Scientists reconstruct faces of Indus Valley people

not so dravidian

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
1,359
Likes
7,332
Country flag
Sadly like most Indians I have none.
Best bet would be state board books from Tamil Nadu schools.

It's really baffling that the empires that lasted longest and spread Indian culture to East and South East asia dont get the same treatment as some others get.

Only 2 kings find mention in our books from a dynasty that lasted 1500 years and spread Indian culture farther than anyone ever in the history.
But the problem is that I've heard there is considerable Jesuit influence i.e, cultural Marxism

I'm ok with it but wanted ur opinion
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
But the problem is that I've heard there is considerable Jesuit influence i.e, cultural Marxism

I'm ok with it but wanted ur opinion
Most our books have been. Cant do much on that. Just read from multiple sources and use your intellect.

Hinduism identifies six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), Anupalabdhi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).

It's time we overcome our intellectual slavery. It's time we go back to basics.
 

not so dravidian

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
1,359
Likes
7,332
Country flag
Most our books have been. Cant do much on that. Just read from multiple sources and use your intellect.

Hinduism identifies six pramanas as correct means of accurate knowledge and to truths: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), Anupalabdhi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).

It's time we overcome our intellectual slavery. It's time we go back to basics.
Thank you I'll start after. Diwali and update u regularly :):):)
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
This is what our ancestors tought.

Far cry from our education system which churns zombies after zombies.



The method of inference is explained by Indian texts as consisting of three parts: pratijna (hypothesis), hetu (a reason), and drshtanta (examples).The hypothesis must further be broken down into two parts, state the ancient Indian scholars: sadhya (that idea which needs to proven or disproven) and paksha (the object on which the sadhya is predicated). The inference is conditionally true if sapaksha (positive examples as evidence) are present, and if vipaksha (negative examples as counter-evidence) are absent. For rigor, the Indian philosophies also state further epistemic steps. For example, they demand Vyapti - the requirement that the hetu (reason) must necessarily and separately account for the inference in "all" cases, in both sapaksha and vipaksha. A conditionally proven hypothesis is called a nigamana (conclusion).
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,521
Likes
44,692
Country flag
Bhai cud u recommend me the right materials on South Indian history

I'm a tamil and want to first learn about Cholas, pandyas history, but I have no clue where to start
Not a Historical book, but rather a novel which I found very interesting, by Aditya Iyengar, named "The Conqueror"
It's based on the life of Rajendra chola, obviously it is severely dramatized, and some typical Liberal shiiet, first half is a little slow
But I found it very interesting........
Chola navy kicking some south east Asian arse
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
Not a Historical book, but rather a novel which I found very interesting, by Aditya Iyengar, named "The Conqueror"
It's based on the life of Rajendra chola, obviously it is severely dramatized, and some typical Liberal shiiet, first half is a little slow
But I found it very interesting........
Chola navy kicking some south east Asian arse
And they say Indians are docile.
They never invaded but were invaded

Ahimsa Parmodharam 😃
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
What reason do AMT scholars give for Indo-Iranian family not migrating when other European languages were migrating around 3000bce. Why did they delay their descend by 1000 years? Cant find any logic in it.

Since horse myths didn't originate from common source this puts a serious question mark. Indo-Iranians moving at the same time as other languages will make Harappan civilization part Vedic hence detremental to the theories of Harapa and Vedic being different civilization.

This Horse domestication paper has put another nail in the coffin of AMT.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
Arguments of AIT/AMT scholars on actual archaeological evidence from Harappan civilization.

01 Pashupati seal isn't Shiva
02 Horse like bones are likely Ass
03 Fire alters are likely cooking ovens
04 Chariot in Sinauli is likely a Cart
05 Lingams arent really Shivling
06 Priest King isnt really a Priest
07 Swastika proves nothing


But without any archaeological evidence

01 Andronovo are Indo-Iranian
02 BMAC is later phase of migration
03 Harappan language is Proto-Dravidian

😂😆
1) Who are these coomers issuing certifications regarding our civilisation? We know it is SHIVA. Now if a bunch of retards have issues identifying Pashupati with SHIVA is not a problem for us nor it matter to us. What really matters is remarkable unbroken civilisational continuity of BHARAT as a living Civilizational state..

DHARMA Triumphs15.JPG



2) This run d rona comes out necessarily from the fact that the over alleged 4200 bce dereivka horse threw such delusional dates because of contamination in the museum and also coomers tested some other bone and not of the horse. When the horse bone was tested it gave date of 200 bce :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:that forced coomer anthony to withdraw his claim.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

And hence this steppy horse theory was bulldozed with it only to be kept alive by certain eurfags who keep shoving anthony upto this date. While the bones of wild equus namadicus and also equss sivalenesis have been found and confirmed with cal. date of 18k bce from Inamgaon near Maharashtra vis Arcaheological Survey of BHARAT. Although the wild horse became rare following conversion of Bhartiya steppes into dense forests after 6000 bce it never went completely extinct from Bharat as it survived as the domesticated one.

3) The excavation at Kalibangan has confirmed evidence of a) individual fire worship having a separate room in the house in which a pit housing a vertical terracotta stump with ash is placed, b) high altars in the citadel mound with a series of fire altars with brick-lined pits having ash and animal bones, c) outside the city on the east within a mud walled area a series of fire altars with pits containing ash. Besides this a sacrificial brick lined pit having animal bones has been discovered. Circular and square fire altars have been reported from Lothal and Vagad with ash and animal bones. A circular pit having 165 cm diameter with a pranala towards south, and a conical clay stump at the centre has been found within the pit having much ash at Nageshwar. The pit produced very high temperature as shown by its walls. The excavator feels 'the structure was used to produce intense heat like a pillar of fire'. More recently Banawali has also given the evidence of an apsidal temple with a fire altar. According to some, the Great Bath at Mohenjodaro was also connected with some ceremonial religious bath/s.
DHARMA Triumphs.JPG



4) Again because coomers scared of Sinauli so much because Littauer had already buttfucked anthony's sintashta vehicle finds to newyorkfagstimes.

"A spoked wheel is not necessarily a chariot, only a light cart on the way to becoming chariots." The evidence from sintashta remained no more than to conclude carts.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Also for steppycucks two wheeler evidence is Only imprints of spoked wheels/axle/nave and chutiya fragments of random base. So no More evidence than for a plank connecting some two spoked wheels: the simplest cart. Littauer had again reviewed this last year and hold the same view .
Littauer & Crouwel pointed out that even if the dubious reconstructions were entertained, steppe's crucial claim for true chariots was struck off. But as No evidence for the reconstructions beyond wheels & connector base, steppe proto-chariots is simply too much to allow. Basic cart.




5)A perfect ellipsoid Lingam means form Shiva lingam is juform dont know why its translated as phallus.
DHARMA Triumphs51.JPG

DHARMA Triumphs51.JPG


6) Pujari hota hai Mandir mein. Mandir detected from multiple excavation sites of SINDHU SARASVATI detect ho chuka hai confirmed viz Archaeological Survey of BHARAT.


DHARMA Triumphs6.JPG



7) Often its much better as coomers to be silent listeners for being fools rather than opening mouths and immediately prove resident retardation.

Again this andronovo bs comes from coomer anthony linking Rig Veda Hymns with andrononvo archaeology. His translations do not match any known translation of RIGVEDA. The earliest chapter of the iranianavesta talks of Sapta Sindhu as the original home of the the iranians read avestan vendidad chapter 1. Both indo eurfags and Indo iranian are fake constructs in malicious attempts to connect eurfags with SANSKRIT its a joke. Simple example . If bows and arrows are painted on 30,000 year old Bhimbetka caves of central BHARATA , but Indo-e languages other than BHARATIYA and Greek have no words for that who is trying to arse whom about where languages went or came from?

assfuckedeurfagscucks.jpg

Sure coomer larperlingus can create arctican language and connect it to antarctica by citing proto north amreekunts to proto south south amreekunts to antarctican language
Do note the words for bow and arrow are not securely reconstructible to any fraud pie only greeks and Indo iranian share vocabulary but cannot be shown by fraud pie as in it is clear that the words for bow and arrow in eurfags are not "Indo-e" words. The only languages that retain "Indo-e" words for bow and arrow are BHARTIYA and extensions of BHARTIYA like old Iranian and greeks.

No element of the bmac has ever been found east of the SINDHU SARASVATI which was the area occupied by the Vedic people. So there is no case whatsoever for the bmac people having migrated into India.

Hao bc chutiya banarahe hain SINDHU SARASVATI ki population 50 lakh thi a bunch of hypothetical claimed words of doesnt mean all of SINDHU SARASVATI was dravidian aise toh bc bhot sare dravidian cognates hain in Indo e languages.Tamil:- arici english:- rice Latin:- rice gayrmaniac:-reis French:-riz russian:-ris Hungarian:-rizs Norwegian:-ris Finnish:-riisi Spanish:-arroz shitalian :-riso Greek:-rýzi irish :-rís swedish:-ris albanian:-oriz.
 
Last edited:

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
@asaffronladoftherisingsun

I was hearing Neeraj Rai and he claims his research is genetically pointing to the movement of People in very small numbers from steppes but no cultural and material change observed on ground.

Implying the assimilation of these people into Harappan culture rather than migration let alone invasion.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
View attachment 115768
View attachment 115769

This chart is contrary to what I believe.
The SINDHU SARASVATI ivc cline samples are not representative of all the Harappan SINDHU SARASVATI Civilization people. Barring the low coverage Rakhigarhi sample, all the other 11 samples are not from SINDHU SARASVATI.8 of these are from Shahr I Sokhta , Helmand. Civilization in Eastern Iran where they make up half of the total samples
3 of them are from Gonur in Turkmenistan, a major site of bmac . Now here is the point - Shahr I Sokhta was majorly influenced in its formation by migrants from the Baluchistan Chalcolithic tradition - the Nal pottery tradition, which is part of Amri-Nal early Harappan phase of Baluchistan-Sindh-North Gujarat. This Baluchistani influence in Shahr I Sokhta began right from its beginning around 3200 BC, with some of the earlier Indus Periphery or IVC cline samples from Shahr I Sokhta dating from that period too. This is centuries before the mature Harappan influence reached Baluchistan.herefore the IVC cline or Indus Periphery samples from Shahr I Sokhta mostly likely came there from Baluchistan-Sindh region and reflect the genetic ancestry of people of those regions during the Early to Mature Harappan period.But it cannot be assumed that this same ancestry profile was also prevalent further North & East into the Punjab-Rajasthan-Haryana region which were right into the heart of Harappan territory. One poor coverage sample from Rakhigarhi - a cosmopolitan site - notwithstanding. Even the 3 Indus Periphery samples from Gonur in bmac could have likely reached there from Eastern Iran where cultures like Helmand & Jiroft existed - in close cultural contact with the western region of IVC. Shahr I Sokhta is the main site of the Helmand civilization. The Helmand and Jiroft cultures are considered to have played a major role, including migration, in the formation of the bmac. So, looking at the archaeological context, it is presumptuous to assume that the Indus Periphery samples can be used to represent all IVC people.They are from the W-SW regions of the IVC, but the dominant cultural influence on the IVC was from the Kot Diji-Sotho Siswal tradition of Punjab-Haryana, from where we dont have any sample save the poor coverage Rakhigarhi one.Correction - Sothi-Siswal tradition. It is reasonable that rather than the western Harappans, it were people from the core Harappan territories of Punjab-Haryana which genetically influenced modern Indians. We need 10-15 samples from this region before proving this hipster larp. Let us not forget, the highest so-called steppy ancestry is found not in Brahmins but in the Jats of Haryana-Western UP, core regions of IVC but also right in the heart of Vedic Civilisation.
 
Last edited:

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
First ancient cultivated rice discovered in Central Asia

That indicates the possibility of rice in Central Asia was spread from South Asia. Meanwhile, when rice appeared in Central Asia, the Kushan Empire has already established in northwest India and conquered most parts of Central and South Asia.

Investigations started from the excavations carried out at the lakeside settlement of Lahuradewa,UTTAR PRADESH from 2001 to 2006. On the basis of the consistent presence of micro-charcoal in the nearby lake, human activity was considered to be going on in this area since 12,000 years. The presence of micro-charcoal observed in all the 28 sediment samples of Lahuradewa Lake, is an indicator of regular fire-events caused by human activity in the catchment area of the lake, during last 12,000 years. The site was brought to light by Krishnanand Tripathi, a resident of Lahuradewa.


DHARMA Triumphs.JPG


DHARMA Triumphs5.JPG

DHARMA Triumphs14.JPG
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
The IVC cline samples are not representative of all the Harappan SINDHU SARASVATI Civilization people. Barring the low coverage Rakhigarhi sample, all the other 11 samples are not from IVC.8 of these are from Shahr I Sokhta , Helmand. Civilization in Eastern Iran where they make up half of the total samples
3 of them are from Gonur in Turkmenistan, a major site of bmac . Now here is the point - Shahr I Sokhta was majorly influenced in its formation by migrants from the Baluchistan Chalcolithic tradition - the Nal pottery tradition, which is part of Amri-Nal early Harappan phase of Baluchistan-Sindh-North Gujarat. This Baluchistani influence in Shahr I Sokhta began right from its beginning around 3200 BC, with some of the earlier Indus Periphery or IVC cline samples from Shahr I Sokhta dating from that period too. This is centuries before the mature Harappan influence reached Baluchistan.herefore the IVC cline or Indus Periphery samples from Shahr I Sokhta mostly likely came there from Baluchistan-Sindh region and reflect the genetic ancestry of people of those regions during the Early to Mature Harappan period.But it cannot be assumed that this same ancestry profile was also prevalent further North & East into the Punjab-Rajasthan-Haryana region which were right into the heart of Harappan territory. One poor coverage sample from Rakhigarhi - a cosmopolitan site - notwithstanding. Even the 3 Indus Periphery samples from Gonur in bmac could have likely reached there from Eastern Iran where cultures like Helmand & Jiroft existed - in close cultural contact with the western region of IVC. Shahr I Sokhta is the main site of the Helmand civilization. The Helmand and Jiroft cultures are considered to have played a major role, including migration, in the formation of the bmac. So, looking at the archaeological context, it is presumptuous to assume that the Indus Periphery samples can be used to represent all IVC people.They are from the W-SW regions of the IVC, but the dominant cultural influence on the IVC was from the Kot Diji-Sotho Siswal tradition of Punjab-Haryana, from where we dont have any sample save the poor coverage Rakhigarhi one.Correction - Sothi-Siswal tradition. It is reasonable that rather than the western Harappans, it were people from the core Harappan territories of Punjab-Haryana which genetically influenced modern Indians. We need 10-15 samples from this region before proving this hipster larp. Let us not forget, the highest so-called steppy ancestry is found not in Brahmins but in the Jats of Haryana-Western UP, core regions of IVC but also right in the heart of Vedic Civilisation.
When we say Bloch influence do we imply same Iranian HG mixed with SAHG or some other people?

What is the status co on Elamite? Were they ancestry wise a distinct group?
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,521
Likes
44,692
Country flag
Ruchika Sharma, Jawaharlal Nehru University,

We should first obtain clarity on why ASI is calling them 'chariots'. It isn't uncommon for a Late Harappan site to have bullock carts. There is already evidence of such terracotta carts [...] ASI has a tendency to colour their discoveries from the lens of Hindutva. They had earlier interpreted female figures as 'mother goddesses', even though there was no evidence to suggest it.

some serious assburn spotted, I'll get some more assburn
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
Ruchika Sharma, Jawaharlal Nehru University,

We should first obtain clarity on why ASI is calling them 'chariots'. It isn't uncommon for a Late Harappan site to have bullock carts. There is already evidence of such terracotta carts [...] ASI has a tendency to colour their discoveries from the lens of Hindutva. They had earlier interpreted female figures as 'mother goddesses', even though there was no evidence to suggest it.

some serious assburn spotted, I'll get some more assburn
Why would somebody place a bullock Cart in a burial along with what appears to be a highly decorated coffin, Antena swords, Shields and first of its kind helmet.

😅😅😅
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
7,521
Likes
44,692
Country flag
seems, then, that the earliest Aryan-speaking immigrants to South Asia, the Copper Hoard people, came with bull-drawn carts (Sanauli and Daimabad) via the BMAC and had Proto-Indo-Iranian as their language. They were, however, soon followed (and probably at least partially absorbed) by early Indo-Aryans [...] The dramatic new discovery of cart burials dated to c. 1900 at Sanauli [...] support my proposal of a pre-Ṛgvedic wave (now set of waves) of Aryan speakers arriving in South Asia and their making contact with the Late Harappans - witzel noted


fucker is saying Aryan speakers from elsewhere migrated, came to Uttar Pradesh, made contact with them there, but still the wheeled vehicle is a bullock cart and not a Chariot
One AITlarp saying it's not a Chariot, because they are late Harappan Culture, another AITlarp claiming they are Aryans, but with Carts which are DLC which unlocks after OS missions
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
When we say Bloch influence do we imply same Iranian HG mixed with SAHG or some other people?

What is the status co on Elamite? Were they ancestry wise a distinct group?
Go through celestial level documentations of PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI..


La Genetique Scandale
A critique of the recent articles particularly one by Narasimhan
(This will be in 4 parts)
By Premendra Priyadarshi
PART 1
Cracking the Narasimhan Code.

The article by Narasimhan et al (BioRxiv)uses a large number of words, abbreviations and location names, most of which have been created arbitrarily and may be misleading to the reader. I believe, it was done by them inadvertently, not intentionally. To understand the impugned article as you go into it you need to understand these words/names first. I have explained them below. Where necessary, I have pointed out the flaw in the hypothesis/inclusion of the name.
1. Karelian: The word Karelian is central to the article. The ultimate goal of the somersaults in the article is to prove by hook or by crook that the Baltic region (Karelia) was the home of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Karelia is a region now divided into two parts—one in Finland and the other in Russia. Its language is not Indo-European, but Finnish, which belongs to the Finno-Ugric Language family. The Eurocentric Aryanists have long been claiming that the Finnish (and its sister Hungarian) have come to their present locations from Siberia.

Karelia Location 2

Karelia

Source: Google Map.
While the rest of the region of Europe to the south of Karelia was having Mesolithic and later agricultural revolution, and the mode of subsistence was changing to farming and pastoralism, the region surrounding Karelia was still having hunter-gatherer-fisher existence until quite late.
Hence when the word Karelian Hunter Gatherer is used it should be considered to be belonging to a much later period, later by several thousand years, as compared to the Neolithic periods of India, Anatolia and Iran. In fact when it was Neolithic in India and Anatolia, it was Mesolithic in Europe in general and Hunter-Gatherer (Upper Palaeolithic) in the northern Europe.
Two ancient human DNAs have been retrieved from Karelia for this study. One dated 6425 BC (Y-DNA hg R1a-M420); and the other 5250 BC (Y-DNA hg J). The R1a-M420 is today common in Iran, Caucasus and Eastern Arabian Peninsula. Narasimhan claim that Karelian DNAs have more of Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry than any other ancient or modern population. As evidence to this they allege that it is close to the sample from Afontova Gora (ca. 15980 BC), located to the west of Lake Baikal.
The resemblence of Karelian to Western Lake Baikal HG DNA only means that the c. 16,000 BC Lake Baikal, c. 6500 BC Karelia and c. 5250 BC Karelia individuals had been derived from some common ancestral population located to the southern latitudes of Asia. This could have been somewhere between the Pamir and South Caspian bank or the region located somewhat north of this line.
This assumption is necessitated by the fact that Karelia (and also West Bank Baikal) suffered two episodes of depopulation between 16,000 BC and 5250 BC. This we know from geological studies. One was at the Tardiglacial about 11,500 BC and the other was about 6200 BC (8.2 Kilo-climatic-event). In fact, the Baikal 16000 BC human sample was also the result of a migration from the south, initiated in response to the de-glaciation event which started at 18,000 BC. These DNAs must have prevailed in India and Iran too during those days. However the sporadic and focal bursts of the Neolithic promoted some newer lineages leading to the extinction of most of the Indian lineages of Upper Palaeolithic India. The same fact is true for Anatolia and much of Iran too.
The 6500 BC Karelia sample could have been due to the migration initiated from West Asia and Mehrgarh in response to the Neolithic revolution and consequent population explosion in Europe and Asia. At this time we get Mesolithic culture in Southern and Central Europe. Its R1a-M420 Y-DNA indicates the source from Asia. The 5250 BC Karelian sample was from West Asia through Caucasus and North Pontic regions; secondary to the adoption of Neolithic in that region about 5500-5000 BC. This we can say from the Y-DNA J, and also from the study of the ancient DNAs of Neolithic Iran, Caucasus and steppe.
The article (Narasimhan et al) uses the words EHG and Karelian Hunter Gatherer interchangeably. The ultimate aim is the prove that Karelia was the source of the MLBD_steppe’s Indo-European speaking component.
2. EHG : EHG has been explained by Narasimhan as Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers. The Main Article explains this component of Eurasian ancestry as “Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers represented by hunter-Gatherers from the diverse sites in Eastern Europe”. However in the supplement to the text where actual discussions have been done, the article means, implies and uses only the Karelian genes/DNA/Genome (and probably also Samara_HG) for this purpose. I don’t think that it (the nomenclature EHG given to Karelia_H_G) was deliberately done to mislead people. It was a product of poor naming, writing and editing skills. In fact the EHG (Eastern Hunter Gatherer) name should have been given to East Eurasian Hunter Gatherers from Japan, Korea and coastal East China.
3. Khvalynsk_EN: Khvalynsk Eneolithic (EN here meaning Bronze Age, and not the Early Neolithic). Its period is 5000-4500 BC. The PCA by the authors found that the Khvalynsk population consisted of people from Karelia of Finland:

Khvalynsk in Russia

Khvalynsk Location

Map showing Location of Khvalynsk (Google Maps)
Saratov_Oblast in which Khvlnsk.svg

Location of Khvalynsk in flattened map
They write, “Khvalynsk_EN can be modelled with Karelian HGs as a primary source of ancestry and about 20% Iranian agriculturalist related ancestry. This shows that the results of our modeling precedure are consistent with the observations in refs. (75) and (83), where a slightly modified qpAdm procedure and different sets of outgroups were used (Table S3.45).” [Lines 4116-4120, Narasimhan Supplement]
The plain English meaning of this quoted passage is — The Bronze Age people of Khvalynsk region, which is located to the East and north of Ukraine, came from Finland at about 5000 BC.
This interpretation by the authors is naïve because Finland and adjoining Baltic regions had very low food productivity until as late as about 2000 BC. It could not provide immigrants to a distant region like Khvalynsk at 5000 BC. Moreover the rule in Archaeology and history is that the farmers penetrate into the hunter-gatherer territories, not the vice-versa. The fact of resemblance between Karelian and Khvalynsk at this time needs to be interpreted as follows:
The Khvalynsk 5000 BC should be considered to be composed of two components. One arriving here and settling much earlier, even before 6200 BC, from a source population locate in Pre-Ganj-Dareh Iran/ Caucasus. This would be of the same stock as the Karelian samples as the Karelian too might have arrived from this region to Finland earlier. This human genetic layer formed the existing substratum of people in the region between Volga and the Baltic region, when the people with Neolithic arrived from the south at about 5000 BC. Thus Khvalynsk was retaining 80% of this gene pool between 5000 BC and 4500 BC. Further arrivals from the south would further dilute this gene component with time.
And the other (20%) component of Khvalynsk arrived to this region in a Neolithic wave from North-West Iran after 5000 BC, and this event was after the establishment of the Ganj-Dareh population in west Iran, which had taken place about 7700 BC, but fresh wave of these people reached north of Caucasus only after the 8.2 kilo-event had passed. We know from the other studies (Lazaridis 2016) that migration from Iran through Caucasus to Volga and north Pontic-Caspian region took place about 5500 to 4500 BC. We have to understand also that it is this latter Iranian population (from Ganj Dareh stock) only which has been named as Iranian Agriculturist in the article by Narasimhan.
4. Iranian Agriculturists: The authors mean the six Ganj-Dareh ancient human samples dating about 7900-7700 BC only by the term “Iranian Agriculturists”. They do not include other Iranian agriculturists in this term e.g. Wezmeh Cave Zagros Farmers (Broushaki 2016). [Quote from Broushaki: “These people are estimated to have separated from Early Neolithic farmers in Anatolia some 46-77,000 years ago and show affinities to modern day Pakistani and Afghan populations, but particularly to Iranian Zoroastrians.” Broushaki: Abstract. Clearly Broushaki is talking about the split into two of the Early Eurasians coming westward from coastal western India (Gujarat-Sind) and one moving ahead to give rise to the European and Anatolian Hunetr-Gatherers (Cro-Magnons)and the other staying back in Pakistan-Afghanistan–East Iran region. This we can understand from the received knowledge about early Eurasian migration.]
Wezmeh Broushaki cropped

Thus in fact the expression ‘Iranian Agriculturist’ must have included Wezmeh Cave within its meaning, who had migrated to Zagros from a location within Pakistan/ Afghanistan. The Wezmeh DNA could have been named ‘Iranian Agriculturist II”. In that case it would have been all right.
Wezmeh and Barcin

Source: Broushaki 2016:Fig 4. Wezmeh is related to Indian, and Europeans are related with Barcin Anatolian.There is a break or discontinuity between Anatolian DNAs and West Iranian DNAs at this time. This indicates recent arrival from the Eastern countries to West Iran. Long-standing coexistence would later create clines between Iran and Anatolia, which was absent at the Neolithic period.
5. Anatolian Agriculturist: It is another misnomer in the article. Anatolian farmers were not one people. Originally there lived Hunter-Gatherers in Anatolia who were homogeneous with the people of Europe and Caucasus before the Holocene. But Holocene brought first the Mesolithic people from somewhere else to Anatolia. Then another wave brought Early Anatolian farmers. These were replaced by Mid- to Late- Neolithic farmers from Iran arriving in Anatolia.
6. Samara: Samara has been considered EHG (East European Hunter Gatherer. However Middle Bronze Age population had received about half of its genome from Armenia (Indo-European speakers) located to the north of west Iran. “Poltavka Middle Bronze Age (2900-2200 BCE) population that followed the Yamnaya in Samara, are all genetically homogeneous, forming a tight “Bronze Age steppe” cluster in PCA (Fig. 1b), sharing predominantly R1b Y-chromosomes5,7 (Supplementary Data Table 1), and having 48–58% ancestry from an Armenian-like Near Eastern source (Extended Data Table 2)” [Mathieson 2016:page 4] This fact has been concealed by Narasimhan, and they have projected a different source of Samara Middle to Late Bronze Age population. They think this source was Baltic region. But no evidence has been provided.
7. Late Bronze Age Steppe (MLBA_steppe): They think it was formed from arrivals from Baltic Europe and Baikal region inputs. However it has been clarified by Mathieson (2016 Nature) as this: “Further evidence that migrations originating as far west as central Europe may not have had an important impact on the Late Bronze Age steppe comes from the fact that the Srubnaya possess exclusively (n=6) R1a Y-chromosomes (Supplementary Data Table 1), and four of them (and one Poltavka male) belonged to haplogroup R1a-Z93 which is common in central/south Asians12, very rare in present-day Europeans, and absent in all ancient central Europeans studied to date.”
8. West Siberia: They have used the words West Siberian Hunter Gatherers and West Siberian Neolithic. West Siberian HG has been considered a primary component in the article. The region is not at all located in the west. Ironically it is straight to the north of Mehrgarh, in the same longitude. Its yellow colour in the PCA histogram provided by the Narasimhan makes clear that it had significant Andamanese/ Ancestral South Asian component in it. It is located just to the north of Kazakhstan boarders.
Narasimhans write: “West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (West_Siberian_HG)-related”: a newly documented deep source of Eurasian ancestry represented here by three samples” [lines 201-2 main article]
However the PCA picture indicates that this component itself is formed of two segments, one from Onge (India) which is yellow; and the other from local older population which is green.
Steppe EMBA and West Siberia

West Siberian Neolithic shown in top line. The green component in it is original hunter-gatherer West Siberian population which is two-thirds. However the Neolithic of the West Siberia does include the yellow (Indian) component in about one third quantity. Clearly it indicates arrival from Mehrgarh in response to population expansion caused by Neolithic in Mehrgarh at about 8000 BC, much before the Yamnaya etc were formed.
The take home summary for today is that the whole story has been created in such a way as to appear that it is the Karelia (Baltic) component which contributes to the Steppe population to make it MLBA (Indo-European Speakers). The long-term game plan of the authors will become more clear to you as you will understand bib-by-bit the whole plot of the impugned article by Narasimhan. Thus on the ultimate analysis, we can perceiceve that the Narasimhans want to prove the out-dated concept that ultimate home of the Proto-Indo-European is Karelia or the Baltic Peninsula of the North Sea. This was originally called the Lachs Theory (Lachsargument) of IE origin given by German Scholar Schrader and later adopted by Thieme. See in the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_problem
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
Continued from [] https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...ces-of-indus-valley-people.83063/post-2065110

PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI.
La Genetique Scandale.
PART 2
Manipulation with data and Concoction
The Defective Design of Research: Systemic Bias
Bias in the modern scientific researches and concluding narratives is the rule rather than exception (Mullane and Williams, Eds., Biochemical Pharmacology, Elsevier Journal, 2013; Smith and Noble, British Medical Journal, 2014; Pannuki and Wilkins, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2010). Narasimhans’ paper is the first class example of how biases can be operative at all the levels and stages of research. If all the manipulations and biases in the book is listed it will form a 1000 page volume, which is not my intention to do. Because will consume at least one year of my time writing all that. Some very obvious things, which even lay readers can understand will be noted below.
The Admixture Analysis and the Identification of Component
In the admixture Analysis presented by them, they have identified some primary components or populations genetically, which were to act as components for the formation of other populations by admixture later in the history. We shall first see only three of them :
Line 197 (BioRxive) . “Iranian agriculturalist-related”: represented by 8th millennium BCE pastoralists from the Zagros Mountains of Iran (17, 18)
Line 201 (ibid). “West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (West_Siberian_HG)-related”: a newly documented deep source of Eurasian ancestry represented here by three samples
Line 204 (ibid) . “Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI)-related”: a hypothesized South Asian Hunter-Gatherer lineage related deeply to present-day indigenous Andaman Islanders (19) [The Narasimhans have used the DNA of the ONGE Tribe of the Andaman Islands to represent this gene pool.]
ONGE
The Narasimhans (a handy word in lieu of Narasimhan and colleagues) have identified Ancient Ancestral South Asian- (AASI)-related population by the modern Onge tribe’s genome, which live in the Andaman Islands today, and which are genetically related to the Papua New Guinea tribal peoples from the antiquity. Surprisingly the Narasimhans’ hypothesis that there were people having identical genomic constitution as the modern Onge living in India until the Iranians and the steppe people arrived and admixed with them. These Indians have been labelled as the AASI in the paper. This is a new invention (Neologism) uniquely invented for the occasion. These Onge people of North and South India admixed with Iranian and mid-to-late BA steppe genetic group to produce the modern Indian populations, Narasimhans conclude.
In their hypothesis the admixture of the Onge-genome with the Iranian one gave rise to the South Indian (Dravidian) population; and the admixture of this with the Middle-to-late-Bronze Age steppe population gave rise to the North Indian (Aryan) population, they hypothesize. In other words it is the resurrection of Elamite theory of the origin of Dravidian in addition to the Aryan Invasion Theory.
However the real story is different. Onge people could have been of the same genetic composition as the Indians about 70,000 to 50,000 years back, but not today, not even 10,000 years before today. These people (Onge) are the remnants of the people who migrated to the Anadaman Islands, and also to the southeast Asia about 70,000 to 50,000 years back. Some had stayed in India; some had arrived into Andaman (ancestors of the Onge and Jorwa); and some others would migrate eastward towards Papua New Guinea and Australia. But they did not stop there. They migrated further east to South America.
Thus the Onge separated from the rest of the humanity about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, noted Thangaraj et al (2005) in their genetic study: This was the same time when the Australians (and the Papuans) separated from the rest of the humanity. They are considered Australasian family, and must be considered much more remotely connected to the Ancient Ancestral South Asians than the European Cro-Magnons, Siberians, Iranians and the Central Asians who branched off from the main basal Eurasian trunk much later than the Onge did.
It is useful here to recollect what Thangaraj wrote about the Onge: “Our data indicate that two ancient maternal lineages, M31 and M32 in the Onge and the Great Andamanese, have evolved in the Andaman Islands independently from other South and Southeast Asian populations. These lineages have likely been isolated since the initial penetration of the northern coastal areas of the Indian Ocean by anatomically modern humans, in their out-of-Africa migration –50 to 70 thousand years ago.” [Thangaraj et al, 2005, Reconstructing the Origin of Andaman Islanders, Science, 308 (5724): 996.]
Thangaraj also noted that over the period of time the genetic composition of the populations of the Andaman-Onge and Indian-Mainland population drifted from each other due to changes taking place in the two independently. They note: “Analysis of the complete mtDNA sequences shows that none of the coding region mutations defining these two haplogroups overlap with the known Indian or East Asian mtDNA haplogroups (1–5). In our survey of 6500 mtDNA sequences from mainland India, none of the M lineages carried the coding region mutations specific to M31 and M32 (6).” (Thangaraj 2005). Thus we can see that genetically the Onge had deviated a lot from mainland India over the last 50,000 years of the separation. The Onge people are short-stature and dark skinned. (Thangaraj is one of the authors in Narasimhan’s article too).
In fact the article which claimed that the Onge had migrated east even up to South America had been authored by a group of authors which included the doyen David Reich himself.
Onge migration to America2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982469/figure/F1/
Thus considering Onge as the Indian population at the onset of Neolithic marred the total work, and vitiated all the results. Instead of considering the Onge as single component, their admixture analysis found that it is an admixture of Iranian DNA. This error occurred because the authors failed to recognise that the Onge and the Iranians both had split from the mainland Indians, although in different eras. Hence there must be some elements common in the three the Iranian, the Mainland Indian and the Onge populations. However there would be some portions which would be distinct in the three populations.
PC2 S3.37 Page 166 supplement enlarge

Figure: Onge as shown in the Admixture Analysis in the Figure S3.37; page 166 of the Supplement of the Narasimhan et al. Onge highlighted and pointed out by us. In this figure, Onge has almost the same components as the Mala, Irula, Shaidu-Sharif (Iron Age_0) and Shahar-i-Sokhta BA3, except that the latter ones have greater proportions of the Iranian component.
This failure to appreciate some commonality (due to origin) between Indian and Iranian DNAs resulted in considering the Iranian farmers as unmixed pure component. It was also compounded by the false and erroneous belief that nobody could ever have gone out of India. In an effort at negating the Indian components in the Iranian Agriculturists the authors used the parameters in such way as that it read Iranian Agriculturists made up of a single component, coloured teal (light blue) in the Admixture Analysis.
Such distortion in the calibration vitiated the whole result in such a way that the mono-component genomes of the Onge (Andamanese) started showing made up of two components. One of them was blue (Iranian Agriculturists) as depicted in the histogram above.
How it happened can be seen in the figure below:
Onge and Ganj Dareh relationship

Figure: Onge (Andaman) as depicted in Admixture Analysis by Narasimhan, and as in reality it should have been. Commonality between Ganj Dareh (Iranian Agricult.) and Onge (Andaman) only means that a large proportion of the gene in the Ganj Dareh was same as Ancient Ancestral South Asians, today represented in mainland India by Mala, Irula etc, and in the Andaman as Onge. The Ancient Iranian Agriculturists have been shown as light blue (teal) colour and the Andaman-Onge are half light-blue (teal) and half yellow.
Iranian (Jagros Neolithic): Ganj Dareh
The Ganj Dareh has been postulated as the one of the principal components in the Narasimhan study. However it has clear ancestry from Northwest Indian sub-continent, where Pakistan is located today. Narasimhan’s picture itself shows that the Ganj Dareh is only a sub-set of the larger set which is Onge, Mala etc Indian samples.
Unfortunately for the Narasimhans, the Ganj Dareh (Iran Neolithic) DNA was studied by another group of workers whose work was published in the Nature (which is not a biased journal like Science) found that:
“The mitochondrion of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2, which has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia, Hungary and Germany.” (Llorente 2016)
“GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses.” (Llorente 2016)
[Interpretation: We need to remember that no South Asian Neolithic DNA has been reported so far. Thus if GD13a a matched none, possibly only one which remains to be tried is the South Asian Neolithic DNA.]
“We further investigated the relationship between GD13a and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers using D-statistics to test whether they formed a clade to the exclusion of other ancient and modern samples (Table S4). A large number of Western Eurasian samples (both modern and ancient) showed significant excess genetic affinity to the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, whilst none did with GD13a. Overall, these results point to GD13a having little direct genetic input into later European populations compared to its northern neighbours.” (Llorente 2016)
[Interpretation: Thus the oldest Iranian Agriculturists of the Ganj Dareh had not directly migrated to Europe, although their mitochondrial DNA X2 certainly contributed to the modern European population. Other studies have shown (see below) that the Iranian Neolithic DNAs had migrated to Levant and Anatolia, and the Caucasus as well as the steppe. Clearly the Ganj Dareh DNAs were not the gross representative of the Iranian Neolithic, but they represent a segment which was very small and did not make much impact on later Europe, Caucasus or the steppe. It might have represented just a small number of the emigrants from a single village in Baluchistan or other part of the northwest South Asia, and might have represented only a tiny fraction of genetic variation which South Asia had at that time. On the other hand the people reaching the other locations in Zagros (Iran) at Neolithic might have originate from other villages of Pakistan/ Afghanistan resulting in the difference in the genetic composition within the Zagros Neolithic populations.]
“The individual analysed here was part of burial 13, which contained three individuals, and was recovered in level C in 1971 from the floor of a brick-walled structure. The individual sampled, 13A (referred to as GD13a throughout the text), was a 30–50 year old female; the other individuals in the burial unit were a second adult (13B) and an adolescent (13). The site has been directly dated to 9650–9950 cal BP, and shows intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population was that of pastoralists with an emphasis on goat herding7. Archaeobotanical evidence is limited but the evidence present is for two-row barley with no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. This implies that the overall economy was at a much earlier stage in the development of cereal agriculture than that found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.” (Llorente 2016)
[Interpretation: This information refutes the claim by the Narasimhans that the Mehrgarh farming culture had been borrowed from Anatolia (Turkey) through Iran (Ganj Dareh). The date cited above gives a date of 7,850 BC (mean). It may be noted that the Mehrgarh oldest layer has a date of 8,707 BC (mean).
While the Ganj Dareh Iranian people had only two-row barley (see above) at 7850 BC, the Mehrgarh had six-row barley at 8700 BC, which is an advanced stage of agricultural development and domestication of barley (Upinder Singh 120; Jarrige 2008). Jarrige wrote citing Lorenzo Costantini:
“Lorenzo Costantini has shown that the plant assemblage of Period I is dominated by naked six-row barley which accounts for more than 90% of the so far recorded seeds and imprints. He has also pointed out the sphaerococcoid form of the naked-barley grains with a short compact spike with shortened internodes and small rounded seeds.
According to him, such characteristics in the aceramic Neolithic levels can be ascribed to probably cultivated but perhaps not fully domesticated plants. Domestic hulled six-row barley (H. vulgare, subsp. vulgare) and wild and domestic hulled two-row barley (H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum and H. vulgare subsp. distichum) have also been recorded, but in much smaller quantities. According to Zohary quoted by R.H. Meadow, the distribution of wild barley extends today to the head of the Bolan Pass. It is therefore likely that local wild barleys could have been brought under cultivation in the Mehrgarh area. Costantini has also identified a small amount of domestic einkorn (hulled: Triticum monococcum), domestic emmer (hulled: T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum) and a free-threshing form which can be referred to as Triticum durum (Fig. 10). ” (Jarrige 2006)
Thus these people of Iran had arrived here about 1000 years after the Mehrgarh took off. The Ganj Dareh site had been occupied by only a short period of 100 to 300 years (mean 200 years). On the other hand the Mehrgarh shows a continuous occupation till late. It may be noted that the domestication of the goat is not possible to take place in 200 or 300 years and about a thousand years are required to give domestication features to the animal skeletons. Clearly the people of Ganj Dareh were not local, and had arrived from somewhere else.]
“ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 statistics identified Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B,C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4).” (Llorente 2016)
[It is possible to interpret it as the Ganj Darh coming from a region within the locations Brahui, Baluchistan and Makaran of South Asia, now in Pakistan. Mehrgarh was in Baluchistan.]
“Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers.”
[Yamnaya and Afanasievo of steppe/ Central Asia were much later than Ganj Dareh (Iran). The resemblance could be due to either the Iranian early farmers migrating into the steppe. But these people could have developed from the migrations from the northwest India/ Afghanistan/ Pamir region. The Pamir is a likely source of R1b which migrated by northern Iranian/ Turkmenistan wet corridor to south of Caspian and then from there to Armenia, Anatolia and then Southern, Western and Central Europe. Yamnaya and Afanasievo belong to R1b Y-DNA. See figures below.]
Haplogroup_R1b

Figure: Eupedia map of R1b distribution in Europe. It is dominant in those parts of Europe which speak Centum languages like Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Italic (French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian), Greek, Anatolian, Armenian and Germanic (English, Norwegian, German etc). The steppe language Tocharian was also Centum which was spoken by the Yamnaya and the Afanasievo people in the Bronze Age.
Haplogroup_R1b_World

Figure: source Eupedia. The R1b might have originated in the region to the north of Kashmir i.e. Tajikistan, and migrated through Tajikistan to Armenia and further. It also went to Central Africa. In steppe and Central Asia it was replaced by later arrivals in Late Bronze Age by the R1a, which is dominant only in the Satem speaking groups like Russian, Ukrainian, other Slavic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Iranian, Indic etc.
Centum_Satem_map

Figure: Source Wikipedia. Map showing distribution of Centum and Satem branches of Indo-European
R1b-migration-map (1)

Figure: R1b Migration map suggested by Eupedia
R1b_Migrations

Figure: R1b Migration map as suggested by Wiki
Now we can also see regarding Ganj Darh what Llorente had to say further:
“We further investigated the relationship between GD13a and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers using D-statistics to test whether they formed a clade to the exclusion of other ancient and modern samples (Table S4). A large number of Western Eurasian samples (both modern and ancient) showed significant excess genetic affinity to the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, whilst none did with GD13a. Overall, these results point to GD13a having little direct genetic input into later European populations compared to its northern neighbours.” (Llorente 2016)
[Later Europeans are products of another wave of migration namely R1b which came later in Bronze Age.]
“Thus, GD13a is the descendant of a group that had relatively stable demography and
did not suffer the bottlenecks that affected more northern populations.” (Llorente 2016) [Interpretation: This line points to India.]
Normal Distribution Gauss 2

Figure: It may be understood from the Gaussian Normal Distribution curve that it is quite normal finding in any normal data that the extremes look different. It does not mean that they belong to two populations. However the naïve would take them as two populations.
What about other characters of the Ganj Dareh lady? Llorante noted the skin colour of the Ganj Dareh lady. :
“She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but likely had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait. The derived SLC24A5 variant has been found in both Neolithic farmer and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer groups5,15,24 suggesting that it was already at appreciable frequency before these populations diverged. Finally, she did not have the most common European variant of the LCT gene (rs4988235) associated with the ability to digest raw milk, consistent with the later emergence of this adaptation5,15,21.” (Llorante 2016).
Clearly she had the light skin colour gene SLC24A5 allele which produces light skin colour in the Europeans and the Indians (Basu Mallik et al 2013). This gene was not found in the Europeans until late Bronze Age. It was not present in the La Branda human of 5000 BC. However it was found present in many European people between 3000 BC and 1000 BC (Allentoft). This means the Ganj Dareh were not ancestral to the early Neolithic people of north of Black Sea who entered East Europe replacing the hunter-gatherers at about 5000 BC. In my hypothesis the light skin colour gene SLC24A5 originated in South India long back, and it migrated to other places including even Ethiopia from India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC24A5
Another worker Broushaki (2016) noted that the Iranian Neolithic people from Wezmeh Cave were related to the Pakistani and Afghan people particularly to the Zorastrians of Iran origin now living in India. “These people are estimated to have separated from Early Neolithic farmers in Anatolia some 46-77,000 years ago and show affinities to modern day Pakistani and Afghan populations, but particularly to Iranian Zoroastrians.” Clearly the Zagros (Iran) farmers had not arrived from Anatolian farmer community of the Anatolia Neolithic. In fact they are deeply related to Indian population.
Wezmeh and Barcin

Figure Neolithic Iran as compared to Indian genome by Broushaki 2016
The Western Siberian Hunter Gatherers
Narasimhans have selected the following samples as representing the West Siberian DNA:
Sosnoviy-Ostrov, western Siberia, Russia (n=1); Tomsk10 (I5766): Date of 4230-3983 cal BCE (5261±33 BP, OxA-33486, d15N=+12.8 permil possible marine influence). Genetically female.; Tyumen Oblast, western Siberia, Russia (n=2) Tyumen1, Kurgan 1 (I1958): Date of 4723-4558 cal BCE (5805±25 BP, PSUAMS-2359), Genetically female; Tyumen50, Kurgan 6 (I1960): Date of 6361-6071 cal BCE [6335-6071 cal BCE (7330±40 BP, Poz-82198), 6361-6086 cal BCE (7355±40 BP, OxA-33489, d15N=+15.3 permil possible marine influence)]. Genetically female.
West Siberia Tyumen oblast

Location of Tyumen Oblast, the Ancient West Siberia HG genes
These places Sosnoviy- Ostrov and Tyumen Oblast by foot are about 3400 kms to the north of Kabul. They had yellow colour (AASI, Indian, Onge) component about one third quantitatively in the Admixture Analysis. To mislead people denial of this fact was done, not by changing the colour of the component, but by considering it an entirely different component although it looked same as Indian.
Steppe EMBA and West Siberia

Figure: West Siberia admixture Analysis at the top. Source Narasimhan.
Apart from this the Barros Damgard too have provided another set of histograms for the Admixture Analysis of the same populations, with locations marked. This is more honest and correct and not tampered with.
Steppe aDNA

Figure: Barros Damgaard 2018, Admixture Analysis, Science
If rearranged, this picture gives the following outcomes:
Cut paste matter copy 2

This figure indicates that the Indian cline should be defined as East to South to Northwest in a folded shape or V shape. There is a gradual change in proportions of the golden, pink and teal (bluish-green) colours. Such arrangement indicates natural settlements with genetic movements not by migration but by the Brownian Movements of the genes.
If any arrival takes place, there is a breach in the cline, in the same way as Broushaki got one between Zagros and Anatolia during the Neolithic.
The further summations of the components indicates that the steppe may have originated from northwest India:
Admixture Analysis 1

Figure: Eastern Hunter Gatherer (Sidel’kino location near Samara east of Volga river) plus Caucasus hunter gatherer gives if averaged, the Early Bronze Yamnaya. Clearly people coming through the Caucasus admixed with the local EHG to produce the Yamnaya culture. This happened during the R1b-Y-DNA expansion. Because the Yamnaya is mainly R1b. After reaching southern Caspian coast, the R1b people turned north. Established the Armenia Indo-European (Centum) and moved into Caucasus forming the Maikop (Maykop) culture in north Caucasus. It is believed that the Maikop people gave rise to the Yamnaya.
Admixture analysis 2

Figure: Admixture Analysis, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya plus Early Bronze Age Anatolia averaged gives the Middle to Late Steppe population.
Admixture Analysis 3

Figure: MLBA steppe and Namazga Copper Age when averaged gives the Iron Age steppe culture.
We know from other studies that lot of the ancient samples of Y-DNA H1 lineage, which is typically Indian and most probably of South Indian origin later expanding to North India, have been found from Eneolithic to Bronze Age periods from locations in Anatolia, Middle East (e.g. Namazga), and North of Mongolia (Lake Baikal region, Shamanka). Clearly Indians had been migrating to wider regions of Asia much before the steppe culture took off during the Bronze Age period. (See Supplementary matter Excel Table aar7711_Table 14, of Barros Damgaard, Science 2018).
Thus we can conclude as this picture:
Conclusions from Barrow Damgaard 2

Figure: Barrow and Damgaard data rationally reorganised to produce understandable conclusions; (courtesy significant contribution from Dr Murali V.)
The H1 had a sibling H2 which has been found from Neolithic of Levant and Anatolia, and Sardinia. It has also been found from West Lake Baikal Shamanka region from Eneolithic period (sample number DA339 in Barros Damgaard 2018, se table). H3 is another branch which is found in the Romany. The early branch H0 which had split the earliest from the main trunk of H is also found in India only.
Poznik Figure 2 enla

Family tree of Y-DNA H: Poznik 2016 Figure 2 enlarged
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
787
Likes
856
Country flag
seems, then, that the earliest Aryan-speaking immigrants to South Asia, the Copper Hoard people, came with bull-drawn carts (Sanauli and Daimabad) via the BMAC and had Proto-Indo-Iranian as their language. They were, however, soon followed (and probably at least partially absorbed) by early Indo-Aryans [...] The dramatic new discovery of cart burials dated to c. 1900 at Sanauli [...] support my proposal of a pre-Ṛgvedic wave (now set of waves) of Aryan speakers arriving in South Asia and their making contact with the Late Harappans - witzel noted


fucker is saying Aryan speakers from elsewhere migrated, came to Uttar Pradesh, made contact with them there, but still the wheeled vehicle is a bullock cart and not a Chariot
One AITlarp saying it's not a Chariot, because they are late Harappan Culture, another AITlarp claiming they are Aryans, but with Carts which are DLC which unlocks after OS missions
Genesis

01 Aryans civilized Indians
02 Indians much more civilized before Aryans
03 Aryans destroyed Harappans/Dravidians
04 Zero evidence
05 Rig Veda dated to 1200bce
06 Mittani Aryans 1500bce
07 Aryans migrated in 1500bce
08 Indo Iranians migrated in waves since 2000bce


Shifting of goal post 😂
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
Continued from[] https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...ces-of-indus-valley-people.83063/post-2065113

PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI
La Genetique Scandale.
Part 3

The article by the Narasimhans is full of mistake. If one looks even casually at any paragraph there is either a wrong calculation, or a self-contradiction, or a very obvious manipulation or evidence of the ignorance of the most well-known of the scientific facts. Let us see some of them.
The father of the ANA-ASI hypothesis (David Reich) who is also the master-mind of the group had never proposed that the ANI was formed by the mixing of people of Western Eurasian (European) or even steppe ancestry. He had proposed that the European (which he named CEU) and ANI had split from a common ancestor [which we can name as proto-ANI-Europe] and then diverged or ran parallel without further contributing with each other. This was explicitly depicted graphically in Figure 4 on page 492 in his original landmark article (Reich 2009).
Reich Picture

See Original :

.
Figure 4 of the Reich 2009 article.
We know that science progresses by amendments. If this figure (above) and the hypothesis behind this were not correct in view of Narasimhan et al, they must have first suggested the necessary amendments to Reich’s original hypothesis present in the year 2009, and then proceeded further. However they did not suggest that the original hypothesis must be amended.
However without doing this, the Narasimhans have gone straight on to proposing an entirely different hypothesis which contradicts Reich et al 2009, and claims that the ANI was formed by the admixture of the Onge (of Andaman), ancient Iranians and the MLBA-steppe (middle to late Bronze Age steppe) DNAs.
However Reich (2009) had written, “Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup (Supplementary Note 4). Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European’, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture.” [CEU means European in that article. This paragraph also suggests that the ancestor of the Adyegi language was the original inhabitant of the Caucasus region and the Indo-Europeans had arrived from somewhere else. We have information that some parts of Caucasus region/ adjoining regions had Indo-European languages in history. These included Hittite in Anatolia, Maikop in North Caucasus, Armenian towards the south.]
Thus it had been made out clearly by them (Reich 2009) that the European population (called CEU in that article)had split from the proto-ANI-Europa trunk, and stayed segregated from the ANI branch for long before ANI and ASI admixed together to give rise to the later Indian (both north and south) populations.
Earlier Reich had thought and claimed that the ancestor ANI-European (call it Proto-ANI-Europa or PAE) reached Europe direct from North Africa. Then ANI split and migrated through Iran to India, and the main trunk had stayed back in Europe from which Central Asian as well as West Asian people too originated.
However since 2015 (Haak’s and all later works) made it clear that Europe was inhabited by dark-skinned, entirely different people up to at least 5500 BC and the newer people who now live there came into Europe from Asia in several distinct waves between 5500 BC and 1500 BC. This happened by two routes one to the north of and the other to the south of the Black Sea (Neolithic to Bronze Age migration). A third route through the Mediterranean islands has also been identified.
Now the genomic findings as depicted in the figure above (Fig. 4 Reich 2009) needed to be explained in a different way than he had thought. It was going to be the same as had been explained by Priyadarshi in the past. The findings of Reich 2009 would mean (following the Haak 2015 onwards) that the Ancestral Europeans (AE) split from the Proto-ANI-Europa, and lived long in isolation in some place which was not in Europe. It would imply that the ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and the ancestral Europeans had stayed at two (or more) different locations outside Europe for quite some time (as depicted in the Figure 4 of Reich 2009). By all available ancient DNA evidence these locations were going to be North India and Iran, also possibly the Pamir-Tajikistan-Tarim region. Thus Iran (and/or Pamir-Tajikistan region) was the intermediate homeland for the European languages.
However the Europa-gene could not stay pure. It got admixtures from East Asians and Africans to give rise to the modern European population. This admixture of the Europa with these several populations in varying combinations produced the several European nations, and these admixtures cause the distance found today between the genetic composition the modern European and modern Indus-Valley populations.
The far right wing Eurocentric supremacists, which dominated the Harvard Academics, could not digest this fact. David Reich being quite clever decided to stay at the back foot, and pretend a middle-path or centrist approach. Hence he himself claimed in his latest book that the homeland of the Indo-European was in Iran and/or Armenia. He wrote,
“This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians. If this scenario is right, the population sent one branch up into the steppe —mixing with steppe hunter-gatherers in a one-to-one ratio to become the Yamnaya as described earlier—and another to Anatolia to found the ancestors of people there who spoke languages such as Hittite.”. [page 145 of the pdf version of his latest book Who We Are and How We Got There 2018.]
While himself maintaining the centrist posture, he sponsored now various young and ambitious Indian workers and students and job-seekers to re-create the myth of the steppe home of the Indo-European languages from a new cratch. Fellowships, grants and academic positions attract every academic person. Narasimhan, Moorjani, and Niraj Rai started working in a new line. People started writing copious reports after reports in support of the Far Right Wing (Nazi) ideologies which included the Ukrainian or Baltic homeland of the Indo-Europeans for a long time. However these reports were full of mistakes which even a casual reading could reveal.
Thus Narasimhans claim that before the Iranian admixture to Indian population the whole India consisted of Onge people. They named it AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian), as if Ancestral South Indian (ASI) concept itself was not sufficient to explain the things. In this new concept the ASI and ANI were not coming from the main trunk, but were coming from a further ancestor AASI (Onge), from which ANI and ASI had originated but the CEU (European) had not originated. In fact instead of emerging from the main trunk, the ANI and the ASI had been formed from admixture of the AASI and two other populations, Narasimhan et al claimed. While the AASI was from the main trunk, ANI was AASI+Iranian+Late Steppe; and ASI was AASI+Iranian. Iranians too were possibly from the main trunk they thought. The Middle to Late steppe population was a hybrid which had been made from ancient north European, Anatolian, East Asian and Iranian admixtures. And these were the people who invented the Indo-Iranian languages in the eastern parts of the MLBA-steppe distribution.
The first contradictory statement to Reich (2009, figure cited above) by Narasimhan is that the “Hierarchical Modeling Shows ASI and ANI Both Had Iranian Agriculturalist-Related Ancestry” (Lines 4811-4812, Supplementary Information, Narasimhan et al 2018).
They further write contradicting Reich 2009, “Line 4870: Simple Statistics Confirm Iranian Agriculturalist-Related Ancestry in the ASI”. Giving a deadly blow to Reich (2009) they write, “The ANI Cline represented mixtures in different proportions of Indus_Periphery- and Steppe_MLBA-related groups, and the ASI Cline represented mixtures in different proportions of Indus_Periphery and AASI.” [Lines 5135-5137; Narasimhan 2018 Supplementary.] While in the original concept by Reich the ANI and the ASI were two lineages of a common remote ancestor. He had proposed that one lineage gave birth to CEU (Europa, in fact Iranian) and Ancestral North Indians (left branch in figure) and the other branch (right one) had given gave rise to ASI and Onge-Andaman. Clearly this has been destroyed completely by Narasimhan’s article. So who is correct? Reich or Narasimhan? This is the main question.
The Reich et al (2009 figure 4) has now been fully replaced by a model by Narasimhan, which would now look somewhat like this:
Reich ASSAPicture

The Narasimhan Model
Anatolia (Asian part of Turkey) has occupied a special place in the hearts of the Far Right Eurocentrics. Although they call it Asia Minor, they actually consider it ‘Europe Minor’. This place was the cradle of Eastern Roman Empire, and the Constantinople is a reminiscence of that past. And the Levant (Jordan and Israel) is important to the Jews as they have copious mention in the Old Testament. It is important to the Western people in general as it is the home place of Jesus Christ.
In spite of the Far Right Eurocentric claims, the emerging facts did not prove that these two (Anatolia and Levant) had been the sources of the cultures located to their East like Iran and India. Archaeology did not support such views and the recent ancient DNA studies too tell the reverse.
Kavita Gangal et al (2014) of the Newcastle University, UK, published an article in which she calculated the speed of migration of the farming/ pastoralism from Israel to India, and found it to be 0.63 to 0.71 kms per year. This article too was based on the assumption that the Mehrgarh was later than Israel and Iran. The distance from Israel to Mehrgarh is about 4,200 kms. And the Israeli people reached Indus Valley about the Bronze Age. Dorian Fuller also wrote many articles denying the originality of the Indica rice in India. Such articles were published in advance much before finally orchestrating a volley of a dozen articles and a book to prove something which was never a fact. Narasimhans denied the entire pre-Harappa archaeology of India.
To support their claims of later acquisition of agriculture in India from West Asian , they have cited Fuller (2003)and Fuller (2007) who is also one of the co-authors of the impugned article. However most of the discoveries in Indian archaeology have taken place after that. These authors have not consulted the articles on Mehrgarh written in 2008 by authors like Jarrige (the French excavetor of Mehrgarh) and Peter Bellwood (an International doyen in Archaeology). The central Indian farming sites which pre-date the west Asian’s have all been studied only after this time. The Ladakh farming sites of 7th millennium BC, and Assam early farming of almost equal antiquity have all been omitted (probably deliberately).
We should go by the facts. The first settlement at Jericho was established at about 7500 BC, and it lasted only 300 years. “At some point between 8000 and 7000 B.C., the first permanent settlement on the site was started by an unknown people who built extensive walls …” [La Boda, Sharon, 1996, International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Chicago and London.]
The DNA analysis of the people found from Israel and Jordan Neolithic sites indicates that most of those who had arrived here were from Africa. This could be said because they harboured the African male DNA lineages (Y-DNA) E1b and its branches. From the Levant Neolithic, Lazaridis reported eight Y-DNA results. Out of these the sample number ‘1414’ had Y-DNA haplogroup E, ‘1415’ had E1b1b1 (PPNB; Pre-Pottery Neolithic B), ‘1710’ had E1b1b1. These were post glacial arrivals from African corridor. However one sample numbered ‘0867’ was Indian Y-DNA lineage H2. Thus out of the eight one was Indian and three were African. The other three were CT which might have arrived from South Asia about 50,000 years ago and can be considered local settled hunter-gatherer population of the Levant. One sample, numbered ‘1707’, was Y-DNA T. (Lazaridis 2016, Supplementary Information p. 51, Table S6.1). T possibly originated in Andhra Pradesh of India. Similarly out of five Natufian samples three were the African E1b1 and E1b1b1b2 and two were CT. These lineages (E1b and its branches) did not migrate further east to Iran, as they are not found from the Bronze Age samples from Iran. However they are found from Armenia and later steppe.

E1b1bRoute

Y-DNA E1b1b spread during Neolithic
The Anatolian Neolithic too was characterised by a large number of Eastern arrivals particularly the East Iranian G2a and the Indian (Andhra Pradesh) H2. Later the African lineage E1 and its branches are found in the plenty in the Y-DNA recoveries from the Early Bronze age Anatolian skeletons. The E1b1b etc came to Anatolia through the Levant (Israel and Jordan). (Lazaridia 2016 Supplement page 54; Barros Damgaard Excel Table S14).
They write, “While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and North-western Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.” In other words, the people who arrived at the north-west Anatolia to activate the Neolithic revolution had arrived there from several different sources. We can clearly see in the Y-DNA haplogroup constitution of northwest Anatolia that the Neolithic people had arrived there from India (haplogroup H2); Iranian Zagros (haplogroup G2a) and Northeast Africa (haplogroup E1b1b).
Finally they clarify that the Neolithic Iran and the Neolithic Anatolia are very different. Yet at the Chalcolithic (Copper Age) period they share sme resemblance or components. This is not because the Anatolians migrated to Iran, but because the Iranians expanded to Anatolia, Caucasus and the steppe during the Chalcolithic period.
“However, the two are not a clade, and Chalcolithic Anatolia differs from the Neolithic by sharing more alleles with “eastern” populations from the steppe, the Caucasus, and Iran. Thus, at the western end of western Asia, the population seems to become more “eastern” just as at the eastern end (Iran) it became more “western”, confirming the visual impression from PCA (Fig. 1b) for highly differentiated Neolithic populations (Anatolia_N vs. Iran_N) but relatively similar Chalcolithic ones (Anatolia_ChL vs. Iran_ChL).” [p. 91]
“We first model Anatolia_ChL as a mix of Anatolia_N and a population A (Table S7.17). Only populations from Iran and Armenia work as sources of the input into Anatolia, confirming the visual impression from PCA. This input is quantified as at least 32.9±7.9% when Iran_ChL is used as a source population A.” [p. 91]
La Boda also confirmed that the Israeli (Levant) Bronze Age was a product of arrivals from Iranian Copper Age. Haber “Showed that the Levant Bronze Age population from the site of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan (2490–2300 BCE) could be fit statistically as a mixture of around 56% ancestry from a group related to Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists (represented by ancient DNA from Motza, Israel and ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan; 8300–6700 BCE) and 44% related to populations of the Iranian Chalcolithic (Seh Gabi, Iran; 4680–3662 calBCE)” La Boda, citing “Haber, M. et al. Continuity and admixture in the last five millennia of Levantine history from ancient Canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 274-282 (2017).”]
The admixture analysis revealed that instead of the Israelis moving towards Iran, the Iranians had moved into the Israel region to produce the Levantine Chalcolithic population (Harney et al 2018 Nature). [“We conclude that while the Levant_N and Levant_ChL populations are clearly related, the Levant_ChL population cannot be modeled as descending directly from the Levant_N population without additional admixture related to ancient Iranian agriculturalists.” (p. 4, ibid)]
Similarly the radiocarbon dates from Gesher (or Sultania) is 7930 ± 140 BC (Gerfinkel, Y. and Nadel, D., 1989, The Sultania flint assemblage from Gesher and its implications for Recognising Early Neolithic Entities in the Levant, 15(2):139-151). No pottery, not any figurine, was found from these remains. Only flint spear-heads (a type of stone) chips were found. [see figure ]. However these flint pieces were used for hunting, and therefore these people were mainly hunters.
One thing is clear that the Anatolian farmers did not move towards the East. “The origin of the Neolithic of Iran does not appear to be related to either Anatolia or the Levant, as the Neolithic and Mesolithic of Iran are symmetrically related to either population (Fig. S7.5), providing no evidence for gene flow from either region into the Zagros, but hinting strongly that whatever role the exchange of ideas and technology may have played in the emergence of the Neolithic in the Zagros, this was not accompanied with any substantial gene flow from other ancient Near Eastern Neolithic centers of domestication.” [Lazaridis 2016 Supplement p. 70].
Clearly this means that the Anatolian genetic cline found by Narasimhan’s study reaching up to Indian boarders is artefactual resulting from mishandling/ manipulation/ tampering of the genetic data. In fact the Anatolian Neolithic was the product of arrival of the farmers from India, Iran and Africa into a region inhabited by local hunter-gatherers which were genetically continuous with the European hunter-gatherers before such arrivals. This is reflected in the following lines by Lazaridis:
“we observe that the Neolithic Anatolians are genetically shifted towards Europe in the PCA (Fig. 1b) and have ancestry from an ancestral population related to European hunter-gatherers according to ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1c). This should not be interpreted as evidence of ancestry from actual hunter-gatherers from Europe; while this is not implausible for our sample from Northwestern Anatolia, we have previously seen that populations of the ancient Near East are also differentially related to European hunter-gatherers. This suggests that populations related to European hunter-gatherers existed in the Near East and may be included in the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic ancestors of the Neolithic Anatolians without any need for a direct migration from Europe”. [Lazaridis 2016 Supplement p. 74].
Also;
“Our finding that the Levant_ChL population can be wellmodeled as a three-way admixture between Levant_N (57%), Anatolia_N (26%), and Iran_ChL (17%), while the Levant_-BA_South can be modeled as a mixture of Levant_N (58%) and Iran_ChL (42%), but has little if any additional Anatolia_Nrelated ancestry, can only be explained by multiple episodes of population movement. The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations – but not in the earlier Levant_N – suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region.” [p. 8; Harney]
Hafmanova also found,
“Furthermore, when we form each Anatolian Neolithic genome as a mixture of all modern groups, we infer no contributions from groups in southeastern Anatolia and the Levant, where the earliest Neolithic sites are found (SI Appendix, Figs. S22 and S30 and Table S30; Dataset S3). Similarly, comparison of allele sharing between ancient and modern genomes to those expected under population continuity indicates Neolithic-to-modern discontinuity in Greece and western Anatolia, unless ancestral populations were unrealistically small” Hofmanova p. 6889
“The dissimilarity and lack of continuity of the Early Neolithic Aegean genomes to most modern Turkish and Levantine populations, in contrast to those of early central and southwestern European farmers and modern Mediterraneans, is best explained by subsequent gene flow into Anatolia from still unknown sources.” Hofmanova p. 6890.
This unknown source was also the source of Y-DNA haplogroup H2 found in the early Neolithics of these regions. Thus we can say that the unknown source was South Asia.
The last item for today is another article published this year and co-authored by Reich. The first author is Mittnik. The title is “The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region”. Since it was not in the linguistic context, the Admixture analyses have not been tampered or manipulated.
They are below:
Mittnick Fig 2a

Miitnick Fig 2b

It reveals that there are three larger principal components, blue, yellow and green.
Steppe-MLBA is having all the three colours. But the steppe-Yamnaya and the steppe-EMBA have only green and blue.
Yellow is the colour of Natufian (Israel Mesolithic) and Levant (Israel-Jordan) Neolithic. As discussed above, this is predominantly African in origin and its male lineage is African E1b1 and branches. Thus yellow colour is the marker of the African admixture.
Iran Nolithic and Caucasian hunter-Gatherer are predominantly green. In out interpretation the green colour should belong to the ANI and also the Indo-European linguistic groups.
Baltic Mesolithic and SGH (Sweden Hunter Gatherer, Motala) are blue. It means the original people of Europe belonged to almost pure blue. Ukrainian Hunter-Gatherers and the Ukrainian Neolithic are also largely blue indicating continuity with the original European population before the Neolithic period.
Thus it is the admixture of African (yellow, through Levant and Anatolia), Ancestral North Indian (green, through Iran and Caucasus) and blue (original European) which by combination produced the
If we mix Iran-Chalcolithic (see in figure) with the Ukrainian or European blue substratum, it gives exactly the same proportions of the colours which are there in Scandinavian and European LNBA (Late Neolithic to Bronze Age). Remember that in absolute time scales (calendar time) Iranian Chalcolithic is older than European Late Neolithic.
But the Early Bronze Age steppe is just a mixture of West Siberia-Steppe-Europe substratum (blue) plus ancient North Indian ANI (Green).
It is the addition of yellow (Anatolian/ Levantine) to EMBA steppe / or the Yamnaya steppe which produces the MLBA steppe, which has been linked by the Narasimhans with the Indic branch of IE migration. Clearly people from Iran and India had arrived into the steppe during the MLBA period, bringing the people speaking the Iranian and the Indic languages, clear enclaves of the two have been found linguistically in the Western Siberia and the steppe.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
8,998
Likes
54,169
Country flag
Manipulation of the data and Concoctions
The defective design of research: systemic bias
Bias in modern scientific research and drawing conclusions to fit a narrative is the rule rather than the exception (Mullane and Williams, Eds., Biochemical Pharmacology, Elsevier Journal, 2013; Smith and Noble, British Medical Journal, 2014; Pannuki and Wilkins, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2010).
Narasimhans’ (we will see why not “Narasimhan’s” a little later) paper is a first-class example of how biases can be operative at all the levels and stages of research. If all the manipulations and biases in the article are listed it will perhaps lead to a treatise of 1000 pages, which is not in my intention to do. It will consume at least one year of my time writing such a treatise. Only some very obvious issues, which even a lay reader can understand will be noted below thus.
The admixture analysis and the identification of components
In the admixture analysis presented by them, they have identified some primary components or populations (genetically), which they hypothesise acted as components for the formation of other populations by admixture later in the history. We shall in the first instance see only three of them:
Line 197 (BioRxiv). “Iranian agriculturalist-related”: represented by 8th millennium BCE pastoralists from the Zagros Mountains of Iran (17, 18)”.
Line 201 (ibid). “West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (West_Siberian_HG)-related”: a newly documented deep source of Eurasian ancestry represented here by three samples”.
Line 204 (ibid). “Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI)-related”: a hypothesized South Asian Hunter-Gatherer lineage related deeply to present-day indigenous Andaman Islanders (19)
NOTE: The Narasimhans have used the DNA of the ONGE Tribe of the Andaman Islands to represent this gene pool.
ONGE
The Narasimhans (a handy word in lieu of Narasimhan and colleagues) have chosen to represent the hypothetical Ancient Ancestral South Asians (AASI) by the modern Onge tribe’s genome. The tribe lives in the Andaman Islands today, and are genetically related to the Papua New Guinea tribal peoples from the days of antiquity.
Surprisingly, the Narasimhans’ hypothesise that there were people having an identical genomic constitution as the modern Onge but were living in India until the Iranians and the Steppe people arrived in India. These hypothetical Indians have been labelled as the AASI in the paper. These people supposedly admixed with the Iranian and mid-to-late Bronze Age (BA) Steppe genetic groups to produce the modern Indian population, Narasimhans “conclude”.
In their hypothesis, the admixture of the Onge-genome with the Iranians gave rise to the South Indians (Dravidian) population; and the admixture of this with the Middle-to-late-Bronze Age (MLBA) Steppe population gave rise to the North Indian (Aryan) population, they hypothesise. In other words, it is a resurrection of the Elamite theory of the origin of “Dravidians” in addition to the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT).
However, the real story cannot be farther from the truth. Onge people could have been of the same genetic composition as the Indians about 70,000 to 50,000 years back, but not today, not even 10,000 years before today.
These people (Onge) are the remnants of the people who migrated to these Islands and also to Southeast Asia about 70,000 to 50,000 years back. Some could have probably stayed back in India. They had arrived into Andaman (ancestors of the Onge and Jorwa), and have migrated further eastward towards Papua New Guinea and Australia. Thus, the Onge population got separated from the rest of the humanity (and definitely mainland Indians) about 50,000 to 70,000 years ago, noted Thangaraj et al (2005) in their genetic study: “this was the same time when the Australians (and the Papuans) separated from the rest of the humanity.”
NOTE: It is the same Thangaraj who is now a co-author in the Narasimhans paper doing a circus somersault.
In fact, they had not stopped at Australia but had even reached South America, whose descendants are living there till today. (Skoglund et al Nature 524:104–108, 2015; David Reich was one of the authors of this article). They noted that these (Onge, Papuan, Australian) form the Australasian family.
Thus, these (Onge) must be considered only much more remotely (in the past) connected to the Ancient Ancestral South Asians, than are the European Cro-Magnons, Siberians, Iranians and the Central Asians who branched off from the main basal Eurasian trunk much later in time than the Onge did.
It is useful here to recollect what Thangaraj wrote about the Onge: “Our data indicate that the two ancient maternal lineages, M31 and M32 in the Onge and the Great Andamanese, have evolved in the Andaman Islands independently from other South and Southeast Asian populations.
These lineages have been shown to be isolated since the initial penetration of the northern coastal areas of the Indian Ocean by anatomically modern humans, in their out-of-Africa migration 50 to 70 thousand years ago.” (Thangaraj et al, 2005, Reconstructing the Origin of Andaman Islanders, Science, 308 (5724): 996)
Thangaraj also noted that over that period of time the genetic composition of the populations of the Andaman-Onge and Indian-Mainland population drifted from each other due to changes taking place in the two independently. They note: “Analysis of the complete mtDNA sequences shows that none of the coding region mutations defining these two haplogroups overlaps with the known Indian or East Asian mtDNA haplogroups. In our survey of 6500 mtDNA sequences from mainland India, none of the M lineages carried the coding region mutations specific to M31 and M32 (6).” (Thangaraj 2005). Thus, we can see that genetically the Onge had deviated / separated and have evolved independently from mainland India over the last 50,000 years, or more, of the separation.
Thus, considering Onge as the Indian population at the onset of Neolithic discredits the entire work, and has completely vitiated all the conclusions.
Instead of identifying Onge as a (pure) single component, somehow their admixture analysis seems to have found that it is an admixture with the Iranian DNA. This error occurred because the authors failed to recognise that the Onge and the Iranians both had split from the mainland Indians, although in vastly different eras, tens of thousands of years apart.
Obviously, given the very ancient commonality between the three populations (Onge, mainland Indian and Iranian) there must be some elements common in the three. Of course, there would be some portions which would be distinct as well in the three populations due to the separation and consequent independent evolution.


Onge as shown in the admixture analysis in the Figure S3.37; page 166 of the Supplement of the Narasimhan et al article. Onge highlighted and pointed out by the bold standout label. In this figure, Onge has almost the same components as the Mala, Irula, Shaidu-Sharif (Iron Age_0) and Shahar-i-Sokhta BA3, except that the latter ones have greater proportions of the Iranian component.
This failure to appreciate some commonality (due to the common origins) between Indian and Iranian DNAs resulted in considering the Iranian farmers as an “unmixed” pure component, while the Onge population removed by more than thousands of miles of deep sea is laughably considered an admixed population.
It was also compounded by the false and erroneous prejudice that nobody could ever have gone out of India (OIT). In an effort at negating the Indian components in the Iranian Agriculturists, the authors “tweaked” (to put it mildly) the parameters in such way so that the Iranian Agriculturists falsely appear to made up of a single component, coloured teal (light blue) in the admixture analysis.
Such questionable distortions, in the “calibration,” have vitiated the entirety of the results in such a way that the mono-component genome of the Onge (Andamanese) started showing up as if it was made of two components (admixed). One of them was blue (Iranian Agriculturists) as depicted in the admixture “histogram” in the above figure.
How it happened can be seen in the figure below:


Onge (Andaman) as wrongly depicted in the admixture analysis by Narasimhan, and as in reality it should have been. The commonality between Ganj Dareh (Iranian Agriculturists) and Onge (Andaman) only means that a large proportion of the gene in the Ganj Dareh was same as Ancient Ancestral South Asians, today represented in mainland India by Mala, Irula etc, and in the Andaman as Onge. The Ancient Iranian Agriculturists have been shown as light blue (teal) colour and the Andaman-Onge are half light-blue (teal) and half yellow.

Iranian (Jagros Neolithic): Ganj Dareh

The Ganj Dareh has been postulated as one of the principal components in the Narasimhan study. However, it has clear ancestry from Northwest Indian sub-continent, where Pakistan is located today. Narasimhans’ own figures (and data) themselves show that the Ganj Dareh is only a subset of the larger set which is Onge, Mala and other Indian samples.
Unfortunately for the Narasimhans, the Ganj Dareh (Iranian Neolithic) DNA had been studied by another group of researchers whose work was published in Nature (which appears to be not as biased as the journal widely known as the Science magazine). They found that:
“The mitochondrion of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the sub-haplogroup X2, which has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia, Hungary and Germany.” (Llorente 2016)
“GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses.” (Llorente 2016)
Interpretation: We need to remember that no South Asian Neolithic DNA has been reported so far. Thus, if GD13a matched none, possibly only one which remains to be tried is the South Asian Neolithic DNA.
“We further investigated the relationship between GD13a and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers using D-statistics to test whether they formed a clade to the exclusion of other ancient and modern samples (Table S4). A large number of Western Eurasian samples (both modern and ancient) showed significant excess genetic affinity to the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, whilst none did with GD13a. Overall, these results point to GD13a having little direct genetic input into later European populations compared to its northern neighbours.” (Llorente 2016)
Interpretation: Thus the oldest Iranian Agriculturists of the Ganj Dareh had not directly migrated to Europe, although their mitochondrial DNA X2 certainly contributed to the modern European population. Other studies have shown (see below) that the Iranian Neolithic DNAs had migrated to Levant and Anatolia, and the Caucasus as well as the Steppe. Clearly, the Ganj Dareh DNAs were not the gross representative of the Iranian Neolithic, but they represent a segment which was very small and did not make much impact on later Europe, Caucasus or the Steppe. It might have represented just a small number of the emigrants from a single village in Balochistan or other parts of northwest South Asia (pre-modern India), and might have represented only a tiny fraction of genetic variation which South Asia had at that time. On the other hand, the people reaching the other locations in Zagros (Iran) at Neolithic might have originated from other villages of present-day Pakistan/ Afghanistan resulting in differences (diversity) in genetic composition within the Zagros Neolithic populations.
“The individual analysed here was part of burial 13, which contained three individuals, and was recovered in level C in 1971 from the floor of a brick-walled structure. The individual sampled, 13A (referred to as GD13a throughout the text), was a 30–50-year-old female; the other individuals in the burial unit were a second adult (13B) and an adolescent (13). The site has been directly dated to 9650–9950 cal BP, and shows intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population was that of pastoralists with an emphasis on goat herding. Archaeobotanical evidence is limited but the evidence present is for two-row barley with no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. This implies that the overall economy was at a much earlier stage in the development of cereal agriculture than that found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.” (Llorente 2016)
Interpretation: This information refutes the claim by the Narasimhans that the Mehrgarh farming culture had been borrowed from Anatolia (Turkey) through Iran (Ganj Dareh). The date cited above gives a date of 7,850 BC (mean). It may be noted that the Mehrgarh oldest layer has a date of 8,707 BC (mean).
While the Ganj Dareh Iranian people had only two-row barley (see above) at 7850 BC, the Mehrgarh had six-row barley at 8700 BC, which is an advanced stage of agricultural development and domestication of barley (Upinder Singh 120; Jarrige 2008).
Jarrige wrote, citing Lorenzo Costantini:
“Lorenzo Costantini has shown that the plant assemblage of Period I is dominated by naked six-row barley which accounts for more than 90% of the so far recorded seeds and imprints. He has also pointed out the sphaerococcoid form of the naked-barley grains with a short compact spike with shortened internodes and small rounded seeds.
According to him, such characteristics in the aceramic Neolithic levels can be ascribed to probably cultivated but perhaps not fully domesticated plants. Domestic hulled six-row barley (H. vulgare, subsp. vulgare) and wild and domestic hulled two-row barley (H. vulgare subsp. spontaneum and H. vulgare subsp. distichum) have also been recorded, but in much smaller quantities. According to Zohary quoted by R.H. Meadow, the distribution of wild barley extends today to the head of the Bolan Pass. It is therefore likely that local wild barleys could have been brought under cultivation in the Mehrgarh area. Costantini has also identified a small amount of domestic einkorn (hulled: Triticum monococcum), domestic emmer (hulled: T. turgidum subsp. dicoccum) and a free-threshing form which can be referred to as Triticum durum (Fig. 10).” (Jarrige 2006)
Interpretation: Thus, these people of Iran had arrived here about 1000 years after the Mehrgarh culture had taken off. The Ganj Dareh site had been occupied for only a short period of 100 to 300 years (mean 200 years). On the other hand, the Mehrgarh shows a continuous occupation for a long and continuous period till recent times. It may be noted that the domestication of the goat is not possible to take place in 200 or 300 years and about a thousand years is required for the features of domestication to start appearing on the skeletons of the animals. Clearly, the people of Ganj Dareh were not local, and had arrived from somewhere else.
“ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 statistics identified Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B,C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4).” (Llorente 2016)
Interpretation: It is possible to interpret it as the Ganj Dareh coming from a region within the locations of Brahui, Baluchistan and Makaran of South Asia, now in Pakistan. Mehrgarh was in modern-day Baluchistan.
“Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers.”
Interpretation: Yamnaya and Afanasievo of steppe/ Central Asia were much later than Ganj Dareh (Iran). The resemblance could be due to either the Iranian early farmers migrating into the Steppe. But these people could have developed from the migrations from the northwest India/ Afghanistan/ Pamir region. The Pamir is a likely source for R1b which migrated by northern Iranian/ Turkmenistan wet corridor to the south of Caspian and then from there to Armenia, Anatolia and then the Southern, Western and Central Europe. Yamnaya and Afanasievo samples belong to R1b Y-DNA. See figures below.


© Eupedia. Map of R1b distribution in Europe. It is dominant in those parts of Europe which speak Centum languages like Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Italic (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian), Greek, Anatolian, Armenian and Germanic (English, Norwegian, German etc). The steppe language Tocharian was also Centum which was spoken by the Yamnaya and the Afanasievo people in the Bronze Age.


© Eupedia. The R1b might have originated in the region to the north of Kashmir i.e. Tajikistan, and migrated through Tajikistan to Armenia and further. It also went to Central Africa. In steppe and Central Asia it was replaced by later arrivals in Late Bronze Age by the R1a, which is dominant only in the Satem speaking groupslike Russian, Ukrainian, other Slavic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Iranian, Indic etc.


Wikipedia: Map showing the distribution of Centum and Satem branches of Indo-European


© Eupedia. R1b Migration map


Wikipedia: R1b Migration map
Now let us see what Llorente had to say further on Ganj Dareh:

“We further investigated the relationship between GD13a and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers using D-statistics to test whether they formed a clade to the exclusion of other ancient and modern samples (Table S4). A large number of Western Eurasian samples (both modern and ancient) showed significant excess genetic affinity to the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, whilst none did with GD13a. Overall, these results point to GD13a having little direct genetic input into later European populations compared to its northern neighbours.” (Llorente 2016)
Interpretation: Later Europeans are products of another wave of migration namely R1b which came later in the Bronze Age.
“Thus, GD13a is the descendant of a group that had a relatively stable demography and did not suffer the bottlenecks that affected more northern populations.” (Llorente 2016)
Interpretation: This line points to India as the origin for the present day Eurasians.

 

Latest Replies

Articles

Top