• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2
The diversity for R is much less in Europe compared to India. It is very obvious when you consider that R2 is confined to E India with obvious spread from E to W upto Kurdistan. Therefore, Spencer must have K originate out of africa as a second African exodus. look at wikipedia. Every damn line comes out of Levant. they are 'hedging their bets' by having it all proceed out of neutral territory.
The entire narrative is crafted to scuttle the southern route. Fact of Southern route coupled with a delayed (by 30-40K) colonization of West by AMH means that India is automatically the source of European lines. The Basque intellectual:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There's a new seemingly important paper around but it is behind a paywall so I can only make a shallow comment: David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh, Reconstructing Indian population history. Nature, 2009.

A divulgative review can be read at Science Daily.

Apparently the research has found or confirmed two important elements in the Indian genetic background:

1. That there were two ancestral populations in the subcontinent: a northern one (ANI), not very different from Western Eurasians and a southern one (ASI) totally unique to India and whose only pure remainder are the Andamanese. Otherwise both distinct ancestral populations are nowadays found mixed at various apportions.

2. That tribes and castes are really not that different, with castes seemingly being formed out of recycled ancient tribes. This means that there are many tribal/caste founder effects that make each of these groups rather unique and inbred, with likely relevant health consequences like those found among other similarly isolated populations, such as Jews or Finns.

Nothing too new, because I do have the feeling that this was vaguely known but never really established in such categorical terms. For example, in some previous global studies South Asians have often appeared as a mixture of two components: one the same as West Eurasians and another unique of them. Even the anthropometrists of old used to talk of "Caucasoid" and "Australoid" (or sometimes "Veddoid") Indians, even if we know now that the use of the term "Australoid" in the past was all but clarifying, mostly meaning anything Eurasian that is not specifically Western or Eastern.

For me, this confirmation of the existence of two distinct ancestral populations, suggests that they formed in the early period of Eurasian spread of humankind, before what we conventionally call now "races" formed. <b>As West Eurasia was colonized since c. 50,000 BP, that provides a most recent time limit for such population divergence, because it must have happened before, probably quite a bit of time before, some of the ANI peoples migrated to West Asia, North Africa and Europe. The "Indian remix" must then have happened after this westward migration. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Oct 6 2009, 11:03 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 6 2009, 11:03 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The diversity for R is much less in Europe compared to India. It is very obvious when you consider that R2 is confined to E India with obvious spread from E to W upto Kurdistan.  Therefore, Spencer must have K originate out of africa as a second African exodus.  look at wikipedia.  Every damn line comes out of Levant.  they are 'hedging their bets' by having it all proceed out of neutral territory.
There was 2 major population splits of the first migration from Africa before reaching India.
One was in going north via Mesopotamia-Turkey.From there they reach Europe as the HPL I is related whit Hpl J.
Beside Aurignacian was replaced 25000 years ago by Gravettian(who is from Middle east).
The second was before reaching the Hindukush mountains.
The Levant and Mesopotamia doesn't have more Hpl the India but they was the first who have a population explosion in neolithic so their genes reach a more extend then the rest.

From Oppenheimer's TRE p 226:

"Certain broad genetic divisions within Asia became clear to geneticists before the focus on mtDNA and Y markers. As expected, the Caucasoid regions of West Eurasia were found to group together, with some overlap on the Indian subcontinent. There was a clear separation form East Eurasia, which in turn..
Such studies have not helped much to trace origins..."

That is because autosomal studies cannot show descent.

The ASI argument is similar to whether Dravidian is adstratum or substratum in Vedic. The argument works at rhetoric level as long as time depth is kept out of the picture.

Following is a comment from poster on varnam.in (AIT believer, he conceeds that the ASI interpretation is problematic and that ANI did migrate into C Asia and Europe, but, as usual, ushers in Aryans based on usual linguistic and caste system arguments, Linguistic argument was taken care by Talageri, Caste system argument by Balu...


i get the feeling that people think in terms of only one migration and that confuses the issue. MtDNA and Y chromosome data shows that Indians and Eurasians (Europeans) share many of these lineages and most of them show greater diversity in India. That would suggest that these lineages were founded in India and between 40K and 20K Eurasia were peopled by migrations from India. So a component of ANI- European genetic similarity – maybe a major one- would be due to these ancient migrations from India to Eurasia.

That however does not mean there were no later migrations from Eurasia into India in historical times beginning with the advent of agriculture and continuing post Indus Valley collapse. A component of the ANI-European similarity – relatedness according to caste is hard to explain otherwise- as is the linguistic and archaeological evidence.....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Oct 7 2009, 04:46 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 7 2009, 04:46 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->GS,

From Oppenheimer's TRE p 226:

"Certain broad genetic divisions within Asia became clear to geneticists before the focus on mtDNA and Y markers.  As expected, the Caucasoid regions of West Eurasia were found to group togethet of th
The first people who came in Europe was from Aurignacian culture(40000years) which seems to arose in Central Asia.Is not excluded that they came from India.
The last ice age was very problematic for the aurignacians and their number shrink).

The gravettians that came from middle east(25000years) replaced almost totaly aurignacians(just as aurignacians replaced neanderthals).
So central asian( or indian) input in european genes is a small minority.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Y-DNA haplogroup F is the parent of all Y-DNA haplogroups G through T and contains more than 90% of the world’s population. Haplogroup F was in the original migration out of Africa, or else it was founded soon afterward, because F and its sub-haplogroups are primarily found outside, with very few inside, sub-Saharan Africa. The founder of F could have lived between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, depending on the time of the out-of-Africa migration.

The major sub-groups of Haplogroup F are Haplogroups G, H, [IJ], and K, which are discussed elsewhere at this site. T<b>he minor sub-groups, F*, F1, and F2 have not been well studied, but apparently occur only infrequently and primarily in the Indian subcontinent.</b> F* has been observed in two individuals in Portugal, possibly representing a remnant of 15th and 16th century contact of Portugal with India. [[the portugal samples are errors- see second link]]  link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Y-chromosome Haplogroup F is a large “macrohaplogroup” that includes much of the world’s population. Nearly all of that population is in further derived sub-haplogroups defined by downstream singlenucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). <b>Only in India have significant numbers of people been reported to be in the root of Haplogroup F, </b>that is, in Haplogroup F, but not having any downstream SNP mutations (Kivisild et al. 2003) defining the present Y phylogenetic tree. The haplogroup for such individuals would properly be called
Haplogroup F*. link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Eurasian migration theory based on the latest findings
(For those regardless of race who tire of long reads, just read the headlines.)
I. Basal Eurasian Lineages around the initial stage of exodus out of Africa: M and N for the maternal side and C, DE, and F for the paternal.

-On the maternal side, M and N (including R) arose out of L3 either within or outside of Africa.

<b>-On the paternal side, Yap/DE arose within Africa and accompanied it’s ancestral type, M168, out of Africa, where C/M130 and F/M89 sprang up.</b>

II. Route (s) taken and the Eurasian Garden of Eden: <b>southern coastal route to India, the Eurasian Garden of Eden where the basal Eurasian lineages, as well as highest diversity, is found.</b>

-The route taken is a southern coastal route via East Africa, through southern Arabia, and into India. Large bodies of water likely were not obstacles because of lower sea levels due to water trapped in glaciers.

-A separate route out of Africa via the Levant is no longer viable. (This was proposed for Whitey to feel special.)

-The reason for this is simple.
1. On the maternal side, N (and R) is no longer solely found in Western Eurasia. <b>"Negritos" groups and Australian aborigines and Papuans all have unique N and R lineages. In fact, Australia seem to be lacking in a native M lineage. </b>The exclusive presence of N-derived lineages in West Eurasia was the original reason as to why the separate Levantine exit.
2. On the paternal side, the F/M89 lineage, which was proposed to came out of the Levant due to the initial appearance of higher % and diversity of F-derived lineages there, has been set up due to the discovery that<b> F*, the ancestral type, is largely restricted to tribal populations in India </b>(Those Brahmins pouring acid on untouchables are actually pouring acid on their daddies.):

“The presence of <b>several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent </b>is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there).”

Source: p. 15 of PDF,
“The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations” by Kivisild et al. in the American Journal of Human Genetics. 72:313–332, 2003

3. "Most experts agree that modern humans arose in Africa before spreading throughout the world. But while archaeological evidence suggests that humans moved north into Egypt and the Middle East {probably referring to the first fail exit from Africa 90,000 years ago in the Levant}, climate records show that this region was an inhospitable desert until 50,000 years ago, making this an unlikely choice of route.

Journeying east around the coastlines of Somalia and eventually India would have been one alternative, says Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow, UK. "It wouldn't have been difficult to live on the coast," he says. "In fact, it would have been quite appealing."

-Either N and R left India for the Middle east before the birth of M, or M was left out or bottle-necked out of the scenario. Both cases are plausible since the population at the time would’ve been very small, perhaps only a few hundred.

-"The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is fewer than 80 individuals, approximately 1% of the effective size of the estimated ancestral Asian population."
"On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas"

-"By comparing these with data on mitochondrial DNA from other populations in the region, the researchers conclude that the two populations are descended from a single group of people, containing perhaps 600 females of reproductive age, who lived in India around 65,000 years ago."

-in Upper Paleolithic Europe, the population remain around 50,000, dipping to the 10,000 range during glacial maximum.

Thus, lineages could’ve been easily distorted during crunch times. This could be the reason we see weird distributions that don’t correspond to races today, such as the E3b-dominated landscape of N. Africa compared to the F-derived lineages of the ME and the R situation in Europe. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A popular forum:
(the specialized forums are even more damning)

Yahoo Answers

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ali:Where did the caucasian race come from and how did they get their features?
and who where the first caucasians etc? and when did they get light skin, blonde/red hair and
King of londoN
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
<b>40,000 years ago a group from what is now known as India looked like this migrated to Europe</b> and since then they have been adapting to their surroundings gaining lighter skin but blonde hair blue eyes and the other variations are not Cacausaian traits and were there before Asian or White people existed its just the large lump of it was in that group which went to Europe
Asker's Rating:5 out of 5
Asker's Comment:
east africa to south asia and then europe ! very fascinating then in europe they turned blonder and lighter etc <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

mtDNA R is Rohani, from which the Europa and H clans are exclusively derived. The N based lineages in Europe are also rooted in East with Pre-Nasreen localized to Malaysia and basal N in Australia. Rohani itself is N as well.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ancient Indian Females:
..The distinction was made by comparing the markers with Europeans, North Africans and West Asians. ANI is observed among those groups and ASI is restricted only to India. Though in India both ANI and ASI are found mixed in population.

<b>This interesting observation reinforces the fact that all the West Eurasian (North Africa, West Asia and Europe) matrilineages were ultimately derived from an Indian macro haplogroup mtDNA R.</b> With this study we can even confirm that, one of M lineages, M1, which is found mostly in Mediterranean region was also part of the migration from India.

The researchers make one more observation that Onges, one of the Andaman tribes, are sort of close to ASI. We do know that Onges' Y-chromosome is exclusively Y-Haplogroup D, found mostly in Tibet and Japan but their matrilineage is M31a, found mostly in East India or S E India. This is another case where matrilineage asserting itself (through autosomes) over patrilineage.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

They are using lack of M in Europe and norming this at 100%, while ignoring that all the predominant Europa lines are all derived from Indian Rohani. This is a very familiar argument. Entire Indian diversity will never be replicated in the outgoing groups, but anything less will be used as an argument against Southern route.

Differential settlement of Asia and Eurostan: see the relative dates (asian settlement is much earlier at 85K), ignore the locations of the splits which the figure seeks to obfuscate by using a non-peters map:

<img src='http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ncscotts/mtDNA/Migration%20Maps/NYTimes%20mtDNA%20Migrations%20Map.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

The details are not important, only the fact that they admitted much earlier settlement of Asia compared to eurostan.

HV, U;K, JT are all derived from Rohani. Non-issue.

I and W are N clades which have South Asian (red) origin:

<img src='http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mtdna1.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

In addition, pre-N is localized to Malaysia.

That is the near totality of Eurostani clades, all derived from S Asia.

The E-W split is due to Toba and is a local split between S. Asia and SE Asia, which was subsequently amplified as these two regions expanded Northwards.
Some say that Toba eruption happend before human migration so they explain the split by a posible mega-tsunami.
Dhu, Please explain the new info in lay man terms. Thanks, ramana
Post-ice-age expansion from India. (fits perfectly with Nichols' model for a "Bactria" locus)

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 5 2009, 10:08 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 5 2009, 10:08 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post-ice-age expansion from India.  (fits perfectly with Nichols' model for a "Bactria" locus)

this is an excellent map
The small one contain time spread of R1a.
From Gujarat 16000 years ago to Caucasus and Poland 12000 years ago.
More informations about diversity and age are useful .
Also confirm that so call "ukrainian refuge" wasnt only in Ukraine but spread up to Afganistan and Hindukush .There was no barrier betwin Ukraine and Central Asia if we read the climatic map of that time.

The small map is unique ,i never see it before.Thanks.
acording to Dienekes site

December 03, 2005
Ages of R1a1
(in kya)

Balkans: 15.8
India: 14.0
Oman: 11.4
Eastern Europe: 11.4
South Siberia: 11.3
Anatolia: 8.9

If R-M458 had started expanding 10.7ky ago, then by the time of the early dispersals of Kurgan groups east, it would have been present among them, and we would expect to find it east of the Urals and in the Near East/Central/South Asia. To reconcile this age with the archaeological picture of west-east movements across the steppe seems impossible. However, the situation resolves itself neatly when we realize that J-P58 is only 3-4 thousand years old, and was not in existence at the time of the Kurgan expansion.

However, the paper also is inconsistent with an origin of R-M17 either in a glacial refugium or with the expansion of the Kurgan culture, as the diversity of R1a1a*(xR1a1a7) is not particularly high in either Russia or the Ukraine and is much higher in India and Pakistan:

Analysis of associated STR diversity profiles revealed that among the R1a1a*(xM458) chromosomes the highest diversity is observed among populations of the Indus Valley yielding coalescent times above 14 KYA (thousands of years ago), whereas the R1a1a* diversity declines toward Europe where its maximum diversity and coalescent times of 11.2 KYA are observed in Poland, Slovakia and Crete.

Hopefully we will not have to wait another decade for the R1a1a* chromosomes to be further resolved, and thus yield signal(s) specific to the archaeologically attested trans-Ural spread of the Kurgan culture and/or the Indo-Iranians.

Finally, structure in haplogroup R1a (Underhill et al. 2009)
I have lobbied for more structure in R1a to be discovered since the early days of this blog, and finally the R1a monolith seems to be cracking.

(Watch this space for my comments once I read the paper).

UPDATE (Nov 05):

This paper makes a very important contribution by studying the diversity and distribution of Y-chromosome marker M458 defining the new haplogroup R1a1a7.

R-M458 reaches high frequency and diversity in central and eastern Europe. It is virtually absent in northwestern Europe, the Near East, and Asia east of the Urals. The maximum frequency is reached in south (36.4%) and central (33.3%) Poland.

The earliest expansion time for R-M458 is found in Poland (10.7ky), but since the paper uses the effective mutation rate that I criticized elsewhere, this date should be divided by a factor of 3 giving an age of 3.6ky. This matches quite well the age for the Balto-Slavic split according to Gray and Atkinson. As with the recent paper on J-P58, adopting the germline rate makes excellent sense.

Has a map of the Andronovo culture, the supposed Aryan homeland

The map shows that this so called Aryan homeland, very nearly touches Swat and very nearly over-laps with Indus valley civilization
Underhill has shown that eurostani clades of M17 are downstream to the parent indian version and are effectively limited to eurostan; these account for a vast proportion of Eurostani M17 "diversity". Spencer's bizarre theory of a backwards turn of M17 from Central Asia to India has thus been excluded, as well as the witzelian caveat that M17 returned to its homeland India with the supposed invasion. The Central Asian route had only been necessitated because all the progenitor clades of M17 were effectively localized to Asia; therefore, they couldn't have the thing directly originate in eurostan.
Cordeaux nonsensically attacked Thangaraj's finding of an Australian sojourn in S. India (cordeaux also authored a paper giving 3500 BC exact date for M17 in India. S. India very significantly contains C and basal F localized in close proximity, this finding necessitates the southern route with subsequent eurasian expansion northwards from points along the southern route (europe of course experienced a delayed migration at 40K). F was not a separate migration from Africa, otherwise, the overwhelming South Indian diversity of F (and its coincident proximity to C) cannot be explained. Just to give an idea of the meanspiritedness:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Cordaux and Stoneking (2003 [in this issue]) have argued that although there is evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) reaching Australia ∼60,000 years ago (see also Bowler et al. 2003), there is no convincing genetic evidence that these early migrants passed through South Asia. They see this as obviating the need for a “southern migration” route for AMH out of Africa. They suggest that the ancestors of all known non-African mtDNA lineages (haplogroups M and N) entered Eurasia via the Levant ∼45,000 years ago, prior to differentiating and dispersing to all land areas outside of Africa. Cordaux and Stoneking also seek to use estimated dates for the colonization of the Andaman Islands to lend support to their position.

The “crucial points” of evidence cited by Cordaux and Stoneking for their view on the settlement of South Asia are that “the South Asian mtDNA gene pool does not show close affinities to either Africa or PNG” (Papua New Guinea), and that “the archeological record does not show evidence for the presence of modern humans in South Asia before ∼30,000 years ago.” This position is inconsistent, since they first equate “modern” humans with Middle Paleolithic tools in Australia at ∼50,000 years ago (Bowler et al. 2003) but later exclude South Asian settlers within the same time frame from being “modern” on the basis of their lithic industries. Here we re-evaluate the evidence for this position and show that  link <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Going back to the ANI/ASI headache (welcomed by many); the N derived clade W quite obviously originated in S Asia with a later input into Europe. This is a non-R N clade. The M clades are restricted to Asia, and these are the so-called ASI, but the N clades (like W) also localize to S Asia, not to mention the R (Rohani) clades. Anything less than perfect concentric expansion with full retention of initial diversity is an excuse to reject Indian place as Eurasian Eden. By such measure, Africa itself can be eliminated as the origin!! -- why no L2 and L1 in Asia!!.

Pre-N localizes to Malaysia.


<img src='http://www.thecid.com/w/wmigrations.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When did Ws split from the N haplogroup? Only research published in the last year, based on extensive tests of Asian populations, has provided a more complete answer to this question. The first migration of modern humans out of Africa began 60,000 to 80,000 years ago. Among these were ancestors of the the M and N haplogroups, descended from the African L3. These first Eurasian descendents of genetic Eve are believed to have expanded quickly along the Indian Ocean coastline (in this period there was dry land across what are now the mouths of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf). A<b>fter a quick initial expansion along the coast, all the way to Australia, there was a slower conquest of the interior of Asia. Wilma, the first member of the W haplogroup, was born between 49,000 and 26,800 years ago in what is now northwest India or northern Pakistan. </b>In the same area and in the same time periods women of the U7 and R2 haplogroups were born as well.

By between 40,700 and 23,300 years ago, these people were distributed in a band across southwest Asia, from <b>Anatolia </b>to northern India (the salmon-colored swath on the map). By a third route, through the valleys of Kashmir, a small group of W people reached <b>central Asia</b> between 36,000 and 19,100 years ago.

With the onset of the last glacial maximum, the area became extremely arid and the mountains blocked by glaciers. There are indications that the W-U7-R2 people were broken into two groups, separated by an arid desert that stretched from the Indian Ocean up to the glacier-bound Asian mountains. These tribes managed to survive in two areas of 'glacial refuge' (the red zones on ..
..With the exception of the diverse set of largely Indian-specific R lineages, the most frequent mtDNA haplogroup in India that derives from the phylogenetic node N is haplogroup W. The frequency peak of haplogroup W is 5% in the northwestern states - Gujarat, Punjab and Kashmir. Elsewhere in India its frequency is very low (from 0 to 0.9%) W and the other form a significant spatial cline. Coalescence estimates and diversity values for mtDNA haplogroup W in <b>India: 37,900</b> ± 11,100 / 0.883 ; <b>Near and Middle East: 32,000 </b>± 8,700 / 0.934; <b>Central Asia 27,400</b> ± 8,300 / 0.758. Although haplogroup W
The results indicate that there was massive post-glacial introgression from the East. Y-Haplo N, from SEA via Eastern Siberia, entered into the Urals and onto N Europe and correlates well with language. R1a1 is a South Asian equivalent for such a scheme from the South. The native pre-glacial haplos of Europe are IJ and E only; even these are ultimately derived from the Mideast and Africa respectively. S Asian R has significant upstream diversity in paragroup P (which groups with SEA/Burmese/South Chinese NO -in NOP-), K (dubbed as Krishna), and of course F,C.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)