Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[pmaitra]

I know that Mughals == Mongols; Why to see AIT as a Ethnic on Ethnic ? Why this divide ? Is Bihari an Ethnic group different from UPite ? How can closely knitted regions be divided into ethnicity? Can upper WB be "exactly" differentiated from Sikkim people on ethnic ground?

Q. Why this divide?
A. We are united, despite being diverse. Diversity is not division.

Q. Why am I creating this divide? (in case that is what you meant)
A. I am not creating any divide. I am highlighting the diversity, and sadly, it does exist.

Rest of your questions are largely a byproduct of emotional thinking, methinks. If you compare neighbouring geographical regions, you are not likely see much difference in looks. That should answer some of those questions.

 

[Mad Indian]

Pmaitra is making his argument out of ignorance.


Genetic study does not work that way and genome are different from phenotype.

 

[blank_quest]

A. I am not creating any divide. I am highlighting the diversity, and sadly, it does exist.

So you think Climatology has nothing to do with different looks and its all due to internal Human genes developed in Isolation? forgetting that India has varied climate footprints and Ecological diversity of abundance?

 

[pmaitra]

So you think Climatology has nothing to do with different looks and its all due to internal Human genes developed in Isolation? forgetting that India has varied climate footprints and Ecological diversity of abundance?

Climate does have an effect on looks, yes, but climate is not the only reason for diversity.

 

[blank_quest]

Climate does have an effect on looks, yes, but climate is not the only reason for diversity.

 

[pmaitra]

 

[civfanatic]

Would it be unreasonable to be open to the possibility that similar migration might have happened earlier as well?

No, it is not unreasonable, and I do think that there were small-scale migrations in the second millennium B.C.E. by IE-speaking peoples from present-day Afghanistan. But I do not think these migrations had any great impact on the gene pool or physical diversity of Indians, because there is no evidence to suggest that they did.

I am still not sure what your point is. You keep saying there has been no evidence to prove AIT/AMT happened. Well, I never claimed there is sure shot evidence that AIT/AMT happened. Do you have evidence that it did not happen?

I don't need to prove anything, the burden of proof is on those who claim that AIT/AMT happened.

 

[pmaitra]

No, it is not unreasonable, and I do think that there were small-scale migrations in the second millennium B.C.E. by IE-speaking peoples from present-day Afghanistan. But I do not think these migrations had any great impact on the gene pool or physical diversity of Indians, because there is no evidence to suggest that they did.

You still have no explanation for the diversity.

I don't need to prove anything, the burden of proof is on those who claim that AIT/AMT happened.

Don't prove anything, because you haven't proven anything so far yet. What is your stand? AIT/AMT or domestic gene pool? I am assuming it is domestic gene pool - and the burden of that proof is on you.

 

[Singh]

Also as I have posted elsewhere food habits dictate your genes.

(Need to confirm this information) Asians have bigger stomachs, pancreas than Westerners to help them digest their food.

Wheat eating people are generally fairer than their rice eating counterparts because wheat bran burns through body's vitamin d reserves and causing paler skin which absorbs which absorbs more Vitamin D.

So not only climate, but agriculture, and food habits impact skin colour/looks @pmaitra @blank_quest

 

[Mad Indian]

Please people who don't know about why Y-chromosome was used for genetic study of the human migration- please learn about it in internet.


And changing the goal posts can only do you much. From AIT/AMT being wrong to now that the current genetic study is wrong huh? Why am I not surprised? Jhollachaps

 

[civfanatic]

You still have no explanation for the diversity.

I already explained it. There were numerous subsequent invasions/migrations - for which we have much more supporting evidence than AIT/AMT - that could have shaped the gene pool, and the "domestic" gene pool itself may have been quite diverse to begin with. It is quite possible that the Harappans themselves were quite a mixed bunch, and that there was extensive mixing going on between different tribes in India long before them.

In other words, there is no reason to bank on AIT/AMT to explain India's diversity, especially given the overwhelming lack of evidence.

 

[blank_quest]

Also as I have posted elsewhere food habits dictate your genes.

(Need to confirm this information) Asians have bigger stomachs, pancreas than Westerners to help them digest their food.

Wheat eating people are generally fairer than their rice eating counterparts because wheat bran burns through body's vitamin d reserves and causing paler skin which absorbs which absorbs more Vitamin D.

So not only climate, but agriculture, and food habits impact skin colour/looks @pmaitra @blank_quest

The Archaeology News Network: Starchy diet may have transformed wolves to dogs .. you can be very correct.. food can alter overall features :shocked:

 

[pmaitra]

Also as I have posted elsewhere food habits dictate your genes.

(Need to confirm this information) Asians have bigger stomachs, pancreas than Westerners to help them digest their food.

Wheat eating people are generally fairer than their rice eating counterparts because wheat bran burns through body's vitamin d reserves and causing paler skin which absorbs which absorbs more Vitamin D.

So not only climate, but agriculture, and food habits impact skin colour/looks @pmaitra @blank_quest

I am not questioning the validity of your argument.

I will give you one example:

If you see the demographics of Peru, you will see more people of European ancestry in the lower and coastal regions (warmer), and more Inca and other Native Americans in the higher and hinterland regions (cooler). The Incas are still, today, darker than their European counterparts.

Yes, climate does have an effect, but genes carry their information for generations.

(I had posted a BBC Documentary on Peru long time back.)

 

[pmaitra]

I already explained it. There were numerous subsequent invasions/migrations - for which we have much more supporting evidence than AIT/AMT - that could have shaped the gene pool, and the "domestic" gene pool itself may have been quite diverse to begin with. It is quite possible that the Harappans themselves were quite a mixed bunch, and that there was extensive mixing going on between different tribes in India long before them.

In other words, there is no reason to bank on AIT/AMT to explain India's diversity, especially given the overwhelming lack of evidence.

There are many possibilities, and recent invasions (say Greek invasion) is well documented, and hence seen as more reliable. I agree with that. Domestic gene pool could have been more diverse, as you say, so in a way you are presenting the ANI/ASI theory, against the AIT/AMT theory, without making it explicit. That is why I asked where you stand between these two competing theories.

Genetic 'evidence' that @Sakal Gharelu Ustad presented actually proves that there is similarity in genes (R1a1*) between people of Bihar and Belarus.

I hope you see that we all are just presenting theories.

I had already said (see below), that I do not have any conclusive evidence in support of AIT/AMT, but there is no conclusive evidence in support ANI/ASI either.

@Sakal Gharelu Ustad,

I will look at those papers at my leisure.

I think you overlooked what I had said. You are debating AIT, while I was arguing on AIT/AMT. We are not debating the same thing here. My stand is that either there was an invasion or migration, or both, but definitely all Indians do not belong to the same stock. This is not supported by statistical evidence, but by visual evidence, as I have traveled North, South, East, and West. All Indians do not look the same, so they could not have come out of the same gene pool. Secondly, even if we are to consider genetic mutation, other homogeneous countries should also have witnessed similar diversity.

I do not believe that we have enough knowledge about the human genome to actually be able to do a comprehensive study. All conclusions are prefunctory. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the Aryans did invade, and on that count I agree, but there is also insufficient evidence to prove all Indians came form the same stock, simply because statistical similarity tests also show more than 97% similarity between Africans and Europeans; thereby rendering those tests unreliable.

I will, however, look at those papers.

We should debate this in the AIT thread. No more here.

Edit:

Here is the original post where SGU presented studies involving Y-chromosomes to prove something:

I suggest people to read "Land of Seven rivers" by Sanjeev Sanyal.

Some of the recent articles from genetics debunking the AIT/AMT. One of these is published in Nature.

http://jsarf.free.fr/palanthsci/jhg20082a.pdf
http://repository.ias.ac.in/51846/1/42-PUB.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2842210/

 

[Mad Indian]

^^^ As I said before. Pmaitra is making his argument out of ignorance



Te genetic evidence say tat the Indians today are descendants of the IE tribes out of the Africa and reached India by 45000bc. Hence yey are bound to have genetic similarities with Europeans which went west to Europe. They mixed with the previous batch of immigrants front the Africa to India, which came by 60000-50000bc via coastal areas. Even they are immigrants too, just like the IE people who came at 45000bc. Now the mixture is so complete that the only pure ASI are confined to Andaman nd Nicobar tribes, so in essence , all of us are of same mixed breed. The mixing happened as early as 15000bc. This is the reason AMT and AIT are shit


BecaUse of the timeline. According to both the shitty theories IVC was harappan and that IE people were the ones who migrated by 3000-1500bc and they brought pedic culture/indic culture with them. But the current evidence is that no such stuff happened and so anything which produced vedic culture/indic culture was actually by Indians who became Indians as far back as 45000bc. This means that Indian civilisation is swadeshi and not foreign as the Britards suggested. This is also the reason why Britards/Germans etc have no fuking rights to associate with our culture and climb it as our own.


I hope I cleared the bull shit here

 

[Mad Indian]

and no non sense as to both ANI/ASI are migrants. Because by that logic the entire world is migrant from Africa-this was also what I said earlier

 

[LurkerBaba]

From the Genographic Project

ANI/ASI thing happened around 55,000 BCE

ANI (probably)

ASI (probably)

 

[hit&run]

The kind of diversity India has can be brought about in another geography within two-three centuries in modern age by repeating same experiment which happened in a span of 1000 year (in my unscientific opinion). Tagging diversity to a phenomenon that might have had happened during pre historic time doesn't appear right to me.

 

[pmaitra]

Language change resulting from the migration of numerically small superstrate groups would be difficult to trace genetically. Historically attested events, such as invasions by Huns, Greeks, Kushans, Mughals and modern Europeans, may have had negligible genetic impact, and if they did it can be hard to trace it. For example, despite centuries of Greek rule in Northwest India, no trace of either the I-M170 or the E-M35 Y DNA paternal haplogroups associated with Greek and Macedonian males lines have been found.[41] On the other hand, evidence of E-M35 and J-M12, another supposed Greek or Balkan marker, has been found in three Pakistani populations – the Burusho, Kalash and Pathan – who claim descent from Greek soldiers.[42]

@civfanatic, the invasions by Greeks, Mughals, etc., could not have had such a major effect on Indian stock diversification.

Furthermore, the majority of researchers have found significant evidence in support of Indo-European migration and even "elite dominance" of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, usually pointing to three separate lines of evidence: the previously widespread distribution of Dravidian speakers, now confined to the south of India; the fact that upper caste Brahmins share a close genetic affinity with West Eurasians, whereas low caste Indians tend to have more in common with aboriginals or East Asians; and the comparatively recent introgression of West Eurasian DNA into the aboriginal population of the post-Neolithic Indo-Gangetic plain.[52][53][54]

The ANI/ASI theory indicates the above, but there is no evidence that ANI and ASI were indigenous stocks.

Some studies claim that there is genetic evidence in support of the traditional hypothesis of Indo-Aryan migration. In the case of paternal-line Y-chromosome DNA, the Indo-Aryan migration is associated with the R1a haplogroup, especially the R1a1a subgroup, which clusters in Eastern Europe and the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, and nicely dovetails with the observed similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit, and more broadly, satem languages as a whole. The strongest such claims, though, are based upon studies of autosomal DNA, not only Y DNA. Several such studies have isolated two major components of ancestry amongst Indians, one being more common in the south, and amongst lower castes, and the other more common amongst upper caste Indians, Indians speaking Indo-European languages, and also Indians living in the northwest. This second component is shared with populations from the Middle East, Europe and Central Asia, and is thought to represent at least one ancient influx of people from the northwest.[55]

Research papers presented by @Sakal Gharelu Ustad talks about R1a1 group, in an attempt to "debunk" AIT, but in effect, it only provides partial support for AIT.

Source: Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, suggesting that diversity in India existed since the times of Harappan culture is very unlikely. People belonging to a certain geographical and climatic confines are not likely to show stark diversity. That theory, while not to be completely denied, is extremely unlikely.

The presence of a huge diversity in Indian ethnic stock could be the result of many causes, but the most significant cause that seems scientifically tenable, is one of mass migration over a period of time.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

@civfanatic, the invasions by Greeks, Mughals, etc., could not have had such a major effect on Indian stock diversification.


The ANI/ASI theory indicates the above, but there is no evidence that ANI and ASI were indigenous stocks.


Research papers presented by @Sakal Gharelu Ustad talks about R1a1 group, in an attempt to "debunk" AIT, but in effect, it only provides partial support for AIT.

Source: Indo-Aryan migration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, suggesting that diversity in India existed since the times of Harappan culture is very unlikely. People belonging to a certain geographical and climatic confines are not likely to show stark diversity. That theory, while not to be completely denied, is extremely unlikely.

The presence of a huge diversity in Indian ethnic stock could be the result of many causes, but the most significant cause that seems scientifically tenable, is one of mass migration over a period of time.

Just a quick rebuttal.

May be you missed one of the points from the studies. The studies also point to the date of mutation in the genetics of the different populations. And it seems the R1a1 lineage is older in India than in the other Eurasian groups. So, one, the mutation is much older than predicted dates for AIT from other historical methods. And two, it seems to provide evidence that migration happened other way round i.e. from India to Eurasia.