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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...> wrote:

> 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.

DON'T BOTHER (and if you do, look for Section 4.1 - it's p13 when I
read it). That is all of the quote that is relevant. This quote DOES
NOT SUPPORT the claim 'There is no coincidental gene flow to support
that'.

> 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.

If incursions of people from Europe into India have occurred, and the
timing is right, then that is all that is needed. Language
replacement does not require population replacement!

> 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.

> 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.

The question as you phrase it is far too ambiguous. If you mean the
present-day speakers of Indic languages, then that is not the question
at all. If you mean the first speakers of Indic languages in India,
then it is a relevant question. However, there are three possible
conclusions - 'supports', 'contradicts' and 'inconclusive'. Morever,
we then need to be clear what you mean by India. What if the language
transfer took place in Bactria? What should we then see in terms of
the genetics of India?

> In the case
> of Bantu family, the African Bantu speaking people essentially
> replaced the Khoisan.

Which is a far simpler case than is claimed for India. Turkey,
Hungary and Finland are much closer to what any version of AIT claims.

Richard.