Part 1: Review Vagheesh Narasimhan et al, The Genomic Formation of South and Central

. Much of this article is Hindutva propaganda and unfounded.
There has been a lot of media discussion about Vagheesh Narasimhan, J Patterson, Priya Moorjani, Iosif Lazaridis, Lipson Mark, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, et al.(2018). The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581
Many commentators are excited about the article because it is suppose to finally explain the origins of the people of Central and South Asia. The basic thesis of this paper is that Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans from the Levant and Anatolia took cattle herding and farming into the Steppe region, and South Asia. This thesis is unfounded because Indo-Europeans never existed, and the Anatolians were Kushites—not Indo-European speakers.

Some geneticists are attempting to explain how agriculture and farming came to Europe. Since the archaeology indicates the cultural traditions of the ancient “Europeans” came from Anatolia, the Eurocentric geneticists believe these people had to be Indo-Europeans. This is a false analogy, because the Anatolians were Kushites.

Vagheesh Narasimhan et al, The Genomic Formation of South and Central. Wrote that “The genetic formation of Central and South Asian populations has been unclear because of an absence of ancient DNA. To address this gap, we generated genome-wide data from 362 ancient individuals, including the first from eastern Iran, Turan (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan), Bronze Age Kazakhstan, and South Asia.

Our data reveal a complex set of genetic sources that ultimately combined to form the ancestry of South Asians today. We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers.


 We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry.

Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia”

It is obvious that Vagheesh Narasimhan et al, The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, don’t know anything about South Asian archaeology and linguistics because they claim the BMAC population did not contribute to South Asia. Vagheesh Narasimhan et al, in The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, wrote “ These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians.” This is false because the BMAC were Elamites and we see a close relationship between the Elamite language and Dravidian languages, and the Tamil Kosars[Kushana] of the IVC.
The BMAC contributed to South Asian population and genetic structure because they were Kushites.

The civilization in Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) was founded by Harappans or IVC people and Elamites. The archaeology makes it clear that that the BMAC originated after the decline of the IVC site of Shortughai on the Oxus river. The the radiocarbon dates vary for Shortughai range between 2200-1600BC, the site older than the BMAC. Most researchers have noted that the BMAC have strong Elamite affinities. Artifacts from the BMAC site at Altyn depe ruins have terracotta statuettes with Proto Elaimite and linear Sumerian script.

The Harappans were settled throughout Bactria before the nomadic BMAC people came on the scene. As a result, archaeologist have found Indus seals in Bactria and the Kopet Dagh foothills.

The BMAC is usually associated with Namazga V. Here we find small seals, IVC beads and ivory sticks. also, lets not forget that Possehl, claims that Namazga V was contemporary with Shortughai (Hiebert, Origins of the Bronze Age Oasis Civilization in Central Asia, p.172).

The depopulation of the urban sites in the Kopet Dagh foothills around the end of Namazga V, may indicate the rise of BMAC nomads as the dominate group in the region, since it was at this time widespread occupation of Bactria begins (Hiebert, p.172).

BMAC was an Elamite civilization as noted by Ligue & Salvatori, Bactria an ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan, p.137.

Francefort La civilisatioon de l'Indus aux de l'Oxus in , Archeologia (December,1987) made it clear that Shortughai existed from 2200-1800 BC. It was the largest Harappan site on the Amou Darya and Kokcha rivers. It is much older than Namazga V. Moreover, there is no evidence the people at Namazga were Indo-Aryan speakers they did not use PGW.

Ligue and Salvalori, wrote "On the other hand, the higher forms of Bactrian civilization can be found in the civilizations which make up the Outer Iran community, but they reveal more affinities with Elam, which can only be explained by hypothesis difficult to verify".(p.137)

The Bactrian fortresses, which seem more like prestige castles which could have been used as caravanserais or warehouses, point to the existence of an aristocracy composed of nomad-artisans with strong Elamite affinities...."(p.137)

These quotes are from the Ligue & Salvatori article in Lamberg- et 1Karlovsky (Ed), Bactria: An ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan,1989.

The Elamites like the Sumerians were Kushites. Elamites influenced BMAC cultures. Some of these influences include:

1. Proto-Elamite signs on BMAC figurines associated with Namazga III

2.Collon's Indus-BMAC hybrid pieces

3. Proto-Elamite tablet found at Shahr-i Sakhta

4. Identical lithic drillheads from Shahr-i Sakhta and Chanhu-daro

Some researchers have attempted to base an Indo-Aryan origin on the BMAC based on artifacts from Gilund. This is a fantasy because the pottery from Gilund, Rajasthan, and the banks of the Bana river is BRW. The Indo-Aryans used PGW as discussed above.

The exotic goods found at Gilund suggest that the site was a warehouse were goods imported from Central Asia were housed.

. The BMAC is associated with Elamites and Harappans--not Indo-Aryan people who did not enter India until 1300 BC. The discovery of BRW at Gilund suggest that the people spoke Dravidian languages--not Indo-Aryan. The BRW ceramic style is found at Harappan sites and the lower levels of Madurai and Tirukkampuliyur at South Indian megalithic sites. This pottery tradition supports the widespread nature of Dravidian populations in North India prior to the Aryan Invasion of India 1300BC.

Population Genetics is based mainly on inferences and statistics relating to contemporary DNA. Population genetics can never supercede archaeology because using aDNA and archaeology we see the expansion of Africans carrying the so-called Eurasian haplogroups into Eurasia. These people were Kushites, Indo-Europeans never existed