Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
It seems like David Reich leaks some information about South Asian genetic history that he probably has seen in his lab but is still not ready for publication. Hopefully we'll know more about that soon enough because I can't stand the over the top noise by South Asian deluded ethno-nationalists any more who are newly emboldened by the quotes published in Indian newspapers and given by (unsurprisingly) Indian geneticists who are working and marketing their conclusions on their own, with the vaguest and, honestly, most irresponsible rhetoric.
Since just a few days ago, I had to put up with three South Asian men telling me that the IVC was not only Indo-European and actually already Sanskrit-speaking (apparently Sanskrit was a kind of fossil for milennia), but also that the Indo-Europeans from IVC settled all of the steppes of the Middle East and were the ancestors of the Hittites, IE Europeans, ancient Arabians (what?!), Tuaregs (once again, what?!) and even the Chadic tribes (yes, just because they have high percentages of R1b, don't mind that it is R1b-V88, not M269, but how would they know these things are actually thousands of years apart?!). Oh, and yes they guarantee that the Indo-Europeans were the ANI - again, don't mind that ANI admixture is not found in many other Indo-European-speaking areas.
They're thrilled and kind of out of control with their wild speculations, because an Indian geneticist guarantees that they analyzed the ancient DNA and can state that the autosomal DNA of the IVC was totally indigenous harking back to the Palaeolithic (how likely is that in Asia, really?). They also said that there's no sign of migration either into or out of India at the time of the IVC (now that's a problem, people came to speak closely related Indo-European languages from Western Europe to China, but apparently there was no large-scale migration).
I'm really interested to see those results, because until now they sound like at best a desperate distortion of the scientific results. I would really like to understand why so many South Asians and - as I also was "lucky" enough to find out in the last few months - Subsaharan Africans are sooooo aggressively defensive against any result that suggests that they are not 100% indigenous to their territories since at least the Palaeolithic era. We're not even talking about modern ethnic/national disputes. There is a huge aversion even to suggestions that there was mixing with outsiders 5,000 or even 10,000 years ago. That's really weird for me.
Since just a few days ago, I had to put up with three South Asian men telling me that the IVC was not only Indo-European and actually already Sanskrit-speaking (apparently Sanskrit was a kind of fossil for milennia), but also that the Indo-Europeans from IVC settled all of the steppes of the Middle East and were the ancestors of the Hittites, IE Europeans, ancient Arabians (what?!), Tuaregs (once again, what?!) and even the Chadic tribes (yes, just because they have high percentages of R1b, don't mind that it is R1b-V88, not M269, but how would they know these things are actually thousands of years apart?!). Oh, and yes they guarantee that the Indo-Europeans were the ANI - again, don't mind that ANI admixture is not found in many other Indo-European-speaking areas.
They're thrilled and kind of out of control with their wild speculations, because an Indian geneticist guarantees that they analyzed the ancient DNA and can state that the autosomal DNA of the IVC was totally indigenous harking back to the Palaeolithic (how likely is that in Asia, really?). They also said that there's no sign of migration either into or out of India at the time of the IVC (now that's a problem, people came to speak closely related Indo-European languages from Western Europe to China, but apparently there was no large-scale migration).
I'm really interested to see those results, because until now they sound like at best a desperate distortion of the scientific results. I would really like to understand why so many South Asians and - as I also was "lucky" enough to find out in the last few months - Subsaharan Africans are sooooo aggressively defensive against any result that suggests that they are not 100% indigenous to their territories since at least the Palaeolithic era. We're not even talking about modern ethnic/national disputes. There is a huge aversion even to suggestions that there was mixing with outsiders 5,000 or even 10,000 years ago. That's really weird for me.