From: mkelkar2003
Message: 46652
Date: 2006-12-09
>"Indo-European," "Indo-Iranian" and so forth are not facts.
> --- 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
>