What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1

[Guest]

Rajitaji wrote this on IC..

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/83221

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: "Rajita Rajvasishth"
Date: Fri Dec 16, 2005  7:34 pm
Subject: AIT in deep trouble :-)  rajitarajvas...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
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

Sanghamitra Sengupta,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,2 Roy King,3 S. Q. Mehdi,4
Christopher A. Edmonds,3 Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow,3 Alice A. Lin,3
Mitashree Mitra,5 Samir K. Sil,6 A. Ramesh,7 M. V. Usha Rani,8 Chitra
M. Thakur,9 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 Partha P. Majumder,1 and Peter A.
Underhill3

1Human Genetics Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India;
2N. I. Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow; 3Department of Genetics, Stanford University,
Stanford; 4Biomedical and Genetic Engineering Division, Dr. A. Q. Khan
Research Laboratories, Islamabad; 5School of Studies in Anthropology,
Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, India; 6University of
Tripura, Tripura, India; 7Department of Genetics, University of
Madras, Chennai, India; 8Department of Environmental Sciences,
Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, India; and 9B. J. Wadia Hospital
for Children, Mumbai, India

Received July 26, 2005; accepted for publication November 3, 2005;
electronically published December 16, 2005.

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
10,000–15,000 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—not Indo-European—expansions have shaped
the distinctive South Asian Y-chromosome landscape.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This paper is definitely an exciting thing for the OIT camp. May be
the Cali people can send it to Metzenberg etc.

But I would recommend caution. I would also like to point out some
interesting things in the paper.

The caution part
Recently we have had papers about the invasion of Europe by Neolithic
farmers which have suggested that invasion by farmers had little
effect. But careful examination shows that the non-invasion is far
from completelty conclusive. I must say the whole point lies with the
R1A1 markers and some other like the J2 group. The resolution of the
internal strands within the R1A1 is far from clear so they cannot rule
out a more recent invasion from the Northwest corresponding to the
Aryans on top of an earlier R1A1 spread. The authors have a poor
understanding of language and caste dynamics. They do not understand
that speaking and Indo-European or Dravidian language is not
necessarily correlated with Aryan or non-Aryan cultures.

The interesting points:
Good sampling from many Indian locations

Parpola's theory Indus is dead: The evidence for a Dravidian-Indus
connection is not supported by any markers. So Dravidians did not
author the Indus civilization.

Witzel's Theory Indus is dead: The markers do not support an
Austro-Asiatic origin for Indus either. In fact the clusters are as
distinct as they can be.

R1A1's epicenter seems to be in Pamir region. From here it seems to
have spread in one direction to Central Asia and Europe and in another
to interior India. But the time of spread appears to be much more
ancient than the 1500 BC of Kuzmina/Witzel's nonsense theory. So this
cannot have anything to do with a late AIT and in any case it did not
come from deep Europe.

There are relationships within brahmins that transcend regional
differences (see below). Many markers are shared by Iyer, Iyengar,
Konkanasta Brahmin and Bengal Brahmin. So a core brahmin group
spreading out is a possibility. Interestingly Iyer and Kbr form a
close cluster despite the former being typically dark and the later
fair. UP brahmins seem to have had a major component from the West
most likely as Shakadvipi brahmins.

Many India Muslims are recent Hindu converts and group closely with
brahmins and other Hindus.

Central Asian Rajputs dead: Rajputs while forming a distinct group are
more Indian than Central Asian.

In my opinion the simplest solution to the mess is to propose a much
earlier divergence of Indo-European than is current. If we posit an
Indo-Aryan itself being distinct by 5000 BC then we could account for
much of the observed molecular evidence. But the dispersion point of
Indo-European should move closer to India most likely in the Pamir
area. I am sure many OIT people will be happy to go with that.
R
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Anand Sharan replied..


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Your comment about the spread from Pamir is quite interesting. If we
look at Bhishma's waiting for the Uttarayana so that his Atman would
go the Meru Parvat which is believed to be in Pamir - takes us back
to the MBH time - the time frame you are writing about.


I was always thinking about Bhishma's desire.

The genetic evidences seem to confirm this.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->