Some prejudiced statements from Underhill. There must definitely be pressure from the higher-ups to give such false assurances to the public:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/84162
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0110_060110_india_genes.html?sou\
rce=rss
The following paragraphs from this study are problematic:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages
in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the
Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Indo-European language family" is a theoretical consruct not a
historical fact. Linguistic similarities could be explanined by bigger
umbrella families. Archaeological record shows no evidence of any
invasion nor the presence of any other language family northern South
Asia. The Rig Veda do not provide any evidence of invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University
School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts
that Indo-European speakers did move into India."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended
from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before
an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived
some 10,000 years ago."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even this is not certain as the new rice evidence shows. Agriculture
could have developed concurrently and independly in many places.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->""The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in
northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct
contact with the Indo-European migrants,"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What evidence is there that such migratants were there in the first
place? Does it not require the fixing of a putative homeland which has
not been done yet conclusively?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->""I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern
India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people ⦠similar to the people there
today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from
Bangalore [in the south]."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, the above is really apalling coming from a trained scientist.
Does he really think the speakers of so called "Aryan" and "Dravidian"
languages are different races?
M. Kelkar<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spencer Wells also made similar faith statements after bamshad's infamous study went up in smoke. Sad that harvard putra Wells is in charge of the worldwide genographic project.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/84162
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0110_060110_india_genes.html?sou\
rce=rss
The following paragraphs from this study are problematic:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages
in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the
Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Indo-European language family" is a theoretical consruct not a
historical fact. Linguistic similarities could be explanined by bigger
umbrella families. Archaeological record shows no evidence of any
invasion nor the presence of any other language family northern South
Asia. The Rig Veda do not provide any evidence of invasion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University
School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts
that Indo-European speakers did move into India."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended
from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before
an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived
some 10,000 years ago."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even this is not certain as the new rice evidence shows. Agriculture
could have developed concurrently and independly in many places.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->""The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in
northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct
contact with the Indo-European migrants,"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What evidence is there that such migratants were there in the first
place? Does it not require the fixing of a putative homeland which has
not been done yet conclusively?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->""I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern
India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people ⦠similar to the people there
today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from
Bangalore [in the south]."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, the above is really apalling coming from a trained scientist.
Does he really think the speakers of so called "Aryan" and "Dravidian"
languages are different races?
M. Kelkar<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Spencer Wells also made similar faith statements after bamshad's infamous study went up in smoke. Sad that harvard putra Wells is in charge of the worldwide genographic project.