepted as better evidence than BB Lal? There is a clear double standard at work that demands that BB Lal needs a Bokonyi to validate his work. Every other guy gets away with the same kind of crapola that AIT seems to fill itself withA_Gupta wrote:Shiv, someone like Bokonyi has studied of the order of a few thousand fossil horse remains. Meanwhile, a 2008 survey of Indian paleontology and archaeological records shows barely a couple dozen of Equis sivalensis and Equus namadicus unearthed so far, in total. So looking for outside expertise is quite a reasonable thing to do. The key thing is what were Bokonyi's arguments that surkotada had horses, and Meadows arguments against, and IMO, meadows is not able to refute Bokonyi.
A_Gupta wrote:
1. ASI and ANI are in India since 50,000 years ago.
2. As the other papers quoted on this thread show, there was no significant male inflow into India from the west since the mid-Holocene (7000 to 5000 years ago)
That is the paper I am looking for. Where did you get this information that you are quoting as fact? Any talk of date of mixing must mention what existed before mixing and what was after mixing. I can recall only the R1a paper as using the words ASI and ANI and that has been ruled outSupratik wrote:North Indians and South Indians are a mixture of two founder populations ANI and ASI (the term north and south strictly used on the basis of geographical preponderance).
We are talking here about a factor greater than 10. AIT is posited 3,500 YBP. ANI arrived around 40,000-50,000 YBP.Supratik wrote:A_Gupta wrote:
1. ASI and ANI are in India since 50,000 years ago.
2. As the other papers quoted on this thread show, there was no significant male inflow into India from the west since the mid-Holocene (7000 to 5000 years ago)
Yes, the ASI and ANI are very old. However, ANI and CEU form a clade. So obviously they have commonality. It is quite possible that the ANI have arrived in the subcontinent much earlier than when Aryan migration/invasion is supposed to have happened.
shiv wrote:
That is the paper I am looking for. Where did you get this information that you are quoting as fact? Any talk of date of mixing must mention what existed before mixing and what was after mixing. I can recall only the R1a paper as using the words ASI and ANI and that has been ruled out
Here is the Reich paperSupratik wrote:@RajeshA
YBP doesn't mean in India. Could be anywhere in the world. My concern is that Reich in his conference paper on the mixing period suggests it is co-terminus with spread of Indo-European languages and IMO that is AIT/AMT. So AIT/AMT proponents could use it unless you show 1) ANI is absent outside the subcontinent and 2) ANI is older than CEU.
at peak imagination who speculate that the memory of Mt. Meru comes from the time of Out-of-Africa migration! 
Thanks, I am already trying my best. In every post related to the "language" question and "PIE" I find these normal/innocuous-looking statements which are made as if PIE and other "old" languages are perfectly well known and we can easily find out the supposed "innovations and sound changes". Earlier I did my best to treat this with amusement, now it is proving difficult.JE Menon wrote:KLP Dubey,
Boss, I love reading your posts - to the last word - but please, tone down a little on the personal language. I'm sure now I'm going to get a few BRFites on my head asking "why?" ... but the interest of the thread dictates it. ManishH is a forum participant.
And thanks for helping.
shiv wrote:
Here is the Reich paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/
Here is the table of 130 samples he has taken (a small number for India that has more that 130 caste groups) . Apart from Pathans, Sindhis and Kashmiri Pandits, he has taken samples from Bhils and other tribal groups. He has tried to take a "mix of castes" including tribals to the Pandits. The silly thing was to include Siddis who are Africans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T1/
Below is the table of ancestral North Indian versus Ancestral South Indian
Note that most Indians have a mix of 40% to 60% ANI or ASI The lowest at 40% ANI are the Bhils (From Gujarat!). The highest ANI comes from Kashmiri Pandits, Pathans and Sindhis. (just over 70% each). Reaching a conclusion about 1 billion Indians from a total of 15 Pathans, 10 Sindhis and 5 Kashmiri Pandits is premature when you consider that Upper Caste UP (Norh India) Vaish has 56% ANI and Lower caste Dravidian Kamsali has 45% ANI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T2/
The admixture of so called North Indian and South Indian genes among Indians hovers on either side of 50% (50 +/- 10%) indicating deep deep admixture ranging from highest castes to tribals. Why does this go against AIT? Because AIT presupposes that Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians were two separate groups, one speaking "Indo European" carrying European genes with European language and the other speaking "Dravidian" with non European genes. In this study you have Dravidian tribals having over 40% "Ancestral North Indin" genes and "Upper Caste North Indian Indo European speakers" having only 60% of what is called ancestral North Indian
The only thing this study has shown is that Pathans have more of "European genes" (Whatever that means) than Bhil tribals. I could have guessed that from the history of India. The recorded history of India puts Pathans in the way of everyone who has come after Darius. We are talking of what happened before Darius. This paper has simply cooked up a new term called ASI and ANI but shows little other than the terminology. In fact the paper shows all Indian genes as an offshoot of ancient African genes coming out of the Andamanese branch.
This study by itself proves nothing. Certainly not AIT. AITis disproved by the absence of any mixing in the last 7000 years and the fact that RiA1a (M17) is Indian, while the East European carriers of R1A1a also have M548 that is totally absent in India indicating possible Y chromosome flow from India to East Europe but not the other way round at least after M548 came into being.
The evidence of Indian history in Indian memory means that AIT will only be further demolished by newer genetic studies. If you don't believe Indian recorded history one can continue to worry about what genetics will show. I predict genetics will never show AIT because AIT is false.
After 1000 BC there has been plenty of admixture due to invasions up to the Indus. The Mesopotamians were attacking as early as 800 BC. Ctesias is on record as saying that one Queen Semirames took Gandhara (NWFP/Pathan land) in 800 BC . By 500 BC Gandhara was under Darius. Later Alexander took it. There are records of Greek men marrying Indian women and living in the area. There were Greek Buddhists. So European genes after 2500 BC is no surprise, This is not AIT. It is recorded history. History is older than people who read history via an AIT tint are wiling to believe.Supratik wrote: The Pathans and Sindhis are more likely Hindu
The paper itself admits that this was done by fitting the findings to a model and cautions against the errors this may cause. This is there in the paper but will not get mentioned by people who want to push AIT or those anti AIT people who are anxious that AIT may somehow come true. It won't.Supratik wrote: Actually the paper is path-breaking because it led to the discovery of the founder populations of the subcontinent.
The biggest problem is 99% of people can understand only 3 words in that paper: "Ancestral North Indian"We developed a model to study the historical relationship of Indian groups to those worldwide, based on the hypothesis that most groups can be approximated as a mixture of two ancestral populations followed by group-specific drift. To fit the model to the data, we .. <snip> The idea of fitting allele frequency differentiation to historical models was first explored by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards35 and here we extend it to trees with mixture.
<snip>
Applying our model-fitting procedure, we find that the tree (YRI,(CEU,ANI),(ASI, Onge))) provides an excellent fit to the data from Indian groups. In particular, when the Pathan, Vaish, Meghawal and Bhil are modeled as mixtures of ANI and ASI (Figure 4), the observed allele frequency differentiation
<snip>
We caution that “models” in population genetics should be treated with caution. While they provide an important framework for testing historical hypotheses, they are oversimplifications. For example, the true ancestral populations of India were probably not homogeneous as we assume in our model but instead were likely to have been formed by clusters of related groups that mixed at different times. However, modeling them as homogeneous fits the data and appears to capture meaningful features of history.
A_Gupta wrote:ManishH,
Still patiently waiting for an answer - the Paul Thieme article argues that the presence of Varuna and dual Nasatyas in the Mitanni treaty makes it Vedic or post-Vedic. This contradicts the phonetic argument. What is your response to that?
The first paper by Hermann Jacobi goes into the question of Varuna and double Nasatyas!
Not just invasions but immigrations. Persecuted Parsis, people of various unorthodox Muslim sects etc., have all found refuge in India.shiv wrote:After 1000 BC there has been plenty of admixture due to invasions up to the Indus. The Mesopotamians were attacking as early as 800 BC. Ctesias is on record as saying that one Queen Semirames took Gandhara (NWFP/Pathan land) in 800 BC . By 500 BC Gandhara was under Darius. Later Alexander took it. There are records of Greek men marrying Indian women and living in the area. There were Greek Buddhists. So European genes after 2500 BC is no surprise, This is not AIT. It is recorded history. History is older than people who read history via an AIT tint are wiling to believe.Supratik wrote: The Pathans and Sindhis are more likely Hindu
like physiology (40), the history of exercise physiology begins with contributions from ancient Greece and Rome (2, 29, 45). Unfortunately, this approach ignores the information from ancient India and the tenets of Susruta (Sushruta, an Indian physician) concerning exercise physiology and exercise influences on human health and disease. The purpose of this Historical Perspective is to acquaint the exercise physiology community with India's and Susruta's contributions while indicating similarities to present day concepts.
WHY HAVE EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGIST OMITTED THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SUSRUTA?
Susrutra's contributions to medicine have been extensively acknowledged by historians on the history of medicine (15, 35, 36, 43) and by authors of articles pertaining to urology, plastic surgery, and ophthalmology (11, 19, 37). When the History of Physiology (40) was published, Rothschuh began with the contributions from Greece. However, in the United States, exercise physiology did not evolve from physiology; rather, it began in the classrooms and laboratories of physical educators during the late decades of the 19th century. Even so, physical education historians have been careful to note the contributions from Persia, India, and China before discussing those from Greece and Rome (18, 39, 47). Insights can be gleaned from the publication in 1553 of the first text devoted to exercise physiology entitled the Book of Bodily Exercise (33) by the Spanish physician Cristobal Mendez (1500–1541) in that only Greek and Roman concepts were used to discuss the four treatises emphasized within the book. Sixteen years later (1569), the Italian physician Girolamo Mercuriale (Hieronymus Mercuralis, 1550–1606 B.C.) published in Latin the first text devoted to sports medicine in which sections were devoted to exercise and its physiological concepts; but, only those that had originated from Greece and Rome with the most coming from Galen (31). Several hundred years later in England, or in 1807, John Sinclair discussed aspects of chronic exercise (training) for humans and animals (45). Like others, he followed Mendez's approach by using observations and concepts from individuals who lived in ancient Greece and Rome (Herodicus, Asclepiades, Celsus, Galen) plus those from the 17th century as Sir Francis Bacon and Byran Robinson (45). Since the time of Sinclair there have been ∼40 first edition texts published in North America devoted to the science of exercise physiology. Of those that contain ancient historical information, all begin with the contributions from Greece and Rome.
A great paper. The author has argued a case for something I had suggested earlier in this thread with great authority and arguments that I was only wondering if anyone had visited - like rate of change of languages and factors that cause change. The man says all that and goes further. I had expressed disbelief at the idea that Proto-Indo European had very quickly mutated into Sanskrit and Greek in 1000 years and then hardly changed for 3500 years. Clearly the curent linguistic theories need to be discarded.A_Gupta wrote: http://www.continuitas.org/texts/balles ... ibrium.pdf
Xaverio Ballester, Linguistic Equilibrium In The Palaeolithic: The Case Of Indo–European, in M. Alinei (ed.), Intrusive Farmers or Indigenous Foragers: The New Debate about Ethnolinguistic Origins of Europe". Actes du XIVème Congrès UISPP, Université de Liège, Belgique, 2-8 septembre 2001, BAR International Series 1302, 2004, pp. 85-91.
Yes true. I forgot that. It is certain that these these immigrations will show up in the genetic record as mixing after 500 BC - that is in the last 2500 years. This is to be expected and anticipated. But if you redate the Vedas to 500 BC and Buddha to 400 BC and fudge history the way AIT Nazis have been doing merrily, then those same genetic findings can be used to show and Aryan invasion. So it is important for us to know that there has been gene inflow into India in the last 2500 years that can be explained by recorded history as NOT being any idiotic horse manure theoriesA_Gupta wrote:Not just invasions but immigrations. Persecuted Parsis, people of various unorthodox Muslim sects etc., have all found refuge in India.shiv wrote:
After 1000 BC there has been plenty of admixture due to invasions up to the Indus. The Mesopotamians were attacking as early as 800 BC. Ctesias is on record as saying that one Queen Semirames took Gandhara (NWFP/Pathan land) in 800 BC . By 500 BC Gandhara was under Darius. Later Alexander took it. There are records of Greek men marrying Indian women and living in the area. There were Greek Buddhists. So European genes after 2500 BC is no surprise, This is not AIT. It is recorded history. History is older than people who read history via an AIT tint are wiling to believe.
Jacobi paper 1 above gives me a very interesting insight into how western scolarship thinks and how we think. This observation again is along the lines of how the ice age was perhaps more significant for making Europe hostile to humans than India and how we need to reason out some of these things from our viewpoint.RajeshA wrote:venug wrote:Rajesh garu, sorry I didn't see your message earlier, here:
Jacobi paper1
Yes, the southern route from Africa to India was probably precisely because of climatic conditions.shiv wrote: 2. It is important for Indians to understand the "natural India blindness" in such articles if we swallow them without critical examination. These scholars live in temperate countries that were most affected by the ice age 18.000 years ago. So when he refers to ice age receding and humans moving in later he is referring to human spread into Europe. What is forgotten here is that human migration from Africa to India and life in India was possibly never hampered by any ice age. The tropical zones close to the equator would have either been ice free even in the ice age or would have become ice free long before the temperate zones. It is not surprising at all that India has a huge population. India is a particularly kind place to live. You don;t need clothes even in winter in some parts and crops can be grown twice a year.
So Europe, north Asia, America, Australia have always been the 'New Worlds' as opposed to the 'Old Worlds' of Africa & South Asia (using some American terminology here). Migrations would logically have been from the Old World to the New World - so as to gain advantage in resources, land holding etc.Manica says that happened in south Asia, which was a sort of "hub" for thousands of years until dropping sea levels opened up new migration routes.
Anthropologists believe early humans evolved in Africa and then moved out from there in successive waves. However, what drove their migrations has been a matter of conjecture.
One new explanation is climate change.
Anthropologist Anders Erikkson of Cambridge University in England says the first few hardy humans who left Africa might've gone earlier but couldn't. Northeastern Africa — the only route to Asia and beyond — was literally a no man's land.
"The people couldn't really couldn't leave," he says. "The climate was too arid and too hot, so humans were bottled up."
Eventually they got out of the bottle — we know that from the trail of fossil bones and stone tools they left behind. And recently, scientists have learned to read genetic mutations in current populations to track where our ancestors went for the past 70,000 years or so.
To this, the Cambridge scientists have now added climate change.
Climate change leaves a trail in sediments, buried pollen, coral, even dust. The scientists compared that record with the record of human migration gleaned from genetics and fossils.
Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Cambridge team says changes in climate coincided with some of the big migrations — through Asia, then north to Europe and eventually all the way to Australia and North America.
One thing climate controlled was food. Andrea Manica from the Cambridge team says, "The main thing that really drives a lot of the migrations is actually temperature and precipitation to provide food — how much green matter did you have available in each location?" Green matter to eat, or to provide food for animals they could hunt.
Manica says populations also stayed put in certain places because there were barriers like high sea levels or glaciers that blocked their progress. "So you had a buildup of a pretty good stable population, until eventually, that barrier got removed," Manica explains — that is, until sea levels dropped or glaciers melted.
Manica says that happened in south Asia, which was a sort of "hub" for thousands of years until dropping sea levels opened up new migration routes. Same with Siberia, thousands of years later, when glaciers melted and allowed people to cross the land bridge across the Bering Sea.
Anthropologists who've reviewed this new analysis say it will give them a much better road map of how humans populated the planet than just following the fossilized bones.
