Aryan Invasion Hypothesis

[opesys]

This is interesting. So what's the answer?

I don't know and I am not really proposing anything at this moment. Just asking a few questions. It seems there are IVC sites found to the north of Afghanistan which were intact until 1900 BC. Why did the 'Aryans' spare these sites which were clearly on the way on their way ?

 

[Virendra]

I don't know what their compulsions or ambitions were. I just know that I would find more Punajibs in Canada and UK than the neighboring Rajasthan. Both speaking different languages.

One more question is why they not go to china? should have been easier because of the climate. WHy come to hot humid India?

China was not accessible from India because of the Himalayas. Areas of China accessible from Central Asia were mainly arid and resource less for the people .. like Tibetan Plateau.

 

[Virendra]

I don't know and I am not really proposing anything at this moment. Just asking a few questions. It seems there are IVC sites found to the north of Afghanistan which were intact until 1900 BC. Why did the 'Aryans' spare these sites which were clearly on the way on their way ?

BMAC would be the staging area for incoming Aryans. There is not a single horse remain or even horse furniture found in BMAC.

 

[civfanatic]

Why did they stop at north-west India ?If they could cross Hindu Kush then crossing Vindhyas would have been a cakewalk Why didn't they come further down ?

Time and chronology. It obviously takes time for new peoples and their culture, including language, to become dominant in a certain area and then spread further beyond. The introduction of IE language into NW India probably occurred not much sooner than c.2000 B.C.E. By c.500 B.C.E., the Aryans were well-established in much of North India from Gandhara to Anga, and also had a presence in the western Deccan (see mahajanapada of Ashmaka in modern Maharastra). The 'Aryans' eventually did expand into South India; it just didn't happen until the 3rd century B.C.E., with the Maurya Empire. But this expansion was too temporary, and though it did lead to subsequent South Indian dynasties using IE languages in their courts (like Satavahanas and Pallavas) and the rise of a Sanskrit superstrate, in did not alter the basic character of Dravidian languages, which continued to be spoken by the masses. But if North India was the PIE homeland, I would have expected the expansion to occur MUCH sooner, and I would have expected it to have a much more lasting impact. In particular, I would have expected South Indians to be speaking IE languages just like peoples further North. The fact that they don't demands some serious explanation.

I don't know and I am not really proposing anything at this moment. Just asking a few questions. It seems there are IVC sites found to the north of Afghanistan which were intact until 1900 BC. Why did the 'Aryans' spare these sites which were clearly on the way on their way ?

Why would they have destroyed the sites in the first place? How were they "in the way"?

My theory is that many of the "Aryans" who expanded east into the Gangetic plains were actually Aryanized Harappans who were compelled to migrate because of worsening climactic conditions, like the drying of Saraswati. I think many North Indians today have their ultimate ethnic origin with the Harappans.

One more question is why they not go to china? should have been easier because of the climate. WHy come to hot humid India?

Mongols came from there and they went to China
Huns came from there and they went to China
Muslims also went to China, so why not Aryans

The Mongols and Huns expanded into China from the plains directly north of it, in modern-day Mongolia. Although the precise location of the PIE urheimat is not known, it was probably nowhere near Mongolia. If you look at the map that I earlier posted, there actually were IE speakers in the western regions of China, in modern Gansu province. The Yuezhi people in particular, the founders of the Kushan Empire, are considered to be Indo-Europeans. They were driven from their homelands in western China by the Xiongnu, who probably comprised proto-Turkic peoples. Subsequently, the IE presence in western China disappeared and was replaced by that of Turkic languages, which persist to this day.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

I don't get what's the big deal about Aryans. If tajikistanis, persians, are aryans, then I don't want to be an Aryan. So called aryans are backward primitive people while non aryans are much more developed.

 

[Simple_Guy]

"Aryan" is an English word made recently. "Arya" is a Sanskrit word from ancient times.

Aryan is English/Nazi heritage and Arya is Indian heritage. :thumb:

 

[civfanatic]

I don't get what's the big deal about Aryans. If tajikistanis, persians, are aryans, then I don't want to be an Aryan. So called aryans are backward primitive people while non aryans are much more developed.

There is no big deal about "Aryans". We are just discussing history here.

And what exactly is "backward" about Persians or Tajiks?

"Aryan" is an English word made recently. "Arya" is a Sanskrit word from ancient times.

Aryan is English/Nazi heritage and Arya is Indian heritage. :thumb:

"Aryan" was also an Iranian word since ancient times. The Parthian and Sassanian rulers called their realm "Aryanshahr", i.e. the Land of the Aryans.

But you are right that the English and Nazis hijacked the term and created lots of nonsense about it.

 

[Simple_Guy]

The Parthian and Sassanian rulers called their realm "Aryanshahr", i.e. the Land of the Aryans.

Googled it. It says the correct name is Aryashahr.

 

[civfanatic]

Googled it. It says the correct name is Aryashahr.

No, the correct name was "Aryanshahr" (Parthian), which later became "Eranshahr" (Middle Persian). This is the basis of the modern name "Iran" (Eran). The word "Aryan" is first attested in the titles of Ardashir I, the founder of the Sassanian dynasty, who was called Shahanshah Aryan, "King of Kings of the Aryans". His son Shapur I was called Shahanshah Aryan ud Anaryan, i.e. "King of Kings of the Aryans and non-Aryans", in reference to his conquest of lands outside of Iran. In his multilingual inscription at the Kaba-ye Zardost, Shapur references his kingdom as "Aryanshahr" (Eranshahr), and in the Greek portion of his inscription calls himself the "ruler of the Aryan nation (ethnous)".

Link: Ä’RÄ€N, Ä’RÄ€NÅ AHR – Encyclopaedia Iranica

The word Ä“rān is first attested in the titles of ArdaÅ¡Ä«r I (q.v.), founder of the Sasanian dynasty. On his investiture relief at NaqÅ¡-e Rostam in Fārs, and subsequently on his coins, he is called ʾrtḥštr MLKʾn MLKʾ ʾyrʾn/ArdaÅ¡Ä«r šāhān šāh Ä“rān, in Mid. Persian, MLKYN MLKʾ ʾryʾn/šāhān šāh aryān, in Parthian. His son ŠāpÅ«r I, while using the same style for his father, referred to himself as MLKʾn MLKʾ ʾyrʾn W ʾnyrʾn/šāhān šāh Ä“rān ud anÄ“rān/, Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ ʾryʾn W ʾn(y)ʾryʾn/šāhān šāh aryān ud anaryān/. The same form was used by later kings, from Narseh down to ŠāpÅ«r III. The great trilingual inscription of ŠāpÅ«r I at the KaÊ¿ba-ye ZardoÅ¡t in Fārs, here preserved only in Parth. and Greek, but reconstructable with certainty also in Pers., contains for the first time the Pers. word Ä“rānÅ¡ahr (Parth. aryānÅ¡ahr), the king declaring in Persian [*ʾNH . . . ylʾnÅ¡try ḥwtʾy ḤWHm]/an. . .Ä“rānÅ¡ahr xwadāy hÄ“m/, Parth. ʾNH . . .ʾryʾnḥštr ḥwtwy ḤWYm/az. . .aryānÅ¡ahr xwadāy ahÄ“m/, Greek egō . . .tou Arianōn ethnous despotÄ“s eimi "I am lord of the kingdom (Gk. nation) of the Aryans" (Å KZ, Mid. Pers. [1], Parth. 1., Gk. 1.2; Back, p. 284-85). This formulation, following his title "king of kings of the Aryans," makes it seem very likely that Ä“rānÅ¡ahr properly denoted the empire, while Ä“rān was still understood, in agreement with its etymology (< OIr. *aryānām), as the (oblique) plural of the gentilic Ä“r (Parth. ary < Old Ir. arya-) "Aryan," i.e., "of the Iranians."

 

[civfanatic]

Below is a map of the satrapies/provinces of the Achaemenid Persian empire. I have outlined in purple the region known as 'Haraiva' to the Persians and as 'Aria' to the Greeks and Romans. This region was probably the ancestral homeland of the Persians, who had migrated from this region southwest to Fars in the centuries prior to the rise of the Achaemenids.

Aria was part of a larger region referred to the Greeks and Romans as 'Ariana', the Land of the Arianoi (Aryans). The geographer and historian Strabo identifies the following peoples as 'Aryan' peoples: the Arii, Arachoti, Bactrians, Drangae, Gedrosii, Paropamisadae, Persians, Parthians, and Sogdians. What should be observed, if that neither the Persians nor Greco-Romans identified Indians (known to Persians as 'Hindus' and to Greeks as 'Indoi') as an Aryan people, and all them differentiated between India and Ariana. I have identified the appromximate extent of 'Ariana' below, based on the information from the Greco-Roman geographers:

Link to Strabo's Geographica, where he describes the country of Ariana: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/15B*.html

 

[A chauhan]

Language is secondary method to study if there is no other evidence, here we already have ANI-ASI research results which points out that there are no evidence for Aryan Migration Theory--On the contrary, South Indians migrated to north and South Asians migrated into Eurasia.

 

[civfanatic]

Language is secondary method to study if there is no other evidence, here we already have ANI-ASI research results which points out that there are no evidence for Aryan Migration Theory--On the contrary, South Indians migrated to north and South Asians migrated into Eurasia.

There is even less evidence for an Out-of-India migration than there is for a mass Into-India migration. How do ANI-ASI research results lead to that conclusion?

 

[TrueSpirit]

There is even less evidence for an Out-of-India migration than there is for a mass Into-India migration. How do ANI-ASI research results lead to that conclusion?

@Virendra @Singh

I believe you have better insight to the above query.

 

[TrueSpirit]

As per Edwin Bryant in The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, he states that:

The 414 archaeological sites along the bed of Saraswati dwarf the number of sites so far recorded along the entire stretch of the Indus River, which number only about three dozen. About 80 percent of the sites are date-able to the fourth or third millennium BCE, suggesting that the river was in its prime during this period. If this date were used for the composition of the hymns about Sarasvati, then the Indo-Aryans would necessarily have been in India in the 4th millennium BC.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Here is what wiki says regarding the date of RigVed's :

According to palaeo-environmental scientists the desiccation of Sarasvati came about as a result of the diversion of at least two rivers that fed it, the Satluj and the Yamuna. "The chain of tectonic events ... diverted the Satluj westward (into the Indus) and the Palaeo Yamuna eastward (into the Ganges) ... This explains the 'death' of such a mighty river (the Sarasvati) ... because its main feeders, the Satluj and Palaeo Yamuna were weaned away from it by the Indus and the Gangaa respectively". This ended at c 1750, but it started much earlier, perhaps with the upheavals and the large flood of 1900, or more probably 2100. P H Francfort, utilising images from the French satellite SPOT, finds that the large river Sarasvati is pre-Harappan altogether and started drying up in the middle of the 4th millennium BC; during Harappan times only a complex irrigation-canal network was being used in the southern region of the Indus Valley. With this the date should be pushed back to c 3800 BC.

This implies that RigVed were written 3800 BCE & earlier, also corroborated by my earlier post.

 

[TrueSpirit]

A very logical blogpost that connects all the dots. It is completely based on latest genetic evidence. The language is simple & jargon-free for a layman. Gives a lot of scientific insight.

However, I have shared a very small excerpt of the same which is of immediate relevance of the flow of this thread.

The apologists & naysayers are going to reject all scientific evidence anyway, but for one ones who are really curious & willing to learn, would enjoy this for sure. I, for one, enjoyed it out & out.

For those who are pre-occupied, have limited time at hand & a lower attention-span with zilch amount of patience, browse directly to the Conclusion section at the bottom of this post.

Source: The Central Role of India in Populating Europe and Asia: Study of Human Maternal Lineages

Earlier, when the Out of Africa theory came, it was thought that man came out of Africa through Suez and West Asia. That made people and scholars, alike, believe that West Asia was the source of all further populations of Europe, Asia and beyond. This assumption coupled with findings at Jericho and other sites in West Asia made authors believe that farming originated at the West Asia, from where it travelled to Europe and India. While farming went to South Europe with Indo-European language, it went to India with Dravidian language—they thought (Colin Renfrew). Thus Renfrew suggested that four major language families of the world–Indo-European, Dravidian, Altaic and Afro-Asiatic —originated in the West Asia. He thought that their common precursor was Proto-Nostratic, the ancestor of Nostratic macro-family, which was located in the West Asia, sometime before 10,000 B.P.(p. 80), he suggested.

But it was realized soon that the West Asian route of exit from Africa was untenable. By 1998 Cavalli-Sforza and his team reached the conclusion that from Africa, Homo sapiens sapiens came out quite early and only once to reach India. In India that population expanded, had linguistic and cultural development, and then it was from India that the restof the world was populated. This finding has been further supported by a large number of extensive DNA studies by Quintana-Murci,Kivisild, Bamshad et al. 2001; Kivisild et al, Metspalu et al, Endicott et al , 2003; Forster, 2004; Forster and Matsumara, 2005;Macauley, 2005; Thangaraj et al
, 2005). Thus latest consensus is that there was a single exit out of Africa to India along coastal routevery early in history of human evolution about 100,000 years back, after which all the areas of world were populated by migration from India. Migration maps made by authors like Oppenheimer (2003) and Metspalu (2004) on the basis of DNA studies showed that Indiaoccupied centre-space of human evolution and dispersal. Metspalu et al reaffirmed that"Southern Coastal Route" to India was suggested by the phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup M. The oldest Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineage is M. Metspalu noted that M'
is virtually absent from North Africa and Near East. This undermined the likelihood of the initial colonization of Eurasia taking a route through Egypt and Suez. Metspalu further noted that the split between West and East Eurasian mtDNAs occurredbetween the Indus Valley and Southwest Asia, and not in the Central Asia. This contradicted the earlier scheme in which Central Asia had been considered the central place for furtherexpansion, branching and further migration of mankind once man had left Africa. Metspaluand his colleagues explained:"It is in the South Asia that local branches of the mtDNA tree(haplogroups given in the spheres) arose (circa 40,000–60,000 B.P.); and from there theywere further carried into the interiors of the continents of Asia and Europe (thinner black arrows)." They further noted that the "northern route" –from northeast Africa over Sinaito the Near East–was used much later (about 30,000 to 17,000 B.P.) by East African people.

The first migration out of India, which took place about 85,000 years back, was to the Southeast Asia. Man soon reached Australia from Southeast Asia, the migrations greatly facilitated by Sunda shelf, which is submerged in sea but less than 100 meters deep at the most. India and Sri Lanka as well as New Guinea and Australia were also joined by land. Sucha view in favour of coastal migration of humans was earlier mooted in 1962 by evolutionary geographer Carl Saucer, who had explained on the basis of 'ecological niche' that forest and savanna (grasslands) were least likely to be human home during early days; and sea shores were the only likely place for human home (p. 42).A recent review article by Endicott et al (2007) clearly concludes that India was the central player in cultural evolution of man and his migration.

Recent Migrations of Male Lineages after Last Glacial Maximum

When it became clear on the basis of matrilineally transmitted DNA lineages, that West Asians and Central Asians or any region out of India has not contributed to Indian gene pool,then it was claimed, if not matrilineally, then patrilineally, Indians have descended from Central Asians (Aryans) and West Asians (Dravidians). Descendants of all men who originally expanded out of India, started coming back to India from Central Asia, West Asia, Tibet,China, Southeast Asia etc once Last Glacial ended, they claimed. Literature was flooded by imaginary stories of human male lineage arrivals. Thus the story became changed now. Now it was said that although matrinineally, Indians, the castes, tribes and the linguistic groups,have been there in India since 100,000 years back, yet most of them were fathered by arriving males from different directions, who introduced the various languages spoken in India today. From West Asia came Dravidian speaking fathers and brought barley and wheat agriculture,as well as bull, cow, goat and sheep. From Central Asia came Aryan fathers with horse, and from South China via Southeast Asia came Munda speaking fathers with rice agriculture.Each migration was wrongly identified with a Y-chromosomal male lineage. Thus West Asia to India, it was J2 and L1; from Central Asia to India was R1a; and from South China to India it was O2a. But fortunately conjectures cannot survive for ever in science. Latest researches have clarified most of the issues which were of vital importance to India.

Origin and Migration of the Y Chromosomal Haplogroup R1a out of India after LGM

Y-chromosome is found in the males and is transmitted from father to son. DNA of Y-chromosomes can be used to trace male lineages. In technical language, a main lineage is called haplogroup. We are now able to identify lineage of any individual, and correctly tell the ancestral relationship, or time of separation of the two individual's common ancestor,with any other individual with the help of DNA identification techniques. It was found that Y-chromosomal DNA HG R1a is found in good numbers in India, Central Asia and Europe. This prompted Wells et al (2001) to suggest that R1a (M17), and R2 which is also found in India and Central Asia alike, are Aryan DNAs. He suggested that Aryans carrying R1a DNA entered Europe and India from Central Asia. Cordaux et al (2004), on the basis of presence of both hunter-gatherer and agriculturist societies living side-by-side in modern India suggested that original Indians were hunter gatherer tribes, and agriculture arrived into India by "demic diffusion" from outside.NoDNA evidence was presented, an underlying theme of 18th century racist views which has been the basis for the past 200years of Euro-centric views. Yet this became a reference work for all future workers. Although Cordaux had conducted a large DNA study of Indian caste and tribes a year backwhich had shown that the Indian castes and tribes share the same gene pool, and that they are more closely related with East Asians than with Europeans and West Asians.Cordaux (2004) argument was adopted by Regueiro et al (2006) trying to envision a wave of migration of R1a starting from Turkey to Central Asia to India then to Iran (p. 140).

The Aryan Invasion theory of Wells (2001) was contradicted by some leading genomescientists of the world, including Sahoo, Kivisild, Metspalu, Villems and their colleagues. On the basis of a large study (Sahooet al , 2006, p. 845), they declared that the Central Asian origin of sub-haplogroup R1a and Aryans cannot be substantiated at all on any account of facts.They held, "The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny and totally rejected. 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."(p.847) They found that R2, H and F* are Indian in origin, and it is from India that they have migrated to Central Asia. Their data suggested an indigenous origin for Aryan DNA R1a. Another team working on the same topic included Sengupta, King, Cavalli-Sforza, Underhilland colleagues. They showed that R (especially R1a1 and R2) diversity in India is indigenous in origin and does not support hypothesis of immigration from Central Asia or anywhere outside. R1a prevalence is not only high in Indo-European speaking Punjab, south Pakistan and Ganga Valley, but also in Chenchu and Koya tribes of south India (Kivisild et al.2003). Oppenheimer (2003) also had supported Indian origin of R1a which is also called M17 in genetic circles.

He wrote, "And sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, north India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as amarker of a 'male Aryan Invasion of India.' Study of the geographical distribution and thediversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17,arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India". Finally Underhill and colleagues (2009) presented a detailed study of R1a lineages. They found that R1a is oldest in India. This lineage started expanding from Gujarat about 16,000years back. By 14,000 years back or earlier, it reached the Ganga Valley and Indus Valley.Then people carrying R1a genes migrated out of India, through Afghanistan and Tajikistan,reaching Central Asia. From Central Asia they entered East Europe. They inhabited the Pontic-Caspian area. Then they populated those areas which are inhabited today by Slavicand Baltic speaking people. Genetics today rules out any possibility of any significant migration from Central Asia to India, and supports regular migration from India to Central Asia in all ages of humanprehistory. A large number of lineages of Indian origin—R1a, R2, H, F*, C5, L etc. are found in the Central Asia, but Central Asian lineages are not found in India.

Migration of Lineage J2 and Farming

There is another male lineage which expanded after the Last Glacial Maximum and which became controversial over last ten years in the genetic, anthropological and linguistic circles because of its wide range of spread spanning from India to South Europe. This is haplogroupJ2 (M172). It is found in South Europe, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and India in good frequency. It was noted by King and Underhill (2002) that in Europe and in Levant, Turkey, Iraq and Iran this haplogroup is found in those areas which also have archaeological evidence of early farming, figurine, clay sealing stamps and painted pottery. Chiaroni et al (2008) showed that the haplogroup J2 is found principally in those areas of West Asia which have a good rainfall.This area is termed the Fertile
Crescent. It is indirect evidence that this lineage came from an area which had a good rainfall, and that these people subsisted on monsoon economy. These findings sparked wild speculations. One group of authors thought that presence of J2in India indicates arrival of Indo-European speakers with farming to Mehrgarh and North India. Other group suggested that J2 was a marker of the Dravidian speakers of the WestAsia (Elam region) to north India, who were master farmers, and who developed Mehrgarhand Indus farming societies. None of the two conjectures were taken seriously, yet it became a common belief in the genetic circles that J2 is West Asian in origin and arrived into India with farming. Lately, J2 (M172) lineage has been studies in India in detail. Its study in India shows that its frequency is 19% in Dravidian speaking castes, and only 11% in Aryan speaking castes. Among the tribes, its frequency is 11%.Hence its arrival through northwest Indian corridor into India is ruled out completely. Because it was found that in the northwest India its frequency is less than that in south Indian caste population. Its good presence in all segments of Indian society proves that either this haplogroup originated in India, or this haplogroup is fixed from very old days in India, possibly since Pleistocene, and not just 8,000 years back.

Sengupta and colleagues (2006) found that age of J2b (M12), which is a branch of J2, is about 17,600 years to 10,000 years (mean age 13,800 years) in India. On the other hand the same figures for Europe for J2 were only 8,700 years and 4,300 years (mean 6,500 years). That means age of J2b, a descendant of J2, in West Asia and Europe is further less than 6500 years. As mentioned before, conclusive evidence of the arrival of farmers into europe bringing with them farming and agriculture between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. The date of J2b expansion in India is thus much before the supposed date of onset of farming into
India. This is enough evidence to suggest that J2 and J2b originated in India. Genetic diversity is a marker of age of a haplogroup in any area. HG J2 exhibits a genetic diversity of 0.702 and lineage diversity of 0.999 in India (Trivedi et al 2008).

Origin of J2 also must have been in India can be said by having a look at Table 3 of Trivedi. The genetic diversity of J2 in the table is 0.702,which is more than or almost equal to genetic diversities of other haplogroups considered Indian in origin but also found in West Asia or Central Asia viz.P, F, H, L, K, K2, R1a, C and R2. Moreover, there are other DNA lineages found in good numbers in West Asia like R1*, R1b3,J*, J2f, I, G and E which are in total more than 53% population of west Asia. These are virtually absent from India (Sahoo, p. 844). Had people migrated from West Asia to India,these haplogroups would also have arrived into India. This evidence proves that J2 did not arrive from West Asia, because no lineage can ever migrate without other lineages also migrating along with it from the place of origin or expansion. On the other hand nearly all of the Indian male lineages like F*, L1, H (M-69), K2, C5, C*, R1a (M-17) etc. are found in West Asia, proving a definite Indian migration to West Asia. The Absence of the HIV-1 protective Delta ccr5 allele in ethnic populations of India, which is found in West Asia, and Central Asia too, is absent from India (Majumder and Dey, 2001).Thus on no account, any migration from West Asia to India can be supported.

Sengupta et al noted that frequency and variance of J2b2 are very high in Uttar Pradesh near Nepal boarder. Regarding place of maximum frequency and variance of J2b2, they remind, "It should be noted that numerous Mesolithic sites have been observed in this region (Kennedy, 2000)." Sengupta's and Trivedi's studies certainly indicate that lineage J2 originated in India. It is only a matter of time. In near future we expect to get more extensive report unequivocally confirming originof HG J2 in India and that Indian Neolithic migrated to West Asia with J2 and other lineages. Sengupta (2006) showed that J2 is well distributed in Indian population.Sengupta et al (2006) found that the haplogroup J2 had a quite high variance, and hence deep time-depthin Indian tribes and castes too. Moreover the frequency is higher in the Dravidian speaking south Indians (19%) than the Indo-European speaking north Indians (11%). This destroys the Aryan migration into India from West Asia hypothesis of Bellwood (2003 and 2005). The inference what we can derive from Sengupta and colleagues study's data is that J2 haplogroup originated in India during Last Glacial Maximum, and migrated out of India when climate permitted. J2 is 18.7% in south Pakistan (Ancient India), the central place of Indus civilization. Lineage J2 and its derivatives are 23% in Iran and 22.2% in Turkey. (Regueiro et al.2006).But their variances are less than in India. Semino (2004) gives 18,000 ybp as the time of origin of J2. The variance was also high indicating indigenous origin of the haplogroup in India.J2 as well as its sub-clade J2b2 show a decreasing variance from India to the Balkans.

Age of J2 as per Semino's calculation is 18,000 ybp.Age of J2b (M12) in Anatolia is 8,600years (Cinnioglu, 2004, Table 2, p. 131).And that of its sub-lineage J2b2 (M241) is 13,800ybp (Sengupta, 2006, p. 216). Although Sengupta does not provide age of J2b, yet it must be older than its descendant's age 13,800 years ago. Thus presence of J2b in India is far earlier than in Anatolia, where J2b is seen at the time of Neolithic at 8,600 years back. Another lineage L1, which is a branch of L, is found in India, Iran and West Asia. This finding had prompted some authors to write that L1 is a marker of Neolithic migration to India with Dravidian language, to Mehrgarh and Indus Valley. These authors resurrected the theory of Elamite origin of Dravidian. Sahoo and colleagues (2006) studied the Indian Y chromosomallineages and found that R1a, L1, F and H are of Indian origin.Not only Sahoo's but all recent works have completely ruled out the possibility that L1 is a marker of West Asian origin of Dravidian speaking people of India. Current opinion is that L1 is of Indian origin and is well distributed in castes and tribes of both north and south India. But it is absent from East Indian states. Hence Sahoo et al rule that,"The near absence of L lineages within the IE speakers from Bihar (0%), Orissa (0%), and West Bengal (1.5%) further suggests that the current distribution of Y haplogroups in India is associated primarily with geographic rather than linguistic or cultural determinants." (p. 847) On the other hand Y-chromosomal DNA distribution in West Asia and South Europe is surely associated with language and culture. Association of language or culture with a DNA lineage indicates immigration from outside,and non-association indicates an autochthonous origin within a geographical area. While Indian lineages qualify to be original of India, the West Asian and European lineages qualify to be immigrants to their present country, barring a few exceptions, farmers arrived into Europe, with language.

Frequency of Y-haplogroup J2, which is a marker of farming and pottery, increases beyond the northwest boundaries of India, it has a slightly lower frequency in India compared to Iran, Iraq or Turkey because a large number of Y-chromosomal haplogroups like R1a, R2, J2, L, O,C, F*, H exist in India side by side, which evolved in India over last 70,000 years, whereas in Europe this was not the case with less Y-chromosomal haplogroups, indicator of less diversity therfore the recepient and of recent arrival.We are aware that India is a primary source of human migration, both male and female, to Eurasia. Hence she harbours the largest number of autochthonous Y-chromosomal haplogroups. The frequency of J2 increases in Tajikistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey because of founder effect of an arriving population in a sparsely populated area. It is useful to remember that during the Last Glacial Maximum, Iran and West Asia had become almost completely depopulated. Hence whichever lineages arrived there after LGM, they grew upfast with a high frequency. This phenomenon is called founder effect of a gene.

India as a Source of Neolithic: Correlation between Genographic and Archaeological Findings

Thus it seems to be settled by now that J2, J2b, R1a and R1b originated and migrated out of India to Iran and from there to West Asia–more markedly to the Fertile Crescent (Kurdistan,Turkey and Levant). This finding becomes more relevant in light of latest archaeologicalfindings which show presence of Pottery Neolithic in the Ganga Valley in India at about9,000 to 10,000 years before present, i.e. at least 3000 years before West Asian Pottery Neolithic culture (Sharma 1978; Tewari 2006, 2008; Govt. of UP Communique). At that very time (9,000 ybp) we get Non-Pottery Neolithic in western part of India (now Pakistan) at Mehrgarh, which was supported by well trained artisans and domesticated cattle (Jarrige1984).Coppa (2006) found that agriculturist people of Mehrgarh suffered from dental caries, probably due to cereal diet, which had been treated by drilling by dentistry practiceas early as 9000 ybp.Sceptics have claimed that cereal grains recovered from 9000 ybpIndian archaelogical sites had been gathered from wild (Fuller, blogspot, 2009), and theymay be entitled to claim that dental caries might have been caused by eating wild cereals;but the drilling treatment of root canal could not have been done by a wild food-gatherer dentist at 9000 years before present. The World Dental Federation Congress recognizes today that their profession originated in India in 9000 years before
present (Pearn 2008). Although Mehrgarh and Koldihwa-Lahuradewa cultures were contemporary, presence of pottery at Koldihwa and Lahuradewa, and their absence from Mehrgarh indicate that Ganga Valle Neolithic was older than Mehrgarh and was probably a source of Mehrgarh Neolithic.Hence Ganga Valley appears to be the earliest source of Neolithic. Its genetic correlation becomes apparent when we find in Sahoo's maps that Ganga Valley has the densest distribution of R1a (Sahooet al.Fig. 2, p. 846). Possibly because of Post-LGM founder effec tR1a occupied the centre-space of the Ganga Valley. A Pre-Pottery-Neolithic migration out of Ganga Valley reaching west India (Mehrgarh) before 9,000 ybp can be postulated on the basis of data available so far. It is possible that this wave of migration is represented today by R1a distribution in the area. J2 migration seems to have occurred after R1a migration because of J2's regular association with pottery in West Asia. The epicentre of J2 migration was probably 11,000 ybp to 10,000ybp Ganga Valley. Y-chromosomal haplogroup J2 has been found to be regularly associated with areas where Neolithic farming is recorded in archaeological excavations (Di Giakomoet al.2004).

Thus J2 entered with agriculture into south Europe and Mediterranean islands from Levant and Anatolia (Seminoet al.2004). J2 is not only a marker of agriculture but also of painted pottery and figurines spreading from West Iran into South Europe through Levant/Anatolia (King and Underhill 2002). And both of these, pottery and agriculture, occur together for the first time in the Ganga Valley at 9000 ybp (Tewari et al , Sharma, G. R.).

Conclusion

Recent archaeo-linguistic studies point out that the Indo-European languages originated at a place which had agriculture. Evidence further indicates that this place was no farther than the place of evolution of Austro-Asiatic languages and Dravidian languages, because words from these latter languages are found in the oldest core vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language. Coupled with this, recent archaeo-genetic studies of rice, barley, cow,pig, buffalo and mice prove their origin in India. This supports an Indian origin of farming,and subsequent spread to the east and west of India. These studies reject the theory of Aryan arrival to India from Central Asia (or West Asia), Dravidian arrival from the West Asiaand Austro-Asiatic arrival from the Southeast Asia (or China). Finally human DNA studies rule out any migration to India from Central Asia or West Asia. On the other hand there is DNA evidence of human migration from India to Central Asia, Europe, West Asia and Southeast Asia.

 

[Virendra]

@Virendra @Singh
I believe you have better insight to the above query.

Saying that there were two genetic lineages ANI and ASI in Indian prehistory does not negate AMT.
There is an obvious affinity between the ANI and the MiddleEastern + Eurasian genes. The affinity is established by migrations in the past.
It is the direction of migration that negates one theory and boosts the other.
Comparing and analyzing the Haplotype diversity of a marker in two or more places answers the following:
1) The marker originated at which place, in other words what was the direction of migration.
2) The migration event occured in 12,500 YBP or before that.

What negates AMT is the haplotype diversity of the bulk of Indian genes. I have cited the research already.

Paper by Metspalu, Kivisild, Thangaraj et al. Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ns-indian-caste-populations-4.html#post732920
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ns-indian-caste-populations-4.html#post733371

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-indian-caste-populations-10.html#post734781
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-indian-caste-populations-11.html#post734846
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/religion-culture/1403-aryan-invasion-theory-46.html#post742309

Regards,
Virendra

 

[A chauhan]

[MAP][/MAP]

There is even less evidence for an Out-of-India migration than there is for a mass Into-India migration. How do ANI-ASI research results lead to that conclusion?

American Journal of Human Genetics states the mixing of the ANI and ASI happened more than 500 generations back (Each generation is 25 years). The paper explicitly mentions Max Muller's theory and says that it is hard to find evidence for such a migration following the collapse of the Harappan civilization. As it stands now, the mixing between the two groups happened some time between 40,000 YBP and 12,500 YBP. Now lets see, two ANI-ASI groups can not mix without some sort of linguistic-behavioral similarities, and once mixed they can not stay separated at least linguistically as your question and the map shows which has restricted Sanskrit to the north-India, later between 2nd and 4rth millennium BC no large scale influx of people from west Asia occurred so the Aryan Invasion theory stands rejected by genetic studies,furthermore Metspalu's study suggests that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more haplotype diverse South Asian and Indian gene pool, so there are zero chances of Sanskrit's arrival in India with so called Aryans, most possibly it was developed in North/North-West India and exported to the west Asia with a group of ANI people supporting the Out-of-India theory, where affected by it other IE languages were developed. That is the reason Sanskrit is non existent in Europe or middle east. OTOH Sanskrit faded off from the South India because of Tamil which was highly Sanskritized at one point (and other factors), later Tamil scholars worked hard to remove that effect from Tamil. So I guess your question in post #736 and the wiki map is flawed, someone should edit and correct it in wiki page.

 

[pmaitra]

What negates AMT is the haplotype diversity of the bulk of Indian genes. I have cited the research already.

Paper by Metspalu, Kivisild, Thangaraj et al. Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ns-indian-caste-populations-4.html#post732920
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ns-indian-caste-populations-4.html#post733371

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-indian-caste-populations-10.html#post734781
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...s-indian-caste-populations-11.html#post734846
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/religion-culture/1403-aryan-invasion-theory-46.html#post742309

Regards,
Virendra

That is a good post @Virendra, although I do not agree with the line above. The reason is, I have read that paper, and there is nothing that negates migration into India. The diagrams in the paper cited by you clearly shows that there has been migration in both directions.

 

[Virendra]

That is a good post @Virendra, although I do not agree with the line above. The reason is, I have read that paper, and there is nothing that negates migration into India. The diagrams in the paper cited by you clearly shows that there has been migration in both directions.

The diagram itself shows how minor that trace is. The paper also mentions that this minor trace is far more recent than the existing majority markers that are locally developed over a long period of time.
----------------------
...Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8, demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history [i.e. local breeding] and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool...
-----------------------
The latter is also covered by Metspalu as quoted in the post above by @A chauhan.

Regards,
Virendra