Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2

[acharya]

http://varnam.org/blog/2009/06/getting-obj...t-it/#more-2239

http://varnam.org/blog/2009/06/getting-obj...t-it/#more-2239
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is the response from Michel Danino Can you elaborate more on the recent genetic research that has thrown more light on this rather old debate of AIT, AMT etc. I read your and Michel Danino’s piece in Pragati. Can you please put on more easier terms what these recent genetic findings mean?

You can find more detailed explanations and references in my full article: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indolog...ryan_Debate.pdf For instance, please correct me if I’m wrong, there seems to be some consensus that Brahmins of the vedic age lived in the regions of Northwest Pakistan, Kashmir, maybe even Punjab. In other words, the upper Indus regions . Not just “upper” Indus, also lower, and towards Yamuna-Ganga. The geography of the Rig-Veda is the Sapta Sindhava, more or less the whole Indus and Sarasvati basins. In the Brahmana literature (which is technically part of the “Vedic Age”) you will have to include much of the Gangetic plains.

There also seems some consensus they went east into the Gangetic plain and further down to south India. But there seems to be lot of argument on whether Brahmins were indigenous to Upper Indus region or did they come from further northwest. >

My questions are the following: >  >
1. Is there any new evidence to suggest that Harappan > civilization which flourished in the lower Indus regions also > included Brahmins. There is no way to tell. We could tell only if Brahmins had an identifiable physical type distinct from others, which isn’t the case. Prof. Kenneth Kennedy has written at some length on this, and in short Brahmins can never be identified from the skeletal remains; the same conclusion is reached by genetic studies. And since we can’t read the Harappan script, we cannot draw a conclusion. Finally, although there is some evidence of social stratification in Harappan society, a caste system as we understand it today seems rather unlikely.
2. How similar are the genes of Brahmins and non-Brahmin castes > in North India. How similar are those two groups with respect to tribals? Please see some answers in my above-mentioned paper. In short, genetic proximity is generally on a geographic basis, not on a caste basis; in other words, a Brahmin of North India is genetically closer to other communities of his regions (including tribals) than to a Brahmin of South India. This is a general rule: there could be exceptions, which we will know when larger samples of India’s population have been studied.
3. Is there similarity between the genes of non-Brahmin castes in north and south India. And among tribals in north and south india. >

4. Are there any noticeable genetic similarities between Brahmins and Parsis? There are always “similarities”, the question is how much. We must think in terms of genetic distances. See the map in my paper, borrowed from one of the research papers. We would ideally need a far more complete map that would include important Indian communities. In any case, remember that India’s genetic heritage is the most varied in the world after Africa. ps: I’m using the word Brahmin instead of Aryan becos I think Aryan is a linguistic and cultural grouping rather than ethnic.

While linguistically most north-indians can be called Aryans, I suspect the Brahmins/non-Brahmin castes/tribals are genetically different even in north India. If by “Aryans” you mean the Vedic clans mentioned in the Rig-Veda, there is no way to tell whether they were “Brahmins” or even if the concept existed then. I personally prefer the neutral term “Vedic people”. And again, communities are always “genetically different” from each other, the question is by how much. In genetics difference is always relative, not absolute. In summary, if you are hoping to genetically define a Brahmin identity, I don’t think this will work. There is no “Brahmin haplogroup”, for instance.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you pass on the following observations to Danino?

1. Biology was my weakest subject. So excuse my incredulity in asking this question. If mtDNA is necessarily a female chromosome line, how is that useful in explaining the Hindu, Muslim genetic similarities? Doesn’t Indian history suggest conversions to Islam as well as intermarriages between foreign males and Indian females. How will Hindu and Muslim communities, predominantly sharing the same maternal lines, have significant mtDNA differences?

2. Concluding that 80 to 90% upper castes share genetic similarities with lower castes and tribals raises more questions than answers. How much of Indian History was taken into consideration before initiating this research? Brahmins constitute less than 10% of the population even today and is likely to have been much less in the past. I don’t think anyone ever argued that non-Brahmin ‘upper castes’ were genetically dissimilar to ‘lower castes’. Isn’t the caste system in India based on profession and to what extent each caste accepted Brahmin rituals?

3. How are primitive genes like U and m17 helpful in concluding anything about a alleged historical event as recent as 4000 years old? Maybe restating the problem statement might be helpful in solving the AMT conundrum.

“Are Brahmins genetically distinguishable from other communities in India especially using the mtDNA research. If not is this research in anyway useful in proving or disproving the AMT hypothesis?” In anycase, even the most fervent AMT or trickle supporters only claim that Brahmins (or vedic people) originally lived in a small region comprising eastern Iran, northern Afghan, north-northwest pakistan. Practically all regions to the north and northwest of the Indus valley.

And some time after the demise of the Harappan civilization (no way attributable to any Aryan Invasion or Migration), these people expanded their physical presence in north India (Indus and Gangetic plains) during the vedic period and then spread their culture (not genes) across India during the ‘epic’ period. So trying to prove or disprove fantastic claims like Indo-Aryans have Caucasian origins maybe useful in Europe but may not have any relevance in India
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->