Genetics stories in India Today

4500-year-old DNA from Rakhigarhi reveals evidence that will unsettle Hindutva nationalists:

The ‘petrous bone’ is an inelegant but useful chunk of the human skull — basically it protects your inner ear. But that’s not all it protects. In recent years, genetic scientists working to extract DNA from ancient skeletons have discovered that, thanks to the extreme density of a particular region of the petrous bone (the bit shielding the cochlea, since you ask), they could sometimes harvest 100 times more DNA from it than from any other remaining tissue.

Now this somewhat macabre innovation may well resolve one of the most heated debates about the history of India.

And, from me, 3 strands of ancestry.

Nothing new for close readers. I would caution

1) Many Hindu nationalists really don’t care and are not perturbed by these findings. I know, because I know them.

2) I don’t know if the paper is going to be published soon. It may, but we’ve been waiting two years now.

64 thoughts on “Genetics stories in India Today

  1. To summarize my grand daddies took South Asian wives… >4 before Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and <= 4 after Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and had lots of kids with them. And everytime the kid followed my grand daddy's religion. Obviously.

    Stanis being (and riding) the stallions that we are, took a whole load of non-Muslim paramours too. 4 wives doesn't cut it for some of us really. And even their illegit kids were made Muslim to follow the righteous and one true path.

    Moral of the story: The better looking a brownie, the closer in time did my C Asian big daddy deflower her/his then nubile S Asian grand mommy. End of.


  2. Could never understand fully why did it perturbed Hindu nationalist so much in the first place. Its more perplexing considering the hindu nationalist sphere of influence as well as their narrative’s target audience were never the South/East India . The Dravidians could go on their separate path parroting their own Lemuria, while Hindu nationalist their own golden vedic age or so.

    I feel it has to do with the lack of information regarding other ethnic / religious nationalist movements as to how to push back effectively against invader vs native idea. So many ethnicties /communities all around the world have successfully established their race/religion/ethnicity as “native” even with much later migration/invasion than the post Harrapan people.

    To make the British/ Turks invaders you need not go back to 4^∞ BC to establish your “nativeness”

    1. When u realise the chap u thought was your popz ain’t your real pop but the neighbour is, shit hits the fan. That’s why ur hindoos and bandits are going bat shit crazy. They just found the buried chap ain’t their daddy 😀

      History repeats itself:
      Aryan > Turan > Khan > Stan.


    2. So many ethnicties /communities all around the world have successfully established their race/religion/ethnicity as “native” even with much later migration/invasion than the post Harrapan people.

      I guess it’s because other countries didn’t freeze their genetic heritage(s) into fiercely endogamous subgroups like Indians did. For example, would it be possible for any Englishman to claim uniquely Saxon or Norman ancestry today, even if they could identify which branch their surname came from? Those distinctions are meaningless there because the English (and British) identities have long superseded older tribal and dynastic identities.

      In India, creating a pan-Indian identity has been in the works since the British Raj, but fissiparous tendencies are still present, so theories like AIT can be used by many of our subgroups to claim exemption from the “Indian identity” project. (And to be brutally honest, being part of India is not such a big prize in material terms, unlike say being part of the USA, that people may not want to walk out of it and go their own way.) So it’s not surprising that nationalist Indians (Hindutva or otherwise) would keep trying to debunk the theory.

      1. I think the Norman “caste” is still super-operative in Britain.

        HM the Queen is the Sovereign because of her descent from William the Conqueror.

        1. If I’m not mistaken, most of the British Royal Family has more German than English ancestry at this point, no?

          But apart from our knowledge that the high aristocracy have Norman ancestry, are Norman and Saxon identities at all salient in the country? It could be that the higher up the class structure you go, you’ll find French-sounding names at higher frequency. (That’s what you are referring to, right?) But that’s basically a class structure and not a tribal one. 21st century England doesn’t resemble Ivanhoe.

          My point was about identity. If someone wanted to start a Norman nationalist movement in England, where would he start? Who would he reach out to? In contrast, the Scottish identity is still strong in Britain, which is what makes a nationalist movement there possible. Similarly, in India, if someone wanted to start a Kannada national movement or a Manipuri national movement, it would be blindingly clear who was included and who was not. Few people would have any internal confusion on that question, though of course they may be conflicted about whether to join such a movement.

          1. re: normans. greg clark shows that norman surnames are extremely overrepresented among officers. but far less so in other professions (going off memory).

            re: british royal family. elizabeth ii is half scottish. her husband is mostly german (with much of the rest danish). so prince charles is ~3/4 german. but dianna was english. so prince william is less than half german. and kate is english, so little george is >75% british.

          2. And Diana a direct descendant of an Indian woman.

            Queen Elizabeths father was of German paternal descent.

            The House of Windsor is the reigning royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. The dynasty is of German paternal descent and was originally a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself derived from the House of Wettin, which succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy following the death of Queen Victoria, wife of Albert, Prince Consort.

            The name was changed from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor (from “Windsor Castle”[1]) in 1917 because of anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I.[2]


      2. “, so theories like AIT can be used by many of our subgroups to claim exemption from the “Indian identity” project. ”

        As i said the sub groups who wanted out were already not on the radar ie S-Indians and East Indians, or they had already opted out (Like Pakistanis), from the hindu nationalist project. I dont think any sub group in N-India, N-West India had any reservations with native theory. Neither was it ever intellectually challenged in N-India. The maximum stretch you can have is the Savarna-Avarana theory built by N-Indian dalit groups but even they dont challenge it that much. Its like the best is the enemy of the good. By trying to engulf(who never wanted to ) S-Indians you stretched your theory to breaking point.

        ” For example, would it be possible for any Englishman to claim uniquely Saxon or Norman ancestry today, even if they could identify which branch their surname came from? ”

        The Englishman does not care because the fault lines are not the same. In Pakistan for example the dont give two hoots for this theory either way because for them they are outsiders winning over the native anyway. Similarly Turkish nationalism also doesnt have this because they “know” they won Turkey coming from different land. For them its badge of honor. But thats not true for let say Hungarians who see themselves from that land even though their migration into Hungary is clearly documented .

        the point i am making is to claim “nativeness” you need not go ten of thousand years ago because no where in this world is this parameter being used to establish nativeness. No one is looking whether 10000 years ago Britan was invaded by which people, and should current day anglo saxon can claim whether they are natives to the island or not. The right in India should have called the Left’s bluff on this a long time ago.

      3. An avg indian will wish he were an “angrez” but an average English chap would never wish to be indian. Most bandits also want to be English. Some even say so openly. I see so many indian illegals in windsor. Pakistanis are better looking and English girls like diana or jemima love to bear their children. Superior C Asian gene expression through pakistani physiognomy.

        Even hindu women love pakistani men like Imran bhai. Why is that? Obvious reasons. Indians know this but dont want to admit. Now studies proving this are coming out. Love jihad mania for a good reason.


          1. Anan follows me I follow none. Even copied my #StanisInTheHood trademark hashtag

            I am a half tatar half uzbek anglophile Turk living in uk. Work as a janitor in windsor serving the royals.

            Best kept secret of brown bandits.

          2. Saurav,
            Jaggu seems to me to be trying to be sarcastic/ironic (I don’t believe for a second he is actually a janitor). He seems to be trying to mock “Islamists”. Anan, on the other hand, seems to seriously believe the crazy things he posts about “Arya” and the “postmodernist establishment”. At this point, I am going to totally ignore the two of them. Jaggu at least is funny (sort of).

  3. Good job Razib on the India Today article! The other article I was surprised how candid they were about the Indian government Hindutva agenda pressuring the researchers. It even mentionined the earlier confusing leaks that tried to paint a result more in line with a “Vedic” Hindu Indian origin of the Harrapans/IVC. If something like that had happened in a western country like the USA there would hell to pay in the media and politically (i.e. sample headline “Christian creationists in government pressure scientists for false science results to confirm their religious narratives for own ends of creating a theocracy!” or something like that). Can’t wait for the paper to FINALLY come out in September.

    1. he’s an editor at *the india today group*. kai’s dad is german, explaining his name (his mother is indian and he grew up india judging from his accent, we’ve had skype chats)

  4. The comments on the India Today article page make for agonizing reading, as they so often do. People just cannot deal with these topics in a rational, non-conspiratorial manner.

  5. Don’t really know when OIT became this big of a deal among the Hindu right.

    Growing up, I was only aware of AIT and people (conservative ones at that) of my grandfather’s generation were quite cool with it.

    This seems like a situation where the right has dug themselves into a hole in recent years just because they had to double down on a contra position to the left.

    1. I know when it started, but can’t accurately point to who started it. It was in the late 90s, when Indians started getting on the Internet for the first time, and as with every technology that people encounter for the first time, stuff coming out of it was treated as gospel; people weren’t and probably still aren’t informed enough to cross-check with more reputable sources. Indians being Indians, this spread far and wide and people just started accepting the debunking of the AIT as conventional wisdom.

      For another example of a completely spurious piece of information that’s still believed and spread around by people: there’s a bogus quote/essay by Macaulay (the guy who “imposed” English education on us back in the day) claiming ownership of a Machiavellian plot to undermine the wonderful Indian civilization by forcing alien education down our throats, undermining our self-confidence and making it more easy for the British to rule us.
      The thing is, if you go dig into his original writings and archives, nothing of the sort can be found. And this quote would be completely out of character. In all his other writings, he expresses profound contempt for classical Indian knowledge and education, and thinks he’s doing us a favor by spreading Western education.
      But, the meme’s still alive, 20 or so years after someone released the virus.

      1. the strangest thing is that many indian commentators will say to me: “i still believe the stuff that was published 2005-2010.” there was stuff more congenial to OIT for a bit. for various reasons the field has moved on. but ppl have not.

          1. 1) the mtDNA lineages in south asia may be basal to a lot of eurasian ones. so “OIT” Pleistocene

            2) the r1a1a basal position wasn’t clear.

  6. rajeev malhotra and his ilk, started in the 90’s. Porduct of rss/hindutva ethnic based project as opposed to belief based project. I am happy they got what they deserved for peddling bullshit and more importantly for their deep distrust for real intellectuals. serves them right.

    I take the simple polytheist vs monotheist view. Hope this will convince the idiots. But I know that idiots wont because they are not smart enough to realize they are idoits in first place. To recognize that one is not smart also takes smarts.

  7. Couple things…

    Re English (royals, ancestries, Normans, etc) – English are latecomers to the Island and pushed Celts to the north and west. Celts (=Goths=Galls) originated in Danube civilisation (today’s Serbia) and considered as a Serbian rank (warriors who leave to fight and stay there, not coming back). London and Thames (i.e. Temza) are Serbian toponyms; the first name of London was Troy (same as Serbian city of Troy in Asia Minor). Germans, themselves, are almost 70% of Serbian origin (even Hitler confessed in his Book). Prussians even preserved their Serbian name.

    Re Aryans, etc. – I will write more but there are so many illogical (consequently untrue) things.
    First – So called Steppe pastoralist left their habitat going east and west. They are allegedly the Indo-European language link which connects Sanskrit with European languages. I do not agree with OIT proponents but one their argument is definitely true. It was mentioned by David Frawley (it is on Youtube). He was talking against Aryans invasion referring to Steppe pastoralist as potential Aryans. He said that Aryans cannot be some unorganised nomads without strong organisation, without culture, without strong leader, without literacy. He is right in this sense.

    Real Aryans had strong organisation, strong leader, came from very developed urban culture, who had very developed literacy, technology (metallurgy, steel weaponry). Their leader founded Babylon and ruled Assyrian kingdom. Why would these steppe guys call themselves Aryans?
    Well, I wrote about this before that Aryans were ancient Serbs. How explain hundreds of Serbian toponyms in India and SA if Aryans came from steppes? Which toponyms they left? What were their towns with developed metallurgy? Any written archaeology documents they left? What were their mythology and gods?

    I must say and congratulate Brown Pundits that they were first in South Asia who published the assertion that Aryans were ancient Serbs. One day, when it becomes a mainstream fact, you can remain everyone that it was firstly published on this site. I provided numerous supporting evidences in several occasions. I will collate and do this again.

    Just to add a genetics thing which I mentioned before and which was a bit ignored. It explains many things and can make 90% of all these discussions redundant and obsolete. The oldest R1a gene (so-called – Serbian gene) is 12000 years old and North-Indian R1a is about 3850 old. What does it say about steppe guys? This is also the fact which was first published in Brown Pundits and very soon must become a central part of discussions about Aryans.

  8. On the first sight it maybe not directly related but have a look…

    I said earlier that Serbian alphabet (from Vinca) is 7000 y. old and the language much older. For e.g. let see the Serbian word MED (eng. honey). This word is a root for – Medicine, Medical, Medal…etc. (sorry, it is not Latin) and ancient Serbian drink – Medovina. This word can describe common origins of various languages. Regularly is used the idiotic phrase ‘Indo-European’ (which for 100 years was Indo-Germanishe) without any substance and without any attempt to find out where this language was originated, who spoke this language, who took from whom, what is the link between India and Europe, when and how this happened. Well, the (Proto)Indo-European language is actually ancient Serbian and everywhere you see IE you can replace with Serbian and all will come on the right place. Who has MED in their language (some directly, some through colonial rulers)?

    The following languages: Armenian, Azerbaijani, Bangla (madhu), Catalan, Cebuano, Corsican, Czech, English (med/honey), Esperanto, Estonian, Filipino, French, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Haitian, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hmong, Icelandic, Igbo, Indonesian, Irish, Japanese (medi), Javanese, Kannada, Khmer, Kurdish, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxemburgish, Malay, Malayalam, Maltese, Maori, Marathi (meda), Mongolian, Nepali, Nyanja, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Samoan, Scottish Gaelic, Shona, Slovak, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Tajik, Ukrainian, Urdu (mad), Uzbek, Vietnamese, Welsh, Western Frisian, Yoruba, Zulu.

  9. Since no one is making the point from the so-called ‘Hindu Nationalist’ position let me be the one to do it.

    Let us review a few of things being discussed :-

    1. First and foremost, the Out of India position may have been proposed recently but that is because, it is only recently that Indians have started looking at their own historical traditions independently without Western lens. The prevalent Aryan Invasion Theory was a racist colonial theory pulled out of thin air and it persisted through independence right upto now because there was no one during colonial era who could or would challenge it and because, post independence, the Marxists took hold of disciplines like history and they have done precious little research on ancient India beyond what was already understood/misunderstood during the pre-independence era.

    But, this does not mean that the Out of India theory is an imagination of ‘Hindu Nationalists’. While there is no reference of any migration from Central Asia or anywhere else into India in the ancient Indian Vedic and Puranic literature, there is clear mention of a major group known as Druhyus who migrated from Punjab into Gandhara (the designation Gandhara is itself said to be given by the Druhyus, and from there they migrated northwards to establish several kingdoms among the mlechhas. What is north of Gandhara where mlechhas lived ? It is none but Central Asia.

    This is an ancient Indian historical tradition and not a figment of imagination of modern ‘Hindu Nationalists’. Modern day Indians, have now in the past few decades just began to advocate an Indian point of view which was earlier entirely missing. But it is not imagination as some ignorant fellows would like to believe.

    2. The recent preprint, ‘The Genomic Formation of South & Central Asia’, clearly says that there was migration of Indians into Eastern Iran and Central Asia from around 3100 BC. Did anyone of the geniuses here know this or have tried to ponder upon it ?

    “In fact, the data suggest that instead of the main BMAC population having a demographic impact on South Asia, there was a larger effect of gene flow in the reverse direction, as the main BMAC genetic cluster is slightly different from the preceding Turan populations in harboring ~5% of their ancestry from the AASI.

    Also, this is the main cluster of samples (representing anout 80 % 0f all BMAC samples in the study) of Bactriana Margiana Archaeological Complex which has substantial South Asian admixture and this is besides the 3 samples, 2 from Eastern Iran & 1 from Central Asia which are considered as migrants from IVC. Not only that, all Bronze Age samples from Eastern Iran & Central Asia have South Asian admixture.

    Here is an update :- The Harvard folks have found, that there were not just 3 Indus_Periphery samples in Eastern Iran & Central Asia. Infact, there are 15 more Indus_P samples now available with Harvard.

    Clearly, there is now genetic evidence of Indians migrating into Eastern Iran & Central Asia in large nos and also mixing with the native populations in those regions.

    So, is this not evidence of Out of India migration into Eastern Iran & Central Asia ? Can you not see the significance of this ?

    Or will you still believe what your white masters tell you ?

    1. What is north of Gandhara where mlechhas lived ? It is none but Central Asia.

      what is gandhara .. means green arse in urdu LOL. u started calling Pak bros green arsed now?? They ain’t eating green mate, they eat cows and shit ur colour.

      what is mlech? Doesn’t sound nice. Just m added to lech. Makes it sound worse than a lech.

      Is that what u are calling my C Asian heritage mate? Beware of our wrath. Will end u bruv.


    2. Oh good, we are using Hindu myths as science! That is always enjoyable.

      Your myths are fiction not History. Get this through your heads.

      Love the attack on “Marxists”. You people can’t even bother to be original now.

        1. what language is that? you know i don’t know indian languages so watch what you say on my posts. i wanna know what you are talking about turanicide.

          1. Razib respect u bro. But u are my 3rd fave brown bandit after Kabir and Zak. My respect is directly proportional to C Asian dna content.

            Language is urdu. The tongue purified of local haram words, with soldierly Turkish, beautiful womanly Persian and godly Arabic put in.

            I was conveying to my 1st fave Kabir bro that he should visit windsor sometime. Give me the opportunity to serve him 🙂 isn’t that a beautiful thot?

        2. LOL.

          Just so you know, I think you are as nuts as the Hindu nationalists, only in the other direction. No offense.

          The only saving grace is that I think your tongue is firmly in your cheek (at least that’s my hope).

      1. Your myths are fiction not History. Get this through your heads.

        you know, i agree with you. but when people make fun of islam you flip your shit. just pointing that out. (apologies if you have multiple personality issues so this is new information to you).

        1. I am really getting sick of discussing “Islam”.

          In any case, the existence of the Prophet of God is not a myth. A person named Muhammad existed. Whether or not he was a prophet is a matter of belief.

          Also people who use Islamic beliefs to argue for pseudo-science are just as annoying as Hindu nationalists. I have no patience for either group.

          1. In any case, the existence of the Prophet of God is not a myth. A person named Muhammad existed. Whether or not he was a prophet is a matter of belief.

            as we’ve said, his existence IS debated. you’re big into liberal arts scholarship, and it’s right there if you care. patricia crone.

            my point is that you are pretty disrespectful of hindu religion when you demean their stories as myths, rather than history. i’m OK with that personally and kind of agree.

          2. I don’t mean to be demeaning. But there is clearly a difference between mythical time and historical time. 7th century Arabia is well into historical time.

            Using myths to make scientific arguments is stupid.

            I’m not particularly keen on this issue, so I’m done here.

    3. So, is this not evidence of Out of India migration into Eastern Iran & Central Asia ? Can you not see the significance of this ?

      just write a long comment on this. i think i know what you are implying but might as well put it in the record of the comments.

        1. If you want I can also increase your privileges to contributor; so if you structure it more “post-like” than comment-like.

          You bring an interesting hetrodox opinion..

    4. Jaydeep:

      The prevalent Aryan Invasion Theory was a racist colonial theory pulled out of thin air

      The theory as propounded then, and the way it was used politically, was indeed racist and served a colonial purpose, but where you go wrong is in asserting that it was pulled out of thin air. As recent research in various fields has borne out, the core of the theory is most likely accurate.

      A larger point: it’s perfectly fine to rethink historical narratives, especially when we find logic and evidence lacking in the older formulations. Your side can continue to discuss and propagate the OIT as long as you observe basic scientific discipline, and more power to you.

      But what is problematic is your firm insistence that anything coming from other sources that disagrees with the OIT is, by the nature of its origin, wrong and inspired by malice. At this point, unfortunately a lot of people (highly educated and smart in their own technical fields) seem to be convinced by the OIT because they don’t know about the general scholarly consensus or have been conditioned by your side to think that all that is “Fake News”. Your side is doing India and Indians a massive disservice by employing these tactics.

      1. As recent research in various fields has borne out, the core of the theory is most likely accurate.

        I am not trying to ridicule you in any way here. You have responded in a rational manner so I have no issues with you. But can you substantiate your above statement with some concrete facts ?

        What are the various fields you’re talking about ?

        Archaeology ?

        Where is the evidence from archaeology for a migration in the 2nd millenium BC into South Asia ? Here is a recent archaeological paper that came out as a supplement with a recent aDNA paper (Daamgard et al)

        There is a long section on South Central Asian archaeology which you should try and read but the most defining paragraph is the one I am quoting below :-

        This survey of the archaeological and biological record of southern Central Asia yields four important findings. First, contacts between the sedentary food-producing populations of the Namazga culture populations residing in Kopet Dagh piedmont and Geokyur oasis of southern Turkmenistan who likely established the outpost at Sarazm had little to no contact with populations residing in the southern steppe zone. Second, contacts between Bronze Age steppe populations and NMG V and BMAC populations appears to have been one in which the dynamic of cultural influence was stronger on the side of the well-established sedentary food- producing populations, and this resulted in the partial assimilation of these initial newcomers to the region both culturally and, to a lesser degree, biologically as well. Third, not all of those who emigrated from the north turned to farming but may have continued a semi-nomadic existence in the highlands, which were unsuitable for the kind of intensive farming practiced in the BMAC homelands or in the regions of Khorezm. Fourth, if there was any Central Asian influence on South Asian populations, that influence likely long predated any development of Iranian, let alone Indo-Aryan, languages, and most likely occurred during the late NMG IV to early NMG V period (ca. 2800–2300 BCE) and even earlier during the Eneolithic from Kelteminar culture groups (4000–3500 BCE).

        Now can you counter this with what your own knowledge of archaeology leads you to believe ? Once you do that, we shall move to linguistics and genetics as well.

    5. Or will you still believe what your white masters tell you ?

      You may have a point here when it comes to the analysis, but aren’t you quoting from the paper written by the “white masters” yourself? I know there are Indians among the authors, but there seem to be lots of whites too.

      1. Quoting the facts from the paper and believing the narrative and theory of the authors hook, line & sinker are two different things.

        I merely quoted the facts. There is a lot of research work done by Western linguists that supports Out of India theory. But obviously those scholars themselves interpret the research data according to their own beliefs. The key point is – let us look at the facts given by these Western scholars objectively without totally and uncritically swallowing their conclusions.

        1. Fair enough, but it’d be good to avoid epithets in such discussions. You’ve clearly done a lot of research and thinking on these issues, so let that speak for itself. All epithets do is bias the reader one way or the the other at the outset.

  10. Razib respect u bro. But u are my 3rd fave brown bandit after Kabir and Zak. My respect is directly proportional to C Asian dna content.

    zack is iran, not turan.

    also, unless you are r1a1a-z93 you can fuck-off bro. we were the drivers of men and lords of the steppe. what’s your haplogroup?

  11. I can almost sense the intelligence expressed through C Asian genes kabir bro. Big fan. Do u know any kashmiri muslimahs?

    you don’t take after babur then in your preferences? babes, not boyz?

    1. ata babur was more equal among men. Uber manly. So even average men appeared womanly to him. I’m a mere janitor of royals so can’t aspire to that greatness.

  12. It would be interesting to know the genetic history of India from 50,000 yrs back to now. What do we know of diversity of that?. And do we have more spatially spread samples. what was the genetic relation between bmac/iran ,others and indus valley and mesopotamia. I read somewhere that some women from Mesopotamia were married into elite indus society, inference through burials/artifacts.

  13. But what is problematic is your firm insistence that anything coming from other sources that disagrees with the OIT is, by the nature of its origin, wrong and inspired by malice.

    I have never said so. Rather my point is that OIT is not imaginary nonsense. It can perfectly well be true. There is nothing conclusive that proves AMT and disproves OIT. But no one seems to care.

    People are happy to concede to the authority of the Western scholarly opinion. But they will not take the trouble to look at the facts upon which these Western scholarship bases its opinion. And when some Indians try to do just that, they become irrational and emotional Hindu Nationalists. That is how the game is being played. Please pay attention to that.

    1. There is nothing conclusive that proves AMT and disproves OIT.

      I’d agree with that, but not with the implication you seem to derive: that we ought to treat the OIT as equally valid to the AMT. To me, the preponderance of evidence and logic (and Occam’s razor) seems to be biased in favor of the latter when we consider the inferences of genetics, archaeology, and linguistics put together. Plainly put, I find AMT easier to believe, knowing all I know (which, granted, may not be much.)

      The analogy I usually draw for such a historical quest is with a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle. Today we have maybe 100 pieces to play with, and realistically speaking, we may not ever find more than, say, 200. Of the 100 pieces we have, we can arrange 80 in a way that fit an AMT picture, with the remaining 20 not providing much support either for or against. On the other hand, we could maybe take 40 pieces and extrapolate an OIT picture, with the remaining 60 pieces not providing much support either for or against. (I’m just inventing these numbers, but I think you catch my drift.) If and when we discover more pieces, they might end up bolstering one or the other theory, or painting a completely different picture. But given what we know, I’d have to pick the 80-piece picture over the 40-piece one.

  14. “There is nothing conclusive that proves AMT and disproves OIT”

    this isnt the argument being made. you are saying they are strawmanning the argument,not so, it is perfectly fair to criticize mainstream arguments of oit that claims amt is wrong. one takes on those who make the loudest noises and not every criticism ever made. That isnt unfair. The loudest noises are that such migration never happened.

  15. Razib there is a 4th ancestry, WSHG as well. Another thing to note from the Daamgard paper, a Namazga Copper Age ancestry starts to stream through in the Swat, and they model better with many of the groups in Northern South Asia in formal stats coupled with an AASI rich population, which harbors the previous Neolithic Iranian ancestry.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits