Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Important post. Related to other posts in this thread marked "important".



1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians

Expansion



Two-wave models of Indo-Iranian expansion have been proposed by [11] and Parpola (1999). The Indo-Iranians and their expansion are strongly associated with the Proto-Indo-European invention of the chariot. It is assumed that this expansion spread from the Proto-Indo-European homeland north of the Caspian sea south to the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Iranian plateau, and Northern India. They also expanded into Mesopotamia and Syria and introduced the horse and chariot culture to this part of the world. Sumerian texts from EDIIIb Girsu (2500–2350 BC) already mention the '[b]chariot' (gigir) and Ur III texts (2150–2000 BC) mention the horse (anshe-zi-zi).[/b]



First wave - Indo-Aryans

[...]

Second wave



The second wave is interpreted as the Iranian wave.[9]:42–43 The first Iranians to reach the Black Sea may have been the Cimmerians in the 8th century BC,

(Note that on 5 July 2007 one "John Alan Halloran" added the Sumer section to Wackypedia's "Indo-Iranians" page, emphasised in italics above. The Mesopotamia and Syria bit was already there even by 2007. Is that a blunder by the IE-ists?)



Hurrians lived in N Mesopotamia, Sumer was in S Mesopotamia.





About the all-important blue bit -



[size="5"]BUT the aDNA samples found in Bronze Age Mesopotamia (down to Roman era) are only Indian-specific mtDNA - not anything Yamna, not any of the 60% Yamna element in Sintashta, heck not even "C-Asian" or "Iranian" mtDNA:[/size]





2. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0073682

Witas et al Sep 2013

mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization

Abstract



Ancient DNA methodology was applied to analyse sequences extracted from freshly unearthed remains (teeth) of 4 individuals deeply deposited in slightly alkaline soil of the Tell Ashara (ancient Terqa) and Tell Masaikh (ancient Kar-Assurnasirpal) Syrian archaeological sites, both in the middle Euphrates valley. Dated to the period between 2.5 Kyrs BC and 0.5 Kyrs AD the studied individuals carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Paleolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, they are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan. We anticipate that the analysed remains from Mesopotamia belonged to people with genetic affinity to the Indian subcontinent since the distribution of identified ancient haplotypes indicates solid link with populations from the region of South Asia-Tibet (Trans-Himalaya). They may have been descendants of migrants from much earlier times, spreading the clades of the macrohaplogroup M throughout Eurasia and founding regional Mesopotamian groups like that of Terqa or just merchants moving along trade routes passing near or through the region. None of the successfully identified nuclear alleles turned out to be ΔF508 CFTR, LCT-13910T or Δ32 CCR5.



[...]

For instance, it is commonly accepted that the founders of Sumerian civilization came from the outside of the region, their exact origin is, however, still a matter of debate. It is suggested that migrants of Iranian, Indian [32], [33] or even Tibetan affinity [34] founded the Sumerian civilization, which suggestion can be supported by comparing the Tibeto-Burman and Sumerian languages [35]. The migrants could have entered Mesopotamia earlier than 45 centuries ago, during the lifetime of the oldest studied individual, as the Tibetan Plateau was peopled more than 20 Kyrs ago [21], [36].**

[...]

Using median joining network [28] we attempted to draw the four observed haplotypes from those of the extant neighbouring populations (Tab.S3) which confirmed their restriction to the South, East and Southeast Asia regions (Fig. 4). They belong mostly to subclades of South Asian-Tibet specific haplogroups absent today in Mesopotamia [26], [27] (Fig. 3). Only complete sequencing will help to narrow down the geography and indicate precise origin of the studied individuals. However, at this step of the analysis a continuity between Trans-Himalaya and Mesopotamia regions in ancient time is likely which has been broken down as a result of recent population movements. Probably, significant depopulation resulting from the Mongolian invasions of the late 13th century AD [29], followed by repopulation by Bedouin tribes in the 17th century [30] and farmers from southern Anatolia and western Syria during the 19th and 20th century [31] are among the possible factors which may have shifted the gene pool profile of the region.

(Soon we'll hear how Indo-Aryans from the steppe invaded India via Mesopotamia. Any minute now. Except the mtDNA is still Indian-specific.)



** BTW: The above uses the TransHimalayan, but the "Tibeto-Burman" considerations are very probably merely because an Indic signal that's definitely present in them, from:



1. the ancient Indic admixture still extant in Tibet. (And Indic and Tibeto-Burmese populations intermarrying is still ongoing among the Tibeto-Burman Sherpa, for instance. This is natural as heathens intermarry rather readily, and there are many HindOOs among Sherpa, plus the Sherpa look endearing. As a result, lots of R1a, other Indic-Y and strong Indic mtDNA seen among Sherpa. Therefore Sherpa are Tibeto-Burman-Indic.)



2. possibly the Indic people once native to Himalayan regions of India that had been going about in the spill-over areas between India-Nepal and Tibet etc. Example: there's the Dardic ("Indo-Aryan" subbranch) speaking, ethnically-Indic among Brogpa (=Indic converts to Bon and eventually Tibetan Buddhism, who had lived in at least the India-bordering regions of Tibet and many of whom are now living in Indian Ladakh and Paki adjoining areas) etc. This Dardic-speaking Indic group have long formed a community with Tibeto-Burmese, and thus there are Tibeto-Burmese, Indic and bi-ethnic subcommunities and individuals among Brogpa.

(Note: Bon is quite close to Vedic religion because of Vedic-Hindu effects on Taoist-related Bon religion - as 'bi-ethnic' a religion in Tibet once, as the population - which is why nazi demons were trying to poach on Bon: they thought the religion and region was related to oryanism. It's also why nazi/white supremacist German women still come to terrorise the Brogpa with their "pregnancy tourism" to produce "Oryan" babies from Brogpa men whom the German nazi women sexually exploit and treat as 3rd world prostitutes.)



3. The Tibeto-Burmese ethnic group (an originally E-Asian population) arrived and settled in Tibet, Burma etc some 5 millennia back. Their arrival is estimated at 3000 BCE, which is after the earliest period of Mesopotamia (4th millennium BCE).



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet

Modern humans first inhabited the Tibetan Plateau at least twenty-one thousand years ago.[2] This population was largely replaced around 3,000 BC by Neolithic immigrants from northern China. However, there is a "partial genetic continuity between the Paleolithic inhabitants and the contemporary Tibetan populations".[2]

(Note: the Witas et al 2013 Mesopotamian aDNA paper particularly mentioned that the aDNA mtDNA haplogroups found were to have "arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Paleolithic".)



Indics and TibetoBurmese in the spillover area have been intermarrying for some time. And it is the old Indic signal that persists among them (and which is constant in Indics from India and "Pakistan" and the Himalayan area adjoining Tibet) that is detected in ancient Mesopotamia to Roman era.



And Tibetans have remained constant at a mountain lifestyle of herding, nomadism and farming at high altitudes. Unlike IVC Hindus of the ancient region spanning India and Pakistan - whose long-distance trade relations and outposts are established - it is unlikely (or there's no evidence of) Tibetans and Burmese of that time being into the same.



tew.org/tibet2000/t2.ch3.agriculture.html

AGRICULTURE has traditionally been the foundation of the Tibetan economy. The three major forms of occupation in Tibet are pastoral nomadism (drokpa), grain farming (shingpa) and semi-nomadism (sama-drok). Over 80 per cent of the total population of Tibet is still engaged in primary sector agriculture (TIN 1999a). Farmers are mainly concentrated in valleys where they utilise fertile soil for crop cultivation, while pastoral and semi-nomads are found on plateaus and mountains suitable for raising animals.

Anyway, back to the point. Early Bronze Age down to Roman era aDNA in Mesopotamia shows Indian-specific mtDNA.



Indian-specific. As in: not found bloody anywhere else. Not clustering with Euros, Anatolians, the Caucasus or other people or any other such excuses.

2500 BCE and the Indic in Mesopotamia were still Indian-specific ONLEE.



So let's hear it: theories of male Oryan invaders' Y doing wife-stealing of native Indian mtDNA. Any minute now. niggers:



Or better yet: call Harvard aDNA team (Haak/Mathieson) et al and get Sintashta - sadly only 2100-1800 BCE - to fit the mtDNA. Backwards in time of course. Except the heavy EHG component in Yamna - still strongly present in Sintashta - won't fit. :Oh blow: (No Indian specific mtDNA in steppe kulturs. Since some Indic lines travelled E->W and some S->N.)





So, to return to the point:



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians

["Indo-Iranians"] also expanded into Mesopotamia and Syria and introduced the horse and chariot culture to this part of the world. Sumerian texts from EDIIIb Girsu (2500–2350 BC) already mention the 'chariot' (gigir) and Ur III texts (2150–2000 BC) mention the horse (anshe-zi-zi).

Yet the aDNA from even back then - from 2500 BCE to the Roman era - at Mesopotamia was only of Indian-specific mtDNA.

I'm not the one who made the connection to "Indo-Iranians" (though it should be specifically the Indic part of that): the IE-ists who penned that part of the wackypedia page made that blunder. Glad they made it though. Little did they foresee that the aDNA for the region at the very time involved would attest to Indian-specific mtDNA: as in, no mtDNA from steppes, anatolia, balkan, or caucasus PIE urheimat theories involved. Not even mtDNA from Iran or C-Asia. Indian-specific onlee, i.e. from the subcontinent. And it IS connected with the ancient trade routes connecting Indic-Afghan-Iranian (IAI) complexes to Mesopotamia to the west, and IAI complexes' connections to the north such as Maykop in Caucasus where it meets the steppes. (Remember: Maykop in all ways influenced Yamna, its poor imitator). And the connections between Maykop and Mesopotamia were already admitted in the wikipage on Maykop, as were Maykop's highly-plausible Iranian origins on the Iranian Plateau. (Plus then there's the Indian-specific M52 mtDNA found in the Maykop culture-related grave site.)



And having said all that, look how I didn't even drag in the donkey (and generally equid) burials in Mesopotamia/Bronze Age Near East to push the case further, though I suppose one could in theory. IE-ists would, if any gains for eurocentrism were involved.