What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2

[Husky]

Post 6

(The posts numbered 1, 2 and 4 and 5 above are more important than this one. They contain actual content - i.e. all the stuff in blockquotes - stolen from somewhere else.)





+ PCT's urheimat for PIE sounds like it is all of Europa now (the then-inhabitable parts thereof) with perhaps some overflow onto "central Asia". Very convenient.

This will allow a genetically-Scandinavian quarter of Europe, to a genetically Greek quarter, to... etc.





+ Intriguing how Oppenheimer's conclusion - that British and Irish natives are largely speakers of an indigenous ancestral language related to (the very non-IE) Basque, and that they are genetically related to the Norwegians and the Fries (implying Norse and Fries were 'indigenous' Europeans the way Basques are) - has been turned around to mean that it proves the PCT version of PIE, as seen in:



1. Oppenheimer said:

spiegel.de/international/british-irish-brotherhood-a-united-kingdom-maybe-a-470186.html

In Dr. Oppenheimer’s reconstruction of events, the principal ancestors of today’s British and Irish populations arrived from Spain about 16,000 years ago, speaking a language related to Basque.

[...]

Dr. Oppenheimer [says] the similarity between the English and northern European Y chromosomes [color="#800080"][of Norse and Fries of NL][/color] arises because both regions were repopulated by people from the Iberian refuges after the glaciers retreated.

[color="#0000FF"]ADDED, missed out:[/color] And in that light, it continues with (still from spiegel.de/international/british-irish-brotherhood-a-united-kingdom-maybe-a-470186.html)

“Once you have an established population, it is quite difficult to change it very radically,” said Daniel G. Bradley, a geneticist at Trinity College, Dublin. But he said he was “quite agnostic” as to whether the original population became established in Britain and Ireland immediately after the glaciers retreated 16,000 years ago, as Dr. Oppenheimer argues, or more recently, in the Neolithic Age, which began 10,000 years ago.



Dr. Oppenheimer has relied on work by Peter Forster, a geneticist at Anglia Ruskin University, to argue that Celtic is a much more ancient language than supposed, and that Celtic speakers could have brought knowledge of agriculture to Ireland, where it first appeared. He also adopts Dr. Forster’s argument, based on a statistical analysis of vocabulary, that English is an ancient, fourth branch of the Germanic language tree, and was spoken in England before the Roman invasion.



English is usually assumed to have developed in England, from the language of the Angles and Saxons, about 1,500 years ago. But Dr. Forster argues that the Angles and the Saxons were both really Viking peoples who began raiding Britain ahead of the accepted historical schedule. They did not bring their language to England because English, in his view, was already spoken there, probably introduced before the arrival of the Romans by tribes such as the Belgae, whom Caesar describes as being present on both sides of the Channel.

2. PCT proponent construed it as:

Furthermore, the [PCT] theory is actually starting to creep in via the back door - a specific prediction of PCT is the presence of Germanic speakers in Neolithic Britain, and I see that Stephen Oppenheimer has mentioned this in his new book (unfortunately without citation).

+ And this statement below again - why does it hold?

My own view, FWIW (and NOT Alinei's) - is that while I tend to support his premise about IE being present in Europe by the Mesolithic, there is no a priori reason for assuming that the same holds for India. This, however, is a logical consequence of his theory, since evidently, one of his key arguments is the absence of convincing evidence for a pre-IE substrate in Scandinavia.

It must thus logically follow that if you find a substrate then PCT doesn't apply, and there's been some very good work done by Frank Southworth & Michael Witzel to demonstrate Munda and Dravidian substrates in the Rg Veda. In any case, you have an instant clue to suggest that an IE PCT in India is unlikely, simply because there's only one big IE family, Indo-Aryan - if IE had a palaeolithic time-depth, you would expect to find several.

But in India the population rigorously tried to keep Skt together, consistent, preferrably sounding the same. Defining and defining and defining the grammar. Etc. They also tried to keep the Vedam chanted rather consistently with not too great a variation. And they weren't great fans of the Prakritising of Skt and so maintained Skt in its various forms or "stages" (Vedic, classical etc) even after multiple copies of Prakritas were spun. Seems to me like there was a conscious human force in trying to limit Skt from disappearing and from becoming something else entirely. What I just said proves nothing, of course - other than to observe that Germanic tribes never maintained Gothic etc alongside the modern Germanic languages nor did any Proto-Scandinavian or Proto-Germano-Scandinavian-Celtic survive (forgot the Proto group name for NW languages that one or more PIE models suggested). Whereas India has maintained Skt long after many an official Prakrita died a natural death. I mean to say, there is no consistent pattern of behaviour in Europe vs India.



So why do they make such assumptions then? Or maybe it's just another stupid question. I'm just trying to understand their logic in denying that outside of Europe, the Indian and Iranian so-called "IE" languages could have an ancientry indigenous to the subcontinent that goes back just as far.



As for the whole Munda and Dravidian substrate threat, well if PCT holds good, then PIE has to have some kind of origins right? It can't forever have had the hallmarks of IE backwards in time. Unless they want to trace it back to the African Urheimat. At some point these languages must have been generated from some origin that is not clearly defined as IE. (Unless they mean to say PIE speakers invented it from some vacuum - from pure silence they started speaking in PIE? Or that they mathematically generated the language after completely dumping whatever language their African or Asian/Sundaland ancestors had spoken in Africa and Asia/Sundaland.) I mean, where do these people draw the line? And what lay beyond that line in pre-Proto-Indo-European (in Renfrew's thesis this pre- population was I think, Anatolian, the pre-Urheimat-Urheimat where the proto-proto speaking ancestors of PIE lived [but still IE], in order to explain why Hittites weren't as far "advanced" in tech as the texts of other IE groups seemed to indicate of said other IE groups).



See, if they said that all major ancient language groups have had some level of deep continuity since mankind started in Africa or eventually left Africa, I could sort of follow that type of "all else being equal" type of logic: that Finno-Ugric and PIE and Austro-Asiatic etc were all original branches that some state of Africans in some stage of leaving Africa/entering the neighbouring landmass had generated from their speech in some point in Ur-Zeit (pre-history). But that's not what they're saying. European history and identity begins and ends with Europeans, in Europe (+ a bit of overflow in "white" C Asia), and with IE languages (the Finno-Ugrics and the Basques were always just in the way of grand storytelling, "couldn't they just have been IE?").



It's great they pushed PIE even further back into pre-history where you have even less chance of working out what happened (and I have no problem with earlier timelines - though of course I still want *proof* that no one is just making up a new version of the story to fit the data, and proof remains the one thing no one wants to give - and clearly when there are so many competing hypotheses, I think that's saying something). But how is the Indo-Iranian "subbranch" of IE supposed to be younger than the European branches of the "IE" languages? I mean, that's what they're claiming with PCT, right? That Scandinavian and Germanic (including British-Germanic=English now as a new, 4th ancient Germanic linguistic branch as opposed to 5th or 6th century CE when English was first attested as per BBC docos on the English language) all date into the Stone Age. All European "IE" all date to the Stone Age and before. Yet Skt and Avesta are supposed to be relatively recent from when the Oryans invaded again. Really? Are they serious?

Sometimes I think these people are just so far gone in trying to remain consistent to their rules as new data appears that they don't seem to notice the obvious staring them in the face.





As for Scandinavian not showing any non-IE substratum and this being proof of PCT (I refer to this next statement):

one of his key arguments is the absence of convincing evidence for a pre-IE substrate in Scandinavia.

Well just to be contrary:

The famous Saami film I mentioned before is based on an ancient Saami narrative from about 1000 years ago or more, which shows Euro invaders entering into Saami space in Scandinavia and brutally murdering off Saami villages. Now, the subtitles didn't refer to these invaders as the Norse/Swedes (or Danes or IE Scandinavians) but 1. they were at least played by very Norse-looking actors while the Saami played the Saami (and I don't think the Norse were hired as stand-ins when the film was going for historical realism) and 2. I didn't much understand the language the invaders spoke, but from my recollection of the sounds it could pass for some IE Scandinavian language, rather than Finnish or some other language and 3. it seems these raids by invaders on Saami habitations had been going on for a long time, as each village had heard of these dreaded invaders committing their genocidal acts in earlier villages whenever their cycle of invasion re-started.



Anyway, what I mean to say is that 1. Saami recollect when the invaders came into the areas of the region inhabited by Saami. And that 2. the invaders just replaced the natives. There was barely any talking by the invaders with the Saami, no trading, just looting and murdering and taking over/tramping over the habitat.

Now if these invaders were repeated waves of raiding parties of IE Scandinavians settling further and further into Scandinavian lands and therefore ethnically cleansing whoever had lived there before, well no wonder there is no Saami (or other non-IE/non-IE-Scandinavian) substrate in Scandinavian languages. It was a straightforward replacement/ethnic cleansing, driving remaining Saami further off and into hiding.





I'd thought of more to whine about but I can't remember now.

But does Dhu ever visit IF anymore? I haven't seen him posting recently. I'm sure he would have a logical and consistent explanation for the discovery of the 7000 year old dark-skinned stone age European found in Spain with a genome that's Scandinavian other than its African genes for skin-colour, who had lactose intolerance, was from a pre-farming era and before domestication of livestock and who was a hunter gatherer. And Dhu could explain how all this relates back to Oppenheimer.

And then there won't be stupid questions anymore, but coherent explanations at last.





+ Personally, I think the time is now ripe for Hindoos to use the current genetic and archaeological etc data to work on re-defining a logically-consistent (internally logically consistent) Palaeolithic Continuity Theory for Skt in India. Don't leave it too late and end up letting aliens inundate the field and fill in the gap on the Indian side with their storytelling. If you see any tendency toward general acceptance of PCT among the larger set of PIE-ists - either covertly or overtly starting to propound it - you need to be ready with a case for the Indian situation.



+ You don't need to bother thinking of PIE: the PCT version for Europe says nothing about PIE, just that IE goes back way-way in European space. Just do the same for Skt in India.

I don't know, maybe you can use the fact that archaeology bears out that the Tarim dwellers in China* matched the people of IVC etc. (* Hardcore PIE-ists/supremacist Victor Mair had wrongly pounced on these as being "IE Celts and Germanics" in China, but others - archaeologists was it not? - had thereafter set the matter straight: that they were IVC people. Surely the fact that Mair pounced on the Tarim dwellers as specifically "IE" - when it turned out to be IVC people - puts an equation between IVC people and Skt?)

Also, if Europeans can claim Cernunnos is ancient Celtic, then IVC's Pashupati-like imagery proves something or other about IVC and ancient local continuity of Hindoodom based on Vedic stuffs. Oh you know what I mean.



+ And you *don't* need to (and actually never needed to) prove OIT. You just need to show ancient continuity in India, and the rest can be revealed (or not) in time as data comes in. If PCT does not speak on the details concerning PIE and urheimat - at least, from the bits of the wacky links on PCT it didn't appear to speak on these matters - then why should Indians be bothered to bring in PIE, let alone to come up with theories about PIE locus/urheimat?



OIT makes others' heathenisms derived and negates the validity of their religions and Gods as real and distinct. It turns their religions into shadow copies of yours. (Same as PIE-ism does to your Hindoo religion (and all attested so-called "IE" religions): it denies the validity of your Gods by making these derived and into shadow copies of the allegedly "truer", "more accurate" because "more original" reconstructed PIE gods that no known living or dead culture ever knew of.) If Hindus were heathen, they wouldn't do that to European heathens and their heathenisms. You get nothing from invalidating their religions or E Asian religions or other heathenisms. (I don't care about bad reconstructions/reconstructionists, but I care about genuine NW European heathens. They exist. And I most certainly care about Daoists and Shintos - oddly as much as I care about Hindoos.)

If you were heathen, you would seek to protect and defend other heathenisms - as hard as you would your own - even when you knew yours was dying. Firstly, because they matter in their own right and one delights in their existence and in other heathens' endearing, steadfast and unwavering attachment to their Gods with unsubverted views. And secondly, because were only one of us - only one heathenism - to defeat and survive christoislamania and all subversions, it would be a victory for all of us, and we - and all other murdered heathenisms - would be avenged. But better than that would be for all of us to collectively survive and emerge out of this together. Daoists, Shintos, Hellenes, Hindoos, African heathenisms, native Americans N & S, Australian, Pacific, and of course all the various European heathenisms.

A pox on monogawdism and all missionary=replacement religion.