Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[viklewapatel]

The Kashmiri Brahmins, usually called Pandits, constitute one single group, the Kåśmīra Bråhmanas, without any real subdivisions. They form, according to Bühler, the first Indologist to visit the Valley, one unified community: they 'interdine' (annavyavahåra) and they also teach each other (vidyåvyavahåra, vidyåsambandha). But not all of them intermarry (kanyåvyavahåra, yonisambandha), which is the real test of belonging or not belonging to a single community. This is confirmed by Lawrence, who distinguishes "the astrologer class (Jotish), the priest class (Guru or Båchabat) and the working class (Kårkun). The priest class do not intermarry with either of the other classes. But the Jotish and Kårkun intermarry. The Jotish Pundits are learned in the Shastras and expound them to the Hindus, and they draw up the calendars in which prophecies are made about the events of the coming year. The priest class perform the rites and ceremonies of the Hindu religion. The vast majority of the Pandits belong to the Kårkun class and have usually made their livelihood in the employment of the state."

This division is believed to have taken place after the country turned to Islam in the fourtheenth century, and especially after the initial persecution of Brahmins at around 1400 A.D. As the Pandits then had to earn their living as scribes and other government officials, there was no longer any need, and actually, no possibility, for the majority of them to do priestly work. Therefore, at an unknown time during Muslim rule, they resorted to a "division of labor."

https://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~...riBrahmins.pdf

September 1991,
Michael Witzel

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

Excellent critique of witzel’s retarded fallacies.

Author : PRAGYAATAA

The long-promised, not highly awaited, chronicle from Michael Witzel of revisionism in modern Indian thought is finally here, appropriately titled Rama’s Realm (appropriate from his POV). The paper articulates Witzel’s long-standing desire to call out the “wave of indigenously minded revision and rewriting” of Indian history and archaeology. Titles such as indigenism and revisionism are frequently used to dismiss Indian historical writing. They seem to imply that all attempts are compromised from the get-go, subservient to an agenda of Indian nationalism. Further, they portray that the established paradigms emerge from objective, impartial scholarship. In fact, if any attempt to rewrite Indian history is indigenist, then Witzelian discomfort with these is reputationist. Decades of careers, tenures, university seats and book deals have descended from current frameworks for Indian history. It’s amusing that in Witzel’s chronicle of Indian scholarship, he does not find it peculiar that only in India do we have a book titled ‘Which of Us Are Aryans.’ In fact, when we understand reputationism, we see it as not peculiar at all. Reputationist circles thrive on mutual back-scratching, cross-referencing and opponent-gaslighting just as much, if not more, as they accuse revisionists of.


Let us concede, a philologist of Witzel’s stature and experience is an old war-dog. He’s taken on Kazanas, Elst, Kak, Talageri, Sethna and more. So this latest piece must be understood as an expert one, coming from the mind of a veteran well-familiar with the modern Indian mind. But equally, does it come from a reputationist-par-excellence, a past master of tautologies, strawmen and hypocritical intellectualism. Witzel cannot help but reveal this in the introduction itself, where he props the strawman that “it is further claimed that all human civilisation originated in India in c. 10,000 BC.” No serious scholar claims this, even if it appeals to many non-academics in India. But it helps reputationists to club this strawman with the archaeologically true- “Indian civilisation has enjoyed an unbroken continuity from 7500 BC onward.” This second statement, when nuanced, has demonstrable veracity. But clubbing it with the first statement allows a reputationist to paint serious Indian claims with the brush of absurdity. This concerning trend ought to be contextualised with some famous examples of reputationist dubiousness.

Of Imagined Immigrants in the Ṛgveda.

Witzel claims to have found ample evidence of migration into India in Vedic literature. Among the ones he deigns to be specific on is the example of Vasiṣṭha as an immigrant across the Sindhu, into India, found in RV 7-33-1 to 7-33-3. Readers are invited to check this across available English language translations- Griffith, Wilson, Jamison-Brereton. These verses are being uttered, figuratively, by Indra, who declares that Vasiṣṭha has invited him here, across the Sindhu. But the Sindhu in this sūkta is not the Indus, and the river in question is easily identified as Yamunā instead. The sūkta is part of a larger collection of Ṛgvedic hymns referencing the famous dāśarājña campaigns of Sudās, and in 7-33, Sudās is on the Yamunā leg of his campaigns. In fact, there are no references to Sindhu in all of Maṇḍala 7.

Amāvasu Migrated West.

Another evidence of migration into India was found by Witzel in the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra and unravelled by BB Lal[ii]. In an example of the blind cross-referencing where reputationists critique indigenists, Witzel’s error was “faithfully followed” by RS Sharma. Initially a proud reputationist discovery, it seemed to confirm that a section of people migrated east into India, while another remained at home in the west[iii]. This was touted as a definitive reputationist victory, as many are, but Lal demonstrated how incorrect Witzel’s translation was. The correct translation in fact states that “Amāvasu migrated westwards,” an indigenist victory if singular vague references were taken such, as reputationists desperately do. Credit where due, Witzel acknowledges his error here and is disappointed at indigenist refusal to let the matter go.

Dancing with Bank Clerks.

Witzel’s biggest battle though has been with the man who has single-handedly won the AIT debate, as Elst[iv] rightly puts- Shrikant Talageri. So heavy lie Talageri’s victories, that Witzel’s writings inevitably contain the words ‘bank clerk’ ever since. They must since the typical reputationist playbook is as such-

• Begin with discrediting the agenda. So works are first declared indigenist or revisionist to imply that objectivity is compromised.
• Discredit the author of that work. So Talageri is just a bank clerk who does not understand linguistics. Koenraad Elst’s understanding of philology is poor, and Nicholas Kazanas did not properly understand PIE reconstructions.
• Engage in pedantic undermining, so that it becomes more pertinent whether we call it “Slavic,” “Slavonic” or “Balto-Slavic” than what the relevant conclusions are. Should we be similarly concerned when Witzel calls Persian a local language (for India)?
• As a corollary of the above, establish one’s own supreme and complete expertise in the linguistic field.
• Nitpick or make strawman arguments that ignore the real points. So Talageri is criticised for using anukramaṇīs (though their data is accepted to be a part of the Ṛgveda) and Kazanas for misunderstanding Saptasaindhava. But no refutation is given of Talageri’s analysis through internal chronology, or of Kazanas’ Preservation Principle.
• Deny/dismiss/refute all non-linguistic arguments such as horses, fire-altars, Sarasvatī. The reputationist suddenly understands archaeology, geology and equid anthropology better than experts of those fields, all the while dismissing those who (allegedly) do not comprehend his own.
• Falsify data- the case of “Amāvasu went west.”

When tangoing with Talageri, Witzel’s roundabouts are the stuff of legend. In his writings, the latter speculated that the Bhalāna tribe of the Ṛgveda could be cognate with the Bolan Pass, and the Baloch people. When Talageri incorporated this and extended the analysis to other tribes including the Pāktha, Witzel forgot his own earlier connection when critiquing Talageri! In Witzel’s tango with Talageri over the meaning of Ṛgvedic Jahnāvī and śiṃśumāra, he forgot that he too identified śiṃśumāra with the Gangetic dolphin in his own papers. These and other flip-flops are well-chronicled by Kazanas[v], who concluded that “apart from anything else, W did not read T’s book in full.”


Such then is the context of reputationist concerns over ‘revisionist,’ ‘nationalistic,’ and ‘indigenist’ narratives of Indian history. Let us note that Talageri does not claim the origin of all human civilisation in India in 10,000 BCE and does not even stake a claim in the argument of an unbroken continuity from 7,500 BCE. For all the reputationist dismay at bank clerks rewriting history, Talageri’s specific conclusions- derived from mainstream frameworks of Witzel’s disciplines- stand unchallenged and even misunderstood.


In Rama’s Realm, Witzel begins with contextualising Indian nationalism and revisionism. Playbook traits are easily evident- “irrational claims of modern science in the Vedas” are presented to the reader instead of intellectually honest discussions on the mathematics, geometry, astronomy, metallurgy, medicine and other sciences evident in ancient Indian literature. It will be too much to expect an honest reputationist refutation of the findings in Subhash Kak’s paper on ancient Indian astronomy[vi], for example. For the vast landscape of connections between ancient Indian thought and the edge of modern science, we need not blame Indian indigenism over much. These were as evident to Schrodinger[vii] as they were to Capra[viii]. The point is not to deny a range of pseudoscientific and patently absurd claims with currency in India, the point is to highlight equally the lacuna in reputationist literature against genuine examinations of ancient Indian history and knowledge.


We are left therefore with the usual generalisations and distortions. Gowalkar’s “children of the soil” is found to be “clearly reminiscent of contemporary fascism.” Savarkar’s vision of a Hindu rāṣṭra is alleged to desire a “homogenous Hindu population adhering to Hindu religion and culture.” Askance a priori at any finding of continuity in ancient India, the reputationist seems to begrudge it even now. It is therefore a problem that Sita Ram Goel’s son, PK Goel, started Aditya Prakashan- which now sells books cheaply and widely. This kind of Rāma’s realm concerns the reputationist. Other attributes of this Rāma’s realm are detailed by Witzel in the paper, so we address them under the headers they appear.

Theory, Procedure and Practice in Rewriting.

Witzel alleges that under Indian revisionism, “any type of ancient immigration is scientifically refuted”. This is a strange characterisation, for he then says that “in support of the idea of South Asia being an attraction to outsiders, any imaginary reason is brought up”. We cannot be sure what the real allegation here is. Any theory on linguistic, culture or technological origins must necessarily speculate, if not theorise, on reasons for population dispersal. There are theories that argue that agricultural revolutions trigger an outward dispersal of populations, while others contend that they attract immigration instead. Further, serious Indian thought is not in the business of rejecting “any type” of ancient immigration! Even mythological Indian thought, if the Purāṇas are to be characterised such, describes invasions by peoples it calls Śākas, Hūṇas, Yavanas and more.


It concerns Witzel that Indian revisionists refer to Afghanistan as Hindu territory. But this is neither a political nor an invasionist claim. It simply alludes to references to Gāndhāra in the Ṛgveda (1-126-7), in the Mahābhārata, and then as part of the empire for rulers such as Chandragupta. In this context, when Indian writers speak in generalisations, they are comfortable referring to Afghanistan as erstwhile Hindu. There is neither aggression nor modern political antagonism in this. The claim is in fact inclusivist. Even when ancient Gāndhāra was part of Persian or Greek empires, indigenists have no problem regarding it as part of the realm.


The allegation that all revisionists “want to proceed scientifically, marshalling a host of evidence that seems to point in the direction of their aims” must be examined with help of two cases. For one, the reputationist zeal to point at genetic evidence as tautological confirmations is a prime demonstration of proceeding scientifically, marshalling evidence that points in an aimed direction. Second, Parpola’s[ix] marshalling of the Sinauli evidence towards proving existing paradigms pieces of evidence that all sides proceed scientifically, marshalling a host of evidence that seems to point in the direction of their aims. This is but one example of Witzel seeming to begrudge in indigenists what is but common across the spectrum.


This is demonstrated when he despairs- “Scholars in the mainstream are seen as clinging to hold-out positions, which will disappear as soon as their authors die”. This is indeed why we speak of reputationism, but Witzel’s characterisation of revisionists is what both sides allege for the other- confusing the issue by raising irrelevant points, misrepresenting other’s views, ad hominem attacks. None of this actually addresses what needs addressing- salient points in debates on Indian history. We wonder what’s remarkable or problematic about both sides of a debate having the same complaints about the other. On the Indo-European origins and dispersal issue, that both reputationists and indigenists are guilty of this is documented by Bryant[x]. For specific lacunae in the indigenists takes on the IE issue, Witzel points to two things.

1. The horse argument- an old bear in the IE debate. To Witzel, the “RV is full of horses, chariots, and horse races,” but he gives not a single reference for this. This itself is curious, the philologist would rather not give us single evidence of something the RV is full of and instead launches into an extended discussion on the archaeological and zoological realities of horse evidence in India. There is a reason for this, demonstrable to anyone who can research the text. The horse, chariots and horses races are near absent in the early Ṛgveda, where temporal concepts of an early and later Ṛgveda are well-established since the days of Oldenberg[xi]. Take the entire dāśarājña, a historical account that to Witzel forms the core events that inspired the Mahābhārata. There are no horses or chariots in the dāśarājña hymns, except in mythological reference to Indra or as horse-heads given as war booty[xii].
2. This gains a new dimension in Witzel’s second gripe, where he refers to KD Sethna’s Karpasa and an obsolete chronology for ancient or Vedic history. Witzel is correct when he says that the spoked chariot was invented near 2000 BCE, or that domesticated horses were likely imported post-1800 BCE. This is entirely compatible with the correct internal chronology of the Ṛgveda, where the horse and spoked chariots are absent in the early Ṛgveda. When we place the Ṛgvedic duration broadly from 2600 BC to 1900/1700 BC, it explains why spoked chariots appear in the later Ṛgveda. There is in fact no major incompatibility with indigenist narratives of Indian history. Witzel simply decides to address the incompatible ones. That then is his choice, not an innate quality of what he claims to be describing. In fact, given that Witzel frequently laments that indigenists rely on outdated colonial narratives, and are unaware of modern developments, it’s curious that he makes no mention of names such as Benedetti[xiii], Semenenko[xiv] and Tonoyan-Belyayev[xv]. These are contemporary scholars, none of them Indian, who endorse some kind of autochthonous or indigenous theory. We get more detail on this in the next section.

The alleged aryan Invasion.

We begin here by making concessions that may please the reputationist. There are problems in Hindu society that are for it to confront and resolve- and no amount of allusion to foreign invasions or conquest can absolve us of what we must see within ourselves. Our lament of colonial narratives of Indian history cannot be an apologia for the intrinsic ails of our society. And indeed, Sanskrit was not the mother language of all Indo-European languages.


This last point is where the Aryan debate begins, for the crux of it is a linguistic theory. We do not dismiss the theory, nor can we be ignorant about the scientific underpinnings of comparative linguistics. But we can also point out what Mallory and Adams[xvi] conceded-

“The picture provided by the reconstructed lexicon is not very informative concerning the physical environment of the speakers of the ancestral language, although there have been scholars enough who have tried to press the slender evidence into revealing the precise location (or type of location) inhabited by the Proto-Indo-Europeans.”

Against this simple reality, it seems that Witzel’s problem is that there are those who continue to marshal evidence for an Indian homeland when they should sit contend with the conclusions of Witzel and his reputationist colleagues. In fact, Mallory goes as far as conceding-

“A solution to the IE problem will more than likely be as dependent on a re-examination of the methodology and terminology involved as much as on the actual data themselves.”

Reputationists can thus continue to find faults in indigenist arguments and theories, but we fail to see what’s inherently problematic in the attempt itself.


Witzel asserts that “if invasion of IA speakers is not (yet) visible in the archaeology, it must be stressed that such movements rarely leave clear physical traces.” This is the great intellectual deceit of “yet,” famously and rightly called out by Kazanas. It seems to say that “there is no evidence, nor should any be expected. But if some is found, we will happily claim it in our favour.” This is of course done in the case of the horse argument, where Witzel is happy to elaborate the lacunae in Indian archaeological record. But when confronted with the reality that the period post-1500 BCE, the so-called Aryan arrival, does not contain a preponderance of horse bones either, the reputationist would remind us that linguistic migrations are rarely, if ever, found in the archaeological record.


Why then the lengthy elaboration on the horse issue? If the presence of archaeological evidence is not salient on linguistic matters, then its absence isn’t either. It’s in this vein that reputationists dismiss the Sarasvatī evidence, or the findings of fire-altars in Indian archaeology prior to 1500 BCE. Accepting such evidence would indeed force a revision of established paradigms, but when the reputationist uses the deceit of “yet” he concedes that he is indeed holding out. This is why Witzel is confident that the discovery of steppe cultural traits in the Indian subcontinent is only a matter of time. But when he points to the entry of steppe nomads into the BMAC in 1600/1500 BCE, he leaves unaddressed the following:

• BMAC ancestry has not been found in the Indian subcontinent. (The reputationist will add- yet.)
• The path by which steppe ancestry arrived into India is uncertain.
• This ancestry is not found in Zoroastrian priests, nor did it accompany the arrival of IE in Greece- thus delinking it from IE dispersals.

The reality is that on the Aryan issue, the question that indigenists are asking is- what did the so-called Aryans bring? On the issue of language, it’s not only Indians who challenge the established narratives or deny the theory of steppe origins. Tonoyan-Belyayev goes as far as saying that the “language of the Mature Harappan period was lexically and grammatically close to or identical with Rigvedic and, to a lesser degree, Samavedic and Atharvavedic, but as for its phonology, it was significantly different.” The debates are far from settled, and that Indian thought in the meantime ranges across a spectrum, from the absurd to the legitimate, is scarcely the existential issue that Witzel paints it to be. In fact, he recognises that the only thing indigenism is really contesting is the use of ancient history to find modern divides in India. What is the problem with such indigenism? Does modern England find divisions between ādivāsi Englishmen and later invaders? Is American nationalism inherently fascist, pushes as it does beyond historical divides? To call for a modern, united and integrated USA is not problematic, but Witzel would rather that there be no such trends in India. It is better, seemingly, that we have books like Which of Us Are Aryans.

Revisionist Variations.

Witzel identifies three strands of revisionism prevalent in India today:

• A mild school, which claims the origins of Ṛgveda and Indo-Aryans in the Greater Punjab area. Witzel calls this the autochthonous or indigenous school.
• The out of India school, which asserts that India is the ultimate PIE homeland.
• The devabhāśā school, which asserts that Sanskrit, the language of the gods, is the mother of all IE languages.

Of course, if one were to paint a landscape of European thought and literature on the same issue, one will find mild as well as outrightly racist or chauvinistic versions. So Witzel’s classification is neither remarkable nor uniquely Indian. What is left unaddressed is a very specific finding on the matter of PIE origins and dispersals, which is Talageri’s recorded evidence of the last five IE branches on the banks of the Paruṣṇī river, in the time of Sudās of the Ṛgveda. The finding is chronologically independent, which means that whether you place the Ṛgveda in 2500 BCE or in 1500 BCE, you must explain what the other 4 Eastern IE branches were doing in the Punjab region. Reputationism has no response to this. It would instead direct your attention to other debates in Indian chronology, such as the date of the Mahābhārata. There are multiple views on this, and Kak has well chronicled the cases for 3102 BCE vs. 1900 BCE vs. 1400 BCE[xvii]. This is an acknowledged debate, and once again we fail to find what’s inherently problematic about it. We may ignore the narratives that Witzel deems “untouched by enlightenment,” and ask instead what refutes the more rational ones, such as a timeline compatible with any that Witzel may produce.

The SINDHU SARASVATI Script.

We grant here that there is a lack of consensus decipherment. It is no secret that generations of scholars have been apriori dissuaded from investigating any linkage between Sanskrit and the Indus script, but that there are attempts nonetheless is problematic to the reputationist. There is a range of speculations on the nature of the Indus script, so there is no clear reason to single indigenist ones out. Let us concede that the script is as yet undeciphered, and that consensus decipherment will force the revision of many a historical narrative. Let us also observe the stark absence in Witzel’s piece of any reference to Tonoyan-Belyayev’s recent work, which even argues that Dravidian exists as an adstrate to Indo-Aryan, not a substrate. The matter remains open, which is fair. We may move on.

Antiquity Frenzy.

That 3102 BCE as the start of Indian history was a paradigm set in the 6th century is acknowledged even by Kak, so we’re not sure why Witzel continues to critique the high-chronology framework. There are compatible-chronology frameworks for Indian history, which violate no archaeological or linguistic certainties. In a typical example of the reputationist playbook, Witzel critiques the 3102 BCE paradigm but has no response to the 1900 BCE/1500 BCE paradigm. Yes, there are debates in Indian chronology, and all kinds of narratives abound. When you deal with a geography that indeed finds archaeological continuities from at least 7000 BCE, there are bound to be many explanations- some ranging at the edge of absurdity. So what? Why must the reputationist get frenzied about this? Go ahead, ignore Frawley’s high chronology or Nilesh Oak’s fanciful dates. But indigenism will await refutations of Talageri or Kak’s chronologies.


Witzel summarises the current antiquity frenzy as such. From 10,000/7000 BCE was the Vedic civilisation, ranging to 3200 BCE. 3200-1900 BCE was the Indus Valley civilisation, and it declined post-1900 BCE owing to the Sarasvatī’s decline. Witzel of course finds problems with any indigenist take on the Sarasvatī, which is to be expected of reputationism. But the reality is that even global models such as the 4.2 kiloyear event commencing 2200 BCE give reasons for a general decline during that period. The Sarasvatī is just one explanation, and no one seriously claims it to be all defining. In any case, Sastry and Kalyanasundaram[xviii] chronicle that by 1900 BCE the Sarasvatī had stopped meeting the ocean- but it had not entirely disappeared. The disappearance itself was a gradual process.

Out of India.

This of course is Witzel’s biggest gripe, for in its full form (Talageri, Elst, Kazanas, Tonoyan-Belyayev) it hits at the core fields- comparative linguistics, PIE reconstruction and philology. The field is too vast to succinctly summarise, but this writer makes an attempt here[xix]. It’s pertinent to remember that OIT is not championed by indigenists alone. Semenenko and Tonoyan-Belyayev call it the out-of-South-Asia theory, but their conclusions are just the same. Perhaps because they cannot be dismissed as bank clerks, there is no mention of them at all. And perhaps because Witzel has previously addressed Talageri[xx], in this piece he makes only a vague reference to some evidence in the Purāṇas. Here Witzel finally elaborates on Subhash Kak, but while he dismisses Kak’s work as loosely scientific, there is no specific refutation made.


Even if we are to dismiss OIT, or submit to the large consensus view that there is no certifiable way of determining an ultimate PIE homeland, we again wonder what exactly is Witzel’s problem with there being theories of Indian origins. Even without them, the steppe theory is not alone. There are theories of origin for both eastern and western Anatolia, both. And recent work by Nichols brings the homeland to BMAC. It appears that more than refuting specific cases of the OIT/OSAT, Witzel would rather that none such theory exist, to begin with.

Ek Rājya, Ek Rāṣṭra.

After the above Witzelian account of the kind of Rāma’s realm indigenists are trying to create/narrate, we are still left wondering what the real problem is. This becomes clear in the last section, where Witzel describes the indigenist view as that of “one people, one realm, on religion” and a significant addition- “one leader.”


This is the great unravelling, for none of the revisionist writers Witzel quotes front any vision of “one leader.” This “significant addition” appears more to pander to modern Modi-aversion than to any true analysis of Indian revisionist history. Witzel goes further, for he sees in this revisionism shades of para and proto-fascist history. We are thus brought back to the present- where we are told to be fearful of the rise of Nazi Hindutva, or of Hindu fascism. But pressed to the wall, there is an utter failure to describe what exactly is fascist about modern India, or indeed even about absurd revisionist narratives. Witzel himself refers to the claims of Graham Hancock, who he would dismiss as pseudoscientific. Even so, this does not make Hancock a fascist. So why would Frawley or Nilesh Oak be fascist, simply because they find an Indian civilisation before 10,000 BCE? This is the part not explained.


What it all comes down to is a simple point- India is not allowed to have an indigenous grand narrative. For all the chronicle Witzel gives of indigenism in Indian writing, we are met with not a single example of fascist or exclusivist thought. Yes, Savarkar’s concepts of pitṛbhu and punyabhu raise questions on the nature of Indian Muslims and Christians, but even here a scholar of Witzel’s expertise fails to articulate the fascism of such a question. When Savarkar asked whether Indian Muslims and Christians would accept India as their punyabhu, he also pointed to Chinese and Thais who do consider it a punyabhu. These are nuanced issues on the nature of identity in India, and every nation has these. Most citizens of modern USA would trace their pitṛbhu, within a few generations upwards, to outside their nation’s geography. But they find meaning and identity in the American war for independence, in the war against slavery, in the world wars their country fought, and even in the historical injustices, it must still grapple with. It is their punyabhu, and it makes them loyal to the homeland. For Witzel, no such discussion is allowed in India- but examples of Indian/Hindu fascism are entirely lacking.


Indeed, when Witzel concludes with the general but coloured- “as long as there are free elections, independent publishers, and a free press, and as long as they are not muzzled, as once before in recent times, by a new dictator,” we realise that the real problem is that Indians seem to have a growing voice in the narratives of India, that is Bhārata. Rāma’s realm is fascist, but it cannot be demonstrated how. Yet?


References..


https://www.academia.edu/19380740/Ramas_realm


[ii] Lal, BB. Testing Ancient Indian Traditions: On the Touchstone of Archaeology. Aryan Books International.


[iii] Witzel, M. Rig Vedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Polities. https://www.academia.edu/713988/R_gvedic_history_poets_chieftains_and_polities


[iv] Pragyata, 2018. https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2020/04/ait-and-science-of-linguistics.html


[v] Kazanas, N. Indo-Aryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues. Aditya Prakashan.


[vi] Kak, S. On Astronomy in Ancient India. Indian Journal of History of Science, 1987, https://www.academia.edu/45160955/On_Astronomy_in_Ancient_India.


[vii] Kak, S. The Wishing Tree: Presence and Promise of India. Aditya Prakashan.


[viii] Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. Harper Collins.


[ix] Vol. 8 No. 1 (2020): Studia Orientalia Electronica, https://journal.fi/store/article/view/98032


[x] Bryant, E. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Oxford University Press.


[xi] Oldenberg, H. Prolegomena on Metre and Textual History of the Rigveda. Motilal Banarsidass.


[xii] Pandey, A. A New Reading of the Dāśarājña, or Battle of Ten Kings, in the Ṛg Veda. https://www.academia.edu/44619611/A...śarājña_or_Battle_of_Ten_Kings_in_the_Ṛg_Veda


[xiii] Benedetti, G. The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rigvedic Rishis in Comparison with the Phases of the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization. https://www.academia.edu/7683313/Th...e_Phases_of_the_Sindhu_Sarasvati_Civilization


[xiv] Semenenko, AA. The Absence of the Sword from the Rigveda and Atharvaveda and the Problem of Indo-Aryans’ Origins. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2563192Semenenko, AA. The Absence of the Sword from the Rigveda and Atharvaveda and the Problem of Indo-Aryans’ Origins. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2563192


[xv] Tonoyan-Belyayev, IA. Five Waves of Indo-European Expansion from the South Asian Urheimat: An OIT Model. https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo_European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_


[xvi] Mallory, JP and Adams, DQ. The Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World. Oxford University Press.


[xvii] Kak, S. On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture. Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 2000. https://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/chro.pdf


[xviii] Sastry and Kalyanasundaram. Sarasvati in the Mahabharata – A Study. International Conference on Sarasvati River, 2019. https://www.academia.edu/38369132/S...a_A_Study_Sastry_and_Kalyanasundaram_2019_pdf


[xix] Pandey, A. Bhāratīya Wanderlust- a Defence of the Out of India Model for PIE Origins and Dispersals. https://www.academia.edu/46965053/B...f_India_Theory_of_Proto_Indo_European_Origins


[xx] Witzel, M. The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rigvedic Tribes Exposed by S Talageri. https://www.academia.edu/18428668/T...ust_of_the_Rgvedic_Tribes_Exposed_by_S_Talage

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

Author : VASISTHA viz The Archaeogenetics blog

Another Celestial tier work of VASISTHA once again

Previous part https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2021/11/Narasimhan-criticism-1.html

Continued..

Pt 2 - Major statistical analysis gap in Narasimhan paper undermines steppe->Brahmin theory ..

In a previous post, I had critiqued Narasimhan et al 2019 for the inference that steppe ancestry is significantly related to modern Indian Brahmin groups, and hence provides evidence that this steppe ancestry is causal to the Indo Aryan languages.

Nevertheless, the fact that traditional custodians of liturgy in Sanskrit (Brahmins) tend to have more Steppe ancestry than is predicted by a simple ASI-ANI mixture model provides an an independent line of evidence—beyond the distinctive ancestry profile shared between South Asia and Bronze Eastern Europe mirroring the shared features of Indo-Iranian and Balto- Slavic languages (58)—for a Bronze Age Steppe the origin for South Asia’s Indo-European languages.

I gave 3 main reasons why this reasoning and analysis was faulty.

1. Correlation is not causation, Brahmin steppe can be enriched by way of intermarriage with steppe rich brides. It may not have anything to do with the steppe causing the formation of brahmin jAtis.

2. There are other brahmin jAtis in the same dataset from states other than UP and Bihar which do not show high Z scores as per the table given in the supplement. What explains that?

3. The main reason was that Steppe/Indus periphery ratio is a useless indicator in a 3 way model with Onge, steppe & Indus periphery. It would mean something only in a 2 way model between Steppe & Indus Periphery. I explain this with an example in my previous post, please read that if my reasoning is unclear.

Since then, I have studied this Z-Score table in the paper, and have found serious inconsistencies.

What is Z-Score?
The Z-score for each item in an array of numbers is simply the number of standard deviations that number is away from the mean of the array of numbers. Z>3 or Z<-3 (for eg. some may use 2, some 4) is indicative of that particular item being more than 3 standard deviations away from mean, at the extreme tail of the distribution, right and left end respectively. Therefore it is to be considered an outlier.

​

Z>3 means 3 sigma standard deviation away from the mean, in the tail

Z-Scores from the Narasimhan Paper.
There are a couple of places where the paper defines the Z - Scores.

Our analysis of Steppe ancestry also identified six groupswith a highly elevated ratio of Central_ Steppe_MLBA– to Indus_Periphery_West–related ancestry compared with the expectation for the model at the Z < −4.5 level (Fig. 4). The strongest two signals were in Brahmin_Tiwari (Z = −7.9) and Bhumihar_Bihar (Z = −7.0). More generally, there is a notable enrichment in groups that consider themselves to be of traditionally priestly
status: five of the six groups with Z < −4.5 were Brahmins or Bhumihars.

Read this - Distribution of Z Scores for the ratio of steppe pastoralist ancestry to indus pool related ancestry shows upto 8 standard deviation from the mean for brahmin groups as per the paper. THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

I have been trying to reproduce these numbers for past 2 days, but just cannot arrive at such large numbers.

Z Scores have the property of having 0 mean and standard deviation as 1. But the Narasimhan paper has a standard deviation of 140 Z-Scores as 2.79 (indus periphery pool) and 2.06 (indus periphery west). There is clearly something seriously wrong in this part of the paper and its conclusion.

I have been trying to reproduce these numbers for past 2 days, but just cannot arrive at such large numbers.

Z Scores have the property of having 0 mean and standard deviation as 1. But the Narasimhan paper has a standard deviation of 140 Z-Scores as 2.79 (indus periphery pool) and 2.06 (indus periphery west). There is clearly something seriously wrong in this part of the paper and its conclusion.

Methodology:

1. I copied the qpAdm coefficients, aposteriori hierarchical model coefficients and Z scores from Narasimhan et al 2019 excel supplement for all 140 populations into 2 excel sheets, one for Indus Periphery West and 1 for Indus periphery Pool models.
Indus Periphery West is sample I8726 who has the least AASI of all the Indus periphery samples from ShahrSokhta and Gonur. Indus Periphery Pool includes all 11 samples from both these locations, it has a higher AASI than I8726.

2. I made a column for Indus/steppe ratio in each sheet for all populations, and calculated the Z Scores for each population. Steppe/Inpe ratio will give same Z scores with sign reversed. I also used correlation on my calculated Z Score and the paper's Z-score using function '=correl(array1, array2)'.

3. Formula used for Z-Score: standardize(), which uses average() and stdev.p() as inputs for mean and standard deviation of the array of 140 ratios. ie '=standardize(x, mean, stdev.p)' for each of 140 x's.

The correlation of my Z Scores to the paper's Z Score for InPeWest is just 0.49, and 0.60 for InPePool.

Clearly this ratio is not what the paper used.

4. Next i calculated 140 Z Scores for the value 'Indus periphery MINUS steppe', using same formulae in step 3.

The correlation between this Z-Score and the paper's Z-Score was 0.9975 for InPeWest and 0.992 for InPe Pool. This seems to be what the paper used to calculate Z Scores - InPe MINUS Steppe ancestry %.

5. In none of these 2 Z Score arrays i calculated is the Z-Score for Brahmins >3 or <-3. They are all square in the meat of the normal curve.

​

Distribution of ZScores according to Indus/steppe ratio does not give <3 Z for Brahmins

​

Distribution of ZScores according to Indus-steppe does not give <3 Z for Brahmins

As you can see, none of the Z-scores for Brahmins cross -3. So how did the paper get values of -7 and -8? I have tried various other combinations of the data, but none gave me high correlation of 99.8% with the paper's Z scores.

The paper's Z-scores look to be simply multipled 2-2.8 times of the actual Z-scores. I cannot fathom what calculation Narasimhan et al would have used to reach Z-scores of 7-8. It seems virtually impossible to me.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Z-scores based on which Narasimhan et al computed looks seriously flawed, and cannot be reproduced. The Z-scores do not have a standard deviation of 1, rather it's between 2-2.8. This means what the paper uses as ZScore isn't even Z-Score.

2. The Z-scores look artificially high, and cannot be reproduced.

3. The Z-scores seem to be calculated with Indus Periphery MINUS steppe ancestry as array input rather than ratios, which is a seemingly useless indicator.

4. The Z scores calculated based on either the ratio or the difference in indus/steppe ancestries do not cross the >3 threshold and are therefore not significant. It undermines one of the core arguments in the paper.

If any of you see some logic by which the paper's Z scores are correct, do let me know.

My workbook is below.Its downloadable.

	qpAdm estimates for the model of AHG + Indus_Periphery_West + Central_Steppe_MLBA (both basic estimates and hierarchical model)	A-Genetics Analysis	A-Genetics Analysis	Needs 2.05 multiplier to Z Score to get it in line with the papers Z Scores
		Basic qpAdm ancestry estimates	Maximum A Posteriori Estimate from the Hierarchical Model (estimates used in Fig. 4B)	Std Dev of these Z Scores = 2.06							Multiplier	2.05​
Group	Basic qpAdm P-value	AHG-related	Indus_ Periphery_West-related	Central_ Steppe_ MLBA-related	AHG-related	Indus_ Periphery_West-related	Central_ Steppe_ MLBA-related	Z-score for fit in the hierarchical model (negative implies more Central_Steppe_MLBA-related ancestry than expected, positive more Indus_Periphery_ West-related)	Indus Periphery/steppe ratio	Z Score of col J	Correlation of column I with L	Indus Periphery MINUS Steppe	Z Score of col M	Correlation of column N with I	Z-score col N x Multiplier		Squared sum of difference in 2 Z Score	2.91
Brahmin_Tiwari	0.016	0.282	0.466	0.252	0.278	0.482	0.240	-5.133	2.01​	-1.27​	0.495004242​	0.24​	-2.32​	0.997553128​	-4.77​
Bhumihar_Bihar	0.018	0.264	0.474	0.263	0.259	0.492	0.250	-4.793	1.97​	-1.29​		0.24​	-2.32​		-4.76​
Brahmin_UP	0.003	0.291	0.459	0.250	0.286	0.479	0.235	-4.720	2.03​	-1.26​		0.24​	-2.29​		-4.70​
Brahmin_Nepal	0.000	0.298	0.453	0.249	0.290	0.479	0.231	-4.456	2.07​	-1.25​		0.25​	-2.21​		-4.54​
Sikh_Jatt	0.000	0.266	0.493	0.241	0.264	0.503	0.233	-4.056	2.15​	-1.21​		0.27​	-1.80​		-3.70​
Chamar_UP	0.009	0.457	0.368	0.174	0.444	0.407	0.149	-3.809	2.73​	-0.97​		0.26​	-2.02​		-4.15​
Bhumihar_UP	0.003	0.288	0.482	0.230	0.285	0.495	0.220	-3.447	2.25​	-1.17​		0.28​	-1.70​		-3.48​
Adiyan	0.067	0.660	0.288	0.051	0.640	0.327	0.033	-3.171	10.07​	2.12​		0.29​	-1.32​		-2.71​
Pasi	0.118	0.428	0.414	0.158	0.420	0.435	0.144	-2.756	3.01​	-0.85​		0.29​	-1.40​		-2.87​
Backward_Caste	0.128	0.321	0.476	0.203	0.318	0.488	0.194	-2.728	2.51​	-1.06​		0.29​	-1.36​		-2.78​
Kshatriya_Durgvanshi	0.000	0.295	0.486	0.219	0.292	0.499	0.209	-2.685	2.39​	-1.11​		0.29​	-1.40​		-2.88​
Palliyar	0.313	0.645	0.319	0.036	0.634	0.340	0.027	-2.465	12.82​	3.27​		0.31​	-0.98​		-2.01​
Koli	0.025	0.521	0.377	0.103	0.511	0.397	0.092	-2.406	4.31​	-0.31​		0.30​	-1.14​		-2.33​
Kolcha	0.089	0.554	0.365	0.081	0.545	0.383	0.072	-2.270	5.35​	0.13​		0.31​	-1.01​		-2.07​
Garasia	0.088	0.494	0.395	0.111	0.487	0.411	0.102	-2.181	4.04​	-0.42​		0.31​	-1.05​		-2.16​
Rathwa	0.025	0.468	0.411	0.121	0.462	0.425	0.113	-2.135	3.78​	-0.53​		0.31​	-0.99​		-2.02​
Chaurasia	0.016	0.367	0.467	0.165	0.365	0.475	0.159	-2.039	2.98​	-0.87​		0.32​	-0.93​		-1.91​
Brahmin_Bhatt	0.001	0.339	0.476	0.186	0.335	0.487	0.178	-2.027	2.73​	-0.97​		0.31​	-1.06​		-2.18​
Chamar_Haryana	0.002	0.334	0.479	0.187	0.332	0.489	0.179	-1.994	2.73​	-0.97​		0.31​	-1.05​		-2.15​
Kanjad	0.075	0.387	0.456	0.157	0.384	0.465	0.151	-1.926	3.09​	-0.82​		0.31​	-0.95​		-1.95​
Sah_Obc	0.003	0.432	0.429	0.139	0.425	0.445	0.129	-1.922	3.45​	-0.67​		0.32​	-0.92​		-1.89​
Ansari	0.003	0.396	0.452	0.152	0.393	0.462	0.145	-1.848	3.18​	-0.78​		0.32​	-0.91​		-1.87​
Brahmin_Haryana	0.012	0.252	0.517	0.231	0.251	0.529	0.221	-1.816	2.40​	-1.11​		0.31​	-1.07​		-2.21​
Kathodi	0.083	0.528	0.386	0.085	0.520	0.402	0.077	-1.783	5.23​	0.08​		0.33​	-0.75​		-1.53​
Malayan	0.061	0.602	0.349	0.049	0.592	0.368	0.040	-1.769	9.16​	1.73​		0.33​	-0.70​		-1.43​
Srivastava	0.030	0.360	0.473	0.167	0.357	0.482	0.161	-1.707	2.99​	-0.86​		0.32​	-0.84​		-1.72​
Jatav	0.004	0.378	0.463	0.159	0.375	0.473	0.152	-1.703	3.10​	-0.81​		0.32​	-0.85​		-1.74​
Ulladan	0.111	0.629	0.335	0.036	0.617	0.357	0.027	-1.674	13.37​	3.50​		0.33​	-0.66​		-1.35​
Nai	0.002	0.352	0.477	0.171	0.350	0.486	0.165	-1.607	2.95​	-0.88​		0.32​	-0.82​		-1.69​
Bhilala	0.212	0.483	0.411	0.107	0.476	0.425	0.099	-1.534	4.27​	-0.32​		0.33​	-0.75​		-1.54​
Brahmin_Catholic_Goa	0.024	0.333	0.489	0.178	0.332	0.496	0.173	-1.508	2.87​	-0.91​		0.32​	-0.79​		-1.62​
Scheduled_Caste_Haryana	0.000	0.411	0.448	0.141	0.407	0.458	0.134	-1.507	3.42​	-0.68​		0.32​	-0.77​		-1.58​
Satnami	0.003	0.471	0.420	0.108	0.468	0.430	0.102	-1.502	4.20​	-0.35​		0.33​	-0.70​		-1.45​
Muslim_Bihar	0.134	0.411	0.451	0.138	0.408	0.460	0.132	-1.408	3.48​	-0.66​		0.33​	-0.70​		-1.44​
Baiswar	0.083	0.402	0.457	0.141	0.399	0.464	0.136	-1.390	3.41​	-0.68​		0.33​	-0.69​		-1.42​
Tadvi	0.006	0.486	0.413	0.101	0.480	0.425	0.095	-1.373	4.50​	-0.23​		0.33​	-0.65​		-1.33​
Kotwalia	0.038	0.510	0.403	0.088	0.503	0.415	0.082	-1.334	5.07​	0.01​		0.33​	-0.60​		-1.23​
GujaratiB	0.003	0.263	0.528	0.209	0.263	0.532	0.205	-1.292	2.60​	-1.02​		0.33​	-0.71​		-1.45​
Pulliyar	0.332	0.582	0.369	0.049	0.575	0.382	0.044	-1.291	8.75​	1.56​		0.34​	-0.51​		-1.05​
Dushadh	0.016	0.422	0.449	0.130	0.418	0.457	0.125	-1.282	3.64​	-0.59​		0.33​	-0.64​		-1.31​
Kalash	0.002	0.123	0.599	0.278	0.126	0.601	0.274	-1.244	2.19​	-1.20​		0.33​	-0.72​		-1.49​
Kurchas	0.008	0.539	0.389	0.072	0.531	0.404	0.065	-1.201	6.20​	0.49​		0.34​	-0.50​		-1.03​
Baniyas	0.031	0.363	0.481	0.157	0.361	0.486	0.153	-1.190	3.18​	-0.78​		0.33​	-0.60​		-1.23​
Gamit	0.002	0.483	0.418	0.099	0.478	0.429	0.093	-1.188	4.60​	-0.19​		0.34​	-0.55​		-1.14​
Jogi	0.023	0.380	0.473	0.146	0.379	0.478	0.142	-1.152	3.36​	-0.71​		0.34​	-0.55​		-1.13​
Rajput	0.001	0.262	0.529	0.209	0.263	0.533	0.204	-1.147	2.61​	-1.02​		0.33​	-0.67​		-1.38​
Khatri	0.000	0.197	0.561	0.242	0.199	0.565	0.237	-1.124	2.38​	-1.12​		0.33​	-0.70​		-1.44​
Warli	0.010	0.552	0.384	0.064	0.544	0.399	0.058	-1.111	6.93​	0.79​		0.34​	-0.45​		-0.93​
Punjabi	0.013	0.372	0.479	0.149	0.371	0.483	0.146	-1.048	3.32​	-0.72​		0.34​	-0.52​		-1.06​
Manjhi_MP	0.007	0.446	0.440	0.114	0.442	0.449	0.109	-1.037	4.11​	-0.39​		0.34​	-0.48​		-0.98​
Sindhi_MP	0.009	0.388	0.471	0.140	0.387	0.476	0.137	-1.001	3.49​	-0.65​		0.34​	-0.48​		-0.99​
Barela	0.044	0.504	0.409	0.087	0.497	0.423	0.080	-0.980	5.26​	0.09​		0.34​	-0.43​		-0.87​
Dhobi	0.001	0.397	0.468	0.135	0.395	0.473	0.132	-0.969	3.58​	-0.61​		0.34​	-0.46​		-0.95​
Pathan	0.000	0.144	0.595	0.261	0.146	0.595	0.259	-0.931	2.30​	-1.15​		0.34​	-0.55​		-1.12​
Mahadeo_Koli	0.020	0.486	0.425	0.089	0.482	0.432	0.085	-0.797	5.06​	0.01​		0.35​	-0.34​		-0.69​
Yadav_UP	0.019	0.255	0.541	0.204	0.257	0.542	0.201	-0.714	2.70​	-0.98​		0.34​	-0.45​		-0.91​
Kurmi_MP	0.000	0.362	0.488	0.150	0.361	0.492	0.147	-0.688	3.35​	-0.71​		0.35​	-0.37​		-0.77​
Dogra	0.000	0.239	0.552	0.208	0.242	0.552	0.206	-0.642	2.67​	-0.99​		0.35​	-0.37​		-0.76​
Brahmin_Karnataka	0.015	0.294	0.524	0.183	0.294	0.525	0.181	-0.639	2.91​	-0.90​		0.34​	-0.38​		-0.79​
Irula	0.063	0.588	0.377	0.035	0.582	0.386	0.032	-0.635	12.20​	3.01​		0.35​	-0.20​		-0.42​
Kurmi_UP	0.002	0.353	0.495	0.153	0.352	0.498	0.151	-0.623	3.30​	-0.73​		0.35​	-0.34​		-0.70​
GujaratiA	0.039	0.195	0.575	0.229	0.199	0.574	0.228	-0.564	2.52​	-1.06​		0.35​	-0.36​		-0.73​
Kalinga	0.025	0.384	0.480	0.137	0.382	0.484	0.134	-0.542	3.60​	-0.61​		0.35​	-0.30​		-0.61​
Kunabi	0.003	0.496	0.427	0.077	0.493	0.433	0.075	-0.401	5.79​	0.31​		0.36​	-0.13​		-0.28​
Shiya	0.007	0.293	0.532	0.176	0.293	0.531	0.176	-0.238	3.03​	-0.85​		0.36​	-0.18​		-0.36​
Bhil	0.003	0.463	0.447	0.090	0.461	0.450	0.089	-0.219	5.07​	0.01​		0.36​	-0.07​		-0.15​
Vadde	0.043	0.448	0.454	0.098	0.446	0.457	0.097	-0.218	4.73​	-0.13​		0.36​	-0.08​		-0.17​
Yadav_Rajasthan	0.002	0.220	0.569	0.212	0.223	0.566	0.211	-0.190	2.68​	-0.99​		0.35​	-0.19​		-0.40​
Muslim_Kashmiri	0.000	0.256	0.552	0.192	0.258	0.550	0.192	-0.172	2.86​	-0.91​		0.36​	-0.14​		-0.28​
Kumhar	0.006	0.499	0.430	0.071	0.497	0.433	0.070	-0.166	6.20​	0.49​		0.36​	-0.03​		-0.06​
Chaudhary	0.031	0.475	0.442	0.084	0.472	0.445	0.083	-0.148	5.37​	0.14​		0.36​	-0.05​		-0.10​
Dharikhar	0.020	0.459	0.450	0.092	0.456	0.454	0.091	-0.145	4.99​	-0.02​		0.36​	-0.04​		-0.09​
Lodhi	0.020	0.413	0.476	0.112	0.412	0.476	0.112	0.008	4.26​	-0.33​		0.36​	-0.01​		-0.02​
GujaratiC	0.012	0.306	0.531	0.163	0.308	0.528	0.164	0.075	3.23​	-0.76​		0.36​	-0.01​		-0.01​
Lambadi	0.055	0.392	0.488	0.120	0.392	0.487	0.120	0.090	4.05​	-0.42​		0.37​	0.04​		0.08​
Lohana	0.001	0.165	0.603	0.231	0.172	0.595	0.233	0.106	2.56​	-1.04​		0.36​	-0.05​		-0.10​
Pandit	0.001	0.218	0.576	0.206	0.222	0.571	0.207	0.110	2.76​	-0.96​		0.36​	-0.02​		-0.03​
Kurumans	0.113	0.513	0.428	0.058	0.511	0.431	0.058	0.134	7.44​	1.01​		0.37​	0.15​		0.30​
Meddari	0.068	0.464	0.453	0.083	0.463	0.454	0.083	0.140	5.44​	0.17​		0.37​	0.11​		0.22​
Mala	0.070	0.503	0.433	0.064	0.501	0.435	0.064	0.146	6.81​	0.74​		0.37​	0.11​		0.23​
Chakkiliyan	0.079	0.503	0.434	0.063	0.501	0.436	0.063	0.222	6.91​	0.79​		0.37​	0.14​		0.29​
Budagajangam	0.006	0.432	0.471	0.098	0.431	0.470	0.099	0.230	4.76​	-0.12​		0.37​	0.12​		0.25​
Meena	0.014	0.340	0.517	0.143	0.342	0.514	0.144	0.236	3.56​	-0.62​		0.37​	0.09​		0.19​
Gugavellalar	0.383	0.510	0.434	0.056	0.508	0.435	0.057	0.375	7.63​	1.09​		0.38​	0.25​		0.50​
Oswal_Jain	0.035	0.318	0.531	0.151	0.320	0.527	0.153	0.410	3.45​	-0.67​		0.37​	0.17​		0.35​
Havik	0.005	0.296	0.543	0.160	0.300	0.538	0.162	0.461	3.31​	-0.73​		0.38​	0.19​		0.39​
Scheduled_Caste_Karnataka	0.008	0.465	0.458	0.077	0.464	0.457	0.078	0.470	5.83​	0.33​		0.38​	0.26​		0.54​
Agarwal	0.005	0.339	0.521	0.141	0.340	0.518	0.143	0.526	3.63​	-0.59​		0.38​	0.20​		0.41​
Hallaki	0.001	0.443	0.470	0.087	0.443	0.469	0.088	0.570	5.30​	0.11​		0.38​	0.28​		0.58​
Oddari	0.002	0.459	0.465	0.076	0.459	0.462	0.079	0.620	5.87​	0.35​		0.38​	0.35​		0.72​
Brahmin_Vaidik	0.003	0.306	0.540	0.154	0.308	0.536	0.156	0.673	3.43​	-0.68​		0.38​	0.27​		0.56​
Baniya	0.003	0.255	0.568	0.177	0.260	0.560	0.181	0.676	3.10​	-0.82​		0.38​	0.27​		0.55​
Kuruba	0.001	0.394	0.498	0.109	0.395	0.494	0.112	0.685	4.42​	-0.26​		0.38​	0.32​		0.66​
Jain	0.001	0.335	0.529	0.136	0.339	0.522	0.140	0.732	3.74​	-0.55​		0.38​	0.33​		0.67​
Silawat	0.036	0.372	0.512	0.117	0.374	0.506	0.121	0.805	4.19​	-0.36​		0.39​	0.38​		0.78​
Brahmin_Catholic_Mangalore	0.002	0.335	0.530	0.135	0.338	0.523	0.139	0.827	3.77​	-0.53​		0.38​	0.37​		0.75​
Narikuruvar	0.042	0.393	0.502	0.105	0.395	0.496	0.109	0.847	4.57​	-0.20​		0.39​	0.43​		0.88​
Arunthatiar1	0.027	0.511	0.442	0.047	0.510	0.440	0.049	0.927	8.92​	1.63​		0.39​	0.49​		1.00​
Hakki_Pikki	0.043	0.400	0.501	0.099	0.402	0.495	0.103	1.032	4.80​	-0.10​		0.39​	0.51​		1.04​
Sonkar	0.009	0.410	0.497	0.093	0.412	0.490	0.098	1.041	5.03​	-0.01​		0.39​	0.53​		1.08​
Pal	0.015	0.399	0.501	0.100	0.401	0.495	0.104	1.048	4.78​	-0.11​		0.39​	0.50​		1.03​
Brahmin_Catholic	0.000	0.337	0.533	0.130	0.340	0.527	0.134	1.192	3.94​	-0.46​		0.39​	0.53​		1.09​
Madiga	0.005	0.478	0.466	0.057	0.478	0.460	0.062	1.195	7.43​	1.00​		0.40​	0.62​		1.28​
Sugali	0.003	0.493	0.458	0.049	0.493	0.453	0.054	1.204	8.46​	1.44​		0.40​	0.65​		1.34​
Lohar	0.000	0.366	0.527	0.108	0.370	0.515	0.115	1.295	4.46​	-0.24​		0.40​	0.65​		1.34​
Brahmin_Catholic_Kumta	0.002	0.333	0.541	0.126	0.337	0.532	0.132	1.337	4.04​	-0.42​		0.40​	0.66​		1.35​
Maratha	0.002	0.373	0.520	0.107	0.376	0.511	0.112	1.348	4.55​	-0.20​		0.40​	0.64​		1.32​
Lingayath_Karnataka	0.012	0.378	0.519	0.103	0.382	0.509	0.109	1.359	4.67​	-0.16​		0.40​	0.66​		1.35​
Changpa	0.137	0.485	0.469	0.046	0.486	0.460	0.054	1.362	8.59​	1.49​		0.41​	0.78​		1.60​
Adi_Dravider	0.086	0.501	0.455	0.043	0.502	0.451	0.047	1.417	9.58​	1.91​		0.40​	0.73​		1.49​
Yanidi	0.202	0.493	0.463	0.044	0.494	0.457	0.050	1.480	9.21​	1.75​		0.41​	0.79​		1.63​
Malaikuarvar	0.032	0.382	0.522	0.096	0.386	0.511	0.103	1.582	4.95​	-0.04​		0.41​	0.80​		1.65​
Paravar	0.004	0.443	0.490	0.067	0.446	0.481	0.073	1.679	6.59​	0.65​		0.41​	0.82​		1.68​
Ediga	0.051	0.402	0.514	0.084	0.406	0.502	0.092	1.681	5.46​	0.18​		0.41​	0.85​		1.75​
Vishwabrahmin	0.010	0.449	0.489	0.061	0.452	0.481	0.067	1.945	7.23​	0.92​		0.41​	0.94​		1.92​
Korava	0.001	0.404	0.518	0.078	0.408	0.505	0.086	2.022	5.85​	0.34​		0.42​	1.02​		2.09​
GujaratiD	0.014	0.336	0.551	0.113	0.341	0.538	0.121	2.028	4.44​	-0.25​		0.42​	0.97​		2.00​
Dudhekula	0.001	0.424	0.508	0.068	0.428	0.495	0.076	2.032	6.48​	0.61​		0.42​	1.02​		2.09​
Kshatriya_Aquikula	0.023	0.430	0.507	0.063	0.434	0.493	0.072	2.085	6.84​	0.76​		0.42​	1.06​		2.18​
Dhokkali	0.026	0.397	0.531	0.072	0.405	0.511	0.084	2.270	6.05​	0.43​		0.43​	1.16​		2.39​
Patel	0.002	0.325	0.560	0.115	0.330	0.547	0.123	2.344	4.45​	-0.25​		0.42​	1.12​		2.29​
Yerukali	0.022	0.428	0.514	0.059	0.431	0.501	0.068	2.616	7.36​	0.97​		0.43​	1.28​		2.62​
Lingayath_TN	0.038	0.436	0.516	0.047	0.444	0.497	0.059	2.752	8.40​	1.41​		0.44​	1.38​		2.83​
Achary	0.024	0.403	0.540	0.057	0.412	0.516	0.072	2.834	7.14​	0.88​		0.44​	1.49​		3.06​
Arunthatiar2	0.029	0.405	0.533	0.062	0.411	0.515	0.074	2.902	7.00​	0.82​		0.44​	1.45​		2.97​
Indumalayali	0.006	0.462	0.505	0.033	0.467	0.488	0.044	3.006	10.99​	2.50​		0.44​	1.49​		3.05​
Gaud_Telangana	0.007	0.397	0.541	0.062	0.405	0.520	0.075	3.022	6.89​	0.78​		0.44​	1.50​		3.08​
Bestha	0.072	0.408	0.539	0.053	0.415	0.519	0.067	3.186	7.79​	1.15​		0.45​	1.64​		3.38​
Naidu	0.001	0.395	0.540	0.065	0.401	0.523	0.076	3.233	6.88​	0.77​		0.45​	1.55​		3.17​
Chamada	0.007	0.398	0.552	0.050	0.407	0.525	0.068	3.307	7.72​	1.13​		0.46​	1.74​		3.56​
Pattapu_Kapu	0.003	0.415	0.539	0.046	0.423	0.515	0.062	3.313	8.37​	1.40​		0.45​	1.67​		3.43​
Reddy_Telangana	0.002	0.365	0.560	0.075	0.372	0.541	0.087	3.468	6.18​	0.48​		0.45​	1.66​		3.41​
Muthuraja	0.062	0.406	0.548	0.046	0.415	0.523	0.062	3.598	8.45​	1.44​		0.46​	1.82​		3.73​
Nadar	0.005	0.402	0.541	0.057	0.408	0.524	0.068	3.620	7.68​	1.11​		0.46​	1.71​		3.51​
Yadav_Pondicherry	0.014	0.381	0.555	0.064	0.388	0.536	0.076	3.721	7.01​	0.83​		0.46​	1.78​		3.65​
Gaud_Karnataka	0.000	0.357	0.578	0.065	0.369	0.547	0.084	3.746	6.53​	0.63​		0.46​	1.86​		3.81​
Coorghi	0.014	0.314	0.593	0.094	0.323	0.569	0.109	3.769	5.23​	0.08​		0.46​	1.79​		3.67​
Kallar	0.013	0.395	0.557	0.048	0.402	0.537	0.061	4.482	8.78​	1.57​		0.48​	2.09​		4.28​
Vysya	0.027	0.393	0.565	0.042	0.401	0.542	0.057	4.857	9.54​	1.89​		0.49​	2.27​		4.66​
Panta_Kapu	0.000	0.321	0.613	0.065	0.333	0.585	0.082	5.533	7.09​	0.86​		0.50​	2.59​		5.32​

References :

Scratching my head! - Criticism of Narsimhan VM et al 2019 - Pt 1

Narasimhan VM, Patterson N, Moorjani P, et al. The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia. Science. 2019;365(6457):eaat7487. doi:10.1126/science.aat7487
Excel supplement from the paper

 

[Indo-Aryan]

Meta-Linguists will not stop.

Even if we end up finding 2500bce Sanskrit inscriptions, their next claim would be "Aryans arrived in India earlier than we thought"


This whole exercise is pointless

 

[dazialsoku]

Meta-Linguists will not stop.

Even if we end up finding 2500bce Sanskrit inscriptions, their next claim would be "Aryans arrived in India earlier than we thought"


This whole exercise is pointless

No, they would deny it. They need the 1500 BCE entry date to fit into their PIE development timeline. Any evidence of Indo-Aryan before 1500 BCE destroys their timeline.

 

[viklewapatel]

As is correctly pointed out here, "For this to even be valid you would need MASSIVE sample sizes from diverse communities, and census data based on caste proportion down to subcaste." And as this anthrogenica forum user also points out, "I personally have never been a fan of the South Indian component coz it's so vague - lumps up AASI and ancient West and East Eurasian components."

How Viking Are You? Genomelink - Page 4

Apricity is a European Cultural Community

www.theapricity.com

 

[viklewapatel]

As is correctly pointed out here, "For this to even be valid you would need MASSIVE sample sizes from diverse communities, and census data based on caste proportion down to subcaste." And as this anthrogenica forum user also points out, "I personally have never been a fan of the South Indian component coz it's so vague - lumps up AASI and ancient West and East Eurasian components."

How Viking Are You? Genomelink - Page 4

Apricity is a European Cultural Community

www.theapricity.com

View attachment 130816

 

[viklewapatel]

South Asians are descended from a mix of farmers, herders ...

Mix of ancient ancestries is surprisingly similar to Europe’s

Nearly all of the Indian subcontinent's ethnic and linguistic groups are the product of three ancient Eurasian populations who met and mixed: local hunter-gatherers, Middle Eastern farmers, and Central Asian herders. Three similar groups also mingled in ancient Europe, giving the two subcontinents surprisingly parallel histories.

South Asians are descended from a mix of farmers, herders, and hunter…

archived 10 Jan 2022 07:18:27 UTC

archive.is

 

[Indo-Aryan]

South Asians are descended from a mix of farmers, herders ...

Mix of ancient ancestries is surprisingly similar to Europe’s

Nearly all of the Indian subcontinent's ethnic and linguistic groups are the product of three ancient Eurasian populations who met and mixed: local hunter-gatherers, Middle Eastern farmers, and Central Asian herders. Three similar groups also mingled in ancient Europe, giving the two subcontinents surprisingly parallel histories.

South Asians are descended from a mix of farmers, herders, and hunter…

archived 10 Jan 2022 07:18:27 UTC

archive.is

Middle eastern farmers ...... Nope!

 

[viklewapatel]

#ModiJiJiyoHazaroSaal
https://lnkd.in/gHG3j6kJ

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

VASISTHA viz The Archaeogenetics Blog ::

Steppe-->Brahmin? Final evidence against Harvard's claim

I received a reply from Harvard's Dr. David Reich to the mail I had sent (check previous post comments).

Hi Ashish,

The Z-scores are formal tests for model fit – appropriately calibrated by a block jackknife – and the tail of large Z-scores are simply reflecting the reality of model failure.

What the analyses are showing is that the “Indian Cline” is in fact best modeled as a two-dimensional cloud not a one-dimensional gradient: a mixture of three source populations that cannot be simplified to a mixture of two source populations as we had done in previous modeling for example in Reich et al. Nature 2019.

As such, what our enrichment analyses are showing is simply that the groups of traditionally priestly status tend to be enriched for the Steppe-related source population after controlling for the proportions from the other two.

Yours, David

I will address these points in this analysis post. This will be final evidence to disprove the confident Steppe--->Brahmin causality claim made in the study.

Let us make a new model to study excess steppe ancestry based on the qpAdm ancestries of the 140 modern populations studied in Narasimhan et al 2019 [1](the study). For the purpose of this analysis, we will ignore the bad qpAdm p-values in the study and assume that the models and ancestry estimates provided are accurate for all 140 populations, although some are clearly not.
We will assume that a 2 source ANI ASI model is accurate for modeling all modern South Asians.
ANI = a IVC + (1-a) Steppe
ASI = b AHG+ (1-b) IVC
where
ANI is Ancestral North Indian
ASI is Ancestral South Asian
a is ancestry coefficient of IVC ancestry (or Indus Periphery) in ANI
b is ancestry coefficient of AHG in ASI
0<=a,b<=1
Our main aim is to use the qpAdm coefficients for each population, and by keeping the AHG and IVC ancestries the same as the qpAdm model (thereby fixing the amount of steppe, which will be different than the qpAdm model) but varying a,b in such a fashion that the overall errors in the 140 groups are minimized.
let G be one of the 140 modern groups.
G = e.ANI + f.ASI; 0<=e,f<=1 & e+f=1
G = ea.IVCN + eb.Steppe + fc.IVCS + fd.AHG
ea + fc = qpAdm IVC estimate for group G
fd = qpAdm AHG estimate for group G
IVCN = IVC ancestry type from ANI part
IVCS =IVC ancestry type from ASI part

For easier understanding, let me explain it with kalash.
qpAdm for Kalash: 0.123 AHG + .599IVC + 0.278 Steppe
we can write it as

where (1-b)/b is the ratio of IVC to AHG ancestry in ASI, and (1-a)/a is the ratio of Steppe/IVC ancestry in ANI.
If both these ratios are 0.4, it would mean

ASI = 71.24% AHG + 28.76%IVC

and ANI = 71.24%IVC + 28.76% Steppe

and Kalash would become

0.123 AHG + 0.0492 IVCS + 0.5498 IVCN + 0.2199 Steppe.

We can see that the steppe component of 0.2199 is less than the qpAdm estimate of 0.278. ie the model predicts that the ANI for Kalash had a higher steppe component than what we chose. This difference of 0.0581 is the fit error for this group for this particular choice of ratios.



Fitting all 140 Groups with the ANI-ASI model
For a particular set of ratios (1-a)/a and (1-b)/b, we will get a set of 140 fit errors for 140 different groups. We can now vary both the ratios and come to a final choice of ratios at which the sum squared of the 140 fit errors is minimized. We also place the constraint that none of the 4 ancestry coefficients can be negative.

This can be done via Excel VBA macro, or more simply by using the solver plugin in excel.

The error minimizing algorithm gives the result for IVC/AHG ratio in ASI as 0.421 and that of Steppe/IVC in ANI as 0.372. ie ANI = 72.9% IVC + 27.1% Steppe and ASI = 70.36% AHG and 29.64%.

The excess steppe error ranges from -0.13 to 0.18 steppe % points with a mean of 0.0015 and a median of -0.0037 and a standard deviation of 0.0527. mean and std dev estimated from 5000 Monte Carlo random simulation runs of picking errors of 15 random groups each time.

Converting these error scores to Z-Scores by standardizing, results in a Z-Score range of -2.41 to 2.18, with mean 0 and std dev 1 - confirming that it is indeed Standard Normal Z distribution.

Whereas the Z-Score range for the study in question is -7.9 to 8.2, with a mean 0 but std dev 2.79. The Z-Scores are inflated for some reason, so they no longer represent a deviation from the mean of the 140 groups.

I think what has happened here is that the Z-Scores given in the study are Z-scores for deviation from the 2 way ANI ASI model, calculated as (Excess steppe)/(Std Error of the steppe qpAdm estimate).
Or in other words

Z = (ANI ASI Model estimate - qpAdm estimate)/(SE of the qpAdm estimate)

The mean of 0 is just a coincidence, helped by the fact that the underlying excess steppe calculated also has a mean for the140 groups close to 0.

This is what was confirmed to me by Dr. David Reich in his email reply - ie. the large Z Scores indicate failure of the model.

However, this raises serious concerns -

The deviation for a group from the fit of a FAILED MODEL should not be used to make any definitive conclusions. The conclusions made based on the Z scores of these failed fits are wrong. The excess steppe signal being picked up is a mirage. I will prove my point in the subsequent section by showing a WORKING 3 Source model.


A Working 3 Source model for 140 modern Indian groups
Dr. Reich confirmed in his email reply that the ANI ASI model does not work for modern Indians, and no 2 source model will work as the groups lie inside a cloud rather than a cline. A minimum 3 source model is required to model these 140 groups without outliers. I agree with this assessment.

Similar to above my model, I will now formulate the methodology for a 3 source model. Bear in mind that there can be multiple solutions to this problem, I am outlining just 1 or 2.

I define the 3 populations as

ASI = IVC + AHG in a fixed ratio of ancestries, with AHG dominating the component
AI =IVC + AHG in another fixed ratio of ancestries, with IVC dominating the component
ANI = IVC + Steppe, in a fixed ratio of ancestries.


We fix the sum of the AHG components to the qpAdm estimate for the group,
the sum of IVC components to qpAdm estimate of IVC for the group,
Steppe in the fit model will be a result of the remaining IVC component multiplied by the steppe/IVC ratio for ANI.

The floating variables used will be the 3 ratios, as well as 140 multipliers which will be specific to 1 group respectively and denote the % of the total AHG ancestry utilized by ASI.
eg.
qpAdm estimates for Kalash: 0.123 AHG + 0.599IVC + 0.278 Steppe
can be broken into

[g * 0.123 AHG + g * 0.123 * r1 IVC] + ASI

[(0.123 - g * 0.123)AHG + 0.123 x (1-g) * r2 IVC] + AI

[{0.599 - (g * 0.123 * r1) - (0.123*(1-g).r2)} IVC +{0.599-(g*r1) -(0.123x(1-g)*r2)}*r3 Steppe] ANI
where g is the proportion of AHG for Kalash which is part of ASI, 0<g<1. there are 140 of these - g1 to g140.
r1 = ratio of IVC to AHG in ASI; common for all 140 groups
r2 = ratio of IVC to AHG in AI; common for all 140 groups
r3 = ratio of Steppe to IVC in ANI; common to all 140 groups
The coefficient we get for Steppe is compared to the qpAdm estimate and the difference is the error. Our error minimization algorithm will vary these 143 parameters such that the sum squared of the 140 errors is minimized.
We use the Excel Solver plugin for this. One additional constraint is that none of the 6 coefficients should be negative.
RESULT
After the error minimization, we get a working model.
The mean of the error is 0.0001, the median is 0.0000, the standard deviation is 0.0014. The range of the error is from -0.0014 to max 0.017. The Z-Scores for model fit (error/SE) range from -0.0969 to 1.30, giving proof of successful fits for all 140 populations.
The error range of -0.13 to 0.18 in the best fitting ANI ASI model is reduced to -0.0014 to 0.017, and the standard deviation is reduced from >0.05 to 0.0014.
This is expected because we are already assuming that a 3 source model given by qpAdm (AHG + IVC + Steppe) is accepted, therefore any 3-way combination of these 3 underlying ancestries will also give a successful fit. However, the 3 sources I have chosen have a chance of providing more historical information as a proximal model.
From the output of the fitted model we get:
ANI = 64% IVC + 36% Steppe
ASI = 99% AHG + 1% IVC
AI = 61% IVC + 39% AHG
and all 140 groups as a combination of these 3 ancestries.

The PCA of all 140 groups with these 3 proximal sources is below

The good fit of the model is confirmed by all 140 groups lying inside the triangle in the PCA. It is immediately evident that the 4 Brahmin groups based on which the study made its claims about excess Steppe ancestry in Brahmins have a unique position on this PCA.

The other outlier in the study's Z-Score, was Panta_Kapu with a Z-Score of 8.85, showing the largest deviation among 140 groups from the ANI ASI model.

However, in the 3 source model, Panta Kapu is seen on the other cline - the ANI AI cline, with no contribution from ASI. It showed as an opposite end outlier in the study because of its low ASI, whereas the 4 Brahmin groups were outliers because of the high need for ASI.




THE BRAHMIN OUTLIER GROUPS
It has to be said that it is questionable whether these 4 particular groups are representative of Brahmins in the UP and Bihar regions. There are many UP brahmins on Anthrogenica who claim that these samples are erroneous and their own ancestry does not match these samples at all. On Eurogenes G25 too, the difference between the UP Brahmins from Mondal et al 2017 data differs from the other UP brahmins. Maybe there is a difference between eastern and western UP brahmin ancestry, but I have not studied this matter and therefore have no judgment. With this caveat, let's proceed.
As per the 3 source model above, none of the 4 outliers - Bhumihar_Bihar, Brahmin_UP, Brahmin_Tiwari, and Brahmin_Nepal, are in need of excess steppe ancestry over and above what is provided by ANI. In other words; Nepal, UP, Chattisgarh & Bihar Brahmins DO NOT NEED A SEPARATE ANI SOURCE WITH HIGHER STEPPE/IVC ANCESTRY RATIO.

The excess Steppe needed in the failed model was actually a false signal, what is needed in these 4 outlier groups is an ancestry source that has excess ASI(AHG) and almost nil IVC on top of ANI as well. This is exactly the point that I had made in my Part 1 critique, that eastern Indians have excess AHG ancestry as well, which is driving this false signal of excess steppe requirement in the failed ANI ASI model.

If it were not for this high AHG source requirement specific to these 4 groups, they would not have needed a high Steppe/IVC ANI source to model them.

An important corollary is this: If a set of populations can only be modeled as a 3-source admixture, then only 1 ancestry (or its ratio with any 2nd) cannot be the only explanation for a 2-source model failure. By mathematical certainty, at least 2 sources / 2 ratios will explain the deviation from the 2 source model.

How can it be? How can this ANI group meet with almost pure original AHG (also called AASI) ancestry? It appears that eastern India still has populations with the highest AHG like ancestry even in modern times, even more so than the southern Dravidian Paniya & Irula tribals. The Birhor tribals of Jharkhand, Bihar, Chattisgarh are Austroasiatic-speaking hunter-gatherers. They possess even greater AASI/AHG ancestry than Paniya, mixed with SE Asian ancestry, and there is some evidence to suggest that even the little IVC like ancestry in Birhor is of recent admixture (DATES: S1 Shahr_Sokhta_BA2, S2 ONG.SG, Target BIR.SG: Output 23.77 +- 8.65 generations, 1092CE - 1576CE)

This is additional evidence to the almost consensus hypothesis that AASI entered India from the East/Southeast of India in paleolithic times.

This can explain how these 4 Brahmin groups from east India picked up AASI/Austroasiatic ancestry. At some point, they must have intermarried locals from the region that they settled in. These Brahmin groups are just showing the adaptation to their region, just like other groups show their adaptation to their specific regions. Another line of evidence to prove this hypothesis is that eastern Indo Aryan languages show Munda language substrate which is absent from western IA languages, hinting at IA speaking groups changing the language of the eastern Indian region where Munda people lived.[2][3][4]

qpAdm for Birhor: P-value 0.0003 (best fit i got): 0.69 Onge + 0.175 IndusPWest + 0.138 Dai
PCA Based on Language

Based on the Language association with these 140 groups taken from the study, I plotted the PCA of the groups and classified them according to language. ANI component is CORRELATED with IE speakers, however, it of course does not imply causation. It could just be a matter of geography that North India has a higher ANI component (steppe can enter only through north) as well as IE speaking. ANI also has a 65% IVC component, the major component.

Think of it like this, if we assume that the hypothesis that North India was already IE speaking by 2500BCE before the ANI component existed is true, then it would also be true that the later ANI component entry would cause a higher ancestry % in the North. So regardless of whether north India spoke IE language pre steppe or not, the ANI component will always be higher in the north of India. Implying correlation = causation lacks logical rigour.

Then is there a way to check if this ANI ancestry has any special relation to Language and religion?
There could be. I agree with the study's assertion that Priestly groups were the "traditional
custodians of liturgy in Sanskrit". Rather than look at ratios, a simpler way is to just check the overall % of ANI ancestry in a group and correlate it with various measures. The idea is simple, a group with 75% ANI ancestry can be hypothesized to have a significantly higher chance of being of Priestly status than a group with 35% ANI, and this hypothesis can then be checked.

Let's test if Priestly groups have significant excess ANI ancestry over the rest of the groups of the Indian subcontinent. We do this via Welch's two-tailed T-test to compare the means of ANI ancestry in 2 groups, and statistically check if the means are significantly different at 0.05 significance (95% confidence). If the means are significantly different, the null hypothesis will be rejected and the p-value of the test will be below 0.05.

For Brahmins vs Non-Brahmins, the mean of ANI is significantly different (p<<<0.05).
This proves that the ANI component is maximized in Brahmins and hence it must be causal to the Brahmin groups right? Not quite.

There is a big problem with the null hypothesis that I formulated. The null hypothesis that Brahmins will have on average the same ANI as the rest of the Indian populations spanning all the country is a really bad one, because we know that's not going to be true. The Brahmins derive from the Vedic people who were located in NW India as per the Rig Veda. Since those times, brahmins then moved out to various parts of the country to spread religion and culture. As discussed above, a northern population is for sure going to be heavier in ANI than the aggregate of the country, which includes the South and East to drag the number down for that team. The proof is below.

N/NW India = Groups from Pakistan, Delhi, Haryana, J&K, Punjab, Rajasthan.

So what Null hypothesis should we test?
To test whether the ANI component is significantly related to Brahmins vs others, we should compare the mean of ANI ancestry in Brahmins vs the mean of ANI ancestry in all other groups of N/NW India and Pakistan, including the so-called 'backward groups'. If that null hypothesis of the equal mean between the 2 sets can be rejected, then we can confidently make the claim that indeed ANI is significantly related to Brahmin populations.

p=0.23>>0.05, hence the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The mean of the ANI ancestry in Brahmins & NW Indians of various caste hierarchies is similar.
Bear in mind that the Brahmin groups don't include lower ANI groups like Marathi, Tamil, Gujarati brahmins, etc, whereas the NW groups don't include higher ANI groups like Ror, Punjab_Jatt, Kamboj, etc. For sure, we could be missing the other side of the same coin too, but I don't think there are any other Brahmin groups with more ANI than UP brahmins. The more data we have the better the statistical power of the tests will be.


CONCLUSION

Nevertheless, the fact that traditional custodians of liturgy in Sanskrit (Brahmins) tend to have more Steppe ancestry than is predicted by a simple ASI-ANI mixture model provides an independent line of evidence—beyond the distinctive ancestry profile shared between South Asia and Bronze Eastern Europe mirroring the shared features of Indo-Iranian and Balto- Slavic languages (58)—for a Bronze Age Steppe origin for South Asia’s Indo-European languages.

In my above work, I have poked various holes in this emphasized part of the claim made in Narasimhan et al 2019.

References
1. Narasimhan VM, Patterson N, Moorjani P, et al. The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia. Science. 2019;365(6457):eaat7487. doi:10.1126/science.aat7487

2. Peterson, John. "Fitting the pieces together – Towards a linguistic prehistory of eastern-central South Asia (and beyond) " Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, vol. 4, no. 2, 2017, pp. 211-257. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2017-0008

3. Ivani, Jessica K., Paudyal, Netra, and Peterson, John. "Indo-Aryan – a house divided? Evidence for the east-west Indo-Aryan divide and its significance for the study of northern South Asia" Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 2, 2020, pp. 235-274. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2021-2029
4. The West/East Divide among Indo-Aryan languages

 

[asaffronladoftherisingsun]

Now the psychotic coomers must eat dirt as evident from the fact that smaller horses too were used as war horses and there was no such thing as super tall horses.

 

[viklewapatel]

Is Socialism Racist?

bezmenov

 

[viklewapatel]

Bear in mind that the Brahmin groups don't include lower ANI groups like Marathi, Tamil, Gujarati brahmins, etc, whereas the NW groups don't include higher ANI groups like Ror, Punjab_Jatt, Kamboj, etc.

The whole ANI vs. ASI thing is rather dubious. YOU NEED MASSIVE SAMPLE SIZES FROM DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. Moreover, results are not apples to apples:

"To complicate matters 1% S Asian for a European is not the same as 1% S Asian for a W Asian. Whereas the 1% S Asian for a European could translate to 6% total S Asian, if the European references have a 5% S Asian base, the 1% S Asian showing up in a result say for a Kurd or Iranian 23andMe subject could translate to a 16% TOTAL S Asian, since the Middle Eastern references, if they are Iranians, could already have a 15% S Asian base. Therefore, 1% S Asian for a northern European would not be equal to 1% S Asian for say an Iranian or Kurd."

An Admixture Calculator for Eurasians - Eurasian DNA

archived 9 Jan 2022 06:21:33 UTC

archive.is

HOW ACCURATE IS GEDMATCH

? AND DOES ANYONE KNOW WHICH CALCULATOR TO USE FOR A MORE ACCURATE POPULATION COMPARISON? I’M CONFLICTED SINCE GEDMATCH, 23ANDME, FTDNA, AND GENOMELINK HAVE GIVEN ME DIFFERENT RESULTS.

How Viking Are You? Genomelink - Page 4

Apricity is a European Cultural Community

www.theapricity.com

 

[viklewapatel]

The whole ANI vs. ASI thing is rather dubious. YOU NEED MASSIVE SAMPLE SIZES FROM DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. Moreover, results are not apples to apples:

"To complicate matters 1% S Asian for a European is not the same as 1% S Asian for a W Asian. Whereas the 1% S Asian for a European could translate to 6% total S Asian, if the European references have a 5% S Asian base, the 1% S Asian showing up in a result say for a Kurd or Iranian 23andMe subject could translate to a 16% TOTAL S Asian, since the Middle Eastern references, if they are Iranians, could already have a 15% S Asian base. Therefore, 1% S Asian for a northern European would not be equal to 1% S Asian for say an Iranian or Kurd."

An Admixture Calculator for Eurasians - Eurasian DNA

archived 9 Jan 2022 06:21:33 UTC

archive.is

How Viking Are You? Genomelink - Page 4

Apricity is a European Cultural Community

www.theapricity.com

Results from the program ADMIXTURE are highly volatile

GEDmatch Archaic Matches:

 

[Indo-Aryan]

This whole genetic argument is a subtle way of saying Aryan was racial x_x

 

[viklewapatel]

What is Indo-European Studies?

Ancient tribe Indo-Europeans: DNA origins analysis

What is Indo-European Studies? In 1816, the German Franz Bopp (1791-1867), in his book Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleich mit dem dem dem

www.igenea.com

The Indo-Germanic population groups had cultural and linguistic contacts with neighbouring peoples at an early stage. Among the oldest contacts are those with the Uralians of the forest zone north of the Indo-European original homeland; they date back to the 6th millennium B.C. In the 5th millennium B.C., the contacts of the Indo-Germanic people with their neighbours in the south, the Caucasians, began. The earlier contacts of Indo-European steppe nomads with the Old Europeans in the north-western coastal region of the Black Sea (region of Varna in Bulgaria) also fall into this period.

 

[viklewapatel]

HarappaWorld Oracle results: https://ibb.co/QYtXx2h

https://defenceforumindia.com/attachments/gedmatch-oracle2-png.132484/

https://archive.is/DTGZ9/7a5e68ea9faa80f1ee53f2bde70186690bc1eb0e.png

Advanced Ancestry Analysis (Post your Eurasia)

Apricity is a European Cultural Community

www.theapricity.com

 

[viklewapatel]

https://defenceforumindia.com/attachments/eebd27916e0b0a79cd90ea6a85000089d12ffe91-png.132489/

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% gujarati-a_1000genomes +50% gujarati-a_hapmap @ 1.876072
Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% gujarati-a_1000genomes +25% gujarati-a_hapmap +25% gujarati-a_hapmap @ 1.876072

gedmatch-fcgi-bin-Oracle4 hosted at ImgBB

Image gedmatch-fcgi-bin-Oracle4 hosted in ImgBB

ibb.co

https://archive.is/Ei8o2/eebd27916e0b0a79cd90ea6a85000089d12ffe91.png

Advanced Ancestry Analysis (Post your Eurasia)

Apricity is a European Cultural Community

www.theapricity.com

 

[viklewapatel]

Ain't 1 percent too low for a North Indian dalit?

It looks like they (Dalits) have on average 14.2 percent Indo-European ancestry. See Chart.

https://defenceforumindia.com/attachments/1606219888455-png.132629/