BBC accepts that AIT is flawed

[Joe Shearer]

I want to jump in and say my bit but realise that I have nothing to add to what I have already said so many times. I wish there was some addition, some new knowledge that we could ponder over. Unfortunately there isn't and all arguments are simply a rehash of the same old ones. I happen to believe that the AIT is simply not proven beyond doubt, I believe that all available evidence suggests that the theory is discredited from the viewpoint of anyone but linguists. However there is a linguistic connection that has not satisfactorily been explained & that does give me pause from totally dismissing any variation of the AIT. However I see many of those opposing the AIT doing so for reasons other than just a disagreement on sound scientific/archaeological grounds. While that does not in itself render their opposition wrong (people can have any view, for any reason, if they are willing to look at the facts as quite a few do in opposition of the AIT), it makes me extra suspicious of their reasoning. I, for one would not find it objectionable if the AIT were correct or if some other theory of migration was correct, just as long as it was proved. It would not alter my view of myself or that of my country in any way. That would mean I'm open to persuasion which I fear is not the case with most who either champion the AIT or those who vehemently oppose it.

I was getting nervous and irritable, wondering which point you would select for entry.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....

 

[Random Boy]

(1) If inclining to the judgement of the majority of thinkers and researchers in a particular field is being naive, I am happy to be naive. If differing from the majority is the opposite of naive, then all one has to do is to oppose accepted thinking in any area to become an illuminated savant in that field. As you possibly already know, this is not the case.

(2) Again, not I, alone, but the majority of those researching these issues, due to the fact that languages do not confine themselves to race. If they had, President Obama would not have been addressing us in English.

(3) What is this concept of 'inventing' India? Is it your contention that the AIT demands that there was no Indian culture or civilisation prior to the introduction of Indo-Aryan? That is only partly true, in that no known civilisation survived the decline and disappearance of the Indus Valley Civilisation, but culture certainly existed. Religious practices different from the Vedic model existed; languages distinct from Indo-Aryan existed; settlements existed; the transition from pastoral life to agricultural life existed; trade and commerce existed. So what exactly was invented?

(4) Truly startling statements.

=> Light-eyed and fair-haired, like the skeletons from the Andronovo culture?

I would like to know how skeletons display eye colour and hair colour. I would also like to know where these characteristics came to be noticed in the Andronovo culture.

Please recall that mummies are not skeletons, and that there were no mummies in the Andronovo culture findings. Please recall that mummies that may have had a bearing on this question came from locations far to the east of the sites of the Andronovo culture finds.

=> dated to be proto-Indo-Iranian?

Incredible. How are skeletons, for that matter, anything tangible, dated to be equivalent to a language that is derived by linguistic analysis, and does not have a written script and writings in general to link to the archaeology concerned?

=> stated to be responsible for the invasion of India?

Surely not the proto-Indo-Iranian? If you recall, the linguistic progression is thought to be into proto-Iranian and Indo-Aryan at the next stage, and it is the Indo-Aryan that is thought to have entered India.

I am happy to grant you the point that this is to be identified as the generation of the language that entered India, but your other arguments, about the racial taxonomy of the Andronovo culture, and the identification of these with proto-Indo-Iranian, are wholly lacking in proof. These are speculations. There is no physical evidence that the persons who introduced Indo-Aryan into India were light-eyed and fair-haired.

(5) What has blue eyes got to do with language?

(6) The debate on how Indo-European languages, Indo-Aryan, to be a little more specific, came into India is precisely where the AIT is today.

(7) Why not by adoption as the favoured language of a dominant minority? The way Turkish spread through Anatolia? Or the way Urdu spread through south India?

(8) No doubt it will be debated and discussed until some conclusions emerge.

(9) The trouble is that you have adopted as canonical one of the distortions and mischievous uses to which the AIT was put, by European racists, and think that it is the definitive interpretation. Far from it. For one, few think any longer that the people of the Andronovo culture were racially or genetically homogenous. Just as nobody thinks that the Scythian was racially homogenous. Even if there was a physical incursion into northern India by the people who spoke Indo-Aryan, there is no reason to believe that they were white themselves, and there is no evidence that there was a white vs. brown clash in the events surrounding this injection of Indo-Aryan into south Asia.

(10) You may find it edifying to look up the motto of the Scots Clan Keith.

Read up Andronovo on Wikipedia. 60% had light hair and eyes. I cant link you because i cant post links

Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one haplogroup C-M130 (xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.

90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.[11]

A 2004 study also established that, during the Bronze/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the thirteenth to seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages.[12]

if 60% had blue eyes and light hair they must have been a White culture and not Indian culture since it is impossible that modern day Indians would have 60% blue eyes and light hair. only White People can do that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The difficulty with this kind of speculation is immense.

There is nothing to indicate that the archaeology of Andronovo is linked to the Proto-Indo-European language. What we have at best is speculation.

It is premature to think

(1) The Andronovo culture was the culture of a 'white' race;
(2) It was the Andronovo culture that was associated with the Indo-Aryan language that entered India;
(3) That implies that the people who introduced the Indo-Aryan language into India were whites;

Sadly for this speculation, there is no link between the archaeological remains and the spoken language. It must remain speculation.

 

[Random Boy]

The difficulty with this kind of speculation is immense.

There is nothing to indicate that the archaeology of Andronovo is linked to the Proto-Indo-European language. What we have at best is speculation.

It is premature to think

(1) The Andronovo culture was the culture of a 'white' race;
(2) It was the Andronovo culture that was associated with the Indo-Aryan language that entered India;
(3) That implies that the people who introduced the Indo-Aryan language into India were whites;

Sadly for this speculation, there is no link between the archaeological remains and the spoken language. It must remain speculation.

Of course I agree. But the AIT is about "westerneuroasians" who have been fair which came into India. You try to mask the AIT as politically correct and more swallowable for Indians just. Well i think there should be Research on alternative explanations how indo-european languages spread and not the Standard "White men who on horses spread their civilisation and called themselfes aryans"

 

[Joe Shearer]

Of course I agree. But the AIT is about "westerneuroasians" who have been fair which came into India. You try to mask the AIT as politically correct and more swallowable for Indians just. Well i think there should be Research on alternative explanations how indo-european languages spread and not the Standard "White men who on horses spread their civilisation and called themselfes aryans"

Research by whom?

Ever since independence, there has been growing pressure by politically motivated 'revisionists' to review all existing academic views, views not in history alone but in every subject. However, history - and historians - have taken the brunt of the attack. Possibly, at the trivial end, this may have been due to the ease of access of historical writings; everyone can read history, not everybody can do linguistics and not come out sounding like idiots, as the example in this thread shows. Possibly, at the serious end, this may have been because it is difficult to build myths about one's identity until history has been suitably re-written, as our Pakistani friends have found. Possibly, also, this may have been due to the completely wrong notions about what constitutes acceptable methodology in the subject. Those who have sought to intervene on the revisionist ticket have generally concentrated on the nature of evidence; in terms of the catchphrase, absence of evidence has been taken to be evidence of absence.

There is no smoking gun showing that Indo-European languages originated on the steppes, no archaeological link of the cultural artifacts, the archaeological horizon, as it has been called, with Proto-Indo-European, no evidence that it (PIE) was not present within south Asia and originated here, so the triumphant conclusion is that therefore the matter is proved, Indo-European languages originated in India/south Asia, and anyone who denies this is a racist lackey of the White race(s). There is no evidence that the people of that culture were not of the mythical white race, meaning apparently something as grotesquely antiquated as signification by blonde or red hair and blue or green eyes, no evidence about the mixed ethnicity of those people in the cultural horizon, so we are asked to believe that the opposite is true. This is the method of the null hypothesis taken to laughable extremes, wholly out of context.

Pointing out to them that there was little or no genetic difference between brown Indian and supposedly White Siberian does not work. In the present case, we have an extreme example, a brown person, his definition, even on this forum under savage attack by as horrible a pair of racist pit-bulls that we have had the misfortune to see; he will have none of this dismissal of the White as a mythical category, when 'their' oppression of 'his' race is such a live reality. It is difficult to refute him, or to contain his steely determination to set the 'record' straight, no possibility of convincing him that this 'record' that he seeks to set straight was in the first place a racist concoction, and that it vanishes with the vanishing of racism, of the equation of superior cultural or intellectual endowment with skin pigmentation. To him, what the racists say is reality; it has to be fought at that level, as real, as his tormentors on PDF are real.

In this maelstrom of emotion and prejudice, it is difficult to bring up rational arguments which do not sound tepid. <more>

 

[Random Boy]

Research by whom?

Ever since independence, there has been growing pressure by politically motivated 'revisionists' to review all existing academic views, views not in history alone but in every subject. However, history - and historians - have taken the brunt of the attack. Possibly, at the trivial end, this may have been due to the ease of access of historical writings; everyone can read history, not everybody can do linguistics and not come out sounding like idiots, as the example in this thread shows. Possibly, at the serious end, this may have been because it is difficult to build myths about one's identity until history has been suitably re-written, as our Pakistani friends have found. Possibly, also, this may have been due to the completely wrong notions about what constitutes acceptable methodology in the subject. Those who have sought to intervene on the revisionist ticket have generally concentrated on the nature of evidence; in terms of the catchphrase, absence of evidence has been taken to be evidence of absence.

There is no smoking gun showing that Indo-European languages originated on the steppes, no archaeological link of the cultural artifacts, the archaeological horizon, as it has been called, with Proto-Indo-European, no evidence that it (PIE) was not present within south Asia and originated here, so the triumphant conclusion is that therefore the matter is proved, Indo-European languages originated in India/south Asia, and anyone who denies this is a racist lackey of the White race(s). There is no evidence that the people of that culture were not of the mythical white race, meaning apparently something as grotesquely antiquated as signification by blonde or red hair and blue or green eyes, no evidence about the mixed ethnicity of those people in the cultural horizon, so we are asked to believe that the opposite is true. This is the method of the null hypothesis taken to laughable extremes, wholly out of context.

Pointing out to them that there was little or no genetic difference between brown Indian and supposedly White Siberian does not work. In the present case, we have an extreme example, a brown person, his definition, even on this forum under savage attack by as horrible a pair of racist pit-bulls that we have had the misfortune to see; he will have none of this dismissal of the White as a mythical category, when 'their' oppression of 'his' race is such a live reality. It is difficult to refute him, or to contain his steely determination to set the 'record' straight, no possibility of convincing him that this 'record' that he seeks to set straight was in the first place a racist concoction, and that it vanishes with the vanishing of racism, of the equation of superior cultural or intellectual endowment with skin pigmentation. To him, what the racists say is reality; it has to be fought at that level, as real, as his tormentors on PDF are real.

In this maelstrom of emotion and prejudice, it is difficult to bring up rational arguments which do not sound tepid. <more>

You call them "Revisionists" as if they are bad and liers and pseudo-People. But there is a fair Point to Review historical writings. Because historical writings are heavely based on whitecentric mythmaking. Like in the case of Tutsi and Hutu, which reminds me a bit of India.

The Europeans believed that some Tutsis had facial characteristics that were generally atypical of other Bantus. They sought to explain these purported divergent physical traits by postulating admixture with or partial descent from migrants of Caucasoid stock, who usually were said to have arrived in the Great Lakes region from the Horn of Africa and/or North Africa.[4] Some Tutsi also believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites and had a mystical connection to Israel.[5]

By contrast, the Europeans considered the majority Hutu to be characteristic Bantu people of Central African origin. These various migration theories of foreign provenance were also in part inspired by the Tutsi's own long-held oral traditions asserting that they originally descended from "white" migrants, who subsequently "lost" their original language and culture as they intermarried with the local Bantus. The British explorer John Hanning Speke recorded one such account in his book Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile:[6]


"The governor[...] said he thought the white men were flocking this way to retake their lost country; for tradition recorded that the Wahuma were once half black and half white, with half the hair straight and the other half curly; and how was this to be accounted for unless the country formerly belonged to white men with straight hair, but was subsequently taken by black men?"

The Tutsi have lived in the areas where they are for at the very least hundreds of years, leading to considerable intermarriage with the Bantu / Hutu people in the area. Due to the history of intermingling and intermarrying of Hutus and Tutsis, ethnographers and historians have lately come to agree that Hutu and Tutsis cannot be properly called distinct ethnic groups.[7][8]

Genetics[edit]

Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. The Tutsi, in general, demonstrate a close genetic kinship with neighboring Bantu populations, particularly the Hutu.[9]
Wikipedia Tutsi.

You say Indians write Myths about their history but European Mythmaking is right and as if somehow Europeans are entitled to write World History and Indians are not.

Also I dont Claim that Indo-European languages are out of India because there is lack of evidence for the oppossite. But why we should teach White racism if it is not even beyond doubt proven. It is offensive to Indians. Everyone has a right to be proud of his ancestors and culture. Whites pretend as if they are the heirs of Indian Civilisation and brought Browns their culture. It is deep in minds of Whites that they are superior. To me it makes most sense that Languages in India spread peacefully through maybe loan words grammar and trade and interaction. and that there are other explanations to similarity between Sanskrit and European Languages then "White Men on Horses who came to India and called themselfes Aryans". Also if you Review the evidence it says that Indian Genetic Diversity is ancient and there is not discontinuity anthropologically. If there were Aryans then there would be a recent gene flow from Eastern Europe or Central Asia into India at least in the upper castes. Because the AIT proposes that Upper Castes were Whites who wrote Vedas, made the scientifical achievements of vedic india like vedic medicine etc. and put themselfes at top of caste System. But it is proven wrong genetically. The arguments against AIT make sense.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Of course I agree. But the AIT is about "westerneuroasians" who have been fair which came into India. You try to mask the AIT as politically correct and more swallowable for Indians just. Well i think there should be Research on alternative explanations how indo-european languages spread and not the Standard "White men who on horses spread their civilisation and called themselfes aryans"

Rationality, in this context, ceases to be politically neutral. One cannot be neutral. One has to take sides. That is what the revisionists demand, they demand what Julien Benda, decades ago, had in an insightful, seminal essay called "La Trahison de Clercs", the treason of the intellectuals. To Benda, taking sides based on a construct as flimsy as nationalism was ludicrous; to the revisionists, opposing this attempted neutrality, not taking sides is equally ludicrous.

To them, as to @Random Boy, this is a war. There can be no neutrals; to them, John Foster Dulles was right on target in proclaiming that nations were either with the US or against it. So the ridiculous situation that the lack of evidence in a case where a startling series of coincidences has been explained by linguistic analysis amounts to a racist conspiracy by a group of learned and evil malefactors, who seek to deny the integrity of the Brown man - never mind that this itself is a new construct, somewhere between the White Man, the Black Man and the Yellow Man. To those who accept those categories as meaningful beyond the surface, there cannot be a vacuum; if a Brown Man does not exist yet, he must be brought forth. The absence of a Woman in all this is irrelevant; provided that the Man is furnished with a sufficient number of ribs, the Woman will be produced when it is her time to give evidence. We come through this train of logic directly to the point being made by @Random Boy, in his valiant attempt to escape the torment of his unreconstructed trailer trash bullies, and to the identical point made by the revisionists, in what they see from their point of view as the cultural and psychological castration sought to be inflicted on them by the intellectual equivalent of trailer trash bullies.

Here we have the earnest efforts, first, to establish the severe injustice done through the ages to their moral and intellectual integrity by biased and racist White manufacturers of history, and when that is laughed out of court by the flimsy and ramshackle evidence adduced, then to seek alternative methods of intellectual analysis. Random Boy's citation of that bizarre foray into Proto-Vedic linguistics is a dreadful example; if current methods of research and analysis are not sufficiently supportive of their case, then current methods are wrong, and must be replaced by alternative ways of thinking about a subject which do support the very strange ends that the revisionists - and for the purpose of this analysis, we have to ignore his just indignation and include Random Boy in the category - seek to achieve.

Remains a rational (alas, poor word, we knew it well, to paraphrase that dead White man, the Bard) explanation of what might have happened on the sub-continent. <more>

 

[Random Boy]

Rationality, in this context, ceases to be politically neutral. One cannot be neutral. One has to take sides. That is what the revisionists demand, they demand what Julien Benda, decades ago, had in an insightful, seminal essay called "La Trahison de Clercs", the treason of the intellectuals. To Benda, taking sides based on a construct as flimsy as nationalism was ludicrous; to the revisionists, opposing this attempted neutrality, not taking sides is equally ludicrous.

To them, as to @Random Boy, this is a war. There can be no neutrals; to them, John Foster Dulles was right on target in proclaiming that nations were either with the US or against it. So the ridiculous situation that the lack of evidence in a case where a startling series of coincidences has been explained by linguistic analysis amounts to a racist conspiracy by a group of learned and evil malefactors, who seek to deny the integrity of the Brown man - never mind that this itself is a new construct, somewhere between the White Man, the Black Man and the Yellow Man. To those who accept those categories as meaningful beyond the surface, there cannot be a vacuum; if a Brown Man does not exist yet, he must be brought forth. The absence of a Woman in all this is irrelevant; provided that the Man is furnished with a sufficient number of ribs, the Woman will be produced when it is her time to give evidence. We come through this train of logic directly to the point being made by @Random Boy, in his valiant attempt to escape the torment of his unreconstructed trailer trash bullies, and to the identical point made by the revisionists, in what they see from their point of view as the cultural and psychological castration sought to be inflicted on them by the intellectual equivalent of trailer trash bullies.

Here we have the earnest efforts, first, to establish the severe injustice done through the ages to their moral and intellectual integrity by biased and racist White manufacturers of history, and when that is laughed out of court by the flimsy and ramshackle evidence adduced, then to seek alternative methods of intellectual analysis. Random Boy's citation of that bizarre foray into Proto-Vedic linguistics is a dreadful example; if current methods of research and analysis are not sufficiently supportive of their case, then current methods are wrong, and must be replaced by alternative ways of thinking about a subject which do support the very strange ends that the revisionists - and for the purpose of this analysis, we have to ignore his just indignation and include Random Boy in the category - seek to achieve.

Remains a rational (alas, poor word, we knew it well, to paraphrase that dead White man, the Bard) explanation of what might have happened on the sub-continent. <more>

Very polemic rant comment against so called "Revisionists". Of course if there are two conflicting theories you cant remain neutral.

I just looked something interesting up
Sanskritization: A New Model of Language Development By David Frawley (From the Rig Veda and the History of India, Aditya Prakshan 2001)

It basically says that Indo-European Languages spread by a Developed Culture and not by Migrations of White Nomads. Similar as English spreads through the World or Latin had.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Very polemic rant comment against so called "Revisionists". Of course if there are two conflicting theories you cant remain neutral.

I just looked something interesting up
Sanskritization: A New Model of Language Development By David Frawley (From the Rig Veda and the History of India, Aditya Prakshan 2001)

It basically says that Indo-European Languages spread by a Developed Culture and not by Migrations of White Nomads. Similar as English spreads through the World or Latin had.

Why don't you respond to the issues I have raised, instead of groping around for a description?

Since you are a new recruit to the revisionist camp, you are not aware that he and Rajaram were among the first revisionists. Congratulations on discovering your guru-parampara.

Do look up Frawley's academic qualifications. No doubt qualifications in Chinese alternative medical systems make an expert on Indian history. Or at least it does among Revisionists, who have only one historian in their ranks.

 

[Random Boy]

Why don't you respond to the issues I have raised, instead of groping around for a description?

Since you are a new recruit to the revisionist camp, you are not aware that he and Rajaram were among the first revisionists. Congratulations on discovering your guru-parampara.

Do look up Frawley's academic qualifications. No doubt qualifications in Chinese alternative medical systems make an expert on Indian history. Or at least it does among Revisionists, who have only one historian in their ranks.

the issue you have raised?!? i dont think you raised a issue it was a biased rant just. because i say my Skin colour is Brown you accussed me of "inventing a Brown man between White, yellow and black" and you wrote it as if im Sexist, "the women are never metioned" etc.
and in my other post i already adressed the issue. revisionism as to Review the history which was so far written is justified, because it is much mythmaking of Whites. i brought up the case of Tutsi and Hutu and it reminds me of Indian case a bit.
Well Frawley has a doctor in Alternative Chinese Medicine but he has intense knowledge about the Vedas and Indian Culture and History. It doesnt matter if he required it in a "Correct" Indology Course on a Western University or by other sources. It makes him no less expert. He has written more then 30 Books. He is a Acharya (Hindu Teacher) and is honoured by Hindu Organisations all over the World. Do you think everyone who has a Doctors degree in Indology from a Western University is better expert then him, even random People who never published their own work?
It is indeed sad that only few historians, linguists etc. try to Review history which was written but remain faithful to AIT and tradional European Concepts. At least some Indian Historians and Indologists should if not westerners.

 

[Bang Galore]

There are too many problems with the AIT staring with the very name. Is it the Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Immigration theory? While we are told that there are eminent historians backing this theory and that those opposing it can barely muster up a decent "historian", the reality is that eminent or not, there is simply no real proof of the theory. The theory, as has been argued has been forced to change so many times in the face of overwhelming evidence against parts of it and yet somehow manages to retain the "eminent" historians support. The proponents of the theory have used different arguments at different points, sometimes contradicting each other, to explain various parts of the Rg veda. Sarasvati has been a serious problem for the theory. In parts of the Rg veda it is very clear that the river being spoken about flowed in Haryana, yet some eminent historians insist that the river being spoken of in another mandala refers to a river in Afghanistan, not because there is definite proof of that but merely because there is no agreed direct direct reference to put it in the same place that other references to the river show. Common sense would suggest that unless there is definite proof that the river mentioned is a different one, it should be taken as the one being referred to elsewhere for which there are geographic references. However since Sarasvati's drying out & the dates now being assigned to it probably kills any theory of an "Aryan" immigration/Invasion because it severely messes up the dates that can worked with, obfuscation is required. Not this river, something else. In some places, the passages of the Rg veda are read as being indicative of a violent campaign against the "local" population, yet the general argument is that there no one now believes in any invasion but what happened was merely a slow immigration. Some of these "eminent" historians seem to have no problem with a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe they figure that it is okay because the other side does not have the same "eminent" historians. Archaeologists who have opposed this theory because there is absolutely no proof of it are barely mentioned when in fact, it is they who should be in the forefront of any such assertion. The AIT has evolved so much in the face of evidence developed against it that almost anything goes, depending on the argument raised, the quality of the opponent involved etc. Eminent historians or not, the AIT has become something of a Chimera. The unexplained linguistic connection has now become the sole hanger on which to hang the rest of the Chimera carcass.

 

[Random Boy]

the Wikipedia article "indigenous aryans" is very biased and not truthful

they write for example
In another 2009 study, it was found that the modern Indian population is a result of admixture between Indo-European-speaking groups (ANI) and Dravidian-speaking groups (ASI). According to Reich et al. (2009): "It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke 'Proto-Indo-European', which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI&#8211;ASI mixture."[7] Recent research indicates a massive admixture event between ANI-ASI populations 3500 to 1200 years ago

but here is what Reich et al really writes
Reich

et al

never said that there was any flow of west Eurasian(European) gene into South Asia. To prevent such misleadingreadings of their article, they explicitly mentioned

: &#8220;

These resultsdo not mean that the Indian groups descend from mixtures of European and Austro-Asiatic speakers, but only that they derivefrom at least two different groups that are (distantly) related toCEU and Santhal.

&#8221;

We have documented a high level of population substructure in India, and have shown that the model of mixture between two ancestral populations ASI and ANI provides an excellent description of genetic variation in many Indian groups. A priority for future work should be to estimate a date for the mixture, which may be possible by studying the length of stretches of ANI ancestry in Indian samples
The following popper user interface control may not be accessible. Tab to the next button to revert the control to an accessible version.
, and will shed light on the process leading to the present structure of Indian Groups
Reconstruction Indian Population History (Google it)

now it is commanly accepted that the diversity in india is much older then aryan Invasion ANI-ASI

 

[Random Boy]

Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia


Mait Metspalu,1,2,13,* Irene Gallego Romero,3,13,14 Bayazit Yunusbayev,1,4,13 Gyaneshwer Chaubey,1 Chandana Basu Mallick,1,2 Georgi Hudjashov,1,2 Mari Nelis,5,6 Reedik Mägi,7,8 Ene Metspalu,2 Maido Remm,7 Ramasamy Pitchappan,9 Lalji Singh,10,11 Kumarasamy Thangaraj,10 Richard Villems,1,2,12 and Toomas Kivisild1,2

Interesting to read, you can find in American Journal of Human Anthropology 2011 December 9

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

 

[Joe Shearer]

Very polemic rant comment against so called "Revisionists". Of course if there are two conflicting theories you cant remain neutral.

I just looked something interesting up
Sanskritization: A New Model of Language Development By David Frawley (From the Rig Veda and the History of India, Aditya Prakshan 2001)

It basically says that Indo-European Languages spread by a Developed Culture and not by Migrations of White Nomads. Similar as English spreads through the World or Latin had.

But there are no two theories.

There is a theory, and there is a group unwilling to accept that theory, and clutching at whichever passing straw will give them solace, and support.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Uh, oh. Wrong cue.

Are you opposed to the AIT because there is insufficient evidence to prove it beyond doubt, or are you opposed to the AIT because white men thought of it, and some other white men made a racist case out of it?

Two entirely different things. What you say is in context if you are responding to the first question, it is irrelevant if you are addressing the second, for in that case, no explanation, no theory, no facts matter: it is enough that white men have come out with it to condemn it, and we need to build our own pre-history, our own proto-history, and our own methods of research and analysis to put against the conspiracy of the white man.

There are too many problems with the AIT staring with the very name. Is it the Aryan Invasion Theory or Aryan Immigration theory? While we are told that there are eminent historians backing this theory and that those opposing it can barely muster up a decent "historian", the reality is that eminent or not, there is simply no real proof of the theory. The theory, as has been argued has been forced to change so many times in the face of overwhelming evidence against parts of it and yet somehow manages to retain the "eminent" historians support. The proponents of the theory have used different arguments at different points, sometimes contradicting each other, to explain various parts of the Rg veda. Sarasvati has been a serious problem for the theory. In parts of the Rg veda it is very clear that the river being spoken about flowed in Haryana, yet some eminent historians insist that the river being spoken of in another mandala refers to a river in Afghanistan, not because there is definite proof of that but merely because there is no agreed direct direct reference to put it in the same place that other references to the river show. Common sense would suggest that unless there is definite proof that the river mentioned is a different one, it should be taken as the one being referred to elsewhere for which there are geographic references. However since Sarasvati's drying out & the dates now being assigned to it probably kills any theory of an "Aryan" immigration/Invasion because it severely messes up the dates that can worked with, obfuscation is required. Not this river, something else. In some places, the passages of the Rg veda are read as being indicative of a violent campaign against the "local" population, yet the general argument is that there no one now believes in any invasion but what happened was merely a slow immigration. Some of these "eminent" historians seem to have no problem with a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe they figure that it is okay because the other side does not have the same "eminent" historians. Archaeologists who have opposed this theory because there is absolutely no proof of it are barely mentioned when in fact, it is they who should be in the forefront of any such assertion. The AIT has evolved so much in the face of evidence developed against it that almost anything goes, depending on the argument raised, the quality of the opponent involved etc. Eminent historians or not, the AIT has become something of a Chimera. The unexplained linguistic connection has now become the sole hanger on which to hang the rest of the Chimera carcass.