The Evidence against the 'Israelites-from-Indus' thesis

False. You would not expect “50% or more” of Levantine genes if it were merely due from “intermarriage”.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, R-M124 entered some Jewish populations AFTER the Diaspora through intermarriage with populations in southwest Asia, many of which have comparatively high levels of the gene. I would note that, even among non-Ashkenazi, R-M124 is at levels far below the 50% reported for Levantine genes.

As I have already demonstrated, Ashkenazi have little or no R-M124!

R-M124 is therefore irrelevant. Have a Red Herring:

Then you have no evidence that “Old Hebrew and Indus” are even remotely related. But we do have evidence that Old Hebrew and Canaanite are related.

Further, Afroasiatic languages exist nowhere on the Indian subcontinent (or anywhere near it), and there is no evidence that it ever existed there. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the ancient Indus language was Afroasiatic.


Please STOP posting web-links as (often garbled) pdf files!

Just post the link – like this:

… or this …

False. This is not a “paper by archaeologist S R Rao”, it is a chapter from a book by Rama Sarker. Further, the type-setting of this chapter is not of a professional quality – in fact it looks like it was typeset on an old dot-matrix printer. This, along with the fact that I can find no citations of this book on Google Scholar make me unwilling to accept this as a credible source.

I am certainly unwilling to trawl through 46 pages of poorly-typeset print to try to ascertain exactly what your rather vaguely-expressed point is.

In particular, it is completely unclear exactly who you are claiming has a script in common with the Harappan – just the ancient Israelities? The Phoencian too? All the Northern Semitic language group? Are you claiming that all these groups came from the Indus Valley?

Until you can find a more credible source, and articulate a more precise claim, none of this is even remotely compelling.


No you are not – because a script isn’t the language. Many languages have been written in multiple scripts, and many scripts have been used to write multiple languages.

This is therefore irrelevant – have another red herring:


The scholarly consensus is that the Story of Sinuhe is a work of fiction – therefore it is not evidence.

It is also unclear what relevance, if any, this has to the ‘Israelites-from-Indus’ thesis – so have another red herring:


Yes, and the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus narrative is legend.

This is mere unsubstantiated assertion.

Legendary parallels are pervasive and thus likely spurious – so your assertion is irrelevant – have another red herring:


As would a number of migrations before and since then. It is unclear (i) whether the Indus migrants left any descendants after all these millennia and (ii) if they did, which genes are due to them, and which are due to other migrations and/or endemic inhabitants.

This claim therefore does not follow from your previous claim. I would also note that we have no evidence that the “Indian people” are sufficiently homogeneous that we can consider them “the same” as anything.

Where in that paper? The provinces listed do not include Sindh, which would likely be the densest populated area in the Indus Valley.

There is no “sample” of “Yadavas”!

The sample is of Yadavs – a group label that only goes back to the 19th century, and for which there is no evidence of any genetic connection to the legendary ancient Yadavas.

Yadavs are irrelevant – have a great big red herring:


“Larger” but still quite small – less than one thousand in total. For such a heterogeneous population that sample size is far too small.

Also, if you are not making inferences from the whole sample (and you have made none as yet), the “much larger samples of other communities” are irrelevant – have another red herring:


This is hardly surprising.

  1. Mizraim is a Hebrew word.

  2. There is little or no Hebrew written records from before this time.

Therefore the lack of “parallel” is irrelevant – have another red herring:


  1. That relies on translating the Hebrew letter Tsade as “T” rather than “TS” (as in your own Roman-script spelling of “Mitsrayim”), or “S” (as in the more common Roman-script spelling of “Mizraim”). As the Wikipedia article says, “Its oldest phonetic value is debated, although there is a variety of pronunciations in different modern Semitic languages and their dialects.”

  2. There are probably dozens of localities with the consonants “M-T-R” – more if we include “M-TS-R” and “M-S-R”.

  3. “The Indian city of ‘Mathura’” is outside the Indus Valley, and has been at its current location for thousands of years.

Therefore Mathura is irrelevant – have another red herring:


Indus, as I have demonstrated, is utterly worthless as a hypothesised origin of the Israelites.

By my count that is eight red herrings (including a great big one) – I will therefore suggest renaming yourself ‘OneIrrelevanceAfterAnother’.