Vishal Agarwal on the genetic evidence:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->excerpt:
http://www.india-forum.com/articles/86/1/H...CHOLARLY%92-WAY
<b>12. But there is Genetic Evidence for the Aryan Invasion or migration?</b>
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 -<b>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).</b>
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 <b>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)</b>
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).
<b>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?</b>
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!
<b>14. What does the record from Skeletal Anthropology say on Aryan Migrations?</b>
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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agarwal has mentioned elsewhere that the discontinuity at 4500 BC is due to a change in internal subsistence patterns.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->excerpt:
http://www.india-forum.com/articles/86/1/H...CHOLARLY%92-WAY
<b>12. But there is Genetic Evidence for the Aryan Invasion or migration?</b>
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 -<b>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).</b>
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 <b>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)</b>
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).
<b>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?</b>
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!
<b>14. What does the record from Skeletal Anthropology say on Aryan Migrations?</b>
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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agarwal has mentioned elsewhere that the discontinuity at 4500 BC is due to a change in internal subsistence patterns.