• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unmasking AIT
Post 5

(1) [color="#FF0000"]"Would they lie to establish AIT?[/color] Would western academia** and intelligentsia go to any lengths in order to claim Indian history and achievements as the west's own?"

Why yes, yes of course they would: You know they would. See the precedent in the theft from Indian astronomy and maths for Europe, documented by CK Raju and others. Same MO.

Summaries of their findings and related insights on twitter:

[color="#0000FF"]* twitter.com/Musashi_Nair/status/1343108710512521217

* twitter.com/JoeAgneya/status/920990676401000449

* twitter.com/Musashi_Nair/status/1164875910304026624

* twitter.com/JoeAgneya/status/958285734388973569

* twitter.com/Musashi_Nair/status/1164875800232878080

* twitter.com/JoeAgneya/status/1007640267099287553

* twitter.com/JoeAgneya/status/990947503817146368

* twitter.com/Musashi_Nair/status/889802505617461248[/color]

Thievery is what they do. It's who they are. It's all they are. Their sole and greatest accomplishment is getting away with it, i.e. successful history-rewriting.

And of course claiming all of Hindu history (i.e. claiming the Hindoo heathenism from its very foundations) for Europe is the bigger prize. And steppist AIT secures just this very thing for them.

Hindoo heathenism/its fruits and claims to fame are absolutely the prize. Barely any steppist IEist is after Iran. Europe finished claiming Greek and Roman civilisation long ago. And every aDNA paper trying to trace IE or from any geography vaguely involving it has all been after India: IIRC every Harvard and even some Copenhagen ones all ended with how it proved or didn't yet prove AIT into India or foreshadowing that the next paper may prove it. They hoped to have made their case by the Norasimon paper, but the results didn't even make it to underwhelming.

Anyway, returning to how western IIEists need to claim India through AIT, not just for US foreign policy of balkanising India and converting it for Republican conservatives' monogawd, but for Eurocentrism's self-aggrandisement. If once Eurocentrists have established AIT in the public consciousness, even if they were to have to eventually admit that this and that part of maths or whatever was stolen from Hindoos, and not to recent Europeans' credit after all, it no longer matters as they can always argue "it was the 15% of our European steppe component that was behind the achievement of the miscegenated Indians - as if the remaining 85% could have done any of it". They factually think this and even say this. They already prance about fantasizing that their ancestors had something to do with the Mahabharata and other delusions of IE moronism. You know, typical nazi fantasies

It's amazing how they always make this argument. Whether for any pretty Indian face ("AIT explains it!") or nowadays even accomplishments etc ("must be some 2%-15% steppe 'oryan' ancestry involved that made this possible"). EVERYTHING is a self-aggrandising act: Eurocentrists never compliment but to pat their own back. They never credit others, but to re-transfer the credit back to themselves. It's called supremacism and it's a peculiar mindset entirely incomprehensible to heathens, though we can recognise it even if we'll never understand it.

** With some decent exceptions, who remain honest. But I'm talking about the rule here, not the exception.

Because the honest people who studied PIE never won out*: it's the dishonest majority among the steppist IEist thinktank that wants Europeans to come out on top and will do anything to get there. Just as they did with math and everything else documented in the twitter threads above.

So even decent Europeans who would not plagiarise in the colonial era, and those in our era who kept insisting that the stamboom model for PIE is not a given let alone that the rest follows, are never the ones who control Hindus' destiny. The demons do that. They've been and continue to be the architects of Hindus gradual eclipse and demise. Because they're the only ones who want the ends badly enough that they're fine with any means that will get them there.

Even when they admit anything, it is still for the reason of appropriation: e.g. Robin Bradley Kar, who wrote that paper Dhu found on how Western Law and Western Civilisation originated in the IVC, was still all about how this was magically "western" a.o.t. eastern.

(2) There's now further reinforcement for my pre-existing understanding on why Harvard and other IEists always supports islamania in India, even arguing in the early 2000s that AIT was also morally necessary because otherwise Hindus would genocide islamaniacs in India (but remain forever silent on the actual ongoing genocide of Hindus by christoislamaniacs).

The reason for steppist IEists' - not just christians but atheists too - major support of islamania against Hindus is even seen in some of the twitter links above: islamania literally ended all progress made by Hindu scholars in India, thus leaving the field open for the west to develop on the stuff they plagiarised from India with no more competition.

For the same reason, promoting christianity is another great help for them: besides murdering heathenism, it breeds a society of utter imbeciles (not just the speaking-in-tongue buffoons, but the whole self-loathing class was generated by christian mis-"education" in India, the smooth-talking imbeciles infesting media and most areas of life etc). This is also apparent in the twitter links above. Christianity creates 3rd worlds, as we know.

Remember Europe in the dark ages, which would never have got out of it without a brush with the heathen world.

And even if Hindus don't all fall for christianity, islam will bludgeon Hindus to death. So of course western IEists support their twin friends christianity and islamania to conquer India and overcome Hinduism, so that even if AIT is ever disproven, it won't matter: Indians being converts won't care to look into it in any serious fashion, and understand that the west stole their identity in broad daylight, just as they did Indian maths etc.

Just like christoislamics have a total apathy for the theft of maths and other achievements from Hindus for (Indo-)Europeanism/oryanism, they won't care about what AIT actually made them lose. (Like how Pathans were originally claiming to be purer "oryans" than Hindus from Bharatam because of having more steppe and closer to C Asia, all while not caring for the religion from which words like Arya were derived.) It's not christoislamics' heritage after all.

Non-Christian western IEists promote christoislam to supplant Hindu heathenism, so they can claim its accomplishments (or even Hindoo heathenism itself) is theirs without ever being opposed or denied again: so they become the sole inheritors.

Heathens would leave other heathens alone if they can't do them any good. Not try to steal their identity. But what can one expect from people who are forever christoconditoned: an exclusive breeding product of the unnatural people who converted and then genocided the true native Europeans, Europe's heathens. In their failure to restore their own heathenism they have to spitefully or invariably (whichever) destroy - either through subversion (IEism) or outright - other heathenisms. What a curse they are. Hilarious when they pretend to know heathenism better than heathens, as if IEist reconstruction ever made anyone a heathen. When the fact is that heathens have existed and known their Gods=heathenism intimately since long before IEism was invented. IEism's track record is also clear: Eurocentrist steppists prance about lecturing how their knowledge of linguistics and their Euro language provides a better understanding of the Vedam than Hindoos (then how come our very Vedic Gods know lay Hindoos but are unknown and unknowable to them alien demons?) let alone Hindoos whose job is the Vedam, and steppist wannabe heathens wax delusional about how their reconstructed balto-slavic-greek-indo-iranian made-up religion is more real and better realised by them than Hindoos know Hindoo heathenism=Gods. (Well, those people are never going to regain their region's heathenism, bahaha.) Such a black hole of interminable moronism is something for Hindoo heathens and their heathenism to look forward to under IIEism.

(3) Someone who has a similar opinion to me on this matter. To be fair, non-heathens born to heathen parents are no different in this from ex-christoislamics like Joe Agneya. Both often argue similarly, but the former has drifted off from heathenism and ought to at least know better, while the latter has come closer (having left christoislam) and so one is slightly more lenient as they may not know better on why this rankles.




Read between the lines. The fellow wants to secularise the heritage of the Hindus, because to him “all Indians are equal heirs of all India”. He employs some semantics to his favour by using the term ‘Bharatiya’.

Quote:Joseph T Noony


· Mar 17, 2020

My first & last identity is 'Bharatiya'. Religion, state & language do not come anywhere near my first allegiance. I can freely admire, judge & reject the history of any part of India with equal freedom. Because all Indians are equal heirs of all India. That is how it should be.

Show this thread

7:07 AM · Dec 17, 2020·Twitter for iPhone




Quote Tweet



Indian Hindu atheists do this regularly. Only difference is they use the word "Hindu" to claim all things Hindoo heathen, while Joe uses "Indian" while also being an atheist.

* All things Hindoo religious are exclusively Hindoos' and belong to the Hindoo Gods - no cultural appropriation or encroachment allowed. Temples, sacred temple properties, yoga and other religious and ritual practices, stotras & mantras, yatras, "arts" (=religious observances) including sacred Hindu dance and drama styles, our sacred drawing/painting/sculpting/depicting styles, carnatic and northern Hindu traditional songs, our sacred music system styles and instruments, our traditional clothing & item wear, our sacred and our traditional food items, sacred literature and treatises, etc, etc. All deeply religiously Hindoo. Not remotely secular nor all-Indian nor all-Dharmic. Not for sharing with unheathens and nonheathens. Cultural appropriation by non-Hindoos (i.e. non-Vedics) banned. (Attempts at) subversion banned.

* Similarly all religious/sacred things of other Dharmic religions like their temples, unique dress (Sikh turban) are theirs alone. No cultural appropriation by others, e.g. no christian appropriation of Sikh turban allowed - it's not a fashion item, but religious.

* All Dharmic wear for Dharmics alone. Cultural appropriation by non-Hindus/non-Dharmics banned.

* All shared Dharmic sacred spaces for Dharmics alone. Encroachment by non-Hindus/non-Dharmics banned.

* Hindoo health and scientific treatises. Not to be appropriated or subverted. Treatments may be applied to all to help them.

* Our Cows and all other animals are sacred (sarvaatman), also sacred sites, plants, water systems, mountains. Entire Bharatam. Must be respected by all calling themselves Indians. All should try to preserve the land and its wildlife and plant forms. Unless treated well, they become forfeit to any maltreaters.

* Our Hindoo festivals are ours and sacred. No interference allowed.

* All contributions by Hindoos for betterment of world - and marked as such - can be used by any after obtaining permission (except if at war, civil or external, then off limits for enemies: Hindoos need to stop being a charity store to enemies). Achievements are still feather in Hindoo heathens' cap onlee. (E.g. famous historical Hindoo mathematicians were heathens who loved their Gods and are therefore direct kin of all Hindoos attached to the Hindoo=Vedic Gods.) Must not allow everyone to always run off with heathen achievements, and often Hindoo persons' heathenism even gets obscured by secular/christoslamicommunist history-writing like wackypedia [which is OFS/Soros controlled]. So non-Hindoos not allowed to mask Hindoo heathens' heathen identity and accomplishment(s) under secular titles like "Indian".
Post 6

A few years back, an East-European or Russian person (Slavic sounding name) wanted to know if anything "Dravidian" had been found in Khvalynsk aDNA, since anthropologists during USSR classified Khvalynsk neolithic remains as being "Dravidian". He mentioned seeing several reconstructions.

As a reference, he linked to discussions at slavanthro.mybb3.ru/viewtopic.php?t=689

So finding "Dravidian" aDNA in neolithic Khvalynsk was apparently an expectation on the part of USSR era anthropologists. Hmmm, wonder why their anthro work wasn't remotely vindicated.
Post 7


<1 min video of one Brian Muraresku giving a rather painful recitation from R^igvedam.

1) He learnt his.... uh Skt at one Brown University, which is apparently a highly ranked uni. Who knew.


Quote:Brian C. Muraresku



3. I recite Sanskrit the way I was taught at Brown University in the United States. Here is my senior thesis from 2002:

Streams of Love and Meditation


2:57 AM · Oct 9, 2020·Twitter Web App

2) He speaks of RV as the oldest text of western civilisation.

To be literal, he says:

Quote:It [Rigvedam] is the oldest literature in western civilisation. Among the Indo-European languages, this is the oldest reported literature that we have.
IIEists will roll with that obviously, since they will give everything away inch by inch, it's their nature.

The claim does not come as a surprise, though:

- E Europeans or Russians have put a lot of hard work into articles claiming even the MBh took place on the steppes in E Euro land or Russia, with their Euro forbears as the characters (and that Hindus are wrong in thinking the MBh characters were our ancestors all this time). Upon the .... revelation, the commenters were angry at how the (implicitly miscenenated) Hindus have stolen their history/ancestry and all the while pretended its Indians'. What else is new, passive aggressive anti-Hinduism was a theme in VediKKK ReKKKon, so this was on the horizon.

If MBh is claimed for the steppes, then that means the E Europeans are claiming everything IEism has chronologically dated to be before MBh too.

- Besides, claiming the RV was an import into India - rather than indigenously composed - was a longstanding thing, not newly invented. I think in discussions among western steppists it's a standard part of the story of AIT taking place somewhere between 1900-1500 BCE for AIT (back before the aDNA avalanche started, after which the chronology in India ended up lower still). They humoured Hindus now and then by letting the AIT "truth" dawn a bit at a time: by initially letting us keep the RV as indigenous to India, as long as we accepted their AIT happened. And then eventually they started claiming, more frequently, that the RV was theirs/their ancestors' from deep in Euroland too. And some years back MBh too, as mentioned. Not sure what next, some replacement theology is always lurking to steal everything. But IIEists will keep rolling with it all, and sell off whatever comes next too, I shouldn't wonder, it's in their nature. Unless they've yet to reconcile with having to sell off the MBh for whatever trinket/bone their western masters will toss their way and need some time to get used to that idea too.

3) Back to the video. The more interesting thing is that in the short video Brian Muraresku says this about the language of the R^iks:

Quote:this is the mother tongue of all the IE languages

Fascinating. Because:

- Brown university is not some obscure Spinazie Academie, apparently. So we're meant to take this statement seriously.

- Next, he's stating that to an audience member of his own kind. Not Indian Hindus. (Rather like the Robin Bradley Kar paper "On the Origins of Western Law and Western Civilization (in the Indus Valley)" was so matter-of-factly stated too and was intended for audiences of the author's own kind.)

- Contrast:

Whenever western steppists speak to/talk down to heathen Hindoos about Skt/Chandas, it is always "Of course Skt ain't the mother of all IE languages. Keep up, you Hindutva nationalist fondue." In recent years, there was the very convenient reshuffle of the stamboom (IE tree) to force Balto-Slavic as brother or twisted sister to "Indo-Iranian". (Whereas previously "Indo-Iranian" was said to be closest to Greek and/or IIRC Armenian. But with R1a being found on the E European steppes, they made the tree fit the data and pretend ever since that Balto-Slavic was always the most reasonable and likely nearest relation). And ever since, any Hindoo asserting Skt's antiquity always got the retort that "In fact, I-Ir is one of the youngest branches in the IE tree" yet magically Balto-Slavic is the most conservative/well-preserved (and other bragging) despite not being attested until really late.

Yet, here we have one Brian Muraresku, who studied his Sanskritisch at non-obscure, even high status Brown University, telling one of his own (western) kind quite matter-of-factly that

"(Chandas) is the mother tongue of all the IE languages"

He couldn't have invented that. That's a tall claim and if he invented it, it would be shot down by listeners. He wouldn't have read that in recent literature, or not the kind made so public that Hindoos could get at it. And doubt they teach Max Muller's stale opinions as current at Brown.

So he must have been taught it by his teachers at Brown uni, he's regurgitating, which means this is a standard opinion. And that would mean that among their own kind, western steppists believe/accept this as a factoid.

He's proud and pleased about the mother of all IE languages, Chandas Sanskrit, reciting from the oldest book of "western civilisation". I.e. magically his civilisation now, since RV has already shifted out of India, and the west did always want it.

I think their idea is that one day, when India has been successfully converted into IIEism and from there to monotheism, they'll make it public that they consider Skt the mother of all "IE" languages, so that Hindus will no longer contest its ownership with the west.

4) When some Hindus asked Muraresku why he claimed the R^ig for western civilisation, he came back confusingly with:


Quote:Brian C. Muraresku


Replying to


4. "Among the Indo-European languages", I revere the Rg Veda as "the oldest recorded literature". "Western" only to the extent it shares a Proto-Indo-Eurpoean source with the western branch that includes Greek and Latin, which is a technical linguistic point.

2:58 AM · Oct 9, 2020·Twitter Web App

With Indo-Iranian as Satem and Latin as Centum, I don't know how he grouped them together and why this is "a technical linguistic point". I've never seen this grouping claimed.

He makes no mention of Armenian, sometimes close to I-Ir. Albanian sometimes grouped with Grk. Phrygian with Latin I think. Sometimes Latin and Celtic.

Why only mention Skt, Grk and Latin?

That specific grouping only makes sense with .... Robin Bradley Kar who declared that western civilisation and law traced to IVC and then Greek, Roman, Hebrew.

That's the only one that could group Skt with Greek and Latin... But that was a law paper about civilisational journey (IVC, Greek and Roman), not linguistic. So not sure what Muraresku means.

Am glad Samskritam got divorced from Balto-Slavic in this grouping though. It was a bit tiresome that IIr-Balto-Slavic suddenly became a thing only to make the aDNA results fit. And then Slavs started trying to claim Greek and Vedic as their religion originally and more such daylight robbery. IIEists enabled all that.

Anyway, maybe Muraresku can't remember well, or he just made something up to cover for having been caught by Hindus claiming R^igvedam for western civilisation.

Or maybe this video like Kar's paper was not meant for a general audience that included Hindoos?

5) Searched his name:

Quote:Home | Brian C. Muraresku

[Search domain www.brianmuraresku.com] https://www.brianmuraresku.com

"The rich history and promising future of psychedelic therapy" "A new issue arrives on the horizon. Why it matters." "Brian Muraresku On Psychedelics And Bringing Enchantment Back To Christianity"

People and their psychedelic mushrooms.

But despite his saying 'I revere the Rg Veda as "the oldest recorded literature"' he's not actually a heathen since it's incompatible with his pursuits in christianity. (And also, dabbling - especially in that which shouldn't be dabbled in - is unheathen and anti-heathen)

He probably just meant that since the west has worked hard to make the Vedam "European/western" literature in constructing the newer and grander version of their history, he reveres R^ig Vedam for being the primordial literature of Europeans. I.e. it's all European identity gymnastics.

Nothing heathen there. Just new age nonsense, not even VediKKK ReKKKon.
Post 8

Tarim basin.

Its relevance is to Tocharian (found in the area centuries later), an "IE" language that as per most IEists today is to have split off the main branch early. As per most IEists, it splits off from the IE stamboom after Anatolian and before others.

But many discussions started reshuffling this tree to prop up the nouveau claims about the 'undeniability' of Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian and to make Andronovo fit after the aDNA results, in concert with some "true or not" early results from Tarim courtesy the Notorious Mair & co. which then didn't tally with the R1b Afanasievo results that many felt ruled out Afanasievo. Except Afanasievo was already ruled out by Mallory himself on archaeological grounds, but only after Hemphill ruled out all the steppe in Tarim throughout including in its I-Ir phase based on bioarchaeogenetics (all of which actually ought to have been a death knell to steppism, except it's nosferatu). But I'm getting ahead of myself again.

1. First, these familiar snippets I'd frequently seen at IF almost 1.5 decades ago, but which were news from much earlier:


Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 2002

Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People

Clark Spencer Larsen

Quote:Use of diverse sources of information also applies to the study of the skeletons themselves and other lines of biological information. For example, based on his interpretation of mtDNA evidence, Cavalli-Sforza (2000) argued that populations living in the Tarim Basin of western China (Xinjiang Province) had a European origin. He noted that the mummies found there lacked the so-called "Mongoloid" cranial features that distinguish them from surrounding Asian groups.

Hemphill's biodistance analysis of cranial metrics ... provides compelling evidence that the ancestry of the Tarim Basin groups was non-European (Hemphill, 2000). Rather, his analysis reveals a biological affinity with the Indus Valley population of northern India for the earlier groups, whereas the later groups show affinity to populations of the Oxus River valley in south-central Asia.


Quote:Tracking Genes Across the Globe

Tracking Genes Across the Globe (pp. 80-81)

Genes, Peoples, and Languages by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Mark Seielstad

Review by: Theodore G. Schurr


Schurr's paper for American Scientist is still available at: https:// sci-hub.st/https:// www.jstor.org/stable/27857414

(as always, remove the spaces after you copy and paste the URL into your browser)

Quote:Genes, Peoples, and Languages is a thorough summary of the biogenetic data from modern human populations. But some of its interpretations don't reflect the complexity of recent findings. The putative Caucasoid ancestry of mummified individuals found in the 1970s in the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang Province in western China is a case in point. As Cavalli-Sforza notes, these mummies lacked typical mongoloid (northern Asian) cranial features, had greater stature and different hair color than other populations in the area and differed in their material culture from surrounding Asian groups. Some individuals were buried with tartans similar to those made in Scotland, Austria and Switzerland. It was hypothesized that the Tarim Basin people spoke an extinct Indo-European language (Tocharian) and were pastoralists from the Russian steppes who migrated from northern Europe into western China some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.

Despite the fact that preliminary mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data suggested a possible European (Eurasian) origin for these people, a craniometric study by B. E. Hemphill published in 2000 (after Genes, Peoples, and Languages had presumably gone to press) indicates that the Tarim Basin populations had a more complex ancestry than was initially supposed. The earliest groups had their closest affinities with populations from the Indus Valley, and the later ones exhibited affinities with peoples of the Oxus River Valley of south-central Asia, with both groups being considerably divergent from one another. These results argue against a Russian steppe origin for the Tarim Basin peoples and indicate that further genetic research is needed to clarify their relationships to other Indo-European and South Asian populations.

So we can see:

a. As per both accounts from Larsen & Schurr, according to Bryan Hempill, back when he was working on his own, his bioarchaeogenetics data said that Tarim was first colonised by IVC like people and then by BMAC (=Oxis River Valley) people, thus covering the 2 major stages of Tarim colonisation.

b. So the Tarim mummies with different hair colour (or just discoloured by the mummification process, discussed this with links frequently already) that were "buried with tartans similar to those made in Scotland, Austria and Switzerland" - i.e. the Qäwrighul mummies, were closest to IVC. To contemporaneous or slightly earlier IVC, as we will see. And as we'll also see, these tartanned Qäwrighul people could not be further off from the steppes (and E Asians and BMAC).

2. Steppists clearly couldn't allow those IVC connections to stand, because the implications this has on AIT and not just late PIE but PIEism itself is just so damning.

Solution: steppist Mallory launched himself into action, insinuated himself into Hemphill's data and reworked the Hemphill's conclusion (since the data couldn't be reworked). And thus we got the Hemphill & Mallory 2004 paper:

which is just the same findings/results, more modelling to see if steppe can be made to work and at least IVC ruled out, and when neither steppist wish could be granted, Mallory ruled out IVC in the conclusion (couldn't rule it out in the analysis) and declared Tarim must then have been possibly an independent/local population (what does that even mean for Tocharian and IEism then?) and hoped that maybe data yet to be found would allow for some steppe genetic or cultural influence.

Not sure why Hemphill went along as he's not a fraud like Anthony nor anything like Mallory: a steppist on damage-control.

But Tarim itself was a desperate failure for steppism. Actually, it was a profound failure for all major PIE urheimat theories (except maybe Sarianidi, as I'm not sure if he predicted or allowed for that), a failure from which steppism shouldn't ever be able to recover. And they actually can't, unless they cook up something with the aDNA hereafter and discredit bioarchaeogenetics or explain away the results from the latter after cooking up the former. Now, if that happens hereafter - i.e. if they suddenly invent some steppe affiliation anyway - you'll know it's cooked up.

Hemphill's Tarim data as a nail in the coffin for steppism is not even taking into account the IVC affiliation, because that is a separate matter to be discussed.

I'm just talking about steppism being nailed dead. But then steppism is the nosferatu. It's undead and like all vampires, is fantasy, so it can be easily brought back. Again, and again, and again.

3. So here's the Hemphill & Mallory 2004 paper.

Horse-Mounted Invaders From the Russo-Kazakh Steppe or Agricultural Colonists From Western Central Asia?

A Craniometric Investigation of the Bronze Age Settlement of Xinjiang

Brian E. Hemphill and J.P. Mallory

https: // onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.10354

https: // doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10354

Paste that document object identifier (DOI) of the paper into whatever is the current sci-hub url, e.g. sci-hub.st

to get [color="#0000FF"]sci-hub.st/10.1002/ajpa.10354[/color]

which is where you can read the full paper at this moment in time]

Read it well. The paper

a. explains why Tarim is crucial for IEism: to explain (claim) Tocharian.

b. lays out the 2 mainstream (i.e. sole allowed/accepted) contending theories to explain Tarim:

First, steppism trying to claim Tarim ever since (Mair etc's) spiel about how they're clearly Scottish affiliated "tartans" i.e. "Celtic" affiliated somehow; and Celtic is kentum, Tocharian is kentum. Afanasievo is an eastern offshoot of R1b-inbred Yamnaya, and R1b is largely Centum hence Tocharian and Tarim origins must be from Afanasievo, never mind the time gap between Tarim and Tocharian we want a straight line drawn between the two, as it works out easier. (Steppists tried to plot a path from Afanasievo to Tarim, trying their best to force-fit the archaeology but then failed miserably at Tarim itself.) Anyway, they shot themselves in the foot, multiple times: Afanasievo steppe fail in Tarim. Andronovo steppe fail in Tarim (but then what about the "Indo-Iranian" in Tarim? Mair & co. to the rescue, except now their data is found questionable even by the steppist fandom. Hard to blame the fandom: Mair & co worked themselves into a corner on that one. Plus they didn't know that Afanasievo would turn out to be R1b, never mind. Steppists may try to forge data tomorrow.)

Second, BMAC as the origin for Tarim. But Hemphill's data shows BMAC only has affiliations with the later phase of Tarim.

c. Most important stuff to read/inspect in Hemphill & Mallory 2004 are:

- the table of identifiers for samples from different cultures on p. 205. Note that the paper keeps speaking of samples in singular from a culture, but this table shows how many males and females from each culture constitute the actual singular "sample" spoken about for each culture. This ain't no singleton rakhigarhi sample. This is lots of ancient men and women from different sites of different cultures: 2 Afanasievo sites, several Andronovo and other steppe cultures and sites including Karasuk and Kokcha III.

Many BMAC and W Asian priors (incl Tepe Hissar), 3 IVC cultures and sites of different time periods, several of different time periods from Tarim. Modern Han also.

In the table, also take note of the time periods associated with each culture/site that's been given an identifier.

- graphs/plots of the data analysis. Keep cross-comparing with the identifiers in p. 205's table

- discussion section.

4. Now, as you may notice upon reading and inspecting the aforementioned plots in Hemphill & Mallory 2004,

Hemphill 2000 was not wrong in saying that Qawrighul samples - mummies wrapped in "tartan" or no, lighter (dis)coloured hair or no - plotted closest to IVC samples, as seen in 3 of the 4 major plots.

They plotted well away from stepps, away from E Asians. (i.e. not related to either) Not even consistent in relation to BMAC: they plotted closest to some BMAC sites in 1 plot, the very graph where they did not plot closest to IVC, but the paragraph describing that graph said that this-and-that analysis indicated that that plot wasn't all too reliable and that multi-dimensional analysis would in this situation provide a more accurate representation. Then in the plot for that, IVC was still the closest. And again in the 4th and final plot.

So no matter which way Mallory massaged the data, not only did the steppe not get anywhere closer than the others to Tarim (but usually very far off), IVC came closest 3 out of the 4 times (with peculiar affiliation) to the earliest Tarim settlement, and BMAC closest to the later ones (Alwighul etc to I think Kroran).

5. Returning to the discussion section:

This is where Mallory is forced to own that the data showed that neither early nor late steppe cultures (whether Afanasievo or Andronovo ir Karasuk) had anything to do with any phase of Tarim settlement. But Mallory held out hope that other data or some more complex roundabout reasoning could explain steppe antecedents to Tarim (hence Tocharian) after all.

The discussion is also the section where Mallory produces the worst excuses to dismiss the affinity with IVC as irrelevant, before making Hemphill join him in concluding that Qawrighul was therefore unrelated to any of the cultures in consideration - i.e. not European/steppe, not West or C Asian Asian (Tepe Hissar or BMAC), not E Asian, and somehow "equally" not IVC.

At least Mallory/steppists are consistent: the same amount and kind of handwaving that they used to argue that the steppe must have been archaeologically or otherwise relevant is used to argue that IVC is not relevant. In other words, they're arguing to ignore the data staring them in the face, since they can't find any version of storytelling that explains it.

(Hemphill is not steppist, however, he was non-committed and just reported the data and analysis results instead of trying to force-fit them to any storytelling, let alone popular ones.)

The following are Mallory's 'arguments' for invalidating the relevance of IVC affinity of Qawrighul (early Tarim skeletons):

Quote:there is a body of scholars who have vigorously argued for an IndoEuropean homeland in the Indus Valley of India and Pakistan (surveyed at length in Bryant, 2001), or that Indo-European languages disseminated from a locus “somewhere in the vicinity of ancient BactriaSogdiana” (Nichols, 1997, p. 137; see also Sargent, 1997). If true, the dispersal of these Indo-European languages may have been accompanied by immigration and some gene flow from the Indus Valley homeland to the various historical seats of the IndoEuropean languages. In this way, Tocharian languages found in the Tarim Basin would be attributed to the influx of populations from Bactria whose ultimate derivation may be traced to the Indus Valley of India and Pakistan.

The results of this study offer little support for such a scenario. The problems are threefold. First, WPGMA cluster analysis (Fig. 2) identifies Qäwrighul as possessing closer affinities to the two samples from Harappa than are possessed by the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age sample from Timargarha. It is difficult to see any archaeological support for such a connection, as there are no material artifacts of mature Harappan or even late Harappan attribution found at Qäwrighul (Chen and Hiebert, 1995; Wang, 1982, 1983).

Likewise, there are no artifacts reflective of Tarim Basin derivation at either mature Harappan (HAR) or late Harappan (CEMH) levels at Harappa (Allchin and Allchin, 1982; Kenoyer, 1998).

Second, if Indo-European-speaking populations entered the Tarim Basin from Bactria, Bactrian populations should also show evidence of gene flow from the Indus Valley. None of the analyses presented here or in previous assessments (Hemphill, 1998, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1998) provide any evidence of significant interaction between Bactrian and Indus Valley populations prior to the latter half of the first millennium B.C.

Finally, greater insight into the relationship between Indus Valley and Tarim Basin populations is provided by multidimensional scaling (Fig. 4) and principal coordinate analysis (Fig. 5). Both merely identify Qäwrighul as occupying a peripheral and opposite phenetic position to whatever Indus Valley sample is least separated from other regional samples. Such positioning is best interpreted as evidence of outlier status to all samples considered in this multidimensional array, rather than of any peripheral association to Indus Valley samples per se.

With neither biological nor archaeological support, there is no compelling evidence to uphold the idea that Indo-European languages were introduced into the Tarim Basin from populations emigrating from the Indus Valley commensurate with the initiation of the Xinjiang Bronze Age. Given the information currently available, it is most likely that the early Tarim Basin sample from Qäwrighul occupies an isolated phenetic position, because this sample represents a population of western China to which none of the potential regional contributors represented in this analysis (Russo-Kazakh steppe, Bactria, Indus Valley, and south China) contributed substantially.

I've spaced the above extract out into paragraphs to look at each assertion/claim and argument in turn:

a. ...In this way, Tocharian languages found in the Tarim Basin would be attributed to the influx of populations from Bactria whose ultimate derivation may be traced to the Indus Valley of India and Pakistan.

The results of this study offer little support for such a scenario. The problems are threefold. First, WPGMA cluster analysis (Fig. 2) identifies Qäwrighul as possessing closer affinities to the two samples from Harappa than are possessed by the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age sample from Timargarha. It is difficult to see any archaeological support for such a connection, as there are no material artifacts of mature Harappan or even late Harappan attribution found at Qäwrighul (Chen and Hiebert, 1995; Wang, 1982, 1983).

Why is this relevant only with regards to IVC? There are NO definite archaeological connections between Afanasievo and Tarim as per Mallory in 2011 - see further below - and yet steppists long made a big hullabaloo about Afanasievo being responsible for the early Tarim culture=Qawrighul, merely pretending "archaeological connections there must be".

Also, why can't they adapt to their environment? Start making or acquiring thicker cloths and weaves suited to colder (is it?) Tarim, for example.

Also many IVC and IVC era sites in India are culturally different: Some IVC cultures had a fire cult and related materials that archaeologists have shown to be similar to how homa kundas are built. Even ritual Vedic filters or something were shown to be clearly present in one IVC subculture or site as argued by an otherwise invasionist archaeologist, who was trying to square this with AIT. Mentioned on harappa.com site. Even the 2300-1800 BCE Sanauli era is repeatedly said to be connected in several ways with IVC cultures.

Just like "steppe" had many cultures and were genetically related/showed some genetic affinity or signature as well as differences like in terms of Anatolian input levels, Indian cultures of IVC and pre and immediate post era and may be ethnically related and show some genetic signatures that make them cluster together yet with custom differences such as increased or lower genetic input from the east and south and north into some Indic sites.

Also, Harappan samples of HAR and CEMH sites/periods were closer in time or overlapped in time with Qawrighul. Timargarha/TMG (1400-800 BCE) samples were from centuries later. Possible for TMG to have acquired admixture by then that distanced Timargarha away from Tarim while still showing relative relation to HAR and CEMH. For example, more southern, eastern or even irrelevant C Asian admixture. Say some steppe-infused Swat interaction that brought in steppe into TMG and due to which TMG was further off than Tarim and hence Tocharian's antecedents than HAR 2500–2000 BCE and CEMH 1900–1600 BCE samples were.

And I think here I hit upon Mallory's real objection: by TMG's 1400-800 BCE, he figures surely AIT must have happened and started having some impact. How dare that steppe infusion into IVC be the cause for TMG having greater distance from what steppists insist is the early "IE" breakaway branch in Tarim leading upto Tocharian, compared to the lower distance of steppe-less HAR and CEMH samples from early Tarim?

But considering all steppe samples were extremely distant from Tarim regardless of the analysis method/graph, surely Mallory should have surmised that any alleged steppe flow into IVC populations at TMG's timeframe - if it indeed happened to Indian populations then, before Shakas and Kushanas and other C Asians etc, as opposed to remaining a long term rare outpost in female-steppe mediated Swat - should invariably increase distance from Tarim as a matter of course?

b. Likewise, there are no artifacts reflective of Tarim Basin derivation at either mature Harappan (HAR) or late Harappan (CEMH) levels at Harappa (Allchin and Allchin, 1982; Kenoyer, 1998).

Yet later in the discussion where BMAC is brought up, the paper speaks of uni-directional relations from BMAC to Tarim. Why then does Tarim have to send artefacts back to IVC if there is no such requirement for BMAC?

c. Second, if Indo-European-speaking populations entered the Tarim Basin from Bactria, Bactrian populations should also show evidence of gene flow from the Indus Valley. None of the analyses presented here or in previous assessments (Hemphill, 1998, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1998) provide any evidence of significant interaction between Bactrian and Indus Valley populations prior to the latter half of the first millennium B.C.

If true, then so what? In that case, the theorising that claimed IVC to Qawrighul-era Tarim via BMAC was merely found wanting. Data should lead the theorising, not theorising leading the data.

Steppe storytelling of course never even willingly corrects itself after data is found wanting.

But the data remains: IVC is the closest with most consistency in affinity with Qawrighul-era Tarim. So clearly some biological affinity exists. So something connects IVC with Tarim, genetically. If it was Afanasievo that plotted where IVC plots w.r.t. to Tarim genetically, you can BET Mallory would have been all over it as proof of Afanasievo genetic connection in early Tarim, despite Mallory himself publicly admitting/revealing in 2011 that there's next to no (and certainly no definite) archaeological connection between Afanasievo and Tarim.

But as it turns out, returning to this:

"None of the analyses presented here or in previous assessments (Hemphill, 1998, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1998) provide any evidence of significant interaction between Bactrian and Indus Valley populations prior to the latter half of the first millennium B.C."

This part of Mallory's bolster to his argument is totally dead, as it is definitely controverted by aDNA - no steppist excuses or theorising needed about the time of impact. A lot of the "Indus-periphery" was created out of just this: Indian admixture as an ingredient in the formation of BMAC, whose non-BMAC precursors didn't have it. Harvard's Norasimon et al 2019 paper admitted it, even invoking Shortugai - the 2000 BCE IVC outpost/colony on Northern Afghanistan's Oxus River, the same River that gives BMAC its other name as Oxus River Valley civilisation - as a nearby example to explain longstanding IVC and BMAC interaction. Besides formative Indian admixture into BMAC, there were recently arrived nth generation Indians presumably from IVC living in BMAC, also admitted by Norasimon et al 2019, who also said it was a significantly unidirectional affair: a predominantly IVC to BMAC relationship.**

So, to return to Mallory's argument in 2004:

"Second, if Indo-European-speaking populations entered the Tarim Basin from Bactria, Bactrian populations should also show evidence of gene flow from the Indus Valley."

Yes, evidence of notable gene flow from IVC people into BMAC. Especially would be true of Bactria, which is closest part of BMAC to IVC and IVC had a colony close by (on the Oxus River) within Afghanistan itself.

Would be interesting if there were remains from Shortugai. Else - this is assuming the "Communist Party that took over China" (i.e. CCP) still doesn't give outsiders full access to Tarim's aDNA samples - Hemphill should work on his own again and compare the recently immigrated Indian-origin ancients who were living in BMAC (documented by Norasimon et al 2019) against Tarim's Qawrighul skeleton bioarchaeogenetic data, to see how close they are: closer or further off than Harappa HAR and CEMH samples, or at least more than IVC's later Timargarha/TMG samples or less so.

** From Harvard's Norasimon et al 2019 paper:


Quote:Unlike pre-ceding Copper Age individuals from Turan, people of the BMAC cluster also harbored an additional ~2 to 5% ancestry related (deeply in time) to Andamanese hunter-gatherers (AHG). This evidence of south-to-north gene flow from South Asia is consistent with the archaeological evidence of cultural contacts between the IVC and the BMAC and the existence of an IVC tradingcolony in northern Afghanistan (although we lack ancient DNA from that site) (44) and stands in contrast to our qpAdm analyses showing that a reciprocal north-to-south spread is un-detectable. Specifically, our analyses reject the BMAC and the people who lived before them in Turan as plausible major sources of ancestry for diverse ancient and modern South Asians by showing that their ratio of Anatolian farmer–related to Iranian farmer–related ancestry is too high for them to be a plausible source for South Asians [P< 0.0001, χ2 test; (13)] (figs. S50 and S51).


We document 11 outliers—three with radiocarbon dates between 2500 and 2000 BCE from the BMAC site of Gonur and eight with radiocarbon dates or archaeological-context dates between 3300 and 2000 BCE from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta—that harbored elevated proportions of AHG-related ancestry (range: ~11 to 50%) and the remainder from a distinctive mixture of Iranian farmer–and WSHG-related ancestry(~50 to 89%). These outliers had no detectable Anatolian farmer–related ancestry, in contrast with the main BMAC (~20 to 25% Anatolian-related) and Shahr-i-Sokhta (~16 to 21%) clusters, allowing us to reject both the main BMAC and Shahr-i-Sokhta clusters as sources for the outliers [P<10^−7,χ2test; (13)] (table S83). Without ancient DNA from individuals buried in IVC cultural contexts, we cannot make a definitive statement that the genetic gradient represented by these 11 outlier individuals, which we call the Indus Periphery Cline, was also an ancestry profile common in the IVC. Nevertheless, our result provides six circumstantial lines of evidence for this hy-pothesis. ...

d. Finally, greater insight into the relationship between Indus Valley and Tarim Basin populations is provided by multidimensional scaling (Fig. 4) and principal coordinate analysis (Fig. 5). Both merely identify Qäwrighul as occupying a peripheral and opposite phenetic position to whatever Indus Valley sample is least separated from other regional samples. Such positioning is best interpreted as evidence of outlier status to all samples considered in this multidimensional array, rather than of any peripheral association to Indus Valley samples per se.

I'm all open to accepting that if and only if it were the case that Mallory, Kuzmina, Mair or any other let's call them 'eager' steppist, would have been honest enough to conclude Tarim was an outlier had Afanasievo occupied the same position that IVC occupies in these graphs.

But let's be honest - and you know this to be true, no need to ask the Mallorys - if it had been Afanasievo that plotted where IVC plots w.r.t. to Tarim genetically, you can BET Mallory would have been all over it as proof of Afanasievo genetic connection in early Tarim, despite Mallory himself finally admitting/revealing in 2011 that there's no definite archaeological connection between Afanasievo and Tarim.

And that is why such dismissal is inadmissable.

But Mallory cannot even make it a proper full dismissal. The dismissal of IVC's relevance/Qawrigul's outlier's status is only a possibility, as admitted by Mallory with his use of "Per Se" in the above:

The key argument of Mallory here is "PER SE". I.e. he's merely saying Qawrighul is "not necessarily" related to IVC despite its samples mostly plotting closest to certain IVC cultures (the closest in chronology to them) and far away from steppes and E Asians. That is, he says it does not follow that early Tarim MUST be related to some IVC or other IVC like Indic population "just because" these plot closest. The alternative certainly is true: it may very well follow, by occam's razor that Tarim plots closest to IVC because it has genetic connections to some IVC population or Indic population ethnically related to IVC.

(Which other distinctive population, that is neither E Asian - note that Siberian, Mongolian and proto-Turks would be detected at least through a little E Asian if present - nor W/C Asian, nor Euro/steppe lives nearby that is not Southern Asian?

So Mallory is being nothing more than disingenuous here.)

Consider that if instead of IVC, Qawrighul was found to plot consistently with Afanasievo or any steppe instead: Mallory would argue that it - implicit PER SE - meant that Qawrighul obviously founded by steppe denizens.

It's the usual favouritism for steppe and discrimination against others, most notably towards any IVC/Indic connection.

But as a simple counter to Mallory's obvious insinuation into Hemphill's longer standing findings: as Larsen and Schurr in pt 1 above showed us: Hemphill when working alone in 2000 (without a steppist collaborator to drive the conclusions in favour of steppism/in disfavour of steppism's competition) concluded independently and hence without bias that the early Tarim culture's (i.e. Qaqrighul's) closest affinities was with IVC.

Nothing but Mallory's steppist meddling steered Hemphill away from that conclusion. NOT the data, NOT the analysis. Steppist insinuation and cheating Q.E.D.

After all, cheating is what they do. Right until they get caught:

- Like Anthony and his Vedic Dadyanch muni horse-head burial forgery - got caught by OTHER archaeologists and then retracted as silently as he could.

- like Anthony got caught by OTHERS for his Dereivka fraud and then retracted so silently that others (e.g. Trautmann) still kept repeating the original forgery as a fact either deliberately - as steppists do - or in ignorance of Anthony's retraction.

- like Anthony got caught by CHARIOT EXPERTS in forging entire chariot fantasies out of mere wheel imprints, wheel imprints that moreover ruled out they could ever have belonged to chariots. Anthony hasn't even visibly retracted (cause he can't, because I-Ir is so dependent on chariots existing in Sintashta/Fantasia now) and so professional steppists and their mindless following of Indian and other IEist varieties still repeat some patently false nonsense about "chariots in Sintashta". That just makes all steppist IEists who ever indulged in that after 1996 into liars.

How does PIEism and especially steppism win? By burying all the evidence that proves the ongoing fraud in an avalanche of repeated falsified assertions, upon which even further fantasies are built, by launching a flood of new falsehoods, unfounded theories and claims on other ancient people's innovations (and expect more forgeries), not to mention a growing fandom of people who clearly can't think for themselves or even look up for themselves the numerous papers by actual professionals who have given the lie to steppism's face.

e. With neither biological nor archaeological support, there is no compelling evidence to uphold the idea that Indo-European languages were introduced into the Tarim Basin from populations emigrating from the Indus Valley commensurate with the initiation of the Xinjiang Bronze Age. Given the information currently available, it is most likely that the early Tarim Basin sample from Qäwrighul occupies an isolated phenetic position, because this sample represents a population of western China to which none of the potential regional contributors represented in this analysis (Russo-Kazakh steppe, Bactria, Indus Valley, and south China) contributed substantially.

i. Hemphill 2000 was to already have claimed there was biological support. It is only Mallory's interference in this 2004 paper that claims otherwise.

ii. How brazenly (desperately?) Mallory pretends that IVC or affiliated Indic population is supposedly equally unlikely to have contributed to Qawrighul's origins as the steppes etc.

iii. Why does he claim IVC needs archaeological support for the early Tarim population when Mallory himself eventually admitted - see below - that there was in fact no archaeological support for Afanasievo in the Tarim either. Again, why does 0 archaeological support rule out IVC despite biological affinity according to bioarchaeogenetics, whereas it doesn't rule out Afanasievo?

And if something so tenuous as Timber circles - too minor to make a case as per even Mallory - is considered some tiny possible archaeological affinity with Afanasievo, then the ephedra (=a specifically non-steppe culture's artefact, which others later tried but failed to associate with later steppe cultures through inculturating from BMAC/wherever) found sprinkled in burials from Qawrighul as well as in the later Tarim culture with BMAC affinity, if indeed the soma/homa plant as alleged by many western IEists, is much more tell-tale as to which cultures used it. Suppose for now IVC=Indic/Vedic and BMAC=Iranic culture. So we have IVC and BMAC affiliated people in the Tarim found with ephedra, whatever specific archaeologically unsampled locus from India and BMAC cultures were were affiliated with and which actual IVC and BMAC sites may likewise have held Afghan-imported ephedra to be sacred/ritually significant.

In that case, the ephedra is archaeologically significant, since later Vedic culture in India was to have used ephedra as soma as per many IEists. And people already IVC (i.e. spefically Indian-like, not steppe or Chinese like) in Tarim already found buried ritually with (with non-steppe, non-Chinese, but Afghan) ephedra.


All of Mallory's arguments against IVC/Indic connections to early Tarim Qawrighul is special discrimination against IVC.

Same strength of feeling as steppists' special favouritism towards steppism:

e.g. "Only two wheel/nave/axle imprints in Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero? Let's draw it into a full scale chariot."

"We found horse milk? Must be horse domestication."

"Horse domestication? Must be horse riding on the steppe, surely." (Steppist fandom actually still argues this no matter HOW often Kuzmina and Renfrew or whoever all have denied any evidence for horse riding before late 2nd century BCE on the steppe.)

"Imprints of lower part of 2 spoked wheels and elsewhere nave/wheel-hub and axle too on the steppe? No evidence that it need be anything more than a cart. But let's make up that it was a true chariot and claim a first for the steppe over all others who had actual evidence for true chariots! Drat that Littauer & Crouwel 1996 showed from the steppes' wheel imprint measurements that steppe 2-wheelers could never have been chariots, so let's bury their opinion by shouting them down using repeated mention of Sintashta chariots."

This ain't sense. This ain't honest. It sure as hell ain't genuine research or academic work. It's called favouritism and special pleading, plain and simple.

6. Mallory presentation (March 2011, Uni of Pennsylvania) on how they couldn't lay claims on Qawrighul (Tarim) for Afanasievo/steppe after all.

Maybe Hemphill's data and implications - since steppists couldn't undo or overturn them - meant he had to face up to at least its direct effects: Afanasievo ruled out from originating Qawrighul.

Go to about 29 mins into the video at youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI

Already posted a partial transcript of some key admissions by Mallory from the vid.

From the horse's mouth/Mallory himself:

Quote:The actual evidence within the Tarim Basin is flimsy thin. Afanasievo cemeteries would be surrounded by round stone enclosures in the Aral-Sea [innersea?] and the Altai. At Qäwrighul, one of the earliest of our cemeteries in the Tarim Basin, we have evidence for timber circles. And that I'm afraid is about it.

So what was all that steppist theorising concerning Tarim origins for all that time? More horse manure.

So a long time after co-authoring (co-opting or rather taking hostage) Hemphill's 2004 paper which had already damned the steppe's chances in Tarim [until Anthony or Mair or whoever forge some maybe aDNA evidence next - quick steppist academia/call in Harvard, make it so; but then by falling in line with my prediction, it just proves they're all forgers and cheats], Mallory eventually finally gave up trying to claim the phases of Tarim settlement for Afanasievo (in fact, no Tarim affinity toward any steppe; Afanasievo or Andronovo or Karasuk though interrelated all remained distant from Tarim skeletal data). And so in 2011, Mallory thought he may as well let his usual audience know that he was wrong about the grand announcements he and his steppist colleagues had been making for so many years about how Tarim was probably derived from the steppe, usually via Afanasievo. He could hardly do otherwise: he had not only 0 archaeological data (timber circles :yawn:, no more tartan nonsense at least), but practically negative bioarchaeogenetic data in their favour.

Unless caught, they don't correct themselves.

As for steppist IIEist self-professed Hindus, I've concluded they are not well-meaning (we already know all other kinds of IIEists are not).

- Steppist Hindus just want steppism to be true. Because of supremacism, not because it is factually true, since in that case they would have investigated the actual paucity of "evidence" for steppism properly and the well-researched published papers that run counter to steppism.

- And they'll project strawman arguments onto Hindoos as to why Hindoos resist AIT. <- Proof of disingenuousness of Hindu AITists is whenever you notice any steppist IIEist lecturing Hindoos about the AIT position, but not EVER addressing that Hindoos have issues with the GAPING HOLES and cheating in steppism, and instead projecting strawman arguments. "You're only denying AIT because <insert irrelevant position that has no bearing on whether AIT is true or not>", instead of that Hindoos think it makes less sense now than it ever did because steppism keeps falling apart, can't keep the storytelling consistent, cheats, lies and forges, has data from many angles going directly against it, suppresses counter-data by ignoring it/pretending it doesn't exist on the one hand, while on the other creating mass-popularity for Anthony type nonsense to shout down relevant facts. And there's all kinds of things Euro steppists haven't even noticed - and hence which is far and away beyond IIEists' notice - that go directly against the edifice Euro steppists are creating (and that IIEists are parroting) to prop up the storytelling from the aDNA. I will get to those when Harvard & co think they've made their case and believe it's time to rest on their laurels.

This post on:

Bioarchaeogenetic skeletal data showed no steppe affinities (Afanasievo/Andronovo/Karasuk/more) with Tarim early or later phases. So much for steppe connections to Tocharian, which steppe IE had predicted through Tarim and insisted on. Nothing but manufacturing/forging steppe aDNA in the area will reverse this (Mair's attempts at this have actually sort of backfired in several ways, and steppists try to avoid speaking of his early paper on it). But bear in mind that Mallory 2011 was already forced to withdraw that there were any definite archaeological connections between early Tarim (Qawrighul) and the eastern Yamna branch-off culture Afanasievo, thus showing the hollowness of steppists earlier claims that there were clear archaeological connections.

The data and analysis results of Hemphill & Mallory 2004 repeats findings of Hemphill 2000: early Tarim phase shows IVC affinity and subsequent phase BMAC affinity. Leaving Steppist Mallory no recourse but to provide terribly poor and clearly biased argumentation to dismiss relevance of IVC affinity to Tarim (bias apparent from how had similar affinity to Tarim been shown with the steppe instead, it would have been considered the smoking gun of steppe in Tarim and been all about how steppe as IE and urheimat was proven). Also, the aDNA data in Harvard's Norasimon et al 2019 paper has undone one of the 3 arguments against IVC's relevance to Tarim that Mallory had advanced.

Previous page has the posts on "SINTASHTA CARTS expressly NOT CHARIOTS: Littauer & Crouwel 1996 disproved Anthony 1995 fraud. No new evidence. How chariotless Sintashta=Indo-Iranian?" Not to mention that steppists like Anthony magicked whole chariots out of mere imprints of lower parts of wheels in Sintashta and wheel-hub and axle in Krivoe Ozero. But sadly those very imprints were damning: could not have been of chariots, said chariotry experts Littauer & Crouwel, nothing more than carts.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)