It is possible that cultural memories of these events existed in the mythologies of various people.. but I don’t think ethno-linguistics is related to this at all.

There is no stark difference, as the paper points out. There were two separate groups in the past, which then gradually mixed, as humans tend to.

I, personally, do not believe that my belonging to a particular group is a good enough reason to assert the superiority of that group. The trouble with that is that you don’t get a long or impressive enough pedigree. You want impressive, I can trace my lineage all the way back to prokaryotes roughly 4 billion years ago. Prokaryota pride y’all, we were the first creatures on earth! We OWN it!

This study far from ‘knocks out’ the Aryan invasion theory. It confirms it, as linguistic and archaeological evidence does.

The misconception that most people have at this stage is that Aryans are European. Only Hitler and his henchmen believed that. Most historians now realize that the early Indo-Europeans (PIE speakers) lived around Central Asia a few thousand years ago, probably closer to India than to Europe. They then spread their culture, their practice of horse rearing, and their language outwards.

Now referring to the paper, North Indians are said to belong to the Ancestral North Indian group, or ANI. Note that in the paper, Pathans have a higher percentage of ANI than Kashmiri Pandits or any other Indian groups. You will no doubt note that this actually points to an origin north-west of India, and NOT within present day India.

If you read the actual paper, you will note that the scientists claims to the press were contrary to their claims in the paper. As a scientist, I’m outraged and offended at their press claims.

The Marxist historians and the Western friends would ask if your pride depends on which state the researcher comes from? BTW, the primary author of the paper is a Westerner.

What the Marxist historians and their western friends are going to say now?

You are right. The one migration is considered to the Big-Bang moment of genetic mixing. I just now made a new post on the ancient trading networks India was part of and it quite clear that there was movement of humans, plants and animals both into India and Out of India many millennia before 1500 BCE.

Agree with you on the part that we need fine grained analysis to find out the date for the ANI-ASI mixture and other events.

i get the feeling that people think in terms of only one migration and that confuses the issue. MtDNA and Y chromosome data shows that Indians and Eurasians (Europeans) share many of these lineages and most of them show greater diversity in India. That would suggest that these lineages were founded in India and between 40K and 20K Eurasia were peopled by migrations from India. So a component of ANI- European genetic similarity – maybe a major one- would be due to these ancient migrations from India to Eurasia.

That however does not mean there were no later migrations from Eurasia into India in historical times beginning with the advent of agriculture and continuing post Indus Valley collapse. A component of the ANI-European similarity – relatedness according to caste is hard to explain otherwise- as is the linguistic and archaeological evidence. We are not talking of population replacement here but assimilation or rather introgression of genes in the language of genetics.

Our genomes have multiple layers of migratory history written on them. its going to take finer grained analysis to establish timelines and identify specific sets of genetic variations to specific peoples movements.