[quote name='Virendra' date='22 December 2011 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1324537482' post='114076']
By the way have you read the likes of Nicholas Kazanas, David Frawley and Witzel?
[/quote]
Speaking of Witzel, he has been more honest regarding the genetic evidence than a lot of others:
By the way have you read the likes of Nicholas Kazanas, David Frawley and Witzel?
[/quote]
Speaking of Witzel, he has been more honest regarding the genetic evidence than a lot of others:
Quote:> > > 3. The paper by my Boston geneticist friend David Reich et al.
> > >
> > > has shown that South Asia has two ancient population segments evolving
from the early Out of Africa people around 40 kya, the
> > > `Ancestral North Indians' (ANI), (genetically close to Middle Easterners,
Central Asians, and Europeans) and the `Ancestral South Indians' (ASI), so named
after I had cautioned him and Nick Patterson about the political danger
involving the naming of these groups. As you can see, even this nomenclature did
not help to dispel preconceived Hindutva bias about "Aryans" and Dravidians.
Quote:> > > 1. There is nothing new in the result about an early Out of Africa
movement (to South Asia) of *anatomically modern humans* (not Neanderthals,
Denisovans, Homo Erectus) at c. 65-75 kya. There are some hints about earlier
dates but they are based on debatable stone artifacts, not skeletons.
> > >
> > > 2. And we also knew well about the movements from there to northern
Eurasian areas during the warm period around c. 40,000 BCE: archaeologically
attested by skeletons, both in the Beijing area (Zhoukoudian c.40 kya, via S.E.
Asia), and in Europa (Rumania, c. 42 kya).
> > >
> > > See my friend Peter Underhill (Stanford) et al. 2010 paper: