What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1

**acharya** · 12-20-2005, 02:56 AM

The interesting points:
Good sampling from many Indian locations

Parpola's theory Indus is dead: The evidence for a Dravidian-Indus connection is not supported by any markers. So Dravidians did not author the Indus civilization.

Witzel's Theory Indus is dead: The markers do not support an Austro-Asiatic origin for Indus either. In fact the clusters are as distinct as they can be.

R1A1's epicenter seems to be in Pamir region. From here it seems to have spread in one direction to Central Asia and Europe and in another to interior India. But the time of spread appears to be much more ancient than the 1500 BC of Kuzmina/Witzel's nonsense theory. So this cannot have anything to do with a late AIT and in any case it did not come from deep Europe.

There are relationships within brahmins that transcend regional differences (see below). Many markers are shared by Iyer, Iyengar, Konkanasta Brahmin and Bengal Brahmin. So a core brahmin group spreading out is a possibility. Interestingly Iyer and Kbr form a close cluster despite the former being typically dark and the later fair. UP brahmins seem to have had a major component from the West most likely as Shakadvipi brahmins.

Many India Muslims are recent Hindu converts and group closely with brahmins and other Hindus.

Central Asian Rajputs dead: Rajputs while forming a distinct group are more Indian than Central Asian.

In my opinion the simplest solution to the mess is to propose a much earlier divergence of Indo-European than is current. If we posit an Indo-Aryan itself being distinct by 5000 BC then we could account for much of the observed molecular evidence. But the dispersion point of Indo-European should move closer to India most likely in the Pamir area. I am sure many OIT people will be happy to go with that.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 12-22-2005, 07:49 AM by dhu.)

QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 20 2005, 02:56 AM)

R1A1's epicenter seems to be in Pamir region. From here it seems to have spread in one direction to Central Asia and Europe and in another to interior India.

[right][snapback]43436[/snapback][/right]


R1A1 (M17) had a temporary refuge in the Pamir Area during the last glacial freeze. From there, it reexpanded to the North following M173's (R1b) former route. It definitely did originate in interior India. Oppenheimer gives a similar picture for the colonization of the Tibetan plateau from SE Asia; the tibetans hunkered down during the last freeze with an inconsequential flow back to SEA but reexpanded north when the freeze ended. Incidentally, this finding places the "Sino-Tibetan-burmese" origin to the South and redefines the relationship between Tibetan, Burmese, and Northern Chinese.

Oppenheimer:

For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity *characterizes* its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan Invasion of India', (p. 152).

Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia (p. 153).

dhu · (This post was last modified: 12-22-2005, 08:01 AM by dhu.)

QUOTE(Sushmita @ Dec 2 2005, 06:14 AM)...That bit on Johanna Nichols is also very interesting and I had not come across it before.
[right][snapback]42387[/snapback][/right]


Sushmita, that excerpt on Nichols is from Shrikant Talageri's online book:
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/ch7.htm

Talageri also made a rare post on the IC list recently:

msg # 83263, 83308
QUOTEFrom: Srinivasan Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>
Date: Mon Dec 19, 2005Â 12:08 pm
Subject: MitanniÂ kalyan97
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
*The **Mitanni***

* *

*HOCK'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE OIT*

H. H. Hock presents various arguments against the OIT in two papers included
in the volume "Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia" (Ann Arbor, 1997, edited
by Madhav M. Deshpande and Johannes Bronkhorst): "Out of India? The
Linguistic Evidence" (p.1-17), and "Through a glass darkly: Modern 'racial'
interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on arya and
dasa/dasyu in Vedic society" (p. 145-?).

The papers are interesting, and afford scope for some fundamental studies on
certain points, which produce strong evidence on matters pertaining to the
indo-Aryan problem, though, as we shall see, *not* in the direction
indicated by Hock.

In the first paper, Hock touches on the "Vedic-Sanskrit=Proto-Indo-European"
theory and the alternate "Proto-Indo-European-in-India" theory, and argues
strongly against both. The first of these theories is, of course, untenable.
But, in the course of his arguments, Hock deals with the issue of the
Mitanni language in a debatable manner. In discussing the second theory, he
takes up two issues, both of which invite debate: the "equine evidence", and
the evidence of ancient IE dialectology.

In the second paper, he discusses the AIT arguments about the racial
differences between the so-called invading (or immigrating or
"acculturating"?) Indo-Aryans, *as derived from textual analyses*, and,
fortunately, dismisses them as baseless. However, in the course of his
paper, he presents other arguments from the AIT side on two issues, which,
again, invite debate: the identity of aryas and dasas/dasyus in the RV, and
the evidence of river names with particular reference to the identity of the
Sarasvati in the RV.

We will, therefore discuss the following issues here:

The Mitanni evidence.

The Equine evidence.

The evidence of ancient IE dialectology.

The identity of aryas and dasas/dasyus in the RV.

The Rivers, especially the Sarasvati, in the RV.

*A*. *The **Mitanni** Evidence.*

Hock argues against the arguments of S.S.Misra, "that the Mitanni form of
Indo-Aryan must be later than Vedic Sanskrit and must have been imported to
the Near East from India", and concludes, to the contrary, that the Mitanni
language is in fact not a "form of Indo-Aryan" at all, but a form of *
Indo-Iranian*, and that this

"near Eastern variety of Indo-Iranian appears to predate the earliest
attested stages of both Indo-Aryan (which has changed (*d*)*zh* to *h*) and
Iranian (with *s*>*h*)" [HOCK 1997:3].

His *sole* argument, on the basis of which he reaches this conclusion, is
that the Mitanni word

"*wasanasaya* 'of the chariot', appears to reflect a stage prior to the
change of pre-Indo-Aryan voiced aspirate *(d)zh>h, assuming that the word
corresponds to Skt, *vahanasya* (see MAYRHOFER 1986, s.v. *vah-*)" [HOCK
1997:2].

Witzel, in the present volume under review here, modifies this to suggest
that the language *is* indeed Indo-Aryan, but

"an early pre-Rgvedic stage of IA, seen in the preservation of IIr â*zdh*->
Ved. â*edh*-, Iir *ai*> Ved. *e*, as well as in the absence of retroflexion
.... there is no retroflexion in *mani-nnu*, or the Southwest Iranian, Elam.
O.P. **bara-mani* and in the East Iranian dialect, Avest.: *ma**ini* (in
spite of the very specific phonetic alphabet used by the Zoroastrians!)
.... Mit. IA also does not have typical South Asian loan words such as
*ani*'lynch pin'."
(p.361-2).

He amplifies this in his footnote:

"Note â*zd*- in *Priyamazdha* (*Bi-ir-ia-ma-as-da*, Mayrhofer 1979:47 in
Palestine, cf. *Priya-asva*: *bi-ir-ia-as-su-va*): Ved. *Priyamedha*: Avest.
*âmazda*. Or, note retention of Iir *ai*> Ved. *e* (*aika*: *eka* in *
aikavartana*), and retention of *j'h*> Ved. *h* in *vasana(s)saya* of 'the
race track' = [*vazhanasya*] cf. Ved. *vahana-* (EWA II 536, Diakonoff 1971:
80; Hock 1999: 2). Mit. IA also shares the Rgvedic and Avest. Preference for
*r* (*pinkara* for *pingala*, *parita* for *palita*)" (p.389).

The evidence for the language being Indo-Aryan rather than Indo-Iranian is
overwhelming â every single Mitannian "Aryan" word is Indo-Aryan, and an
overwhelming majority of the words are absent or unknown in Iranian. Hock
has to indulge in special pleading [HOCK 1997:2-3 footnotes] to explain away
the absence of Vedic/Mitanni deities like *Varuna/uruwana*, or the
Vedic/Mitanni numeral word *eka/aika*, in Iranian; but the evidence is much
more wide-based: as Witzel puts it, the words cover

"the semantic fields of horses, their colors, horse racing and chariots,
some important 'Vedic' gods, and a large array of personal names adopted by
the ruling class" (p.361)

And all these words point *towards* Indo-Aryan, and *away from* Iranian.

Witzel, therefore, only concentrates on showing that the "Mit. IA" words
"belong to an early, pre-Rgvedic stage of IA" (p.361). And his evidence to
this effect consists only of the absence of retroflexion (eg. in *mani-nnu*),
the absence of what he calls "typical South Asian loan words" (the word *ani
*, "lynch pin"), and the *ai* in *aika*, *zd* in *Priyamazdha*, and *zh* in
*vazhanasya*.

The evidence is clearly flimsy and argumentative: the absence of
retroflexion in Iranian is a separate matter. The absence of retroflexion in
the Mitanni words is perfectly natural: Indo-Aryan languages migrating from
India often tend to lose their retroflexes. It is possible that the Mitanni,
like the Iranians before them (if they had retroflex sounds) and the
Romanies or Gypsies after them (who definitely did), lost the retroflexes
after emigration. In any case, the languages which borrowed and used the
Mitanni words, in the records, did not use alphabets which had letters for
retroflexes (and when, even today, millions of Indians write Indian words in
the Roman alphabet without seeing any need to indicate the retroflex sounds,
it would be too much to expect the non-IE languages which borrowed some
Mitanni words to invent special alphabets to represent retroflex sounds if
found in those words. Modern Arabic words used in Hindi, also, do not
indicate the exact Arab sounds in the words). "Typical South Asian loan
words" is an insolent phrase: How does Witzel decide that the word *ani*,
"lynch pin", is a "typical South Asian loan word", and how does he decide
that the word is absent in the Mitanni language? The sound *ai* instead of *
e* in *aika* is too flimsy to be of any value as an indicator of its
pre-Rigvedic vintage.

It is definitely not *my* claim that the Rigveda was composed in 5000 BCE or
completed in 3100 BCE, or that the Mitanni language is a form of Prakrit. *But
it is my claim that the **Mitanni** were emigrants from **India** in the
Late Period of the Rigveda, which I have always roughly placed between 2300
BCE or so and 1500 BCE. And the evidence of the **Mitanni** words in **West
Asia** proves this beyond the shadow of any doubt.** It is the same story,
of ara ("spokes") or of the "Bactria-Margiana words", all over again*:

A large number of Mitannni names end with the suffix *âatti. *Parpola lists
the following from the Mitanni records: *Biratti, Mittaratti, Asuratti,
Mariatti, Suriatti, Intaratti, Paratti* and *Suatti* [= Vedic Sanskrit
*Priyatithi,
Mitratithi, Asuratithi, Maryatithi, Suryatithi, Indratithi, Pratithi* and *
Suatithi*]. Other names end with the suffix â*medha* such as *
Biiriamasdha/Priyamazdha* [=Vedic Sanskrit *Priyamedha*], the suffix
â*asva*such as
*Biiriaassuva* [=Vedic Sanskrit *Priyasva*], the suffix â*sena* such as *
Biiriasena* [=Vedic *Priyasena*], the suffix â*ratha* such as *
Tusratta/Tuiseratta* [=Vedic *Tvesaratha*], or *start* with the *prefix* *
rta*- such as *Artaassumara* and *Artataama* [Vedic *Rtasmara* and *
Rtadhaman*].

*Excluding the names Vadhryasva and Vrsanasva, which have a different
grammatical form, and with the sole exception of one name (which is in fact
an exception that actually proves the rule, as we shall see) names with the
above suffixes and prefix are absent in the Mandalas of the Early Period and
the Middle Period of the Rigveda, and are found only in the Mandalas of the
Late Period (the non-family Mandalas I, VIII, IX and X, and in the only
Family Mandala which falls in the Late Period, Mandala V*):

* *

*Atithi*: *Medhatithi * VIII.8.20

*Medhyatithi* I.36.10,11,17; VIII.1.30; 2.40; 33.4; 49.9; 50.9; 51.1;
IX.43.3 * *

*Nipatithi* VIII.49.9; 51.1

*Mitratithi* X.33.7 **

*Medha*: *Asvamedha* V.27.4,5,6; VIII.68.15,16

*Priyamedha* I.39.9; 45.3,4; VIII.2.37; 3.16; 4.20; 5.25; 6.45; 8.18;
32.30; 69.8,18; 87.3; X.73.11

*Nrmedha* X.80.3; 132.7

*Sumedha* X.132.7

*Asva*: *Aghasva* I.116.6

*Istasva* I.122.13

*Rjrasva* I.100.16-18; 116.16; 117.17

*Ninditasva* VIII.1.30

*Marutasva* V.33.9

*Vyasva* I.112.15; VIII.9.10; 23.16,23,24; 24.22,23,28,29; 26.9,11;
IX.65.7

*Vidadasva* V.61.10

*Syavasva* V.52.21; 61.5; 81.5; VIII.35.19-21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8

*Sena*: *Rstisena* X.98.5,6,8

[Tvesaratha is found as a phrase, though not a name, in V.61.13]

*Ratha*: *Priyaratha* I.122.7

*Brhadratha* I.49.6; X.49.6

*Srutaratha* V.36.6

*Svanadratha* VIII.1.32

[possibly also *Dasaratha* I.126.4 and *Aristaratha* X.6.3]

*Rta: **Rtastup* I.112.20 **

[*Rtadhaman* itself, as a name or phrase, is found in post-Rigvedic
Samhitas]

The word *mani*, referred to by Witzel, is another example. The word is *
very* common in the post-Rigvedic texts, and in all later periods, but, in
the Rigveda, it is found only in the Mandalas of the Late Period, namely, in
I.33.8 and 122.14.

In addition, it may be noted, about the Mitanni and late Rigvedic names
beginning with *Priya*- above, that it is not just *names*, but *all*compound
*words* with *priya*- as the first element are restricted *only* to the
Mandalas of the Late Period, and are *very* common later on, but completely
missing in the Mandalas of the Early and Middle Periods of the Rigveda.

The only exception referred to by us above, ie the only name found in
Mandalas earlier than those of the Late Period, is the name *Citraratha*,
found in a Mandala of the Middle Period, in IV.30.18 (and again, later, in
X.1.5). This, far from disproving the rest of the evidence, *actually
confirms it.* The only two other names which, although occurring in Mandala
I, are found in the upa-mandalas of the *Middle Period*, are the names
Istasva and Rjrasva. *All these three names, the three earliest occurrences
in the Rigveda of the categories of names listed above, together provide us
with the period and area of the provenance of these names: they all refer to
the great battle "beyond the Sarayu" between the forces of Rjrasva (Arjaspa)
and Istasva (Vistaspa) in Afghanistan in the early part of the Middle Period
of the Rigveda, in which Citraratha (a Puru or Vedic Aryan, who fought on
the side of the Iranians) was killed [see TALAGERI 2000:214-224].This battle
took place after the events of the Early Period which took place in Haryana,
and then in the Punjab, and the subsequent westward expansion [see TALAGERI
2000:210-14].*

In my earlier writings, both in my books as well as in my debates with
Witzel-etc., I have always expressed my unwillingness to postulate "hard
dates" for the events in the Rigveda without "hard evidence" like dateable
inscriptions and documents, etc. Nevertheless, Witzel-etc. compelled me to
express my precise views on the subject, which I did (roughly): Early Period
â 3400-2600 BCE; Middle Period â 2600-2200 BCE; Late Period â 2200-1400 BCE.
Witzel-etc. introduced the subject of spokes (*ara*) and "Bactria-Margiana
words", both of which confirmed my dates, at least for the Late Period. Now,
the subject of the Mitanni words, again reintroduced by Witzel, has led to
an examination of the Mitanni evidence, which clearly provides irrefutable
evidence for my dating for the Late Period once more, this time on the basis
of actual dateable inscriptions and documents â if not in India, then in
West Asia. *The Mitanni are clearly emigrants from India in the Late Period
of the Rigveda*.

All this overwhelming evidence cannot be ignored or refuted, and it is my
hope that at least scholars like Hock, if not evangelical crusaders like
Witzel, will care to weigh the evidence and reconsider their positions.
* *
*Source: Note from Shrikant Talageri, Dec. ** 16, 2005*

The rest of the arguments by Witzel, about the *ai* in *aika*, the *zd* in *
Priyamazdha*, and *zh* in *vazhanasya*, are too minor to stand out against
all thi s evidence: it may be noted that the actual word *Priyamedha* itself
is found in the Mandalas of the *Late Period* of the Rigveda as the name of
a prominent Rishi; and the word *vahana* (if indeed the Mitanni word
corresponds to *vahana*; and not to *vasana* as held by Misra and denied by
Hock in HOCK 1997:2) is not yet found as an independent word, but only as a
suffix in compound words, in the Rigveda. The only explanation is that the
Mitanni people, in their movement from India to West Asia thro ugh the
Iranian areas, may have been influenced by Iranian dialects in the forms of
a few words.

Yours sincerely
Shrikant G. Talageri

narayanan · (This post was last modified: 12-22-2005, 08:29 AM by narayanan.)

This is where I have major problems with this "interpretation" business.

QUOTEGraphical depiction of a giraffe. ... Isn't it odd that horses should be depicted with giraffes which had supposedly gone extinct in the tertiary. Well, obviously, giraffes must have survied much longer but they were certainly extinct by harappan times.

Sorry, but what I see there is a bunch of people riding on horses with raised swords (or unicorns if that is what the Witzel-Farmer Theory requires), with several larger entities dancing around looking equally hostile. A "giraffe" stretching its neck and eating, is quite out of place and context in this picture. The tall hostiles look like Rakshasas - they were probably the Caucasian Savages, being routed. They are tall because they had to step over the Khyber Pass and the Hindu Kush ranges on the way to Mohenjodaro.

Probably, what looks like a giraffe (sans head) is either

a) A classical Lambda Shock in the atmospheric boundary layer, since the wind probably used to blow supersonic in those days, in order to enable Caucasian chariots, and Caucasian Horses, with their low Lift-to-Drag ratio, to fly...

b) A lightning strike that 'takes out' a few of the Rakshasas. Probably using a Space-based Electromagnetic Multiple-Targeting Beam Weapons, which were common in those days with the Aryans. Remember - those were used to Part the Red Sea for Moses to saunter through as well. And to levitate the Holy Spirit.

12-22-2005, 12:19 PM

here is the page from the book that talks about the aryan invasion
click on the thumbnail to see complete page
<img src='http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/1069/aryan3uf.th.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

12-22-2005, 02:02 PM

Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; A01

Scientists said yesterday that they have discovered a tiny genetic mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans tens of thousands of years ago, a finding that helps solve one of biology's most enduring mysteries and illuminates one of humanity's greatest sources of strife.

The work suggests that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.

"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."

The work raises a raft of new questions -- not least of which is why white skin caught on so thoroughly in northern climes once it arose. Some scientists suggest that lighter skin offered a strong survival advantage for people who migrated out of Africa by boosting their levels of bone-strengthening vitamin D; others have posited that its novelty and showiness simply made it more attractive to those seeking mates.

The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races.

Several sociologists and others said they feared that such revelations might wrongly overshadow the prevailing finding of genetics over the past 10 years: that the number of DNA differences between races is tiny compared with the range of genetic diversity found within any single racial group.

Even study leader Keith Cheng said he was at first uncomfortable talking about the new work, fearing that the finding of such a clear genetic difference between people of African and European ancestries might reawaken discredited assertions of other purported inborn differences between races -- the most long-standing and inflammatory of those being intelligence.

"I think human beings are extremely insecure and look to visual cues of sameness to feel better, and people will do bad things to people who look different," Cheng said.

The discovery, described in today's issue of the journal Science, was an unexpected outgrowth of studies Cheng and his colleagues were conducting on inch-long zebra fish, which are popular research tools for geneticists and developmental biologists. Having identified a gene that, when mutated, interferes with its ability to make its characteristic black stripes, the team scanned human DNA databases to see if a similar gene resides in people.

To their surprise, they found virtually identical pigment-building genes in humans, chickens, dogs, cows and many others species, an indication of its biological value.

They got a bigger surprise when they looked in a new database comparing the genomes of four of the world's major racial groups. That showed that whites with northern and western European ancestry have a mutated version of the gene.

Skin color is a reflection of the amount and distribution of the pigment melanin, which in humans protects against damaging ultraviolet rays but in other species is also used for camouflage or other purposes. The mutation that deprives zebra fish of their stripes blocks the creation of a protein whose job is to move charged atoms across cell membranes, an obscure process that is crucial to the accumulation of melanin inside cells.

Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.

A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.

Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago.

Unlike most mutations, this one quickly overwhelmed its ancestral version, at least in Europe, suggesting it had a real benefit. Many scientists suspect that benefit has to do with vitamin D, made in the body with the help of sunlight and critical to proper bone development.

Sun intensity is great enough in equatorial regions that the vitamin can still be made in dark-skinned people despite the ultraviolet shielding effects of melanin. In the north, where sunlight is less intense and cold weather demands that more clothing be worn, melanin's ultraviolet shielding became a liability, the thinking goes.

Today that solar requirement is largely irrelevant because many foods are supplemented with vitamin D.

Some scientists said they suspect that white skin's rapid rise to genetic dominance may also be the product of "sexual selection," a phenomenon of evolutionary biology in which almost any new and showy trait in a healthy individual can become highly prized by those seeking mates, perhaps because it provides evidence of genetic innovativeness.

Cheng and co-worker Victor A. Canfield said their discovery could have practical spinoffs. A gene so crucial to the buildup of melanin in the skin might be a good target for new drugs against melanoma, for example, a cancer of melanin cells in which slc24a5 works overtime.

But they and others agreed that, for better or worse, the finding's most immediate impact may be an escalating debate about the meaning of race.

Recent revelations that all people are more than 99.9 percent genetically identical has proved that race has almost no biological validity. Yet geneticists' claims that race is a phony construct have not rung true to many nonscientists -- and understandably so, said Vivian Ota Wang of the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda.

"You may tell people that race isn't real and doesn't matter, but they can't catch a cab," Ota Wang said. "So unless we take that into account it makes us sound crazy."
Â©*2005*The Washington Post Company

12-23-2005, 01:40 PM

Study treads on footprint claim

12-23-2005, 01:42 PM

came via email:
QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
ATT is a trademark of Rajeev Srinivasan. It is an acronym for 'Aryan Tourist Theory' Â. Everytime the phrase is used, the attribution to Rajeev Srinivaan should be included, please, since it is trade-marked.

Now for the breath-taking ice age footsteps. This is the decisive blow to the creationist indologists who believe in AIT (Aryan Influx Theory) because the universe according to the Bible was created only in 4004 BC. Any evidence prior to this date is a scientific hoax if the indologists are to be believed. When will the indologists learn to respect science?

-xxxx


Associated Press. Updated: 10:22 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005

See the photo at http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/syd801122...medium.jpg
In this photo released by the Environment Ministry, a footprint believed to be that of a man is shown in the Willandra Lakes district in western New South Wales of Australia.
Michael Amendolia / AP

CANBERRA, Australia - Hundreds of human footprints dating back to the last Ice Age have been found in the remote Australian Outback, an official and media reported Thursday.

The 457 footprints found in Mungo National Park in western New South Wales state is the largest collection of its kind in the world and the oldest in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper reported.

The prints were made in moist clay near the Willandra Lakes 19,000 to 23,000 years ago, the newspaper reported ahead of archeologists' report on the find to be published in the Journal of Human Evolution.

State Environment Minister Bob Debus said the site showed a large group of people walking and interacting.

"We see children running between the tracks of their parents; the children running in meandering circles as their parents travel in direct lines," Debus told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

"It's a most extraordinary snapshot of a moment or several moments in the life of Aboriginal people living on the edge of the lake in western New South Wales 20,000 years ago," he added.

The first print was reported by a local Aboriginal woman two years ago and a team of archaeologists led by Bond University archaeologist Steve Webb uncovered more than 450, the newspaper said.

Webb was not immediately available for comment.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10566347/
</div>

01-10-2006, 09:51 PM

Dhu, thanks.

Very interesting excerpts from the "Polarity and Temporality ..." genetics paper. The Interesting Points section especially. I'm a bit confused though when trying to connect the Caution part with the rest of the article. Is the AIT scenario - according to this paper - still a possibility or has it been closed off (in genetics)?

Its statement
QUOTEOur reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-eraânot Indo-Europeanâexpansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.seems to go against the AIT, but thenQUOTETherefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia.This is still not helping. Witzel and his team might create a new model, however preoposterous: "a tiny band of Aryan invaders-migrants-acculturists from Central Asia carried all the glorious Indian culture, language, heroism, Vedas and everything that was ever good to India and imposed the caste system on the Dravidians". I can see Witzel do it. No matter how much his field is shaken by these and other discoveries, he finds some tiny thread to hang on to. The probability of him being right is about one in a zillion. But no doubt he'll attempt to use his position as a Harvard professor as leverage to invert the probability into a zillion. [Perhaps that will be his fatal mistake: he might not know enough statistics to know that the probability for any event cannot exceed 1 <!--emo& Wink

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /> ]

And what does the "far from completely conclusive non-invasion" in the following refer to? Is it referring to the Neolithic farmers invading Europe? Or have they gone back to talking about South Asia and the invasions from Central Asian, seeing as how the subsequent line is referring to R1A1 markers?QUOTERecently we have had papers about the invasion of Europe by Neolithic
farmers which have suggested that invasion by farmers had little effect. But careful examination shows that the non-invasion is far from completelty conclusive. I must say the whole point lies with the R1A1 markers and some other like the J2 group.Even if genetics is a precise science, the English language is not: what does that non-invasion refer to?

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-12-2006, 02:40 PM by dhu.)

QUOTEtrying to connect the Caution part with the rest of the article. Is the AIT scenario still a possibility or has it been closed off (in genetics)? 

The AIT scenario is completely out, that is, it is dead. In the past, when Indians pointed out the absolutely fantastic nature of the AIT, they were always hysterically rebuked with counter claims of incredulity. "Just look at KPS Gill and look at Arjun Munda. It is so obvious that there MUST HAVE BEEN an Aryan Invasion" .

However, with the new genetic evidence, which is in fact just plain commonsense, we now know that Indians are a DIVERGENT population; like SE Asians, Indians lie at a critical node of genetic divergence and differentiation. Just as the Maori are related to the robust Melanesians and their gracile SE asian derivatives -- in the same way, the Indo-afghan types, which emerge from the deep south, are related to the Arjun Mundas and KR Narayanans.

In contrast, the AIT had always presumed that Indians were a convergent population with the orderly entry of different phenptypes at various timepoints. Even Dr. Elst's Update stated that India lies at a junction point for the major races, although he was careful to mention that by Harappan times the population type was more or less fixed.

In my estimation, the crucial issue for us is the arrival time for the sino-tibetan languages in Himalayan Nepal. Since the distribution of these languages correlates positively with the mongolid divide at the border, the arrival time for sino-tibetan-burmese in Nepal can be taken as an upper limit for the presence of differentiated Indic in India. It is in fact most likely that we are dealing with Sunda refugia and therefore we can confidently date differentiated Indic to 15-20K.

Basically, it is like arguing that if Mao was in China in 1947, then a Nehru must have been present in India in 1947 as well-- at least to receive the chinese invasion.

In fact, if we consider the toba event as the determinant of the mongoloid divide, we get even deeper dates for differentiated Indic in India.

The Chinese have been consistently arguing for early dates for the mongolid replacement, in which they are most probably right. If only they would give up their fascination for the defunct multiregional hypothesis and instead concentrate on an early mongolid replacement... It would be ideal if we could demonstrate differentiated mongolids in Tibet during the last ice age. I remember reading a news story of human habitation in Tibet during the ice age, but it was unclear whether they were mongoloid.

QUOTEWitzel and his team might create a new model, however preoposterous: "a tiny band of Aryan invaders-migrants-acculturists from Central Asia carried all the glorious Indian culture, language, heroism, Vedas and everything that was ever good to India and imposed the caste system on the Dravidians". I can see Witzel do it. 

In fact, they would be reverting back to a classical AIT scenario, which they originally had to abandon because of the lack of archaelogical or literary evidence. Going in circles never seems to pose a problem for these types, however.

QUOTEThe probability of him being right is about one in a zillion.Â [Perhaps that will be his fatal mistake: he might not know enough statistics to know that the probability for any event cannot exceed 1]

There is a probability of 1 that this moron Witzel is reading this right now but is too scared out of his mind to respond.

Still, I believe that others have superceded Witzel as the damage control coordinators for the West. Specifically, the racist geneticist Spencer Wells from Harvard is the mischief maker we should have our scanners out for. Spencer Wells was the one who lost out most when Oppenheimerâs master synthesis came out. After reading a few of his interviews, including one that dealt specifically with AIT into India, I am convinced Wells is a euro-supremacist in the mold of Witzel.

QUOTERecently we have had papers about the invasion of Europe by Neolithic farmers which have suggested that invasion by farmers had little effect. But careful examination shows that the non-invasion is far from completelty conclusive.

They are talking about Renfrew's genetic marker for the invasion of ME Neolithics into the Balkans. There was a recent spate of studies claiming that this invasion never happened (that is, a non-invasion) and that there was merely a technology transfer.. But, most likely these studies are misinterpretating the results and Renfrew's Neolithic invasion did happen.

Probably, we are seeing the euro supremacists realize that Renfrew's hypothesis of an early neolithic "IE" expansion makes more sense than that their bronze age conan fantasiesâ¦ thus the preponderance of recent mischievous studies.

Here is a study which shows a similar "demic" expansion from ME to N Africa: Note this is marker E3b which because of its age estimate is considered a marker for ME neolithic expansion.

QUOTEAm J Hum Genet. 2004 August; 75(2): 338â345.
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa

BarbaraÂ Arredi,1,2,3 Estella S.Â Poloni,3 SilviaÂ Paracchini,2,* TatianaÂ Zerjal,2 Dahmani M.Â Fathallah,4 MohamedÂ Makrelouf,5 Vincenzo L.Â Pascali,1 AndreaÂ Novelletto,6 and ChrisÂ Tyler-Smith2,7

We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiaticâspeaking pastoralists from the Middle East.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1216069

The Neolithic E3b (YAP+, Alu insertion) marker is NOT present in India. This is a well known fact. This fact precludes a ME origin for Indian Neolithic. E3b is present in Europe however.

The problem is that the other neolithic marker in the ME, Renfrew's J2, dovetails perfecty with a neolithic out of India scenario. Renfrew's J2 predominantly straddles the Northern fringes of the ME, that is, the IE (kurdish, Armenian, mittani, kassite, hittite) regions- into the balkans. And Europe is predominantly J2 as opposed to J1 which is seen mostly in southern ME. What concerns us is that J2 is the same as HG-9 and is seen in high frequency and diversity in India:

QUOTEIndians appear to display the higher diversity both in haplogroups 3 and 9 - even if a pooled sample of eastern and southern European populations was considered. If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf

Quoting from memory, Oppenheimerâs map shows the J-T set traveling from lower Sindh to the transcaucasus region. At any rate, Jâs parent F originated in india, though *J root is possibly semitic. We must keep in mind that many of these studies take simple frequency as an indicator for origin, ignoring secondary effects like genetic drift. Oppenheimer rather took both frequency and diversity as his guiding points.

FYI, HG-3 is M17 or R1a.

01-12-2006, 06:27 PM

Dhu,
thanks for your explanations, including Haplogroup 3=M17=R1a. The Neolithic farmers invasion into Europe from the Middle-East is very intriguing.
I had earlier on read the 2003 Kivisild et al paper you referred to, but had found it harder to digest than their previous ones. Thanks for the excerpt, the first time I read that (along with its containing paragraphs) I thought they were stating it as another way to read the data which had previously been used to draw the opposite conclusion. But going back over that page of Kivisild's 2003 paper, I realise they are actually serious in suggesting it. They also suggest further research into the Y chromosomal material.

QUOTE(annoyed parties)... realize that Renfrew's hypothesis of an early neolithic "IE" expansion makes more sense â¦ thus the preponderance of recent mischievous studies.Frankly, I find it disturbing that there are those walking under the cloak of science who are subverting research. Which reminds me. I'm going to test your patience by asking more questions (feel free to ignore them). They are located in post#170 of Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates.

On another topic previously mentioned:
QUOTEThere are relationships within brahmins that transcend regional differences (see below). Many markers are shared by Iyer, Iyengar, Konkanasta Brahmin and Bengal Brahmin. So a core brahmin group spreading out is a possibility. Interestingly Iyer and Kbr form a close cluster despite the former being typically dark and the later fair. UP brahmins seem to have had a major component from the West most likely as Shakadvipi brahmins.That's not surprising, considering that Indian tradition states that the East and the South invited Brahmin families from the Northern parts several thousands of years ago. The connection between Iyer/Iyengar and Konkanasta can be explained. They might have arrived from the same North-western spot (early Paurava states?). The Konkanasta were much later arrivals into their current region (history cites displacement due to Islam as the cause), so they aren't yet adapted to the climate down where they are now. The older Southern brahmins have been there for a long time and generally tend to look indistinguishable from other South Indians (to me).

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-13-2006, 04:29 AM by dhu.)

QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(annoyed parties)... realize that Renfrew's hypothesis of an early neolithic "IE" expansion makes more sense â¦ thus the preponderance of recent mischievous studies.Frankly, I find it disturbing that there are those walking under the cloak of science who are subverting research. </div>

It seems the euros in their recent ânon-invasionâ hypothesis tried to pull a fast one on renfrewâs Neolithic marker J2.

Notice that the similar terminology in the nonpolitical Neolithic ME>N.Africa abstract actually refers to a reduction in diversity (certainly not a non-invasion):

QUOTEThis expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance.

Most likely, the entrenched euro interests tried to convert a "reduction in diversity" finding to a "non-invasion" in their recent papers.

coming back to the apolitical N africa paper: "the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2" in the West (N. Africa) is actually just an artifact. It is only an "apparent" phenomenon, but when taken together with the decrease in genetic diversity in N. Africa only strengthens the case for an E to W movement from the ME to N africa during the neolithic.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-13-2006, 03:24 AM by dhu.)

Some prejudiced statements from Underhill. There must definitely be pressure from the higher-ups to give such false assurances to the public:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/84162
QUOTEhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0110_060110_india_genes.html?sou\
rce=rss

The following paragraphs from this study are problematic:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE"That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages
in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the
Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text."

"Indo-European language family" is a theoretical consruct not a
historical fact. Linguistic similarities could be explanined by bigger
umbrella families. Archaeological record shows no evidence of any
invasion nor the presence of any other language family northern South
Asia. The Rig Veda do not provide any evidence of invasion.

QUOTE"Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University
School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts
that Indo-European speakers did move into India."

Why?

QUOTE"The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended
from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before
an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived
some 10,000 years ago."

Even this is not certain as the new rice evidence shows. Agriculture
could have developed concurrently and independly in many places.

QUOTE""The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in
northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct
contact with the Indo-European migrants,"

What evidence is there that such migratants were there in the first
place? Does it not require the fixing of a putative homeland which has
not been done yet conclusively?

QUOTE""I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern
India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people â¦ similar to the people there
today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from
Bangalore [in the south]."

Now, the above is really apalling coming from a trained scientist.
Does he really think the speakers of so called "Aryan" and "Dravidian"
languages are different races?

M. Kelkar</div>

Spencer Wells also made similar faith statements after bamshad's infamous study went up in smoke. Sad that harvard putra Wells is in charge of the worldwide genographic project.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-13-2006, 02:55 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/austric/message/1276
From: "Paul Kekai Manansala"
Date: Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:56 am
Subject: Re: The Ã¯Â¿Â½first farmerÃ¯Â¿Â½ belonged to (UP) India, says ASI pinatubo.geo

On rice:

Genetic Structure and Diversity in Oryza sativa L.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/169/3/1631

Classifying Rice Germplasm by Isozyme Polymorphoism and Origin of Cultivated Rice
http://www.irri.org/publications/discuss...s/dp46.pdf
Tian X, Zheng J, Hu S, Yu J.

The Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Mitochondrial Genomes and Their Variations.
Plant Physiol. 2005 Dec 29
Vitte C, Ishii T, Lamy F, Brar D, Panaud O.

Genomic paleontology provides evidence for two distinct origins of Asian rice (Oryza sativa L.).
Mol Genet Genomics. 2004 Dec;272(5):504-11. Epub 2004 Oct 16.
_____________________________________________________________

All show that Indica and Japonica rice varieties were domesticated independently. However, that does not mean there is no relationship between the two domestication events.

Japonica has a tropical origin and the temparate variety of Japonica likely originates from the tropical type. Aromatic and waxy types of rice appear to descend from Japonica.

According to the second pdf above (Khush et al.), Indica rice originated in the Eastern Himalayan foothills, while Japonica rice was domesticated in mainland Southeast Asia.

dhu · 01-13-2006, 02:08 AM

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabara...sage/20593

QUOTE"Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala@...>
Date: Thu Jan 12, 2006Â 8:35 am
Subject: Re: Jared Diamond on the Indo-European ExpansionÂ pinatubo.geo
Online Now Send IM
Send Email Send Email
--- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "Bala Pillai" <bala@a...> wrote:
>
> HYPERLINK
>
"http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/diamond.html"http://users.cyberone.com.a
> u/myers/diamond.html
>
>
>

> {p. 235} By such methods, linguists have been able to reconstruct
much of
> the grammar and nearly 2,000 word roots of the mother tongue, termed
> proto-lndo-European but usually abbreviated as PIE.

This to, put it mildly, is an exaggeration.

Despite all the hoopla, the vast majority of PIE reconstructions don't
comply with the stricter rules of reconstruction mentioned in most
standard linguistic works.

For example, in most cases reconstructions are not found in all
branches of IE, something now used as a requirement in reconstructing
other language families.

Many reconstructions use the highly controversial laryngeals, of which
there has never been agreement in the IE linguistics field.

Most reconstructions do not use strict one-to-one sound and vocabulary
matches, but instead suggest things like affixation, reduplication,
and fuzzy semantics. Pokorny, for example, is known for using
suggested morphological changes in theoretical root words to make his
reconstructions.

Some incredible suggestions have been made about PIE. For example, it
is suggested that PIE came into heavy contact with Proto-Uralic and
lent many words to the latter without having borrowed any words
itself. Indeed this unlikely scenario helps prop up the controversial
laryngeal thesis.

PIE is practically non-falsifiable and has become sacrosanct and
unquestionable. Thus, it is more an article of faith than anything
else. If you ask someone to refer you to a reference that explicitly
lays out all the evidence for PIE in a simple concise listing, they
will fuzzily refer you to "150 years" of diligent research and
investigation.

This is about the same amount of time that racial science has existed.

Comparative linguistics and philology have become the refuges of
Aryanism because they are so arcane and have little overlap with other
practical fields. In genetics and biological anthropology, there are
now so many 'people of color' in these or related fields that things
have become increasingly transparent to the ordinary person.

For this reason, comparative linguistics and philologists have claimed
that their conclusions act as trump cards over other forms of research.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-13-2006, 04:57 AM by dhu.)

P. K. Manansala picks up some more obfuscating verbiage which downplays the S. Asian input into C Asia - in one of the genetic papers:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabara...sage/20126
QUOTEFrom: "Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala@...>
Date: Sat Dec 17, 2005Â 10:49 am
Subject: Re: Fwd: AIT in deep trouble :-)

--- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "Rajita Rajvasishth"
> <rajita_rajvasishth@y...> wrote:
>
> P

Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke
> a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the
> observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups
> indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent
> single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the
> high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent
> histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region.

This looks like an "advance to the rear" strategy.

While admitting that Central Asians had little Holocene impact on
South Asia in terms of Y chromosomes, they are also cutting off any
possible South Asian origin for markers in Central Asia and Europe.

In other words, when R1a1 was thought to have indicated an Indo-Aryan
invasion/migration it had one origin, now that it could possibly show
migrations the other way around, it possibly has multiple independent
origins.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/


As usual, Manansala is merciless in his analysis:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabara...sage/20154QUOTEFrom: "Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala@...>
Date: Mon Dec 19, 2005Â 10:21 am
Subject: Re: Nailing the coffin of AIT/AMT: genetic study confirms indigenous origins,

The recent Sengupta study amplifying something already brought out
publicly by Oppenheimer is a great blow to the AMT theory, which had
shifted toward male lineage evidence.

The fact that ancestral R haplotypes have their highest diversity in
India, in tribals followed by lower castes, might even supports
out-of-India arguments.

There is actually more evidence of a female migration into India, in
the form of rather rare U haplotypes, rather than an herrenvolk invasion.

The only hope for the AIT/AMT people is to find ancient DNA samples
and hope they test differently in a manner positive to their theories.
Then they can suggest that the lineages of the old invaders/migrants
simply died out.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/

Note that U is a daughter of Rohani. Both are firmly anchored in continental India.

Manansala's suggestion of testing ancient DNA, eg from Tarim in C Asia, would only further magnify the the ancient Manju clades emanating from Inida. The signature of these Indian Maju clades was overlaid by the Mongolid (east Asian) Manju Clades during the Mongol-turk-altai expansion. Hemphill's craniometric study of Qawrighul confirmed this general pattern. Sadly, we can also tease out obfuscating statements from Hemphill's paper.

Manansala summarizes:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabara...sage/20186
QUOTEFrom: "Paul Kekai Manansala" <p.manansala@...>
Date: Tue Dec 20, 2005Â 9:59 pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: AIT in deep trouble :-)Â

--- In akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com, "ulagankmy" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In IndianCivilization@yahoogroups.com, "Rajita Rajvasishth"
> <rajita_rajvasishth@y...> wrote:

>
> Of course the presence of L1 shared by Marathas, Dravidian tribes and
> Lower Castes and Iyer+IYengar suggests that some of the latter
> brahmins are indeed secondary claimants to that status.
>

The genetic data itself suggests nothing but that the brahmins are an
indigenous caste raised mainly from local R haplotypes.

The cline maps show almost all frequency and variance clines going
from south to north, or east to west.

Only the R1a1 variance cline shows a clear west to east pattern, but
at odds with its own frequency cline. Otoh, R2 has a east to west
variance cline.

It really does look like the modern male population arises mainly from
the south and east of India supporting somewhat the Puranic legends
(time resolution though is low).

This was the first study to show O haplotype in India, so I'm guessing
there's still a lot to learn about Indian Y chromosome demography.

Also, I have no idea why such a small SE Asian sample (6 from
Cambodia) was taken given the Austric presence in India.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://sambali.blogspot.com/

01-13-2006, 10:27 AM

Amazing.

QUOTE<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE""I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern
India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people â¦ similar to the people there
today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from
Bangalore [in the south]."Now, the above is really apalling coming from a trained scientist.
Does he really think the speakers of so called "Aryan" and "Dravidian"
languages are different races?</div>
But Underhill has (unwittingly?) admitted something else, or am I wrong? He has given a date of 10,000 years ago. So 10,000 years ago we already had the North-South diversity in appearance within India - as per how the west classifies our appearance anyway.
So what if we did not look the same then, because that's when the ice-ages last occurred, isn't it? Of course it would be colder up north and warmer down south, hence the trivial differences in appearance.
It's no longer 1500 BCE, but 8000 BCE. And that date is not even marking an Aryan Invasion as per Underhill's own statement, because all kinds of presentday Indian features were already in the subcontinent those 10,000 years ago.

Paul Kekai Manansala isn't an Indian missionary, is he? He's got a Christian name, and all Christians I know swear by the AIT. So has he jumped ship because the ship is sinking or is he an atheist? I agree with his statements (what I understand of them), but I can't help being wary of his intentions.

Anyway, thanks Dhu.

**acharya** · 01-13-2006, 11:15 AM

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ia_genes_2.html

India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says

Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
January 10, 2006

Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports.

The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languagesâbut it absorbed few genesâfrom the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida.

The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years.

That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text.

Some previous genetic studies have also supported the concept.

But Kashyap's findings, published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, stand at odds with those results.

True Ancestors

Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap's team examined 936 Y chromosomes. (The chromosome determines gender; males carry it, but women do not.)

The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.

Most geneticists believe that humans first reached India via a coastal migration route perhaps 50,000 years ago.

Soon after leaving Africa, these early humans are believed to have followed the coast through southern India and eventually continued on to populate distant Australia.

Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts that Indo-European speakers did move into India. But he agrees with Kashyap that their genetic contribution appears small.

"It doesn't look like there was a massive flow of genes that came in a few thousand years ago," he said. "Clearly people came in to India and brought their culture, language, and some genes."

"But I think that the genetic impact of those people was minor," he added. "You'd don't really see an equivalent genetic replacement the way that you do with the language replacement."

Language, Genes Tell Different Tales

Kashyap and his colleagues say their findings may explain the prevalence of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi and Bengali, in northern India and their relative absence in the south.

"The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

He argues that even wholesale language changes can and do occur without genetic mixing of populations.

"It is generally assumed that language is more strongly correlated to genetics, as compared to social status or geography, because humans mostly do not tend to cross language boundaries while choosing marriage partners," Kashyap said.

"Although few of the earlier studies have shown that language is a good predictor of genetic affinity and that Y chromosome is more strongly correlated with linguistic boundaries, it is not always so," he added.

"Language can be acquired [and] has been in cases of 'elite dominance,' where adoption of a language can be forced but strong genetic differences remain [because of] the lack of admixture between the dominant and the weak populations."

If steppe-dwelling Central Asians did lend language and technology, but not many genes, to northern India, the region may have changed far less over the centuries than previously believed.

"I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people â¦ similar to the people there today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from Bangalore [in the south]."

Free E-Mail News Updates
Sign up for our Inside National Geographic newsletter. Every two weeks we'll send you our top stories and pictures (see sample).

01-13-2006, 02:08 PM

QUOTE(acharya @ Jan 13 2006, 11:15 AM)India Acquired Language, Not Genes, From West, Study Says
...
The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages
NOT. That "may" is English for a probability of 0.0% by the way. Where the 0 after the decimal repeats infinitely.

It is the Aryan-Mind-Invasion Theory now. Their minds invaded us Indians, who were incapable of speech and agriculture, until they kindly civilised us like the swell British did millennia later. How grateful we are! No, really. Where did the invading chariots go of some barbaric tribe bringing down the Harappans who were the "Dravidians" who fled south? Ooh, wait, Underhill and Witzel probably still believe in their ancestors invading our lands. Because there's still Aishwarya Rai to account for.

The AIT continues. Except now they are happier than ever: they never wanted to be connected genetically with us, but they always wanted to claim the root of the IE languages. What next? I can see the Global Christian Movement (aka Global Christian Menace) is going to say: "you are all one people living under a religion that is not yours. Let it go." No thanks.

How can they make a claim on our language when they have no older IE language anywhere living among them or written down anywhere?
From the "West"? Where in the west do they mean?
"agricultural techniques and languages" - no, because they got agriculture (farming) from the ME. Samskrt and all the languages derived from it in India are ours. If they want it, they should prove otherwise, without resorting to their laughable and desperate PIE.
Since they can't prove an invasion into India, and our genes are splattered all over their ancestors, they still want to claim our culture. Language is culture. It's what our ancestors used to compose and write our knowledge like the Rg Veda. We've got Pannini who detailed the grammar exquisitely. What next, they'll claim the Dravidian languages once they discover how cultured the South Indians are?

How did the West invent PIE again? Where do they speak PIE again?
Not giving us the credit of our own language is the same as saying we were uncivilised (in western terms). The AIT lives.

Our culture and our languages and our genes are our own. I'm sorry that they can't accept that. I'm sorry they find it hard to swallow and can no longer play ubermenschen. But that's just tough luck. There are no ubermenschen. They need to get off the pedestal and everyone else needs to kick the pedestal so it never comes up again.

This paper has effectively stated that the A(Mind)IT will in future not be affected by genetics whatever the outcome. (Unless of course some study shows a massive European genetic invasion of N-India. In which case the AIT will make a massive comeback, like it had never gone away.)
However, no genetics study that makes us the genetic ancestors is going to credit us with the IE languages. They've made their minds up: it's a one-way street, a rigged game where we lose no matter what.

They're such liars. At night they'll lie awake and know their ancestors did not accomplish what they now claim them to have. Anyway, Karma will bite them in the ... foot.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 01-14-2006, 12:53 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEPaul Kekai Manansala isn't an Indian missionary, is he? He's got a Christian name, and all Christians I know swear by the AIT. So has he jumped ship because the ship is sinking or is he an atheist? I agree with his statements (what I understand of them), but I can't help being wary of his intentions.

just to clarify, Paul Manansala is not a missionary nor does he have any christian sympathies. At least in this respect, he is on par with Dr. Elst. Ethnically he is Filpino. He has pan Austric (SE Asian) sympathies. Definitely not a euro-centric nor any colonial hangovers. his website: http://sambali.blogspot.com/

Login




Remember me Lost Password?