Scientists reconstruct faces of Indus Valley people

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
Continued... PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI

It may be understood from the Gaussian Normal Distribution curve that it is quite a normal finding in any normal data that the extremes look different. It does not mean that they belong to two populations. However, the naïvettes (or the scientific conmen?) would take them as two populations.

What about other characters of the Ganj Dareh lady? Llorente 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 groups suggesting that it was already present at an 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 adaptation.” (Llorente 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 the 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 the north of Black Sea who entered East Europe replacing the hunter-gatherers at about 5000 BC.
I have earlier demonstrated that the light skin colour gene SLC24A5 originated in South India long back, and it migrated to other places including even Ethiopia from India.
SLC24A5 - Wikipedia
The SLC24A5 gene's derived threonine or Ala111Thr allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in the light…

en.wikipedia.org

Another researcher in the field, Broushaki, in 2016 noted that the Iranian Neolithic people from Wezmeh Cave were related to the Pakistani and Afghan people, particularly the Zoroastrians of Iranian 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 the Indian population.


Neolithic Iran compared to the Indian genome, by Broushaki (2016)

The Western Siberian Hunter-Gatherers (HG)

Narasimhans have selected the following samples as representing the West Siberian DNA:
  1. Sosnoviy-Ostrov, western Siberia, Russia (n=1); Tomsk10 (I5766): Date of 4230–3983 cal BCE (5261±33 BP, OxA-33486, d15N=+12.8 possible marine influence). Genetically female.
  2. Tyumen Oblast, western Siberia, Russia (n=2) Tyumen1, Kurgan 1 (I1958): Date of 4723–4558 cal BCE (5805±25 BP, PSUAMS-2359), Genetically female
  3. 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.


The Location of Tyumen Oblast of the Ancient West Siberian HG genes
These places Sosnoviy-Ostrov and Tyumen Oblast by foot are about 3400 km to the north of Kabul. They had been coded as yellow colour (AASI, Indian, Onge) component, about one third quantitatively in the admixture analysis.
It appears that to mislead people, this fact has been blatantly denied, not by changing the colour of the component, but by considering it an entirely different component, although it appears the same as the Indian.


West Siberian, admixture Analysis (at the top “row” of the image)
Apart from this de Barros Damgard et al have provided another set of admixture “histograms” for the admixture analysis of the same populations, with locations marked. This is more honest, correct and appears to be not tampered with.


de Barros Damgaard et al 2018, admixture analysis, Science magazine
If rearranged, this picture gives the following:



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 changes produced not by migration but by the Brownian Movements (natural drift) of the genes.
If any arrival takes place, there must be a breach in the cline in the same way that Broushaki got one, between Zagros and Anatolia during the Neolithic.
The further summation of the components indicates that the Steppe may have originated from northwest India:


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 the southern Caspian coast, the R1b people turned north. Established the Armenia Indo-European (Centum) and moved into the Caucasus forming the Maikop (Maykop) culture in North Caucasus. It is considered that the Maikop people gave rise to the Yamnaya.


Admixture Analysis, Early Bronze Age (EBA) Yamnaya plus Early Bronze Age Anatolia averaged gives the Middle to Late BA Steppe population.


MLBA steppe and Namazga Copper Age when averaged gives the Iron Age steppe culture.
We know from other studies of a 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 de Barros Damgaard, Science 2018).
Thus we can conclude as this picture:


de Barros Damgaard data rationally reorganised to produce scientifically valid conclusions
The H1 had a sibling H2 which has been found from the Neolithic samples of Levant, Anatolia, and Sardinia. It has also been found from West Lake Baikal Shamanka region from the Eneolithic period (sample number DA339 in de Barros Damgaard 2018, see 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 found in India alone.


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

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI. : A preliminary critical appraisal of Narasimhan et al 2018 bioRxiv




© IBM and National Geographic’s The Genographic Project
Let us start our discussion from the most significant paragraph of the article:
“Third, between 3100–2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200–800 BCE). These individuals had between 14–42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples. In contrast to all other Iran/Turan samples, we find that these individuals also had negligible Anatolian agriculturalist-related admixture, suggesting that they might be migrants from a population further east along the cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry.” (Narasimhan 2018 bioRxiv: page 9 lines 276 to 285).
This paragraph provides us with two crucial pieces of information:
  1. The Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta samples dated from 3100 BC to 2200 BC had no evidence of the Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in them.
  2. These Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta people had the same ancestry profile as the 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan living between 1200 BC and 800 BC.
The impression from these two findings: This gives the most parsimonious inference that the ancestry or the genetic profile of the people from North Pakistan, Indus-Harappa proper and the Greater Indus Valley, which included the regions up to east Iran and southern Turkmenistan, had a genetic continuum in space and time, and they all were the same people.
  1. These people (Gunur, Shahr-i-Sokhta, Swat, etc., North Pakistan, henceforth called GSP) had negligible ancestry from Anatolia.
  2. These people (GSP) had not arrived from the Steppe-pastoralist culture of the Late Bronze Age (LBA).
The impression from the last two points above: There was neither any arrival from the Neolithic Anatolian farmers nor had there been any arrivals from the Steppe-pastoralist culture’s location, prior to or up to 800 BC.
Now let us look at the definition of the word AASI used in the quoted paragraph: “Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI)-related is a hypothesized South Asian Hunter-Gatherer lineage related deeply to present-day indigenous Andaman Islanders” (Narasimhan bioRxiv lines 204–205). This means that the Indians (both North and South) had a hunter-gatherer population whose ancestry was exactly the same as the present day Andaman islanders before 8th millennium BC, the time of the dawn of Neolithic in India.
It also by implication means that Andaman Islanders and the Hunter-Gatherer Ancient Indians had not diverged genetically or evolved at all in spite of having been separated genetically and spatially for 30,000 to 60,000 years.
Another important thing to understand here is that this new name AASI means the same thing as the ASI coined by Reich (2010). In other words, Narasimhan assumes that the Andaman Islanders like people (ASI) had occupied the whole of India, and were not restricted to South India, and hence they have been given a new name AASI replacing the older name ASI.
However, this assumption cannot be supported on the basis of received information so far.
We know from the data supplied by the Narasimhan article as well as earlier articles by various authors that the Y-DNA haplogroup of the Andaman Islanders had stayed the same–the oldest Asian ones — D1 and C2.
On the other hand, people who had stayed in the mainland India had developed newer haplogroups like F*, C5, H1, etc. in their Y-DNA profile, and these newer Y-DNAs have largely replaced the oldest lineages D1 and C2 in the mainland India by this time. Hence, the identification of the pre-Neolithic Indians by modern Andaman Islanders gene is essentially flawed and is fraught with the danger of misleading the entire study towards wrong conclusions.

Now we should examine another statement regarding the GSP population: “These individuals had between 14–42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG.” (lines 279 to 281).
This statement at least confirms that the early Iranian agriculturists were genetically related to the GPS (Bronze Age Gonur, Shahr-i-Sokhta, North Pakistan) people. Although Narasimhan et al assume that the Zagros Iranian agriculturists (ZIA) were ancestral to the GPS, there is another possibility that the GPS and ZIA had descended from a common ancestor who was located more likely in the present day Pakistan than in the Zagros.
The latter possibility is supported by stouter evidence. It has been noted that there was a genetic discontinuity — a break in the cline — between the Zagros people and the Anatolian farmers of the 7th millennium BC (Lazaridis 2016; Broushaki 2016). Such break is produced always by either a new arrival of a population or an insurmountabe barrier, temporally and/or geographically, between two adjacent populations.
Broushaki had studied the Wezmeh sample from another Zagros cave. Broushaki also noted, “We sequenced Early Neolithic genomes from the Zagros region of Iran (eastern Fertile Crescent), where some of the earliest evidence for farming is found, and identify a previously uncharacterized population that is neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed significantly to the ancestry of modern Europeans. 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.” Thus, the Wezmeh DNA seems to be a part of a wider Indo-Iranian ancient pool, having the maximum concentration in Pakistan as in this picture.”
DHARMA Triumphs - PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI - wezmeh-and-barcin.png
The above figure (in the link) is from Broushaki et al, Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent, Science 14 Jul 2016, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf7943
This effectively proves the arrival of the Neolithic Zagros farmers from the Northwestern Indian Neolithic and the continuation of the same people in Pakistan/Northwest India since the early Neolithic days.
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
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
Onge ancestry In West Siberia. That would ruffle some feathers 🙂
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
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.
Got confused and exhausted a bit towards the end.
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
PREMENDRA PRIYADARSHI. : A preliminary critical appraisal of Narasimhan et al 2018 bioRxiv




© IBM and National Geographic’s The Genographic Project
Let us start our discussion from the most significant paragraph of the article:
“Third, between 3100–2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200–800 BCE). These individuals had between 14–42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples. In contrast to all other Iran/Turan samples, we find that these individuals also had negligible Anatolian agriculturalist-related admixture, suggesting that they might be migrants from a population further east along the cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry.” (Narasimhan 2018 bioRxiv: page 9 lines 276 to 285).
This paragraph provides us with two crucial pieces of information:
  1. The Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta samples dated from 3100 BC to 2200 BC had no evidence of the Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in them.
  2. These Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta people had the same ancestry profile as the 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan living between 1200 BC and 800 BC.
The impression from these two findings: This gives the most parsimonious inference that the ancestry or the genetic profile of the people from North Pakistan, Indus-Harappa proper and the Greater Indus Valley, which included the regions up to east Iran and southern Turkmenistan, had a genetic continuum in space and time, and they all were the same people.
  1. These people (Gunur, Shahr-i-Sokhta, Swat, etc., North Pakistan, henceforth called GSP) had negligible ancestry from Anatolia.
  2. These people (GSP) had not arrived from the Steppe-pastoralist culture of the Late Bronze Age (LBA).
The impression from the last two points above: There was neither any arrival from the Neolithic Anatolian farmers nor had there been any arrivals from the Steppe-pastoralist culture’s location, prior to or up to 800 BC.
Now let us look at the definition of the word AASI used in the quoted paragraph: “Ancient Ancestral South Indian (AASI)-related is a hypothesized South Asian Hunter-Gatherer lineage related deeply to present-day indigenous Andaman Islanders” (Narasimhan bioRxiv lines 204–205). This means that the Indians (both North and South) had a hunter-gatherer population whose ancestry was exactly the same as the present day Andaman islanders before 8th millennium BC, the time of the dawn of Neolithic in India.

Another important thing to understand here is that this new name AASI means the same thing as the ASI coined by Reich (2010). In other words, Narasimhan assumes that the Andaman Islanders like people (ASI) had occupied the whole of India, and were not restricted to South India, and hence they have been given a new name AASI replacing the older name ASI.
However, this assumption cannot be supported on the basis of received information so far.

On the other hand, people who had stayed in the mainland India had developed newer haplogroups like F*, C5, H1, etc. in their Y-DNA profile, and these newer Y-DNAs have largely replaced the oldest lineages D1 and C2 in the mainland India by this time. Hence, the identification of the pre-Neolithic Indians by modern Andaman Islanders gene is essentially flawed and is fraught with the danger of misleading the entire study towards wrong conclusions.

Now we should examine another statement regarding the GSP population: “These individuals had between 14–42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG.” (lines 279 to 281).
This statement at least confirms that the early Iranian agriculturists were genetically related to the GPS (Bronze Age Gonur, Shahr-i-Sokhta, North Pakistan) people. Although Narasimhan et al assume that the Zagros Iranian agriculturists (ZIA) were ancestral to the GPS, there is another possibility that the GPS and ZIA had descended from a common ancestor who was located more likely in the present day Pakistan than in the Zagros.
The latter possibility is supported by stouter evidence. It has been noted that there was a genetic discontinuity — a break in the cline — between the Zagros people and the Anatolian farmers of the 7th millennium BC (Lazaridis 2016; Broushaki 2016). Such break is produced always by either a new arrival of a population or an insurmountabe barrier, temporally and/or geographically, between two adjacent populations.
Broushaki had studied the Wezmeh sample from another Zagros cave. Broushaki also noted, “We sequenced Early Neolithic genomes from the Zagros region of Iran (eastern Fertile Crescent), where some of the earliest evidence for farming is found, and identify a previously uncharacterized population that is neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed significantly to the ancestry of modern Europeans. 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.” Thus, the Wezmeh DNA seems to be a part of a wider Indo-Iranian ancient pool, having the maximum concentration in Pakistan as in this picture.”
View attachment 115915
The above figure (in the link) is from Broushaki et al, Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent, Science 14 Jul 2016, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf7943
This effectively proves the arrival of the Neolithic Zagros farmers from the Northwestern Indian Neolithic and the continuation of the same people in Pakistan/Northwest India since the early Neolithic days.
If my inference is right then associating all SAHG who mixed with IHG as Andamanese is wrong.

But this Andamanese ancestry is also found in West Siberian HG as well as the people in steppe.

Steppe people is related to ANI o_Oo_Oo_O

I would have to re-read all this a few more times.
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
"The report is very significant because till date, we have had no idea about how Indus Valley people looked. But now we have got some idea," Shinde, who led the Rakhigarhi archaeological project, told TOI . Located in Haryana, Rakhigarhi is one of the largest Indus Valley sites.

"The CFR technology generated faces of the two Rakhigarhi skulls, therefore, is a major breakthrough," Shinde, a professor at Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, said. Going by the 3-D video representation of the faces, the two individuals appeared to have Caucasian features with hawk-shaped and Roman noses.

The study, however, cautioned against drawing any generic conclusions.


Let's play devil advocate.
Caucasian features much before Aryan invaded India
2019 report
😂😂😂
How did I miss this report!


Don’t jump on to the conclusions based on TOI interpretations. The actual report might be different.

One cannot conclude the nose shape based on skull. How come one interpret the cartilage and skin shape with out knowing details.

There is no evidence of large scale migration or invasion from outside.

It is safe to conclude today’s people on that region are the actual descendants of Indus Saraswathi civilisation.

This Roman nose and Caucasian nonsense is TOI interpretation. TOI often spouts nonsense about any thing related to Indian history.
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
Don’t jump on to the conclusions based on TOI interpretations. The actual report might be different.

One cannot conclude the nose shape based on skull. How come one interpret the cartilage and skin shape with out knowing details.

There is no evidence of large scale migration or invasion from outside.

It is safe to conclude today’s people on that region are the actual descendants of Indus Saraswathi civilisation.

This Roman nose and Caucasian nonsense is TOI interpretation. TOI often spouts nonsense about any thing related to Indian history.
Yup! That's what the experts have said.
Mark my words Harappa would turn out to be Multi lingual and highly diverse.

We only have 12 odd dna samples extracted from 1000 odd skeletons for a civilization that boasted of 5+ million people at its hay day.

These guys were everywhere in Mesopotamia Oman Iran BMAC.

These guys were sea-faring most likely ended up in places no one knows for now.
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
1500bce palace of Mittanis was discovered couple of years ago. Any idea what was inscribed on the stone tablets they recovered from there.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
1500bce palace of Mittanis was discovered couple of years ago. Any idea what was inscribed on the stone tablets they recovered from there.
The oldest manual of Horse training in the world is in Sanskrit discovered among hittite tablets in Syria. There language was hurrian but few SANSKRIT terms also present there. Do note it was not spoken as a living language at the time when the lost original text of kikkuli was written. Whatever is written in Kikkuli was handed down as fossils.Also do note we find that the slavic languages, the language of the steppefags region is poor in vocabulary for the domestic animals. On the other hand, BHARAT shows a long history of domestication of these animals on the basis of archaeology, dna studies and linguistics.

The Peacock motifs have been associated with the Mitanni. Peacocks have always been indigenous to BHARATA. Density of peacocks (Indian Peafowl)is Highest in BHARAT. They are native to Bharat. Peacock density is highest in Bharat as compared to anywhere else.

Peacock angel of Yazidis is an echo of SARASVATI Script maraka 'peacock' rebus marakaka 'copper alloy, calcining metal'

DHARMA Triumphs105.JPG


There is linguistic evidence of post-Vedic ARYA presence in the steppe/Ural region and West Asia. Those languages of udmurt or votyak, kami, mari, moksha and erzya languages of the uralic family are found in the neighbourhood there. Fun fact being the words borrowed in the finno-ugric languages of the region are not from the fraud pie or slavic, but from SANSKRIT.

Sanskrit MARTYA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>udmurt marta meaning man simplest example ;).
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
These guys were sea-faring most likely ended up in places no one knows for now.
Yes there is tremendous effect of BHARAT's civilization and culture in the East all the way to Japan. There were many effects in the west via Sakas being the intermediary, the effects are clear in Egypt, Slavic faiths, and some linkages have been found with the Greeks, Celts(Gundestrup Cauldron), Lithuania(Romuva culture) as well.

DHARMA Triumphs seafaring in BHARATA.JPG


Then you have BHARAT's ports were so well established im 2334 bce that there was major trade between BHARATA and Sargon of Akkad. The ships portrayed in the seal and paintings exhibits a predominantly raised
bow and stern which shows a marked similarity to the representations found in the early pottery of Egypt, the Minoan seals and the cylinders of Sumer.

"The world's earliest known dockyard. The canal was artificially constructed to handle berth and service ships from Egypt and Mesopotamia. The dockyard has an area of 37×22 meters. It is the greatest work of maritime architecture before the birth of christ." -True Indology


DHARMA Triumphs15.JPG


^^^^^This is a reconstruction of a 4000 years old international sea port of BHARATA known as Lothal, It is located somewhat to the South.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
12,207
Likes
73,685
Country flag
Don’t jump on to the conclusions based on TOI interpretations. The actual report might be different.

One cannot conclude the nose shape based on skull. How come one interpret the cartilage and skin shape with out knowing details.

There is no evidence of large scale migration or invasion from outside.

It is safe to conclude today’s people on that region are the actual descendants of Indus Saraswathi civilisation.

This Roman nose and Caucasian nonsense is TOI interpretation. TOI often spouts nonsense about any thing related to Indian history.
The only solution to shun the coomers and retards is that BHARAT starts narrating BHARAT's own story. There is overwhelming evidence.

DHARMA Triumphs51.JPG
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
The only solution to shun the coomers and retards is that BHARAT starts narrating BHARAT's own story. There is overwhelming evidence.

View attachment 115948
That's an interesting comparison to look at.

Hittite and Mittani were right next to each other but Mittani God's and Vocabulary shows affinity to Vedic than to Hittites.

Now it has been proven that Horse myths most likely spread much after the European languages were spread by Russian immigrants.

Flood myths are recurring theme in all world religions irrespective of the language family.

God's like Sun and Lightening too points towards independent origins rather than common source.

Cookie is crumbling 😄
 
Last edited:

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
The following is a list of the main deities that appeared most often in Hittite mythology.

  • Istanu: He was the god who ruled the sun when it was in the sky. Istanu was also the god of judges.
  • Lelwani: Also a goddess of death, Lelwani ruled the sun in the earth. Basically, that meant ruling the sun when it set as well as any fires within the earth like magma.
  • A'as: This god seemed to be the Hittite version of Ea, an Akkadian deity, and Enki, a Sumerian god. The domain of A'as was wisdom. Myths about him show other gods consulting him, especially on matters of taking the throne of heaven from other gods.
  • Hanwasuit: She was the goddess of thrones, empowering the mortal kings of the Hittites with the divine power to rule.
  • Hannahannah: Sharing the domain of wisdom with A'as, Hannahannah was a mother goddess known to comfort and guide the other Hittite gods. While A'as appeared in myths about overthrowing rulers, Hannahannah appeared in myths involving gods going missing.
  • Tarhun: He was the god of storms and the king of all the Hittite gods. According to mythology, Tarhun gathered his siblings to overthrow Kumarbi, the king of the heavens before Tarhun. A large portion of recovered mythology told stories of Kumarbi, his children, and their demonic servants of the underworld repeatedly battling Tarhun to try to regain the throne.
Succession of God Kings
The stories in Hittite mythology told of four gods who sat on the throne of heaven. The first was Alalu, father of the later king Kumarbi. He was only able to rule for nine years until Anu, the sky god, overthrew him. Alalu fled to the underworld at that time.


Seems like I was a sky God in my past life 😘
 

Indo-Aryan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
815
Likes
884
Country flag
Check how distinct east Iranian Scythian dieties were from Vedic and Avestan despite rising from the assumed same Indo-Iranian source.

RELIGION WIKI

Scythian religion refers to the mythology, ritual practices and beliefs of the Scythians, an ancient Iranian people who dominated the Pontic-Caspian steppe throughout Classical Antiquity. What little is known of the religion is drawn from the work of the 5th century Greek historian and ethnographer Herodotus. It is assumed to have been related to the earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, and to have influenced later Slavic and Turkic mythologies, as well as Ossetian traditions which are believed to have descended from Scythian mythology.



The primary archaeological context of horse sacrifice are burials, notably chariot burials, but graves with horse remains reach from the Eneolithic well into historical times. Herodotus describes the execution of horses at the burial of a Scythian king, and Iron Age kurgan graves known to contain horses number in the hundreds.

The Scythians had some reverence for the stag, which is one of the most common motifs in their artwork, especially at funeral sites. The swift animal was believed to speed the spirits of the dead on their way, which perhaps explains the curious antlered headdresses found on horses buried at Pazyryk.



According to Herodotus, the Scythians worshipped a pantheon of seven gods and goddesses (heptad), which he equates with Greek divinities of Classical Antiquity following the interpretatio graeca. He mentions eight deities in particular, the eighth being worshipped by the Royal Scythians, and gives the Scythian names for six of them as follows:
To these, Herodotus adds Heracles and Ares, a god of war (see below).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top