• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2
check your mail right after Aug 17. RT would have forwarded a file to your mail.
[quote name='dhu' date='12 November 2011 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1321038945' post='113664']

Till now, the Aryanists have been carelessly using autosomals to usher in the Aryans when they failed to enlist the haplogroup evidence. Autosomals are malleable to creative interpretation and allowed for endless "speculation" on AIT in India -- invariably these followed the classical AIT scenario. This new study by Royyuru which follows the diversity of recombination events silences the endless autosomal-based AIT scenarios. It does not add anything new and its resolution is much lower than that of haplogroups but the autosomal detour of AITists has been closed shut.

One thing to be noticed is that the myriad hard- and quasi- euro-supremacist sites (basically all "anthropology" sites) have failed to discuss three things recently:

1. The lactase persistence results, because these suggest clear intrusion into Europe: the frequency peak at the extreme western end entails a necessary origin at the far eastern end.

2. Royyuru

3. Re-dating of a lot of the "Magdalenian" paraphrenalia to post-Neolithic [url="http://http://2ndlook.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/lowenmensch-puzzle-am-i-missing-something/"]Löwenmensch [/url]

Unsurprisingly the celeb geneticist Spencer Well, previously known for Haranguing of Native Australians, went along with Royyuru.


In his book, and early dvds, Spencer Well used to push the 2 wave out of Africa theory

The first wave from the southern route and the second wave thru Sinai

He has had to swallow this
The common origin of indo-european languages is a fact.

What is debated is the place of origin and most researchers incline on eurasian sttepe origin hypothesis,whit minorities inclined to Anatolian or indian origin.

Regarding indo-european language originating from dravidian languages ,this is a joke,is mystical nationalism on steroids.
Dhu, Can you email me. Thanks, ramana
Dhu, do you know whether, any DNA analysis has been done of Harappa burial sites

I am specifically interested in R1A

If it can be proven by DNA that Harappa Y-DNA has R1A in plentiful numbers, the dravidianists can be defeated
The evidence will be suppressed I am sure about it.

It is pretty clear that Asiatic R1a1 is found coeval with india-specific SNPs.

This is non-controversial in the case of Arabia but is also true of C Asia and shuts off the Ruski Scythian fantasy.

This also conforms Mittani and Kassite expansions out of India.

The second Asia-specific expansion impinges and intrudes dramatically into Europe, more importantly it sets the trajectory model for the prior Centum expansion out of Afpak.

Now, they are even quite clear about R1b expanding directly out of South Asia and they do not stop at Anatolia as before.

To maintain a contrary movement for R1a1 out of the E Euro landscape is just not possible.

All European R1a1 hangs off a single SNP and extends neither into the ME or C Asia; a prior line found and delimited to Scandinavia surfed the R1a1 expansion northward.

The surfing and positing of minor archaisms at the extreme NW (where the wavefront ends) mimics the Nichols' "archaism of the periphery" model. It is just a general feature of steppe transmission from E to W. Underhill's wave model was a real breakthorugh.

The diversity of lines in S Asia at each stage in Eurasiatic expansion is tremendous.

Prior lines get crowded out by new indigenous expansions but the old diversity remains, this happened with Q which must have been quite frequent in India prior to the Ice age.

From an even earlier stage, the missing IJ of Europe is hiding somewhere among the dominant F in S India, every geneticist is searching for it.

Retention of Paleolithic lines in Europe is increasingly quite unlikely other than for I, these lines were crowded out by ME neolithic and then Iranian R1b and Indic R1a1 which was Neolithic pastoral.

Europe does not have the generative capacity for these lines and evidences only the branches.

You will see that R1a1 being proposed out of neutral territory in the ME (already happening) or an extreme contrarian position will be taken with a locus in Scandinavia.

A proto-gypsy model for Indic expansion is needed at the moment.
Would that Rig Veda sloka quoted above form part of the proto-Gypsy migration?
heathen traditions in general are the strongest counterindication to AIT since the normative ethics which was a development in the west cannot give rise to the overarching non-normative ethics of India. Cultural transmission would have been impossible in the AIT scenario if Monotheism itself is considered a reaction to an ancient Eastern connection.

Certain jokers have posed a two-pronged migration into India, This is a clear ad hoc scenario designed to counter the two-staged migration out-of-india posed by Nichols (1. kentum > Europe, 2. Satem/Saka > ME/C.Asia/Russia.

Wave model eveidenced by R1a1 is only consistent with a Trajectory-type analysis.

Any trajectory-type analysis automatically would place these two temporally separated migrations in the same direction.

Priyadarshi now makes a case for relatedness to Kesari (lion, hair) to Sher to Kaiser/Caesar, when cross-referenced with a post-neolithic provenance for hatti and Löwenmensch figurines, the case is very strong.
Dhu, I did not previously know that R1B existed in India

Whereas R1A has a very strong rooting in brahmin + upper caste north Indian

The gypsies are mostly H1, and linked to backward caste north Indian

Lactase Persistence gene is dated to 5500 bc and the pale skin pigment gene SLC24A5 had the mutation only as recently as 3300BC
Quote:I did not previously know that R1B existed in India

I have seen the evidence sporadically mostly you need to read in between the lines, it would take some time to find the references.

Quote:Whereas R1A has a very strong rooting in brahmin + upper caste north Indian

There is a founder effect in certain endogamous groups, mobility of these groups would have have been high towards the West, just as Buddhists of the later period.

The originating lines are found in other endogamous groups: check the coexistent basal P and basal R in Eastern and Central India (consistent with upstream MNOPS in Bengal/Myanmar):

[url="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015283"]The Influence of Natural Barriers in Shaping the Genetic Structure of Maharashtra Populations[/url]

Table 2: http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow...15283.t002
G. Subramaniam,

The following diagram represents roughly the wave expansion.

Dark Blue arrow is (slight) archaic R1b deposition in Africa at end of the wave front.

Dark Red arrow is (slight) arcahic R1a1 deposition in Scandinavia at end of the wave front


[Image: diagg.jpg]
High Resolution Phylogeographic Map of Y-Chromosomes Reveal the Genetic Signatures of Pleistocene origin of Indian Populations

R. Trivedi, et al (pdf available with search)

"Major Haplogroups K*, P*, R*, R1, R1a contribute approximately 2-3% of the the total Indian Y-chromosomes and there was no difference in its distribution pattern among castes or tribes or among different geographic regions."

Also see Table 2b for the P*, R*, R1, R1a cascade.
[color="#0000FF"][url="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory_1623744"]New research debunks Aryan invasion theory[/url][/color]

By Kumar Chellappan | Place: Chennai | Agency: DNA

Quote:In what could be a major setback to Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu, an inter-continental research in cellular molecular biology has debunked the Aryan invasion theory.

“We have conclusively proved that there never existed any Aryans or Dravidians in the Indian sub continent. The Aryan-Dravidian classification was nothing but a misinformation campaign carried out by people with vested interests,” Prof Lalji Singh, vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, told DNA.

The findings of a three-year research by a team of scientists, including Prof Singh and others from various countries, has been published by American Journal of Human Genetics in its issue dated December 9.

“The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south Indians are Dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by Aryans who invaded North India,” said Prof Singh, a molecular biologist and former chief of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.

According to Dr Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia, who was another Indian member of the team, the leaders of Dravidian political parties may have to find another answer for their raison d'être. “We have proved that people all over India have common genetic traits and origin. All Indians have the same DNA structure. No foreign genes or DNA has entered the Indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years,” Dr Chaubey said.

Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the Aryan invasion theory is bunkum. “That was based on low resolution genetic markers. This time we have used autosomes, which means all major 23 chromosomes, for our studies. The decoding of human genome and other advances in this area help us in unraveling the ancestry in 60,000 years,” he explained.

However, Gnani Shankaran, noted Dravidian thinker, said the time for writing the last word on Dravidian philosophy has not yet come.

“We have to find out the credentials of the authors of this research paper and their hidden agenda. In Tamil Nadu, the Dravidian and Aryan ties are inter-related. The Dalits in our land are the descendents of the Dravidian Brahmins who were pushed to the lowest strata of society by the Aryans,” Shankaran said.

According to Prof Singh, Dr Chaubey, and Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, another member of the team, the findings disprove the caste theory prevailing in India. Interestingly, the team found that instead of Aryan invasion, it was Indians who moved from the subcontinent to Europe. “That’s the reason behind the findings of the same genetic traits in Eurasiain regions,” said Dr Thangaraj, senior scientist, CCMB.

“Africans came to India through Central Asia during 80,000 to 60,000 BCE and they moved to Europe sometime around 30,000 BCE. The Indian Vedic literature and the epics are all silent about the Aryan-Dravidian conflict,” said Dr S Kalyanaraman, a proponent of the Saraswathi civilization which developed along the banks of the now defunct River Saraswathi.
Metspalu illustrated the M/N division in India with M restricted to India and N/R spread to west with U as an intertwined group. N spread was from the Indus basin.


Some more on basal R, quite restricted to India:

[Image: R+and+Subclades+on+FTDNA+Maps+-+1024.jpg]

[url="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lvVZ6C97yUo/S3Zf-O6hDmI/AAAAAAAAGL8/RilMPryPgbE/s1600/R+and+Subclades+on+FTDNA+Maps+-+1024.jpg"]direct link[/url]
phewww ... this place is so full of knowledge. Tremendous content and discussion.

By the way have you read the likes of Nicholas Kazanas, David Frawley and Witzel?

But then they are all linguists, historians etc. I believe Genetic study should seal the AIT crap thrown around till now.

Anyone knows a genetic expert who has researched with AIT in focus?

I've heard Kazanas saying that genetics already disproves any ground of major influx into indian genes between 8000 B.C. and 600 B.C.

Interestingly, Kazanas used to teach pro-AIT for 20 years before he found that it was baseless and changed his camp.


[quote name='Virendra' date='22 December 2011 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1324537482' post='114076']

By the way have you read the likes of Nicholas Kazanas, David Frawley and Witzel?


Speaking of Witzel, he has been more honest regarding the genetic evidence than a lot of others:

Quote:> > > 3. The paper by my Boston geneticist friend David Reich et al.

> > >

> > > has shown that South Asia has two ancient population segments evolving

from the early Out of Africa people around 40 kya, the

> > > `Ancestral North Indians' (ANI), (genetically close to Middle Easterners,

Central Asians, and Europeans) and the `Ancestral South Indians' (ASI),
so named

after I had cautioned him and Nick Patterson about the political danger

involving the naming of these groups. As you can see, even this nomenclature did

not help to dispel preconceived Hindutva bias about "Aryans" and Dravidians.

Quote:> > > 1. There is nothing new in the result about an early Out of Africa

movement (to South Asia) of *anatomically modern humans* (not Neanderthals,

Denisovans, Homo Erectus) at c. 65-75 kya. There are some hints about earlier

dates but they are based on debatable stone artifacts, not skeletons.

> > >

> > > 2. And we also knew well about the movements from there to northern

Eurasian areas during the warm period around c. 40,000 BCE:

attested by skeletons, both in the Beijing area (Zhoukoudian c.40 kya, via S.E.

Asia), and in Europa (Rumania, c. 42 kya).

> > >

> > > See my friend Peter Underhill (Stanford) et al. 2010 paper:

Dhu, as you know,

Minus the extreme weirdo supremacists out there, the oryanists will agree that (most of) modern man arose in Africa and would be willing to allow that Europe was populated via India and Indonesia and ME etc.

That is not the history they're tracing though. The (public) oryanists make it an "all that went before is irrelevant" clean slate scenario before the (proto-)Oryans come into the picture. I.e. everything before the Urheimat and the PIE, they don't care about and will not argue about. It is everything from the Urheimat onwards from where they really start to choose to counting their history: that is where their Oryan civilisation builders (and for humanity, that most important development: language) comes in. They claim that uniquely. That is their Identity claim.

They want to be the ones that came up with the language. (From which derives the people and an alleged geography whence it emanated.)

So even if the modern homo sapiens came from Africa and if Europe's input was via whatever ancient lines from India, the oryanists' claim is that at some (late) point Europeans' would-be ancestors (i.e. the oryans) had settled in their Urheimat and eventually developed PIE and from there spread out again including the invasion (migration, whatever) of India as well as of Iran etc.

Along with that view, they also like to think that their Proto-Oryans had already become sort of "European" (qua phenotype) in the Urheimat stage. And that modern Indians - the "Indo-Oryan speakers" at least - must therefore needs be miscegenated entities who resulted from that late Oryan invasion of India. "Else how did India acquire Samskritam?"

This is the only question they care about (and they have already decided on what their answer Must be). The question concerns their obsession with their identity and history, their obsessive view of these things. Never get between the alien* and its identity - even if such an identity is entirely constructed (i.e. if it's wrong) and they're deluding themselves with it. They destroy everything and everyone in their way. If heathens stand between them and their identity, the aliens (even those that claim to be the more authentic heathens) the oryanists will wipe them out. Language (and religion) was identified by the oryanists as the key to their identity. They insist Samskritam is theirs (and the dabblers insist Vedas are theirs) - or at worst: that Samskritam and Hindu/Vedic religion is derived from PIE and "therefore" Samskritam/Vedas is theirs.

* and related.

"Never get between the alien and its identity" -> Hindus are unfortunate in that they're dragged into the alien's hunt for its "oryanist history/identity": after all, Hindus are sitting on Samskritam and the Vedas, considered the cornerstone of oryanism (the very raison d'etre of oryanism). Hindus are not merely geographically linked but organically to the very things the aliens Must possess.

I keep thinking it must be wonderful to be an ethnic Chinese or Japanese heathen (Daoist or Shinto). None of this Disease to be saddled up with, little enough of alien interest and that too is confined to stealing the civilisational achievements of the Chinese, it can't steal their ethnic (even genetic) or at least not their religious identity. They can be heathens free from the alien disease and all the consequent alien curses.

I don't remember any linguistic/archeological finding that shows Sanskrit (substantial Sanskrit) being found in the central Asian region which is considered the original home of Aryans.

Even after assuming that Aryans developed Sanskrit after coming to India:

If I would consider they invaded us, then their majority would still have stayed at that base location.

If I would consider they migrated, there is no calamity or other drastic cause to suggest they migrated entirely leaving no population behind.

In both the cases we should have seen Sanskrit in Central Asia, but there is no trace. There is also no mention from the Aryans about their base land (central Asia) even once in the Vedas that they wrote.


self delete .. double post
In the light of the latest findings and research, the ideas of acharya at manasataramgini are worth pondering upon. Please see below:


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)