Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

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

>
> The following new paper has appeared, synthesizing all recent
> publications on this subject--
>
> Title: Genetics and the Aryan Debate
> Author: Michel Danino
> Publication: _Puratattva_, Bulletin of the Indian Archaeolgical
> Society, New Delhi, No.36, 2005-06,
>
>
> Excerpt from 'Conclusion' section of the paper:
> [QUOTE BEGINS] It is, of course, still possible to find genetic
> studies trying to interpret differences between North and South
> Indians or higher and lower castes within the invasionist

framework,

> but that is simply because they take it for granted in the first
> place. None of the nine major studies quoted above lends any

support

> to it, and none proposes to define a demarcation line between tribe
> and caste. The overall picture emerging from these studies is,
> first, an unequivocal rejection of a 3500-BP arrival of
> a 'Caucasoid' or Central Asian gene pool. Just as the imaginary
> Aryan invasion / migration left no trace in Indian literature, in
> the archaeological and the anthropological record, it is invisible
> at the genetic level. The agreement between these different fields
> is remarkable by any standard, and offers hope for a grand

synthesis

> in the near future, which will also integrate agriculture and
> linguistics.[....] Genetics is a fast-evolving discipline, and the
> studies quoted above are certainly not the last word; but they have
> laid the basis for a wholly different perspective of Indian
> populations, and it is most unlikely that we will have to abandon

it

> to return to the crude racial nineteenth-century fallacies of Aryan
> invaders and Dravidian autochthons. Neither have any reality in
> genetic terms, just as they have no reality in archaeological or
> cultural terms. In this sense, genetics is joining other

disciplines

> in helping to clean the cobwebs of colonial historiography. If some
> have a vested interest in patching together the said cobwebs so

they

> may keep cluttering our history textbooks, they are only delaying
> the inevitable. [END QUOTE]
>

The Indo-Arian Substratum is not a Indo-European one.

Could I imagine "Aryan invaders and Dravidian autochthons" :) based
on it?

Based on what such a logical model is "crude" "racial" "nineteenth-
century" or a "fallacious" one?

In place of such words, better to find another explanation for the
above FACT (of course in-line with your believes), because
otherwise 'my model' consisting of : "Aryan invaders and Dravidian
autochthons" is good enough to explain such a FACT.

Marius