Vedic culture and its modern relevance

[Harsh86_Patel]

It is, as you say, a matter of critical thinking faculties, insofar as I can reasonably and honestly apply those skills. If I (like a lot of people here) grossly over-estimate what I know, and somehow equate twenty minutes of internet research time on a given subject, then I lose the ability to correctly judge others' authority. Generally speaking, I the less I know about a subject the more I'm inclined to trust people with advanced degrees in that subject. It isn't fool-proof obviously, and I essentially have the ability to increase my own knowledge of a subject by study to be able to further rate others. And it's also possible for someone without advanced degrees to be very knowledgable.

Then it becomes a matter of recognizing how people use data and then use analysis to interpret the data logically. If people (like the L, for instance) want to talk about linguistics, but uses terminology from 75 or 100 years ago, this indicates he either doesn't know what he's talking about or is using data that is no longer useful. Or if he uses rational data to make irrational points -- a muppet once used the word orange in a sketch, therefore all muppets originate in Kerala, for instance.

Importantly, (like science) it's an on-going process rather than a one-time event, where you have the ability to change your mind. But like science, there are still general trends that it is more useful to assume are true than to pick out constant exceptions.

It is better to entertain alternatives, but not all alternatives are equal. It's deeply unfair and deeply undemocratic, yet it's undeniably true. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. I can theorize the moon spontaneously reformed itself out of Spam (or even Amour Potted Meat Food Product), but even if I truly, deeply, honestly believe that, should we send new missions to the moon just to check its' make-up? Obviously not.

--Jaylemurph

The same scepticism that you apply to internet researchers or claims made by people without degrees should also be used to analyse data put forward by the mainstream or people with degrees. You cannot discount information coming from a person bearing a degree just based on the assumption that he/she would know more.All i am saying is we should apply a uniform yardstick to all claims from all sources.

[Harsh86_Patel]

I'm sorry, but I usually go with the side that has the best... most... evidence. And that is the Kurgan Theory in this case. Even if the OIT is right, Indo-European would have HAD to have gone through that region. It must have. The fact that the R1A group does not show in India till a little later, and... not in as great a percentage... shows that it immigrated there, and started somewhere else. That somewhere else is generally considered to be the steppes around the Caspian.

If you don't think the people near the Caspian spread Indo-European, then how do you propose it got to Europe? Technically my comment is true with the Kurgan Theory or the OIT.

You seem to LOL without cause and just to try to appear Authoritative.

Come on... I loved Draconic's discussions. "Nessie is a fallen draconic angel", "Mokele Membe is a fallen draconic angel"....

Please tell me what evidence has convinced you of the Kurrugan Hypothesis? Is it archaeological? Is it cultural? When you will eliminate all forms of credible evidence you will only be left with some sort of Linguistic assumption which is subject to interpretation. If you are satisfied with such evidence then there is no argument between us.

As far as genetics is concerned...there is no way to pin down a particular gene to a particular geographical location at all.All you can do is analyse genetic information and comment on how long a gene has existed in a particular geographical location depending on the age of the sample.As little as twenty people (or a single family) carrying a specific gene could have travelled to any location and current analyses of the entire population in that region might be bearing that gene....Doesn't mean that the gene originated in that location.

But it is always a safe bet to side with what the majority is saying.....but sadly there is no real gains in such endeavours.

[+DieChecker]

As far as genetics is concerned...there is no way to pin down a particular gene to a particular geographical location at all.All you can do is analyse genetic information and comment on how long a gene has existed in a particular geographical location depending on the age of the sample.As little as twenty people (or a single family) carrying a specific gene could have travelled to any location and current analyses of the entire population in that region might be bearing that gene....Doesn't mean that the gene originated in that location.

Yet... if... IF, mind you... hundreds of samples are found in many locations and all correspond to the theory, it would be a pretty solid theory. To my knowledge and as well as I've been able to find online... Over the last 3 years.... I've seen the majority of evidence pointing that R1A came out of the Caspian area. And the genetics show that this genetic type migrated into Europe, the Middle East and down into India... all at the time of the supposed movement of Indo European into those areas.

So either the Kurgan Theory is probably right, or the Kurgan type peoples gained their language out of India at some earlier time.... which AFAIK is not supported by any analysis done to this point.

It is fine to be Skeptical. But, there comes a point where you are requiring people to "Do their own research", in order to not automatically discount them, that you are asking for each person to be an expert in Language, DNA, History and probably a half dozen other subjects... and a Degree apparently is not good enough..... When the internet (with scientific published sources noted) says one theory is the main contender for XYZ reasons, it is a good bet that XYZ are real reasons.

Edited March 11, 2013 by DieChecker

[Harsh86_Patel]

Yet... if... IF, mind you... hundreds of samples are found in many locations and all correspond to the theory, it would be a pretty solid theory. To my knowledge and as well as I've been able to find online... Over the last 3 years.... I've seen the majority of evidence pointing that R1A came out of the Caspian area. And the genetics show that this genetic type migrated into Europe, the Middle East and down into India... all at the time of the supposed movement of Indo European into those areas.

So either the Kurgan Theory is probably right, or the Kurgan type peoples gained their language out of India at some earlier time.... which AFAIK is not supported by any analysis done to this point.

It is fine to be Skeptical. But, there comes a point where you are requiring people to "Do their own research", in order to not automatically discount them, that you are asking for each person to be an expert in Language, DNA, History and probably a half dozen other subjects... and a Degree apparently is not good enough..... When the internet (with scientific published sources noted) says one theory is the main contender for XYZ reasons, it is a good bet that XYZ are real reasons.

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.

[Harte]

Draconic Chronicler

What part of "He who must not be named" do you not understand?

Harte

[Harte]

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]

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]

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....

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.biomedcentral.com/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[The_Spartan]

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.

1. Some peer reviewed papers on these aracheo astornomical events correlated to the epics would be highly welcome.

2. Kurgan does not originate from Kuru. The word Kurgan originates from Russian wgich in turn dervies it from turkish

1. A type of tumulus or barrow characteristic of a culture located on the steppes of southern Russia about 5000 B.C. and later spreading to the Danube, northern Europe, and northern Iran from around 3500 B.C.
   
2. Kurgan
   a. The culture that produced these tumuli or barrows.
   b. A member of the people or peoples sharing this culture. The earliest Kurgans are considered by some to be speakers of Proto-Indo-European.
   

http://www.yourdictionary.com/kurgan

Its a surpirse that you, inspite of an indian, beating about on drums about the glory of vedas and all , do not take into account the true meaning of Kuru or kauravas.

For your education : kuru - was an Indo-Aryan Tribe, based aorund delhi, Haryana and uttar pradesh, Hastinapur being their kingdom. In the Epic Mahabharatha, the Kauravas, the sons od King Dhritarashtra are mentioned as Kurus, though pandavas, sons of Pandu, Dhritarashtra's brother are not mentioned as Kurus since they were exiled out of the the kuru kingdom.

The Kuru tribe was formed, in the Early Vedic period, as a result of the alliance and merger between the Bharata and Puru tribes.^[6] They formed the first political center of the Vedic period, with its capital initially at Hastinapur, and were the center of political power during roughly 1200 to 800 BCE.^[7] Towards the end of the Early Vedic period, the capital of the Kurus was transferred to Kaushambi, in the lower Doab, after Hastinapur was destroyed by floods ^[8] as well as because of upheavals in the Kuru family itself.^[9][10]

Eventually, in the post Vedic period, the Kuru dynasty evolved into Kuru and Vats kingdoms, ruling over Upper Doab/Delhil/Haryana and lower Doab, respectively. The Vatsa branch of the Kuru dynasty further divided into Vats (Kaushambi) and Vats(Mathura) branches.^[11]

please note that the Kurus didnt get exiled out of the Indian Sub Continent into the siberian wilderness.They lived, fought, split up and died in their own lands.

3. Most of the Vedas and other religuious texts ahve been edited over thorugh out the ancient times. Few Asuras (evil in the earlier editions) turn into Devas (in the newer editions). Try varuna, Mitra...they were asuras in the old and what are they now?? Devas of course. Myths and fairy tales were constantly assimilated into the religious texts in the ancient times.

Dont buy it on the **** that people now, in India are following "cultural paradigms" from ancient times. NO. NO.NO. Cutlure, My Foot!!

The Indian Woman who is to be respected is treated as objects of lust and rape.

Edited March 18, 2013 by The_Spartan

[+DieChecker]

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.

One point I found interesting relating to the R1a haplogroup and the Kurgan people, is that the various R1a lines found in Europe and the Middle East and China, all seem to be decended from one group. But in India they have many, many more lines. This would indicate that the R1a did begin somewhere in or near India, but it also says that those who spread it into Europe were probably from a single tribe/group, since if they had been a homogenous Indian group, the other older, and the more varied lines would show up in the genetic historical record.

The thinking in this scenario would then be that the Proto-Indo-Europeans broke off from their original R1 group quite a long time before the rapid spread of Indo-European languages. Perhaps even generating their own language, which came to be the Proto-Indo-European language.

In a 2011 genetic study "confirmed the existence of a general principal component cline stretching from Europe to south India." They concluded that "the Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP".

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Out_of_india

Another interesting thing is that even as far back as the Vedic age, the language spoke in India had Dravidian words and phrases, however such Dravidian influences are absent from all other Indo-European languages.

The Indic languages show the influence of the Dravidian and Munda language families. No other branch of Indo-European does. If the Indo-European homeland had been located in India, then the Indo-European languages should have shown some influence from Dravidian and Munda.

One other thing. Look at R1b, which is a brother line of R1a. It is today most heavily represented in Western Europe (Spain, England and France), Camaroon in central Africa and the Bashkiers region of Russia. None of which is even close to the area just north and west of India where R1 is assumed to have started. If R1a is from India, then R1b would be too. But, the modern map would seem to indicate otherwise, yes?

Edited March 18, 2013 by DieChecker

[cormac mac airt]

One point I found interesting relating to the R1a haplogroup and the Kurgan people, is that the various R1a lines found in Europe and the Middle East and China, all seem to be decended from one group. But in India they have many, many more lines. This would indicate that the R1a did begin somewhere in or near India, but it also says that those who spread it into Europe were probably from a single tribe/group, since if they had been a homogenous Indian group, the other older, and the more varied lines would show up in the genetic historical record.

The thinking in this scenario would then be that the Proto-Indo-Europeans broke off from their original R1 group quite a long time before the rapid spread of Indo-European languages. Perhaps even generating their own language, which came to be the Proto-Indo-European language.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Out_of_india

Another interesting thing is that even as far back as the Vedic age, the language spoke in India had Dravidian words and phrases, however such Dravidian influences are absent from all other Indo-European languages.

One other thing. Look at R1b, which is a brother line of R1a. It is today most heavily represented in Western Europe (Spain, England and France), Camaroon in central Africa and the Bashkiers region of Russia. None of which is even close to the area just north and west of India where R1 is assumed to have started. If R1a is from India, then R1b would be too. But, the modern map would seem to indicate otherwise, yes?

Actually no, DieChecker. And this is where such maps can become conveniently misleading. While the groups with the higher percentages (deep purple) can be seen in western Europe this is NOT the parent group R1b itself. These are actually subgroups comprised primarily of R1b1a2a1a1b (Spain c.6630 BC) and R1b1a2a1a1b4/R-L21 (England/Ireland c.6514 BC). Even the subgroup that can be associated with an entrance into Europe is not the parent group, but is R1b1a2/R-M269 from Anatolia c.7000 BC. Also, the one item from your wiki link that continuously gets glossed over in favor of an alleged AIT is this, which still remains true:

Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP.

In short the actual studies concerning the prior origin of R1a or R1b make the AIT a moot point.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

Actually no, DieChecker. And this is where such maps can become conveniently misleading. While the groups with the higher percentages (deep purple) can be seen in western Europe this is NOT the parent group R1b itself. These are actually subgroups comprised primarily of R1b1a2a1a1b (Spain c.6630 BC) and R1b1a2a1a1b4/R-L21 (England/Ireland c.6514 BC). Even the subgroup that can be associated with an entrance into Europe is not the parent group, but is R1b1a2/R-M269 from Anatolia c.7000 BC. Also, the one item from your wiki link that continuously gets glossed over in favor of an alleged AIT is this, which still remains true:

In short the actual studies concerning the prior origin of R1a or R1b make the AIT a moot point.

cormac

Ok. But you see where I was going, right? The density of a populations haplogroup in modern populations has little to do with where it originated.

[cormac mac airt]

Ok. But you see where I was going, right? The density of a populations haplogroup in modern populations has little to do with where it originated.

Yes I see where you were going. Unfortunately many who read such maps will not understand in what context "R1b"* is being used and will likely assume it's the parent group when it quite often isn't. But then again such studies were written by professionals for professionals so they're all on the same page, as it were, anyway.

* or some other mentioned subgroup.

cormac