Thank you for a post with a lot of sincere effort and references.
Two things to point out:
This is an expected observation which only provides genetic evidence of Aryan Migration or Aryan Invasion or a combination of both. This is not the only evidence. There is linguistic evidence, and there is evidence from Vedic texts.
Indeed. Migrations did occur. U haplogroup frequency does indicate so. The migration was not from western Europe, but certainly from Iran. That is why it is called Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory, not Gaelic Invasion/Migration Theory.
Show me what research has actually "debunked" (as you so confidently claim) the already observed distributions of Y-haplogroup and U-haplogroup posted earlier in this thread?
Research has shown that most people who cite research have no clue what research they are talking about.
Basically you quoted two studies and added "Yes yes AITAMT proven", without reading things mentioned there.
Presence of U Haplogroup shows Aryan invasion...errr what? Yeah if you mean Aryan invasion happened 30k years ago (atleast).
Completely forgetting time frames posted, and assuming the U Haplogroup to be one monolithic block, despite it being a very region specific subgroup whose mutations date back atleast 30-50k years, but was brought in 3500 years ago....hmmm.
The genetic mtdna material available in India is a result of movements that occurred atleast 20-30k years ago, or even older.
The Place of the Indian mtDNA Variants in the Global Network of Maternal Lineages and the Peopling of the Old World
Both western and eastern Eurasian-specific mtDNA haplogroups can be found in India together with strictly Indian-specific ones. However, in India the structure of the haplogroups shared either with western or eastern Eurasian populations is profoundly different. This indicates a local independent development over a very long time period. Minor overlaps with lineages described in other Eurasian populations clearly demonstrate that recent immigrations have had very little impact on the innate structure of the maternal gene pool of Indians. Despite the variations found within India, these populations stem from a limited number of founder lineages. These lineages were most likely introduced to the Indian subcontinent during the Middle Palaeolithic, before the peopling of Europe and perhaps the Old World in general. Our demographic analysis reveals at least two major expansion phases that have influenced the wide assortment of the Indian mtDNA lineages. The more recent phase, which according to our estimation started around 20,000-30,000 years ago, seems to correspond to the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982200800573
Thus, we have shown that the overwhelming majority of the so-called western-Eurasian-specific mtDNA lineages in Indian populations, estimated here to be carried by more than a hundred million contemporary Indian
s, belong in fact to an Indian-specific variety of haplogroup U of a late Pleistocene origin. The latter exhibits a direct common phylogenetic origin with its sister groups found in western Eurasia (
Figure 1),
but it should not be interpreted in terms of a recent admixture of western Caucasoids with Indians caused by a putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000–4,000 years BP.
The U2 Haplogroup which has the highest frequency in India,is an old and very India specific group with it's own groups and sub groups, that are rare elsewhere.and the are in fact called the U2i (u2a,b,c), and is a sister to the European u2e (which itself is rare in europe), Similarly the with the U7 the subcontinent has the highest frequency and variation in northern, northwestern India, and even young mutations of the gene are estimated to be 9k-12k years. Similarly other Western Eurasian haplogroups are either trace amounts all over geography, or have India specific linkages, which makes them quite old. and unlikely as a recent addition.
The migration was not from western Europe, but certainly from Iran.
Are you saying the Iranian DNA is different from West Eurasian DNA Haplogroups? I have never heard of this... (or perhaps you are not aware of the terminology used to describe populations, Iran's genes are more or less, what is referred to as West Eurasian genes.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26
Over 90% of the mtDNAs found in Iran belong to haplogroups HV, TJ, U, N1, N2 and X, commonly found in West Eurasia (Table
2). In contrast to Europe, where H is predominant among the mtDNA haplogroups, in Iran the frequency of haplogroup U (29%) is higher than that of haplogroup H
....
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool.
All of this proves that these genes might have a common point in Iran, but then differentiated out, a long, long time ago:
Since the initial peopling of South and West Asia by anatomically modern humans, when this region may well have provided the initial settlers who colonized much of the rest of Eurasia, the gene flow in and out of India of the maternally transmitted mtDNA has been surprisingly limited. Specifically, our analysis of the mtDNA haplogroups, which are shared between Indian and Iranian populations and exhibit coalescence ages corresponding to around the early Upper Paleolithic, indicates that they are present in India largely as Indian-specific sub-lineages. In contrast, other ancient Indian-specific variants of M and R are very rare outside the sub-continent.
Basically says these genes have been present for a long time in these areas, and have evolved there, the sheer diversity, frequency mutations of these genes indicate the spread during ancient population movements over the subcontinent and Eurasia....and not some super "world conquest event", apart from minor movements which are not enough to cause a big change in the gene pool. this are has evolved independently.
Next Y-DNA,
Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a (PDF)
The conclusion from the paper above
A final comment can be made concerning the relationship between R1a phylogeography and contested origin of Indo-Europeans that is generally, though not solely, attributed to either Anatolia, the South Caucasus or the North Pontic-Caspian regions (Gray and Atkinson56 and references therein). Haplogroup R1a1a occurs in all three of these areas and beyond at informative frequencies (Figure 1). Consistent with its wide geographic spread, the coalescent time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European language tree. Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidian or Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period.
A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios(PDF)
Again the R1a1a* in India is of the indigenous type due to higher variations, presence in both tribe and caste, groups and presence of ancestor groups like the R2, and the highest frequency. These make it a good place for it to be the place of origin for the Asian R1a1a*. Flow from central asia can be ruled out as due to the absence of other central Asian haplogroups in India, which are very rare, and in terms of variation and frequency, India is higher, and a complete lack of other Ancestor/siblings.
It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes’ paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2 indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia
Also another paper I posted in the last post:
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html
And a note on the later demographic events (ANI/ASI mixing) that shaped Indian demography during the supposed years of AIT/AMT:
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html
It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time. On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years (although it is possible that with further sampling and new methods such relatedness might be detected). An alternative possibility that is also consistent with our data is that the ANI and ASI were both living in or near South Asia for a substantial period prior to their mixture. Such a pattern has been documented elsewhere; for example, ancient DNA studies of northern Europeans have shown that Neolithic farmers originating in Western Asia migrated to Europe about 7,500 years BP but did not mix with local hunter gatherers until thousands of years later to form the present-day populations of northern Europe.
15,16,44,45
Multiple studies have confirmed this isolatedness now, to the point that even staunch Invasion theorists like thapar now have started cultural migration type nonsense, along with even hardcore AIT cheer leaders like
Witzel have dumped ait, and have half heartedly moved onto migration ...but still not presenting any evidence to back it up, when asked for it.
The migration was not from western Europe, but certainly from Iran.
Are you saying Iranians migrating to India is the Aryan invasion?
AIT/AMT not about Iranians migrating to India, Iranians split off from Indians and they both go to their respective regions.
Here is basic wiki entry about it:
The
Proto-Indo-Iranians, from which the
Indo-Aryans developed, are identified with the
Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE), and the
Andronovo culture, which flourished ca. 1800–1400 BCE in the steppes around the
Aral sea, present-day Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The proto-Indo-Iranians were influenced by the
Bactria-Margiana Culture, south of the Andronovo culture, from which they borrowed their distinctive religious beliefs and practices.
The Indo-Aryans split off around 1800-1600 BCE from the Iranians, whereafter the Indo-Aryans migrated into the Levant and north-western India.
There are linguistics evidence to show the migration towards central Asia and Europe from India, but of course the problem is that most of these evidences are very subjective and open to interpretation.
Also, if it can show that migration happened in other direction
There is. The AIT/AMT itself, has a huge number of holes, even using their own linguistic systems have plenty of faults, the theory itself creates more issues than the questions it attempts to solve, and some of this points in the opposite direction. For ex, every proposed homeland has huge issues, either with linguistics or time frames, and so on. will maybe post some later.
Even in RV there is plenty of fantasy work done by AIT/AMT, but that of course will be more open to interpretation, even so I think some parts like the rivers etc can be argued quite strongly.
Archaeologists have maintained there is no evidence at all for AIT/AMT, this is accepted even by people Witzel and Erdosy.
