Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Uh. No.



Indian oryanists/IE-ists seem to have taken over the baton of white supremacists in claiming every non-IE heathenism for IE-ism.



What's really scary is that - besides Rajeev parroting the following blindly - many others are to have retweeted it also. Without looking, I predict none of them identified the oh-so-obvious flaws that anyone with *any* general knowledge would know (but not IE-ists and new ageists, of course):

rajeev srinivasan @RajeevSrinivasa



"@drupadk: Easter named after indo-european goddess of the dawn - Eostre/Onastre/Ishtar/Usha... are these people retarded?" more digestion

Speaking of 'retarded':

Since when were Ishtar, or Astarte for that matter, magically morphed into Indo-Europodism? (And since when is Ishtar related to Usha?? I didn't know Vedic religion is related to ethnic Middle-Eastern religion? Quick someone, introduce "borrowing" - in the IE to 'grateful inferior recipient' direction, as always. arcasm



But here, even wackypedia still documents how the two have nothing to do with IE.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar

Ishtar



Ishtar (English pronunciation <...>; Transliteration: DIÅ TAR; Akkadian: <...> DINGIR INANNA; Sumerian <...>) is the East Semitic Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian goddess of fertility, love, war, and sex.[1] She is the counterpart to the Sumerian Inanna, and is the cognate for the Northwest Semitic Aramean goddess Astarte.

=> They are "Semitic" not "Japhetic/IE".



Really, I thought everyone knew this much. (I mean, even I know it.)

So where drupadk got his delusion from - or why his retweeters have not a jot of common-sense anywhere among them - is beyond me.





Indian oryanists should never be allowed anywhere near others' heathenisms.



I predict they will be a threat to E Asian heathenisms: they will try to make everything a derivative or variation or borrowing of IE-ism - just like western IE-ist counterparts do - and will invariably turn/subvert the living heathenisms of E Asia into the sort of mangled mess they made out of Hindus' heathenism. (They have the Midas touch of death, and it is sadly not reserved for their own "inheritance", but like alien IE-ists, Indian ones are liable to also display a tendency to move on to others' heathenisms after they're through with/through murdering their own stuffs.)



Therefore, again: Just like aliens, Indian IE-ists must be allowed nowhere near the E Asian heathenisms.

They must be kept away. All aliens ought to be kept away from others' heathenisms. All IE-ists must be kept away.



Having failed to prevent other Indics from inflicting Buddhisms onto heathen E (and SE) Asia, Hindoos owe it to the E Asian heathens to at least protect them from oryanism or, at the very least, from Indian oryanists. Hindoos have no ties to Indic oryanists, but have kinship only with other unsubverted heathens of unbroken lineage. Without Hindoos ever knowing it, Taoists have said a lot in favour of Hindoos (and even done some things in their favour, such as Taoist temples collecting money for Hindoo charities in SE Asia). Hindoos have a chance to return the favour, to show in return heathen solidarity with their only kindred: fellow heathens of unsubverted heathen perception.



How Hindoos respond will determine how deserved Hindoos' own miserable fate is.

[Husky]

An important quote from an indological German dabbler in Skt (and some other Bharatiya languages), who further denies that Skt has anything to do with any 'religion'. He will not name the religion, of course: Hindoo heathenism=Vedic religion. Elst admitted that indologists are now decided to deny in concert that any religion dubbed "Hinduism" exists and to deny that the ancient Vedic religion=Hindoo heathenism, i.e. exists today being a natural continuation of the former. And the following indological German dabbler further exemplifies that other trend: to divorce Skt from Hindoos' heathenism=Vedic religion, before divorcing Vedic religion too, i.e. dismantling Vedic religio-civilisation piecemeal to wrest it from Hindoos. In the full article, discussed here, he actually speaks of "Sanskrit, along with its culture, philosophy and science". <- In that tell-tale sentence, can see transfer of Vedic religio-civilisation into "Skt" as container, i.e. as a separate, standalone entity. Can see how everything of Vedic religio-civiliation - "culture, philosophy, science/accomplishments" has already been transferred, except the word religion. (Just as alien demons did with Hellenismos.) The alien demons want to steal it all from Hindoos. Even as they dismantle Vedic religion='Hinduism' piecemeal while it is in Hindoos' possession, many of the alien demons will eventually reassemble it back fully into Vedic religion when they think it is in their possession (as 'pure vedicists/vedic reconstructionists' often have done).

To this end, the same university is starting affiliated indological "Skt" depts/colleges in India.

And idiot "Hindus" will no doubt be attending it soon, wanting to learn IE-ism as the "real" version of their religion. And anti-Hindu Indians will also be enrolling in record numbers, to learn from their masters how to deny the existence of Hindoos' Vedic religion and Hindoos' right to Skt, and to claim Skt and Vedic religio-civilisation - minus its heathen core - as their own instead.



But the following soundbyte from the German indological professor is reposted here for its relevance this thread's topic.





[quote name='Husky' date='25 April 2015 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1429943541' post='117661']

dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3038926/Sanskrit-fever-grips-Germany-14-universities-teaching-India-s-ancient-language-struggle-meet-demand-students-clamour-courses.html

[Professor Dr. Axel Michaels, head of classical Indology at Heidelberg university:]

[size="6"]there is so much yet to discover through Sanskrit...details of Indus Valley civilisation, for example."[/size]

(... The large sized text appears to be yet more admission by the mleccha demons - Dhu had found damning evidence, I wonder when he will make his discovery public at last - that mlecchas know full well that the Indus Valley Civilisation IS Vedic and that the Vedam was not only revealed within India to the intuition of Rishis, but that aliens already know that the Vedam in India predates or is at least co-eval with the IVC.)

[/quote]



The above statement sounds reminiscent of how:



Dhu had uncovered intra-western/intra-indological journal articles that not only admitted (for western audiences) that IVC=Vedic, but also spoke of IVC as "our" (i.e. western) origins for IIRC law etc. <- Explosive discovery by Dhu. Not only because it admits to the dabbling thieving west knowing full well that the Vedas originates in India and that it is at least as old as IVC and that it is moreover related to IVC (as in, originated it), but furthermore:

- shows how western oryanism has evolved to not only claiming some shade of OIT (else how does IVC become western and become the origins of western law if AIT were thought to be true?)

- but also shows that oryanists have made the leap from their ancestors invading India and teaching the natives, to declaring their oryan ancestors were the creators of IVC in India but are now living in the west. I.e. the alien demons still claim all of Vedic civilisation in India as theirs, regardless of whether it is the AIT they peddled (when their oryan ancestors were to have taught all the natives) or the OIT they have secretly adopted (now their oryan ancestors were to have come up with the Vedam, built the IVC, come up with Vedic law in India (which is now to have become a basis/origin for western law all of a sudden), and taken it to the west, thus magically making it all *still* "theirs" by "inheritance" from 'when their ancestors were still in India').



I wish Dhu would make his discovery public on some site frequented by Hindus.

[Husky]

The stuff in blockquotes - which is stuff dhu found - are very important. The rest is merely my own usual spam.



Am consciously violating IF member dhu's rights with this post. And not because I dislike him - on the contrary. My sincere apologies to dhu, but I'm doing it anyway. Although, his final statements on this subject were that he was going to post this in public somewhere.





IF member dhu wrote some years back:

I believe their elite classes now know that OIT is true. It was possible that this was known among their most elite classes at century's turn but now it is well known even among their hoi polloi elite:



The following monograph by Robin Bradley Kar (non-indic as far as I could determine) argues for the origin of Roman Law in the Indus valley. It is a very high level policy type monograph. This is the course of their future appropriating discourse (monotheism originated with them in the Indus Valley...



[size="5"]On the Origins of Western Law and Western Civilization (in the Indus Valley)[/size]

(For which Dhu links to: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702492)



Social Science Research Network http:// www.ssrn.com/

University of Illinois College of Law

February 18, 2011

Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 10-16

Now watch the magic and do not miss the keywords at the bottom of the abstract either.



papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702492

On the Origins of Western Law and Western Civilization (in the Indus Valley)



Robin Bradley Kar

University of Illinois College of Law



February 18, 2011



Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 10-16



Abstract:

Western Law and Western Civilization are often said to be parts of a distinctive tradition, which differentiates them from their counterparts in the “East,” and explains many of their special capacities and characteristics. On one common version of this story, as propounded by legal scholars such as Harold Berman, Western Civilization begins with a return to the texts of three more primordial traditions: those of ancient Greece, Rome, and Israel. The basic story that Western Civilization finds its origins in ancient Greek, Roman and Hebrew culture is, however, so familiar and so pervasive that it has rarely - until recently - been questioned in the West.



There is nevertheless a deep sense in which this story is incomplete, and even potentially misleading. This article - along with its sequels - argues that if we are genuinely interested in understanding our origins, in a way that will shed light on why the West has exhibited such distinctive capacities for large-scale human civilization and the rule of law, then the story we commonly tell ourselves starts abruptly in the middle, and leaves out some of the most formative (and potentially transformative) dimensions of the truth. Western Law and Western Civilization are not just the outgrowths of three particularly creative cultures, which straddled the transition from human prehistory into human history, and developed in either Southeastern Europe or the Near East. Rather, the West is descended from a much deeper cultural tradition, which extends all the way back to some of our first human forays out of hunter-gatherer modes of subsistence and into settled agricultural living. The tradition in question began not in Greece, Rome, or Israel, however, but rather in the Indus Valley - which is a region that spans the Northwestern portions of the Indian subcontinent. Our failure to know this about ourselves has limited our self-understanding in critical respects, and has prevented us from realizing useful aspects of our traditions - including, in some cases, aspects that make them work so well for large-scale human civilization.



We live in an era in which it is, moreover, especially important to decipher the deepest origins of Western Law and Civilization. Scholars within the emerging “legal origins” tradition have now produced an impressive body of empirical work, which suggests that we can explain a broad range of features of modern societies in terms of the origins of their laws. This literature suggests that legal origin variables can have strong effects on issues as diverse as corporate governance structure, labor regulations, the robustness of capital markets, and even literacy and infant mortality rates.



The present article argues that this literature has nevertheless been working with legal origin variables that fail to track genuine lines of genetic descent. It then develops a distinctive, and more complete, picture of the phylogenetic structure of the Indo-European legal family, which traces many of its most important developments in human prehistory. A proper understanding of this family tree should have important empirical implications: this work can, for example, be used to help explain why certain exportations of Western-style legal institutions have worked so well while others have not. Inquiries of this kind should, moreover, have special urgency today, given the massive exportations of Western law and Western legal institutions to so many other parts of the world, and given the increased pressures toward westernization that are being felt around the globe.



Number of Pages in PDF File: 105



Keywords: legal origin, western law, western civilization, east, west, orientalism, indus, harappan, rule of law, development, comparative, legal history, indo-european, evolution of law, christianity, druid, brahman, celt, prehistory, berman, edward said, roman law, india, iran, linguistics, social structure



JEL Classification: N00, N13, N15, N10, N20, N30, N40, N43, N45, O10, O57, P50, F01, F00

(Haven't read the article itself, since the abstract gives its usefulness to Hindus away. Plus the article itself, as described, is to be about forging a lineage/a geneology for modern "western" monotheist law tracing to ancient Vedic=Hindoo India's Indus Valley. <- That part is merely the new narrative being manufactured to christo-westernise the inherent OIT assumption in the above.)



From the title itself, can see how the Indus Valley is now suddenly part of the ambit of "western civilisation".



Can see in the above how Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) has magically become self-evidently "western", whereas when the same kinds speak to Hindoos, they insist AIT is true*, that IVC is specifically not associated with Hindoos' ancient Vedic society, that OIT is naturally untrue. Remember it is via Vedic-anything that the west has laid its claim to India: Vedic-anything is dubbed "Indo-Europeanism" after all. And IVC can only be declared as "western" by the alien demons by claiming that IVC is a Vedic civilisation. So this is another assumption long internalised among the west in their internal dialoguing: when the alien demons speak among themselves, they are past assuming OIT, and that IVC is Vedic (and that the Vedas is much older than 1800 BCE, being at least as old as the IVC's origins). And so far have the alien demons moved on to identifying themselves in all this, that they have - for years now, as seen in the date of the journal article above - readily spoken of their "western" law and even all "western civilisation" originating in the IVC.

And like Dhu noted, they are now trying to tie christianism into the IVC. Backwards in time. (Hmmm, like ur-Shramanism attempted too....)





(* They still insist IE-ism being true of course, else they can't make their grandiose claims: IVC can't become "also western" and "therefore" "actually western" without tying Europe to India, i.e without the "Indo-Europeanism" construct.)





Not that all of the above was entirely beyond Indians to work out, when I think about it. There were already implied admissions. If anyone thought about it a bit, the whole thing about Lithuania and Latvia speaking IE except their relatives in neighbouring Estonia speaking Finno-Ugric should have indicated that at least anything deemed "IE" wasn't a Baltic language at all. After which a lot of other and related things become increasingly more suspect, if not start to domino outright.

[And earlier on, the IE-ist west's moronic nazi ancestors sought their origins in Tibet and Ladakh. Also seen in the Korean writer Lee Sam Dol (sp?) writings on how chillingly the nazis, who were IE-ists, went about randomly delineating "oryan" flora and fauna in Tibet from the "later"-introduced non-oryan ones, which last were scheduled to be extincted along with the native humans upon the eventual nazi expansion into Tibet - and probably the entire subcontinent - for their oryan "lebensraum".]



But there should be a prize for the greatest thieves of all. And the greatest genociders of all. The christoconditioned=christo west. (It ain't the genocided heathen west that did this, right?)

After all, they have spent centuries - upto this very moment and beyond into the long-foreseeable future - fomenting genocide in India based on their Aryan Invasion Theory/diabtribe (AIT), even as they knew it to be false.



Could already see indologist Nicholas Kazanas of omilosmeleton speak of "our" Vedas, Skt and IVC etc. It wasn't in compliment to Hindoos=ethnic HindOOs.

Because all such phrasings are a pretence to how the modern west had originated in India, had generated the Vedas, Skt, IVC and then moved to the west where they are now. So that all these things are now magically "still" theirs. Again: when the alien demons pushed AIT, ethnic HindOOs Vedic civilisation was all theirs (minus IVC, because of their own faux-pas in research) and now since they switched over to assuming OIT - which clearly must have happened well before the above journal article (but the real question is how long ago) - they formulate their framework of acquisition just such, that Vedam/Skt/Vedic civilisation is all still theirs (plus the IVC).



Note that they don't even mention OIT - it is obviously a key assumption in their chain of assumptions (their developing on the themes of their own self-aggrandisement) - as they have moved straight past OIT all the way into simply declaring modern western law AND all civilisation derives from its origins in the IVC - i.e. via "their" ancestors at "their" IVC. That's how accomplished their thievery is.

OIT is a silent self-evident assumption, the same way "(in the Indus Valley)" is made self-evident by being placed in brackets.



* Kazanas is more honest. But make no mistake, all those aliens who were openly OIT - including Elst - only support OIT because they consider it all as "theirs". I.e. because of the same self-entitlement as those alien demons who publicly pushed AIT onto Indians, but any number of whom clearly privately subscribed to OIT.



I think every AIT-ist (and preferably every IE-ist too*) should be dragged to the Hague or rather Nuremberg tribunal (isn't that were oryanists=IE-ists were tried) and hung. They are inveterate liars of genocidal scale with genocidal intent.



* They've not proven anything of IE other than that the west is an unwanted spin-off, probably of Iranians - let's blame them, since they're dead - and not at all of Indians. (Also there's the evidence of the Iranian Sarmatians and/or Ossetians and their connection to even Arthurian legends)

Though had they been the spin-off of Indians, then it is true what so many in India had said: copulate with the west and you produce demons.



There is a silver lining here too. It is that the above shows the lie to the faces of dravoodianists and Ur-Shramanists (Jain Minority Forum types and several Buddhism peddlers), who pretended that IVC was dravoodian and that the ur-Shramanists were the natives/dravoodians of the land. They surely realise that, by their own logic and reasoning, they stand condemned, with their own eviction notice now going the other way. [And if it were up to me, there would be no second chances.] It's *too late* for them to come crying that they are a product of Vedic civilisation too. Bloody lying traitors, party to inciting genocide, against the true natives: the loyal ethnic adherents to the ancestral heathenism of the land. The traitors may die for all I care. They *should* kill themselves, to show they at least stand by the consequences of their idiot logic and aren't entirely without principles.





Hindus should work on the OIT-IrMT-HTT (Out of India, Iranian Migration Theory, Hindu Tourist Theory):

+ how a tiny band of Iranians migrated to alien climes and that explains the genetics which the alien OIT-ists like Kar above allude to.

+ How supposedly "IE" languages seen in the west originated in India/Iran, and aren't the west's and hence the word European in Indo-European is entirely unjustified.

+ how the west's supposedly "IE" culture - down to the last "IE" trope - is because of benign ancient Hindoo=Vedic tourists from India-Iran visiting some western climes (not the NW of Europe, though) that taught the aliens, which aliens then went on to pass variations of all such benevolently shared teachings by ethnic HindOOs from India among each other. And then thousands of years passed. And then christianism came and destroyed the ways of life of these ancient Europeans, owing to which they were then genocided and replaced by the gangrene=subvertibles among themselves (those who could be converted to christianism), to their genetic remnants thus transforming unrecognisably into the white supremacist demons seen today, prancing about the world pretending they came up with it all and claiming the originating civilisations for themelves, but whose echoes they had merely heard (been imparted with) but never themselves contributed to.

+ All modern "IE" European languages should be dubbed broken, bastardized variants of Indic/Iranian. That such languages are accidental unwanted formations of whatever was spoken in IVC is an implication in the above article, right? Else how can the "western" law and civilisation originate in the IVC, unless they want to pretend that all major IE branches were already developed and spoken in India back then? Or will they next pretend that the entire modern west first moved from another urheimat to India, built the IVC, after having come up with Vedic civilisation, and then moved out again to all the places they are now? Since they pretend *all* the modern west has a claim on IVC, after all. And the implied connection is via IE and admitted genetic antecedents alone.

I mean, the west is not claiming that pre-IVC, some oryans invaded India and created the IVC. They're claiming it is the origin of all-"western" civilisation. Now how can that be unless they claim the entire modern west - i.e. the "European" in Indo-European (language und kultur) - was to have originated in Bharatam/greater India, at the IVC?



Hindus should push for getting IE denied, since - like I said - the word European in Indo-European is entirely unjustified. Europeans exhibiting any feature of IE-ism (language to tropes) is an accidental by-product of the generosity of Hindoo sharing, as much as any of the few genetic Iranian or even Indian bastard lines that in time fed into what dhu called the "cul-de-sac of EurAsia" (Europe) was an unwanted side-effect. The west are not co-creators (let alone equal ones) in any respect of any aspect of Vedic civilisation including its IVC, since European populations weren't IE-ised yet when Hindoos had first come up with their civilisation in India (which moreover predates IVC, BTW).



Stupid Indians aren't going to use the evil christowestern "admission" of the OIT (which was still only to enrich themselves, while the same peddled AIT in India to Hindoos) to feel sympathy and misplaced kinship with the alien demons are they? Then again, Indian IE-ists have happily married western IE-ists even professional indologists on the grounds of shared IE-ism (belief in shared oryan ancestry).



Hindoos should ban the alien demons from all things Hindoo. Ban them from India, as a source of having only ever brought misery to the natives. Deny the mlecchas access to Skt. Stop teaching them Anything. Stop arming them thereby.

Helping the alien demons is *directly* contributing to destroying the Hindoo heathens/Bharatam. The native Americans also - in their impossible great-heartedness to the alien demons - helped the invading christowest, and shared all things with them. Even as the west then genocided them. That is all the christowest has ever done. So stop sharing with the mleccha demons, dangerously-stupid Hindus. Deny them everything. Keep telling them - repeatedly - to stop poaching on what is not theirs. To stop pretending to "convert" (when at best they subvert). Tell them to stop dabbling. Personally, I'd just like to tell them to throw themselves off a cliff every time any of them expresses an "interest" to dabble.



Think: what good for Hindoos - or any other heathens anywhere in the world - has ever come from the alien demons? Nothing. Nothing good. Only great evil. They're a curse. Stop interacting with them in the field of Hindoo heathenism. Stop giving them any access. And stop intermarrying with them, creating a confusion of where loyalties lie.







And the news was:

dhu wrote the following about a paper he had discovered -

I believe their elite classes now know that OIT is true. It was possible that this was known among their most elite classes at century's turn but now it is well known even among their hoi polloi elite:



The following monograph by Robin Bradley Kar (non-indic as far as I could determine) argues for the origin of Roman Law in the Indus valley. It is a very high level policy type monograph. This is the course of their future appropriating discourse (monotheism originated with them in the Indus Valley...



[size="5"]On the Origins of Western Law and Western Civilization (in the Indus Valley)[/size]

(For which Dhu links to: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702492)



Social Science Research Network http:// www.ssrn.com/

University of Illinois College of Law

February 18, 2011

Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 10-16

Reposted without dhu's permission, but his last intention on the matter was to post the above publicly.

[Husky]

Post 1/2



Was looking into the Indian rhino.

Probably this next had already been read by interested Indians at the time, but being slow, I only noticed it now.



Apparently both the horse and the rhino - and several other sets of mammals - originated in India (presumably before this hurtled itself into the Asian landmass).



The relevance - if any - to the thread is in the comments copied from the link as well as material in blockquotes following the article.



thehindu.com/news/horses-and-rhinos-originated-in-india/article6622486.ece

Updated: November 21, 2014 23:03 IST

'Horses and rhinos originated in India'



PTI





Horses and rhinos likely originated in the Indian subcontinent, over 54 million years ago, according to a new study.



Working at the edge of a coal mine in India, researchers at the Johns Hopkins University and colleagues have filled in a major gap in science's understanding of the evolution of a group of animals that includes horses and rhinos.



The group likely originated on the subcontinent when it was still an island headed swiftly for collision with Asia, the researchers said.



Modern horses, rhinos and tapirs belong to a biological group, or order, called Perissodactyla. Also known as "odd-toed ungulates", animals in the order have, as their name implies, an uneven number of toes on their hind feet.



Though paleontologists had found remains of Perissodactyla from as far back as the beginnings of the Eocene epoch, about 56 million years ago, their earlier evolution remained a mystery, said Ken Rose, a professor of functional anatomy and evolution at Johns Hopkins.



In 2001, Prof. Rose and Indian colleagues began exploring Eocene sediments in western India. In an open-pit coal mine northeast of Mumbai, they uncovered a rich vein of ancient bones. The mine yielded what Prof. Rose said was a treasure trove of teeth and bones.



More than 200 fossils turned out to belong to an animal dubbed Cambaytherium thewissi, about which little was known.



In 1990, researchers at the Stony Brook University suggested that several groups of mammals that appear at the beginning of the Eocene, including primates and odd and even-toed ungulates, might have evolved in India while it was isolated. Cambaytherium is the first concrete evidence to support that idea, Prof. Rose said.



Keywords: Johns Hopkins University, origin of horses, origin of rhinos, Indian subcontinent

Some of the comments:

Vedam Vedaprakash Research at Independent Research from CHETPUT



Wadia pointed out some 40 years back about the finding of fossils of horses around the Madhyapradesh region. Now historians have to answer after 54 million years, whether they were domesticated or not. Particularly, the Harvard experts and Indian pundits should explain their hypotheses and theories. Whether Indian history would be updated with the scientific data or downgraded with the petty hypotheses and theories. Indian Historiography should come out of ideological bias, prejudice and preconceived notions and present history in right perspective. Of course, they might argue that they need not require any "objectivity" in their writing of history, but the common people have been reading and watching their stands and therefore, they have to reassess and write properly. Otherwise, people may have to change them soon. History is not what was / has been written, but it is actually what happened in the past and therefore, presenting past historians should have honesty, integrity and unbia

Points

300

6 months ago



(The oryanist west initially demanded Hindus produce evidence for horse in India before the date set for the AIT.

When the Hindus produced the requested evidence, the west changed the demands: declared that the evidence presented wasn't the 'true horse' - of oryan invasionism - and demanded Hindus produce evidence of the specific species the west had in mind. Not even arguing that the Vedas doesn't actually speak of the specific 'true horse' - but only of a kind known regionally (mention of 17x2 ribs) - was sufficient to dismiss oryanist assumptions.)



Jay from BEAVERTON



This is an interesting find as it shatters the theory of some American Indologist that ancient Indians never had HORSES and so the civilization could never use chariots.....! These foreign Indologist have polluted the minds of many to the extent that they would like to believe that Indian Civilization is a MYTH.

6 months ago



("*Some* AmriKKKan indologists"? And also, what is the difference between "foreign" indologists and native parrots? Nothing. Indology is all about outsiders looking in, trying to read/write themselves into Hindoos' religio-civilisation, and it is predicated on IE. There is no other indology and no point re-defining it to mean something suddenly acceptable to natives either.

Also, again: IIRC the Oryan argument eventually became/conveniently evolved into that Indians never had *true* horses, upon discovering that India had had horses after all. Though the irony is that the alleged oryan-invasive horse is not the one described in the Vedam.)



Rakesh from SANTA CLARA



Like so much other evidence against Aryan invasion theory propounded by Max Muller, now even the horses did not come from Central Asia.

[...]



(But Hindoos, you'd still have to prove that the "true" horses evolved within India and did not come from Central Asia/Eurozone/irgendwo. Nah? The oryanist side makes increasingly more unreasonable demands for proof from Hindus. And so the *modified* alien argument from at least about a decade back goes that the Vedas is supposed to speak only about 'true horses'. Though in actual fact, the Vedic horse was IIRC caught exhibiting a different numbers of ribs (17x2) than the New Only True Horse that oryanists favour (18x2 ribs), and hence if you can prove that the distinct Vedic horsey at least evolved within India, then you may win the point. Though by that time, the christo/dabbling west will merely move the goalpost further again.

So it's not quite enough any more to point out that the horse overall evolved within the Indian landmass. Except, of course, that people like Manansala and Danino already argued the point - back in 2006 itself - that the type of Vedic horsey has been around in SE Asia, [1]

and since a longer time than the alleged AIT.)





Arpan from NEW HAVEN



This should be another nail in the coffin for the Aryan invasion theories. Their long standing argument have been that aryan's brought horses to the subcontinent and post indus valley civilizations. This evidence along with the Bhimbetka rock paintings showing riders [1] will argue that Indians were using horses long before the so called aryan invasion happened. This should bring an end to the British propaganda of the aryan race that they introduced to divide and rule the subcontinent.

Points

180

6 months ago

[1] Arpan said "This evidence along with the Bhimbetka rock paintings showing riders will argue that Indians were using horses long before the so called aryan invasion happened."

-> As well as cave paintings found in Tamizh Nadu dated between 4000 to 3500 ago: Rock Galleries, The Chindu, archived at IF here, which is an article also originally found by dhu.

Experts say the rock paintings at both Mavadaippu and Karikkiyur could be dated to 2000 B.C. to 1500 B.C. [...] The paintings in white ochre include a procession of bisons, monkeys clambering up a tree branch, a herd of deer grazing, human beings welcoming one another with outstretched arms, a battle scene with men aiming at each other with bows and arrows, men on horseback engaged in battle, a shoulder-clasping dance after a successful boar-hunt, a man with a mask, the depiction of sun and its rays, a spiral, a tiger fighting another animal, and a man and his dog ** sleeping.



[img caption:] A battle scene at Karikkiyur, depicting men with bows and arrows and on horse back.

** Aside: an instance of a clearly domesticated wolf (=dog) in India 4000-3500 BP.





[2] "People like Manansala and Danino already argued the point - back in 2006 itself - that the type of Vedic horsey has been around in SE Asia, and since a longer time than the alleged AIT." Repeat:



archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/horse-debate

5. Is the Vedic horse the true horse?



Invasionists are usually unaware that they begin by making an important assumption: they take it for granted that the Vedic horse is the true horse, Equus caballus L. Although this might appear self-evident, it is not. In fact, as some scholars have pointed out, the Rig-Veda47 describes the horse as having 34 ribs; so does a passage in the Shatapatha Brahmana.48 However, the true horse generally has two pairs of 18 ribs, i.e. 36 and not 34.



This suggests that the horse referred to in the Rig-Veda may have been a different species, such as the smaller and stockier Siwalik [the extinct Equus Shivalensis, remains found in both TN and AP and Shivalik hills, Himalayan part of India/Nepal, assumed extinct during the last ice age which ended 10,000 BP] or Przewalski horses [a cuddly-looking endangered Mongolian horse], which often (not always) had 34 ribs. The scholar Paul Manansala, who stressed this point, concluded: "So the horse of India, including that of the asvamedha sacrifice in what is regarded as the oldest part of the Rgveda, is a distinct variety native to southeastern Asia."49



The question is far from solved, as experts in the field do not always see eye to eye, but it also cannot be wished away.

But relevant are also the links/quoted material in the next post.





ADDED:

The Chindu article title "Horses and rhinos originated in India" and the article's opening statement that "Horses and rhinos likely originated in the Indian subcontinent, over 54 million years ago"

are a bit unclear. Because, looking up more info:



1. sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120081752.htm

"Out of India: Finding the origins of horses, rhinos"



But the journal ref is:



Journal Reference:



Kenneth D. Rose, Luke T. Holbrook, Rajendra S. Rana, Kishor Kumar, Katrina E. Jones, Heather E. Ahrens, Pieter Missiaen, Ashok Sahni, Thierry Smith. Early Eocene fossils suggest that the mammalian order Perissodactyla originated in India. Nature Communications, 2014; 5: 5570 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6570

So a common ancestor certainly originated in India.



2. And again:



hub.jhu.edu/2014/11/20/india-fossils-perissodactyla



Ancient relative of horses, rhinos originated in India more than 50 million years ago, fossils show

Finding sheds light on the evolution of this group of animals





ADDED #2:



Can't make out from the news snippet if the dates are for the specific *therium - Cambaytherium - or for its mentioned temporary 'evolutes' (no such thing really) horses and rhinos etc. But either 56 and 54 mya are on the cusp of the merger of Indian plate with the Asian landmass (55-50 mya or even as recent as 35 million years ago):



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Plate

In the late Cretaceous, approximately 100 million years ago and subsequent to the splitting off from Gondwana of conjoined Madagascar and India, the Indian Plate split from Madagascar. It began moving north, at about 20 centimetres (7.9 in) per year,[10] and is believed to have begun colliding with Asia as early as 55 million years ago,[12] in the Eocene epoch of the Cenozoic. However, some authors suggest that the collision between India and Eurasia occurred much later, around 35 million years ago.[13] If the collision occurred between 55 and 50 Mya, the Indian Plate would have covered a distance of 3,000 to 2,000 kilometres (1,900 to 1,200 mi), moving faster than any other known plate. In 2012, paleomagnetic data from the Greater Himalaya was used to propose two collisions to reconcile the discrepancy between the amount of crustal shortening in the Himalaya (~1300 km) and the amount of convergence between India and Asia (~3600 km).[14] These authors propose a continental fragment of northern Gondwana rifted from India, traveled northward, and initiated the "soft collision" between the Greater Himalaya and Asia at ~50 Ma. This was followed by the "hard collision" between India and Asia occurred at ~25 Ma. Subduction of the resulting ocean basin that formed between the Greater Himalayan fragment and India explains the apparent discrepancy between the crustal shortening estimates in the Himalaya and paleomagnetic data from India and Asia.

An example problem concerning the dates being too close/falling within the time of the plate collision:

So even if Cambaytherium at 56 mya or earlier was still on the floating raft that was India around that time, is it known that by the time the raft collided with Asia some evolutionary stage of the creature didn't get "off" the raft and explore its whereabouts? <-> "Horses and rhinos likely originated in the Indian subcontinent, over 54 million years ago". (Say the plat collidded at 55 mya, then there was a million years to disembark and explore nearby Asia and evolve there... Not necessary, but not impossible/not ruled out by the brief description given in the news soundbyte.)



(Devil's advocate Of course, even if the reference to horse in The Chindu etc is correct - as seems not an invalid interpretation - just because horses evolved so long ago in the subcontinent doesn't guarantee anything about the much later time period. For instance, in one of the examples that was mentioned, horses had colonised north America long ago (IIRC they were still present several thousands of years ago) but they went extinct there, and were reintroduced into the Americas by European settlers. (Though the native Americans understood horses much better -naturally- and became inseparable, even as per European descriptions.)

On the other hand, it is still possible that in the Indian case there has been a continuous presence in the subcontinent of some lineage of horse from its first 'officially horse' ancestor deriving from Cambaytherium thewissi, which in time led to the Sivalensis etc. And which last Priyadarshi (see subsequent post) argues is the ancestor of modern Hindoo horses like the Marwari and the rest.

[Husky]

Post 2/2



[3] According to the following page, it seems the extict Hindoo horse -Equus Sivalensis- is considered the oldest "True Horse" after all, besides being thought to have extincted more recently than thus far assumed:



aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/origin-of-the-light-sivalensis-type-horse-from-india/

Linguistic, archaeological and DNA Evidence favouring origin of some breeds of the Domestic Horse "Equus caballus" from India



"Equus sivalensis is the oldest true horse known, it has more highly specialised teeth than the Oreston and Newstead ponies. After Lydekker. Palaeontologia Indica, Ser. x. vol. ii." (Ewart 1911: 366)



Abstract:

Cognate words of the Sanskrit asva (PIE *akwa) are found in nine out of the ten branches the Indo-European family of languages, indicating that the original Indo-European homeland had horse. Although horse bones have been found from the archaeological remains of the Indus Valley Civilization, the oldest domesticated "true horse" bones too have been recovered from India from 8000 BP layer, and wild from 20,000 years back.



The DNA studies of horse shows that the Aryan-horse association is a myth, and that the horse was domesticated at many places. Archaeology shows that the Central Asians were late to use horse, say about 50 AD, and the Central Asian Bactria-Margiana-Archaeological Complex had no horse at all. Thus there was an archaeological disconnect between the Ukrainian and the South Asian horse domestications, meaning that horse was domesticated independently at the two places. This is consistent with the DNA findings.



The Indian sivalensis horse has survived as many modern breeds of horse, and the Arabic, the Thoroughbred of Europe and the Blood races have evolved from the sivalensis. There is a geographical population structuring of Indian horses, indicating that the Indian horses are indigenous and have not been imported.



[...]



The Light Race Horse of Indian Origin



Azzaroli (1985:94) noted that the Indian domestic caballus horse recovered from 1200 BCE horse burials at Katelai (Swat, India) belonged to the "eastern" breed which was different "from the Bronze and Iron Age horses of Eastern and Central Europe and recalls some horses from Etruscan tombs: presumably it belongs to some oriental strain."



The "eastern breed" certainly refers to the sivalensis horse (discussed elsewhere in this article). The Etruscan horses from Populonia and Castro from the first millennium BCE resemble the Swat horse and do not resemble the Bronze or Iron Age horse from north Italy and the rest of Europe as well as the Pleistocene horse of the same area (Azzaroli 1985:146).



Etruscan Horse teracotta Fig. 1 Etruscan teraco

[...]

It's a great page to peruse, and not just for the pictures. (There's a picture labelled "A Marwari Indian Horse". Looks magnificent...)



On this statement by Paul Manansala from Philippines that Danino had quoted:

"So the horse of India, including that of the asvamedha sacrifice in what is regarded as the oldest part of the Rgveda, is a distinct variety native to southeastern Asia."

aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/origin-of-the-light-sivalensis-type-horse-from-india/

There is evidence that the sivalensis horses were taken along with the Neolithic migrations from India to the Southeast Asia and the Philippines. Paterno (1981:396) noted, "This contention is based on some isolated preservation of E. sivalensis traits. However, rather fully-sivalensis types have been described from Neolithic strata (8000-4000 BCE) at Lemery, Batangas in the Philippines together with dog remains." Alba (1994) too notes that the E. sivalensis features are still found in the horses of the so-called "Sulu Horse" and its relatives in Borneo, Sumatra and Malacca. This description implies domestication of sivalensis horse in India before 8000 BCE (10,000 BP).



Ewart (1911) presented a good discussion on the Indian Equus sivalensis and found that this particular wild horse has made a large contribution to modern "true horse" or caballus population of the world. The Thoroughbred breed which is used worldwide today for racing, hunting, polo etc is descended from Equus sivalensis (Ewart:369).



Certain breeds of modern British racehorses have descended from Newstead horse which was a connecting link between the modern British horse breeds and the Indian sivalensis (ibid:370). The Barb breed of North African coast and also the so called Arab breed of horse in fact are descendants of the Equus sivalensis (ibid:369). Lydekker, another specialist of equine breeds too opined that the horses of Arabia, North African coast and the Thoroughbred breed have descended from the Indian Equus sivalensis. (quoted in ibid:369; also Lydekker:19-21). Lydekker, and also Ray Lankester, found that the "blood-horse" too was of Indian origin. (quoted in The Origin and Influence of Thoroughbred Horse, CUP Archives.). This is logical. The term blood-horse is a short form for "warm-blooded horse".



Manansala (p. 396) notes, "In other words, Lydekker now realizes that all the modern breeds are not characterized by long-pillared molars, and says that there is a probability that Barbs, Arabs and Thoroughbreds are descended from Equus sivalensis". He further adds, "However, rather fully sivalensis types have been described from Neolithic strata (8000-4000 BCE) at Lemery, Batangas in the Philippines together with dog remains." (ibid).



In spite of the widely held belief that Equus sivalensis went extinct about 10,000 years back, we have evidence of their existence in the true horse population of India. US Bureau on Animal Industry Fifth Report noted that [...]





[...]

In all event, there is no archaeological evidence of movement of humans or horse from the Central Asia to Iran or India. The BMAC (Bactria-Margiana-Archaeological Complex, 4300-3700 BP) is the southern Central Asian cultural complex. It has been found that there was no horse in the BMAC (Witzel 2003:7 of 12, pdf). No horse related furniture has been found. This clearly rules out any migration of horse or horse riding Aryans from this route to Iran or India. Clearly Indian antiquity of horse is older than that of the Central Asia. That means horse was domesticated in India and Ukrainian steppe independently of each other.



Moreover, Hiebert (1998:153) noted, "no steppe nomadic complex has been found on the Iranian plateau, not even evidence of indirect contact or interaction… The only evidence for interaction … comes from the Central Asia desert oasis cultures." Thus any migration of man or horse from steppe to Indo-Iran is ruled out by archaeology.



The Linguistics of Horse

[...]

Etc.

Again, great page.





[4] The AIT myth site seems to have other interesting pages, presumably by the same author.

aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/



Some Domestic Animals of the Indo-European Homeland and their dispersal

P. Priyadarshi

Bouckaert's study is bad in design because the meanings (words) which were listed for the various languages for the comparative study did not include any farming related "meaning" like horse, cow, bull, goat, lamb, sheep, pig, chariot, wheel, mouse, cook, grind, mill and similar Neolithic associated meanings, which are most relevant to the study of the farming related Indo-European migrations (which the article claims to have achieved). The study was biased too, because it considered only two options or possibilities for the homeland—Anatolia and the steppe (p.959). The result is marred by the use of the wrong data for the Indian languages.



The Vedic word (paśu, from PIE pek, cattle; Pokorny:797) for the meaning "animal" has been given a low rating (single star), while more obscure words from the many European languages have been given high ratings (up to three stars). Often, words have been chosen from the Vedic in such a way that these would be scored "not cognate" in the computerized analysis. One simple example of such manipulation is the meaning "warm": for Vedic Sanskrit they have listed uṣṇa, instead of the Vedic word gharma- (cognate to PIE *ghwer-) reducing one mark to the Vedic. Such manipulation of data completely erodes the credibility of this study. Even after doing them, the Vedic stands older (2,900 BCE) than the European languages in the study.

Appalling though, how deliberately unscientific indologicals are - i.e. how motivated they all are.



There's also a section showing that sheep and pig domestication happened in India. And goat too apparently. So that's horse, goat, sheep and pig domesticated since ur-times in India (the arguments are detailed at the links).



More shocking stuff:

Sir William Ridgeway was wise enough to assert in the year 1905 that the Przewalski was not the ancestor of the caballus horses (Ridgeway:425). However, as the Aryan theory gained influence, more and more authors started saying that the steppe horse Przewalski was the ancestor of the caballus horses. To their frustration, the DNA studies have concluded that not a single horse lineage has descended from the Przewalski (Achilli; Weinstock). The Przewalski and the caballus have different chromosome numbers, and actually they belong to different species. On this basis we can say that the domestic horse found in the steppe and Central Asia was surely imported from outside.



The much widely publicized story of the horse domestication at Dereivka (horse-and-dog burial, Ukraine) at 4200-3700 BCE, which is generally believed even today, proved wrong in 2000. The dates claimed were of the soil layer, not of the skull. The Dereivka horse was never accepted as domestic horse by a large number of scholars (like Levine, Hausler etc). To silence the opposition, the skull bone was directly radiocarbon dated and found to be from 3000 BCE (Anthony 1997). However it became soon obvious that this report was wrong as a bone not actually belonging to the horse had been tested by mistake. Still later, by actual radiocarbon dating of the horse skull, it came out that the horse-burial had been made by a much later settlement, settled over the same place (Scythian era 800-200 BCE), digging deep into the lower layers. David Anthony, author of the Dereivka story was left with no choice. He quickly retracted his earlier claim (Anthony:2000, 2009:215).

(Awww, another crash-and-burn.)



Thus the 4200 BCE domestic horse no more exists, although many authors still beat its drum. The DNA studies have proved that the horse had been domesticated at more than seventy places throughout Eurasia (Vila; Tatjan; Kavar). However, horse was possibly not domesticated in the Central Asia and the steppe, while it was domesticated in India and Spain. The progenitor of the Indian domestic horse was the wild sivalensis horse, and that of the Spanish was the Tarpan horse. This is the only parsimonious solution. Many horse breeds of the Iberian Peninsula (like the Pottoka) were locally evolved much before the Aryans arrived into the penninsula (Solis 2005:677; Achilli 2011:4 pdf).

This second page seems a great read too, but reposting just the conclusion section now:

Conclusion: The domestic animals pig, goat, sheep, cow and horse were late to arrive in the steppe. This we can say on the basis of the archaeology, DNA studies and the linguistics. The Indo-European languages had spread widely before these animals arrived in the steppe. We find that the Slavic languages, the language of the steppe region is poor in vocabulary for the domestic animals. On the other hand, India shows a long history of domestication of these animals on the basis of archaeology, DNA studies and linguistics.



We find in our study that the steppe region fails to meet the requirements for being the homeland when the archaeological, genetic and philological facts are examined. On the other hand the South Asia, particularly India, passes all of the genetic, the archaeological and the philological tests. The evidence suggests at least two large migrations out of India having impact on other cultures. One at the dawn of the Neolithic marked by the R1a1a and the J2b migrations, and the other at the Chalcolithic period about 3,000-2,500 BCE.

The entire article is at the link.

And there are many more at the site



aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/



But don't get why Indians like Priyadarshi still continue to call them *Indo-European* (IE) languages, though. As such an equally-weighted name still gives undeserved importance to the aliens (the 'European' part of the term), by pretending they have anything to do with all this, other than that the so-called "IE-ness" they exhibit - language and religio-culture - is no more than an accidental by-product of a few outward trajectories and their being a receptacle for knowledge.



And wow again:



aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/the-vedic-history-revealed-from-the-fossil-pollens/

[...]

Fig. The beech line passing through Poland and Romania, East of which beech tree is not found



Witzel claimed that the beech was found in the steppe, much to the east of the modern beech-line, at the Atlantic period about 5,500 to 3,000 BC (Witzel 2001:51 n120; 61 n146). This is a clear case of concoction. The archaeological evidence from palynology has proved that the beech was found only in South France, South Italy and the south Balkans (Greece, Macedonia etc) before 3000 BC (Tonkov; Feurdean). The much later expansion of the beech tree was from south (Balkan Peninsula) to north and from west (France) to east, not from east to west. It has also been proved archaeologically that the steppe never had beech over the last 12,000 years and the nearest beech forests in the mountains of Ukraine and Romania had beech only over the last 4000 years (since about 2000 BC). Thus the claim can be proved bogus on the basis of sound material evidence.



It is an example how the Eurocentric authors have thus taken recourse to deception and concoction to write whatever they wanted to prove, and the thing was accepted as fact by others. The great difficulty for history was that the hard evidence was circumvented by lies.



Witzel tells another untruth in the same article that the beech tree is not found in Greece, and adds that the word for beech tree fagus (Latin) was adopted in the Greek language to mean 'oak' because Greece is a beech-less country (2001:51, 61; 2005:394). This is again a huge concoction and deception. Forest survey reports from Greece mention that beech is found there in plenty (Bergmeier 2001). Archaeology too proves that the Balkan Peninsula, in which Greece is located, is the oldest home of beech in Europe (vide supra).



Thus the beech tree has been found in Greece since at least 12,000 years back, and has expanded only recently to other places. Unfortunately, Elst contradicted Witzel's logic well, yet did not notice the concoction in his story.[6] Clearly the Greeks never had the identification problem for 'beech' because had been there always. We can say that the Greek word phagos (oak) has not changed its meaning on arrival of IE in Greek, rather the Latin fagus is a borrowing into Latin (Gk phagos, oak > L. fagus) with associated change of meaning, and it was applied to name a different tree 'beech' in the Latin language, because of disappearance of the oak from the Latin speaking regions about 5,000 BC. Hence we can date the arrival of Indo-European into the South-West Europe to a date between 5000 and 2,500 BC.



[...]

Geez. I knew WitSSel was a liar, didn't know he was quite so compulsive at it...

As for why the subject of beech trees is relevant at all becomes apparent from perusing the material at that link.

Citation:



Priyadarshi, P., 2013, Evidence of Indo-European origins from the Early Holocene pollen studies, linguistics and climatology, Dialogue, July-Sept 2013, Vol 15, No. 1.





Evidence of Indo-European origins from the Early Holocene pollen studies, linguistics and climatology



by P. Priyadarshi

Apparently Priyadarshi (who refers to Stephen Oppenheimer as a friend) has written a book. Amazon entry:

In Quest of the Dates of the Vedas: Comprehensive Study of the Vedic and the Indo-European Flora, Fauna and Climate in Light of the Information Emerging from the Disciplines of Archaeology, Archaeo-<botany?>, Geology, Genetics and Linguistics for the Last 10,000 Years

Paperback September 2, 2014

by Premendra Priyadarshi (Author)



About the Author

Dr. Premendra Priyadarshi, MBBS, MD, MRCP (UK), is Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. He views science as a source for writing history. In the past, he wrote about the origins of human civilization basing on the published articles about human as well as the domestic plant and animal lineages.

Most interestingly, going by the chapter headings of his book visible from Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, he does exactly what one wishes people had done (in proper depth) earlier: look into the relevant flora and fauna that the matter concerns.



The entire book or a good chunk appears to be available at the author's site itself.

[Husky]

Related to #445 and actually also #443 above.



Powerpoint: aryaninvasionmyth.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/eurasiatic-review-of-pagel-2013.ppsx

via aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/criticism-of-ultraconserved-words-point-to-deep-language-ancestry-across-eurasia/



Doesn't focus on IE, but primarily about dispersal of Uralic and Altaic etc language families, also from an OIT model (which makes sense considering the early times involved). Kartvelian and Basque is also explained.

Deeper time frames make sense.

And ANI/ASI is also better explained visually here.



When read in conjuction with at least the pages linked in the previous post (also below), can mentally extrapolate the configuration in the powerpoint for the spread of so-called "IE" languages from within India as shown in the author's repeated migration model and as per the timeline he gives for this. Surely it is worth considering now and no longer of blanket odium, since Robin Kar Bradley* (and who knows how many others), seen in post 443, has already admitted OIT in his legal context and self-evidently - as implied in the illegally self-aggrandising "The origins 'western' civilisation (in the indus valley)" of his title. And he specifically stated in his article's abstract

Rather, the West is descended from a much deeper cultural tradition, which extends all the way back to some of our first human forays out of hunter-gatherer modes of subsistence and into settled agricultural living. The tradition in question began not in Greece, Rome, or Israel, however, but rather in the Indus Valley - which is a region that spans the Northwestern portions of the Indian subcontinent.

[* 'Cause Indians always need Euro approval. And what better than the approval by those Euros who are still obviously antagonistic - who, even as they admit OIT, they continue to claim away anyway? And although Bradley did not speak of the Indus Valley being in "South Asia" or "India/Pakistan" but in the Indian subcontinent, it is only because he is regarding natural geography not political geography of the time, certainly not religious geography of the time in question or the religio-political one of the present. The west was always adamant that Vedic India has no relation to modern Hindoos and their nation.]

• aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/the-vedic-history-revealed-from-the-fossil-pollens/
  
  
• aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/origin-of-the-light-sivalensis-type-horse-from-india/
  
  
• aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/
  
  
  
  

Along with the author's response at "June 6, 2013 at 8:43 pm" to a comment's question on that last page aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/



The author's argument about focusing on the Mus (mouse) migrations - which repeatedly accompanied humans out of India - as these are non-controversial, is quite reasonable.





This was a bit disturbing:

aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/

no DNA comparison of the Indian and European horses has ever been made

Actually, that's telling in itself.

[Husky]

Found this total revelation via the twitter feed at the Rajeev2004 blog. Rajeev merely made a comment about inbreeding in Europe w.r.t. the following news. But IMO, the implications are a whole lot more explosive.



rt.com/news/260469-bronze-age-ancestors-dna/

Family trio: Majority of European men descended from just 3 ancestors, study finds

Published time: May 20, 2015 17:26



Reuters / Paul Hackett

1.3K973



Tags

Europe, History, Science



Two-thirds of modern-day European males trace their genetic roots to just three Bronze Age forbears, who almost literally launched the "population explosion" many centuries ago, a new DNA study suggests.



Before coming to this conclusion, a research team from the University of Leicester analyzed the DNA sequences of 334 modern European men from 17 different European and Middle Eastern populations, focusing on the large portions of the Y-chromosome passed exclusively from fathers to sons.

(No comment about sample size. But when they say "European and ME populations", surely that should include the Steppes/Ukraine and Caucasia and Anatolia and Russia too, right?)



Their findings were published in the Nature Communications.



After that they compared the DNA from each population in order to trace the key mutations in the genomes and find out when they might have occurred. Such an approach allowed the scientists to trace paternal lines down through a long period of history.



One mutation they found originated around 4,750 to 7,340 years ago and is prevalent in Norwegian and Orcadian populations. The second occurred between 3,700 and 6,500 years ago and has spread throughout Spain, Italy, France, England and Ireland. The third dated from about 3,470 to 5,070 years ago is prominent in the Sami in Lapland, Norwegians, Danes and Friesian populations in the Netherlands, as well as being found in France, Hungary, Serbia and Bavaria, the study reports.

(Date ranges are very interesting.

Sami may have got it from Norwegians, since there has been known Norwegian-Sami etc mixing. Even the best-looking Norwegian - looks as close as a human can to Thor, IMO :Thor: - was "accused" of having "indigenous", i.e. Saami, ancestry.)



Read more

Missing link? African bones predate earliest-known humans by 400,000yrs



According to the researchers, these three paternal lines account for about 63 percent of modern European men. That means that from 371.25 million males currently living in Europe around 233 million are descendants of just three men, as reported by the Daily Mail.



Those branches of the European genetic tree are fairly young, which suggests most modern populations settled in Europe only after the spread of farming during the Neolithic era, rather than during the period of hunter-gatherers moving across the continent in the Paleolithic era, as previously thought.



(Oooh, did they just shoot down the European Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) for 2/3rds of Europe, which IIRC insisted on modern population/genetic and language configurations in Europe having persisted since the Paleaolithic. 'Coincidentally' sounds a bit like the 2/3rds of Europe that falls under the oryanism infamy



According to the scientists, the time of "population explosion" was also a period of social, economic and technological advances.



"The population expansion falls within the Bronze Age, which involved changes in burial practices, the spread of horse-riding and developments in weaponry," Professor Mark Jobling, a lead researcher and geneticist at the University of Leicester, said.



"Dominant males linked with these cultures could be responsible for the Y chromosome patterns we see today," he added.



Although it is still unclear who exactly the 'fathers' in these paternal lineages were, or even if they were born in Europe, the scientists believe they were influential and powerful individuals, likely tribal chieftains.

(Wait wait. All of a measly 3 individual male oryans seeded 2/3 of European gene pool - and it reached there only since the bronze age? Classic.

So much for Oryan males thundering over Europe in their horse-drawn chariots. More likely 3 gotras kicked out of some Iranian or Indian land. Oh, did I faux-pas?)



Read more

Mankind's missing microbe-link found in deep sea � study



According to the researchers, people in positions of power would tend to travel more widely and father far more children than their subjects, so their lineages became dominant.



"We think that a social structure in which resources and power are more easily accessible to only some men may allow for a few paternal lineages to become very frequent in a short amount of time," Dr. Chiara Batini, a co-author of the research and a geneticist at the University of Leicester, said.



The scientists are now planning to continue their study, as it can help them to gain deeper understanding of how the three identified paternal lineages spread across Europe.



"Given the cultural complexity of the Bronze Age, it's difficult to link a particular event to the population growth that we infer," Batini said.



"But Y-chromosome DNA sequences from skeletal remains are becoming available, and this will help us to understand what happened, and when," she added.

Before anything else, here's a relevant comment at the link, since hyperactive christians are starting to hyper-ventilate in delusional excitement over an opportunity to tie nonsensical biblical junk to the news:

Nova Shpakova

C9V706

Those 3 men where Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The j's are from Esau mixed with a strand of every othermore...

No way whatsoever! Besides, since all 3 of those you mentioned HAVE the same male ancestor, there wouldn't be any differences shown as are seen, in their Y-chromo sequences. They were all from toatlly distinct patronages... that was the point of this study. Further, the test doesn't show any from semitic or middle-eastern origins.

Back to the main article.

I need a moment. Still can't get over the implication - unless I misunderstood it all yet again - that all of 3 male oryans (3 male oryan lineages) on their chariots came wheeling down Europe, one went north, one went far west, one went to the near west. "We came, we saw, we conquered. 2/3rds!" (By the way, oryans is particularly implied in the whole "spread of horse-riding" etc paragraph.)



The implications that the genetic spread spoken of is now to have happened "after the spread of farming" is huge too. (C.f. From what I understand of others, the Vedam seems to speak of a non-farming - what others explain as pre-farming - era and a farming/post-farming one.)



Note it concerns the *Bronze Age*, right? (In Europa)



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Europe

The European Bronze Age is characterized by bronze artifacts and the use of bronze implements. The regional Bronze Age succeeds the Neolithic. It starts with the Aegean Bronze Age in 3200 BCE[1] (succeeded by the Beaker culture), and spans the entire 2nd millennium BCE (Unetice culture, Tumulus culture, Terramare culture, Urnfield culture and Lusatian culture) in Northern Europe, lasting until c. 600 BCE.

Compare the dates to Priyadarshi's discussions, linked in previous 2 posts. Summary:



aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/

Conclusion: The domestic animals pig, goat, sheep, cow and horse were late to arrive in the steppe. This we can say on the basis of the archaeology, DNA studies and the linguistics. The Indo-European languages had spread widely before these animals arrived in the steppe. We find that the Slavic languages, the language of the steppe region is poor in vocabulary for the domestic animals. On the other hand, India shows a long history of domestication of these animals on the basis of archaeology, DNA studies and linguistics.



We find in our study that the steppe region fails to meet the requirements for being the homeland when the archaeological, genetic and philological facts are examined. On the other hand the South Asia, particularly India, passes all of the genetic, the archaeological and the philological tests. The evidence suggests at least two large migrations out of India having impact on other cultures. One at the dawn of the Neolithic marked by the R1a1a and the J2b migrations, and the other at the Chalcolithic period about 3,000-2,500 BCE.

So where are all those Euros who were jumping up and down about the "diversity of IE" (the many branches) in Europe vs there being only one "branch" - 'Indo-aryan' - in India, hence IE origins being in Europe. Yet the genetic diversity - seen in 2/3rds in Europe deriving from 3 people in its bronze age - ain't in Europe. Quick someone, place locus of origination in Anatolia or the Steppes. Someone.



I'm not the one who brought in oryanism and tied it to the 3 ancestors of 2/3rds of Europe. Repeat:

"The population expansion falls within the Bronze Age, which involved changes in burial practices, the spread of horse-riding and developments in weaponry," Professor Mark Jobling, a lead researcher and geneticist at the University of Leicester, said.



"Dominant males linked with these cultures could be responsible for the Y chromosome patterns we see today," he added.

The above is *far* from an oblique reference to Oryanism. It is a direct reference.

Weaponry and bronze age -> metallurgy, claimed for oryanism.

"Spread of horse riding" -> claimed for oryanism

"Change in burial practices" -> allusion to oryanism (probably ref to mounds or else burial urns after cremation.)



Soon peddlers of "Celtic civilisation/civilising influence seen in the Asian part of Eurasia, bang on against China" - like Victor Mair - will peddle that these all started off in the Asian part of Eurasia too, long before they reached any part of Europe proper.

And then they may even speak about the ancestors of western civilisation who left the Indus Valley...Oh wait, they already did that. Duh. I'm so far behind the times.

Except that it all comes down to just 3 people. Who could IMO just be riff-raff who were kicked out from wherever.



3 founding men (lineages) for 2/3rds of Europe's inhabitants post Bronze Age certainly doesn't yet deny my theory from previous posts:

But don't get why Indians like Priyadarshi still continue to call them *Indo-European* (IE) languages, though. As such an equally-weighted name still gives undeserved importance to the aliens (the 'European' part of the term), by pretending they have anything to do with all this, other than that the so-called "IE-ness" they exhibit - language and religio-culture - is no more than an accidental by-product of a few outward trajectories and their being a receptacle for knowledge.



* They've not proven anything of IE other than that the west is an unwanted spin-off, probably of Iranians - let's blame them, since they're dead - and not at all of Indians.

("Iranians - let's blame them, since they're dead" -> ancestral pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion, hence Iranian identity is dead. Plus in Iran itself islamised people are part Arabic, and some are part Turkic because of recorded forced mixing perpetrated by islam. Also happening again now to Yezidis: masses of kidnapped Yezidi women are being raped by islamic males from Iraq/Syria and beyond, and forced to have their children.)



Also, 3 founding fathers (their lineages) for 2/3rds of Europe - which the article tries to tie with the people "who spread horse-riding and brought a change in burial practices and developments in metallurgy" aka the "oryans" aka the source of IE language infusion - from whom eventually came the massive split into multiple "IE" language "branches". Actually now I think of it, any population whose ancestral language something is not, would naturally not care to preserve it in pristine manner, but readily continue changing it, resulting in all kinds of subbranches.

Whereas Skt has more built-in features to preserve its pristine nature as best as possible, and its ethnic=true speakers (i.e. ethnic Hindoos onlee) have more interest in maintaining it as well as possible (and have modes of transmission for this), because it is their language and they care to keep it intact well. <- Another explanation for the "great diversity" of IE language branches in Europa and the "limited" diversity of Indian languages. Though the true diversity is still India: which has the greatest number of languages in any country in the world, a great many if not most of which are deemed "Indo-Aryan" and are usually derived from Skt or from its sisters ("Dardic"). As per 80s British encyclopaedias, India has 900+ languages and dialects. And PNG or Indonesia was 2nd place with IIRC 300+ languages and dialects. Matches with ancientry of these spaces.





BTW, if 3 individuals connected with the "spread of horse-riding" etc (i.e. IE ism) brought IE languages/IE-ism to Europe, then there should only be at most 3 original IE language branches in Europa, nah? Which 3 shall it be? Greek definitely, but which others?



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages#Diversification

Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Don Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following evolutionary tree of Indo-European branches:[48]



Pre-Anatolian (before 3500 BC)

Pre-Tocharian

Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (before 2500 BC)

Pre-Armenian and Pre-Greek (after 2500 BC)

Pre-Germanic and Pre-Balto-Slavic;[48] proto-Germanic ca. 500 BC[49]

Proto-Indo-Iranian (2000 BC)



David Anthony proposes the following sequence:[12]



Pre-Anatolian (4200 BC)

Pre-Tocharian (3700 BC)

Pre-Germanic (3300 BC)

Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (3000 BC)

Pre-Armenian (2800 BC)

Pre-Balto-Slavic (2800 BC)

Pre-Greek (2500 BC)

Proto-Indo-Iranian (2200 BC); split between Iranian and Old Indic 1800 BC

Except for "Indo-Iranian" and Tocharian (Tarim Basin was an offshoot of Indic and possibly Iranian anyway as per archaeologists)

the rest are all... in Europe. Way too many PIE subbranches to appear in Europe from 3 people. So some of these subbranches (pre-<Euro-language>) must actually fold back into others. Unless they admit that several branches were not evolved in Europe at all. But in which case, the dates provided are also very recent: nothing natively "European" about European languages.



Still, European Paleolithic Continuity Theory for Indo-European languages may not be the case any more: if a mere 3 individuals had such influence to change the culture of Europe via new imported developments in the neolithic and in fact in the Bronze age part, they could have changed the language too (certainly introducing the terms for these new developments).





I now also seriously suspect, as Dhu etc had done long before, that the west is going to slyly introduce OIT to its public - since it's already accepted by some of their elites, as seen in the journal article discovered by Dhu - but in such a way that the west claims the Indus Valley Civilisation as its own originality/its own origins even by making it sound "western" in ownership/creation and indeed as "western all along". And the west will further make it seem that it was "right all along" too in its (so obviously motivated) analyses, while the Indians were nationalist, wrong and Hindoo of course, even if Hindoos are eventually grudgingly admitted as first peddling OIT. Just like aliens only rarely admit that Hindus came up with a Paleolithic Continuity Theory before the European spin off (which was clearly inspired by the Hindu excample), and even then, the admission only ever appears if the west can throw in an insult with it:

PCT appears, after all, to be the European answer to "Paleolithic Aryan" nonsense in India.

I hope Hindoos will eject alien claims to appear hereafter on the Vedam and Vedic religion. Via the alien disease's inevitable excuse that suddenly "So now it belongs equally to us/is equally ancestral to us" excuse. Not at all. Just cause some stray people were kicked out of Iran (and perhaps NW India) in the Bronze age - when development of weaponry and spread of horse-riding and change in burial practices arrived in Europe - is no claim on Hindoos' Vedic religion, which far precedes that oh-so-late date. And Roma/Gypsies also ended up in Europe, but many were not of communities steeped in direct knowledge of the Vedam (in terms of being able to quote from it). Aliens certainly have no claim on the Vedam or its civilisation. The dabbling demons can stop dabbling, and should be made to stop IMO.





Another Q: did Europe turn "white" in the bronze age? We know that 7000 years ago, there lived a hunter gatherer in Spain with Scandinavian genes - complete with genes coding for blue eyes in him - except for those genes which encoded his by all accounts African skintone. So it's some point thereafter that Europe must have turned "white".

And it must have been a powerful spread too: because Europe's been "white" ever since. Could it have spread with the now-infamous 3 fathers of 2/3rds of Europe? Since they are known to have had a drastic effect on the European gene pool.



Have the scientists of this study already worked out the skintone phenotype of the 3 male fathers of 2/3rds of modern Europe, or is that that can't be inferred from the genetic data available to the study?



Did these 3 male ancestors carry some whiteness genes?



(And: where they kicked out from wherever they came from for sporting a "white" phenotype on their part? After all, "whiteness" is not common in other parts of the world, only in Europa, those of European-origin always say. 'Claim to fame/claim to uniqueness.' [Whereas light eye colours are not unique to Europa. Nor to humans either, of course.]

Modern Africans don't trust Albino Africans, who regularly get murdered by other Africans, and some even sell certain body parts of Albino Africans, as per the news. And even modern Indians have a hard time comfortably identifying with albino ethnic Hindoos in their midst. And IIRC Indians or Iranians at some forum quoted from supposedly primary sources how ancient Iranians didn't trust blue/green-eyed people, and shunned them or sent them packing or something. So the question is not unreasonable.)





The news was:



Full text at link or start of this post. The following contains only excerpts.

More news on the subject is presumably at DailyMail UK



rt.com/news/260469-bronze-age-ancestors-dna/

Family trio: Majority of European men descended from just 3 ancestors, study finds



Published time: May 20, 2015 17:26



Reuters / Paul Hackett



Two-thirds of modern-day European males trace their genetic roots to just three Bronze Age forbears, who almost literally launched the "population explosion" many centuries ago, a new DNA study suggests.



Before coming to this conclusion, a research team from the University of Leicester analyzed the DNA sequences of 334 modern European men from 17 different European and Middle Eastern populations, focusing on the large portions of the Y-chromosome passed exclusively from fathers to sons.





One mutation they found originated around 4,750 to 7,340 years ago and is prevalent in Norwegian and Orcadian populations. The second occurred between 3,700 and 6,500 years ago and has spread throughout Spain, Italy, France, England and Ireland. The third dated from about 3,470 to 5,070 years ago is prominent in the Sami in Lapland, Norwegians, Danes and Friesian populations in the Netherlands, as well as being found in France, Hungary, Serbia and Bavaria, the study reports.



According to the researchers, these three paternal lines account for about 63 percent of modern European men. That means that from 371.25 million males currently living in Europe around 233 million are descendants of just three men, as reported by the Daily Mail.



Those branches of the European genetic tree are fairly young, which suggests most modern populations settled in Europe only after the spread of farming during the Neolithic era, rather than during the period of hunter-gatherers moving across the continent in the Paleolithic era, as previously thought.



According to the scientists, the time of "population explosion" was also a period of social, economic and technological advances.



"The population expansion falls within the Bronze Age, which involved changes in burial practices, the spread of horse-riding and developments in weaponry," Professor Mark Jobling, a lead researcher and geneticist at the University of Leicester, said.



"Dominant males linked with these cultures could be responsible for the Y chromosome patterns we see today," he added.



Although it is still unclear who exactly the 'fathers' in these paternal lineages were, or even if they were born in Europe, the scientists believe they were influential and powerful individuals, likely tribal chieftains.

[Husky]

Related to the news article in the previous post, which mentioned dailymail as having an item on the subject.



Post 2/n



1. dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3088004/The-three-forefathers-Europe-Two-thirds-modern-European-men-descended-just-trio-Bronze-Age-leaders.html

The forefathers of Europe: Two thirds of modern European men descend from just THREE Bronze Age leaders



Scientists analysed the DNA of 334 modern European men

They found distinct paternal families originating 3,500 to 7,300 years ago

Mutations in the DNA suggest these families sprung from just three men

Their descendants spread across Europe around 2,000 to 4,000 years ago (i.e. spread at 2000 BCE max)



By Richard Gray for MailOnline



Published: 15:45 GMT, 19 May 2015 | Updated: 17:32 GMT, 19 May 2015





More than 60 per cent of males in modern-day Europe descend from Bronze Age leaders.



Genetic researchers estimate that three families in particular, which originated around 5,000 years ago, rapidly expanded across the continent.



And the study suggests that the spread of modern populations across Europe occurred much later than had originally been thought.



[img caption] The researchers found three distinct recent mutations that occurred in 63% of the men tested - I1, R1a and R1b - as shown in the diagram (a) above. The map marked (b ) shows the populations the scientists tested and the proportion of their DNA that is made up from each of the mutations shown in the diagram marked a



Rather than occurring during the Palaeolithic period as hunter-gatherers moved across the continent, it appears that most modern populations appear to have settled in Europe after the spread of farming during the Neolithic.



Professor Mark Jobling, a geneticist at the University of Leicester who led the research, said it was likely the forefathers of the three main paternal lineages detected were powerful Early Bronze Age tribe leaders.



He said: 'The population expansion falls within the Bronze Age, which involved changes in burial practices, the spread of horse-riding and developments in weaponry.



'Dominant males linked with these cultures could be responsible for the Y chromosome patterns we see today.'



The researchers, whose work is published in the journal Nature Communications, analysed the DNA sequences from the Y chromosomes of 334 men from 17 populations across Europe and the Middle East.



These included men from England, Bavaria, Orkney, Turkey, Greece, Norway, and Hungary.



They searched for mutations on the Y chromosome that are only carried by men, and so can be used to trace paternal lines through families.



By comparing the DNA from each of the populations they were able to trace key mutations in the genomes and work out when they may have occurred.



They found one mutation appears to have originated around 4,750 to 7,340 years ago and is prevalent in Norwegian and Orkadian populations.



Another mutation seems to have occurred between 3,700 and 6,500 years ago and has spread throughout Spain, Italy, France, England and Ireland.



A third mutation seems to have occurred in a man who lived between 3,470 and 5,070 years ago and is prominent in the Sami in Lapland, Norwegian, Danish, Frisia populations in the Netherlands, but can also be found in France, Hungary, Serbia and Bavaria.

(Oooh missed this last time: no Greece. Well these news reports mean noting if they can say nothing about Greece.)



Together, the scientists estimate from their findings, that these three paternal lines account for 63 per cent of the European men currently living.



In 2013 there were approximately 742.5 million people living in Europe, and if this had an equal gender split, would leave 371.25 million males.



Two thirds of this works out at around 233 million people being descendants of this trio - however, this is an estimate due to the fact it is not known how many of these people originated in Europe.



While it is unclear exactly who the men were that first fathered these paternal lines, it is likely that they were influential or powerful individuals.



[img caption] The pie-charts show the frequencies of Y-chromosome groups across regions. One mutation was found to be prevalent in Norwegian and Orkadian populations. Another mutation spread throughSpain, Italy, France, England and Ireland, and a third is prominent in the Netherlands, France, Hungary, Serbia and Bavaria



[img caption] Stonehenge (above) is thought to have been built by Neolithic inhabitants of Britain but the new research suggests they were largely replaced by the descendants of Bronze Age leaders who spread through Europe

(Red bit relevant for later.)



This is because people in positions of power tend to travel more widely and father far more children than their inferiors.



Recent research suggested that 16 million men across the world could be related to Genghis Khan, the Mongol leader who died in 1227.



The study traced a cluster of extremely similar Y chromosome DNA back to a single ancestor who lived in Mongolia around 800 years ago.



The Mongolian warlord is thought to have been the only man with the opportunity to father enough children for the genes to have spread.



[img caption] Genghis Khan is thought to have fathered hundreds of children as his armies conquered much of Asia while his sons also continued to spread his Y-chromosome around the world as they expanded the Mongol empire



Dr Chiara Batini a geneticist at the University of Leicester who was co-authored the Bronze Age study, said further research could help scientists and historians understand what led to the spread of the three Bronze Age families across Europe.



She said: 'Given the cultural complexity of the Bronze Age, it's difficult to link a particular event to the population growth that we infer.



'But Y-chromosome DNA sequences from skeletal remains are becoming available, and this will help us to understand what happened, and when.'



She added that other research has suggested some of the lineages appear to have originally migrated from the steppe near to the Black Sea.

(But the steppe region and Baltics too have been left out in this study: the maps in the images at the dailymail article show that Ukraine/Russia/steppes/north of Black Sea were totally not taken into account. Wouldn't it be meaningful to know how exactly the 3 Bronze Age individuals that are ancestor to almost 2/3rd of European maledom are connected to the people of the steppes at that time period and before? It's like a crucial part of the picture. Why leave it out, especially as uncertainty has been indicated:

- "While it is unclear exactly who the men were that first fathered these paternal lines, it is likely that they were influential or powerful individuals."

- And previous post's article: "Although it is still unclear who exactly the 'fathers' in these paternal lineages were, or even if they were born in Europe, the scientists believe they were influential and powerful individuals, likely tribal chieftains.")



She added that the social structure in the early Bronze Age would have allowed the lineages of powerful individuals to become dominant.



'We think that a social structure in which resources and power are more easily accessible to only some men may allow for a few paternal lineages to become very frequent in a short amount of time.'



[img caption] Researchers analysed Y chromosome DNA from 17 different populations around Europe and the Middle East





Read more:

nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/ncomms8152

Large-scale recent expansion of European patrilineages shown by population resequencing : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

THE 11 FATHERS OF ASIA



More than 800 million men living today are descended from just eleven men, including the ruthless Mongolian leader Genghis Khan, according to new research.



Geneticists have been able to find eleven distinctive sequences in Y-chromosomes - the chunk of DNA that is only carried by men - that are persistent in modern populations in Asia.



These are thought to originate from the Middle East to Southeast Asia between 2100BC and 1100AD.

(I'd like specific data on Indian subcontinent. Pre-islam and Changeez Khan et al.)



They found that 37.8 per cent of the 5,000 men they tested belonged to one of these eleven lineages.



If this is reflected in the entire Asian population, then it could mean around 830 million men living in Asia currently owe their Y-chromosomes to one of these eleven men.

(That's a big if. I doubt there's much Changeez in non-Mongolian and non-islamic Indians and Sri Lankans for example.)



Among them is a lineage that has previously been attributed to a Chinese ruler called Giocangga, who died in 1583 and whose grandson founded the Qing Dynasty that ruled China between 1644 and 1912.



Giocangga is thought to have had many children with his wives and concubines and is the direct male ancestor of more than 1.5 million men.



The researchers also found that another of the lineages appears to have population clusters that are concentrated along the Silk Road trading route and date back to around 850AD.



This suggests they may have their origins among the powerful rulers who dominated the steppes where the route passed - the Khitan, Tangut Xia, Juchin, Kara-Khitan and Mongol empires.

Haven't yet read the nature article yet.



Can't believe they left out the steppes and seeing if the 3 individuals traced back there or not, and where and when the people in the steppe trace too (was it in or before the Bronze Age, etc).

Why the silence on the steppes? E European is said to have influenced W European gene pool in this era. But would like the inevitable storytelling tied back in *this* data, to these 3 individuals, if there is a link back and how.

Even Palestine and Turkey were taken into account in this study, but not Ukraine or Russia or Baltics. Surely most of them are in Europe too...

[Husky]

Post 3/



2. Oooh, different - and larger - dataset (2000 "white Europeans") from a 2010 study also led by Mark Jobling

concludes 4/5 of Europeans are descended from neolithic farmers out of Iraq/Syrian 10,000 years ago:



dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1244654/Study-finds-Britons-descended-farmers-left-Iraq-Syria-10-000-years-ago.html

Most Britons descended from male farmers who left Iraq and Syria 10,000 years ago (and were seduced by the local hunter-gatherer women)



By David Derbyshire for MailOnline

Updated: 13:37 GMT, 20 January 2010





Most Britons are direct descendants of farmers who left modern day Iraq and Syria 10,000 years ago, a new study has shown.



After studying the DNA of more than 2,000 men, researchers say they have compelling evidence that four out of five white Europeans can trace their roots to the Near East.



The discovery is shedding light on one of the most important periods of human history - the time when our ancient ancestors abandoned hunting and began to domesticate animals.



Hunters: Chewing harder food meant hunter-gatherers has longer and narrow mandibles



The invention of farming led to the first towns and paved the way for the dawn of civilisation.

(BTW, 10,000 years ago still < age of Gobekli Tepe in what's now Turkey.)



The Leicester University study looked at a common genetic mutation on the Y chromosome, the DNA that is passed down from fathers to sons.



They found that 80 per cent of European men shared the same Y chromosone mutation and after analysing how the mutation was distributed across Europe, were able to retrace how Europe was colonised around 8,000BC.

Middle East farmers



Roots: Britons are descended from farmers who migrated from the Persian Gulf 10,000 years ago according to a new study (file picture)



Prof Mark Jobling, who led the study: 'This was at the time of the Neolithic revolution when they developed a new style of tools, symmetrical, beautiful tools.



'At this stage about 10,000 years ago there was evidence of the first settlements, people stopped being nomadic hunter-gatherers and started building communities.



'This also allowed people to specialise in certain areas of trade and make better tools because there was a surplus of food.'



European farming began around 9,000 BC in the Fertile Crescent - a region extending from the eastern Mediterranean coast to the Persian Gulf and which includes modern day Iraq, Syria, Israel and southeast Turkey.



The region was the cradle of civilisation and home to the Babylonia, Sumer and Assyrian empires.



Professor Mark Jobling

Skills: Professor Mark Jobling says the settlers were more attractive to women because they could grow more food

(Who's betting that there'll be another lecture on how this is but further proof of females' hypergamy?)



The development of farming allowed people to settle down for the first time - and to produce more food than they needed, leading to trade and the freedom to develop new skills such as metal working, building and writing.



Some archaeologists have argued that some of these early farmers travelled around the world - settling new lands and bringing farming skills with them.



But others have insisted that the skills were passed on by word of mouth, and not by mass migration.



The new study suggests the farmers routinely upped sticks and moved west when their villages became too crowded, eventually reaching Britain and Ireland.



The waves of migrants brought their new skills with them. Some settled down with local tribes and taught them how to farm, the researchers believe.



'When the expansion happened these men had a reproductive advantage because they were able to grow more food so they were more attractive to women and had more offspring,' said Prof Jobling.



'In total more than 80 per cent of European men have Y chromosomes which descend from incoming farmers.



'It seems odd to think that the majority of men in Ireland have fore fathers from the near East and that British people have forefathers from the near East.'

(10,000 years ago. Depending on whether that feels long enough or not for those in the British Isles.)



The findings are published in the science journal PLoS Biology.



Dr Patricia Balaresque, a co-author of the study, said: 'This means that more than 80 per cent of European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers.'



In contrast, other studies have shown that DNA passed down from mothers to daughters can be traced by to hunter-gatherers in Europe, she said.



'To us, this suggests a reproductive advantage for farming males over indigenous hunter-gatherer males during the switch from hunting and gathering, to farming - maybe, back then, it was just sexier to be a farmer,' she said.

(Maybe they had more food to share. No food certainty vs more food certainty. More certain access to primary resources. Hence attracts women.)



Europe was first settled by modern humans around 40,000 years ago. But other types of humans - including Neanderthals - were living in Europe hundreds of thousands of years earlier.

Both studies (2010 and 2015) looked at the Y-chromosome. And:



- 2015 article: "2/3rds of modern European men descend from 3 Bronze Age male settlers" from irgendwo

- 2010 article: "four out of five white Europeans can trace their roots to the Near East." -> 4/5th of modern European men have male ME* neolithic farmer ancestry (*Iraq, Syria = ISIS territory),

- 2010 article: "Most Britons descended from male farmers who left Iraq and Syria 10,000 years ago"

- And 2015 article again:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3088004/The-three-forefathers-Europe-Two-thirds-modern-European-men-descended-just-trio-Bronze-Age-leaders.html

Stonehenge (above) is thought to have been built by Neolithic inhabitants of Britain but the new research suggests they were largely replaced by the descendants of Bronze Age leaders who spread through Europe

I think they lost me.



Oh no. I see. Mark Jobling and co. have specifically gone back on their 2010 conclusions -which had pinpointed neolithic Middle-Eastern farmer origins accounting for 80% of Europeans males - to declaring total replacement by 3 Bronze Age male lineages now in 2015. See footnotes 11 and 12 in the main body of the current "3 ancestors" study (2015):



nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html#ref11



Footnote 11 is exactly the paper on how 80% of European males are descended from neolithic ME males, from which Jobling & co have backpeddled. (NB: Their 2015 study's data set is 1/6 smaller in size.)

Most debate on European prehistory has been stimulated by analyses of uniparentally-inherited markers. Spatial patterns in maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are non-clinal, with age estimates of haplogroups (hg) taken to suggest a major Palaeolithic contribution6. Analyses of diversity in the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) show significant frequency clines in major lineages7, and geographical distributions and dates based on short-tandem repeats (STRs) have led to interpretations of both Palaeolithic8 and Neolithic9 major components. The most frequent western European lineage, hg R1b-M269, was originally believed to have originated in the Palaeolithic10, but in more recent analysis was assigned a Neolithic origin11, a claim challenged in turn12 on the basis of STR choice and sample ascertainment. In general, dates based on STRs are problematic because of uncertainty about appropriate mutation rates, and possible long-term mutation saturation due to their stepwise mutation processes13. Palaeolithic dates for the major lineages are challenged by scanty ancient MSY DNA data, which suggest a marked discontinuity between 5–7 KYA and the present14.



A major cause of the controversy about MSY evidence is that unbiased estimates of diversity and time depth have until recently been impossible to obtain in large samples. [...]



(Relevant footnotes

11. Balaresque, P. et al. A predominantly Neolithic origin for European paternal lineages. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000285 (2010).



Which refers to this paper (it's what the 2010 dailymail article referred to by the way):



journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285

A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages



Patricia Balaresque,

Georgina R. Bowden,

Susan M. Adams,

Ho-Yee Leung,

Turi E. King,

Zoë H. Rosser,

Jane Goodwin,

Jean-Paul Moisan,

Christelle Richard,

Ann Millward,

Andrew G. Demaine,

Guido Barbujani,

Carlo Previderè,

[ ... ],

Mark A. Jobling





PLOS



Published: January 19, 2010

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285

12. Busby, G. B. et al. The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 884–892 (2012).

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/884

[size="5"]So, based on the bit in red in footnote 12 just above, are all MSY (male specific region of Y-chromosome) DNA studies before the 2012 study in footnote 12 deprecated?[/size] Are they all/any number/which ones tainted by the same errors?

That is: is it Back to the drawing board on earlier Y-specific genetic studies? Do the data from pre-2012 studies need to be re-sampled or the tests re-done/re-run, or the results re-analysed? I mean, it's pretty serious right?

Are there more such blunders anyone wants to own up to? Are there more such blunders that just passed under the radar since peer review doesn't seem to result in double-checking others' methods and results very often: most people just keep rolling with others' results.





Relevant sections explaining MSY below (why it matters, why is it "male-specific", as in: where did the gene shuffling that's supposed to happen during meiosis as per your high school biology go, etc):



nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6942/full/nature01722.html

The hallmark of the third and present era has been the application of recombinant DNA and genomic technologies to the Y chromosome, culminating in molecularly based conclusions about its genes. In recent decades, an understanding of the Y chromosome's biological functions has begun to emerge from DNA studies of individuals with partial Y chromosomes, coupled with molecular characterization of Y-linked genes implicated in gonadal sex reversal, Turner syndrome, graft rejection and spermatogenic failure6. Genomic studies revealed that the Y chromosome contains a region, comprising 95% of its length, where there is no X–Y crossing over. This region came to be known as the non-recombining region, or NRY, although our discovery of abundant recombination, as reported here and in the accompanying manuscript, compels us to rename it the male-specific region, or MSY7. The MSY is flanked on both sides by pseudoautosomal regions, where X–Y crossing over is a normal and frequent event in male meiosis (see Supplementary Note 1).



[...]

Genetic mapping studies have shown that, typically, one X–Y crossover occurs per generation in the pseudoautosomal regions (Supplementary Note 7). As described in the accompanying report7, steady-state calculations suggest that, on average, multiple Y–Y gene conversion events take place per generation in the MSY. Thus, most homologous recombination events in the Y chromosome probably occur in the MSY.



In recent years, we and other investigators have referred to the MSY as the NRY, or ‘non-recombining region of the Y chromosome’. This usage reflected both awareness that productive X–Y crossing over did not occur in the MSY, and ignorance of the Y–Y gene conversion that is apparently commonplace there. We now refer to the NRY as the MSY, or ‘male-specific region of the Y chromosome’, because it is recombinogenic and unique to males.

Useful.

[Husky]

Post 4/n



While the daily mail article refers to nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html for the May 2015 study of the 3 Forebears of 2/3 Euro males- a paper was was interestingly received in May 2014 a whole year before -

(have yet to read it in full),



how does all the above square with the following Different study from Mar 2015 (received Dec 2014) - which I see is referenced in "3 European forebears" study from the May 2015 (received May 2014) study, particularly in the section which assumes the 3 European ancestors should be attributed to a steppe origin and associated with IE-languages based on the following (but of course!, the whole Europe = 80% neolithic farmers from the Middle-East speaking IE languages doesn't impress 'Europe=Oryanism' unless the genes and the IE languages are made to go together) [is that why the steppe and a whole lot more beyond was left out from the May 2015 study? For foregone conclusions?]:



nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14317.html

Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe



Wolfgang Haak, Iosif Lazaridis, Nick Patterson, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Bastien Llamas, Guido Brandt, Susanne Nordenfelt, Eadaoin Harney, Kristin Stewardson, Qiaomei Fu, Alissa Mittnik, Eszter Bánffy, Christos Economou, Michael Francken, Susanne Friederich, Rafael Garrido Pena, Fredrik Hallgren, Valery Khartanovich, Aleksandr Khokhlov, Michael Kunst, Pavel Kuznetsov, Harald Meller, Oleg Mochalov, Vayacheslav Moiseyev et al.



Nature

(2015)

doi:10.1038/nature14317



Received

29 December 2014

Accepted

12 February 2015

Published online

02 March 2015



We generated genome-wide data from 69 Europeans who lived between 8,000–3,000 years ago by enriching ancient DNA libraries for a target set of almost 400,000 polymorphisms. Enrichment of these positions decreases the sequencing required for genome-wide ancient DNA analysis by a median of around 250-fold, allowing us to study an order of magnitude more individuals than previous studies1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and to obtain new insights about the past. We show that the populations of Western and Far Eastern Europe followed opposite trajectories between 8,000–5,000 years ago. At the beginning of the Neolithic period in Europe, ~8,000–7,000 years ago, closely related groups of early farmers appeared in Germany, Hungary and Spain, different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, whereas Russia was inhabited by a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high affinity to a ~24,000-year-old Siberian6. By ~6,000–5,000 years ago, farmers throughout much of Europe had more hunter-gatherer ancestry than their predecessors, but in Russia, the Yamnaya steppe herders of this time were descended not only from the preceding eastern European hunter-gatherers, but also from a population of Near Eastern ancestry. (Near East=ME. ANE=ME + SW Iran) Western and Eastern Europe came into contact ~4,500 years ago, as the Late Neolithic Corded Ware people from Germany traced ~75% of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, documenting a massive migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery. This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and is ubiquitous in present-day Europeans. These results provide support for a steppe origin9 of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe.

("Some" is neither here nor there unless they can prove it's the locus of all "IE" languages. I.e urheimat. Besides, the statement only says "some of the IE languages of Europe". So even in 2014 they still couldn't prove steppe as more than a stopover/'staging ground for "IE"' to enter Europe. So the question is still left open on "Where did *they* - the relevant steppe persons/community/-ies - get it 'IE' from"?



The other problem is Renfrew's Anatolia theory can't be tested easily. It claimed farming origins + "IE" dispersal from Anatolia at 8,000 BCE. Except Anatolia has belonged to everybody after 'the Anatolians', whoever these were: the ancestors of Romans during Troy [e.g. Julian still revered his ancestor Hector at a shrine], the Greeks, the Romans and Greeks again as well as Continental Celts in Galatia, and -much later- some Turks from Turkmenistan as well as some Arabs, Kurds and persistent Greek presence.

So DNA testing the presentday Turks may indicate Greek ancestry, but could it ever reliably indicate whatever "Anatolian" was there at the PIE era? Anatolia is therefore a great black hole for PIE-ism: can derive all paternal lineages from there and declare that latterday GrecoRomans and presentday Turks did away with the genetic evidence/a clear genetic trail. Steppes can then still be a later staging area for IE languages about to enter Europe proper.)



More importantly, if it's a "massive migration", and assuming for now that the 3 key European ancestors came from the steppe (though the news articles themselves do not know so and the May study on The Three Euro Ancestors only references the above paper, to fill in its own blank on their origins and its own omission of including people in the steppe/Ukraine and Baltic too at least if not Russia in their study) -

Again: if The 3 Founding Europeans are due to the 'massive migration' from the steppes bearing IE-languages to Europe in the Bronze Age,

how come the other steppe males of this "massive migration" into Europe haven't left as much of a genetic footprint on modern Europeans' descent as Da Three?





And footnote 9 for the statement "steppe origin9 of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe" in the 'Massive Migration/IE into Europe' article is none other than:

Anthony, D. W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (Princeton Univ. Press, 2007)

That is, the 2014/2015 Massive Migration study - going by its abstract - seems to want to link the IE languages to the migration based on Anthony's 2007 book. (Anthony is also listed as an affiliate in the Massive Migration study.)



Now isn't Anthony the guy who wrote how Indra was not PIE - not general IE at all - but a late and local Indo-Afghan derivation, unique to them. Essentially meaning that Bhagavaan Indran - praised in 1/4 of the Rig Vedam itself - belongs to the Hindoos onlee and not to any alien PIE-ists/recons who wish to dabble.



So when horsies are not native to the steppe - as seen in Priyadarshi reviewing the literature on the subject and revealing that horses have been domesticated independently in 70 different places in Eurasia BUT NOT THE STEPPES - did the Bronze Age pre-Riders of the steppe go all the way to outside the steppes to kidnap horses from there* and teach themselves to domesticate and ride them in the steppes, to which they returned [before invading Europe in a massive migration where only 3 steppe Bronze Age Riders have left an imprint on 2/3 of the males]? Or did someone else teach the Bronze Age Riders of the steppes about domesticating and riding horses? And in that last case, then: how would this qualify as 'steppe knowledge/knowledge of bronze age riders from the steppe', as in Anthony's title? *Since the Mongolian "Central Asian" Przewalski horses are specifically not the horses of 'Indo-Europeans' and not ancestral to any horse lineages at all, see the article by Priyadarshi again, which discusses the discoveries on the subject.



By the way, the author of the above 2007 book "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World", i.e. Herr David W. Anthony, *is* the very guy that Priyadarshi speaks about at (Repeat):



aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/

Sir William Ridgeway was wise enough to assert in the year 1905 that the Przewalski was not the ancestor of the caballus horses (Ridgeway:425). However, as the Aryan theory gained influence, more and more authors started saying that the steppe horse Przewalski was the ancestor of the caballus horses. To their frustration, the DNA studies have concluded that not a single horse lineage has descended from the Przewalski (Achilli; Weinstock). The Przewalski and the caballus have different chromosome numbers, and actually they belong to different species. On this basis we can say that the domestic horse found in the steppe and Central Asia was surely imported from outside.



The much widely publicized story of the horse domestication at Dereivka (horse-and-dog burial, Ukraine) at 4200-3700 BCE, which is generally believed even today, proved wrong in 2000. The dates claimed were of the soil layer, not of the skull. The Dereivka horse was never accepted as domestic horse by a large number of scholars (like Levine, Hausler etc). To silence the opposition, the skull bone was directly radiocarbon dated and found to be from 3000 BCE (Anthony 1997). However it became soon obvious that this report was wrong as a bone not actually belonging to the horse had been tested by mistake. Still later, by actual radiocarbon dating of the horse skull, it came out that the horse-burial had been made by a much later settlement, settled over the same place (Scythian era 800-200 BCE), digging deep into the lower layers. David Anthony, author of the Dereivka story was left with no choice. He quickly retracted his earlier claim (Anthony:2000, 2009:215).

(Yet in 2007 he still wrote his story on the "horse, the wheel and the spiel" about the oryans now euphemised to "Bronze Age Riders" note. Oryanism - i.e. Bronze Age plus spread of horse-riding - is *exactly* what the recently published study about 3 Bronze Age ancestors of Europeans is about.)



Thus the 4200 BCE domestic horse no more exists, although many authors still beat its drum. The DNA studies have proved that the horse had been domesticated at more than seventy places throughout Eurasia (Vila; Tatjan; Kavar). However, horse was possibly not domesticated in the Central Asia and the steppe, while it was domesticated in India and Spain. The progenitor of the Indian domestic horse was the wild sivalensis horse, and that of the Spanish was the Tarpan horse. This is the only parsimonious solution. Many horse breeds of the Iberian Peninsula (like the Pottoka) were locally evolved much before the Aryans arrived into the penninsula (Solis 2005:677; Achilli 2011:4 pdf).

No, I see what Anthony did there with his 2007 book title: Bronze Age (Horse) *Riders* from the steppes spread IE, i.e. no longer bronze-age "Horse-domesticators + riders".

[Husky]

More spam. The actual relevant stuff is in the block quotes of previous posts (minus anything in purple). No relevant stuff in this post.



This post is just to arrange my own thoughts and make sense of somethings/organise points in writing that I keep overlooking.





1. Greece being missing in the following is relevant with respect to attempts at tying any massive migration from the Steppe to Oryanism and intro of IE languages in Europe:

They found one mutation appears to have originated around 4,750 to 7,340 years ago and is prevalent in Norwegian and Orkadian populations.



Another mutation seems to have occurred between 3,700 and 6,500 years ago and has spread throughout Spain, Italy, France, England and Ireland.



A third mutation seems to have occurred in a man who lived between 3,470 and 5,070 years ago and is prominent in the Sami in Lapland, Norwegian, Danish, Frisia populations in the Netherlands, but can also be found in France, Hungary, Serbia and Bavaria.

If none of the 3 lineages concern Greece much - and from the above, the omission is glaring - then so much for the Bronze Age Riders from the steppe signifying the urheimat or any alleged primary dispersal of IE.



Q: Could the findings involving Italy and Spain be explained by vestiges of the Gothic and Vandal groups of that region?

Hungary is like Turkey: part local genetics, even if speaking another language family.



2. The Baltic nations being left out is a curiosity in itself: it would be surely interesting to know how much any of these 3 distinct lineages was seen in Latvia/Lithuania vs Estonia, and how that correlates - if at all - to the language family distinction seen in the Baltics (Finno Ugric Estonian vs "IE" Lithuanian/Latvian)



3. Ukraine's omission in the study on the 3 lineages could be thought as due to the war btw Ukraine and Russia, except that

- Belarus needn't have been left out then;

- and the study heralding a Massive Migration (Bronze Age) into Europe from the Steppes was done in approximately same year, and would surely need to feature data from the Ukraine in order to speak about the Steppe, despite the same war going on.



Seems therefore rather that they left out Ukraine/steppe from the study out of a foregone conclusion of the Kurgan Urheimat Hypothesis.





4. News articles just oversimply and in their storytelling the actual main points get lost, especially in the subsequent storytelling on the data.



There is a way to tie the "Massive Migration" from the steppes of one study with the "just 3 forebears for 2/3rds of European males" study. Which answers my own earlier question:

if The 3 Founding Europeans are due to the 'massive migration' from the steppes bearing IE-languages to Europe in the Bronze Age, how come the other steppe males of this "massive migration" into Europe haven't left as much of a genetic footprint on modern Europeans' descent as Da Three?

All the news items said (about the '3 forebears of 2/3 Europe Y' study) was that:



+ 3 new distinct paternal (Y) lineages - marked by distinct genetic features (probably some kind of mutations) - made their appearance in Europe in the Bronze age and spread there then (4000-2000 years BP). Meaning, these distinct genetic features were not attested in the native European population prior to the Bronze age/their entry.



+ these origins of these 3 lineages are dated to 7300 to 3500 yrs BP.



+ it was specifically stated that it was not known whether these 3 lineages were local to Europe (originated in Europe) or came from outside:

Although it is still unclear who exactly the 'fathers' in these paternal lineages were, or even if they were born in Europe, the scientists believe they were influential and powerful individuals, likely tribal chieftains.

though it was surmised these lineages would have settled in Europe from outside and that they were thought to be from the steppes, with reference to the Massive Migration paper



+ Now, if the 3 lineages had already existed in the steppes (imagine the "Three Houses of Men" from Tolkien, each descended from some forebear), large numbers of each of the 3 lineages could have "migrated" to Europe from the steppes, thus the "massive migration" could still hold, while not calling into question why only 3 paternal lineages were detected (3 forebears) in Europe: the 3 forebears would already each have generated large families in the steppes, and these large families - each carrying the distinct genetic features of their lineage - would have entered Europe in a "massive migration" and spread there from 4000-2000 years ago.



+ What is known is that the founders of 3 lineages are dated 7000 to 3500 years ago. I.e. the 3 distinctive genetic features/mutations, that originated in 3 distinct invidiuals, are dated to that time:

They found distinct paternal families originating 3,500 to 7,300 years ago

Mutations in the DNA suggest these families sprung from just three men

+ What is not known even in the current assumption that the 3 lineages may have come into Europe from the steppes is whether these 3 or their ancestors originated in the steppes: one study only looked at Europe and didn't know the origins of the 3 paternal/Y lineages, the other study looked at the Steppe and seems to only have spoken of a massive migration into Europe being attested and not these specific 3 Y lineages (else the study on Europe would have been more certain in tying the 3 lineages to the steppes.)



(+ And the Massive Migration study merely referred to Anthony for his work as authority to the spread of some IE language in Europe being tied to the massive steppe migration into Europe. While it need not be untrue, the Massive Migration study itself did not prove the spread of some IE language in Europe with the massive steppe migration: else it would not have needed to refer to Anthony for this statement, but would have said it was a conclusion drawn from the results of the Massive Migration study itself.)



+ So they will next need to study the steppes and

- see if the 3 lineages are already detected there, in which case Europe would have got it from the steppes via that massive migration:

- If only the founder(s) of one or more of the 3 lineages are detected in the Steppes, then one or more of the remaining 3 lineages may have originated within Europe itself. After the migration.

- [Less likely, but for completeness: If either one or more of the 3 lineages, its founders or their direct ancestors are not detected in the steppes, then the entry point to Europe may not have been the massive migration from the steppes. Less likely since the "Massive Migration" paper insisted that said migration was well noticed in modern Europeans.]

- If the 3 lineages did not originate in the steppes (i.e. if the 'founders'/original trio of these 3 paternal lineages did not originate in the steppes), need to look beyond for where they originated

- Even if the founders of the 3 lineages did originate in the steppes (i.e. the 3 mutations originated in the steps) but their ancestors did not, worth looking at where and when their last ancestors were detected



If not done already:

- Do a study on the steppes similar to the study on Europe: to work out the various paternal lineages in the steppes.

E.g. are the 3 lineages seen in Europe also the only ones seen in the steppe, or were there far more. And if so, map them, their dates and their locus too: inside steppes or not. If not inside steps, see whether there was any migration into that region and when.

- If the founders of the 3 lineages did occur in the steppes (i.e. the 3 mutations existed in the steppes since the Bronze age or before), can look at Iranian and Indian lands to see whether the same appears in Iranian and Indian space, and what the relative ages are. (Bronze Age or older. Specifically looking for origination.)

- If there are many more paternal lineages detected in the steppes, also, can see what if any relationship any/all these have with Iranian and Indian lands: where are they older, where are the ancestors of these steppe paternal lineages detected and when etc. For the last two questions it is most worth examining the entire breadth of the Indian population too: even if some Indians and Iranians show the same mutations in the pre/Bronze age as people in the steppes at the time, the direction of travel can become reversed if other Indians show the immediate ancestry of the same mutations. I.e. the interpretation in such a case can then reasonable be that some Indians derived from other Indians and that they - in the same pre/Bronze Age - went and influenced the steppes.



More interesting would be to study Greece, since Anatolia's earlier configuration is no longer easy to test (for aforementioned reasons).





This post is just to arrange my own thoughts and make sense of somethings/organise points in writing that I keep overlooking.

Aka another form of SPAM.

[Husky]

Archiving the parts that struck me as relevant in the actual study's write-up

Post 1/3



nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html



Large-scale recent expansion of European patrilineages shown by population resequencing

Abstract

The proportion of Europeans descending from Neolithic farmers ~10 thousand years ago (KYA) or Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers has been much debated. The male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) has been widely applied to this question, but unbiased estimates of diversity and time depth have been lacking. Here we show that European patrilineages underwent a recent continent-wide expansion. Resequencing of 3.7?Mb of MSY DNA in 334 males, comprising 17 European and Middle Eastern populations, defines a phylogeny containing 5,996 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Dating indicates that three major lineages (I1, R1a and R1b), accounting for 64% of our sample, have very recent coalescent times, ranging between 3.5 and 7.3 KYA. A continuous swathe of 13/17 populations share similar histories featuring a demographic expansion starting ~2.1–4.2 KYA. Our results are compatible with ancient MSY DNA data, and contrast with data on mitochondrial DNA, indicating a widespread male-specific phenomenon that focuses interest on the social structure of Bronze Age Europe.

Excerpts from Intro to Discussion

Controversy has surrounded the origins and antiquity of the people of Europe, focused on the proportions descending from Neolithic farmers originating ~10 thousand years ago (KYA), or from earlier Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers. Early studies observed a European SE–NW cline in classical gene frequency data which was ascribed to demic diffusion of farmers1, or, in an alternative view, to the first Palaeolithic colonization2. More recent autosomal genome-wide SNP data sets reflect current population structure3, 4 and admixture during the last 3,000 years5, but have provided little insight into older population processes.

(So they now looked into the in between time period. What happened in Europe in the Bronze Age.)



Most debate on European prehistory has been stimulated by analyses of uniparentally-inherited markers. Spatial patterns in maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are non-clinal, with age estimates of haplogroups (hg) taken to suggest a major Palaeolithic contribution6. Analyses of diversity in the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) show significant frequency clines in major lineages7, and geographical distributions and dates based on short-tandem repeats (STRs) have led to interpretations of both Palaeolithic8 and Neolithic9 major components. The most frequent western European lineage, hg R1b-M269, was originally believed to have originated in the Palaeolithic10, but in more recent analysis was assigned a Neolithic origin11, a claim challenged in turn12 on the basis of STR choice and sample ascertainment. In general, dates based on STRs are problematic because of uncertainty about appropriate mutation rates, and possible long-term mutation saturation due to their stepwise mutation processes13. Palaeolithic dates for the major lineages are challenged by scanty ancient MSY DNA data, which suggest a marked discontinuity between 5–7 KYA and the present14.



(The conclusion of this study supercedes those earlier results:

Now the picture on non-steppe, non-Baltic Europe is: 2/3rd of modern European Y descended from 3 lineages - which appeared between 7.3K and 3.5K ago - that started spreading in Europe in the Bronze Age between 4000-2000 yrs before present.)



A major cause of the controversy about MSY evidence is that unbiased estimates of diversity and time depth have until recently been impossible to obtain in large samples. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) generally offers unbiased ascertainment of MSY SNPs, providing phylogenies in which topologies inform about past demography, and branch lengths are in principle proportional to time, avoiding dating problems associated with STRs. Some insights have emerged from recent work15, 16, but no systematic population-based NGS study across Europe has yet been undertaken.



Here, we use targeted NGS of European and Middle Eastern populations to show that Europe was affected by a major continent-wide expansion in patrilineages that post-dates the Neolithic transition. Resequencing at high coverage of 3.7?Mb of MSY DNA, in each of 334 males comprising 17 population samples, defines an unbiased phylogeny containing 5,996 high-confidence single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Dating indicates that three major lineages (I1, R1a and R1b), accounting for 64% of the sampled chromosomes, have very recent coalescent times, ranging between 3.5 and 7.3 KYA. In demographic reconstructions17 a continuous swathe of 13/17 populations from the Balkans to the British and Irish Isles share similar histories featuring a minimum effective population size ~2.1–4.2 KYA, followed by expansion to the present. Together with other data on maternally inherited mtDNA16, 18 and autosomal DNA19, our results indicate a recent widespread male-specific phenomenon that may point to social selection, and refocuses interest on the social and population structure of Bronze Age Europe.

Results:

Phylogeography of European MSY lineages



We constructed a maximum-parsimony tree displaying the phylogenetic relationships between SNP haplotypes (Fig. 1a; Supplementary Fig. 1), rooted by reference to two MSY sequences13 from the basal haplogroups A and B. Our sequenced regions cover many previously known SNPs, which allowed us to apply established haplogroup names20 to clades. Figure 1b shows the geographical distribution of these haplogroups in our samples, which is consistent with previous studies of specific SNPs using larger per-population sample sizes10. As expected, the commonest haplogroup is R1b-M269 (43.1%), with highest frequency in the north-west, followed by I1-M253 (13.8%), I2-P215 (9.0%), R1a-M198 (7.5%) and J2-M172 (7.5%). Some clades show geographically-restricted distributions, with hg N1c-M178 being most frequent in the Saami, and sub-lineages of haplogroups E, G and J prevalent in the Mediterranean area.



Figure 1: Phylogeny and geographical distribution of European MSY lineages. **



(a) Maximum-parsimony tree of European MSY lineages defined here by resequencing. Branch lengths are proportional to molecular divergence among haplotypes. Key mutation names are given next to some branches, and haplogroup names20 in the coloured bar below. Three sporadic haplogroups are coloured in black. The grey box within hg R1b-M269 shows the star phylogeny referred to in the text. (b ) Map with pie-charts showing frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups (defined and coloured as in part a) in 17 populations from Europe and the Near East. Population abbreviations are as follows: bas: Basque; bav: Bavaria; CEU: Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection (France); den: Denmark; eng: England; fri: Frisia; gre: Greece; hun: Hungary; ire: Ireland; nor: Norway; ork: Orkney; pal: Palestinians; saa: Saami; ser: Serbia; spa: Spain; TSI: Toscani in Italia (Italy); tur: Turkey.





The shapes of different clades within the tree (Fig. 1a) vary greatly. Haplogroups E1b-M35, G2a-L31, I2-P215, J2-M172, L-M11 and T-M70 contain long branches with deep-rooting nodes, whereas I1-M253, N1c-M178, R1a-M198 and R1b-M269 show much shallower genealogies. Haplogroup R1b-M269 is particularly striking, containing a remarkable star phylogeny within which 44 terminal branches (13.2% of the total), found in 13 of the 17 sampled populations, descend as a multifurcation from a single node without any sub-structure whatsoever, despite the extensive nature of the sequencing carried out. These qualitative features of the phylogeny are supported by values of the average number of mutations from the ancestral node to branch tips, and also by estimates of time-to-most-recent-common-ancestor (TMRCA) (Table 1) derived by two different methods. Considering haplogroups R1b-M269, R1a-M198 and I1-M253, and the 95% highest posterior density intervals of their TMRCAs, 64% of the MSY sequences sampled in our study descend from three ancestors who each lived more recently than ~7.3 KYA.

[...]

** Figure 1:

nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/fig_tab/ncomms8152_F1.html



Larger version of just the diagram containing the European MSY pie-charts: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3088004/The-three-forefathers-Europe-Two-thirds-modern-European-men-descended-just-trio-Bronze-Age-leaders.html



1. Figure 1 is very useful.



The 3 paternal lineages that the study speaks of are marked by I1-m253, R1a-m198 and R1b-m266. As per the piechart in Figure 1: as per what's visible in the piechart, there is no I1 in the Greeks sampled, only I2. And R1a and R1b make up less than a quarter of the haplogroups attested in the Greeks sampled, again as per what's visible in their piechart. And none of the dark-blue variants of R1b are in there, unique among the "IE-speaking" European populations sampled; and even the Hungarians show most of the blues/the R1* variants under consideration and in fact consist of nearly 3/4 of these R1*s.

Again: less than a quarter of the Greeks sampled shows any R1*, and no I1, but more than 2/3rds is I2 and J2. And: Greece has by far the least of any blues=R1a/R1b of any of the "IE" Europeans, while - again- Hungarians are inundated in some blue or other. The Serbs have more blue at about 1/4 of their pie-chart, but they also have I1 at 1/4 of their pie-chart: so half of the Serbian piechart is accounted for by the colours assigned to the 3 paternal lineages in question.... The total of Greece is still less than 1/4th.



In fact, the darkest 'blue' in the Greek pie chart looks more like it maps to haplogroup T than to the medium blue R1b (see bigger image of the Figure 1 at dailymail), which would then make the Greek piechart's portion of the 3 paternal lineages to be a 1/6th of their total...***



Really intriguing that less than a quarter -or possibly just no more than a 1/6th- of the Greeks' (piechart) can be explained by the 3 Bronze Age paternal lineages that are thought to emanate from the steppes. Considering that Greeks more than even the Romans are Da Definition of ancient "IE" civilisation in Europe. If they can't be significantly derived from the steppes - via the 3 Bronze Age paternal lineages identified - then, ... not really sure what it means. But then, am not sure either what these charts mean in terms of the implied "replacement" of the neolithic that was mentioned by the news item on the study and indicated in the study too. I mean, Brits show a sliver of I2 (dark green) present in far greater amounts in the Greeks sampled, and I2 is supposed to be "originated some time around 13,000-15,000 BCE", which for European dates is well into the Paleolithic.



Then again, maybe I'm just all wrong in my inferences from Figure 1 (?)



2. "The grey box within hg R1b-M269 shows the star phylogeny referred to in the text": the grey box encompasses an R1b marked S116.

BTW, Greece is not included in the S116, i.e. in the mentioned "star-phylogeny".



3. Greece and Turkey both have a lot of haplogroup J2 (purple), also present in chunks in the Mediterranean and a little among Palestinians. I think it corresponds to neolithic farming from pre-Arabised fertile crescent/Mesopotamia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172

"J-M172 originates between the Caucasus Mountains, Mesopotamia and the region just north of Arabia known as the Levant"

"J-M172 is linked to the earliest indigenous populations of Anatolia and the Aegean"

"The date of origin for haplogroup J-M172 was estimated by Batini et al in 2015 as between 19,000 and 24,000 Years Before Present (YBP).[12]"



Anyway, the interesting thing is Greeks sampled have predominantly J2 and I2, which accounts for about 2/3 of the Greek data's haplogroup piechart. And both of them are ancient, paleolithic (not Bronze age), and can't be oryan invasion markers, being well before any mainstream IE theories date PIE.



*** Aside. Q: it is known that, in late post-christian times especially, there has been significant Slavic presence among the Greeks. To what extent is the R1b and perhaps even R1a among the Greeks sampled to be explained by introduction via Slavic people? I'm not even arguing that the Greek piechart should be compared to the Turkish one, of course.



ysee.gr/index-eng.php?type=english&f=faq#9

Are modern Greeks the genetic descendants of the classical Hellenes?

Some yes, some no, but this is irrelevant. The racialists on both sides can ramble on and claim that we are 100% Slavic, or whatever else, as can those who want to portray us as the pure descendants of Aeakus. However, the true Hellenes did not refer to 'race' (it would have been comical, since at the time this term applied to a small group of 'clans'). Admittedly, a racial consciousness existed in the classical period, which lacks credibility today, given that before and after 1821 other racial groups were absorbed, many of whose number can only be described as 100% Hellenic.



Despite Kolokotrones and many other heroes being of Arvanite extraction, by our standards they are certainly Hellenes, since they shed their blood in the name of Hellas. What clown could deny Kolokotrones, Nikitaras and Androutsos their Hellenic identity, based on racial definitions? The domestic racialists owe us a convincing explanation for this crude oxymoron.

(End Aside)



Cont. in next

[Husky]

Post 2/3

of archiving the parts that struck me as relevant in the actual study's paper.



Still taken from nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html

[...]

Considering haplogroups R1b-M269, R1a-M198 and I1-M253, and the 95% highest posterior density intervals of their TMRCAs, 64% of the MSY sequences sampled in our study descend from three ancestors who each lived more recently than ~7.3 KYA.



(The above statement is what all the news items on the subject talked about: 64% or ~2/3 of European males descend from 3 ancestors - distinguished with regard to haplogroups R1b-M269, R1a-M198 and I1-M253 - who came after 7300 years ago.)



[...]

Bayesian skyline plots (BSPs) (Fig. 2) reveal the variation of effective population size with time21. The plots are consistent with patterns seen in the relative numbers of singletons, described above, in that the Saami and Palestinians show markedly different demographic histories compared with the rest, featuring very recent reductions, while [size="5"]the Turks and Greeks show evidence of general expansion, with increased growth rate around 14 KYA. A different pattern is seen in the remaining majority (13/17) of populations, which share remarkably similar histories[/size] featuring a minimum effective population size ~2.1–4.2 KYA (considering the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) reported in Supplementary Table 4), followed by expansion to the present. Considering only these 13 populations, the only significant geographical correlation is of decreasing diversity in the number of polymorphic sites from east to west** (Supplementary Table 3); notably, there is no significant correlation between the age at which effective population size was at a minimum before expansion (Supplementary Table 4), and either latitude or longitude (Supplementary Table 3). Taken together, the very recent age of the demographic shift and its lack of geographical pattern suggest that its origin is distinct from that of the diffusion of agriculture.

IMO, the extremely-emphasised portion immediately above is possibly the most revealing statement in the entire article: that Greece is NOT included in the 13 populations who share a different history/were powerfully and often fundamentally influenced by the Bronze Age invasions.

That is, that the Bronze Age history of Greece is different from that of the other European "IE" places considered. Surely it means that the Greeks did not share much in the "Bronze Age Riders=Oryans from the Steppe=urheimat" history?



** "Considering only these 13 populations, the only significant geographical correlation is of decreasing diversity in the number of polymorphic sites from east to west"

Meaning... less genetic diversity seen in the west of Europe rather to the east? Which underlines that the Bronze Age spread effects discussed are from E to W.

The proportion of the parameter variance explained by the summary statistics (R2) is in most cases higher than 10% (and hence generally considered as a good estimation), but the 95% credible intervals are wide. This is particularly true for T1, the time of the start of the demographic change (reduction or expansion), thus preventing us from drawing any conclusion about the timing of these events (whether post Neolithic, or more ancient) from the ABC analysis.

In general, the non-parametric genealogical approach represented by BSPs better explores the variation found in our data, compared with a more conservative ABC analysis based on a single locus. We note that both analyses assume panmixia, and that population structure might influence effective population size estimates. However, it seems improbable that such an effect would extend to so many populations.

Panmixia - the willingness to mate with anyone - here may not be in conflict with the social stratification of Oryans (as per Oryanism).

Since the study looks at the male-specific region of the Y chromosome, i.e. concerns paternal lines, can assume there are fewer restrictions for "IE" males to mate with anyone. -> The "thundering down on chariots and stealing native females" scenario that Oryanists always fondly 'reminisce'=fantasise about.

Our approach has led to the confident identification of many MSY sequence variants in European population samples and a highly resolved phylogeny, but our conclusions are also influenced by a more contentious factor, the choice of mutation rate.** We chose a rate (1.0 (0.92–1.09) × 10-9 per bp per year, considering a 30-year generation time) based on the observation of 609 MSY mutations (excluding palindromic regions) in Icelandic deep-rooting pedigrees24. The point estimate of this rate is the same as an earlier pedigree-based estimate in which only four mutations were observed25, and which we applied in our broader MSY-phylogeny study13.



We note that the rate we have used is higher than the estimate of 0.76 (0.67–0.86) × 10-9 per bp per year based on counting the ‘missing’ mutations in the genome of the Ust’-Ishim male26, radiocarbon dated to ~45,000 YBP. Other studies27, 28 have inferred slower mutation rates (0.62 or 0.64 × 10-9) based on scaling the genome-wide de novo rate to account for male-specific transmission, though this has been criticized29, and is not consistent with phylogenetic mutation rates estimated from human–chimpanzee MSY comparisons30, 31. Some have chosen to calibrate the pedigree mutation rate against external (for example, archaeological) data15, 32, but we have rejected this idea, firstly because of uncertainty over how archaeological date estimates correlate with demographic changes, and secondly because we have used a coalescent-based dating method that itself models genealogies. Despite recent advances, mutation rate remains a difficult issue, and more data are needed.



(** Probably not offensive. But they themselves think it's a question mark. Perhaps something that will be refined in future studies, which may even redo the dates.)



[...]



The recent and rapid continent-wide demographic changes we observe suggest a remarkably widespread transition affecting paternal lineages. This picture is confirmed in an independent analysis of MSY diversity in the pooled HGDP CEPH panel European samples16, and is compatible with current (n=98) ancient DNA data for MSY (Fig. 3; Supplementary Table 8), in which hgs R1a, R1b and I1 are absent or rare in sites dating before 5 KYA, whereas hgs G2a and I2 are prevalent.



Figure 3: Timeline of MSY ancient DNA data.



The graph shows stacked frequencies of MSY haplogroups in ancient European DNA samples, based on data from 98 individuals, and binned into 500-year intervals. ‘other’ includes C1, F*, H2, R*, R1, R1b(xR1b1a). Below the timeline are indicated BEAST point estimates and highest posterior density intervals for three relevant haplogroups.

Very much worth looking at Figure 3 too at the link:

nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/fig_tab/ncomms8152_F3.html



Figure 3:



- doesn't show the aquamarine colour blue of R1b-M269 that is the most common blue=R1* in Greeks,



- and aquamarine blue R1b moreover shows what looks like the earliest divergence compared to the other R1b colours in Figure 1.



- Figure 3 only shows R1a(-M198) - the lightest blue - which is about 1/18th of the Greek pie-chart.



- And assuming I understand figure 3 correctly: as per Figure 3, the lightest blue=R1a(-M198) already existed in European MSY DNA at ~7,250 years ago. I.e. well before the steppe Bronze Age Riders' massive migration (replacement is invasion, IMO) into Europe.

So the least that can then be concluded is that R1a didn't enter Europe in the Bronze Age. I make no guesses as to whenever or wherever it entered from. But if this R1a existed at say 7300 years ago in Europe (since that's the earliest date given for the 3 paternal lineages that are to account for 2/3rds of modern European Y/males), this R1a wouldn't have first been brought to Europe in any European Bronze Age massive migration from the steppes. So only 2 out of the 3 paternal lineages of European Y can then have a putative European Bronze Age origin in the steppe.

So what then accounts for the earlier R1a spread in Europe? After all, everyone said that R1a (like R1b) was one of the invasionist gene sequences. And it is still implied, with R1a being one of the 3 paternal lineages associated with the Bronze Age "changes in burial" and "spread of horse riding" etc in Europe.

So Anatolia will then have to be argued as Urheimat with IE spread from diffusion from farming around 7000 BCE: a farming migration can't be from the steppe - Eurasian steppe nomads is what Oryans from a steppe urheimat were ever considered, dubbed pastoralists (though others domesticated the horse). The PIE-ist argument against Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis was that his date for PIE was too early, that PIE should postdate farming.

But then: R1a within Europe itself predates Kurgan (steppe) PIE then... <-> How is R1a an invasion marker then?

Kurgan Urheimat is dated 5000 BCE. Mallory dates the "IE dispersals" into Europe starting at 4500 BCE, earlier than Gimbutas' ~3000 BCE. R1a in Europe at 7250 years BP = 5250 BCE is then older than the Steppe Urheimat/PIE at 5000 BCE.





Continued in next.

[Husky]

Post 3/3

of archiving the parts that struck me as relevant in the actual study's paper.



Still taken from nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html

Analyses of ancient autosomal sequence data19 demonstrate discontinuity 7–5 KYA between western European hunter-gatherers, tending to have genetic affinity to northern Europeans *, and farmers, resembling southern Europeans. Consideration of the genomic ancestry of modern Europeans33 reveals ancestry from these two groups, but also from north Eurasian hunter-gatherers33. Recent analysis34 better defines this latter component, supporting a two-migration model into a hunter-gatherer substrate, involving an early-Neolithic (7–8 KYA) arrival of farming populations from the Near East, followed by a late-Neolithic (4.5 KYA) migration of pastoralists from the steppe region north of the Caspian Sea, whose genomic contribution is ubiquitous in modern Europeans. Ancient MSY sequences34 show that hgs R1a and R1b are present in the steppe much earlier than observed in any European sites (Supplementary Table 8), making this region a likely source for these MSY expansion lineages.**



19 Olalde, I. et al. Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European. Nature 507, 225–228 (2014).



(^This, ref 19, I think was the Stone Age European paper.

* "Discontinuity" from the hunter gatherer who was found. Offers Europe a clean slate: puts an end to many of the questions arising from the Stone Age European of African-skintone and otherwise Scandinavian genes who was found in Spain, and his connection to Europe. A break with his kind was already implied in the wholesale - or actually 2/3 - European replacement by surmised Kurgan Oryans. And that explains why it was necessary for Saami to demonstrate one of the 3 paternal lineages: Saami aren't African in skintone but fair. So whiteness to be traced to Oryanist lineages after all?

Hmm. That the study left out not only Estonians but also Finnish is another curiosity.)



34 Haak, W. et al. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature doi:10.1038/nature14317 (2015).



(** The above is the Massive Migration IE languages from The Steppes Into Europe paper.)

"Ancient MSY sequences34 show that hgs R1a and R1b are present in the steppe much earlier than observed in any European sites"

That may be, but even the Massive Migration paper specifically spoke of the conventional Kurgan Urheimat Hypothesis' date of ~4500 years ago for the Kurgan invasion/IE dispersal into Europe. Even if that was merely the last or most significant/effective/noticeable wave, it still doesn't explain the presence of R1a in Europe at about 7300 years ago/5300 BCE as per Figure 3 at nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html#ref-link-17



Figure 3 is from "an independent analysis of MSY diversity in the pooled HGDP CEPH panel European samples16, and is compatible with current (n=98) ancient DNA data for MSY".



Again:

Kurgan Urheimat is dated 5000 BCE. Mallory dates the "IE dispersals" (waves of invasions/migrations) into Europe starting at 4500 BCE, earlier than Gimbutas' version of what's originally her Kurgan hypothesis at ~3000 BCE. R1a in Europe at 7250 years BP = 5250 BCE is then older than the Steppe Urheimat/PIE at 5000 BCE. Even if it's give or take 300 years, so that PIE exists at a proposed steppe urheimat at 5300 BCE, you'd expect the early R1a entry into Europe at 7300 BP/5300BCE to be speaking "PIE" not later branches, and that means some local development of IE languages internal to Europe would have taken place surely, before the Bronze Age invasions I mean massive migrations from the steppe?

Ancient mtDNA data18 also indicate large-scale population discontinuity since the Neolithic transition, with a massive shift in haplogroup composition ~7.5 KYA between Central European hunter-gatherers (carrying exclusively hg U lineages) and farmers (a much broader range of hgs), followed by later fluctuations. Demographic inference from whole mtDNA sequences16, however, does not show recent and sudden expansion. This suggests that the recent events responsible for shaping modern MSY variation were male specific.



16 Brandt, G. et al. Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of central European mitochondrial genetic diversity. Science 342, 257–261 (2013).



The period 4–5 KYA (the Early Bronze Age) is characterized by rapid and widespread change, involving changes in burial practices that might signify an emphasis on individuals or kin groups, the spread of horse riding, and the emergence of elites and developments in weaponry35. In principle male-driven social selection36 associated with these changes could have led to rapid local increases in the frequencies of introgressing haplogroups34, and subsequent spread, as has been suggested for Asia37. However, cultures across Europe remain diverse during this period; clarifying the temporal and geographical pattern of the shift will rely heavily on additional ancient DNA data.





35 Cunliffe, B. Europe Between the Oceans: 9000 BC-AD 1000 Yale University Press (2011).

36 Zerjal, T. et al. The genetic legacy of the Mongols. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 717–721 (2003).

37 Reference is to a study about Genghis Khan et al Asian lineages (also mentioned in the most recently-pasted dailymail article and a separate article):

nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014285a.html

Balaresque, P. et al. Y-chromosome descent clusters and male differential reproductive success: young lineage expansions dominate Asian pastoral nomadic populations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. doi:doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.285 (2015).

Skipped over the method section except for:

Demographic models and priors



We considered five models depicting different demographic histories, testing each model separately for each population (Supplementary Fig. 2). M1 is the simplest, in which the effective population size remains constant over time (uniform prior: 20–20,000). In M2 an ancient constant-sized population (uniform prior: 1,001–20,000) starts an exponential reduction T1 generations ago. The reduction spans LEX generations (uniform prior: 5–634), then the population returns to constant size (uniform prior: 20–1,000) T2 generations ago (uniform prior: 0–30). In M3 the reduction is followed by an expansion that starts T2 generations ago (with the effective population size, NER, drawn from an uniform prior: 20–1,000) until the present (uniform prior for the current effective population size, NC: 1,001–20,000). M4 is parameterized in the same way as M2, with an expansion instead of a reduction (NA uniform prior: 20–1,000; NC uniform prior: 1,001–20,000). In M5, the expansion ends at T2 followed by a reduction until present time (NEE uniform prior: 1,001–20,000; NC uniform prior: 20–1,000). We considered a generation time of 30 years.** In all the models the Last Glacial Maximum (~20,000 years ago) represents the upper bound of the time for the first demographic change (T1).



In each simulation the per-generation, per-site mutation rate24 is drawn from a normal distribution with mean 3.01 × 10-8 and 95% confidence intervals 2.77–3.26 × 10-8. DNA sequences were generated under a finite sites mutational model with no transition/transversion bias.



Perl scripts used in the analysis are available upon request.



(** Then "a generation time" doesn't mean age until the next generation but average lifespan? Or is it not talking about humans at all and I just misunderstood?)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_Urheimat_hypotheses

She (Gimbutas, in her suggestion of Kurgan Urheimat hypothesis of the 1950s) had created a modern variation on the traditional invasion theory (the Kurgan hypothesis, after the kurgans, burial mounds, of the Eurasian steppes) in which the Indo-Europeans were a nomadic tribe in Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia and expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BCE. Their expansion coincided with the taming of the horse. Leaving archaeological signs of their presence (see battle-axe people), they subjugated the peaceful European Neolithic farmers of Gimbutas's Old Europe. As Gimbutas's beliefs evolved, she put increasing emphasis on the patriarchal, patrilinear nature of the invading culture, sharply contrasting it with the supposedly egalitarian, if not matrilinear culture of the invaded, to the point of formulating essentially a feminist archaeology.



Her interpretation of Indo-European culture found genetic support in remains from the Neolithic culture of Scandinavia, where DNA from bone remains in Neolithic graves indicated that the megalith culture was either matrilocal or matrilineal, as the people buried in the same grave were related through the women. Likewise, there is a tradition of remaining matrilineal traditions among the Picts. J. P. Mallory, dating the migrations earlier, to around 4000 BCE, and putting less insistence on their violent or quasi-military nature, essentially modified Gimbutas' theory.



The Gimbutas-Mallory Kurgan hypothesis seeks to explain the Indo-European language expansion by a succession of migrations from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, or, more specifically and according to the revised version, to the area encompassed by the Sredny Stog culture (ca. 4500 BCE). This hypothesis is compatible with the argument that the PIE homeland must have been larger,[4] because the "Neolithic creolisation hypothesis" allows the Pontic-Caspian region to have been part of PIE territory.

Considering the "replacement" of male lines said to be seen in Europe, caused by the 3 bronze age lineages that are assumed to have emanated from the steppes and associated with some IE diffusion into Europe,

whether Gimbutus' theory of matriarchal native European societies getting replaced by patriarchal oryan ones from steppe becomes secondary to the fact that whatever Y was in Europe got significantly replaced.

Although Jobling & co are being polite and saying the incoming replacement lineages merely outcompeted/had something more to offer, I notice they did some storytelling in their previous deprecated study too, concluding neolithic ME farmers accounting for 80% of European Y by being "seduced by native European hunter-gathering females". Storytelling and excuses are always after the fact. The fact is that their own argument is one of significant replacement of existing European male lineages by the appearance of 3 new paternal lineages. Female hypergamy seems subordinated to the oryan fantasy of Oryan males stealing females. Behaviourally more reminiscent of the history in the Italic setting of Sabine women vs incoming Roman male stealing them, though that of course is deemed an intra-IE skirmish/replacement (plus the forebear of Roman religion remains a Sabine IIRC).



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women

The Rape of the Sabine Women (Latin: Sabinae raptae) is an episode in the legendary history of Rome, traditionally dated to 750 BC,[1] in which the first generation of Roman men acquired wives for themselves from the neighboring Sabine families. The English word rape is a conventional translation of the Latin raptio, which in this context means "abduction" rather than its prevalent modern meaning in English language of sexual violation. Recounted by Livy and Plutarch (Parallel Lives II, 15 and 19), it provided a subject for Renaissance and post-Renaissance works of art that ...

A most telling part IMO was:



nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/full/ncomms8152.html

the Turks and Greeks show evidence of general expansion, with increased growth rate around 14 KYA. (KYA = thousand years ago) A different pattern is seen in the remaining majority (13/17) of populations, which share remarkably similar histories featuring a minimum effective population size ~2.1–4.2 KYA (considering the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) reported in Supplementary Table 4), followed by expansion to the present. Considering only these 13 populations, the only significant geographical correlation is of decreasing diversity in the number of polymorphic sites from east to west

I.e. Greeks not included in the 13 populations whose histories are explained by the 3 paternal lineages spreading in Europe in its Bronze Age, which 3 lineages - via reference to the other study - are thought to have entered Europe from the steppe in a "massive migration" and which itself is proposed (by means of reference to David Anthony's 2007 book) to be connected to the steppe origin of "at least some IE languages of Europe".

And R1a's pre-Bronze Age presence (7300 years BP) in Europe in Figure 3 at the link is also relevant, especially as its presence in Europe predates the range of estimates for the PIE/Urheimat of the Kurgan (steppe) hypothesis.

[Husky]

Pure Spam.



The only half-interesting bit, if even that, is that David Anthony's spin on/injection of new (and more respectable) life to the Kurgan theory via his 2007 book on the subject not only seems to be a favourite of current IE research/directions but also a favourite of the lay IE-following in the west.

All I can think is: "Really?"





1. About the following blue bit from 452:

[quote name='Husky' date='23 May 2015 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1432367434' post='117754']Really intriguing that less than a quarter -or possibly just no more than a 1/6th- of the Greeks' (piechart) can be explained by the 3 Bronze Age paternal lineages that are thought to emanate from the steppes. Considering that Greeks more than even the Romans are Da Definition of ancient "IE" civilisation in Europe. If they can't be significantly derived from the steppes - via the 3 Bronze Age paternal lineages identified - then, ... not really sure what it means. But then, am not sure either what these charts mean in terms of the implied "replacement" of the neolithic that was mentioned by the news item on the study and indicated in the study too. I mean, Brits show a sliver of I2 (dark green) present in far greater amounts in the Greeks sampled, and I2 is supposed to be "originated some time around 13,000-15,000 BCE", which for European dates is well into the Paleolithic.

[/quote]

My question above was how they concluded 2/3 replacement of Europe's neolithic by the 3 Bronze age paternal lines, when neolithic and even paleolithic haplogroups were detected.

I stupidly concluded each chart showed the average person from his region, say Italy, and hence wondered where the replacement was if the averaged person (in Italy) showed both Bronze age to Paleolithic haplogroups.



Can reconcile the news statement about replacement by Bronze Age lineages, if each 1/20 slice of each piechart shows the haplogroup of a single invidual sampled in the region for that pie-chart.

=> 340 individuals sampled in the study (6 or 8 were left out of the results) and 17 places in Europe and Levant means about 20 individuals per place. So each piechart slice unit of 1/20 would be representing the haplogroup of a single individual sampled in that place (?)

Because:

The piecharts shows "frequencies of Y-haplogroups", as per nature.com/ncomms/2015/150519/ncomms8152/fig_tab/ncomms8152_F1.html

Frequencies as in counts.



But if true, that makes the Greek pie-chart (and the question of any Slavic or even Albanians present among the Greeks sampled) all the more interesting. 2/3 being I2 and J2.





2. Archiving a link from 2012 which is interesting for several reasons.



librarything.com/topic/141380

"New" Indo-European Homeland Theory



(Basically, 2012 attempt at reviving Renfrew's Anatolian urheimat hypothesis)



Renfrew's Anatolian Urheimat theory - eschewing oryan invasions on Europe - nevertheless needed an oryan invasion on India and Iran to explain anything, see below. Also intriguing is how crucial the work by David W Anthony - who revised the Kurgan Urheimat to make it more acceptable to "the thinking PIE-ist" (containing slightly fewer excesses of a B fantasy movie on Oryanism) - has become to the 21st century generations of the west: everyone interested in IE-ism is swearing by the Kurgan hypothesis via Anthony's spin on it, even as they lampoon Renfrew.

Repeat: Anthony's book on the subject is exactly the one that stated that Indra (and Soma and some other features too) is not IE and hence not of PIE but is a borrowing from the locality.

9BarkingMatt

Edited: Aug 25, 2012, 4:11pm Top

> 3: Renfrew is more subtle than that. He did think dispersal of language would have something to do with migration of humans (but very gradual), and thought the best option for that was population increase because of the introduction of crop farming (neolithic evolution if you will) - and essentially that's why he starts his reconstruction in Anatolia: early agriculture plus early usage of an Indo-European language. His idea was that raising crops would have given some groups such an advantage that they would have gradually displaced earlier hunter/gatherer groups. In itself not a bad theory.



He runs into awful problems when he tries to explain the movement of Indo-European languages into the Persia and India though. Then, suddenly, he relies on conquering hordes.

(I.e. the major urheimat theories require/depend on oryan invasions into India and Iran.)



In short: I would advise you to read this book, just to take notice of an alternative theory going about. But I agree Horse, wheel, and language (=book by Anthony) makes much more sense to me too.

Anthony and his school of thought seems heavily influential and involved in the genetic studies on Steppe Oryans -> Europe. Doubtless they will likewise be of paramount importance in arguing Steppe Oryans -> Skt and Avestan in India (giving rise to Vedas) and Iran.

Any minute now.



Strange how all these lay IE-ism followers was swearing by Anthony. Here's one person's reasoning:

16Feicht

Aug 26, 2012, 7:18pm Top

Yeah, I'd love for the whole question to be wrapped up in a nice package of the languages expanding with Neolithic farming culture, but in my mind anyway, the linguistic aspect (which, in this instance, is the important one) just doesn't really allow for it. Once again, I say that Anthony is the new authority on this subject.



Of course, it's not that the Renfrew-esque "Out of Anatolia" model is irrational or anything. That distinction (IMO) lies with Alinei's "Paleolithic Continuity Model", which as I understand it relies more on genetic evidence than linguistic. But here again is the strength of Anthony's theory. It allows for the fact that there was no widespread genetic whitewashing by Indo-European interlopers, positing a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals who didn't (generally speaking) come in search of conquest in the traditional sense. Alinei's theory sees the same genetic result, but assumes that it MUST mean that the languages of the aboriginal inhabitants were Indo-European, jumping through a variety of hoops in order to do so. To me, it's an example of trying to make the data fit the hypothesis instead of the other way around, which is flawed reasoning.

But but but but:



a. "no widespread genetic whitewashing by Indo-European interlopers, positing a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals" <-> "Massive Migration from the steppes (into Europe)" paper. Which specifically referred to Anthony's book for the IE part of the story (and which study is affiliated with Anthony)



b. "no widespread genetic whitewashing by Indo-European interlopers, positing a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals" <-> the study showing that ~2/3rds of paternal lineages of modern Europeans are from Bronze Age era, which was tied to the Massive Migration study to infer that maybe the lineages were from the steppes



c. "a gradual influx of only a relatively few individuals who didn't (generally speaking) come in search of conquest in the traditional sense." <-> Uh, Replacement again. Of ~2/3rds of European paternal lines.



If the results were speaking about India and not Europe, you know everyone would have been yelling invasion, nah?



As per Feicht it was Anthony's theory that claimed all the LHS of the above, and which LHS appealed to Feicht's reason (as he saw this as the "strength of Anthony's theory). Yet the 2 recent studies - RHS - don't seem to quite support Anthony's theory/the conclusions on the LHS.





Pure Spam.

[Husky]

Something added to a post in another thread that is relevant to this one:



[quote name='Husky' date='16 June 2015 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1434470463' post='117826']

Can scroll down here (down to the photo captioned with "Harappa Period Chariot from Daimabad, Maharashtra, Source: Upinder Sindh/Sali 1986:477-479") to see obvious ratha-s in IVC. The same link includes a photo captioned with "This copper chariot was found by M.S. Vats, the Director of the ASI, at Harappa. Dates back to 3000 BC. Oldest so far found in world." At least these 2 photos of IVC artifacts are unmistakable. (Meanwhile, IE-ism wants to claim rathas were a development in 1600 BCE - since in Euro/Steppe space they can only trace chariots that far back apparently - and that all IE migrations that brought the 'IE' chariot 'innovation' therefore have about 1600 BCE as a ceiling.)

[/quote]



Archiving:



1. The 1600 BCE ref is from this comment:



www.librarything.com/topic/141380

For those who are interested in serious thinking about this long-standing question, here are my comments on my reading of Robert Drews' 'The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European conquests in the Aegean and the Near East':



"Splendid example of hypothesis construction & testing. Effect is to strengthen greatly the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov hypothesis on the IE homeland (Armenia/Eastern Anatolia), with corrected chronology (2nd M not 4th or 5th) and good archaeological data. Gimbutas ('out of the steppes') & Renfrew ('plodding farmers demic diffusion') loose credibility.



""All the IE movements of the Bronze Age that we know about are takeovers, date no earlier than ca.1600BC, & are associated with chariot warfare." (p153)



""Chariot warfare, along with 'the Greeks', came to Greece ca.1600BC ... similar in the takeover of nthwestern India by the Aryans, of southern Mesopotamia by the Kassites, of Egypt by the Hyksos, of Mitanni by Aryans ... All of the takeovers occurred within a few generations after the perfection, around the middle of the C17thBC, of chariot warfare ..."(pp170-172).



"" ... 'the coming of the Greeks' did not ethnically transform the land; instead, it seems to have superimposed upon the indigenous population of Greece a small minority of PIE speakers. In this respect, as in its date, the Hellenization of Greece thus seems to parallel the Aryanization of nthwest India" (pp199-200).



(Oooh. ^Is that the "Aryan AND Dravoodian" theory for Greece? Wouldn't wish that on an enemy. Well, on christoislam, sure. Would call down a pox and death on christoislam.

But, poor Greeks of the Olympic religion: welcome to the Pit.

Guess it was expected, though, since the genetic data for the Greeks doesn't favour the oryan markers that the Ukraine-pushers were favouring. As seen in stuff pasted 2 posts up and above. And I guess European genetics studies would have known this for some years.)



"PS August 2012: If we factor in the Ryan/Pitman hypothesis on the catastrophic filling of the Euxine around 5600 BCE as the seas rose in the deglaciation of the Holocene a process that continues today, then it becomes interesting that all the arguments on the origins of the IEs focus on places all round the Black Sea - the 'Kurgan' theory of Marija Gimbutas and many others including David Anthony focussed on the northern and north-eastern steppes; Renfrew et al focussed on the spread of agriculture to Europe out of Anatolia; and the linguistic theories of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, supported by Drews albeit with much lower chronology, focussed on eastern Anatolia and Armenia, particularly around Lake Van. Perhaps the conceptualisers should be thinking more sub-marine at this stage!"

2. The Harappan images of chariots in the IVC referred to in this post's opening quoteblock, are at

aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/3/



aryaninvasionmyth.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/chariot-daimabad-2.jpg

Harappa Period Chariot from Daimabad, Maharashtra, Source: Upinder Sindh/Sali 1986:477-479



Chariot from Daimabad: Harrapan period site;

Now - in pre-emption - that may not look like and may not be horses harnessed to the ratha (btw, the chariot looks rather like what Greeks would use later).

But the point is that it IS a chariot.

Besides, none less than the Great God Thor (of the heathens in the NW of Europe) himself rides a chariot with IIRC 2 *goats* harnessed to it. And *that* instance of a chariot is IIRC used as proof of chariots in the Germanic/Nordic case.



Therefore, in India too it should not matter as to what species of domesticated animals are tied to the front of the single pair of wheels: as long as it's a chariot. Which it clearly is.



And this is rather a beauty too:

aryaninvasionmyth.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/chariot-harappa-e1349088737873.jpg

This copper chariot was found by M.S. Vats, the Director of the ASI, at Harappa. Dates back to 3000 BC. Oldest so far found in world.



Harappa chariot, Harappa copper chariot, the first covered chariot of the world



(besides it being almost 1.5 millennia older apparently than they can trace *any* kind of chariots in any part of the "IE" world at least....

And it is fair to infer that the covered chariot may be in consequence to uncovered models preceding it: which would date uncovered kinds in Harrappa/IVC = the Hindoo homeland still older than 3000 BCE.)



found by M.S. Vats at Harappa.

Another related Harappan image is at the link:



aryaninvasionmyth.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/chriot-harappa-brooklyn.jpg

Harappan Chariot toy kept at the Brooklyn University Museum



Source Brooklyn Museum website.

(Still, a single pair of wheels - so not a cart - harnessed to domesticated animals. But the first 2 images are more decisive and less liable to be dismissed.)



No doubt there'll be excuses from P/IE-ists about

- the covered chariot photo with the man seated in front on the left is not clear enough. It is probably a piece of metal smelted wrong. And pareidolia (essentially seeing familiar shapes in random ones) takes care of the rest. Not evidence. Dismissed.

- tying donkeys or other non-true horses or any other 4 legged domesticated animals don't count as chariots. Unless it's Thor or any another European God, in which case it is of course a chariot.

- toy chariots don't count. It merely proves an Indian dream of a chariot, realised only by invading oryans from the steppes/wherever millennia later. Possibly shows that the Indians of India were merely anticipating an invasion by their superiors, the white oryans; you know, the way some native Americans in the Americas allegedly had a prophecy of 'white' aliens entering their lands in ships, which then 'came true' in the later half of the 2nd millennium CE.

- copper toy chariots don't count. As copper is not bronze which is of the (later part of the) Bronze age. "But..." "You do agree that copper is not bronze don't you, Don't You?"

- Or the most important reason of them all: none of these could be a chariot, because then the presence of chariots in India would precede 1600 BCE/1800 BCE and thus precedes the Oryan invasion of India. "I mean, chariots in India all the way in 3000 BCE? I don't think so." And we all *know* only Oryans invented and brought chariots to India. No earlier than 1800 BCE, but rather after 1600 BCE and - as per Victor Mair (IIRC) - closer to1000 BCE. Etc. AIT QED.

[ramana]

Husky



Link to Robin Kar paper on IVC influences on Western legal framework:



http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a...id=2124180



Can download pdf.

[Husky]

^ Ramana's post with PDF.



So sorry, really don't want to eclipse your post.



Thanks for the PDF link. I had downloaded it and stored it, but never read it. Felt the self-entitled confession in the title and abstract as the only thing that could interest me, rather than their grand theorising of how aliens now next own and authored the IVC too via the oryanism excuse. Oryanists are just like that.





Anyway, related to the previous post.



Turns out aliens [oryanists most likely] have indeed invented such a thing as "true chariots" (wha?), as opposed to untrue ones. Not sure what the definition is.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot

Early Indo-Iranians

The earliest fully developed true chariots known are from the chariot burials of the Andronovo (Timber-Grave) sites of the Sintashta-Petrovka Proto-Indo-Iranian culture in modern Russia and Kazakhstan from around 2000 BC. This culture is at least partially derived from the earlier Yamna culture. It built heavily fortified settlements, engaged in bronze metallurgy on an industrial scale and practiced complex burial rituals reminiscent of Hindu rituals known from the Rigveda and the Avesta. The Sintashta-Petrovka chariot burials yield the earliest spoke-wheeled true chariots. The Andronovo culture over the next few centuries spread across the steppes from the Urals to the Tien Shan, likely corresponding to the time of early Indo-Iranian cultures.

Interesting that the covered chariot from 3000 BCE in IVC's Harrappa, which is within the bounds of ancient India, pre-dates the 'Proto-Indo-Iranian' "true chariot" in modern Russia & Kazakhstan by a full millennium.

But then, its existing backwards in time - not to mention in the oh-so-wrong place of Bharatam - means it is obviously not a true chariot and therefore doesn't count.

But will Oryanists claim the true chariot to be an independent "IE" innovation -in the urheimat of irgendwo- and not copied/inspired/derived from the older IVC chariot (which is definitely a chariot, even if not allowed as a true one)? Hmmm.





Wiki mentions that the earliest horse-drawn carts (i.e. 4 wheelers etc) dated to 3000 BCE Mesopotamia:

The horse drawn wheeled vehicle probably originated in Mesopotamia about 3000 BC. The earliest depiction of vehicles in the context of warfare is on the Standard of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, c. 2500 BC. These are more properly called wagons or carts and were still double-axled and pulled by oxen, or a hybrid of a donkey and a female onager,[1] named Kunga in the city of Nagar which was famous for breeding them.[2]

(Wonder how the natives pronounced this city of "Nagar". But it's just 2 syllables, I shouldn't play word games.)



This next is a very interesting claim the wackypedia page makes, with no ref given and admitting to no more than speculation (use of "most likely"):

The invention of the wheel most likely took place in Europe.

About the 1600 BCE again in the following. Seems like an odd date:



librarything.com/topic/141380

Chariot warfare, along with 'the Greeks', came to Greece ca.1600BC ... similar in the takeover of nthwestern India by the Aryans, of southern Mesopotamia by the Kassites, of Egypt by the Hyksos, of Mitanni by Aryans ... All of the takeovers occurred within a few generations after the perfection, around the middle of the C17thBC, of chariot warfare ..."(pp170-172).

The fall of Troy is dated 13th century BCE. We know the Trojans and Greeks used chariots as per Homeros.

Between 1600 and 13th century BCE is about 400 years give or take. Not long enough to forget origins of an earlier homeland. This is from memory of Homer, but I don't recall the Aegeans reminiscing about prior origins outside their Greek regions. Of course Homeros' is not the only work on the subject of Ilium, but still. And ancient Greeks traced their ancientry in their space to much longer ago than that: to kings and cities well before, and speaking of more ancient ages of their history, all in their own space. Sort of like Indians and the Chinese etc.





Totally irrelevant factoid (but which seemed interesting) is that the ancient Romans were "surprisingly much shorter on average" than people today, as per a lecturer after their visits to European sites that preserved remains of ancient Romans.



Seems to be confirmed:



quora.com/How-tall-was-the-average-Roman-soldier

How tall was the average Roman soldier?

4 Answers

Gilbert TaylorGilbert Taylor, Long distance hiker, reader, student

2 upvotes by Kim Beerden and Konstantin Silin



Most people in the time of Ancient Rome, at least in the Mediterranean region, were between five and five and a half feet tall. Studies concerning the remains found in places like Herculaneum and Pompeii have helped solidify this estimate.

Eric Moore, Security Contractor, History Buff, Ma... (more)

3 upvotes by Chris Barnes, Quora User, and Quora User



Between 5 and 5'4, the Romans were not tall people and that's why they called the Celt's and Germans (Who were much taller) giants at times, what they lacked in size they made up in conditioning and stamina.



Julius Caesar commented on the short stature of his men whom he lead, but then he stood 5'7



Written 8 Jun, 2014. 953 views.

The previous post by Ramana contains a link to the PDF by Kar.

[Husky]

1. The earlier-mentioned Massive Migration paper.



Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (2015)



biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433





a. Found a comment there that sounded relevant.

Balaji 4 months ago





The Admixture figure at K=8 shows that the Early and Middle Neolithic Europeans as well as the WHG lack the light green component that is the largest part of South Asian populations. The early neolithic Near Easterners who were the ancestors of Early European Farmers must also lacked this component. But Yamnaya, Corded Ware and modern Near Easterners and Europeans all have this component. The explanation that immediately suggests itself is an Out-of-India migration that took this component to the Near East and Europe which were lacking this component until a few thousand years ago. An Out-of-India migration would also have taken along some ASI. Is there evidence for ASI in the Near East and Europe? At K=6 and K=7, there is a purple component that is modal in Papuans, Australians and Bougainville people and also prominent is South Asia. It is also present in East Asian populations. Clearly it is an ASI-related component. This component is present in Yamnaya and Corded Ware people. It is found in modern Near Easterners and in traces in modern Europeans.



Further evidence that an ENA component is present in modern Europeans and Near Easterners associated with the influx of ANE into these regions is provided by f3 statistics calculated by Davidski.



eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/07/f3-stats-100-present-day-populations.html



Europeans:

f3(Greek;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000365561, z = -2.41124

f3(East_Sicilian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000569748, z = -3.09234

f3(Tuscan;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000432676, z = -2.8525

f3(Portuguese;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000915428, z = -3.77992

f3(Bulgarian;Dai,French_Basque = -0.00118302), z = -8.17306

f3(Romanian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.00125626, z = -8.90695

f3(North_Italian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.0002888, z = -1.80649

f3(West_Sicilian;Dai,French_Basque) = -0.000558259, z = -2.84604



Near Easterners:

f3(Assyrian;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.00059462, z = -3.05822

f3(Ashkenazi;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.000297346, z = -1.91756

f3(Armenian;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.000435056, z = -3.04019

f3(Cyprian;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.000721083, z = -4.49671

f3(Druze;Dai,Sardinian) = -3.8934E-005, z = -0.227219

f3(Sephardic_Jewish;Dai,Sardinian) = -0.00134829, z = -8.69989

b. PDF is downloadable.



Good grief. It's like 172 pages. Pass. I don't get paid to read this.

(How is this a journal article? It's like the length of an avg PhD thesis in my field...

Biologists. Their species diverged from the rest of ours a long time ago. I mean, can't they have spent 150 of those pages writing a fantasy novel instead?)



Anyway, so searched the PDF for "South Asia".



Bottom of p.88 of the PDF and over (page 88 is marked as 56):

The Early/Middle Neolithic European populations belong almost entirely to the “orange” ancestral population from K=2 to K=8, while hunter-gatherers show a relationship to eastern non-Africans from K=3 to K=8, consistent with sharing more genetic drift with these populations due to their lack of “Basal Eurasian” ancestry2. From K=4 to K=6, the hunter-gatherers and late Neolithic/Bronze Age (LN/BA) groups possess some of the “pink” component that is dominant in Native Americans; this may reflect either the presence of west Eurasian-related “Ancient North Eurasian” ancestry in Native Americans5 or of the same type of ancestry in European hunter-gatherers. An interesting pattern occurs at K=8, with all the late LN/BA groups from central Europe and the Yamnaya having some of the “light green” component that is lacking in earlier European farmers and hunter-gatherers; this component is found at high frequencies in South Asian populations and its co-occurrence in late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans (but not earlier ones) and South Asians might reflect a degree of common ancestry associated with late Neolithic migratory movements (e.g., the ~5,800-year old TMRCA of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417 suggests some gene flow affecting both Europe and South Asia in this time frame11, although this date is subject to uncertainty due to poor estimates of the human mutation rate.)

About that final bit:

MRCA = most recent common ancestor

TMRCA = time to MRCA



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor

In biology, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of any set of organisms is the most recent individual from which all organisms in a group are directly descended. The term is often applied to human genealogy.



The MRCA of a set of individuals can sometimes be determined by referring to an established pedigree. However, in general, it is impossible to identify the specific MRCA of a large set of individuals, but an estimate of the time at which the MRCA lived can often be given. Such time to MRCA (TMRCA) estimates can be given based on DNA test results and established mutation rates as practiced in genetic genealogy, or by reference to a non-genetic, mathematical model or computer simulation. [...]

2. swarajyamag.com/magazine/aryans-caste-nationalism-emancipation-2/



About Maximiani Portas, that Greek nazi-era oryanist nazi dabbler in Hindus' heathenism:

However, Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst has pointed out that the relation between the Hindu nationalist movement and the Nazi ideologue was not a smooth one. Elst writes: “There was a sharp contradiction between her own racist and anti-egalitarian convictions and the reformist and egalitarian programme of the Hindu Mission. To the Hindu Mission, Hinduism was a value in itself; to Savitri Devi, it was but an instrument of her imagined Aryan race. In her years as a preacher, she kept her non-Hindu preoccupations to herself, but in her memoirs (Memories and Reflections of an Aryan Lady), she declared that she conceived of her reconversion mission as an exercise in deception: ‘From the racist Aryan viewpoint, it was necessary to give the most backward and degenerate aborigines a (false) Hindu consciousness.’”



Elst also points out that according to her, the Hindu Mission’s leader, Swami Satyananda, had seen through her insincerity and told her to preach from the Hindu viewpoint and keep her private opinions to herself (Elst, Return of the Swastika: Hate and Hysteria versus Hindu Sanity, 2015, p.119).

Odd how the bold bit enunciates exactly the motivations I always figured were lurking about in the minds of ethnically Indian oryanists cum 'Hindu nationalists'. After all, nothing else could reconcile these last two positions but in the manner that the Greek dabbling nazi above had uttered.

Then again, the difference between Indian oryanists and white supremacists is that the former would simply be the latter had they but been born as Europeans in Euro-space. You know they would.

And if only they had, Hindus might have been free of them. Pity.



But at least I despise the aliens less now. Still don't understand their need for supremacism, especially as measured by the worthless standard they choose to use (whiteness, evolved into their more complex oryanism excuse, sometimes in the form of linguistic or cultural or civilisational superiority, via PIE-ism and not anything actual to show), but their descent into such pettiness and obsession is more forgivable - since their collective was robbed of its heathenism and got replaced with christianism which is the father of their racism - when compared to the same phenomenon now among Indics, who don't have such an excuse and among whom it therefore reveals itself (and themselves) as an abomination.





3. But to end on a happier note. A far happier one.



Last time I read the stuff in the following blockquote was half my life ago, so I didn't see the relevance back then.



It's taken from the materials of the once-famed philologist, Herr professor of Anglo-Saxon history, author of Da Legendarium (meant to be a mythos for Albion/Luthany, though the Ainulindalë and Valaquenta at least are admitted to be a rearranged version of the Finnish Kalevala**, plus the Narn for instance has more than a passing nod to the Kalevala too, not to mention the copious reused bits from Nordic/Germanic as well as GR religio).

ar(a) - 'high, noble, royal' appears in a great many names, as Aradan, Aredhel, Argonath, Arnor, etc.; extended stem arat- appearing in Aratar, and in aráto 'champion, eminent man', e.g. Angrod from Angaráto and Finrod from Findaráto; also aran 'king' as in Aranrúth. Ereinion 'scion of kings' (name of Gil-galad) has the plural of aran; cf. Fornost Erain 'Norbury of the Kings' in Arnor. The prefix Ar- of the Adûnaic names of the Kings of Númenor was derived from this.



(Source: the Quenta S, of course)

Ereinion's suffix seems to have a throwback to Greek?



So, as seen from the obviously original root for arya above, PIE is .... not even the Adunaic from Numenor as I had suspected, but it's from .... Quenya? Classic!



Oh so funny. Can't stop laughing.



He was surely onto something. Or I should say, onto something better: it is hands-down a far grander mythos and history than oryanism/PIE-ism has ever managed.





** Here:

Encompassing both texts: "But the beginning of the legendarium, of which the Trilogy is part (the conclusion), was an attempt to reorganise some of the Kalevala ...." (Letter written in 1955)[6]

BTW, the fact that he felt the need to create a mythos for his nation says something: that it didn't have one, or not anything worthwhile as per him, or not distinctive to it.

The fact that he even (and prodigiously) pillaged from the Finno-Ugric mythology of the Finns to create an Indo-European variant for his nation says something else. And the fact that he didn't like to credit the Celtic influences, and his publisher originally declined the work for being "too Celtic", and that he also hid the Arthurian influences (Avalone anyone?), and dismissed the English language/lost interest in it after the influence of French are all further curiosities.



[His translation of the famous Germanic tale of Gudrun being forcibly married to Atla showed an interesting influence on his own work too. More interesting however is that Atla is clearly stated to be Attila the Hun who is admitted to be a Mongolian type of Hun. Which could explain where the whole 19th century/early 20th century American admonishment of Germans being "but Huns" comes from. But none of that belonged in this thread.]





Points 1 a and b in this post are all that's relevant.

[Husky]

4. And older stuff follows. Not sure if at all relevant to point 1 in the previous post.



But in point 1, the excerpt from the Massive Migration paper did mention "M417".

Googling "M417 haplogroup" and it seems to be variously mentioned as R1a1a and R1a1a1 (honestly, who came up with this naming scheme? What were they thinking? Again, I blame biologists. They're all mad as a hatter. And to think I used to make fun of mathematicians and those in chemistry. When really, one's ire should be concentrated on biologists.)





omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/The_Collapse_of_the_AIT_13_2_2013.pdf

p.22

Yet another later study by Sharma S. et al establishes again the Indoaryan indigenism:

“The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1 substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the case system” (2009).

[...]

Sharma S. et al 2009 ‘The Indian Origin of paternal halpogroup R1a1...’ in the Journal of Human Genetics, January.

p.26

A study by P. Underhill, one of the foremost geneticists, shows that the gene R1a1a is common in North India and among Europeans like the Czechs, Poles and Lithuanians. The oldest strain of this gene mutation was concentrated in Gujarat, Sindh and W est Rajasthan. This together with the M458 mutation is estimated to have travelled northwestward out of India at the latest 8000 years ago. (See Underhill 2010). Thus it is quite acceptable that Vedic tribes moved away from Sapta-Sindhu to Bactria and thence to other areas where IE languages have been found.

Well, are all studies before 2012 affected by that error that the British group of biologists made - see post 449 - and which made them conclude 80% European Y was neolithic or something? You know, before their more recent study then concluded that actually 60% of much of Europe was Bronze Age instead. Does that same error plague everybody? Or is it just Mark Jobling's group that used to do this wrong until they were corrected?



'Cause if the statements at the omilosmeleton doc do yet hold, Googling for "m458" is interesting too.

R1a-M458 | Facebook

https : // www.facebook.com/R1aM458

R1a-M458. 218 likes · 4 talking about this. M458 is a Branch of Y Chromosome Haplogroup R1a Which is found Entirely in Europe. This is a Community Page...

New map of haplogroup R1a-M458 (Y-DNA) - Eupedia



www.eupedia.com › Eupedia Forum

Dec 20, 2014 - 20 posts - ‎9 authors

I have created a new map of R1a-M458, a lineage which I associate with the Corded Ware expansion and which peaks in West Slavic countries ...