[tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> I haven't read Danino, so my comments rely exclusively
> on the quote from his "conclusion" as given below.
> 1) If there are neither "Caucasoid" nor "Central
> Asian" genes in the Indian pool studied, and if one
> concludes thence that there is no
> "genetic" proof of invasion or infiltration from the
> north, then one ought also, in the absence of further
> arguments, hold that there is no "genetic" proof of
> the reverse movement. Which leaves us with two
> "unpenetrated" solitudes. And yet the linguistic facts
> suggest a very close relationship between Indic and
> Iranic and between Indic and other Indo-European
> languages.
> 2) So if the above holds, then we must conclude that
> genetics is completely irrelevant to the issue of AIT
> vs. OIT.
> But is the above (and the quote below) really true?

Genetics is quite releavant to tracing human migrations. See the
excellent graphic presentation below.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/

Now that the genetic data has failed to support a speculative invasion
or even a tricke in of "Indo-European" speakers around 1500 BCE there
is a tendecny to dimsiss this data. One must realize that the
alternative to the AIT the so called "OIT" is not simply a converse of
the "AIT;" i.e. we are not looking for a reverse migration around
1500 BCE. Doing so would give a totally undeserved credence to the
AIT itself! The alternative theory may not subscribe to the same
timeline or even the same standard linguistic family tree worked out
by the IEL. As I have said repeatedly on this list the methodology
and the conclusions reached by the IEL as reflected by the
"conventional wisdom" is open to serious questions.


Unproven hypothesis like AIT/AMT should not be taken as a fact, as
they are meaningless from a historic point of view. And most
importantly **the reverse of an unproven hypothesis or the so called
"OIT" is equally meaningless** from a historic point of view.
Therefore this is not about AIT/OIT.

All the most modern tools of research from many relevant fields must
be brought to bear on the question of how and when the human
linguistic capacity arose and why some langauges appear to be similar
to others. Many linguists have made important contributions to this
quest. But sadly, a majority of them seem to be working outside the
accepted norms of Indo-European linguistics.

M. Kelkar

>
> > --- 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]
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.

Try it now.

>