The Aryan Invasion of India: Fact or Fiction?

[Morpheus]

Note: This thread is being forwarded to Phora from MootStormfront in the interest of stirring discussion. I'm aware that the article has been posted here before though it seems to have been posted without the study. I'd like to see if anyone has any arguments against the material presented here.

The pre-history of India is a hotly disputed subject among academics. More specifically the founding of Indus Valley Civilization and Hindu culture as well as the genetic diversity of the sub-continent and how this plays into the historical development of the region has interested scholars for years.

One such theory is that the Dravidian people of Southern India once dominated the entire landmass and that these people were later civilized by a group of migrants from the Central Asian steppes who brought with them their
language, culture as well as intermingled with the natives to an extent that they established an ethnic hiearchy based on race which came to be the origins of the Hindu caste system which is said by some scholars, referencing Vedic texts, to be based on skin color.

These tribal invaders were called Aryans by scholars and were believed to be the original speakers of the language Sanskrit a language related to Indo-European.

These "Aryans" were said to be the first speakers of Proto-Indo-European (also called Indo-Aryan) a hypothesized progenitor language spoken by an original people.

Because of their alleged ability to found civilizations they were regarded as a "Master Race".


More details on the myth of the Aryan Invasion can be viewed here:

-March of the Titans- Chapter 5: Born of the Black Sea - The Indo-European Invasions (http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5c.htm)

The Aryan Invasion has been used to jutsify everything from British imperialism to Hitler's theories of German Supremacy.

But does this theory have historical merit, or is it just a myth?

Some scholars say no, and give reasons for why it is a appaling theory to teach as history.

Read: Myth of Aryan Invasion - by David Frawley (http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html)

Excerpt:


The acceptance of these views would create a revolution in our view of history. It would make ancient India the oldest, largest and most central of ancient cultures. It would mean that the 'Vedas' are our most authentic records of the ancient world. It would also tend to validate the Vedic view that the Indo-Europeans and other Aryan peoples were migrants from India, not that the Indo-Aryans were invaders into India. Moreover, it would affirm the Hindu tradition that the Dravidians were early offshoots of the Vedic people through the seer Agastya, and not unaryan peoples.

In closing, it is important to examine the social and political implications of the Aryan invasion idea:
1. It served to divide India into a northern Aryan and southern Dravidian culture which were made hostile to each other.

2. It gave the British an excuse in their conquest of India. They could claim to be doing only what the Aryan ancestors of the Hindus had previously done millennia ago.

3. It served to make Vedic culture later than and possibly derived from Middle Eastern cultures. With the proximity and relationship of the latter with the Bible and Christianity, this kept the Hindu religion as a sidelight to the development of religion and civilization to the West.

4. It discredited not only the 'Vedas' but the genealogies of the 'Puranas' and their long list of the kings before Buddha like Rama and Krishna were left without any historical basis. The 'Mahabharata', instead of the great war, became a folk lore. In short, it discredited the most of the Hindu tradition and almost all its ancient literature. It turned its scriptures and sages into fantacies and exaggerations.

5. It served a social, political and economical purpose of domination, proving the superiority of Western culture and religion.

Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual spehere what the British army did in the political realm discredit, divide and conquer the Hindus. The compelling reasons for the AIT were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious. Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking.

While scholars such as Frawley focus on the historical records and lack of archeological evidence for the Aryan Invasion Theory, other scholars give us further insight into the subject through genetic analysis.

If an Indo-European people from Central Asia did intermingle with the native population to the extent that Aryanists insist that they did there should be genetic evidence and infact some studies in the past have claimed to provide such evidence.

But a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, has provided evidence concluding that no such foreign infiltration into India took place....

National Geographic article on genetic makeup of India:

India Acquired Language, Not Genes From the West

by Brian Handwerk, National Geographic News, January 10, 2006

Most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers, a new genetic study reports.

http://www.sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/images/hs6015.jpg

The Indian subcontinent may have acquired agricultural techniques and languages—but it absorbed few genes—from the west, said Vijendra Kashyap, director of India's National Institute of Biologicals in Noida.

The finding disputes a long-held theory that a large invasion of central Asians, traveling through a northwest Indian corridor, shaped the language, culture, and gene pool of many modern Indians within the past 10,000 years.

That theory is bolstered by the presence of Indo-European languages in India, the archaeological record, and historic sources such as the Rig Veda, an early Indian religious text.

Some previous genetic studies have also supported the concept.

But Kashyap's findings, published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, stand at odds with those results.

True Ancestors

Testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups throughout India, Kashyap's team examined 936 Y chromosomes. (The chromosome determines gender; males carry it, but women do not.)

http://www.sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/images/IndoEuropeanLanguageDiffusion.jpg

The data reveal that the large majority of modern Indians descended from South Asian ancestors who lived on the Indian subcontinent before an influx of agricultural techniques from the north and west arrived some 10,000 years ago.

Most geneticists believe that humans first reached India via a coastal migration route perhaps 50,000 years ago.

Soon after leaving Africa, these early humans are believed to have followed the coast through southern India and eventually continued on to populate distant Australia.

Peter Underhill, a research scientist at the Stanford University School of Medicine's department of genetics, says he harbors no doubts that Indo-European speakers did move into India. But he agrees with Kashyap that their genetic contribution appears small.

"It doesn't look like there was a massive flow of genes that came in a few thousand years ago," he said. "Clearly people came in to India and brought their culture, language, and some genes."

"But I think that the genetic impact of those people was minor," he added. "You'd don't really see an equivalent genetic replacement the way that you do with the language replacement."

Language, Genes Tell Different Tales

Kashyap and his colleagues say their findings may explain the prevalence of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi and Bengali, in northern India and their relative absence in the south.

"The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.

He argues that even wholesale language changes can and do occur without genetic mixing of populations.

"It is generally assumed that language is more strongly correlated to genetics, as compared to social status or geography, because humans mostly do not tend to cross language boundaries while choosing marriage partners," Kashyap said.

"Although few of the earlier studies have shown that language is a good predictor of genetic affinity and that Y chromosome is more strongly correlated with linguistic boundaries, it is not always so," he added.

"Language can be acquired [and] has been in cases of 'elite dominance,' where adoption of a language can be forced but strong genetic differences remain the lack of admixture between the dominant and the weak populations."

If steppe-dwelling Central Asians did lend language and technology, but not many genes, to northern India, the region may have changed far less over the centuries than previously believed.

"I think if you could get into a time machine and visit northern India 10,000 years ago, you'd see people … similar to the people there today," Underhill said. "They wouldn't be similar to people from Bangalore [in the south]."

Source (http://www.sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/02-09_India_Acquired_Language.php?uid=1506)


Study being referenced by the article:

[B]A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios

Sanghamitra Sahoo {dagger}, Anamika Singh {dagger}, G. Himabindu {dagger}, Jheelam Banerjee {dagger}, T. Sitalaximi {dagger}, Sonali Gaikwad {dagger}, R. Trivedi {dagger}, Phillip Endicott {ddagger}, Toomas Kivisild §, Mait Metspalu §, Richard Villems §, and V. K. Kashyap {dagger}, ¶, ||

{dagger}National DNA Analysis Centre, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata 700014, India; {ddagger}Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom; §Estonian Biocentre, 51010 Tartu, Estonia; and ¶National Institute of Biologicals, Noida 201307, India

Edited by Colin Renfrew, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and approved November 23, 2005 (received for review September 5, 2005)

Understanding the genetic origins and demographic history of Indian populations is important both for questions concerning the early settlement of Eurasia and more recent events, including the appearance of Indo-Aryan languages and settled agriculture in the subcontinent. Although there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India, some studies of the Y-chromosome markers have suggested a recent, substantial incursion from Central or West Eurasia. To investigate the origin of paternal lineages of Indian populations, 936 Y chromosomes, representing 32 tribal and 45 caste groups from all four major linguistic groups of India, were analyzed for 38 single-nucleotide polymorphic markers. Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward. The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family. The dyadic Y-chromosome composition of Tibeto-Burman speakers of India, however, can be attributed to a recent demographic process, which appears to have absorbed and overlain populations who previously spoke Austro-Asiatic languages.

agriculture | genetic origins | India | paternal lineages

Abstract (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/4/843)

PDF (http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/prehistory_of_indian.pdf)

It would seem by the latest evidence that Aryanism has been turned on its head.

Not only have inaccuracies in the cultural and archeological claims of the theory been revealed but now genetic theories have been refuted.

Is the theory of The Aryan Invasion of India Fact or Fiction?


Mansa's Verdict: Fiction


This thread is open for comments, questions and debate.

Related Links:

1. The Dying God: The Hidden History of Western Civilization - The Aryan Myth (http://www.thedyinggod.com/aryan.html)

2. The myth of the Aryan Invasion (http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html)

3. Aryan Invasion Theory Myth (http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html)

4.The Harappan Civilization and Myth of Aryan "Invasion" (http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-harappan-myth.html)

[Ahknaton]

Regardless of the status of Aryan Invasion Theory, the concept of an Indo-European racial group is still meaningful.

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/race.html

"A detailed genetic analysis of more than a thousand human subjects clusters them into five groups corresponding to major geographical regions. This new study shows that self-reported ancestry is a good predictor of one's genetic make-up.

"The novelty of the recent work of Rosenberg et al. [Science, 2002] is precisely that they have checked the validity of the population-sampling approach and tried to define the genetic structure of the human population without using a priori information on the geographic origin of the individuals. For that purpose, they used the structure program, which attempts to find, for each individual, the proportion of its genome that comes from a given 'population', whose unknown genetic constitution is estimated in the same process. This procedure is performed successively with the assumption of an increasing number of 'populations' or clusters (K): K = 2, 3, 4 and so on.

"Rosenberg et al. applied this procedure to 1056 individuals analyzed for 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci. This data set is the first outcome of the analysis of a cell-line panel of 52 worldwide populations.... The results obtained...are quite remarkable. For K = 2 case, where it is assumed that there are two clusters, a contrast is found between individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and native Amerindians. Individuals from other regions seem to harbor various proportions of 'African' genes, with a tendency to a dilution of these genes with distance from Africa.

"Assuming that three populations are present (K = 3) leads to a split of individuals found in sub-Saharan Africa from those found in Europe, North-Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan (Figure 1, barrier 2). With K = 4, a cluster of Asiatic and Oceanian individuals separates from Amerindians (Figure 1, barrier 3). With K = 5, an Oceanian cluster appears (Figure 1, barrier 4), and we are left with the pleasant picture of a world divided into genetic clusters that closely correspond to five geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Oceania, the Americas and the rest, comprising Europe, North Africa and West Asia. ... It thus seems that these five groups do correspond to major subdivisions of the human population."
http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/genetic_clusters.gif

[cerberus]

Does this not seem to be just a lot of "Ayran" propaganda to keep the mythof a master race alive and meaningful ?
India had a culture when Alexander went there , Egypt was a major cultural and Imperial power for two thousnad years.
China likewise and Japan.
Don't get so hung up on it , next thing you will be sending people to Tibet to measure the heds of locals and to dig up people you think might be related to you.( aka Himmler).

[Ambrosio Spinola]

What sort of troll was that Cerberus? Saying the same migrations that spread westwards throughout europe 2000-1500 BC could or should (in lieu of not offending anyone, God forbid) not have spread eastwards is pretty retarded. If they did then they did, nothing to do with your knee jerk "OMG teh Himmler and the SS Uber Aryan Einsatzgruppen send people to the Himlayas". Jeeez

[Will Scarlet]

Mansa's Verdict: Fiction



The great Toby has spoken!


Seriously, though, how does any of that argue against the migration/invasion? It merely suggests that there wasn't widespread mixture with the natives.

[WFHermans]

The Aryan Invasion of India is considered "evil", and "therefore it is not true".
What kind of logic is that?

[cerberus]

That word Aryan - does my head in.

[Will Scarlet]

That word Aryan - does my head in.


I think it's a pretty word. You like Van Morrison?

Aryan mist
Among the bridges
You hang by the river
You've been here forever
Aryan mist

What can the matter be
In a world full of glamour?
Does it lift you up
Or is it railway carriage charm?

You just sit here
And look from your carriage
As you watch the scene go by

Gurus from the east
Gurus from the west
Does it lift you up
Or is it railway carriage charm?

Aryan mist
Among the bridges
You hang by the river
You've been here forever
Aryan mist
Aryan mist

There's so many people
Going down by the river
Down by the river
To get clean

The fog of illusion
The fog of confusion
Is hanging all over the world

Gurus from the east
Gurus from the west
Does it lift you up
Or is it railway carriage charm?

Aryan mist
You've been here forever
Remind me of Krishna
Love first sweet kiss
Aryan mist

Aryan mist
Among the bridges
You hang by the river
You've been here forever
Aryan mist

Does it lift you up?

[Fade the Butcher]

Seriously, though, how does any of that argue against the migration/invasion? It merely suggests that there wasn't widespread mixture with the natives.

Deconstructionist's Verdict: Fact

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/11/6/994?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=India&searchid=1045357298861_397&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=genome

Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

Michael Bamshad,1,10,12 Toomas Kivisild,2 W. Scott Watkins,3 Mary E. Dixon,3 Chris E. Ricker,3 Baskara B. Rao,4 J. Mastan Naidu,4 B.V. Ravi Prasad,4,5 P. Govinda Reddy,6 Arani Rasanayagam,7 Surinder S. Papiha,8 Richard Villems,2 Alan J. Redd,7 Michael F. Hammer,7 Son V. Nguyen,9 Marion L. Carroll,9 Mark A. Batzer,9,11 and Lynn B. Jorde3

Abstract

The origins and affinities of the ~1 billion people living on the subcontinent of India have long been contested. This is owing, in part, to the many different waves of immigrants that have influenced the genetic structure of India. In the most recent of these waves, Indo-European-speaking people from West Eurasia entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the subcontinent. They purportedly admixed with or displaced indigenous Dravidic-speaking populations. Subsequently they may have established the Hindu caste system and placed themselves primarily in castes of higher rank. To explore the impact of West Eurasians on contemporary Indian caste populations, we compared mtDNA (400 bp of hypervariable region 1 and 14 restriction site polymorphisms) and Y-chromosome (20 biallelic polymorphisms and 5 short tandem repeats) variation in ~265 males from eight castes of different rank to ~750 Africans, Asians, Europeans, and other Indians. For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%-30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank. Nevertheless, the mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome each represents only a single haploid locus and is more susceptible to large stochastic variation, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps. Thus, to increase the power of our analysis, we assayed 40 independent, biparentally inherited autosomal loci (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu elements) in all of the caste and continental populations (~600 individuals). Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians. We conclude that Indian castes are most likely to be of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture resulting in rank-related and sex-specific differences in the genetic affinities of castes to Asians and Europeans.

INTRODUCTION

Shared Indo-European languages (i.e., Hindi and most European languages) suggested to linguists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that contemporary Hindu Indians are descendants of primarily West Eurasians who migrated from Europe, the Near East, Anatolia, and the Caucasus 3000-8000 years ago (Poliakov 1974; Renfrew 1989a,b). These nomadic migrants may have consolidated their power by admixing with native Dravidic-speaking (e.g., Telugu) proto-Asian populations who controlled regional access to land, labor, and resources (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), and subsequently established the Hindu caste hierarchy to legitimize and maintain this power (Poliakov 1974; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). It is plausible that these West Eurasian immigrants also appointed themselves to predominantly castes of higher rank. However, archaeological evidence of the diffusion of material culture from Western Eurasia into India has been limited (Shaffer 1982). Therefore, information on the genetic relationships of Indians to Europeans and Asians could contribute substantially to understanding the origins of Indian populations.

Previous genetic studies of Indian castes have failed to achieve a consensus on Indian origins and affinities. Various results have supported closer affinity of Indian castes either with Europeans or with Asians, and several factors underlie this inconsistency. First, erratic or limited sampling of populations has limited inferences about the relationships between caste and continental populations (i.e., Africans, Asians, Europeans). These relationships are further confounded by the wide geographic dispersal of caste populations. Genetic affinities among caste populations are, in part, inversely correlated with the geographic distance between them (Malhotra and Vasulu 1993), and it is likely that affinities between caste and continental populations are also geographically dependent (e.g., different between North and South Indian caste populations). Second, it has been suggested that castes of different rank may have originated from or admixed with different continental groups (Majumder and Mukherjee 1993). Third, the size of caste populations varies widely, and the effects of genetic drift on some small, geographically isolated castes may have been substantial. Fourth, most of the polymorphisms assayed over the last 30 years are indirect measurements of genetic variation (e.g., ABO typing), have been sampled from only a few loci, and may not be selectively neutral. Finally, only rarely have systematic comparisons been made with continental populations using a large, uniform set of DNA polymorphisms (Majumder 1999).

To investigate the origin of contemporary castes, we compared the genetic affinities of caste populations of differing rank (i.e., upper, middle, and lower) to worldwide populations. We analyzed mtDNA (hypervariable region 1 [HVR1] sequence and 14 restriction-site polymorphisms [RSPs]), Y-chromosome (5 short-tandem repeats [STRs] and 20 biallelic polymorphisms), and autosomal (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu inserts) variation in ~265 males from eight different Telugu-speaking caste populations from the state of Andhra Pradesh in South India (Bamshad et al. 1998). Comparisons were made to ~400 individuals from tribal and Hindi-speaking caste and populations distributed across the Indian subcontinent (Mountain et al. 1995; Kivisild et al. 1999) and to ~350 Africans, Asians, and Europeans (Jorde et al. 1995, 2000; Seielstad et al. 1999).

[Fade the Butcher]

RESULTS

Analysis of mtDNA Suggests a Proto-Asian Origin of Indians

MtDNA HVR1 genetic distances between caste populations and Africans, Asians, and Europeans are significantly different from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal that, regardless of rank, each caste group is most closely related to Asians and is most dissimilar from Africans (Table 1). The genetic distances from major continental populations (e.g., Europeans) differ among the three caste groups, and the comparison reveals an intriguing pattern. As one moves from lower to upper castes, the distance from Asians becomes progressively larger. The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-European distance. These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis. This may be owing, in part, to the small sample size (n = 10) of each of these castes. Among the upper castes the genetic distance between Brahmins and Europeans (0.10) is smaller than that between either the Kshatriya and Europeans (0.12) or the Vysya and Europeans (0.16). Assuming that contemporary Europeans reflect West Eurasian affinities, these data indicate that the amount of West Eurasian admixture with Indian populations may have been proportionate to caste rank.

Conventional estimates of the standard errors of genetic distances assume that polymorphic sites are independent of each other, that is, unlinked. Because mtDNA polymorphisms are in complete linkage disequilibrium (as are polymorphisms on the nonrecombining portions of the Y chromosome), this assumption is violated. Alternatively, the mtDNA genome can be treated as a single locus with multiple haplotypes. However, even if this assumption is made, mtDNA distances do not differ significantly from one another even at the level of the three major continental populations (Nei and Livshits 1989), the standard errors being greater than the genetic distances. Considering that the distances between castes and continental populations are less than those between different continental populations, the estimated mtDNA genetic distances between upper castes and Europeans versus lower castes and Europeans would not be significantly different from each other. Therefore, to resolve further the relationships of Europeans and Asians to contemporary Indian populations, we defined the identities of specific mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes.

The presence of the mtDNA restriction sites DdeI10,394 and AluI10,397 defines a haplogroup (a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variants), M, that was originally identified in populations that migrated from mainland Asia to Southeast Asia and Australia (Ballinger et al. 1992; Chen et al. 1995; Passarino et al. 1996) and is found at much lower frequency in European and African populations. Most of the common haplotypes found in Telugu- and Hindi-speaking caste populations belong to haplogroup M (Table 2) and do not differentiate into language-specific clusters in a phylogenetic reconstruction (Fig. 1). Furthermore, these Indian haplogroup-M haplotypes are distinct from those found in other Asian populations (Fig. 2) and indicate the existence of Indian-specific subsets of haplogroup M (e.g., M3). As expected if the lower castes are more similar to Asians than to Europeans, and the upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, the frequencies of M and M3 haplotypes are inversely proportional to caste rank (Table 2).

Of the non-Asian mtDNA haplotypes found in Indian populations, most are of West Eurasian origin (Table 2; Torroni et al. 1994; Richards et al. 1998). However, most of these Indian West-Eurasian haplotypes belong to an Indian-specific subset of haplogroup U, that is, U2i (Kivisild et al. 1999), the oldest and second most common mtDNA haplogroup found in Europe (Torroni et al. 1994). In agreement with the HVR1 results, the frequency of West Eurasian mtDNA haplotypes is significantly higher in upper castes than in lower castes (p < 0.05), the frequency of U2i haplotypes increasing as one moves from lower to higher castes. In addition, the frequency of mtDNA haplogroups with a more recent coalescence estimate (i.e., H, I, J, K, T) was fivefold higher in upper castes (6.8%) than in lower castes (1.4%). These haplotypes are derivatives of haplogroups found throughout Europe (Richards et al. 1998), the Middle East (Di Rienzo and Wilson 1991), and to a lesser extent Central Asia (Comas et al. 1998). Collectively, the mtDNA haplotype evidence indicate that contemporary Indian mtDNA evolved largely from proto-Asian ancestors with Western Eurasian admixture accounting for 20%-30% of mtDNA haplotypes.

Y-Chromosome Variation Confirms Indo-European Admixture

Genetic distances estimated from Y-chromosome STR polymorphisms differ significantly from zero (p < 0.001) and reveal a distinctly different pattern of population relationships (Table 3). In contrast to the mtDNA distances, the Y-chromosome STR data do not demonstrate a closer affinity to Asians for each caste group. Upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians, middle castes are equidistant from the two groups, and lower castes are most similar to Asians. The genetic distance between caste populations and Africans is progressively larger moving from lower to middle to upper caste groups (Table 3).

Genetic distances estimated from Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms differ significantly from zero (p < 0.05), and the patterns differ from the mtDNA results even more strikingly than the Y-chromosome STRs. For Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphism data, each caste group is more similar to Europeans (Table 4), and as one moves from lower to middle to higher castes the genetic distance to Europeans diminishes progressively. This pattern is further accentuated by separating the European population into Northern, Southern, and Eastern Europeans; each caste group is most closely related to Eastern Europeans. Moreover, the genetic distance between upper castes and Eastern Europeans is approximately half the distance between Eastern Europeans and middle or lower castes. These results suggest that Indian Y chromosomes, particularly upper caste Y chromosomes, are more similar to European than to Asian Y chromosomes. This underscores the close affinities between Hindu Indian and Indo-European Y chromosomes based on a previously reported analysis of three Y-chromosome polymorphisms (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999b).

Overall, these results indicate that the affinities of Indians to continental populations varies according to caste rank and depends on whether mtDNA or Y-chromosome data are analyzed. However, conclusions drawn from these data are limited because mtDNA and the Y chromosome is each effectively a single haploid locus and is more sensitive to genetic drift, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps compared to autosomal loci. These limitations of our analysis can be overcome, in part, by analyzing a larger set of independent autosomal loci. Consequently, we assayed 1 LINE-1 and 39 unlinked Alu polymorphisms.

Affinities to Europeans and Asians Stratified by Caste Rank

Genetic distances estimated from autosomal Alu elements correspond to caste rank, the genetic distance between the upper and lower castes being more than 2.5 times larger than the distance between upper and middle or middle and lower castes (upper to middle, 0.0069; upper to lower, 0.018; middle to lower, 0.0071). These trends are the same whether the Kshatriya and Vysya are included in the upper castes, the middle castes, or excluded from the analysis (data not shown). Furthermore, a neighbor-joining network of genetic distances between separate castes (Fig. 3) clearly differentiates castes of different rank into separate clusters. This is similar to the relationship between genetic distances and caste rank estimated from mtDNA (Bamshad et al. 1998). It is important to note, however, that the autosomal genetic distances are estimated from 40 independent loci. This afforded us the opportunity to test the statistical significance of the correspondence between genetic distance and caste status. The Mantel correlation between interindividual genetic distances and distances based on social rank was low but highly significant for individuals ranked into upper, middle, and lower groups (r = 0.08; p < 0.001) and into eight separate castes (r = 0.07; p < 0.001). Given the resolving power of this autosomal dataset, we next tested whether we could reconcile the results of the analysis of mtDNA and Y-chromosome markers in castes and continental populations.

Genotypic differentiation was significantly different from zero (p < 0.0001) between each pair of caste populations and between each caste and continental population. Similar to the results of both the mtDNA and Y-chromosome analyses, the distance between upper castes and European populations is smaller than the distance between lower castes and Europeans (Table 5). However, in contrast to the mtDNA results but similar to the Y-chromosome results, the affinity between upper castes and Europeans is higher than that of upper castes and Asians (Table 5). If the Kshatriya and Vysya are excluded from the analysis or included in the middle castes, the genetic distance between the upper caste (Brahmins) and Europeans remains smaller than the distance between the lower castes and Europeans and the distance between upper castes and Asians (Table 5). Analysis of each caste separately reveals that the genetic distance between the Brahmins and Europeans (0.013) is less than the distance between Europeans and Kshatryia (0.030) or Vysya (0.020). Nevertheless, each separate upper caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians.

[Fade the Butcher]

Because historical evidence suggests greater affinity between upper castes and Europeans than between lower castes and Europeans (Balakrishnan 1978, 1982; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), it is appropriate to use a one-tailed test of the difference between the corresponding genetic distances. The 90% confidence limits of Nei's standard distances estimated between upper castes and Europeans (0.006-0.016) versus lower castes and Europeans (0.017-0.037) do not overlap, indicating statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Significance at 0.05 is not achieved if the Kshatriya and Vysya are excluded. These results offer statistical support for differences in the genetic affinity of Europeans to caste populations of differing rank, with greater European affinity to upper castes than to lower castes.

DISCUSSION

Previous genetic studies have found evidence to support either a European or an Asian origin of Indian caste populations, with occasional indications of admixture with African or proto-Australoid populations (Chen et al. 1995; Mountain et al. 1995; Bamshad et al. 1996, 1997; Majumder et al. 1999; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes. This result appears to be owing to the amalgamation of two different patterns of sex-specific genetic variation.

The majority of Indian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes belong to Indian-specific subsets (e.g., M3) of a predominantly Asian haplogroup M, although a substantial minority of mtDNA restriction site haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups. A higher proportion of proto-Asian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes is found in lower castes compared to middle or upper castes, whereas the frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes is positively correlated with caste rank, that is, is highest in the upper castes. For Y-chromosome STR variation the upper castes exhibit greatest similarity with Europeans, whereas the lower caste groups are most similar to Asians. For Y biallelic polymorphism variation, each caste group is more similar to Europeans than to Asians, and the affinity to Europeans is proportional to caste rank, that is, is highest in the upper castes.

Importantly, five different types of data (mtDNA HVR1 sequence, mtDNA RSPs, Y-chromosome STRs, Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, and autosomal Alu polymorphisms) support the same general pattern: relatively smaller genetic distances from European populations as one moves from lower to middle to upper caste populations. Genetic distances from Asian populations become larger as one moves from lower to middle to upper caste populations. It is especially noteworthy that the analysis of Y biallelic polymorphisms, which involved an independent set of comparative Asian, European, and African populations, again indicated the same pattern. Additional support is offered by the fact that the autosomal polymorphisms yielded a statistically significant difference between the upper-caste-European and lower-caste-European genetic distances. With additional loci, other differences (e.g., the distances between different caste groups and Asians) may also reach statistical significance.

The most likely explanation for these findings, and the one most consistent with archaeological data, is that contemporary Hindu Indians are of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture. However, admixture with West Eurasian males was greater than admixture with West Eurasian females, resulting in a higher affinity to European Y chromosomes. This supports an earlier suggestion of Passarino et al. (1996), which was based on a comparison of mtDNA and blood group results. Furthermore, the degree of West Eurasian admixture was proportional to caste rank. This explanation is consistent with either the hypothesis that proportionately more West Eurasians became members of the upper castes at the inception of the caste hierarchy or that social stratification preceded the West Eurasian incursion and that West Eurasians tended to insert themselves into higher-ranking positions. One consequence is that shared Indo-European languages may not reflect a common origin of Europeans and most Indians, but rather underscores the transfer of language mediated by contact between West Eurasians and native proto-Indians.

West Eurasian admixture in Indian populations may have been the result of more than one wave of immigration into India. Kivisild et al. (1999) determined the coalescence (~50,000 years before present) of the Indian-specific subset of the West Eurasian haplotypes (i.e., U2i) and suggested that West Eurasian admixture may have been much older than the purported Dravidian and Indo-European incursions. Our analysis of Indian mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes that do not belong to the U2i subset of West Eurasian haplotypes (i.e., H, I, J, K, T) is consistent with more recent West Eurasian admixture. It is also possible that haplotypes with an older coalescence were introduced by Dravidians, whereas haplotypes with a more recent coalescence belonged to Indo-Europeans. This hypothesis can be tested by a more detailed comparison to West Eurasian mtDNA haplotypes from Iran, Anatolia, and the Caucasus. Alternatively, the coalescence dates of these haplotypes may predate the entry of West Eurasians populations into India. Regardless of their origin, West Eurasian admixture resulted in rank-related differences in the genetic affinities of castes to Europeans and Asians. Furthermore, the frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes in the founding middle and upper castes may be underestimated because of the upward social mobility of women from lower castes (Bamshad et al. 1998). These women were presumably more likely to introduce proto-Asian mtDNA haplotypes into the middle and upper castes.

Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers indicates clearly that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians. The high affinity of caste Y chromosomes with those of Europeans suggests that the majority of immigrating West Eurasians may have been males. As might be expected if West Eurasian males appropriated the highest positions in the caste system, the upper caste group exhibits a lower genetic distance to Europeans than the middle or lower castes. This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya (an upper caste), whose members served as warriors, are closer to Europeans than any other caste (data not shown). Furthermore, the 32-bp deletion polymorphism in CC chemokine receptor 5, whose frequency peaks in populations of Eastern Europe, is found only in two Brahmin males (M. Bamshad and S.K. Ahuja, unpubl.). The stratification of Y-chromosome distances with Europeans could also be caused by male-specific gene flow among caste populations of different rank. However, we and others have demonstrated that there is little sharing of Y-chromosome haplotypes among castes of different rank (Bamshad et al. 1998; Bhattacharyya et al. 1999).

The affinity of caste populations to Europeans is more apparent for Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms than Y-chromosome STRs. This could be attributed to the use of different European populations in comparisons using STRs and biallelic polymorphisms. Alternatively, it may reflect, in part, the effects of high mutation rates for the Y-chromosome STRs, which would tend to obscure relationships between caste and continental populations. A lack of consistent clustering at the continental level has been observed in several studies of Y-chromosome STRs (Deka et al. 1996; Torroni et al. 1996; de Knijff et al. 1997). The autosomal Alu and biallelic Y-chromosome polymorphisms, in contrast, have a slower rate of drift than Y-chromosome STRs because of a higher effective population size, and their mutation rate is very low. Thus, the Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms and autosomal Alu markers may serve as more stable markers of worldwide population affinities.

Our analysis may help to explain why estimates of the affinities of caste groups to worldwide populations have varied so widely among different studies. Analyses of recent caste history based on only mtDNA or Y-chromosome polymorphisms clearly would suggest that castes are more closely related to Asians or to Europeans, respectively. Furthermore, we attempted to minimize the confounding effect of geographic differences between populations by sampling from a highly restricted region of South India. Because of the ubiquity of the caste system in India's history, it is reasonable to predict similar patterns in caste populations living in other areas. Indeed, any genetic result becomes more compelling when it is replicated in other populations. Therefore, comparable studies in caste populations from other regions of India must be completed to test the generality of these results.

The dispersal and subsequent growth of Indian populations since the Neolithic Age is one of the most important events to shape the history of South Asia. However, the origin and dispersal route of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent is unclear. Our findings suggest a proto-Asian origin of the Indian-specific haplogroup-M haplotypes. Haplogroup-M haplotypes are also found at appreciable frequencies in some East African populations ~18% of Ethiopians (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a) and 16% of Kenyans (M. Bamshad and L.B. Jonde, unpubl.). A comparison of haplogroup-M haplotypes from East Africa and India has suggested that this southern route may have been one of the original dispersal pathways of anatomically modern humans out of Africa (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999a). Together, these data support our previous suggestion (Kivisild et al. 1999) that India may have been inhabited by at least two successive late Pleistocene migrations, consistent with the hypothesis of Lahr and Foley (1994). It also adds to the growing evidence that the subcontinent of India has been a major corridor for the migration of people between Africa, Western Asia, and Southeast Asia (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).

It should be emphasized that the DNA variation studied here is thought to be selectively neutral and thus represents only the effects of population history. These results permit no inferences about phenotypic differences between populations. In addition, alleles and haplotypes are shared by different caste populations, reflecting a shared history. Indeed, these findings underscore the longstanding appreciation that the distribution of genetic polymorphisms in India is highly complex. Further investigation of the spread of anatomically modern humans throughout South Asia will need to consider that such complex patterns may be the norm rather than the exception.

[Morpheus]

Regardless of the status of Aryan Invasion Theory, the concept of an Indo-European racial group is still meaningful.

Changing the subject a bit aren't we?

A discussion on the validity of biological races would be more appropiate for another thread.

I am familiar with the author of this webpage he posts on many message boards.

I don't consider his quotes from Gill to necessarily be the product of something definite.

They come from the PBS page on the existence of Race.

Dr. C Loring Brace's analysis, from an antagonist's view (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html) was just as informative as Gill's speech form a proponent's view (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html).

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/genetic_clusters.gif

The genetic evidence in the study I provided refute the contention that this map supports the theory of an Indo-European Race as a meaningful concept.

It groups Northern India in with Europe because they have similar genetic lineages yet these people are indegenious to the region and did not inherit these lineages from an Indo-European group.

Besides Indo-European is a linguistic term.

Languages do not need to be spread by gene flow, or population replacement.

What biological justification would you be giving for considering Indo-European speakers to be part of a distinct race?



The great Toby has spoken!

That's right McCoy. Btw, how are the Hatfields?


Seriously, though, how does any of that argue against the migration/invasion? It merely suggests that there wasn't widespread mixture with the natives.

It doesn't argue against the claims of an Indo-European migration as Dr. Underhill explains in the article I posted.

A migration and an invasion are two very different things.

The 4th link I provided explains in detail that there is no archeological evidence for an Indo-European Invasion and that the geological evidence support the theory that Harrappan Civilization declined from the result of natural disasters which caused the residents to travel eastward.

It also explains that Harappans were the forebearers of vedic culture which ended with them rather than coming into existence after them.

Indo-Europeans were not the founders of vedic culture nor did they create the Hindu caste system by imposing a racial hierachy on the natives.

The mentality of light skin equally higher status comes from British Imperialists
just as taller, narrower features in the Tutsi of Rwanda being evidence of racial superiority over the Hutu was a concept imposed by European imperialists.

The Aryan Invasion of India is considered "evil", and "therefore it is not true".
What kind of logic is that?

Not anymore logical than The Aryan Invasion of India being considered a story for White Supremacists to cherish would be evidence that it is true.

Archeological, geological, historical and genetic evidence however are very good reasons to conclude that it is true.


That word Aryan - does my head in.

It's unfortunate that the term Aryan, just as the swastika are now considered to be words and symbols of hate yet used to be quite positive.

Along with evidence that the Aryan Invasion theory has been debunked it should also be noted that there is no evidence of an "Aryan" people either. It's use as a linguistic term has also been abandoned.


Aryan

n.

1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.

2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.

3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No longer in technical use.

4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race.

Source: Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aryan)



Aryan

1601, as a term in classical history, from L. Ariana, from Gk. Aria name applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt. Arya-s "noble, honorable, respectable," the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, originally "belonging to the hospitable," from arya-s "lord, hospitable lord," originally "protecting the stranger," from ari-s "stranger." Ancient Persians gave themselves the same name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl. airyanam). Aryan also was used (1861) by Ger. philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) to refer to "worshippers of the gods of the Brahmans," which he took to be the original sense. In comparative philology, Aryan was applied (by Pritchard, Whitney, etc.) to "the original Aryan language" (1847; Arian was used in this sense from 1839, but this spelling caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history), the presumed ancestor of a group of related, inflected languages mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. In this sense it gradually was replaced by Indo-European (q.v.) or Indo-Germanic, except when used to distinguish I.E. languages of India from non-I.E. ones. It came to be applied, however, to the speakers of this group of languages (1851), on the presumption that a race corresponded to the language, especially in racist writings of French diplomat and man of letters J.A. de Gobineau (1816–82) , e.g. "Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines," 1853–55, and thence it was taken up in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians, and most justly to the latter.

Source: Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=aryan&searchmode=none)

The term's only usage along with Arya in Old Persian was like an honorific.

Here is a prime example of its usage by King Darius of Persia:

http://www.haryana-online.com/People/aryans.htm

"I am Darius the great King... A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage..."

Notice that he ofcourse refers to his nationality as Persian. He was a Persian who spoke Persian.

Aryanists try to make the term Aryan out to mean a distinct people, but that sentence fully translated into English should read:

"I am Darius the great King... A Persian, son of a Persian, a noble, having noble lineage..."

He also refers to his language has being noble. Aryan is simply a word that shows prestige in an individual or group.

In English you would call an aristocrat a Noble. Sometimes nations even give their countries an honorific.

Like Great Britain.

Noble Britain would give you the same meaning.

Using the Sanskrit term we would call Great Britain, Aryan Britain.

That's all it means. It was used as a linguistic term by 19th and 20th century scholars as the etymology explains.

The dictionary noting that its linguistic usage has been abandoned is proof that it is no longer considered to be accurate in academia.

[Fade the Butcher]

The genetic evidence in the study I provided refute the contention that this map supports the theory of an Indo-European Race as a meaningful concept.

"Importantly, five different types of data (mtDNA HVR1 sequence, mtDNA RSPs, Y-chromosome STRs, Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, and autosomal Alu polymorphisms) support the same general pattern: relatively smaller genetic distances from European populations as one moves from lower to middle to upper caste populations. . . . Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers indicates clearly that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians."

[Morpheus]

"Importantly, five different types of data (mtDNA HVR1 sequence, mtDNA RSPs, Y-chromosome STRs, Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, and autosomal Alu polymorphisms) support the same general pattern: relatively smaller genetic distances from European populations as one moves from lower to middle to upper caste populations. . . . Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers indicates clearly that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians."

Yes, the study that you are referencing, which was done in 2001, compares and contrasts the maternal and paternal lineages of Indian castes, showing evidence that while the maternal lineages appear to be indegenious the paternal lineages show affinities with Europeans concluding that this is evidence of European admixture.

The study I provided references yours as a line of inquiry into what past studies have concluded and why their data refutes those conclusions.


Excerpts from the Kasyap et al study (bold and blue highlighting my emphasis):

Several studies have argued that, in contrast to the relative
uniformity of mtDNA, the Y chromosomes of Indian populations
display relatively small genetic distances to those of West
Eurasians (17), linking this finding to hypothetical migrations by Indo-Aryan speakers. Wells et al. (18) highlighted M17 (R1a) as a potential marker for one such event, as it demonstrates decreasing frequencies from Central Asia toward South India.
Departing from the ‘‘one haplogroup equals one migration’’
scenario, Cordaux et al. (19) defined, heuristically, a package of
haplogroups (J2, R1a, R2, and L) to be associated with the
migration of IE people and the introduction of the caste system
to India, again from Central Asia, because they had been
observed at significantly lower proportions in South Indian tribal
groups, with the high frequency of R1a among Chenchus of
Andhra Pradesh (6) considered as an aberrant phenomenon
(19). Conversely, haplogroups H, F*, and O2a, which were
observed at significantly higher proportions among tribal groups
of South India, led the same authors to single them out as having
an indigenous Indian origin. Only O3e was envisaged as originating
(recently) east of India (20), substantiating a linguistic
correlation with the TB speakers of Southeast Asia.

The present study significantly increases the available sample
size for India by typing 936 individuals from 77 populations,
representing all four major linguistic groups (Fig. 1). The
increased range of informative SNPs typed permits more detailed
resolution of geographic patterns and the identification of
some region-specific subsets of lineages. These Y chromosomes
are analyzed in the context of available data from West Asia,
East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Europe, the Near East,
and Ethiopia. Measures of genetic distance, admixture, and
factor analysis drawn from the Y-chromosome data are used to
investigate three themes central to population genetics in India:
demographic links to West and Central Asia, the genetic relationship
between castes and tribes, and geographic versus linguistic grouping for the current populations of the Indian
subcontinent.

(17) Bamshad, M., Kivisild, T., Watkins, W. S., Dixon, M. E., Ricker, C. E., Rao, B. B., Mastan Naidu, J., Ravi Prasad, B. V., Govinda Reddy, P., Rasanayagam, A., et al. (2001) Genome Res. 11, 994–1004.


Results


A total of 18 haplogroups were detected in 936 Indian Y
chromosomes (Fig. 3A, which is published as supporting information
on the PNAS web site). Together, haplogroups R1, R2,
L, O, H, J2, and C characterize
90% of the Y-chromosomal
variation in all socio-linguistic groups of India (Tables 2 and 3,
which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web
site). Both IE- and DR-speaking populations show a high
combined frequency of haplogroups C*, L1, H1, and R2. The
total frequency of these four haplogroups outside of India is
marginally low. In turn, haplogroups E, I, G, J*, and R1* have
a combined frequency of 53% in the Near East among the Turks
and 24% in Central Asia, but they are rare or absent in India
(0.86% in all populations and almost solely because of R1*).
Similarly, haplogroups C3, D, N, and O specific to Central Asian
(36%) and Southeast Asian populations (subclades of haplogroup
O; 85%) are virtually absent in India (Fig. 3A). Only
haplogroups J2 and R1a have interregional frequency patterns
west of India with J2 being most common in Afro-Asiaticspeaking
(and IE-speaking) populations of the Near East and
Middle East, whereas R1a occurs at the highest frequencies in
populations of India, East Europe, and Central Asia. The O2a
and O3e subclades of haplogroup O in India also have interregional
distributions, overlapping with those of Southeast Asia
and East Asia.

Principal component analysis (Fig. 3B) investigates the phylogeography
of the Y haplogroups with respect to each other,
illustrating the associations of haplogroups, irrespective of regional
or cultural categories. The first two components account
for 75% of the variation observed, and within India delineate R*,

R2, F*, and H, within the sphere of L, K, P*, and R1a. Of all of
theRlineages, only R1* is separated from this grouping, forming
a cluster together with G, I, and J, consistent with their common
and widespread distribution throughout (Western) Europe. The
O lineages fall out with C* and D (the latter tending to derive
from Sino-Tibetan speakers). Once the third and fourth factors
are considered, the ambiguity of A, B, and E (typically African
in origin) is resolved, and the positions of C3 and N, also
non-Indian in their distribution, are delineated to Central Asia.


By considering all haplogroup frequencies simultaneously, an
indication of the relatedness between regions is obtained (Table
1). Here, for the sake of comparison only, the categories used by
a previous study (19) are retained, but the tribal population is
split into two because of the close association identified here
between Hg O and tribal groups of the east and northeast of
India (O2a represents 77% of AA speakers and 47% of TB
speakers), which are combined to form the east and northeast
tribes. In contrast to the earlier study (19), the caste populations
of ‘‘north’’ and ‘‘south’’ India are not particularly more closely
related to each other (average Fst value  0.07) than they are to
the tribal groups (average Fst value  0.06).

The multidimensional scaling plot of these values (Fig. 4, which is published as
supporting information on the PNAS web site) demonstrates
that the combined data set for the tribal peoples (derived from
all regions of India, excluding those of the east and northeast)
actually falls midway between those for northern and southern
castes, whereas the tribal populations of the east and northeast
are confirmed as a separate category. The position of the
reduced tribal category, comprising groups from Southern,
Northern, and Western India, is suggestive of geographical
structuring north to south.

This geographical structure is displayed with greater precision
by dividing the data set according to the regions of Indiapresented in Fig. 1, except that the Punjab (caste only) is considered as a separate entity because of its isolation relative to the rest of the west (see Tables 2 and 3) and proximity to Central Asia.

Figure 1:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/Figure.jpg

Table 1:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/Table.jpg


Results Continued:



Considering individual haplogroup frequencies within
each of these geographical regions, no consistent pattern (at the
95% level of certainty) was detected in the distribution of the Y
haplogroups to distinguish either the castes from the tribes, or
DRs from IEs (Fig. 5 B and C, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site). Therefore, it is appropriate
to consider the distributions at the regional level, omitting
Northeast India because of the dominance of haplogroup O
there (Fig. 5A). The potential clines centered on North India
(R1a), Northwest India (J2), South India (H), and East India
(R2), identified in Fig. 5A, are illustrated by the distribution
maps (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site). These clines display distinct
regional concentrations of J2, H, R1a, R2, O3, and O2a,
confirming the primarily geographic nature of Y-chromosome
frequency distribution in India.




Conclusions


It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond
South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority
of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The
perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving
to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold
up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups
J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the
majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the
subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a
local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2
indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from
West Asia rather than Central Asia. The current distributions of
haplogroup frequencies are, with the exception of theOlineages,
predominantly driven by geographical, rather than cultural determinants.
Ironically, it is in the northeast of India, among the
TB groups that there is clear-cut evidence for large-scale demic
diffusion traceable by genes, culture, and language, but apparently
not by agriculture.

Ofcourse in science there is never a final word, only a never ending search for truth.

Currently this study refutes the evidence of past studies for an external source of the Y-Chromosome haplogroups in India. This genetic evidence is consistent with the cultural, archeological and geological evidence debunking the Aryan Invasion. My verdict still stands at the invasion being fiction, the result of European scholars linking linguistics to biological affinities and constructing an imaginary invasion of the region which came to have detrimental social and political ramifications for this country.

I'm open to viewing anymore evidence anyone wants to provide for their beliefs.

Thanks for your input Fade, you spiced up my thread. :D

[Dan Dare]

Well, now that that is settled to everyone's general satisfaction, may we move on to discuss a couple more of Mansa Musa's speciality subjects?

If memory serves, two such themes that appear to resurface with frankly quite monotonous regularity are

(a) That the rulers of the Old and Middle Kingdoms were principally of Nubian stock, and

(b) European civilisation was erected upon foundations laid by black Africans.

Far be it from me to presume to be seen to be tendering uninvited advice in this arcane subject area, but it seems somewhat evident that MM might well be advised to confer with our resident universalists and, one hazards a guess, Out of Africa specialists Sulla and Potty, before launching his follow-up forays.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes, the study that you are referencing, which was done in 2001, compares and contrasts the maternal and paternal lineages of Indian castes, showing evidence that while the maternal lineages appear to be indegenious the paternal lineages show affinities with Europeans concluding that this is evidence of European admixture.

The study I cited above dealt specifically with the Indian caste system and arrived at the conclusion that Brahmins are genetically closer to Europeans than Asians; that this can be seen across five categories of evidence: mtDNA HVR1 sequence, mtDNA RSPs, Y-chromosome STRs, Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, and autosomal Alu polymorphisms. OTOH, your study dealt specifically with the Y chromosome and wasn't focused on the caste system.

Ofcourse in science there is never a final word, only a never ending search for truth.

The linguistic evidence alone, aside from the variation of skin color across the different Indian castes, strongly suggests such an external invasion. For example, Amerindians in South America are Spanish speakers. This doesn't mean that such Indians are genetically Spaniards (although such gene flow would be expected and can indeed be found in Amerindians today), but it would strongly indicate contact between Spainards and Amerindians in South America which, of course, everyone knows to be true.

Currently this study refutes the evidence of past studies for an external source of the Y-Chromosome haplogroups in India.This genetic evidence is consistent with the cultural, archeological and geological evidence debunking the Aryan Invasion.

This is false. Your evidence is no way consistent with the linguistic evidence.

My verdict still stands at the invasion being fiction, the result of European scholars linking linguistics to biological affinities and constructing an imaginary invasion of the region which came to have detrimental social and political ramifications for this country.

Your argument is actually counterintuitive. For starters, it conflicts with the genetic evidence in the study that I posted above, but that alone shouldn't be enough to raise our suspicions. It also conflicts with the linguistic evidence that groups Indians and Europeans as Indo-European speakers.

[Ahknaton]

Changing the subject a bit aren't we?

A discussion on the validity of biological races would be more appropiate for another thread.I think it's on-topic, given that your original post dealt not just with the Aryan Invasion theory, but also the implications of the theory for supporting various political philosophies. "Pan-Aryanism" of the sort espoused by Savitri Devi rested in part on the theory of an "Aryan invasion", but I believe that it is still supportable even if the theory is refuted, because Europeans and (most) Indians are part of the same "biologically real" racial group.

Fade dealt with your other points, I won't repeat his answers.

[Morpheus]

Well, now that that is settled to everyone's general satisfaction, may we move on to discuss a couple more of Mansa Musa's speciality subjects?

If memory serves, two such themes that appear to resurface with frankly quite monotonous regularity are

(a) That the rulers of the Old and Middle Kingdoms were principally of Nubian stock, and

(b) European civilisation was erected upon foundations laid by black Africans.

Far be it from me to presume to be seen to be tendering uninvited advice in this arcane subject area, but it seems somewhat evident that MM might well be advised to confer with our resident universalists and, one hazards a guess, Out of Africa specialists Sulla and Potty, before launching his follow-up forays.


Dan Dare, I've never made the claims that you are attributing to me in A and B.

I'm willing to discuss the biological and cultural make up of Ancient Egypt and provide an accurate analysis of my opinion which is based, like this subject, on peer-reviewed sources published by experts in their fields as well as
the cultural influences Ancient Egypt had on Greek civilization ( the credited founding culture of Western Civilization).

It's ironic that you consider such as subject to be monotonous when you just brought it up.

[Dan Dare]

Well I'm certainly happy to have your confirmation that the the rulers of the Old and Middle Kingdoms were not principally of Nubian stock, and that European civilisation was not erected upon foundations laid by black Africans.

I must have confused you with a different poster on MSF who made such pronouncements.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ah.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002641.html

"More studies are on the way, but these are the best two as they employ several autosomal loci rather than focusing entirely on Y-chromosomal data. It is being found that frequently the male and female ancestors of a population have different evolutionary histories, which is why Y-chromosomal analyses alone are insufficient. This occurs when invading or settling males have settled down with local women."

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/sahoo-et-al-2006-online-indian-y.html

"It is unfortunate that this paper uses a limited number of UEP markers. Hopefully, future studies will start to seek and test more recently derived markers, which are the only ones that can really address recent events authoritatively.

Moreover, no STR markers were typed, thus further limiting any possible inferences about the time depth of the various Indian lineages.

A real problem with the study is that it performed an "admixture analysis" which considered the modern Central Asians as representative of the prehistoric ones. As it is well known, Central Asians of today have substantial Mongoloid admixture from the proto-historical and historical period and are not representative of the ancient Indo-Iranian groups of the steppe." . . . Central Asia cannot be rejected so easily though as a source for Indian J2, because the present-day Central Asians have components (within N/C/O/Q) which were probably added by Mongoloid groups recently, and are not representative of the prehistoric populations.

[Morpheus]

The study I cited above dealt specifically with the Indian caste system and arrived at the conclusion that Brahmins are genetically closer to Europeans than Asians; that this can be seen across five categories of evidence: mtDNA HVR1 sequence, mtDNA RSPs, Y-chromosome STRs, Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms, and autosomal Alu polymorphisms. OTOH, your study dealt specifically with the Y chromosome and wasn't focused on the caste system.

My study focuses on demic diffusion and all facets of India's linguistic, caste and tribal elements.

If you are insinuating that the study is an inadequete reference for discussing the subject of caste, you are mistaken. As the study states, which I have higlighted in bold in the excerpts its data is far more resourceful than past studies, it is your study that is lacking in areas that would give us insight into the genetic relationships of the caste because it makes certain assumptions about the biallelic polymorphisms and its possible relation to Europeans that my study refutes.

The linguistic evidence alone, aside from the variation of skin color across the different Indian castes, strongly suggests such an external invasion. For example, Amerindians in South America are Spanish speakers. This doesn't mean that such Indians are genetically Spaniards (although such gene flow would be expected and can indeed be found in Amerindians today), but it would strongly indicate contact between Spainards and Amerindians in South America which, of course, everyone knows to be true.

Contact between India and Indo-European speakers, is not denied. Go back and read what Stanford geneticist Dr. Underhill has to say about this subject in the National Geographic article on my first post. Language shift can easily occur between populations when one population is outnumbered by another as is the case with immigrants learning the language of a foreign country.

A migration to a previously depopulated Northern India from Indo-European speakers descending into the region from Central Asia and engaging in a linguistic and cultural exchange with a smaller native Indian population is just as if not more plausible than an invading force conquering a region and forcing
the natives to assimulate to their culture.

There is a gradient in skintone among North and South Chinese, arguing that this is due to foreign admixture would be an assumption.

Skin color varies across India as it does in other populations, but in order to conclude with certainty that admixture must take place genetic analysis is the only thing that will suffice.

An invasion of the Indus valley from a group that was not as technologically advanced as the indegenious Harrappans across a terrain that would provide an obstacle for such an invasion is not plausible. When you take into account the lack of archeological evidence it becomes even less likely.

This is false. Your evidence is no way consistent with the linguistic evidence.

An understanding of other scenarios as Underhill explains should be enough explanation for why the gentic evidence of this study is not inconsistent with the linguistic evidence.


Your argument is actually counterintuitive. For starters, it conflicts with the genetic evidence in the study that I posted above, but that alone shouldn't be enough to raise our suspicions. It also conflicts with the linguistic evidence that groups Indians and Europeans as Indo-European speakers.

The genetic evidence in the study you provided has been refuted, I have highlighted the text in bold from my study that supports this.

Not all Indian languages are grouped into the Indo-European language family.

That does not mean that those that are became so as the result of an invasion from Indo-Europeans.

A multi-disciplinary approach to the subject indicates that my argument had the advantage in this discussion.





I think it's on-topic, given that your original post dealt not just with the Aryan Invasion theory, but also the implications of the theory for supporting various political philosophies. "Pan-Aryanism" of the sort espoused by Savitri Devi rested in part on the theory of an "Aryan invasion", but I believe that it is still supportable even if the theory is refuted, because Europeans and (most) Indians are part of the same "biologically real" racial group.

As you say if you believe that all that is needed to defend Pan-Aryanism is for there to be a biologically valid racial group linking "most" Indians and Europeans together than my subject did not attack that claim.

Now my point about etymology, that there never was an Aryan people does challenge Pan-Aryanism.

The biological validity of "Caucasoid" (i.e. Aryan, White, Europid etc.) is a subject for another thread.

Rest assured the K-Zoids will have their day in court, "Ahknaton".


Fade dealt with your other points, I won't repeat his answers.

And I've dealt with his, hopefully the rest of this discussion will remain on topic.

[Morpheus]

Well I'm certainly happy to have your confirmation that the the rulers of the Old and Middle Kingdoms were not principally of Nubian stock, and that European civilisation was not erected upon foundations laid by black Africans.

I must have confused you with a different poster on MSF who made such pronouncements.

I don't acknowledge the concepts of "Nubian stock" and "European Civilization" (singular) as being valid.

You may not have had me confused with someone else, you may have just misunderstood my views.

Since the old MSF database is on hiatus we can't go back and look for the source of your claims and I don't think I've even mentioned Ancient Egypt on the current Mootstormfront, yet.

[Morpheus]

Ah.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002641.html

"More studies are on the way, but these are the best two as they employ several autosomal loci rather than focusing entirely on Y-chromosomal data. It is being found that frequently the male and female ancestors of a population have different evolutionary histories, which is why Y-chromosomal analyses alone are insufficient. This occurs when invading or settling males have settled down with local women."

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/sahoo-et-al-2006-online-indian-y.html

"It is unfortunate that this paper uses a limited number of UEP markers. Hopefully, future studies will start to seek and test more recently derived markers, which are the only ones that can really address recent events authoritatively.

Moreover, no STR markers were typed, thus further limiting any possible inferences about the time depth of the various Indian lineages.

A real problem with the study is that it performed an "admixture analysis" which considered the modern Central Asians as representative of the prehistoric ones. As it is well known, Central Asians of today have substantial Mongoloid admixture from the proto-historical and historical period and are not representative of the ancient Indo-Iranian groups of the steppe." . . . Central Asia cannot be rejected so easily though as a source for Indian J2, because the present-day Central Asians have components (within N/C/O/Q) which were probably added by Mongoloid groups recently, and are not representative of the prehistoric populations.


Gene Expression and Pontikos's blog are not authoratative sources.

They are run by pseudo-scholars who are notorious for re-interpreting published material to perpetuate their agendas.

[Dan Dare]

I don't acknowledge the concepts of "Nubian stock" and "European Civilization" (singular) as being valid.

You may not have had me confused with someone else, you may have just misunderstood my views.

Since the old MSF database is on hiatus we can't go back and look for the source of your claims and I don't think I've even mentioned Ancient Egypt on the current Mootstormfront, yet.

In that case we will look forward to a further elaboration of your views concerning the negroid element in the Old and Middle Kingdom dynasties, as well the contribution of non-caucasoid Africans in the development of the various classical cultures on the northern littoral of the Mediterranean.

[Fade the Butcher]

My study focuses on demic diffusion and all facets of India's linguistic, caste and tribal elements.

Your study actually focuses on the Y chromosome, but as I pointed out in my earlier response, and yet again by citing Dienekes and GNXP in my last response, Y-chromosomal analyses can be misleading and need to be complemented by other lines of genetic evidence. The study I posted above used five lines of evidence to illustrate that the population distance between Europeans and Indians varies along caste lines.

If you are insinuating that the study is an inadequete reference for discussing the subject of caste, you are mistaken.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002641.html

"More studies are on the way, but these are the best two as they employ several autosomal loci rather than focusing entirely on Y-chromosomal data. It is being found that frequently the male and female ancestors of a population have different evolutionary histories, which is why Y-chromosomal analyses alone are insufficient. This occurs when invading or settling males have settled down with local women."

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/sahoo-et-al-2006-online-indian-y.html

"It is unfortunate that this paper uses a limited number of UEP markers. Hopefully, future studies will start to seek and test more recently derived markers, which are the only ones that can really address recent events authoritatively.

Moreover, no STR markers were typed, thus further limiting any possible inferences about the time depth of the various Indian lineages.

A real problem with the study is that it performed an "admixture analysis" which considered the modern Central Asians as representative of the prehistoric ones. As it is well known, Central Asians of today have substantial Mongoloid admixture from the proto-historical and historical period and are not representative of the ancient Indo-Iranian groups of the steppe." . . . Central Asia cannot be rejected so easily though as a source for Indian J2, because the present-day Central Asians have components (within N/C/O/Q) which were probably added by Mongoloid groups recently, and are not representative of the prehistoric populations.

As the study states, which I have higlighted in bold in the excerpts its data is far more resourceful than past studies, it is your study that is lacking in areas that would give us insight into the genetic relationships of the caste because it makes certain assumptions about the biallelic polymorphisms and its possible relation to Europeans that my study refutes.

This is false. As I pointed out above, your study focuses specifically upon the Y chromosome, whereas my study deals with the Y chromosome and several other genetic markers in order to discern the amount of European admixture in Indian castes. It is also unable to discern the significance of this admixture because it takes for granted that modern Central Asians are genetically representative of prehistoric Central Asians when this is known to be false.

Contact between India and Indo-European speakers, is not denied. Go back and read what Stanford geneticist Dr. Underhill has to say about this subject in the National Geographic article on my first post. Language shift can easily occur between populations when one population is outnumbered by another as is the case with immigrants learning the language of a foreign country.

Millions of Indians speak English today. This doesn't mean that Indians are Englishmen, but it would indicate the presence of Englishmen in India at some point in the past. We know this to be true. Similarly, Americans are composed of all sorts of populations, but are English-speakers. This makes sense when we realize that America was dominated for centuries by an Anglo-Saxon elite that forced other populations to assimilate to Anglo norms.

A migration to a previously depopulated Northern India from Indo-European speakers descending into the region from Central Asia and engaging in a linguistic and cultural exchange with a smaller native Indian population is just as if not more plausible than an invading force conquering a region and forcing the natives to assimulate to their culture.

1.) It is entirely plausible that India was conquered in its past by tribes from the north, as millions of Indians speak a language today that is obviously related to other European languages.
2.) The genetic evidence cited in my study above indicates just such an event happened in India's past.
3.) This should surprise no one. India, like China, has been overrun throughout its history by conquerers from the north. There are millions of Muslims today in India.

There is a gradient in skintone among North and South Chinese, arguing that this is due to foreign admixture would be an assumption.

North China was conquered and overrun several times throughout history by barbarians from the north. Similarly, Han Chinese colonized Southern China and intermarried with the darker native populations.

Skin color varies across India as it does in other populations, but in order to conclude with certainty that admixture must take place genetic analysis is the only thing that will suffice.

I agree. I cited just such a study above.

An invasion of the Indus valley from a group that was not as technologically advanced as the indegenious Harrappans across a terrain that would provide an obstacle for such an invasion is not plausible. When you take into account the lack of archeological evidence it becomes even less likely.

Of course. It is not plausible that, say, the Mongols or Jurchen could have overrun and conquered China. It is not plausible that a bunch of primitive Arabs from the desert of Arabia could have overrun Persia, Byzantium, or much of India itself either. Alexander could never have conquered much of India either.

An understanding of other scenarios as Underhill explains should be enough explanation for why the gentic evidence of this study is not inconsistent with the linguistic evidence.

For starters, such other scenarios are counterintuitive, given the linguistic and cultural evidence. The Visigoths conquered and ruled Spain for several hundred years, but modern Spanish wasn't influenced much by their presence. OTOH, Indians speak Indo-European languages right down to this day.

The genetic evidence in the study you provided has been refuted, I have highlighted the text in bold from my study that supports this.

This is false. There are numerous problems with that study. I pointed that out in my response. Dienekes also points out that Central Asian populations today aren't representative of the population of Central Asia in the past.

That does not mean that those that are became so as the result of an invasion from Indo-Europeans.

It strongly suggests that is the case.

A multi-disciplinary approach to the subject indicates that my argument had the advantage in this discussion.

Your argument has several disadvantages.

1.) Your genetic evidence deals specifically with the Y chromosome whereas mine is much broader. Y-chromosomal analyses are known to be problematic.
2.) Your study suffers from several flaws that render determinations of admixture problematic.
3.) The linguistic evidence suggests just such an invasion.
4.) Such invasions of India have happened in the past.

[Fade the Butcher]

Mansa would certainly deny that the Goths, Vandals, Suevi and so on were capable of overrunning the Western Roman Empire.

[Ahknaton]

Rest assured the K-Zoids will have their day in court, "Ahknaton".:rofl:

I look forward to the day, "Mansa Musa", if that is your real name...

[Will Scarlet]

That's right McCoy. Btw, how are the Hatfields?

Watch your tongue, Kunta Kinte.


A migration and an invasion are two very different things.


Tell that to the people being pushed out of their homes by Mexicans in the American Southwest.


Indo-Europeans were not the founders of vedic culture nor did they create the Hindu caste system by imposing a racial hierachy on the natives.

The mentality of light skin equally higher status comes from British Imperialists
just as taller, narrower features in the Tutsi of Rwanda being evidence of racial superiority over the Hutu was a concept imposed by European imperialists.


Ah, yes! How could I forget that only Whites are capable of being inherently racist. :rolleyes:



By the way, Kunta Kinte, who's writing your posts for you these days?

[cerberus]

This is false. There are numerous problems with that study. I pointed that out in my response. Dienekes also points out that Central Asian populations today aren't representative of the population of Central Asia in the past.
Few places are.

[Morpheus]

In that case we will look forward to a further elaboration of your views concerning the negroid element in the Old and Middle Kingdom dynasties, as well the contribution of non-caucasoid Africans in the development of the various classical cultures on the northern littoral of the Mediterranean.

Ok well when the time comes just remember you welcomed such discussion, it wasn't offered.

I am currently still reading over Richard Poe's book Black Spark,White Fire and analyzing his plethora of sources for his contentions.

I have plenty of sources to reference for the biological aspect of the discussion, it is the cultural that I will need to look into a bit more.


Your study actually focuses on the Y chromosome, but as I pointed out in my earlier response, and yet again by citing Dienekes and GNXP in my last response, Y-chromosomal analyses can be misleading and need to be complemented by other lines of genetic evidence. The study I posted above used five lines of evidence to illustrate that the population distance between Europeans and Indians varies along caste lines.

The point about only focusing on Y-chromosomes is noted and valid.

Your Gene Expression link however is of no relevance to Kashyap's study.

His study cites research dealing with autosomes and maternal lineages, the authors have outlined what they do agree with and what they do not agree with, the focus is on demic diffusion and the Y-Chromosome.

The study is not being writtten to the exclusion of other genetic evidence, this obviously cannot be the case since as I showed you, it cites your study as a reference to other material.

If we were dealing with a study that's only data being referenced was that dealing with Y-Chromosomes then you would be making a valid point against the study. With this argument you are not.

You have to look at the sources, they deal with years of research across broad fields of genetic diversity.

So...

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002641.html

"More studies are on the way, but these are the best two as they employ several autosomal loci rather than focusing entirely on Y-chromosomal data. It is being found that frequently the male and female ancestors of a population have different evolutionary histories, which is why Y-chromosomal analyses alone are insufficient. This occurs when invading or settling males have settled down with local women."

This quote is irrelavent to the study.

"It is unfortunate that this paper uses a limited number of UEP markers. Hopefully, future studies will start to seek and test more recently derived markers, which are the only ones that can really address recent events authoritatively.

Moreover, no STR markers were typed, thus further limiting any possible inferences about the time depth of the various Indian lineages.

A real problem with the study is that it performed an "admixture analysis" which considered the modern Central Asians as representative of the prehistoric ones. As it is well known, Central Asians of today have substantial Mongoloid admixture from the proto-historical and historical period and are not representative of the ancient Indo-Iranian groups of the steppe." . . . Central Asia cannot be rejected so easily though as a source for Indian J2, because the present-day Central Asians have components (within N/C/O/Q) which were probably added by Mongoloid groups recently, and are not representative of the prehistoric populations.

Citing this quote from Pontikos is counter intuitve to your argument as it implies that you cannot gauge a genetic relationship between Central Asians and Indians which would in turn refute the contentions of your study.

East and Western Europeans are also cited in this study, if you were to conclude that they to have too much "Mongloid/etc." admixture, how would you go about proving a relationship between India and West Eurasians?

You wouldn't genetic evidence would be considered to be useless and you'd have to rely on archeological evidence for an invasion, of which there is none.

Once again it should be noted that Pontikos is not a authoratative source on this subject. An email to the authors who conduct these studies would be far more sensible.

This is false. As I pointed out above, your study focuses specifically upon the Y chromosome, whereas my study deals with the Y chromosome and several other genetic markers in order to discern the amount of European admixture in Indian castes. It is also unable to discern the significance of this admixture because it takes for granted that modern Central Asians are genetically representative of prehistoric Central Asians when this is known to be false.

It doesn't take for granted any such thing, where in the study is this even implied?

Distorters such as Pontikos make themselves the judge on studies they are not qualified to give an authoratative critique on, that doesn't mean he views are in anyway valid.

Central Asian may have admixture from other populations, that doesn't mean that there was a full scale replacement of the population and that studying their genetics is useless.

Millions of Indians speak English today. This doesn't mean that Indians are Englishmen, but it would indicate the presence of Englishmen in India at some point in the past. We know this to be true. Similarly, Americans are composed of all sorts of populations, but are English-speakers. This makes sense when we realize that America was dominated for centuries by an Anglo-Saxon elite that forced other populations to assimilate to Anglo norms.

Indeed and as I said the English speaking non-Anglo-Saxons did not have to exchange genes on a massive scale with the Anglo-Saxons to pick up their language.

In the same way a smaller group of Indians could have picked up the language of Indo-European migrants to the Indus Valley after the geological disturbance that ravaged Harappan Civilization and then that small population could have grown larger as the region became more hospitable, retaining the language and their own genetic integrity.

1.) It is entirely plausible that India was conquered in its past by tribes from the north, as millions of Indians speak a language today that is obviously related to other European languages.

It's plausible, it however lacks archeological evidence and language shift and population increase is just as plausible and in this case more likely to explain the millions of Hindu speakers in India.

2.) The genetic evidence cited in my study above indicates just such an event happened in India's past.

My study refutes your study by taking into account demic diffusion using a larger sample size.

3.) This should surprise no one. India, like China, has been overrun throughout its history by conquerers from the north. There are millions of Muslims today in India.

For which we have ample historical and archeological evidence for and none for the Aryan Invasion Myth.


North China was conquered and overrun several times throughout history by barbarians from the north. Similarly, Han Chinese colonized Southern China and intermarried with the darker native populations.

What evidence do you have that the Hun Chinese were darker than the group they conquered or that the gradient is due to climate rather than gene flow?

I agree. I cited just such a study above.

Yes you did, but since then you have provided no evidence against my claim that you study has been cited and refuted other than the quote by gene expression which is irrelavant and the one by Pontikos which is unfounded.

Neither sources are authoratative.

Of course. It is not plausible that, say, the Mongols or Jurchen could have overrun and conquered China. It is not plausible that a bunch of primitive Arabs from the desert of Arabia could have overrun Persia, Byzantium, or much of India itself either. Alexander could never have conquered much of India either.

Alexander had a profound infrastructure in Babylon to rely upon when launching his campaigns into India.

He had scouts experienced in traversing the rough terrain of Central Asia.

Even then he lost many men on his campaign and was forced to retreat from India.

Are we to believe that a band of primitive nomads from the Central Asian steppes succeeded in doing what a a world power hundreds of years later could not do? Occupy India and sustain a lasting dominance over the region, establishing a hierachy that supposedly still stands to this day?

The other examples you mentioned were of less advanced groups conquering more advanced groups only after they came into severe decline and again had far more resources than nomads who left no archeological evidence of their conquest left.


For starters, such other scenarios are counterintuitive, given the linguistic and cultural evidence. The Visigoths conquered and ruled Spain for several hundred years, but modern Spanish wasn't influenced much by their presence. OTOH, Indians speak Indo-European languages right down to this day.

The Spanish launched a religious and nationalistic campaign to expel groups such as the Moors who had previously expelled the Visigoths from their territory.

This actually supports my argument as these groups stayed for many years in Spain establishing themselves as the dominate group while contributing very little genetic and linguistic influence to the territory.

The cultural influence was immense but because they isolated themselves from the populace who stayed in the majority they did not influence them in other ways.

This likely would have happened in South America with the conqustadors if European diseases had not devestated the natives to such a severe extent.


This is false. There are numerous problems with that study. I pointed that out in my response. Dienekes also points out that Central Asian populations today aren't representative of the population of Central Asia in the past.

At this point it should be noted that those problems are Bunk.

It strongly suggests that is the case.

I'm going to need to see more evidence.

Your argument has several disadvantages.

1.) Your genetic evidence deals specifically with the Y chromosome whereas mine is much broader. Y-chromosomal analyses are known to be problematic.

Once again this is bunk.

2.) Your study suffers from several flaws that render determinations of admixture problematic.

I will read over the admixture analysis but since they studied many more populations than Central Asia I consider this to be a straw man.

3.) The linguistic evidence suggests just such an invasion.

Again only one viewpoint. There are other plausible scenarios. Plus while the linguistic evidence has potential to support an invasion the archeological and geological evidence does not.

4.) Such invasions of India have happened in the past.

Invasions that are much more well documented, have far less of an exaggerated influence and were conducted by more capable groups than the mythical Aryans.

Mansa would certainly deny that the Goths, Vandals, Suevi and so on were capable of overrunning the Western Roman Empire.

I certainly wouldn't as they did. They overran a Rome that's infrastructure had been falling apart for decades and was badly weakened by the invasion of the Huns.

Watch your tongue, Kunta Kinte.

What are you going to do send a fat, hairy, toothless incestuous old Appalachian hillbilly in overalls to my house to teach me a lesson?


Tell that to the people being pushed out of their homes by Mexicans in the American Southwest.

Ah, they're a bunch of softies if they call that an invasion.

When they've been ordered at gun point to leave their homes ala the trial of tears and hunted like animals by the military ala Manifest Destiny then they can talk about being invaded.


Ah, yes! How could I forget that only Whites are capable of being inherently racist. :rolleyes:

Who's been telling you these lies? It's not true.

Racism originating from your culture does not necessarily make you inherently racist.

By the way, Kunta Kinte, who's writing your posts for you these days?

My blonde-haired, blue eyed, German-American, super model figured, college roommate, who's going after her Ph.D. in bio-anthropology and has an IQ of 200? :rofl:

Seriously though, I've always written my own posts.

What are you insinuating, Briarhopper?

[Ahknaton]

What are you going to do send a fat, hairy, toothless incestuous old Appalachian hillbilly in overalls to my house to teach me a lesson?Don't think we can't ;)

[Pablo Escobar]

I'd like to join the discussion, but I'm afraid of Mansa Musa
he might ban me again ... on the grounds of (his) disagreeing with facts :D

Seriously though,
the Aryan Invasion theory was virtually proven a few years back,
with genetic scientists discovering that most male lineages in N.India
and virtually all male lineages of the high castes in India are of Eastern European origin, akin to the male lineages of other Satem-IE-speaking peoples.

Besides, the origin of these Satem speaking Indo-Europeans is in what today is Southern Russia. Iranian peoples ( Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans ) and Slavic peoples.

[Morpheus]

I'd like to join the discussion, but I'm afraid of Mansa Musa
he might ban me again ... on the grounds of disagreeing with facts :D

Seriously though,
the Aryan Invasion theory was virtually proven a few years back,
with genetic scientists discovering that most male lineages in N.India
and virtually all male lineages of the high castes in India are of Eastern European origin, akin to the male lineages of other Satem-IE-speaking peoples.

Besides, the origin of these Satem speaking Indo-Europeans is in what today is Southern Russia. Iranian peoples ( Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans ) and Slavic peoples.

Studies and conclusions that have been refuted by this study.

Those lineages you speak of are very common in Eastern Europe, that doesn't mean they originated there.

There are maps, from other studies, that show the way these lineages actually spread and why the same lineages in India (R1 etc.) did not get there by foreign intrusion. I'll see if I can find those.

And you were not banned for providing facts you were banned for being an idiot and disobeying the policies of the board. Luckily we have written rules on MSF now.

[Pablo Escobar]

Studies and conclusions that have been refuted by this study.

Nonsense. Nothing has been refuted, it only states the opposite.


Those lineages you speak of are very common in Eastern Europe, that doesn't mean they originated there.

Actually, it's not just the lineages, but also the language, culture, weaponry and other technology which migrated FROM Eastern Europe TO India.


There are maps, from other studies, that show the way these lineages actually spread and why the same lineages in India (R1 etc.) did not get there by foreign intrusion. I'll see if I can find those.

On the contrary, the R1a lineage in Europe is among it's related R lineages,
while in India it sits next to unrelated lineages of Dravidian-speaking populations. It's a sure sign it evolved in Eurasia and was implanted into India.


And you were not banned for providing facts you were banned for being an idiot and disobeying the policies of the board. Luckily we have written rules on MSF now.

Actually, cretin. You banned me because I completely refuted your nonsense.

Your idea that all Africans are of the same race was proven by me to be utterly ridiculous, plus, I correctly named your ideology as NEGROCENTRISM
instead of Afrocentrism.

That got me banned.

Your Afroamericans are of W.African origin, a jungle people unrelated to the Northern, Eastern and Southern African populations.
All populations on earth are related to some extent. You Western Africans are related to ancient Egyptians about as much as British are related to Japanese people.

I suppose that you still think Cleopatra was a black woman,
even though she was a Macedonian Ptolemaic.

[Morpheus]

Nonsense. Nothing has been refuted, it only states the opposite.


You're coming into this debate a bit late. I have already provided excerpts on the study on page two. Read up son. Otherwise you look like an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.



Actually, it's not just the lineages, but also the language, culture, weaponry and other technology which migrated FROM Eastern Europe TO India.

Yeah, I'm sure the weaponry "migrated" to India from Eastern Europe. :rolleyes:

Where are you sources?

The archeological, historical and geological evidence does not support an invasion as I my sources state in my links in the first post of this thread.



On the contrary, the R1a lineage in Europe is among it's related R lineages,
while in India it sits next to unrelated lineages of Dravidian-speaking populations. It's a sure sign it evolved in Eurasia and was implanted into India.

You're still parroting outdated scholarship.

Again from the previous page which you obviously did not read or else did not comprehend:

Results


A total of 18 haplogroups were detected in 936 Indian Y
chromosomes (Fig. 3A, which is published as supporting information
on the PNAS web site). Together, haplogroups R1, R2,
L, O, H, J2, and C characterize
90% of the Y-chromosomal
variation in all socio-linguistic groups of India (Tables 2 and 3,
which are published as supporting information on the PNAS web
site). Both IE- and DR-speaking populations show a high
combined frequency of haplogroups C*, L1, H1, and R2. The
total frequency of these four haplogroups outside of India is
marginally low. In turn, haplogroups E, I, G, J*, and R1* have
a combined frequency of 53% in the Near East among the Turks
and 24% in Central Asia, but they are rare or absent in India
(0.86% in all populations and almost solely because of R1*).
Similarly, haplogroups C3, D, N, and O specific to Central Asian
(36%) and Southeast Asian populations (subclades of haplogroup
O; 85%) are virtually absent in India (Fig. 3A). Only
haplogroups J2 and R1a have interregional frequency patterns
west of India with J2 being most common in Afro-Asiaticspeaking
(and IE-speaking) populations of the Near East and
Middle East, whereas R1a occurs at the highest frequencies in
populations of India, East Europe, and Central Asia. The O2a
and O3e subclades of haplogroup O in India also have interregional
distributions, overlapping with those of Southeast Asia
and East Asia.

^^ More bold text has been added for your benefit.


Actually, cretin. You banned me because I completely refuted your nonsense.

Lying will get you nowhere.

Your idea that all Africans are of the same race was proven by me to be utterly ridiculous, plus, I correctly named your ideology as NEGROCENTRISM
instead of Afrocentrism.

I never stated that Africans belong to the same race as I belief the concept of race to be scientifically invalid, that was just your misconception.

Your comments constituted flaming and you were warned about them. I had no problem with your disagreements, I only insisted that you debate civily and you couldn't handle that.

Negrocentrism was your immature attempt at a quasi-slurring and you were told to cease and desist.


That got me banned.

What got you banned was when after being warned about your previous childish antics, rather than continue your discussion in a civil manner, you proceeded to create a thread with the specific intent to flame a moderator and now you are whining about it months from the incident showing that your intellectual maturity has not grown at all since then.

You were warned.

You proceeded to flame and troll. You were banned.


Your Afroamericans are of W.African origin, a jungle people unrelated to the Northern, Eastern and Southern African populations.
All populations on earth are related to some extent. You Western Africans are related to ancient Egyptians about as much as British are related to Japanese people.

This statement only reveals your ignorance of African-American genealogies.

African climate.

African genetic relationships.

And African ethnic and geographical origins.

For someone who intends to preach to me about African history you seem to have a very amateur understanding of Africa and its people, even for a laymen.

I suppose that you still think Cleopatra was a black woman,
even though she was a Macedonian Ptolemaic.

You suppose alot of things that really don't help your intellectual reputation.

[Pablo Escobar]

You're coming into this debate a bit late. I have already provided excerpts on the study on page two. Read up son. Otherwise you look like an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Kunta Kinte, my friend... there's no such thing as 'coming in late into a debate'.

There is however a bitter negro who hates Europeans so much,
he's willing to type loads of self-contrary bullshit.


Yeah, I'm sure the weaponry "migrated" to India from Eastern Europe. :rolleyes:

Oh, I see, you're too dumb to realize that people carried the weapons.
Well, that explains a lot about the worth of your opinion.


Where are you sources?

On the internet, in books :D


The archeological, historical and geological evidence does not support an invasion as I my sources state in my links in the first post of this thread.

You don't say... your source states something, so it must be true,
because you think it's true, because Aryans are EVIL! :222:


You're still parroting outdated scholarship.

Y-chromosome lineages cannot be 'outdated'.
Y-chromosomes are carried over male lineages,
the Aryans brought their Y-chromosomes from Eastern Europe over Iran into India.

Results

R1a occurs at the highest frequencies in
populations of India, East Europe, and Central Asia. The O2a
and O3e subclades of haplogroup O in India also have interregional
distributions, overlapping with those of Southeast Asia
and East Asia.

There... as you can see... your study clearly supports what I said.
A part of the y-lineages of India is the same as that of EUROPE ( and only in Eurasia does it have close relatives )
the other part is closely related to Southeast Asian and East Asian populations.

Clearly, the men carrying R1a left the Eurasian steppes ( where it was surrounded by related haplogroups ) and eventually invaded India, supplanting
a part of the local haplogroups. The remaining pre-Aryan Y-lineages in India are closely related to other SouthEast Asian populations.

There's a certain level of relation between different haplogroups.
The R haplogroups are related between themselves, and are PALAEOLITHIC Eurasian groups... From the predominantly R1b populations in Spain and Ireland, to R1a populations in Russia and Central Asia.



Your comments constituted flaming and you were warned about them. I had no problem with your disagreements, I only insisted that you debate civily and you couldn't handle that.

You banned me because I invented a more accurate name for your ideology... NEGROCENTRISM.


Negrocentrism was your immature attempt at a quasi-slurring and you were told to cease and desist.

Cease and desist with your third-rate bullshitting.
I devastated you, and you responded by whining about my coin "Negrocentrism" and afterwards banning me for the use of that ( rather accurate ) word.


This statement only reveals your ignorance of African-American genealogies.

Genealogy is clear. The people who brought agriculture into W.Africa
also had sex with W.African women, thereby replacing the Y-lineages of the less efficient males. The rest of the DNA is local W.African.


African climate.

Ah, are you going to say that the huge-ass Sahara desert was actually a bridge, not an obstacle between W.Africa and N.Africa :rolleyes:


African genetic relationships.

There is great diversity between different African populations,
and it clearly shows that most of the communication between those populations was a long time BEFORE there was a huge-ass desert and huge-ass jungles which separated those populations.


And African ethnic and geographical origins.

Listen, Shmeekwo... you and your tribe were living thousands of miles away from Egyptians, Berbers, Bushmen and Ethiopians at all times.
The only time your people ever heard about those far away places was
when you learned to read books writen by Europeans.

Never forget that.

If you had been in contact with Egyptians, Berbers or Ethiopians,
chances are they would've enslaved your non-civilized ancestors
the same way Arabs and Europeans did.

I'm not saying it's cool, but the times were like that.


For someone who intends to preach to me about African history you seem to have a very amateur understanding of Africa and its people, even for a laymen.

Yeah, I'm not interested in the negrocentric version of "African History".


You suppose alot of things that really don't help your intellectual reputation.

...LOL... coming from an idiot who thinks Hindus are related to W.Africans
because they have dark skin. :rolleyes:

[Fade the Butcher]

Ah, are you going to say that the huge-ass Sahara desert was actually a bridge, not an obstacle between W.Africa and N.Africa :rolleyes:

The camel which facilitated trans-Sahara trade wasn't domesticated until the first millennium AD. :p

[Pablo Escobar]

Here's a map for idiots whose mind can't visualise simple things.
Clearly, you can see here how and why Africa's races are diverse and distant from one another.

The populated areas of Africa:

http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/globalpop/africa/images/pop_places.png

[Will Scarlet]

What are you going to do send a fat, hairy, toothless incestuous old Appalachian hillbilly in overalls to my house to teach me a lesson?


My goodness, you're such a bigot.



Ah, they're a bunch of softies if they call that an invasion.

When they've been ordered at gun point to leave their homes ala the trial of tears and hunted like animals by the military ala Manifest Destiny then they can talk about being invaded.



Ah, yes. You would have us wait for it to come to that before we react, wouldn't you?


Racism originating from your culture does not necessarily make you inherently racist.


The idea that "racism" is a European invention is as ludicrous as the idea that niggers built the pyramids.



Seriously though, I've always written my own posts.

What are you insinuating, Briarhopper?

I'm saying that you're not writing this stuff. You've always relied on some other 'great minds' over at MSF to do the heavy lifting for you. They keep propping you up because MSF's token nigger just has to look good.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Cut out the flames. Lets try to keep it all above the belt.

[Will Scarlet]

Cease and desist with your third-rate bullshitting.
I devastated you, and you responded by whining about my coin "Negrocentrism" and afterwards banning me for the use of that ( rather accurate ) word.



Par for the course with this kid.

After one of my many bannings from MSF, I'd returned under yet another name. Kunta Kinte here PMed me to tell me he knew it was me (not that it was ever a big mystery). He was in contact with me several times over the next few weeks, and it was clear he knew who I was.

Well, after about three weeks I knocked the black off his ass in a debate over the peopling of America (his ***** ramblings about "evil settlers" was classic, by the way). Immediately after this, he made a huge public display about how he had 'suddenly discovered' who I was and that I must therefore be banned yet again.

He may be a *******, but we at least have to give him credit for making use of what authority Kamandi and company have given him over there. He may not be able to argue his way out of a wet paper bag, but he can sure push that ban button.


Lets keep it civil. Ebus

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Cut out the flames. Lets try to keep it all above the belt.

What part of this is hard to understand? This is highbrow so please behave acordingly. This thread has had some very interesting back and forths. Lets not destroy it with cheap name calling please.

[Morpheus]

Kunta Kinte, my friend... there's no such thing as 'coming in late into a debate'.

Ofcourse in truth there is such a thing as coming into a debate late. Especially on message boards where posters enter a discussion pages after the thick of debate and run their motuhs like they know something stating inaccuracies which reveal their lack of analyzing the discussion or lack of comprehending it.

There is however a bitter negro who hates Europeans so much,
he's willing to type loads of self-contrary bullshit.

Classic racialist argument. When you can't hold your own in debate your opposition must "Hate da White people". :rolleyes:

Oh, I see, you're too dumb to realize that people carried the weapons.
Well, that explains a lot about the worth of your opinion

I was merely pointing out your poor speech.

Perhaps you did mean that people carried the weapons. You should say what you mean and mean what you say.

On the internet, in books

A sensible person would provide their sources for their claims if they wish to refute someone who has already provided their sources.

Otherwise you only leave the impression that you are talking out of your ass.

You don't say... your source states something, so it must be true,
because you think it's true, because Aryans are EVIL!

A source goes unrefuted until someone provides counter evidence.

Your silly appeals to ridicule and ad hominem attacks are the hallmarks of someone who has nothing fruitful to provide for discussion.

Y-chromosome lineages cannot be 'outdated'.

I'm referring to the conclusions of sources not the Y-chromosome itself. :rolleyes:


Y-chromosomes are carried over male lineages...

Ofcourse they are.

the Aryans brought their Y-chromosomes from Eastern Europe over Iran into India.

There was never a distinct group of people who identified as Aryans, I have proven that through the etymology of the term.

The theory that Indian Y-chromosomes were inherited from a group of people one might have considered to be Aryans from the regions you named have been refuted by the study I provided and so far that study has gone unrefuted.

So far you are striking out, is this the type of debate I would have recieved from you if I'd overlooked your violation of the rules instead of banning you on MootStormfront?

There... as you can see... your study clearly supports what I said.
A part of the y-lineages of India is the same as that of EUROPE ( and only in Eurasia does it have close relatives )
the other part is closely related to Southeast Asian and East Asian populations.

Clearly, the men carrying R1a left the Eurasian steppes ( where it was surrounded by related haplogroups ) and eventually invaded India, supplanting
a part of the local haplogroups. The remaining pre-Aryan Y-lineages in India are closely related to other SouthEast Asian populations.

There's a certain level of relation between different haplogroups.
The R haplogroups are related between themselves, and are PALAEOLITHIC Eurasian groups... From the predominantly R1b populations in Spain and Ireland, to R1a populations in Russia and Central Asia.

You need to read the rest of the study before you jump to such erroneous conclusions.

Again read the excerpts carefully:



Considering individual haplogroup frequencies within
each of these geographical regions, no consistent pattern (at the
95% level of certainty) was detected in the distribution of the Y
haplogroups to distinguish either the castes from the tribes, or
DRs from IEs (Fig. 5 B and C, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site). Therefore, it is appropriate
to consider the distributions at the regional level, omitting
Northeast India because of the dominance of haplogroup O
there (Fig. 5A). The potential clines centered on North India
(R1a), Northwest India (J2), South India (H), and East India
(R2), identified in Fig. 5A, are illustrated by the distribution
maps (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site). These clines display distinct
regional concentrations of J2, H, R1a, R2, O3, and O2a,
confirming the primarily geographic nature of Y-chromosome
frequency distribution in India.




Conclusions


It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond
South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority
of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The
perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving
to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold
up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups
J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the
majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the
subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a
local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2
indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from
West Asia rather than Central Asia. The current distributions of
haplogroup frequencies are, with the exception of theOlineages,
predominantly driven by geographical, rather than cultural determinants.
Ironically, it is in the northeast of India, among the
TB groups that there is clear-cut evidence for large-scale demic
diffusion traceable by genes, culture, and language, but apparently
not by agriculture.


They do not support your contentions for the haplogroups mentioned being attributed to foreign influence.

Claiming such a thing is absurd as it goes against the entire premise of the study.


You banned me because I invented a more accurate name for your ideology... NEGROCENTRISM.

This wasn't true when you said it the last time and it isn't true now. Maybe if you started dealing with reality you'd see past these delusions.

Cease and desist with your third-rate bullshitting.
I devastated you, and you responded by whining about my coin "Negrocentrism" and afterwards banning me for the use of that ( rather accurate ) word.

Just like you're "devastating" me right here right? :rolleyes:

I didn't ban you for your language, I banned you for your behavior.

You were warned that your attitude was unacceptable and then you created a thread to conduct a childish rant about "Mootstormfront being just like Stormfront and harboring Negrocentrics instead of Nordicists blah blah blah" for which you were rightfully banned and the other Mods approved of it.

You had it coming, you were given a chance and you did not take it.

On here there are different rules so I cannot hold you to language I consider to be unacceptable. The Mods however seem to be doing a good job of dictating the course of the thread.

So basically you should stop whining and embarrasing yourself. You could probably hold a civil discussion if you tried, you just need to get rid of the juvenile mentality.

Genealogy is clear. The people who brought agriculture into W.Africa
also had sex with W.African women, thereby replacing the Y-lineages of the less efficient males. The rest of the DNA is local W.African.

Not only are you talking about a different group of people ( You don't seem to be able to comprehend the difference between West Africans and African-Americans which is likely related to your ignorance of the various geographic locations that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade took people from) you are discussing something that is dually irrelavent.

Agriculturalist migrants to West Africa were not entirely composed of men, not that this has anything to do with anything.


Ah, are you going to say that the huge-ass Sahara desert was actually a bridge, not an obstacle between W.Africa and N.Africa. :rolleyes:

The huge ass Sahara did not always exist, the region of North Africa was at one time a wet land.

You would know this if you were not ignorant of African climate as I stated.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr8-7.gif

Whatever insinuation you were making with this claim are irrelavent, you are making a pathetic attempt to construct opinions for made and attribute nonsense to me.

If you want to know my opinions all you have to do is ask. So far all you've done is ramble.

There is great diversity between different African populations,
and it clearly shows that most of the communication between those populations was a long time BEFORE there was a huge-ass desert and huge-ass jungles which separated those populations.

Indeed this is true as I noted above, you have still not developed a point to these ramblings.

Listen, Shmeekwo... you and your tribe were living thousands of miles away from Egyptians, Berbers, Bushmen and Ethiopians at all times.
The only time your people ever heard about those far away places was
when you learned to read books writen by Europeans.

Never forget that.

If you had been in contact with Egyptians, Berbers or Ethiopians,
chances are they would've enslaved your non-civilized ancestors
the same way Arabs and Europeans did.

I'm not saying it's cool, but the times were like that.

More ignorance, now we get to the crux of your ramblings.

I do not belong to a tribe, but rather an ethnic group composed of over 250+ ethnicities from all over Africa, West, East, North and South.

All this time you have been trying to show that West Africans were a distinct group from East Africans in order to refute a claim I never made, that West Africans are the direct ancestors of Dynastic Egyptians and whoever else you want to exclude.

Pure and utter ignorance.

Yeah, I'm not interested in the negrocentric version of "African History".

You don't appear to be interested in African history at all, just in building pathetic strawmen to boost your ego.

...LOL... coming from an idiot who thinks Hindus are related to W.Africans
because they have dark skin. :rolleyes:

More nonsense. Show me the quote where I stated or you think I insinuated that Hindus are related to West Africans because they have dark skin.

Next time you want to debate me comeback with something fruitful instead of reiterating garbage.

The camel which facilitated trans-Sahara trade wasn't domesticated until the first millennium AD.

West Africa wasn't even populated on a large scale prior to 1500 B.C.

There would have been next to no one to trade with prior to this period in Western Africa.

Here's a map for idiots whose mind can't visualise simple things.
Clearly, you can see here how and why Africa's races are diverse and distant from one another.

The populated areas of Africa:

Your map amounts to nothing. As you said yourself there was at one point no Sahara.

This link will inform you of the cultural connection West Africa has to pre-dynastic Egypt and how Africans migrated into West Africa after the drying of the Sahara.


http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/map34.jpg

Nabta Playa:African Archaeology (http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/nabtaplaya.html)

I have no doubt that such information will go over your head.

My goodness, you're such a bigot.

Pfft, you're a good one to talk.

Ah, yes. You would have us wait for it to come to that before we react, wouldn't you?

I don't support illegal immigration.

The idea that "racism" is a European invention is as ludicrous as the idea that niggers built the pyramids.

If we look at the historical origins of racism we will see that the the concept of race was created by Europeans and that the concept of racial inferiority was proliferated by Europeans, not to say Europeans invented ethnocentrism or all other forms of discrimination or even skin color bias.

If we look at the biological make-up of dynastic Egypt it is very likely that you woud call the people who erected the pyramids "niggers" if you saw them today.

I'm saying that you're not writing this stuff. You've always relied on some other 'great minds' over at MSF to do the heavy lifting for you. They keep propping you up because MSF's token nigger just has to look good.

That's hilarious, I make your head spin with this topic and all of a sudden the information presented and the discussion being carried is to high caliber in your opinion to be coming from me.

I suppose I'll take that as a compliment.

That's likely about as close as I'd get to one from you.

Cut out the flames. Lets try to keep it all above the belt.

I have to commend you and Ebusitanus, for your superb generalship over the thread.

Hopefully this will not get closed like the MootStormfront thread did because certain posters enjoy turning civil discussion into a circus.

I'll try to refrain from egging the others on with my sarcasm, I just believe that when you get punched you punch back, until someone breaks it up.

Par for the course with this kid.

After one of my many bannings from MSF, I'd returned under yet another name. Kunta Kinte here PMed me to tell me he knew it was me (not that it was ever a big mystery). He was in contact with me several times over the next few weeks, and it was clear he knew who I was.

Well, after about three weeks I knocked the black off his ass in a debate over the peopling of America (his ***** ramblings about "evil settlers" was classic, by the way). Immediately after this, he made a huge public display about how he had 'suddenly discovered' who I was and that I must therefore be banned yet again.

He may be a *******, but we at least have to give him credit for making use of what authority Kamandi and company have given him over there. He may not be able to argue his way out of a wet paper bag, but he can sure push that ban button.


Lets keep it civil. Ebus


I don't recall all the events but I believe it had something to do with your alleged involvement with MootFront, we just got tired of having you around.

We kept giving you chances to return (even when you were desperate enough to pretend to be a girl to throw us off) but something triggered the proverbial last straw which resulted in your banning, the exact reason escapes me at the moment. :D

I didn't ban you for your debate in that humor thread, you thought I did and posted that stupid image of Kunta Kinte to spite me.

So I got you back by erasing the post and replacing it with this picture.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/HillbillyWheelofFortune.jpg

I do remember that. :rofl:

Infact I actually saved your post as a word document, in case you got unbanned. It might even still be saved on my labtop.

[Hippias]

Gene Expression and Pontikos's blog are not authoratative sources.

He didn't cite Pontikos's blog as a source, he cited a study posted in one of Pontikos's blog entries.

They are run by pseudo-scholars who are notorious for re-interpreting published material to perpetuate their agendas.

Argumentum ad hominem. What "published material" has Pontikos "re-interpreted"?

[Hippias]

India's elite Brahmin and Kshatriya castes carry the J2 haplogroup, which is virtually absent in the "untouchables" and other lower castes. The study Mansa Musa cites even states that the J2 haplogroup in the paternal Indian population is an "external contribution" from West Asia. Most people with that haplogroup live in the Middle East and Southern Europe. The Indian upper castes more than likely descend from groups who migrated from that area into India and established the caste system.

[Professor John Frink]

You need to read the rest of the study before you jump to such erroneous conclusions.

Again read the excerpts carefully:


Quote:
Considering individual haplogroup frequencies within
each of these geographical regions, no consistent pattern (at the
95% level of certainty) was detected in the distribution of the Y
haplogroups to distinguish either the castes from the tribes, or
DRs from IEs (Fig. 5 B and C, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site). Therefore, it is appropriate
to consider the distributions at the regional level, omitting
Northeast India because of the dominance of haplogroup O
there (Fig. 5A). The potential clines centered on North India
(R1a), Northwest India (J2), South India (H), and East India
(R2), identified in Fig. 5A, are illustrated by the distribution
maps (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6, which is published as supporting
information on the PNAS web site). These clines display distinct
regional concentrations of J2, H, R1a, R2, O3, and O2a,
confirming the primarily geographic nature of Y-chromosome
frequency distribution in India.


Quote:

Conclusions


It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond
South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority
of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The
perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving
to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold
up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups
J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the
majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the
subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a
local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2
indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from
West Asia rather than Central Asia. The current distributions of
haplogroup frequencies are, with the exception of theOlineages,
predominantly driven by geographical, rather than cultural determinants.
Ironically, it is in the northeast of India, among the
TB groups that there is clear-cut evidence for large-scale demic
diffusion traceable by genes, culture, and language, but apparently
not by agriculture.


They do not support your contentions for the haplogroups mentioned being attributed to foreign influence.

Claiming such a thing is absurd as it goes against the entire premise of the study.

I beg to disagree for the following reasons:

The study, in fact, doesn't deny that R1a emerged outside India. It does, however, dispute that R1a was introduced into India at or after the onset of agriculture by some obscure invaders from the west. It is therefore entirely plausible that R1a was intorduced from the west before the invasion of the mythical "Aryans".

Note, for instance, the higher age of R1a in the Balkans vis-a-vis India:


High R1a haplotype diversity in SEE is evident in the phylogenetic network (fig. 8C) and the estimated range expansion at 15.8 ± 2.1 KYA, consistent with its deep Paleolithic time depth as previously suggested (Semino et al. 2000, Wells et al. 2001). At this level of resolution it is not clear what temporal and effective population size differences contributed to this deep Paleolithic signal as high R1a variance in
SEE might be explained by either ancient demography or more recent bottlenecks and founder effects in different Slavic tribes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15944443&query_hl=9

vs.

Further, the relative position of the Indian tribals (Fig. 4), the high microsatellite variance among them (Table 8), the estimated age (14 kya) of microsatellite variation within R1a1 (Table 7) and the variance peak in the west (Fig. 3) are entirely inconsistent with a model of recent gene flow from castes to tribes and a large genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans on the autochthonous gene pool of India. Instead, our overall inference is that an early Holocene expansion in NW India (including the Indus) contributed R1a1-M17 chromosomes both to the Central Asian and S Asian tribes prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2006_v78_p202-221.pdf

The highest variance of R1a is apparently in Ukraine:
This scenario is
also supported by the finding that the maximum
variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 is
found in Ukraine (19).
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

Lastly, studies on Indian population genetics are springing up like mushrooms and there have been several of them over the last few years. Their conclusions are often contradictory.

Consider, for instence, the following study:

High-resolution analysis of Y-chromosomal polymorphisms reveals signatures of population movements from Central Asia and West Asia into India (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol80No3/125.pdf)

[Professor John Frink]

For the record: most studies arrived at the conclusion that R1a emerged in Eastern Europe or Western Asia. It is usually assumed that R1a arose in the Ukrainian refuge during the LGM.

[Professor John Frink]

I almost forgot:

European mtDNA lineages in India are plentiful. South Asian and Asian female lineages in general are extremely rare in Europe.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/3062/mtdna0ya.jpg

source: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(4qxvqizpec1ydf45zl5isgub)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,19;journal,7,190;linkingpublicationresults,1:102426,1

[Will Scarlet]

Pfft, you're a good one to talk.


I expect to be called a bigot, as degraded as is the political clime in which we move, but a protected minority such as yourself needs to be reminded that when you start "spewing racist bile' (to use a famous MSF catch phrase), everyone can see that you're just as big a bigot as the next nazi.



If we look at the historical origins of racism we will see that the the concept of race was created by Europeans and that the concept of racial inferiority was proliferated by Europeans, not to say Europeans invented ethnocentrism or all other forms of discrimination or even skin color bias.


Well, I agree insofar as many of the peoples who adopted (or adapted) our languages also adopted, to a greater or lesser degree, our worldviews. Chalk it up to Linguistic Determinism if you will, but this is, I suppose, what we called 'becoming Westernized'.

As for the rest, it is foolish in the extreme to assume that other peoples (take for example the American Indian) were liable to "ethnocentrism or... other forms of discrimination" without also viewing themselves as somehow superior to the outgroup.

You are aware, I'm sure, that many American Indian and MesoAmerican tribal names, when translated into English, mean "The People" or "The Human Beings". What does that imply if not that they view themselves as a different breed of creature somehow possessed of some intangible spark that other creatures have never known? This is atavistically apparent in the Aztlan movement and the "reconquista" of the American southwest on the part of La Raza, "The Race", who believe that because they are "The Race" they are entitled to the land.

If you honestly think that they learned this behavior from Europeans, then I must say that you are sadly misinformed about the history of this hemisphere.



If we look at the biological make-up of dynastic Egypt it is very likely that you woud call the people who erected the pyramids "niggers" if you saw them today.


Yeah, but I've been known to say that about everyone from Ireland to Kamchatka and down to Van Diemen's Land. Doesn't mean they were negroids, contrary to some of your earlier assertions. Yeah, yeah, I know: the MSF archives were lost when Kamandi maxed out his card.


That's hilarious, I make your head spin with this topic and all of a sudden the information presented and the discussion being carried is to high caliber in your opinion to be coming from me.


Head spin? Nah, I've heard it all before. Wasn't all that convincing those times, either.


I suppose I'll take that as a compliment.

That's likely about as close as I'd get to one from you.

It's just that one can tell when it's you (ie. when serious topics are not on the table) and when yo homeboys got yo back.


I don't recall all the events but I believe it had something to do with your alleged involvement with MootFront, we just got tired of having you around.

Yeah, I pretty much just explained the events.

I didn't ban you for your debate in that humor thread, you thought I did and posted that stupid image of Kunta Kinte to spite me.

No, you did push the ban button during the Dirty Kuffar episode, but that's water under the bridge. The time I was talking about was when I logged on as DeeperThinker to take Thinker to task over the War of Northern Aggression. I decided to hang about for a while, and I eventually posted the following in the "Political Cartoons" thread.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3607/indianimmigration7ra.jpg

You went on some incoherent rant about "evil settlers". I then schooled you on the history of the building of this nation. To demonstrate the degree to which you had indeed been owned, I put this little cherry on the whipped cream:

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/3374/ownedroots1qq.jpg

(I got one for you too, Ebusitanus, so you watch your step, buddy. ;) )



[quote]So I got you back by erasing the post and replacing it with this picture.

Touchy little bugger that you are, you banned me and then replaced it with that picture of the sort of White guys your sister "dates".

Infact I actually saved your post as a word document, in case you got unbanned.

What? Are you channeling Brandon Orr all of a sudden?

[Will Scarlet]

ps. I can't believe you took a cheap shot at Awar's English. He's a damned Montenigger and his English is as good as yours, if not better.


pps. Moderators, I shall point jewr attention to the fact that "Montenigger" is a term of endearment.

[OVERWATCH]

Let's keep this discussion on track, please.

[Fade the Butcher]

West Africa wasn't even populated on a large scale prior to 1500 B.C. There would have been next to no one to trade with prior to this period in Western Africa.

The Sahara desert formed well before 1500 BC; long before the emergence of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

[Morpheus]

He didn't cite Pontikos's blog as a source, he cited a study posted in one of Pontikos's blog entries.

No, he did not cite a study from the blog as a source he quoted Pontikos's interpretation of the study I provided which means we cited material directly from the author of the blog itself.

Thus he cited the blog as a source for his rebuttle. Dienekes Pontikos is not an authority on genetics. An adequete rebuttle to peer-reviewed published data would be to provide info from an equally authoratative counter source.



Argumentum ad hominem. What "published material" has Pontikos "re-interpreted"?

The Kashyap et al study which we have been discussing throughout this thread is published material. It is an article published in a peer-reviewed journal by qualified professionals in the field of genetics. The Journal in question is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (http://www.pnas.org/).

Now perhaps "re-interpret" was the wrong word. The correct word for Pontikos's writings would be distortions. He often misrepresents the data in the studies he analyses.

For example let's look at Fade's quote again:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/01/sahoo-et-al-2006-online-indian-y.html

"It is unfortunate that this paper uses a limited number of UEP markers. Hopefully, future studies will start to seek and test more recently derived markers, which are the only ones that can really address recent events authoritatively.

Moreover, no STR markers were typed, thus further limiting any possible inferences about the time depth of the various Indian lineages.

A real problem with the study is that it performed an "admixture analysis" which considered the modern Central Asians as representative of the prehistoric ones. As it is well known, Central Asians of today have substantial Mongoloid admixture from the proto-historical and historical period and are not representative of the ancient Indo-Iranian groups of the steppe." . . . Central Asia cannot be rejected so easily though as a source for Indian J2, because the present-day Central Asians have components (within N/C/O/Q) which were probably added by Mongoloid groups recently, and are not representative of the prehistoric populations.

The study actually addresses these issues.

Excerpt:

These Y chromosomes are analyzed in the context of available data from West Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Europe, the Near East,
and Ethiopia. Measures of genetic distance, admixture, and
factor analysis drawn from the Y-chromosome data are used to
investigate three themes central to population genetics in India:
demographic links to West and Central Asia, the genetic rela-
tionship between castes and tribes, and geographic versus linguistic grouping for the current populations of the Indian
subcontinent........


Alternatively, although the simple admixture scenario does
not hold, one could nevertheless argue that the other haplo-
groups were lost during a hypothetical bottleneck (lineage
sorting among the early Indo-Aryans arriving to India). But in
line with this scenario, one should expect to observe dramatically
lower genetic variation among Indian R1a lineages. In fact, the
opposite is true: the STR haplotype diversity on the background
of R1a in Central Asia (and also in Eastern Europe) has already
been shown to be lower than that in India (6).

Rather, the high incidence of R1* and R1a throughout Central Asian and East European populations (without R2 and R* in most cases) is more
parsimoniously explained by gene flow in the opposite direction,
possibly with an early founder effect in South or West Asia. Note
that the admixture method reports positive admixture propor-
tions in cases where just one haplogroup is shared between populations (possibly because of shared deep common ancestry),
even if other haplogroup frequencies strongly argue against a
recent simple admixture scenario.


(6) Kivisild, T., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Mastana, S., Kaldma, K., Reidla, M., Parik, J., Metspalu, M., Tolk, H.-V., Stepanov, V., et al. (2003) Am. J. Hum.
Genet. 72, 313–332.

The study does infact cite research done on the STR haplotype diversity of India and Central Asia.

Y-Chromosome analysis is not just taken from Central Asia but from West Asia and various parts of Europe. Unless Pontikos is going to argue that all of these regions have been "tainted" by "Mongoloid admixture" (which would not corrupt the data on the R1a lineages still present in Central Asia) he's made a moot point.

The age of these haplogroups has been gauged and there is no evidence that more recent migrations into these regions "washed out" the original male lineages of the Indo-Iranians.

My criticism of Pontikos as a pseudo-scholar was not an ad hominem attack. He gives his own interpretations of studies which are often contrary to what the study itself says.

This type of scholarship is pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). - Rory Coker (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)

India's elite Brahmin and Kshatriya castes carry the J2 haplogroup, which is virtually absent in the "untouchables" and other lower castes. The study Mansa Musa cites even states that the J2 haplogroup in the paternal Indian population is an "external contribution" from West Asia. Most people with that haplogroup live in the Middle East and Southern Europe. The Indian upper castes more than likely descend from groups who migrated from that area into India and established the caste system.

I've recently gone over this with you on MootStormfront (http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4647&postcount=7), so I'll await your response to this subject there as well as here.

I beg to disagree for the following reasons:

The study, in fact, doesn't deny that R1a emerged outside India. It does, however, dispute that R1a was introduced into India at or after the onset of agriculture by some obscure invaders from the west. It is therefore entirely plausible that R1a was intorduced from the west before the invasion of the mythical "Aryans".

I wasn't implying that R1a originated in India, only as you say there was according to the study no foreign intrusion into India at or after the onset of agriculture.


Note, for instance, the higher age of R1a in the Balkans vis-a-vis India:


High R1a haplotype diversity in SEE is evident in the phylogenetic network (fig. 8C) and the estimated range expansion at 15.8 ± 2.1 KYA, consistent with its deep Paleolithic time depth as previously suggested (Semino et al. 2000, Wells et al. 2001). At this level of resolution it is not clear what temporal and effective population size differences contributed to this deep Paleolithic signal as high R1a variance in
SEE might be explained by either ancient demography or more recent bottlenecks and founder effects in different Slavic tribes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15944443&query_hl=9

vs.

Further, the relative position of the Indian tribals (Fig. 4), the high microsatellite variance among them (Table 8), the estimated age (14 kya) of microsatellite variation within R1a1 (Table 7) and the variance peak in the west (Fig. 3) are entirely inconsistent with a model of recent gene flow from castes to tribes and a large genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans on the autochthonous gene pool of India. Instead, our overall inference is that an early Holocene expansion in NW India (including the Indus) contributed R1a1-M17 chromosomes both to the Central Asian and S Asian tribes prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans.
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2006_v78_p202-221.pdf

The highest variance of R1a is apparently in Ukraine:
This scenario is
also supported by the finding that the maximum
variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 is
found in Ukraine (19).
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

I'd have to do the research but such results could likely be the result of R1a lineages spreading into Eastern Europe during the Paleolithic migrations from Out of Africa and into Asia before arriving in India resulting in a distinct split of dispersal between the regions.

Lastly, studies on Indian population genetics are springing up like mushrooms and there have been several of them over the last few years. Their conclusions are often contradictory.

Yes, I made mention of this here:

http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=66416&postcount=14

Ofcourse in science there is never a final word, only a never ending search for truth.

Consider, for instence, the following study:

High-resolution analysis of Y-chromosomal polymorphisms reveals signatures of population movements from Central Asia and West Asia into India (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol80No3/125.pdf)

Yes, and while this 2001 study does not seem to be directly referenced in the study by Kashyap et al the authors' other studies are.

These studies build on each other, one after the other sometimes supporting sometimes contradicting and presumably we learn more as time goes on.

I almost forgot:

European mtDNA lineages in India are plentiful. South Asian and Asian female lineages in general are extremely rare in Europe.

Again it is very important to determine the date that these lineages arrived in
India and Europe.

Are they derived from Europe or simply the predominate European haplogroups?

There is a big difference when you are looking to determine admixture within a population from an outside source.

I expect to be called a bigot, as degraded as is the political clime in which we move, but a protected minority such as yourself needs to be reminded that when you start "spewing racist bile' (to use a famous MSF catch phrase), everyone can see that you're just as big a bigot as the next nazi.

I'm not a protected minority and my making a stereotypical joke about Applachian hillbillies can hardly be construed as racist since there is no implication that I am demeaning a race.

Besides I did not say that all or most Appalachians were like that. :D

Well, I agree insofar as many of the peoples who adopted (or adapted) our languages also adopted, to a greater or lesser degree, our worldviews. Chalk it up to Linguistic Determinism if you will, but this is, I suppose, what we called 'becoming Westernized'.

As for the rest, it is foolish in the extreme to assume that other peoples (take for example the American Indian) were liable to "ethnocentrism or... other forms of discrimination" without also viewing themselves as somehow superior to the outgroup.

You are aware, I'm sure, that many American Indian and MesoAmerican tribal names, when translated into English, mean "The People" or "The Human Beings". What does that imply if not that they view themselves as a different breed of creature somehow possessed of some intangible spark that other creatures have never known? This is atavistically apparent in the Aztlan movement and the "reconquista" of the American southwest on the part of La Raza, "The Race", who believe that because they are "The Race" they are entitled to the land.

If you honestly think that they learned this behavior from Europeans, then I must say that you are sadly misinformed about the history of this hemisphere.

What you are describing would be considered a folk taxon which is different from a race.

Race in biology is the concept of division of humanity into sub-species, in which phenotype denotes genotype.

Racism is discrimination based on this scientific concept.

Notions of supremacy are a separate issue from racism, one does not have to be a racial supremacist to necessarily be a racist.

I have seen no evidence that there was a concept equivalent to race in any culute, be it from indegenious Americans to African to Asians or even Europeans before the 18th century.

The concpet of race came into the human pysche as a result of the scientific theories of men like German physicist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach.

Racism was a result of these theories.

The belief that the character and innate capabilities of human beings differed across geographic boundaries with various facial features that invariably correlated to blood relationships is the source of racial theory of which racism is a product of.

Yeah, but I've been known to say that about everyone from Ireland to Kamchatka and down to Van Diemen's Land. Doesn't mean they were negroids, contrary to some of your earlier assertions. Yeah, yeah, I know: the MSF archives were lost when Kamandi maxed out his card.

I never said that the Ancient Egyptians were Negroids.

"....terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless." - Professor C. Loring Brace

Like Dan Dare you seem to be vaguely aware of my past discussions on Ancient Egypt yet attribute terms that derive from 19th and 20th century anthropological terminology to me which I never used.

"Nubian Stock".

"Negroid".

These terms are pseudoscientific and will do nothing to help anyone understand the true biological affinities of the people who founded and carried Nile Valley Civilization.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. - Rory Coker, Ph.D. (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html)

I've done far more research on this particular subject than I have on Indian civilization.

Head spin? Nah, I've heard it all before. Wasn't all that convincing those times, either.

This research is fairly recent so I doubt that you've heard it all before.

But no doubt there has been research conducted into the legitimacy of the AIT for many years, which you've probably heard before.

It's just that one can tell when it's you (ie. when serious topics are not on the table) and when yo homeboys got yo back.

I can't imagine that when you were busy trolling MSF with your Dirty Kuffar routine that you had time to pyschoanalyze me and objectively gauge my ability to debate.

As the highest repped member on the old MSF I suppose "my hommies" must have had my back quite often. :rolleyes:


Yeah, I pretty much just explained the events.

You made quite a few absurd assumptions, such as my being intimidated by your speech about Native Americans and the fate MidWesterners are "going to share" with them, that I banned you because I could not offer a rebuttle.

As if there weren't other threads going on at the same time that I was responding to.

No, you did push the ban button during the Dirty Kuffar episode, but that's water under the bridge. The time I was talking about was when I logged on as DeeperThinker to take Thinker to task over the War of Northern Aggression. I decided to hang about for a while, and I eventually posted the following in the "Political Cartoons" thread.

You went on some incoherent rant about "evil settlers". I then schooled you on the history of the building of this nation. To demonstrate the degree to which you had indeed been owned, I put this little cherry on the whipped cream:

I wasn't always the person to push the ban button on your during your series of trolls, in fact I think it was Descendant who banned you for the Dirty kuffar not me.

I did ban you as DeeperThinker and it had nothing to do with your little speech.

Touchy little bugger that you are, you banned me and then replaced it with that picture of the sort of White guys your sister "dates".

Your banning had nothing to do with your speech about George Rodgers Clark and the Indians.

You re-regged, assumed that's what it was about and then posted the Kunta Kinte image, so I just erased the post you were boasting about and replaced it with an image of your older brother.

What? Are you channeling Brandon Orr all of a sudden?

Well since you've been BANNED from this board (though I have no doubt you will come back to lurk on Phora and come across this), I suppose I can't PM it to you as proof.

I'll post it at another time on MSF and lock it in the Palace of Justice in case you want to reg and start a thread on it, which would at this point be beyond redundant.

The Sahara desert formed well before 1500 BC; long before the emergence of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

The Sahara actually dried gradually, the region became intensely dry around 3000 B.C.

As I showed in the map on the other page much of the region was a grassland before turning into extreme desert.

8,000 -7,000 Years Ago

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr8-7.gif

5,000 years ago

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr(5ky.gif

Africa Currently

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/afr(pre.gif

This page gives insight into the drying of the Sahara and its affect on human populations at the time:


"When the Sahara Turned from Green to Brown--Postglacial Climate Change and Human Settlement in Central Sahara, 12,000 - 2,500 BC." (http://www.h-net.org/~africa/biblio/Winshall.html)

Also:

BBC: Sahara desert born 4,000 years ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390097.stm)

Egyptian Old Kingdom?

2575-2150 B.C. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/timeline.shtml)

Or began around 4,581 years ago and ended 4,156 years ago.

Therefore the Old Kingdom was at an end slightly before or around the formation of the Sahara into an extreme desert region.

The sudden climate change is actually credited by some scholars as one of the major causes of the downfall of the Old Kingdom.

Anyway I never claimed that there was extensive trade between West Africa and Nile Valley Civilization during the dynastic period in the first place this is something that Pablo, in his typically arrogant and ill informed manner is trying to attribute to me, building asinine strawmen in an effort to discredit anything I have to say about the subject of Africa.

It started in a thread about the color of Jesus in which we were discussing the makeup of the original Israelites in which I suggested based on scripture (and supported by genetics) that the Israelites consisted of indegenious Hebrew from South Western Asia and the Africans and other groups dwelling in Egypt at the time (though there is little to no evidence for the story of the biblical Exodus).

Immediately Pablo started ranting and raving in typical diffusionist fashion about Ethiopians having nothing to do with West Africa and a bunch of other incoherent gibberish that had nothing to do with the topic or my statements.

That being said I have been recommended to read a book (by an Egyptian-American who is familiar with you Fade) that deals with post-dynastic Egyptians and their migrations into and cultural influence on West Africa.

http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/books/ee-lg.jpg

Exiled Egyptians: The Heart of Africa (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965250962/102-7922843-2596124?v=glance&n=283155)

I don't know how interested you'd be in such a thing, you did post quite a bit in that absurdly long Stormfront thread on the subject of Ancient Egypt.

I'd be interested in doing some threads on Ancient Egypt in the history forum sometime in the future.

For now I'll be taking a long break from race-related discussions.

This thread turned out well for the most part. If anyone wishes to carry it on in my absence be my guest but for now I'm taking off.


Peace out.


- Mansa Musa