What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Library & Bookmarks (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)
+--- Thread: What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 (/showthread.php?tid=783)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 01-23-2006

Sushmita, as you stated before, the dice are loaded against Indians; unbelievably, there is actually a reference to Witzel in the text of Sengupta's (Underhill, Cavalii-Sforza) Polarity and Temporality paper.
QUOTEOn the basis of linguistic and religious evidence, if pastoralists arrived recently on a track from the north via Bactria, southern Tajikistan, northern Afghanistan,
and the Hindu Kush into the northern Pakistan plains (Witzel 2004), one would expect to see L3-M357 in India.
The authors then, of course, gently conclude the obvious that there are no expected Central asian markers within India.
QUOTEThe distribution of R1a1 and R2 within India is similar, as are the levels of associated microsatellite variance (table 12). The ages of the Y-microsatellite variation (table 11) for R1a1 and R2 in India suggest that the prehistoric context of these HGs will likely be complex. A principal-components plot of R1a1-M17 Y-microsatellite data (fig. 6) shows several interesting features: (a) one tight population cluster comprising southern Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Oman, and West Europe; (b) one loose cluster comprising all the Indian tribal and caste populations, with the tribal populations occupying an edge of this cluster; and Â© Central Asia and Turkey occupy intermediate positions. The divergence time between the two clusters was 8â12 KYA. The pattern of clustering does not support the model that the primary source of the R1a1-M17 chromosomes in India was Central Asia or the Indus Valley[COLOR=blue] via Indo-European speakers. 
So now we have the Indus valley invading India scenario!!!
QUOTEFurther, the relative position of the Indian tribals (fig. 6), the high microsatellite variance among them (table 12), the estimated age (14 KYA) of microsatellite variation within R1a1 (table 11), and the variance peak in western Eurasia (fig. 4) are entirely inconsistent with a model of recent gene flow from castes to tribes and a large genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans on the autochthonous gene pool of India. Instead, our overall inference is that an early Holocene expansion in northwestern India (including the Indus Valley) contributed R1a1-M17 chromosomes both to the Central Asian and South Asian tribes prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. The results of our more comprehensive study of Y-chromosome diversity are in agreement with the caveat of Quintana-Murci et al. (2001, p. 541), that âmore complex explanations are possible,â rather than their simplistic conclusion that HGs J and R1a1 reflect demic expansions of southwestern Asian Dravidian-speaking farmers and Central Asian Indo-Europeanâspeaking pastorialists.
So here we have, in a world class genetic paper, the famous Witzelian "caveat" that a "complex scenario" is possible when the actual evidence goes against the perceived prejudices. Same thing was pointed out by Manansala in another paper. R1A1 is formly rooted in India with respect to both diversity and frequency and besides its parent haplo K (Krishna as termed by Oppenheimer) certainly did diversify in India. We also have haplo I and others starkly missing from India- these probably expanded from the gulf and were leftovers from the initial coastal route. btw, R1a1 presence in Oman is very telling since India is known to have extended trade relations with oman since most ancient times.

Interestingly, Sengupta does give us dates of 8 to 12 KYA for R1a1 division

btw, Sengupta appears to be part of the Bengali (ie communist) team operating out of CAlcutta which came out with a bamshad-type paper.
QUOTEhttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...gi?artid=403703
Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure

Analabha Basu, Namita Mukherjee, Sangita Roy, Sanghamitra Sengupta, Sanat Banerjee, Madan Chakraborty, Badal Dey,1 Monami Roy,1 Bidyut Roy,1 Nitai P. Bhattacharyya,3 Susanta Roychoudhury, and Partha P. Majumder

1Anthropology & Human Genetics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta 700 108, India
2Human Genetics & Genomics Department, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Calcutta, India
3Crystallography & Molecular Biology Division, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta, India

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 01-23-2006

Dhu,
QUOTEBengali (ie communist)
Not happy that Bengalis are widely equated with commies (although I can't blame anything but the massive presence of commyism in Bengal for that). Many Bengalis are still Hindu. Kali will bring about the downfall of communism. And otherwise some of us won't mind doing the work for our magnificent, beautiful Kali <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

There's something you highlighted when bringing the commie presence in those papers to the forefront. It shows that since the marxists have now realised the dead-end that is the AIT/AMT (how could they otherwise, with genetics data stacked against them?), they've already busily started formulating the AMindIT. Can we bring the sand castle down before they've actually built it up? We should try, but I am unable to see in what field we can do research which will disprove the AMindIT. Linguistics is imprecise and already has it's invasion theory in the form of the PIE. Archaeology, anthropology and genetics have brought us to the same point: no AIT, but further research in these fields can't disprove AMindIT. Even though it is incredibly illogical for some handful of (barbarian) wanderers from "Eurasia" to change the language that a massive number of civilised Indians were using.

I still fervently hope that Remote Viewing isn't a hoax but something real. And that it can be developed to give great accuracy and be available for all people. This will prove once and for all the truth about all contentious matters plaguing mankind. No longer will "Whoever controls the present controls the past. Whoever controls the past controls the future" apply. The truth having become available to all, the 3Ms will have to give up their lies (they'll probably choose to go back to blatant violence and conversion by force - but at that point the sane in the world would have united).

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 01-29-2006

Vishal Agarwal on the genetic evidence:
QUOTEexcerpt:
http://www.india-forum.com/articles/86/1/H...CHOLARLY%92-WAY
12. But there is Genetic Evidence for the Aryan Invasion or migration?

No, there is no genetic evidence for this theory and on the whole the existing set of evidence rules out any significant migration into India after the Holocene period (last ice age). The genetic studies on âAryan genesâ published so far seem to be in a phase where Harappan archaeological studies were in early 1960âs. Fifty years ago, the Aryan invasion theory was considered an axiomatic truth. It was still used to explain archaeological data for a decade till archaeologists began to realize that the data they dug up did not match an invasionist paradigm. Therefore, one starts seeing strained attempts to force-fit archaeological data into an Aryan invasionist paradigm, till the negative (or rather opposing) evidence became so overwhelming that archaeologists had no option but to throw off the yoke of the Invasionist theories. Thereafter, the Aryan invasion theory was replaced by Aryan migration theory, but in recent years, archaeologists have become very uncomfortable even with this and have started rejecting even this theory.

Similarly, genetic studies on Indian populations till very recently have been operating under the Aryan invasionist/migrationist paradigm. But as Y chromosomal and mtDNA studies are being fine tuned (with the possibility of estimating time-depth of mutations especially in the former) and sample sizes are becoming larger, we are seeing that attempts in studies dating back to 2001-2002 to force-fit the genetic data into an AIT/AMT paradigm are very strained.

The most recent, and more comprehensive studies being published every month negate the results of the above study of Bamshad et al. For instance, the following paper on Y Chromosomal evidence pointedly refers to Michael Witzel, and rejects his suggestion of recent (in the time frame of hypothetical AIT/AMT) influx of genes from Central Asia into India:

"If pastoralists arrived recently, based upon linguistic and religious evidence on a track from the north via Bactria, S. Tajikistan and N.Afghanistan and the Hindu Kush into the N. Pakistan plains (Witzel 2004) one would expect to see L3-M357 in India. Although this haplogroup occurs with an intermediate frequency in Pakistan (6.8%), it is very rare in India (0.4%)".

See -Sengupta et al. 2006. âPolarity and Temporality of High Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in Indiaâ, accepted for publication in American Journal of Human Genetics (vol 76).

Another paper printed in January 2006 also states the same thing, and argues that just as there is evidence for a very small gene flow into India, there is also evidence to support gene flow in the opposite direction.

See â Sahoo et al. A Prehistory of Indian Y Chromosomes, Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (United States), Vol. 103, issue 4, pp. 843-848 (January 24, 2006)

Similar reports have appeared in genetic studies published in recent issues of National Geographic and so on.

However, it must be stated that genes do not have speak, and it may be fundamentally flawed to try to seek âAryanâ genes. But at least these studies do show overall that the particular genes that may be associated with Central Asians/Europeans are present to a very small extent in Indian populations across the board, and Indians in general seem to form a genetic group distinct from other peoples.

Minor genetic differences are seen between âupper casteâ and âlower castesâ and between âcasteâ and âtribalâ populations but these may be attributed to other factors (such as Scythians invading from Central Asia and settling down as Kshatriya castes).

13. But is there not a paper by Bamshad, Kivisild et al (2001) that argues that Upper Indian castes have more European genes than Lower castes?

This article has fundamental flaws because the data speaks contrary to the conclusions that the authors have drawn. For instance, the sample size is very small, and restricted to one district in coastal south India, to where migration of upper-castes from North India is attested even by Vedic texts No statistical justification is given by the authors for what is prima-facie an insufficient sample size. The authors do not take into account the mobility of caste and sub-caste groups in social hierarchy. They just assume that present day Ksatriyas were Ksatriyas in 1500 BCE as well. The European-ness of Ksatriyas, per the data in that paper, is greater than that of Brahmins, which is odd. If we adhere to invasionist scenarios, Brahmins should resemble the âEuropeansâ most closely. The genetic distance tables actually show that the âgenetic distanceâ between Indians as a group, and East Europeans is LESS than that between East Europeans and South Europeans. This puts a question mark on the very basis of the âgeneticâ category âEuropeanâ employed by Bamshad et al. The paper is silent on when these âEurogenesâ entered the various castes of India. These genes could have well come during Shaka, Greek and Persian invasions and thus have nothing to do with the Aryans at all. The authors of the paper however assume that these genes were brought in by Aryans around 1500 BC.

To conclude, the study has several fundamental flaws and cannot be accepted as âproofâ of an Aryan invasion or immigration around 1500 BCE. In short, the authors have forcibly retrofitted their skimpy data into the invasionist hypothesis that âEuropeanâ Aryans invaded India around 1500 BC and formed the upper castes because of which these castes will have greater affinity to Europeans than lower-caste Indians. When a request was sent to the authors to clarify the term âEuropeanâ, they responded by saying that the term merely meant populations west of Indus!

14. What does the record from Skeletal Anthropology say on Aryan Migrations?

Research of scholars such Drs Kennedy, Lucaks and Hemphill shows that there is no break in the skeletal record in NW India/Pakistan between 4500-800BC. In other words, Gujarati Harappans were similar to modern day Gujaratis, Punjabi Harappans were similar to modern day Punjabis. This would have been unlikely if a foreign group had intruded into the Indian subcontinent in significant numbers. 
Agarwal has mentioned elsewhere that the discontinuity at 4500 BC is due to a change in internal subsistence patterns.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 01-29-2006

Ananth,
Looking forward to your posts.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - acharya - 01-29-2006

QUOTE(Sushmita @ Jan 21 2006, 12:39 PM)Bharatvarsha:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEChristian solution to the Jewish problem [was] (conversion), [whereas] to Hitler and the Nazis the Jews were a race and conversion would change nothing.This isn't true. Although the Confessing Church (as the only church) accepted Jewish converts, they didn't really care what happened to the inconvertible Jewish population. Thus for their Church, 'conversion' wasn't a complete "solution" to the "Jewish question". The other churches were entirely in line with Hitler's hideously evil design. See below.

More important than the pictures, is the little-known but revelatory information contained on the page http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm

QUOTECatholic Church
On April 25, thousands of Catholic priests across Germany became part of an anti-Semitic attestation bureaucracy, supplying details of blood purity through marriage and baptism registries in accordance with the Nazi Nuremberg laws which distinguished Jews from non-Jews. Catholic clerical compliance in the process would continue throughout the period of the Nazi regime. [Cornwell, pp.154] Any claimed saving of all-too-few Jewish lives by a few brave Catholics must stand against the millions who died in the death camps as an indirect result of the official workings of the Catholic body.
...
Throughout the war, not only did Catholic priests pay homage to Hitler and contribute to the anti-Semitic feelings, several priests also protected Nazis from criminal charges.For example, Nazi sympathizers such as Bishop Alois Hudal helped Nazi criminals escape to South America by assisting them with false papers and hiding places in Rome. Father Dragonovic worked with the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) to organize the escape of the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie to South America. Barbie had also lived under Dragonovic's protection in San Girolamo for about a year.
......

Protestant Church
After the Nazi party took over, they began to exclude Jews from jobs and schools and later to exclude baptized racial Jews from the Land churches and to force them to live completely by themselves. Notably, the churches deeply involved themselves in furnishing data about racial origins from the very beginning of the Nazi era. Even Bishop Wurm saw no harm in this, and in 1934 informed his clergy: "The use of the 'hereditary passports' (Ahnenpasse) can also be recommended from the standpoint of the church." [Helmreich, p. 328]

On September 1, 1941, a national law made it compulsory for all Jews to display the Star of David when they appeared in public. The ordinance presented a problem to the churches because they did not know that many of the Christians in their congregations had Jewish origins.

How did the Protestant churches respond to this oppression of their fellow Christians? On December 17, 1941, Protestant Evangelical Church leaders of Mecklenburg, Thuringia, Saxony, Nassau-Hesse, Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Anhalt, and Lubeck collectively issued an official proclamation:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEFrom the crucifixion of Christ to the present day, the Jews have fought Christianity or misused and falsified it in order to reach their own selfish goals. By Christian baptism nothing is altered in regard to a Jew's racial separateness, his national being, and his biological nature. A German Evangelical church has to care for and further the religious life of German fellow countrymen; racial Jewish Christians have no place or rights in it. [Helmreich, p. 329]
Confessing Church
Hitler wanted to combine all the regional Protestant churches into a single and united Reich Church. Of course this meant government control of the Church and a minority of Lutheran Pastors foresaw the dangers. In 1933, a few Protestant Pastors, namely Martin NiemÃ¶ller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and others formed the "Pastors Emergency League" which later became known as "The Confessing Church" to oppose the state controlled Nazi Church.

It bears some importance to understand that Germany did not recognize the Confessing Church as an official Church. Not only the Nazis, but all other Protestant Churches condemned the Confessing Church. They thought of it as a minority opposition that held little power. The vast majority of German churches supported Hitler and his policies against the Jews. Moreover, they advocated composing an "Aryan Paragraph" in church synods that would prevent non-aryans from joining the Church, which of course included Jews.

In spite of the myth that has developed that the Confessing Church opposed Hitler for anti-Semitic reasons, the main reason for the opposition actually aimed to protect the power of Pastors to determine who should preach and who they can preach to. The Barmen Declaration of Faith (by Karl Barth, et al) became the principle statement of The Confessing Church. Not a single sentence in it opposes anti-Semitism. According to Professor John S. Conway: "The Confessing Church did not seek to espouse the cause of the Jews as a whole, nor to criticize the secular legislation directed against the German Jews and the Nazi racial philosophy."

Basically, the Confessing Church wanted to save themselves from state control by forming what they considered themselves as the "True Church" (don't all Christians think of themselves as belonging to the True Church?). They did not want government interference with Church self-regulation. This of course deserves plaudits as history has shown that state controlled religions have always ended in oppressing its people. The formation of the United States with its secular government aimed at just this kind of freedom of religion from the state. On this account, the Confessing Church deserves honorable mention. However, just what did they oppose about the Jewish question?

It turns out that the Pastors of the Confessing Church held concerns only for Jews who converted to Christianity. Of course they viewed Jews who convert to Christianity as Christian, not Jewish. This Christian centered view gave them the reason for their objection to the "Aryan Paragraph." For Jews who did not convert, they held strong anti-Semitic feelings. Remember that these pastors lived as well read Lutherans; any reading of Martin Luther will reveal strong anti-Semetic feelings towrad Jews who did not convert... [proceeds to provide quotes to this effect from famous religious leaders of the Confessing Church] </div>
So, apart from the Confessing Church (which wasn't accepted by the other Churches), all the others Protestant Churches as well as the Catholic ones didn't accept Christians who had Jewish ancestry or Jewish people who'd converted to Christianity. In fact, they gave them up to the nazi-government to be killed. The Confessing Church accepted its Jewish Christian members, but didn't care what happened to non-converted Jews.
So that's what the Churches did to Jewish Christians. Israelis/Jewish people look European, but were nevertheless brutally murdered in a mass genocide. Now, how much will Native American, African, Indian and Chinese Christians be accepted? Hint: many Romany were also Christians, but they were nevertheless murdered in huge numbers as well.

Some more, on the same page:
QUOTERemaining secrets
Much remains unknown; the uncovering of the terrible history of Catholic and Protestant Germany during WWII continues. The silence of Catholic and Protestants, church members, priests, and nuns continues to this day. ... Romus ... continues to research and write about the priests who suppressed their anti-Semitic role in Germany... In her latest book, "Wintergreen: suppressed Murders," she documents the atrocities in her hometown [Passau] at the end of the war including the slaying of 2,000 Soviet prisoners, the murder of slave laborers' infants and the efforts to change memorials to victims so that Nazi horrors would remain forgotten. Rosmus has endured verbal abuse, death threats and lawsuits in response to her dedication to the memories of those who faced Nazi persecution.

Recent evidence has surfaced that shows that both Germany's Roman Catholic Church and Germany's Protestant Church used forced laborers during the Third Reich. Religious affairs organizations have attempted to get the Churches to pay into a compensation fund for Nazi victims. ... "The correct thing to do is for the Church to pay into the fund. It's not about when, where and how many forced laborers were used, but whether the two main churches were involved in the system." [Reuters news, 20 July 2000]
...
Today the Catholic Church has undertaken a campaign of suppression and propaganda to belittle Cornwell, Goldhagen, Romus or any researcher that dares to uncover the reality of the atrocities committed by Roman Catholic Christians. Today, Protestant leaders rarely mention the influence by Martin Luther and his anti-Jewish sentiments taught throughout Germany. Indeed, most Protestants live completely unaware of the hatred and intolerances spread by their congressional ancestors. Instead of releasing documents and admitting to the crimes of their fellow Christians, they have opted to protect their religious power structures by silence, concealment, suppression, and projecting the story of persecutions committed against their own religion by other ideological systems, a ploy that disguises their own complicity of persecutions heaped upon others.

[right][snapback]45301[/snapback][/right]
</div>

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 01-29-2006

QUOTEFrom: "gktk_us" <tkgk9@...>
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004Â 3:57 pm
Subject: [Y-Indology] Re: Genetic ResearchÂ

On a cursory look Dr. Bamshad's work does not look any different from
Dr Jorde's "Genetics evidence" which I had analysed earlier. Here it
is for those who are interested. I welcome any comments.

Regards,

======================================
--- In INDOLOGY@yahoogroups.com, "rkk" <rkk@N...> wrote:
> Geneticists should address a well-defined pilot project. Let them
> look at Parsis, Kashmiri Pandits, Namboodiri brahmins , and
> Ayyangars to see if there are commonalities..
> Rajesh Kochhar

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/21st/projects/Gene...sity/jorde.html

I went through the above article. The article seems to be transcript
of Prof. Lynn Jorde's oral presentation. The slides are missing so
little can be said about it. (Lynn Jorde is Professor of Human
Genetics at the University of Utah. He has been involved in a
collaborative effort between geneticists, physical
anthropologists, and indigenous populations in India.)

It is my conclusion that the data presented by Prof. Jorde fits the
OIT better than the AIT/AMT. Here is my analysis of the article.

Early in the article Prof. Jorde presents the picture that he wants
to research (in Prof. Jorde's words):

"So here are some of the research questions that we've been
addressing in our studies in south India. First of all, is there
significant between-population genetic variation, and we've been
looking thus far primarily at caste variation, and what is the
pattern of between-caste genetic distances? What are the likely
origins of south Indian castes and tribal populations? And finally,
is there evidence of a sex-biased gene flow between castes? And this
is essentially the system that we were testing with mitochondrial and
Y-chromosome genetic markers, and I'll talk a little bit more about
that as we go along."

Later he builds his premise to test out the data he collected.

"Now, we can summarize -- and this is a very, very oversimplified
summary of major historical events in India, but it gives us at least
a framework from which to proceed -- Paleolithic settlement of
probable African origins, migrations of proto-Dravidian speakers from
the Fertile Crescent area about nine or ten thousand years ago. And
then most recently, a third major event, migrations of Indo-European-
speaking, so-called Aryans from West Asia, about 3500 years ago, and
it was these individuals who established, who are thought
to have established, the caste system. And I'll be referring to these
waves of migration as we go through the talk."

It is clear that the premise of Prof. Jorde's research is based on
the AIT/AMT.

So, strictly speaking, this presentation cannot be taken as a proof of
migration. This presentation can be limited to what Prof. Jorde set
out to prove namely: Genetic variation and caste. However, lets see
how it all goes.

Prof. Jorde first shows that genetic variations across the caste
exists. A loose summary goes like this: The transmission of
mitochondrial DNA across generations is associated with the female of
the species while Y-chromosomal DNA is associated with the male. It
is observed that females had greater mobility across the castes as
opposed to males. The more homogenous nature of the motochondrial DNA
across the castes shows this, while a 6-7 times higher
variation in Y-chromosomal DNA in males of the population shows their
lower mobility across the castes.

For the "cricitcal" conclusions, which "prove" AIT/AMT, I'll use
Prof. Jorde's words:

"Now, we can also look at -- and this is some fairly new work that
hasn't yet been published -- mitochondrial DNA, genetic distances
between various caste groups and continental populations. And one of
the things we see here is that all of the castes are most similar to
groups of Asian populations. And that's expected, given the origins
of the proto-Dravidian populations, so that we see much, much smaller
distances between Asian populations and each of the caste
groups for the mitochondrial DNA."

Comments: Given the geographical isolation of the sub-continental
population for long periods of time and the female mobility across
castes, a homogeneity in mitochondrial DNA is not totally unexpected,
even according to Prof. Jorde's analysis. IOW, assumption of the
existence of a proto-Dravidian population is unnecessary.

Further Prof. Jorde says:

"When we look at Y chromosome DNA, we again see a somewhat different
pattern. For the upper castes, they actually have slightly greater
genetic affinity (smaller distances) for European populations than
for any other population. The middle castes, a little bit smaller
distance between them and Europeans, and the lower castes instead
have the greatest affinity to Asian populations."

Comments: ".....greatest affinity to Asian populations"? This is
ambigous. If it refers to the Dravidian population as Prof Jorde
previously alluded, then it is fictitious comparision since, then he
is comparing the supposed "lower caste" with themselves and obviously
a good match will be found.

OTOH, it would be naive to imagine that the population across whole
of Europe has very low variation in Y-chormosomal DNA. It would be
interesting to see which European population set has the maximum
affinity to the "upper caste".

And then he concludes;

"Now, if we think back about the history of the population, the most
recent wave, and the one that is the most recent wave of migrants,
the one that instituted the caste system is thought to have come from
West Asia, Eurasia, and those individuals would likely have been more
similar to individuals from Europe. And as those individuals who
began the caste system, they also likely appropriated the highest
positions in the system. So, a very interesting historical insight,
again consistent with some historical hypotheses that the
invaders who came in about 3500 years ago, established the system, and
primarily who were male, so we see the Y chromosome versus
mitochondrial difference, we can still see that signature in today's
genes."

Comments: Prof. Jorde started with a premise and his data set proves
it. If Prof. Jorde had started with a different premise, will the
data-set disprove the different and incorrect premise? Theoretically,
it should. Let see how the data set fits for example the OIT. We take
OIT because, it runs diametrically opposite to AIT/AMT.

But, first, let us re-build the premise.

In 3500 BP or so the life-sustaining ability of river Saraswathi was
on decline. Migrations of population from its banks began. It is well
known that the "upper caste" brahmin population migrated down the
coast upto Kerala, populating the regions all along the way. The
saraswath brahmins the tulu-brahmins the namboodris are examples and
there is hardly any dispute in this. The other wave moved across to
the gangetic plains and upto Brahmaputra.

I am afraid I have little to go on here. (Can somebody tell me more?)
But what about the other castes? Did they move along with them? What
artefacts have they left behind I have no idea. However, it is
tempting to assume that the "upper class" mobility was much higher.
As it turns out, this is the ONLY assumption one has to make to fit
Prof Jorde's data-set to OIT! Lets see how.

Now, it is downright silly to assume that R. Saraswathi was populated
only on the Eastern bank! What happened to those who lived on the
west side? Did they die out as the Saraswathi dried up? Likely no.
They too migrated? Very possible. Where did they migrate to? Did they
run across the river and into the eastern side? Possible too. But,
did they moved out to present-day Afghanistan and beyond, through to
Middle-East and to Europe!! Lets pick up this possibility and see how
Prof Jorde's data fits.

No disputes about the variation of the Y-chromosomal DNA and
similarities of the mitochondrial DNA across the castes in the sub-
continent. The issue is the similarity of the Y-Chromosomal DNA of
the European population with that of the "upper caste" with gradually
decreasing similarities with other castes. This can easily be
explained as a representation of the mobility pattern. The "upper
caste" had a higher mobility and moved to Europe. The homogenization
of the Y-Chromosome can be explained as the lack of "caste-system"
and it is no surprise that this homogenized population's Y-Chromosome
DNA shows greater similarity to the population that showed the
greatest mobility - namely - the "upper caste".

So, as compared to Prof. Jorde's premise, where he had to make several
assumptions (the Aryan invasion into India, mostly male, formation of
caste system by them, appropriation of the "higher caste" by these
invaders etc.), one has to use just one simple and probably very
likely assumption that the so called "upper caste" had higher
mobility and the premise of "OIT" fits much better.

Guess, the idea is, the lesser the assumptions one has to make to fit
a data-set, the higher the probabilty of the theory to be true.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 01-30-2006

Hello, I am new to the board. I have been reading the whole rigveda/AIT/AMT/Indus-Saraswati civilzation theme for a few months now and I really think that there are some interesting events mentioned in the rig veda which may help calrify/explain some of the genetic similarities between Indians and east europeans.

The Rigveda is the sory of the bharatas but it does not exclude the presence of other tribes/people on the Indian subcontinent at the time. It mentions five bharta tribes - the Purus, Anus, Dhruyus, Yadus and the Turvasas (spellings?). Depending on which interpreptation you believe, the Dhruyus were supposed to be a tribe in the northwest corner and not much is mentioned about them. It is believed that they were the first to be expelled after being defeated in a war with the other tribes. It is conceivable that this tribe made its way thorugh central asia into eastern europe.

After the battle of Sudas and the 10 kings (in Punjab) the Anus were belived to be expelled and may have constituted the Indo-Iranian branch. Some of the tribes within the Anus were known as persus, parthavas etc.

If one were to believe the above account/interpretation it is not difficult to account for similarities between Indians and east europeans. Ofcourse, the above hypothesis would be greatly strenghtened if the timeline for the creation of the rigveda based on astronomical events/ river saraswati etc was more accepted as opposed to the timeline proposed by Nazi scholars (Muller, Witzel etc).

I find it ironic that when it comes to Indian history the Nazi interpretation is still more acceptable that that proposed by indian (and now american) scholars.

On a completely different matter, does anyone have a good explanation of where the name "India" comes from. From what I have read, it is the hellenised version of "Hindu", which is in turn the persian word for "Sindhu". From the above reasoning it would appear that we are identifying ourselves using terminology used by Persians and Greeks to refer to people living on the other side of the the rives Sindhu (Indus). I would certainly appreciate input from anyone on this board if they have a different interpretation/explanation.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 01-30-2006

QUOTE(PPS @ Jan 30 2006, 11:03 AM)I find it ironic that when it comes to Indian history the Nazi interpretation is still more acceptable that that proposed by indian (and now american) scholars.

On a completely different matter, does anyone have a good explanation of where the name "India" comes from. From what I have read, it is the hellenised version of "Hindu", which is in turn the persian word for "Sindhu". From the above reasoning it would appear that we are identifying ourselves using terminology used by Persians and Greeks to refer to people living on the other side of the the rives Sindhu (Indus). I would certainly appreciate input from anyone on this board if they have a different interpretation/explanation.
[right][snapback]45946[/snapback][/right]


for a first post, what you wrote is indeed superb. hope to see more from you in future.

and yes india does get its name the way you said.

sindhu (sanskrit) ---> hindu (persian) ---> ind-ia (greek)

as for the nazi interpretations, thats the biggest irony of them all.
whenever i tried to point out the follies of AIT (and the correct concept of out-of-india theory) to real and virtual foreigners, they accused me of nationalism, (hindu) fundamentalism, racial supremacism - when in truth its the ficticious AIT which is all of the aforemantioned and then some. Thats like pot calling, .. chalk black. The ait is purely a child of racially supremacist world view, of colonial mindset, and christian fundamentalism.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 02-02-2006

Kusunda people in Nepal are a relict population from the original coastal route to SE Asia / Melanesia and are similar to the Semang in SE asia and the Andamanese. Originally it was thought that they spoke a Sino-Tibetan language; however, we now know they speak a Indo-Pacific language similar to Papuan, melanesian, etc. I would think this fact confirms a very ancient time-depth for Indic, as well as its spread synonymous with Oppenhemier's models for out of India Migrations, especially during the holocene.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 02-06-2006

I wanted to post this in a different thread (theories on Aryan migration etc) which was discussing some of Cavalli-Sforza's research. I am not sure what paper Sushmita was referring to, but a recent paper from his group provides convincing evidence that there was no genetic input into the Indian genepool from central asian pastoralist.

I think most of the people here have seen this paper but I thought I would post it anyway. Here goes..........

Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists

Although considerable cultural impact on social hierarchy and language in South Asia is attributable to the arrival of nomadic Central Asian pastoralists, genetic data (mitochondrial and Y chromosomal) have yielded dramatically conflicting inferences on the genetic origins of tribes and castes of South Asia. We sought to resolve this conflict, using high-resolution data on 69 informative Y-chromosome binary markers and 10 microsatellite markers from a large set of geographically, socially, and linguistically representative ethnic groups of South Asia. We found that the influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. The ages of accumulated microsatellite variation in the majority of Indian haplogroups exceed 10,000â15,000 years, which attests to the antiquity of regional differentiation. Therefore, our data do not support models that invoke a pronounced recent genetic input from Central Asia to explain the observed genetic variation in South Asia. R1a1 and R2 haplogroups indicate demographic complexity that is inconsistent with a recent single history. Associated microsatellite analyses of the high-frequency R1a1 haplogroup chromosomes indicate independent recent histories of the Indus Valley and the peninsular Indian region. Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus and with significant genetic input resulting from demic diffusion associated with agriculture. Our results underscore the importance of marker ascertainment for distinguishing phylogenetic terminal branches from basal nodes when attributing ancestral composition and temporality to either indigenous or exogenous sources. Our reappraisal indicates that pre-Holocene and Holocene-era â not Indo-European â expansions have shaped the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.

Here is the link to the pdf

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG...78_p202-221.pdf

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 03-22-2006

How African Are You? What genealogical testing can't tell you.
By John Hawks

QUOTEA deeper problem with admixture testing is its claim to identify the "ancestral components" of different populations. For example, admixture testing considers people from India to be a mixture of "Indo-European" and "East Asian" ancestors. And indeed, Indians have some alleles otherwise common in Europe, and some otherwise common in China. But Indian populations have been on their subcontinent for tens of thousands of years, and they have many alleles that don't come from anywhere else. Anthropologists studying genetic variation have always found complexity rather than simple one-plus-one racial mixtures. SNP-testing companies don't seem to have gotten that news.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 04-01-2006

<img src='http://img428.imageshack.us/img428/1898/img0001a5lr.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 04-01-2006

notice how SE asian and Indian lines meet up in the Tarim.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - dhu - 04-01-2006

<img src='http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9322/img00021ri.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 04-01-2006

QUOTE(Ananth @ Jan 20 2006, 07:38 AM)I read the Kashyap paper and is a good piece of work. Contour diagrams of Y chromosome haplogroups are very informative.
From the article
The caste populations of âânorthââ and ââsouthââ India are not particularly more closely related to each other than they are to the tribal groups.
Genetic distances between Central Asia is similar for North caste, South Caste and Non North East tribals (NE tribes are treated separately), also same for distance from West Europe for the three groups. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' />Â
Conclusions:
It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond
South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority
of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The
perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving
to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold
up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups
J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the
majority of the Indian castesâ paternal lineages from outside the
subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a
local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2
indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from
West Asia rather than Central Asia.
The current distributions of haplogroup frequencies are, with the exception of the O ineages, predominantly driven by geographical, rather than cultural determinants.
Ironically, it is in the northeast of India, among the
TB groups that there is clear-cut evidence for large-scale demic
diffusion traceable by genes, culture, and language, but apparently
not by agriculture. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />
[right][snapback]45178[/snapback][/right]


I think the indian gene pool is the key. if you people have observed indians physically resemble the caucasians but we are darker by colour. If we were to mix a white and an indian, the offspring most probably 75 to 80% will resemble the white in terms of colour and physical characteristics. there are many examples like nasser hussain, norah jones, ben kingsley etc. they look more like europeans than indian.

We are genetically weak compared to other races. it is very difficult to trace out our ancestory because of our diversity as we have the genes of all major races.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Hauma Hamiddha - 04-02-2006

QUOTE(marc_robinson @ Apr 1 2006, 12:28 PM)We are genetically weak compared to other races.
[right][snapback]49320[/snapback][/right]


Could you clarify what you mean by genetically weak? Seems to be a nonsensical statement at the face of it.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 04-02-2006

QUOTEbecause of our diversity as we have the genes of all major races
It is other way round.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 04-02-2006

QUOTE(marc_robinson @ Apr 1 2006, 10:58 PM)We are genetically weak compared to other races.
[right][snapback]49320[/snapback][/right]


yes, we are genetically weak thats why we have a billion people and most of the skin cancers are not even known to us!!

bengurion.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 04-03-2006

I am not sure that we are genetically weak, but it is quite possible that we became civlized a lot earlier and one outcome could be that brain becomes more important that brawn. I mean look around India, we spit out doctors, engineers, scientist etc with no special effort.

What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1 - Guest - 05-11-2006

Post 235
QUOTEI think the indian gene pool is the key. if you people have observed indians physically resemble the caucasians but we are darker by colour. If we were to mix a white and an indian, the offspring most probably 75 to 80% will resemble the white in terms of colour and physical characteristics. there are many examples like nasser hussain, norah jones, ben kingsley etc. they look more like europeans than indian.

We are genetically weak compared to other races. it is very difficult to trace out our ancestory because of our diversity as we have the genes of all major races. 
I think the poster means that Indian looks get swamped in an interethnic marriage, because "we have all the genes of the major races" which probably make the non-Indian parent's genes more pronounced in the offspring. Hence the genetics determining Indian looks are weak because the kids look more like the non-Indian parent's people? Not sure, but that's what I understood.

Actually, when I first saw Norah Jones and Ben Kingsley I thought they had something Indian about them. I thought they looked Indian, not European. Never seen Nasser Hussain.
Diya Handrich (aka Diya Mirza) is part Bengali Hindu, part German. Her mother remarried and the Afghan Muslim stepdad's surname helped to make Diya's surname sound less foreign. She looks rather Indian, I couldn't tell she had a non-Indian parent.