What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1

[acharya]

http://kennethomura.tripod.com/asian_genes/
<img src='http://kennethomura.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/asian_genes_tier_0_fareast_and_subcontinent_map.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />


Tripartite Asian Biological Unimportance

asianfaces1.jpg

Physical similarity of Tripartite Asians does not imply biological similarity. There is a phenomenon in evolution whereby dissimilar organisms evolve to be physically similar due to similar forces acting upon them. Both brontosaurus and elephants have legs like columns to support their massive weight. They evolved these legs independently. The phenomenon of convergence also applies to humans. Two Tripartite Asians of similar physical characteristics may or may not be genetically similar.

<img src='http://kennethomura.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/asian_genes_ii_1_2_india.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Within group II (approximately Subcontinent Asians) the main Indian group (A) branched away from the Southeast Indian group (B) in the time period labeled tier 3. The main Indian group refers to a time prior to the formation of the nationo of Pakistan. Note: All branches under the tier 3 category branched out at about the same time.

[acharya]

http://kennethomura.tripod.com/asian_race/id4.html

Historical & Contemporary Race Systems
There exist a huge number of race systems made by people which are not the 2000-2010 US Census one. No race system is the absolute truth. They are just opinions. There are many more race systems than the ones below.




<img src='http://kennethomura.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/asian_race_thomas_huxley_racial_definitions.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<img src='http://kennethomura.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/asian_race_carleton_s._coon_racial_definitions3.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<img src='http://kennethomura.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/racemap.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Historical & Contemporary Race Systems (only India)

Culturopedia Race System (only India)

1. Negrito (>1% population) South India
2. Austric (>1% population) Central and East India
3. Mongoloid (~3% population) Northeast India
4. Dravidian (25% population) South India
5. Western Brachycephal (>1% population) Northwest India
6. Indo-Aryan (72% population) North India

Hayat Khan Race System (only India)

1. Austrailoid-Negroid (50% population) South, Central, East & low caste India
2. Caucasoid (35% population) North India & high caste
3. Mongoloid (15% population) Northeast India

Hadwa Dom Race System (only India)

1. Mughalloid race foreign Musslmen
2. Indo-Mon-Khmer race East Indics
3. Rajput race east Iranics
4. Sudroid race Dalits, Dravidians, Kols, Adivasis
5. Indo-Aryan race Arabs, Iranians Turks

Herbert Risely Race System (only India)

1. Mongoloid race
2. Dravidian race
3. Indo-Aryan race
4. Turko-Iranian race
5. Mongolo-Dravidian race
6. Aryo-Draividan race
7. Scytho-Dravidian race

Richard McCulloch Race System (only India)

1. Indic race North India
2. Dravidic race Central India
3. Veddoid race South India

Vatul Gothram Race System (only India)

1. Aryan race (northern India)
2. Dravidian race (southern India)
<span style='color:red'>
It is possible for anybody to be racist toward anybody, regardless if they are defined as the same race by a race system.
</span>

[acharya]

http://www.epw.org.in/articles/2006/07/10318.pdf

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Aug 10 2006, 04:25 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Aug 10 2006, 04:25 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Historical & Contemporary  Race Systems
[right][snapback]55335[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yes, the many imagined race systems for India are numerous indeed - and all inconsistent with one another, as one might expect from unscientific nonsense.

<b>Here's the real ethnic system for the Islands making up the UK and Ireland:</b>
- Picts: these non-Indo-European Europeans who lived in Europe before the 'IE' people came along, were found in western-Europe and the British Isles. The Romans and Gauls chased the ones in France out to the British Isles. The Celts in the UK and Ireland did not want any indigenous Picts or immigrant continental Picts either. The Vikings later came and chased the Picts too. It's been suggested that Picts were the first Europeans to enter the Americas: the Vikings had chased them all the way to the new continent.
- Celts came to settle in Ireland. They divided themselves into the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Man (Isle of Man) and Bretons (from whom comes the name Brittany or Britain). The Bretons speak a Celtic dialect that is close to the one of the Celts of Bretagne in France.
- Then in the 5th or 6th centuries, Germanic Saxons and Angles came raiding from neighbouring Germany and Netherlands and eventually decided to settle in Britain. The Celts had to recede a bit. Creation of Wessex (west Saxony), Essex (E Saxony), Sussex (S Saxony). Angles have left their name in Angleland (England).
- The Romans, too, arrived in Britain at this time.
- Then the Danes came prior to and during the Viking Invasions era around the turn of the millenium. Many Danish names still exist in Britain and even Scotland: for example, today's Robertson shows that the originals were Danes (or Norse, see Vikings below).
- The Vikings invaded several times. Some settled and started their own communities. More names ending on -son.
- The Christo Normans (formerly Vikings from Norway who'd settled in Normandy) then invaded Christianised Britain and oppressed the Christo Saxons in their turn. Richard the Lionheart could not speak a word of English, but was the King of England - though he was mostly so <i>in absentia</i>. Surnames like 'Purefoy' today are purely Norman names.
- Somewhere along the line Ireland, Wales and even Scotland were invaded by Spanyards: the resultant communities are called the Black Celts or Black Irish, etc. People who imagine all Irish to be red heads posit that Colin Farrell and Catherine Zeta Jones belong to such Spanish-Irish communities.
- There were several immigrations and invasions of actual French, the last one during the time of the French revolution and its purges of France's aristocracy. A few of the noblesse managed to migrate to England.

So what do we have? Even if we allow that the Picts probably died out, we can still recognise numerous 'races' in the Isles - or, at the least, ethnicities:
- Various Celts (Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Mansh, Cornish, Bretons)
- Various Germanic communities (Angles, Saxons)
- Various Norse communities (Vikings, Danes, and Normans)
- Roman (probably mostly mixed in with other communities now)
- Gaulish (French)
- Spanish (probably mostly mixed in with Celtic communities now)
- And sometimes even combinations of the above, though many ethnic communities in England are still not mixed. There are entire villages with Danish or Viking names and the same is true for the names of the people who live there. It's only in recent centuries that significant numbers of people in England and Ireland have started moving out of their villages.

Note that the invasions and resultant ethnicities in the British Isles are far more recent than any imagined Dravidian/Aryan invasions of India. (Even the Picts were last sent packing out of the Isles only in Viking times.) So if any countries should break up on account of having too many disparate ethnicities - based on <i>historic</i> invasions and oppression and the resultant animosity generated from that - then the British Isles have to be first.

<b>The invention of 'Indo-European' is a godsend for Europe and especially Britain:</b> until then, all the ethnic groups there were really regarded as wholly disparate entities and could not get along. The Vikings attacked the Saxons who had attacked the various Celts before, the Saxons retaliated on the Danes, the Normans invaded and oppressed the Saxons, the Saxons oppressed the Celts and after allowing the Scots into the clique still oppressed the Irish and Welsh.
Much hatred and resentment between all these groups existed for long periods of time - until but a few centuries back (the Celts still have understandable fear and dislike of the English).
Until recent decades, English was compulsory in Irish and Welsh schools. Children would be beaten by their teachers for speaking in their respective Gaelic tongues. The English tried to exterminate the Gaelic languages (like they have tried to do with Samskritam) because it was a sign of independent Celtic identity and because the <i>English regarded Gaelic as a primitive language</i> - this was before the invention of IE. Welsh and even Scottish people regularly state they are not British and not English at all, but were oppressed by the English. They see Wales and Scotland as separate nations. (Tip: never ask English-speaking lecturers whether they are English or even British - nothing hurts the Welsh and Scots as much.)
Today, Britain hopes the IE identity will push the historic evils they perpetrated against the Celts to the background and through IE it wishes to unite a geographic region that had never ever been united before.

[Guest]

Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Results</b>
No significant difference was observed in the mitochondrial DNA between Indian tribal and caste populations, except for the presence of a higher frequency of west Eurasian-specific haplogroups in the higher castes, mostly in the north western part of India. On the other hand, the study of the Indian Y lineages revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. The paternal lineages of Indian lower castes showed significantly closer affinity to the tribal populations than to the upper castes. The frequencies of deep-rooted Y haplogroups such as M89, M52, and M95 were higher in the lower castes and tribes, compared to the upper castes.

<b>Conclusions</b>

The present study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool, consisting of <b>Indio-European and Dravidian speakers</b>, is genetically more or less uniform. Invasions after the late Pleistocene settlement might have been mostly male-mediated. However, Y-SNP data provides compelling genetic evidence for a tribal origin of the lower caste populations in the subcontinent. Lower caste groups might have originated with the hierarchical divisions that arose within the tribal groups with the spread of Neolithic agriculturalists, much earlier than the arrival of <b>Aryan speakers</b>. The Indo-Europeans established themselves as upper castes among this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is another piece of crap.
Result make sense but conclusion is full of DMK manure.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Aug 21 2006, 01:08 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Aug 21 2006, 01:08 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Results</b>
No significant difference was observed in the mitochondrial DNA between Indian tribal and caste populations, except for the presence of a higher frequency of west Eurasian-specific haplogroups in the higher castes, mostly in the north western part of India. On the other hand, the study of the Indian Y lineages revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. The paternal lineages of Indian lower castes showed significantly closer affinity to the tribal populations than to the upper castes. The frequencies of deep-rooted Y haplogroups such as M89, M52, and M95 were higher in the lower castes and tribes, compared to the upper castes.

<b>Conclusions</b>

The present study suggests that the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool, consisting of <b>Indio-European and Dravidian speakers</b>, is genetically more or less uniform. Invasions after the late Pleistocene settlement might have been mostly male-mediated. However, Y-SNP data provides compelling genetic evidence for a tribal origin of the lower caste populations in the subcontinent. Lower caste groups might have originated with the hierarchical divisions that arose within the tribal groups with the spread of Neolithic agriculturalists, much earlier than the arrival of <b>Aryan speakers</b>. The Indo-Europeans established themselves as upper castes among this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is another piece of crap.
Result make sense but conclusion is full of DMK manure.
[right][snapback]55919[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There is a 2006 paper by Sahoo et al which has a statistically a good sample of Indian population and they have concluded :
" 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 castes' paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H."

The paper is here:
Sahoo et al

And do read this piece for the motivation of why the British Indologists came up with Aryan Invasion theory:
[URL= http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1klostermaier.html]Motivation for AIT[/URL]

-Digvijay