Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Cont.



The reason that the paper jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf

(by Mallory) is meaningful, is that in 2013* none less than Mallory admitted his doubts about certain persistent issues on the .... 'PIE question' and that all the major PIE/urheimat theories could not answer them all successfully and satisfyingly.

* Note that this is before David Anthony's Massive Steppe Migration paper (properly credited as Haak et al 2015, but all admit that Anthony has been leading the Kurgan thesis charge and had salvaged it), that declared to have found the point of diffusion of IE languages AND GENES into Europe - this last is in case Elst tries to pretend again that IE-ists are not talking about phenotype/race/racism: oh, yes they are.





But there is something else to Mallory's paper that is relevant to Hindoos:



jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf



(And remember, this is Mallory, the proponent of white supremacism, who works with the more overt white supremacist oryanist Victor Mair

The speakers at this symposium can generally be seen to support one of the following three ‘solutions’ to the Indo-European homeland problem:



1. The Anatolian Neolithic model.

[...]

The spread of Indo-European languages into Central and Southern Asia was explained originally by way of two alternative models: a Plan A that saw the Neolithic economy spread eastward from Anatolia towards India (thus the In-dus Civilization might be regarded as Indo-European) or Plan B [...]

Specifically,

- if IVC is shown to be Vedic or demonstrates genes that Europe has pre-emptively claimed for itself as Eurogenes,

then IVC will be dubbed IE.

- if IVC finds traces of non-Eurogenes in individuals, then it's admixture (or "miscegenation" as the oryanists and other white supremacists called this openly not that long back)

- if IVC does not show traces of Sintashta-specific DNA, then the Oryans hadn't invaded yet/were poised to invade/lived elsewhere.

[Since as per AIT only R1a is the Oryan haplogroup (for Indian-Afghan-Persian space). But Europeans can have as many haplogroups as Europeans belong to and no one will question their European-ness.

Never mind that in a native-ness argument, Y can conceivably belong to other native haplogroups and still be natively Vedic and perhaps only exported a clan dominated by R1a (specifically at least the 'Asian-specific' version of R1a1a) to -say- Sintashta for mining/metallurgy purposes. (Or maybe the Indics in Afghanistan, or Iranians in Afghanistan/Persian space to Tajikistan or wherever, exported a clan dominated by at least the Asian-specific R1a(1a) to Sintashta. Or exported - or even kicked out - the Iranian (ancestors of) Scythians/and ancestors of the Sarmatians.)]



So whatever the outcome, it's always going to be "heads IE-ism wins, tails Hindoos lose".



Yet all 3 scenarios can equally be explained in the opposite direction.

Moreover, there's no guarantee that bronze age aDNA (ancient DNA) from IVC burials would reveal anything necessary Vedic or even otherwise indigenous: apparently the Harappans cremated as a rule, as seen in that 3rd link -



varnam.nationalinterest.in/2009/09/a-4000-year-old-lepers-tale/

Harappan skeletons were both cremated — there is evidence at Sanauli at least — and buried, but true burials are very few compared to expected numbers. Many archaeologists believe that cremation must have been widely practised by Harappans. Also, at Dholavira and other sites, dozens of graves turned out to be without any bones which implies symbolic burials.

ADDED:

To return to Mallory. A relevant extract, from near the end of the PDF:



jolr.ru/files/%28112%29jlr2013-9%28145-154%29.pdf

Near Eastern and Pontic-Caspian models (including Renfrew’s Plan B )

(Note Pontic Caspian models = Kurgan Thesis. I.e. the conventional - and rather full-blown - all-pervasively-invading and women-abducting, civilisation-destroying, male-replacing oryanism.)



The critical issue for these models is that while any and all of them could explain the distribu-tion of domestic animal names, there are serious problems involved with the spread of arable agriculture. As Anthony (could it be.... David Anthony?) remarks in this symposium, there is really no serious evidence for ar-able agriculture (domestic cereals) east of the Dnieper until after c 2000 BCE (see also Ryabo-gina & Ivanov 2011; Mallory, in press:a). This means that there is also no evidence for domes-tic cereals in the Asiatic steppe until the Late Bronze Age (Andronovo etc). From the perspec-tive of the Pontic-Caspian model, the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and Tokharians should not cross the Ural before c 2000 BCE at the very earliest. Hypotheses linking the Tokharians to earlier eastward steppe expansions associated with the Afanasievo or Okunevo cultures of the Yenisei or Altai (Mallory and Mair 2000) become very difficult if not impossible to sustain (as long as there is no evidence of arable agriculture in these cultures) as Tokharian retains ele-ments of the Indo-European agricultural vocabulary. Of course, it should be emphasized that sites of the Afanasievo and Okunevo cultures are overwhelmingly burials that hardly provide the context in which one expects to recover the remains of domestic cereals; moreover, there is no evidence that any of these sites have been excavated in such a way that the recovery of seeds is likely. On the other hand, domestic cereals have been recovered from the site of Begash in the Jungghar mountains at dates of c 2300 BCE (Frachetti 2012) although this site is not connected (so far as we know) with the steppe trajectory of sites (Afanasievo, Okunevo).



If this were not bad enough, it is also difficult to map the agricultural vocabulary across a Pontic-Caspian homeland within Europe itself. Main elements of the scheme suggested by Nikolai Merpert in 1977 still appear to be valid in current models of the evolution of steppe cultures involving an east (Volga-Ural) to west (Dnieper) cultural trajectory but if there was little or no agriculture east of the Dnieper, then how can we describe the eastern archaeologi-cal cultures of the Don (Repin), Volga (Khvalynsk) or the entire Don-Ural region (Yamnaya) as Indo-European if they lacked arable agriculture?



That the steppe populations exploited wild plants such as Chenopodium and Amaranthus is well known and while this might explain the ambivalence of some of the cereal names to reflect a specific cereal type (rather than just ‘grain’) we would still need to explain why the semantic variance among cognate words is largely confined to ‘wheat’, ‘barley’ and ‘millet’ as if at least one of these was the original ref-erent (and not some wild grain). All of the above problems would also be inherent in Ren-frew’s revised version of the Anatolian homeland model that requires the eastern Indo-Europeans (Indo-Iranians, Tokharians) to pass through the Pontic-Caspian steppe.



Conversely, the Near Eastern model, that requires the ancestors of the ‘ancient European’ languages to wander through Central Asia, cannot place the ‘Europeans’ north of south Cen-tral Asia before c 2000 BCE at the earliest. This is going to render the Indo-Europeanization of most of Europe a far more recent phenomenon than most would expect or accept. It would detach the Indo-Europeanization of central and northern Europe from such cultures as the Corded Ware horizon that in almost every way imaginable would appear to be archaeologi-cally, spatially and culturally a part of the Indo-European world. More importantly, it creates a ‘bottle-neck’ for the Northwest (?) Indo-European languages dated to about 1500 BCE where they all should have passed from east to west across the Pontic-Caspian and on into Europe.



To propose a common secondary home and time depth for Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic so late leaves hardly any time at all to explain the phylogeny of the European languages and how they arrived in their historical seats. If supporters of this model sought an escape route from the situation they seem to have created for themselves, one might possibly propose the route north through the Caucasus to explain not only Iranians (at Sintashta in Grigoriev’s account) but the rest of the Europeans. However, this is hardly without problems as well as one must also explain how the ancestors of most of the European languages managed to pass through the Caucasus without leaving a trail of European languages. If there are any lessons to be learned, it is that every model of Indo-European origins can be found to reveal serious deficiencies as we increase our scrutiny. One is reminded of Daniel Kahneman’s observation:

“It is the consistency of the information that matters for a good story, not its completeness. Indeed, you will often find that knowing little makes it easier to fit everything you know into a coherent pattern” (Kahneman 2011, 87).

The problem here, of course, is that over time we have come to know more and more and that our earlier, simpler and more alluring narratives of Indo-European origins and dispersals are all falling victim to our increasing knowledge.

('Nah man, oryanism/white supremacism/PIE urheimat will live forevah, like the Sith. You're just in denial. "See David Anthony".')



We have obviously moved on from the time when Nikolai Merpert first published his analyses of the role of the steppelands within the con-text of the Indo-European homeland but it is evident that we still have a very long way to go.

I think Mallory's 2013 paper above - though not quite signs of his disillusionment - is part of the reason behind the Haak 2015 taking centre stage and which has actually been presented as rendering earlier genetics data and conclusions obsolete.

(Because the IE matter is very much about whiteness, the Steppe Migration and following genetics papers are all there to explain away the very dark-skinned yet otherwise genomically Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer - actually called SHG - and all kinds of other "outliers".)



People should not underestimate the importance of David Anthony and his Haak et al 2015 paper - and his 2007 book is now in even greater favour, though it was already a popular favourite among IE-ists including hobbyists - in blowing full life into the Kurgan thesis, the most oryanist of all oryan theories, complete with all the hallmarks of the original oryanist (as in nazi-style oryanist) B-fantasy.