Re: Proto Vedic Continuity Theory of Bharatiya (Indian) Languages

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- ehlsmith <ehlsmith@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ,
> > > > it may be worth
> > > > asking the question of whether Dr. Melkar's claims
> > > > about genetics are
> > > > any more solid than his claims about linguistics.
> > > > For example see
> > > >
> > > http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/6/994>
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ned Smith
> > >
> > >
> > > *****GK: Man o man is this ever devastating!
> > > Particularly since many of the contributors happen to
> > > be Hindus (judging by the names at least). Thanks for
> > > this.****
> >
> >
> > The above cited study already ASSUMES what needs to be proven.
> >
> > "This is owing, in part, to the many different waves of immigrants
> > that have influenced the genetic structure of India. In the most
> > recent of these waves, Indo-European-speaking people from West
> Eurasia
> > entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the
> > subcontinent. They purportedly admixed with or displaced indigenous
> > Dravidic-speaking populations."
> >
> > How would they know that even before conducting the study?
>
>
> Dr. Kelkar,
>
> You are quite right to fault them for assuming that the genes could
> tell them what language an intrusive element might have spoken.
> However, the language issue was not the focus of their study, and
> their findings do support the conclusion that an intrusive male
> element with West Asian and *European* affinities did enter the
> subcontinent, and is disproportionately represented in the higher
> castes.
>
> Of course, this by itself does not prove that the intruders spoke
> Indo-European, but it is at least compatible with such a hypothesis-
> and the point I was making was that you had been claiming that the
> genetic evidence argued against AIT. That strikes me as very
> misleading on your part.

Not really. The AIT is very specific about the direction and *timing*
of this linguistic incursion. There is no conincidental gene flow to
support that. To quote Olson (2002, p. 160-161).

"Recent studies of mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome have
revealed a different picture. *Incursions of people from Europe into
India have certainly occurred, but they have been less extensive than
supposed, and genes have flowed in the opposite direction as well*.
The physical resemblance of Europeans to Indians appears instead to
have resulted largely from their common descent from the modern humans
who left Afica for Eurasia (Olson, 2002, p. 160-161, all parantheses
added)." Also see p. 14 of proto vedic continuity theory.doc for the
complete quote.

So *IF* according to the IEL some languages of the Indian Subcontinent
and Europe belong to a genetically related family *then* that *must*
be due to a common descent from language(s) spoken by African
emigrants on route to Eurasia according to the evidence from genetics.
Now its for the IEL to figure out how old their languages are and how
this is possible. It not the job of the geneticist.

> Their "West
> > Eurasian" haplotypes include Pakistan and possibly Afghanistan!
>
> But not just Pakistan and Afghanistan!

That was a comment on Bamshad methodolgy. The link posted by someone
gives few details about their methodology. What does West Eurasia
really mean?

>
>
> The
> > letter cited in the link provdis few details about methodology.
> > The Bamshad study has been rejected by the scientific community
> owing
> > to its methodological problems.
>
> And which "scientific community" would that be?

Please refer to my earlier post about the critique of the Bamshad study.

>
> >
> > The above study, and there are more like these, cannot be used to
> > prove linguistic migrations because they never break down the
> > population by language.
>
> But they can be used to refute claims that genetic evidence shows no
> intrusion into the subcontinent.
>
> The similarity in genes they cite cuts across
> > both so called "Indo-Aryan" and "Dravidian" groups. So one cannot
> > claim that one of the language groups is "foreign" and the other is
> > native.
>
> So? Sometimes invaders' descendants impose their language on their
> subjects, and sometimes they adopt their subjects' language. Why
> should India be an exception? Genes alone will not show what language
> intruders spoke, but when genetic and linguistic evidence both point
> in the same direction then it is time for Fra William's famous razor
> to be considered.

They don't point in the same direction. The AIT requires a gene flow
around 1500 Before Christ. Again, we are not interested in what could
have happened. We are only interested in what *did* happen. The
question here is does genetic evidence support a foreign *genetic*
origin of the so called "Indo-Aryan" speaking population. In the case
of Bantu family, the African Bantu speaking people essentially
replaced the Khoisan.

M. Kelkar

>
> Moreover similarity in haplotypes does not indicate the
> > *direction* of gene flow nor does it indicate when the flow supposed
> > to have occured.
>
>
> > This is not the only study of its kind. We have reviewd a whole
> bunch
> > of them in Section 6.2 of proto-vedic continuity.doc.
>
> Then wouldn't it have been much more forthright to have conceded
> their existence and try to refute them in your earlier messages,
> rather than say that no genetic evidence exists at all to support an
> invasion theory? I will repeat, it strikes me as very misleading on
> your part. And it can only negatively affect the credibility of any
> future claims which you might make.
>
> May I ask if you ever go to genetics fora and post messages that
> there is no linguistic evidence to support their allegations of
> genetic intrusion into the subcontinent? ;^)
>

G

> Ned Smith
>