In lieu of a prologue, Herodotus and Arrian on the two groups inhabiting ancient India:
The Indians wore cotton dresses, and carried bows of cane, and arrows also of cane with iron at the point. Such was the equipment of the Indians, and they marched under the command of Pharnazathres the son of Artabates. [...] The eastern Ethiopians- for two nations of this name served in the army- were marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
The paper establishes a number of different facts, that have been hinted at in previous autosomal studies, and studies based on Y chromosomes and mtDNA:
- Modern Indians are derived from two ancestral populations. The first one, termed Ancestral North Indians (ANI) were Caucasoids, the other, Ancestral South Indians (ASI) were distinct from both Caucasoids and Mongoloids in a Eurasian context.
- The ASI no longer exist in non-admixed form, but in various degrees of admixtures with ANI; the closest living population to the ASI are the Andaman Islanders.
- Upper castes are higher in ANI ancestry than middle and lower castes. ANI percentages of ancestry are correlated with Western Eurasian Y chromosomes (P=0.04) and mtDNA (P=0.08).
- Indo-European speakers are higher in ANI ancestry than Dravidian speakers.
However, the fact that ANI is correlated with caste status and language does suggest that the Indo-Aryan migration who brought Indo-European languages to India has not been totally wiped out genetically. Indo-European populations have maintained a higher degree of ancestry from the ANI component, and upper caste Indo-Europeans have maintained an even higher degree of such ancestry.
The beauty of this study is that it does not consider either a simple mixture model (like STRUCTURE does) in which populations are derived from 2 or more ancestral ones, or a simple branching model, in which populations are derived tree-like from a common root with no admixture between them. Rather, they consider both tree-like divergence of populations followed by admixture. The following figure from the paper illustrates this:
We can see that (i) the relationship between Andaman Islanders and ASI is not particularly close, although they do form a clade in relation to the other populations, (ii) the relationship between CEU and ANI is fairly close (in this context). The authors further determine (in the supplement) that CEU and ANI do form a clade separate from the non-IE speaking Adygei from the Caucasus.
We can see that (i) the relationship between Andaman Islanders and ASI is not particularly close, although they do form a clade in relation to the other populations, (ii) the relationship between CEU and ANI is fairly close (in this context). The authors further determine (in the supplement) that CEU and ANI do form a clade separate from the non-IE speaking Adygei from the Caucasus.What is now needed is to calculate the genetic distances between ANI and a wide assortment of Western Eurasian populations. Indeed, as these populations have undergone their own processes of admixture (e.g., Near Eastern populations with Arabs, Turks with Central Asians, Russians with Finns, Central Asian Iranians with Turks and Mongols, and so on), we cannot generally infer that the source population(s) of the ANI component are extant in non-admixed form. Nonetheless, the discovery of a strong relationship of ANI with a West Eurasian population may help us pinpoint the geographical origin of ANI outside India.
The paper does demolish some theories that have been popular in some circles:
There is no evidence of caste as simply social division of labor. This thesis is inconsistent with differential ANI admixture (and distance from Western Eurasians) across the caste hierarchy.
There is no evidence that Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers differ only in language. It is now clear that they are different from each other genetically as well, and this difference is not an "internal affair" of India, but is related to populations outside it. Indo-Aryan speakers differ precisely in having a larger ANI component.
There is no evidence that Indo-European languages originated in India. Let us consider what this would entail:
- Suppose postulated ancient Indian PIE speakers had a similar genetic makeup as modern Indians (i.e., a mix of ANI and ASI). Then, the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia cannot be explained.
- If ancient Indian PIE speakers had a purely ANI makeup, then the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia -as in (1)- can be explained. However, this would entail that sharply differentiated populations (ANI and ASI) co-existed in India without mixing for thousands of years; ANI-like PIEs spread from India with their languages; ANI and ASI admixed afterwards. To say that this scenario is not parsimonious would be charitable.
- The only way in which PIE languages may have originated in India would be if they spread without the spread of people. However, before the advent of writing and modern means of transportation and communication, the only way to spread languages was by migration of people.
From a related Nature story:
The researchers also found that Indian populations were much more highly subdivided than European populations. But whereas European ancestry is mostly carved up by geography, Indian segregation was driven largely by caste. "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes," says Reich.
The paper has plentiful (and free) supplementary information.
Related posts by Gene Expression and John Hawks.
Nature 461, 489-494 doi:10.1038/nature08365
Reconstructing Indian population history
David Reich et al.
Abstract
India has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation. We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.
Link
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/india/Aryan-Dravidian-divide-a-myth-Study/articleshow/5053274.cms
ReplyDelete``This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide,'' Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday.
Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.
Sorry Dienekes, this comes straight from the horses mouth.
(i) the relationship between Andaman Islanders and ASI is not particularly close
ReplyDeleteNot particularly close?? Nigerians-ASI distance is 1772, and Andaman-ASI distance is 1199. The distance is particularly gargantuan. How strange, given that Sengupta found microsatellite diversity within Indians from every corner of the subcontinent to be less varied than in Europeans.
The authors further determine that CEU and ANI form a separate clade from the non-IE speaking Adygei from the Caucasus.
Adygei is unquestionably half-way between Europe and the HGDP Pakistani samples according to FST distances. This study seems to be coming up with lots of funny results that completely contradict previous studies.
.......................
The Rosenberg 2005 study that placed the 52 HGDP populations into 7 clusters found Europeans to belong almost 100% to the European cluster, Adygei split half and half between the European/Indian cluster (but mainly European), and all Pakistanis, from the south to the north, belonged overwhelmingly to the Indian cluster.
The Sengupta 2006 study tested Indians from every corner of the Indian sub-continent (except Andamans), and found their microsatellite diversity to be lesser than Europeans, which is already low enough. Not what you'd expect from a people derived from a mixture of practically 2 different continents.
The Aryan Invasion Theory requires us to believe that a bunch of nobodies riding on horsy genetically overwhelmed the gargantuan civilization of India. A modern equivalent would be the Amazon Indians overwhelming the 200 million people of Brazil.
http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/7.png
Link corrected:
ReplyDeletePopulation of the world 2000 years ago
Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.
ReplyDeleteSorry Dienekes, this comes straight from the horses mouth.
I prefer to read what they wrote in the paper in Nature, rather than what they are attributed to have said in the Times of India:
"It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and
CEU spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European’, which has been reconstructed as
ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages38, although we
cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture."
No evidence whatsoever in the paper that places the ANI-ASI admixture before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans to India.
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally “upper” and “lower” castes and tribal groups. “The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society,” the study said. Thangarajan noted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different.
ReplyDelete“The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,” said Thangarajan. He added, “At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India.”
Quoting the Times of India won't change anyone's mind. If the authors could date the time of the ANI-ASI admixture, or thought that ANI was unrelated to the Indo-European arrival in India, they wouldn't have written the exact opposite in the paper.
ReplyDelete“The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,” said Thangarajan. He added, “At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here.
ReplyDeleteWell, perhaps he said that because it is the only current model (I know of) that fits the geography and climate.
Western and much of northern India/Pakistan was a desert or at least very arid for a long time after initial settlement. Only in the mountainous north were water and lush river valleys with plenty of grazing animals available. 20K to 25K should be enough time to form distinct people - who lived in a much colder and much more seasonally varying climate.
If we make the assumption that most Europeans (outside of Semitic/ North African contributions) also derive from that population, we can see why it is so difficult to distinguish a clear signature of a more western IE genetic portion within India. And, their Figure 4 shows this relationship quite well.
I.e., there is no need for a later, overwhelming IE contribution to India.
"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans".
ReplyDeleteHave you got a reference for that? Last I heard was that the Andamans were settled relatively recently, around 35k. Of course that date is too recent for the Andamans to be at all relevant for the 'Great Southern Migration Theory' so the time may have been expanded to fit the theory regardless of the evidence.
The author seems to be relying on his own previous work:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ccmb.res.in/newccmb/andaman/mystery.html
which doesn't actually offer any evidence for the actual arrival in the Andamans. He just claims that date because it fits the theory. One of the authors at 'Gene Expression' reminds us that there are fundamentalists in India as well as in the West and in the Muslim world.
At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here
ReplyDeleteAccording to current estimates, modern Homo sapiens has been outside Asia for about 60,000 years, or, at any rate in the same order of magnitude as 40,000 years.
Thus, West and East Eurasians have accumulated genetic differences worth about 0.1 in terms of Fst in a few tens of thousands of years.
If ANI diverged from West Eurasians 40,000 years ago, which is similar to the West-East Eurasian split, then why are ANI 10 times closer to West Eurasians?
The obvious answer to this question is that ANI did not split from West Eurasians 40,000 years ago, but rather about 4,000 years ago, and represent Neolithic, Indo-Aryan, and later movements of Caucasoids from Central Asia and the Near East into Asia.
ANI didn't diverge from West Eurasians 40K years ago - their predecessors initially were a source of them ~43K years ago. Then, for the unimaginably long period of 20,000 years, easy sustenance was available and the gene pool was larger in the vast plains and valleys between NW Pakistan/ Afghanistan and nowadays Ukraine, creating multiple migration events to both Europe and back to "India". That's why contact to "India" remained and ensured ANI/ West Eurasian continuity - broken with the onset of LGM.
ReplyDeleteSo, the most remote "ANI" that we may be able to detect, genetically, are not 40K years old, but only 20K, diluted by multiple subsequent migrations from the west - of those, IE is only one, late, minor one.
IE is only one, late, minor one.
ReplyDeleteIf IE was a late and minor migration, then how do you explain the sharp differences in genetic makeup that are both caste- and language- related. If the gene pool had already been established long before the advent of the Indo-Aryans, then why do ANI-ASI proportions vary so widely in India?
20K years is more than enough to homogenize any gene pool. Uyghurs were homogenized in less than 2K years, so how come Indian groups have anyting from 40 to 70% ANI ancestry, with individuals far exceeding that range?
The simple answer is that ANI was introduced to India fairly recently, and variation in ANI ancestry has been maintained because of (i) the caste system, (ii) the genetic differences between Indo-Aryans and native Indians, and (iii) the short period of time that has not allowed gene flow across caste lines to obliterate the differences.
IDK but making some simple maths on what I could discern on the graph you posted (the figures are too small in many cases), I gather that the most likely scenario makes ANI being Neolithic immigrants.
ReplyDeleteI experimented with three models:
1. Making the ANI-CEU divergence being c. 50,000 years old (colonization of West Eurasia) would make the common Eurasian root way too old (c. 260,000 BP).
2. Making the ANI-CEU divergence being c. 8000 y.o. (Neolithic) makes the common Eurasian root at something older than 40,000 BP, which would be roughly coincident with the colonization of West Eurasia from India.
3. Making the ANI-CEU divergence being c. 4000 y.o. (Indoaryans) makes the common Eurasian root be only slightly older than 20,000 BP, what is too recent.
So guess that ANI can be identified with Neolithic colonists from West Asia and ASI with the pre-Neolithic native hunter-gathereres.
The simple answer is that ANI was introduced to India fairly recently
ReplyDeleteThen how come even the tribals of Kerala (south-most part of India) have more than 40 % of ANI ancestry ?
which would be roughly coincident with the colonization of West Eurasia from India.
ReplyDeleteThere was no "colonization of West Eurasia from India". What happened is roughly this: South and Southeast Asia were inhabited by the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who stayed in the south. To this aboriginal population were added in the Neolithic and later Caucasoids in India and Mongoloids in Southeast Asia.
:: The simple answer is that ANI was introduced to India fairly recently
Then how come even the tribals of Kerala (south-most part of India) have more than 40 % of ANI ancestry ?
Most "Native" groups in the Americas have Caucasoid ancestry too. In India, the process of admixture has taken a much longer time, so, unlike the Americas were both pure Caucasoids and pure Natives still exist, in India the two elements have permeated all parts of society.
There was no "colonization of West Eurasia from India"
ReplyDeleteThen where, if not from India, do the West Asians and Europeans come from? A second, later migration out of Africa? I don't think so. And, between about 70K and 45K, there was no straight way north that did not lead through hundreds of miles of desert.
Conversely, you have here DNA data that show Europeans to be close to Indians, and yet closer to a putative ancient subgroup. And, all the data that show many of the Y-DNA strains original to Europeans still reside in India.
The data don't fit a simplistic picture as Fig. 4, because there was 40,000 years of contact with West Asians, which in turn had contact with Europeans, and on top of that (but just on top) you have the IE migrations.
Then where, if not from India, do the West Asians and Europeans come from?
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to introduce a massive detour in the history of mankind, so that people go all the way to India and then all the way back to West Asia and Europe.
There was no "colonization of West Eurasia from India". What happened is roughly this: South and Southeast Asia were inhabited by the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who stayed in the south. To this aboriginal population were added in the Neolithic and later Caucasoids in India and Mongoloids in Southeast Asia.
ReplyDeleteDienekes, you surprise me a lot with that comment. All West Eurasian mtDNA (excepted a couple of minor clades like X) and Y-DNA (only E1b1b1 is exceptional in this) is much more diverse in South Asia than the West. It's fairly clear that West Eurasians are derived from the older and more diverse South Asian population, surely at a time after South and East Asians were already differentiated. I think this is almost beyond any doubt.
Reviewing by clade:
MtDNA: R is clearly of South Asian origin, N1'5 and N2 (including W) are shared between South and West Asia. Only X would seem anomalous of all Western lineages in this.
Y-DNA: all non-E1b1b1 is F, which is clearly more diverse in South Asia than anywhere else.
Additionally several technologies later used in the west, like bladelets and eventually microliths too are apparently South Asian creations and have there an older age than anywhere else.
But if you think otherwise, you'd still have to think that the ANI/ASI divide is about as old as post OOA Eurasian expansion, what should make things practically the same.
You could maybe argue that the ANI/ASI divide relates with the expansion of microlithism worldwide and that this would be a more recent phenomenon allowing for the return of ANI to be Indoaryan. But this would pose many challenges in the West, as well as demanding an explanation for what happened with the Neolithic colonists, now suddenly vanished from the genetic landscape of India.
A good idea would be to compare with an outgroup like East Asians. That would give us a better perspective but I feel quite sure that East Asians would diverge from above the ANI/ASI split.
Re. Kerala: the castes of Kerala (or anywhere nearby) are not Aryan either. There is no source from which to draw such ANI penetration. Dravidians and Aryans are partly ANI and we know that, excepting the very tiny minority that are Brahmins, there were never any Aryans in south India. Instead Neolithic could explain this flow (and its importance) very well.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to introduce a massive detour in the history of mankind, so that people go all the way to India and then all the way back to West Asia and Europe.
There are plenty of reasons: (1) genetic, (2) archaeological and (3) some extremely strong guys known as Neanderthals.
Then how come even the tribals of Kerala (south-most part of India) have more than 40 % of ANI ancestry ?
ReplyDeleteMost "Native" groups in the Americas have Caucasoid ancestry too.
The cliche rebuke, Latin America... like I said before, Spain alone had a population as big as all of Latin America 2000 years ago, and the situation hadn't changed much by 500 years ago, plus the extremely exceptional circumstance of the diseases, notice how none of the Afro-Asian colonies of Spain/France/England throughout the entire world didn't become a bunch of mixed-race people who lost their culture, language, etc.
Population of the world 2000 years ago
On the other hand, the Aryan Invasion Theory requires that a group of nobodies come out from a desert riding on horsy and genetically overwhelm what amounted to 1/3 of all the people on Earth. Very, very different scenarios.
The cliche rebuke, Latin America [...] notice how none of the Afro-Asian colonies of Spain/France/England throughout the entire world didn't become a bunch of mixed-race people who lost their culture, language, etc.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, the languages spoken in India (Indo-Aryan certainly, and probably Dravidian) are not native to the country. Neither is the native religion, Hinduism free from the influence of religion of the Indo-Aryans.
So, Latin America is a much better example than the colonies where people kept their "culture, language, etc."
Ignorant and selective argumentative Dienekes never listens to others if he doesn’t like their argumentsand moronic terry never understands simple things and talks rubbish.
ReplyDeleteAgenda Of Dienekes he like to push: J2 is the super haplogroup of culture , Intelligence and Aryan Leader then Discredit Indian Subcontinent and prove Aryan Invasion theory.
Dienkes Argument: cast system proves Aryan Invasion theory. even if 80% of ANI lower casts are R1a and R2( the ratio of H is less in ANI and no other haplogroups in those parts). Again ANI is 70% of Indian sub continent,
ANSWER FROM Dienekes Then where, if not from India, do the West Asians and Europeans come from?
"There is no reason to introduce a massive detour in the history of mankind, so that people go all the way to India and then all the way back to West Asia and Europe."
What history you are talking about Dienek? there is nothing nada zip zero.
Oh you are Greek I forgot Zero is new concept for you . Poor Dienekes. All the Greek Mirages crashed in the number system.
People did not go all the way to India... you South Asian hater they started around from there. That is want genetics says. Show a single proof to contrary.
If genetics says Y haplo F,G,H,I,J,K,L, M, N, O,P , Q,R S,T, came from Europe please prove it.
Also from your link http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.7.vii.html
Just below your Indian reference it says
“The Arians carried Median bows, but in other respects were equipped like the Bactrians. Their commander was Sisamnes the son of Hydarnes. “
Lets say what u are saying is
Arians : ANI(includes Pakistanis) :--- Group of Y haplo H+L+R2+R1a( H is pushed to Europe as Gypsies)
Bactrians: Afghans Group of Y haplo H+L+R2+R1a
Indians: ASI: South Indians.-- Group of Y haplo H+L+R2+R1a
\
Side note for any Iranian friends: The term Arians is used for only Indo Pakistanis not for anybody else by Greeks who travelled in those parts with Iranian guides.
SO ASI travelled at least 2500 miles to fight(distance from Chennai to Tehran ) on elephant back and Alexander Army cried to go back after travelling 1500( Athens to Pakistan) miles. OK lets believe it.
Yes they are dark. Why is People from Kashmir are fair/Caucasian feature with more than 30% mt haplo M and 20% Y haplo H?.
What is this Caucasoid race actually where did they come from you think?..
"the languages spoken in India (Indo-Aryan certainly, and probably Dravidian) are not native to the country"
Where did they came from and where did you check? This is clear example of your ignorance and Anti South Asian agenda.
One point
ANi has more MtDNA: R which is clearly of South Asian origin,
The place close to South Asia gave rise to
Y haplo K + mt dna R which is started from South Asia gave rise to mt U+H and Y haplo L, N,o, P, Q, R, mixed with East Asian and other mt haplo groups.
Lets give you small candy at the end dont feel bad it is shaped like zero.
These ANI derivatives so called Caucasoid definitely came back to India and there that is called Aryan Invasion.
There are plenty of reasons: (1) genetic, (2) archaeological and (3) some extremely strong guys known as Neanderthals.
ReplyDeleteI have to be more careful not to spill my coffee over the keyboard when the thread becomes entertaining and I start to laugh ;)
Almost forgot about those strong guys. And let's not forget the climate.
A direct entry into the Levant and/or Iraq/Iran demands that the first AMHs
- crossed many hundreds of miles of unknown desert
- to enter an arid region that had months of below-freezing temperatures (for which they were not prepared)
- and then to live in hiding (both from the present Neanderthals and from archaeology) for 20,000 years, in a region that could support no more than a few thousand people
- but yet managed to develop almost all known Westeurasian haplogroups
- in a gene pool that was at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the Indian/Pakistani/Afghan one ...
While, conversely, climate, archaeology, and DNA point to the development of two subgroups within the latter region above - a southern one with familiar tropical conditions, and a northern one in which people had 20,000+ years time to develop the tool set (sewn clothing, tents, devices for carrying water, long-term preparation and storage of food such as drying/smoking) to survive, become successful, and spread when they were ready and briefly the climate became wetter to expand the grass lands to their west.
Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to GREEK population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.
ReplyDelete..and its origin, I suppose?
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder what Greece would have been, or would not have been, without multiple documented IE migrations from the north?
ReplyDeleteRonojoy wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to GREEK population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history."
Yes Its definitely only GREEK population genetics
then you undermine all the Slavs.
Then claim no paleolithic Europeans exists other than Greek.
Then cry on people from Anatolia who no longer carry the Greek emblem when he tries to link Anatolia is the center of universe.
Then try to diminish Central Asia as they took over Anatolia.
then say India has no native languages.
Some how he does not have much against Far east.
Simple game plan
The bit that moronic terry liked in the newspaper article was, "This finding is against the prevailing view of a northern route of migration via Middle East, Europe, south-east Asia, Australia and then to India". What 'prevailing view'? I've certainly gained the impression I was the only supporter of the northern route.
ReplyDeleteSo, the author may have had a political agenda, as razib suggests (see below). There's certainly no trace in the study of what has almost certainly involved population movements into India from the east and northeast at times. Unless these movements make up the ASI.
I think we're pretty much agreed that the ANI is basically the margin of a cline stretching all the way to Europe. It tends to be associated with Y-hap R. There's debate as to how old the cline is, and whether members went into or out of either extreme. I tend to agree with those who suggest periodic movement across the steppes and the Iranian Plateau, ultimately associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages. The ANI may originate no more than about 10k years ago.
Where does the ASI come from?
The study makes a connection between the ASI and the Andaman Islanders, especially regarding the mtDNAs M31 and M32. But the earliest physical evidence for people at the Andamans is a technology known as Toalean. This is derived from the Hoabinhian. The Hoabinhian is an eastern technology, centred round the South China Sea, and a little beyond. So, the occupation of the Andamans may go back no more than the Middle Hoabinhian at the most, say 10k, and come from the east.
Razib, in his review of the study, has claimed that 'Much of eastern Bengal was settled relatively recently, within the last 500-1000 years'.
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/09/south_asians_as_a_hybrid_popul.php
Interesting. One would think it would be early occupied by any people possessing boats.
A study of 132 people doesn't seem like it would be hardly enough for a country with a population of over a billion.
ReplyDeleteLarge in-depth studies that have been done in recent times do not show a genetic basis for the aryan migration (first it was a massive invasion) theory.
What's interesting is that studies have been taken with the pre-supposition that the aryans originated from outside of India and then tried to connect the dots from that angle. Yet ages after Max Muller scientists are still not able to PROVE the aryan invasion assumption. Perhaps another angle should be tried? Maybe Sanskrit is indeed native to South Asia?
While I agree with much of what you say, all that about trying other angles and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there is already people trying other angles and they don't get better results, but worse ones. This applies to IOT and to AOT, as well as to the already very discredited hypothesis that IEs were some sort of Vikings, that was en vogue in the early 20th century.
Maybe Sanskrit is indeed native to South Asia? -
Sanskrit should be, at worst it would be native of nearby Central Asia. But that says nothing of Indoeuropean as such, and that's the real issue: how come so closely related languages ended up being spoken all the way from the Atlantic to the Bay of Bengal, before Turkic migrations broke the continuity? Sanskrit and Indo-Aryan languages in general are just a part of the puzzle and unless you have a clear consistent model on how IEs migrated from India to Ireland and Portugal, or at least Central Europe, the Balcans and Anatolia, then you still have to look for the origin of IEs elsewhere and the most likely is a series of Neolithic cultures of the southern Urals.
Except the problem is that there is no solid evidence linking central Asia or eastern europe as the origin of the indo-european language group and then spreading to Southern Asia.
ReplyDeleteIt takes a leap of faith to believe the aryan migration theory.
A large issue is that most of the areas regarding the origin of the indo-european language consisted of various scattered tribal peoples (Europe, Central Asia).
How likely is it that barbarians from the middle of nowhere are supposed to completely supplant a former cultured population and give them a new vibrant, comprehensive language and culture? Yet all remnants of Vedic culture remain in Southern Asia.
There is a fair amount of archaeological evidence, and correlative linguistic one. However if you have a better model, I am certainly interested in knowing about it and on how well it fits with what we know. So far the only thing I have read from IOT is obstructionist complains but no alternative models that would seem to fare better.
ReplyDeleteHow likely is it that barbarians from the middle of nowhere are supposed to completely supplant a former cultured population and give them a new vibrant, comprehensive language and culture? -
Look at Turks and Arabs in more or less historical times: they supplanted several civilzations in Asia and North Africa. That is not a problem: we know that people has done that in historical times. Also IVC seems to have been gone already by the time of IE arrival.
Yet all remnants of Vedic culture remain in Southern Asia.
Vedic culture is Southern Asian. What's the problem with that? The same that Corded Ware is European, however they are related by a joint origin at Samara valley most likely.
...
However notice that I am of the opinion that the ANI population does not correspond with Indoeuropeans but most likely with Neolithic arrivals, several milennia earlier.
"I am of the opinion that the ANI population does not correspond with Indoeuropeans but most likely with Neolithic arrivals, several milennia earlier".
ReplyDeleteI think that is more likely. So what about the ASI? It could easily be a product of the expansion I have suggested ("Pacific Population", map 5) was associated with the Hoabinhian culture's development:
http://humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.com/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-pacific.html
If ANI is a "recent input", then ASI are the aboriginals, who we know are extremely old in South Asia (and that at least partly, Andamamnese are derived from them, not the opposite).
ReplyDelete"who we know are extremely old in South Asia".
ReplyDeleteWe don't 'know' that. Some of us 'assume' it. Both the ANI and The ASI are probably the product of an overlay on some 'original' population.
"at least partly, Andamamnese are derived from them, not the opposite)".
We certainly don't know that either. The Andamans were settled far too recently to have been part of any ancient migration from India. The only connection possible would be if that migration was not so ancient after all.
Dear Dienekes
ReplyDeleteThese were the results of my anthropometric calculation:
*************************************************
Results of Anthropometric analysis
Your best match is: Greek (according to all 14 measurements) and Greek (according to 11 independent measurements). See table All Populations below for other close matches.
Your tr-n is more than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your tr-gn is more than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your n-gn is more than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your zy-zy is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your go-go is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your en-en is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your en-ex is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your n-sn is more than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your al-al is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your noseinclin is more than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your ch-ch is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Your sa-sba is less than 2 standard deviations from the average for Greek
Overall, you are 5.33 standard deviations from the average Greek (according to all 14 measurements) and 5.8 standard deviations from the average Greek (according to 11 independent measurements).
*************************************************
I myself am from India, and my ancestry is almost entirely Rajput/ Kshatriyan. Essentially speaking, decidedly ANI-descendant stock. I would have expected my results to come in somewhere between Indian and Iranian. What would you say regarding this result, and what correlation can be established between the ethnic measurement averages used and existing IE Y-chromosomal haplogroup distribution in a Eurasian context?
anticitizen1, your measurements are probably wrong because multiple ones are 2sd from the average.
ReplyDeletethe genetic structure of indians make sense only whit a neolithic spread .
ReplyDeleteeven the skin color correspond whit oldness of agriculture in that area(for example the western coast whit older agriculture have a much lighter skin color comparably whit dark color eastern indian coast).
the caste structure is a neolithic invention in india;while aryans bring the tripartite structure,the rigurosity of social structure is common in south asia ,SE asia and polynesia .
r1a has indian origin and was spread to europe 12000years ago(however a different event from the much later aryans).
the neolithic have as much sense for a nordic component in higher caste as aryan invasion because both (agriculture and invasion) expanded from the same north-west area.
also we know that higher castes migrated from north india ,some are even recorded ,like brahmins from north migrating in southern tamil nadu(also compare 30% brahmins in kashmir whit only 2% in tamil nadu).
nowhere in the world did invaders genetically replaced the native farmers(it was only elite domination)and im sure india wasnt an exception.
the invaders replaced only hunter-gatherers and maybe other horse riders(turks replacing saka)
Interesting paper on mtDNA N and M. It says that haplogroup R found in Europe and India is due to homoplasy.
ReplyDeletePCA and Clustering Reveal Alternate mtDNA Phylogeny
of N and M Clades
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q225678542442u22/fulltext.pdf
Dienekes wrote:
ReplyDelete"Last time I checked, the languages spoken in India (Indo-Aryan certainly, and probably Dravidian) are not native to the country. Neither is the native religion, Hinduism free from the influence of religion of the Indo-Aryans. "
This is beyond ridiculous. A foul example of the ugly 19th century psuedo-scientific racism that one would think should have been completely discredited by now. It is laughable to think that a people in northern europe who were considered barbarians as recently as a thousand years ago created the ancient vedic civilization of India while themselves remaining illiterate savages with the most primitive of religious beliefs! Get real buddy.
"It is laughable to think that a people in northern europe who were considered barbarians as recently as a thousand years ago created the ancient vedic civilization of India"
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly not my place to defend Dienekes but he most certainly didn't claim that the ancient Vedic civilisation was introduced to India by Europeans. He said that two languages and major elements of the religion were introduced to India rather than being indigenous developments. I'm sure most would agree with Dienekes on those points.