Do your own homework, please; these have been widely reported in the popular press, and there are two separate academic papers relating to the studies in question. Of course the genetic make-up is similar to 'Indian' people; to present-day Indian people, who, in the ASI profile, are formed of migrants from this culture. So what is the discrepancy? Just to fill out the picture, elements from that Civilisation are also found in ANI profiles, and it is obvious that the survivors have moved out of their cities and merged with the surrounding population.
It is a bit late in the day to bat one's eyelids and profess innocence.
Would you care to reconcile your first sentence above with your own second sentence above? Did they or didn't they?
At the risk of hurting your feelings, I must point out that you are beginning to sound like Donald Trump.
LOL.
Where is the birthplace of Tamil? Or Telugu? Or Kannada?
This is not the Ram Mandir, to be set up at one spot known instinctively to the true believer through the cosmic insight that his faith gives him.
Actually, no. This found expression far earlier in the linguistic research conducted in different regions of the world, with notable concentration on the Celtic languages, on German languages, and on Greek languages.
The British contribution, as far as India goes, was to spot the similarity between Sanskrit and those languages, forming the idea of a world-wide 'family' of languages that the linguists call Indo-European.
As far as 'Indo-Aryan' is concerned, it is used to distinguish the language of the Vedas, before its systematic regularisation by Panini, a regularisation that came to be known as 'Sanskrit', or the polished tongue (in contrast to the Prakrit languages, the natural tongues).
It seems to be a particularly bad day for you.
Self-pity is not a good foundation for beginning a scientific enquiry.
Considering that the similarities occur thousands of miles apart, and considering that the champions of the OOI hypothesis have no information about the parallel developments around the world, and have concentrated only on forming a ghetto for themselves and isolating themselves from the laughter of the world, there is not much substance in your supposition.
Did you mean 'Parsis'? Persians do not wear saris, and do not follow Indian traditions. Parsis do; they have been domiciled in Gujarat for some four centuries now.
You must explain to us on some future occasion how wearing saris has a bearing on genetics.
Your point being?
The point is still not clear. It is precisely these Brahmins who are known to have been identifiable at an early date who have the strongest element of migrant DNA.
Wrong.
Meaning only that their original rituals, including the Soma ritual, have died out.
It is not. Devnagari, or Nagari, is derived from Brahmi, and that, in turn, has easily traced antecedents (look them up for yourself).
Naturally. That fits in with a late date for these, following their migration. If they had been composed before, they would have mentioned other places and other rivers. And how do you connect migration, culture and language? The point that was made was that language accompanied migration, and culture had nothing to do with it after the first few centuries.
How come indeed? Nobody said the Rig Veda is alien to India; all that people have tried to explain to the uncomprehending is that the Rig Vedic language came with migrants. You do get the difference?
How terribly sad!
