61 replies to this topic

[Harte]

Harsh86_Patel, on 09 March 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Some ?? majority of Indian linguists support the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory. Why the support it is a whole different ball game.

Your previous statement:
"Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India."

Aren't most people on Earth "from outside India?"

So, wouldn't it be true by necessity that "most people" that believe anything at all are "from outside India?"

Harte

[DieChecker]

Harsh86_Patel, on 12 March 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

So again you seem convinced by the presence of R1 haplotype in that region in old mummies but like i said that there is no way to conclude that R1 haplotype was native to that region only....when the global population was low at that point of time even small migrations from one location to another could make an entire genotype disappear from one location and reappear in another.Similarly there is no way to conclude that the r1 haplotype migrated to India and Europe from the Caspian as this haplotype could have already been present in these geographic locations. The allelic frequency can be impacted by various other factors like culture,mating preferences etc. So what you think is a strong foundation for your belief is not really that strong. The presence of a higher frequency of R1 haplotype in the caspian region can also be due to the tribe carrying that gene migrating to the Caspian at a particular time in ancient history.Again there is no way to determine from where and why until you try to find clues in their lore,culture,mythology and archaeological evidences.

Also just believing something because so many people are saying it ,is not a practice i can adhere to as i am too sceptical for putting blind faith in these interpretations.

You seem to misunderstand. You are right that going off small groups that the DNA could be from anywhere, but that is not the case here, there is widespread evidence, and genetic analysis that shows this to be true. Further, the evidence does point at the R1a haplogroup originating there, and there is much, much less evidence that it did not. When you find 3 or 4 sites with older human remains with R1a haplogroup DNA, INSIDE INDIA... please let me know. Till then, I will go with the scientific, peer reviewed, published, confirmed, and repeatedly so.... evidence of  the R1a groups migrations.

You are saying that the R1a might have orginated elsewhere, simply because you don't want it to have originated near the Caspian. The various dated human remains that have been found so far with the R1a haplogroup clearly show that it migrated out of the Caspian area. If you want to ignore that, fine, but it just shows you have an agenda, and donare willing to ignore facts and data to support that agenda.

I do agree, and did already, that an earlier group could have migrated there and brought the R1a group, but there is zero evidence that they came out of India. What I do believe is that it was these Kurgan peoples who migrated into Europe bringing Indo European. If you can prove that these Kurgan peoples (with a high incidence of R1a haplogroup) originated in India you would go a long way toward proving the OIT idea. Without that you are trying to prove the movement of culture without the movement of people.

[Everdred]

I wouldn't say that R1a has a proven origin.  There's still considerable debate on the matter, with the Eastern European and Indian theories being most prevalent.  Indeed both areas show high modern concentrations and reasonable diversity.

[DieChecker]

Everdred, on 12 March 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

I wouldn't say that R1a has a proven origin.  There's still considerable debate on the matter, with the Eastern European and Indian theories being most prevalent.  Indeed both areas show high modern concentrations and reasonable diversity.

What you're saying is true, but to date, studies of ancient DNA have generally pointed to the Caspian.

A modern map does not clearly represent ancient times. If you looked at a map of modern US ethnicities, you'd have to guess that Caucasians have always been the main population here.

There is almost as much R1A1 in the US and Canada as there is in Europe. Does that mean anything to where the R1A1 came from?

[DieChecker]

I found this interesting....

Quote

In the present study, it was observed that the R lineages were successfully penetrated to high frequencies (0.26) in the South Indian tribal populations, a testimony for its arrival in the peninsula much before the recent migrations of Indo-European pastoralists from Central Asia. In a recent study, Sengupta et al observed higher microsatellite variance, and clustering together of Indian M17 lineages compared with the Middle East and Europe. They proposed that it is an early invasion of M17 during the Holocene expansion that contributed to the tribal gene pool in India, than a recent gene flow from Indo-European nomads. However, we found that its frequency is much higher in upper castes (0.44) compared to that of the lower caste (0.22) and tribal groups (0.26). This uneven distribution pattern shows that the recent immigrations from Central Asia also contributed undoubtedly to a pre-existing gene pool.

http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2156/7/42

So maybe both theories are right in their assumptions. Perhaps the orginators of the R1A came out of India into the steppe lands around the Caspian, yet it also seems that genetics show that the upper castes got a 2nd helping back from the Caspian some time later. I've seen also that the R1A1 haplogroup goes back some 10,000 to 15,000 years, so this could easily be possible. And yet it would seem that the upper castes who got a 2nd input of R1a probably were not the ones that spread Indo-European across Asia and Europe, but it was those first R1a settlers from India who do so. If enough time had elapsed these settlers might have even had a seperate language, and so could have been the origin of Indo European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-M17

[cormac mac airt]

DieChecker, on 13 March 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

I found this interesting....



http://www.biomedcen.../1471-2156/7/42

So maybe both theories are right in their assumptions. Perhaps the orginators of the R1A came out of India into the steppe lands around the Caspian, yet it also seems that genetics show that the upper castes got a 2nd helping back from the Caspian some time later. I've seen also that the R1A1 haplogroup goes back some 10,000 to 15,000 years, so this could easily be possible. And yet it would seem that the upper castes who got a 2nd input of R1a probably were not the ones that spread Indo-European across Asia and Europe, but it was those first R1a settlers from India who do so. If enough time had elapsed these settlers might have even had a seperate language, and so could have been the origin of Indo European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-M17

The problem with this idea is that the main group associated with India from your link is R-M17, which is actually R1a1a and not the parent group R1a/R-M420. Since there is currently no concensus as to the parent groups (R1a/R-M420) geographical place of origin the available information cannot be used as supporting one location over another.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harte, on 12 March 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Your previous statement:
"Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India."

Aren't most people on Earth "from outside India?"

So, wouldn't it be true by necessity that "most people" that believe anything at all are "from outside India?"

Harte

Nevermind...........

[Harsh86_Patel]

DieChecker, on 12 March 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

You seem to misunderstand. You are right that going off small groups that the DNA could be from anywhere, but that is not the case here, there is widespread evidence, and genetic analysis that shows this to be true. Further, the evidence does point at the R1a haplogroup originating there, and there is much, much less evidence that it did not. When you find 3 or 4 sites with older human remains with R1a haplogroup DNA, INSIDE INDIA... please let me know. Till then, I will go with the scientific, peer reviewed, published, confirmed, and repeatedly so.... evidence of  the R1a groups migrations.

You are saying that the R1a might have orginated elsewhere, simply because you don't want it to have originated near the Caspian. The various dated human remains that have been found so far with the R1a haplogroup clearly show that it migrated out of the Caspian area. If you want to ignore that, fine, but it just shows you have an agenda, and donare willing to ignore facts and data to support that agenda.

I do agree, and did already, that an earlier group could have migrated there and brought the R1a group, but there is zero evidence that they came out of India. What I do believe is that it was these Kurgan peoples who migrated into Europe bringing Indo European. If you can prove that these Kurgan peoples (with a high incidence of R1a haplogroup) originated in India you would go a long way toward proving the OIT idea. Without that you are trying to prove the movement of culture without the movement of people.

So the better way to conclude would be that the so called genetic evidence (more likely should be called genetic observations) are inconclusive by themselves.The current genetic observations are in no way a hinderance to the OIT in any conclusive fashion.

[Harsh86_Patel]

DieChecker, on 13 March 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

What you're saying is true, but to date, studies of ancient DNA have generally pointed to the Caspian.

A modern map does not clearly represent ancient times. If you looked at a map of modern US ethnicities, you'd have to guess that Caucasians have always been the main population here.

There is almost as much R1A1 in the US and Canada as there is in Europe. Does that mean anything to where the R1A1 came from?

Lol.........so by your logic only places where archaeological digs have been systematic and successful only they can speak for Ancient history lol. Now the problem with the IVC and Indo Saraswatic Civilization is that there has been a continuity in these regions of cultured civilization since the start and the sites have been built over multiple times.
Again at whatever point of time you talk about you cannot attribute a geographical origin of a particular gene...you can only comment on whether a particular gene was present in a particular geographic location at a given point of time. Migrations cannnot be efficiently predicted by genetic data alone.

[DieChecker]

Harsh86_Patel, on 15 March 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

Lol.........so by your logic only places where archaeological digs have been systematic and successful only they can speak for Ancient history lol. Now the problem with the IVC and Indo Saraswatic Civilization is that there has been a continuity in these regions of cultured civilization since the start and the sites have been built over multiple times.
Again at whatever point of time you talk about you cannot attribute a geographical origin of a particular gene...you can only comment on whether a particular gene was present in a particular geographic location at a given point of time. Migrations cannnot be efficiently predicted by genetic data alone.

So are you basing your own opinion NOT on evidence supporting your idea, but on a percieved lack of evidence for the competing theory?

[Harsh86_Patel]

DieChecker, on 15 March 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

So are you basing your own opinion NOT on evidence supporting your idea, but on a percieved lack of evidence for the competing theory?

The evidence for the theory i support is based more on archaeology,culture,mythology and archaeo astronomy.

[DieChecker]

Harsh86_Patel, on 16 March 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

The evidence for the theory i support is based more on archaeology,culture,mythology and archaeo astronomy.

Modern culture and mythology? It has been about 4000 years.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 16 March 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

The evidence for the theory i support is based more on archaeology,culture,mythology and archaeo astronomy.

How would archaeoastronomy prove (or disprove) ancient migration patterns or language dissemination?

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 17 March 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

How would archaeoastronomy prove (or disprove) ancient migration patterns or language dissemination?

By verifying events mentioned in mythology and epics. The Indian epics like mahabharata and ramayana give detailed descriptions of the positions of various stars and heavenly bodies linked to important events which can be used as a reference to date the events. These epics especially the mahabharata talks about a ancient war and the results of the war and also of migrations etc.I have repeated this various time but once more wouldn't hurt eg- Kurrugan-Litereally translates in Sanskrit as 'soldiers of Kurru' which was the losing faction in the mahabharata and quite a few of the tribe were banished.
There are a quite a few precedents where myths are actually proven to be reality like the finding of troy,the saraswati river which was confirmed to be an actual river etc.

[Harsh86_Patel]

DieChecker, on 17 March 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

Modern culture and mythology? It has been about 4000 years.

It has been 4000 years but still there is archaeological and cultural continuity in the Indian subcontinent...........something that is not common for other ancient civilizations,in most other cases the current population that populates these ancient cities has undergone tremendous cultural change and in most cases holds no memory of the practices of the ancients in that region. For eg- The Ancient Egyptian civilization and the modern populous of Egypt, then the ancient Sumerian civilisation and the current population in that region.
Indian subcontinent is one of the very few geographical location where there is a archaeological and cultural continuation from the time of the ancients.People in India still adhere to the rituals and cultural paradigms mentioned in the Vedas and other Epics etc