La Scandale Genetique — PART 3
by Premendra Priyadarshi
The subversion of science by the White Supremacist racists and their shameless Indian sepoys.
NOTE: Please see part 1 and 2 to understand the terminologies used in this article.
The so-called science article by the “Narasimhans” is filled with blunders. If one looks even casually at any paragraph there in the article it either,
- has a wrong calculation, or
- has a self-contradiction, or
- hints at an obvious manipulation of the data, or
- provides evidence of the ignorance for the most well-known of the scientific facts.
Let us see some of them here.
The father of the ANI-ASI hypothesis (David Reich), who is also the guardian of this scandalous research group, had never proposed that the ANI was formed by the mixing of people of the Western Eurasian (European) or even Steppe ancestry, earlier. He had proposed that the European (which he had named CEU) and ANI had split off from a common ancestor and then diverged or ran parallel without further contributing to each other. This was clarified even graphically in Figure 4 in his 2009 landmark Nature article. [Reich 2009]
We all know that science often progresses by step-by-step amendments. If this figure and hypothesis behind this were not correct on the examination of the new data by the Narasimhans, they must have first suggested the necessary amendments to Reich’s original hypothesis presented in the year 2009, and then proceeded further.
However, without doing this, the Narasimhans have gone straight on to propose that the ANI was formed by the admixture of the Onge (of Andaman), ancient Iranians and the MLBA-Steppe (middle- to late-Bronze-Age Steppe) DNAs.
However, Reich (in 2009) had written, “Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup (Supplementary Note 4). Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, whereas the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. 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–ASI mixture.” [CEU means European in the Reich 2009 article. This paragraph also suggests that the ancestor of the Adyegi language was the original inhabitant of the Caucasus region and the Indo-Europeans had arrived from somewhere else. We have information that some parts of Caucasus region/ adjoining regions had Indo-European languages in history. These included Hittite in Anatolia, Maikop in North Caucasus, Armenian towards the south.]
Thus it is made clear by them (Reich and co) that the European population had split and segregate from the ANI before ANI and ASI admixed together to give rise to the later Indian (both north and south) populations.
Earlier Reich thought and worked along the line that the ancestor ANI-European (call it, say, Ancestral ANI-Europa or ANE) reached Europe direct from North Africa. Then ANI split and migrated through Iran to India. Since 2015, Haak’s and all later works had made it clear that Europe was inhabited by dark-skinned (and different from the present-day Europeans) people up to at least 5500 BC. The newer people who now live there came into Europe from Asia in several distinct waves between 5500 BC and 1500 BC by two routes one to the north and the other to the south of the Black Sea (Neolithic to Bronze Age migration). A third route through the Mediterranean islands can also be identified.
Now the genomic findings as depicted in the figure above (Fig. 4 Reich 2009) needed to be explained in a different way than he had thought. It was going to be the same as had been explained by Priyadarshi in the past. The findings of Reich 2009 would mean (following the Haak 2015 onwards) that the Ancestral Europeans (AE) split from the Proto-ANI-Europa, and lived long in isolation in some place which was not in Europe. It would imply that the ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and the ancestral Europeans had stayed at two (or more) different locations outside Europe for quite some time (as depicted in the Figure 4 of Reich 2009).
By all available ancient DNA evidence these locations were going to be North India and Iran, also possibly the Pamir-Tajikistan-Tarim region. Thus Iran (and/or Pamir-Tajikistan region) was the intermediate homeland for the European languages.
However, Europa could not stay pure. It got admixtures from East Asians and Africans to give rise to the modern European population. This admixture of the Europa with the several populations produced the deviations seen today between the modern European and modern Indus-Valley population.
The far-right White supremacists, which appears to dominate the Harvard Academics, could not digest this fact. David Reich, a sociologist turned geneticists, being quite clever decided to stay at the back foot, and pretended to take a middle-path or centrist approach. Hence he himself claimed that the homeland of the Indo-Europeans was in Iran and/or Armenia.
David Reich wrote, “This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians. If this scenario is right, the population sent one branch up into the steppe — mixing with Steppe hunter-gatherers in a one-to-one ratio to become the Yamnaya as described earlier — and another to Anatolia to found the ancestors of people there who spoke languages such as Hittite.” [page 145 of the pdf version of his latest book Who We Are and How We Got There, 2018.]
While maintaining the centrist posture, now Reich appears to have sponsored various young and ambitious Indian workers and students and job-seekers (a.k.a. sepoys) to re-create the myth of the Steppe home of the Indo-European languages. Fellowships, grants and academic positions appear to attract almost every academic person. Narasimhan, Moorjani, and Niraj Rai type of people started writing copious reports after reports in support of the White Right Wing ideologies, which included the Ukrainian or Baltic homeland of the Indo-Europeans, for a long time now. However, these reports were full of blunders which even a casual reading could reveal.
Thus, Narasimhans effectively stake a claim that before the Iranian admixture with the Indian population the whole of India consisted of Onge (Andamanese) people!
The first contradictory statement to Reich’s 2009-figure cited above by Narasimhan is that the “Hierarchical Modeling Shows ASI and ANI Both Had Iranian Agriculturalist-Related Ancestry” [Lines 4811–4812, Supplementary Informattion, Narasimhan et al 2018]
They further write contradicting Reich’s 2009 conclusions, “Line 4870: Simple Statistics Confirm Iranian Agriculturalist-Related Ancestry in the ASI”. Giving a deadly blow to Reich (2009) they write, “The ANI Cline represented mixtures in different proportions of Indus_Periphery- and Steppe_MLBA-related groups, and the ASI Cline represented mixtures in different proportions of Indus_Periphery and AASI.” [Lines 5135–5137; Narasimhan 2018 Supplementary.] While the original concept of Reich was that the ANI and the ASI were two lineages of a common remote ancestor. One lineage gave birth to Europa (in fact Iranian) and Ancestral North Indians (left branch in figure) and the other gave rise to ASI and Onge-Andaman. Clearly this has been destroyed completely by this article.
So who is correct? Reich or Narasimhan–Reich duo?
The Reich et al (2009 figure 4) has now been fully replaced by a model by Narasimhan, which is somewhat like this:
Anatolia (Asian part of Turkey) has occupied a special place in the hearts of the Eurocentric racists. Although they call it Asia Minor, they actually consider it ‘Europe Minor’. This place was the cradle of Eastern Roman Empire, and Constantinople (now Istanbul) is a reminiscence of that past. And the Levant (Jordan and Israel) is important to the Jews as they have copious mention in the Old Testament.
It is important to the Western people in general being the homeland of Jesus.
However in spite of the Far Right Eurocentric insistence, the facts did not prove that these two — Anatolia and Levant — were the sources of the cultures located to their East like Iran and India. Archaeology did not support such views and the recent ancient DNA studies as well tell a “reverse” story.
Kavita Gangal et al (2014) of the Newcastle University, UK, published an article in which she calculated the speed of migration of the farming/ pastoralism from Israel to India, and found it to be 0.63 to 0.71 kms per year. This article too was based on the assumption that the Mehrgarh was later than Israel and Iran. The distance from Israel to Mehrgarh is about 4,200 kms. And the Israeli people reached Indus Valley about the Bronze Age.
Such engineered articles were first organised to be published before finally orchestrating an array of (a dozen) articles and a book to prove something which was never a fact.
To support their claims of later acquisition of agriculture in India from West Asian , they have cited Fuller (2003)and Fuller (2007) who is also one of the co-authors of the impugned article. However most of the discoveries in Indian archaeology have taken place after that.
These authors have not consulted the articles on Mehrgarh written in 2008 by authors like Jarrige (the French excavator of Mehrgarh) and Peter Bellwood (an International doyen in Archaeology). The central Indian farming sites which pre-date the west Asian’s have all been studied only after this time. The Ladakh farming sites of 7th millennium BC, and Assam early farming of almost equal antiquity have all been omitted (probably deliberately).
We should go by the facts. The first settlement at Jericho was established at about 7500 BC, and it lasted only 300 years. “At some point between 8000 and 7000 B.C., the first permanent settlement on the site was started by an unknown people who built extensive walls …” [La Boda, Sharon, 1996, International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Chicago and London.]
The DNA analysis of the people found from Israel and Jordan Neolithic sites indicates that most of those who had arrived here were from Africa. This could be said because they harboured the African male DNA lineages (Y-DNA) E1 and its branches. From the Levant Neolithic, Lazarizis reported eight Y-DNA results. Out of these the sample number ‘1414’ had Y-DNA haplogroup E, ‘1415’ had E1b1b1 (PPNB; Pre-Pottery Neolithic B), ‘1710’ had E1b1b1. These were post glacial arrivals from African corridor. However one sample numbered ‘0867’ was Indian Y-DNA lineage H2. Thus out of seven one was Indian and three were African. The other three were CT which might have arrived from South Asia about 50,000 years ago and can be considered local settled hunter-gatherer population of the Levant. One sample, numbered ‘1707’, was T. (Lazaridis 2016, Supplementary Information p. 51, Table S6.1). Similarly out of five Natufian samples three were E1b1 and E1b1b1b2 and two were CT. These lineages (E1b and its branches) do not migrate to Iran, as they are not found from the Bronze Age samples from Iran. However they are found from Armenia and later-day Steppe.
The Anatolian Neolithic too was characterised by a large number of Eastern arrivals particularly the Iranian G2a and the Indian H2. Later the African lineage E1 and its branches are found in the plenty in the Y-DNA recoveries from the Early Bronze age Anatolian skeletons. The E1b1b, etc. came to Anatolia through the Levant (Israel and Jordan). [Lazaridia 2016 Supplement page 54; de Barros Damgaard, data in MS Excel format, Table S14]
They write, “While some Y-chromosomal lineages (such as H2, T, and G2a) span more than one early Neolithic population in West Eurasia, none of them are found in all of them (Levant, Iran, and North-western Anatolia/Europe), in agreement with the conclusion based on the analysis of autosomal data that the Neolithic of West Eurasia either began (or was taken up soon after its beginning) by genetically diverse populations.” In other words, the people who arrived at the north-west Anatolia to activate the Neolithic revolution had arrived there from several different sources. We can clearly see in the Y-DNA haplogroup constitution of northwest Anatolia that the Neolithic people had arrived there from India (haplogroup H2); Iranian Zagros (haplogroup G2a) and Northeast Africa (haplogroup E1b1b).
Finally, they clarify that the Neolithic Iran and the Neolithic Anatolia are very different. Yet at the Chalcolithic (Copper Age) period they share some resemblance or components. This is not because the Anatolians migrated to Iran, but because the Iranians expanded to Anatolia, Caucasus and the Steppe during the Chalcolithic period.
They state, “However, the two are not a clade, and Chalcolithic Anatolia differs from the Neolithic by sharing more alleles with “eastern” populations from the Steppe, the Caucasus, and Iran. Thus, at the western end of western Asia, the population seems to become more “eastern” just as at the eastern end (Iran) it became more “western”, confirming the visual impression from PCA (Fig. 1b) for highly differentiated Neolithic populations (Anatolia_N vs. Iran_N) but relatively similar Chalcolithic ones.
We first model Anatolia_ChL as a mix of Anatolia_N and a population A (Table S7.17). Only populations from Iran and Armenia work as sources of the input into Anatolia, confirming the visual impression from PCA. This input is quantified as at least 32.9±7.9% when Iran_ChL is used as a source population A.” (Anatolia_ChL vs. Iran_ChL).” [p. 91]
La Boda also confirmed that the Israeli (Levant) Bronze Age was a product of arrivals from Iranian Copper Age: “Showed that the Levant Bronze Age population from the site of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan (2490–2300 BCE) could be fit statistically as a mixture of around 56% ancestry from a group related to Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic agriculturalists (represented by ancient DNA from Motza, Israel and ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan; 8300–6700 BCE) and 44% related to populations of the Iranian Chalcolithic (Seh Gabi, Iran; 4680–3662 calBCE)” [La Boda, citing “Haber, M. et al. Continuity and admixture in the last five millennia of Levantine history from ancient Canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 101, 274–282 (2017).”]
The admixture analysis revealed that instead of the Israelis moving towards Iran, the Iranians had moved into the Israel region to produce the Levantine Chalcolithic population (Harney et al 2018 Nature). “We conclude that while the Levant_N and Levant_ChL populations are clearly related, the Levant_ChL population cannot be modeled as descending directly from the Levant_N population without additional admixture related to ancient Iranian agriculturalists.” [p. 4, ibid]
Similarly the radiocarbon dates from Gesher (or Sultania) is 7930 ± 140 BC (Gerfinkel, Y. and Nadel, D., 1989, The Sultania flint assemblage from Gesher and its implications for Recognising Early Neolithic Entities in the Levant, 15(2):139–151). No pottery nor any figurine was found from these remains. Only flint (a type of stone) chips were found. However these flint pieces were used for hunting, and therefore these people were mainly hunter-gatherers.
One thing is clear that the Anatolian farmers did not move towards the East. “The origin of the Neolithic of Iran does not appear to be related to either Anatolia or the Levant, as the Neolithic and Mesolithic of Iran are symmetrically related to either population (Fig. S7.5), providing no evidence for gene flow from either region into the Zagros, but hinting strongly that whatever role the exchange of ideas and technology may have played in the emergence of the Neolithic in the Zagros, this was not accompanied with any substantial gene flow from other ancient Near Eastern Neolithic centers of domestication.” [Lazaridis 2016 Supplement p. 70].
Clearly, this can only mean that the Anatolian genetic cline found by Narasimhan’s study reaching up to Indian borders is an artifact resulting from mishandling/ manipulation/ tampering of the genetic data. In fact the Anatolian Neolithic was the product of arrival of the farmers from India, Iran and Africa into a region inhabited by local hunter-gatherers who were genetically continuous with the European hunter-gatherers before such arrivals.
This is reflected in the following lines published by Lazaridis: “We observe that the Neolithic Anatolians are genetically shifted towards Europe in the PCA (Fig. 1b) and have ancestry from an ancestral population related to European hunter-gatherers according to ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 1c). This should not be interpreted as evidence of ancestry from actual hunter-gatherers from Europe; while this is not implausible for our sample from Northwestern Anatolia, we have previously seen that populations of the ancient Near East are also differentially related to European hunter-gatherers. This suggests that populations related to European hunter-gatherers existed in the Near East and may be included in the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic ancestors of the Neolithic Anatolians without any need for a direct migration from Europe”. [Lazaridis 2016 Supplement p. 74].
Further research by Harney et al show as follows: “Our finding that the Levant_ChL population can be well modeled as a three-way admixture between Levant_N (57%), Anatolia_N (26%), and Iran_ChL (17%), while the Levant_-BA_South can be modeled as a mixture of Levant_N (58%) and Iran_ChL (42%), but has little if any additional Anatolia_N-related ancestry, can only be explained by multiple episodes of population movement. The presence of Iran_ChL-related ancestry in both populations — but not in the earlier Levant_N — suggests a history of spread into the Levant of peoples related to Iranian agriculturalists, which must have occurred at least by the time of the Chalcolithic. The Anatolian_N component present in the Levant_ChL but not in the Levant_BA_South sample suggests that there was also a separate spread of Anatolian-related people into the region. The Levant_BA_South population may thus represent a remnant of a population that formed after an initial spread of Iran_ChL-related ancestry into the Levant that was not affected by the spread of an Anatolia_N-related population, or perhaps a reintroduction of a population without Anatolia_N-related ancestry to the region.” [p. 8; Harney 2018]
Hafmanova (2016) also found: “Furthermore, when we form each Anatolian Neolithic genome as a mixture of all modern groups, we infer no contributions from groups in southeastern Anatolia and the Levant, where the earliest Neolithic sites are found (SI Appendix, Figs. S22 and S30 and Table S30; Dataset S3). Similarly, comparison of allele sharing between ancient and modern genomes to those expected under population continuity indicates Neolithic-to-modern discontinuity in Greece and western Anatolia, unless ancestral populations were unrealistically small” [Hofmanova p. 6889]
“The dissimilarity and lack of continuity of the Early Neolithic Aegean genomes to most modern Turkish and Levantine populations, in contrast to those of early central and southwestern European farmers and modern Mediterraneans, is best explained by subsequent gene flow into Anatolia from still unknown sources.” [Hofmanova p. 6890]
This unknown source was also the source of Y-DNA haplogroup H2 found in the early Neolithics of these regions. Thus we can say that the unknown source was South Asia.
The last item for this part of the series is another article published this year and co-authored by Reich. The first author is Mittnik. The title is “The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region”. Since it was not in the linguistic context, the Admixture analyses have not been tampered with or manipulated otherwise (see image below).
It reveals that there are three larger principal components, blue, yellow (orange) and green.
Steppe-MLBA is having all the three components (colours). But the Steppe-Yamnaya and the Steppe-EMBA have only green and blue components.
Yellow (orange) is the colour of Natufian (Israel Mesolithic) and Levant (Israel-Jordan) Neolithic. As discussed above, this is predominantly African in origin and its male lineage is African E1b1 and its branches. Thus yellow (orange) colour is the marker of an African admixture.
Iran Neolithic and Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer are predominantly green (component). In my interpretation, the green colour should belong to the ANI and also the Indian (called Indo-European) linguistic groups.
Baltic Mesolithic and SGH (Sweden Hunter Gatherer, Motala) are the blue component. It means the original people of Europe belonged to almost pure blue component. Ukrainian Hunter-Gatherers and the Ukrainian Neolithic are also largely blue indicating continuity with the original European population before the Neolithic period.
Thus, it is the admixture of African (yellow [orange], through Levant and Anatolia), Ancestral North Indian (green, through Iran and Caucasus) and blue (original European) which by combination produced the modern Europeans.
If we mix Iran-Chalcolithic (see in the reproduced figure above) with the Ukrainian or European blue substratum, it gives exactly the same proportions of the components (colours) which are there in the Scandinavian and the European LNBA (Late Neolithic to Bronze Age). Remember that in absolute time scales (calendar time) Iranian Chalcolithic is older than European Late Neolithic.
The Early Bronze Age Steppe is just a mixture of West Siberia-Steppe-Europe substratum (blue) plus ancient North Indian ANI (Green).
It is the addition of yellow (orange: Anatolian/ Levantine) component to EMBA Steppe or the Yamnaya Steppe which produces the MLBA Steppe, which has been linked by the Narasimhans with the Indic branch of IE language migration. Clearly people from Iran and India had arrived into the Steppe during the MLBA period, bringing the people speaking the Iranian and the Indic languages there. Clear enclaves of the two have been found linguistically in Western Siberia and the Steppe.
