[tied] Re: Genetic Studies and Aryan Migrations

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

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@>

wrote:

> >
> > --- 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.
>
>
> As I understand it your premise is that there is no discernible
> genetic difference between India cum Pakistan and the surrounding
> area. The general consensus in linguistics is that the differences
> between the languages of the northern area of India cum Pakistan
> are minor.

I agree with that

On the basis of that you claim that there has never

> been a movement of people into said area from the outside (AIT)
> nor in the reverse direction (OIT).

The claim of no large population movement is based on genetic
evidence not linguistic.

That is a strong claim, and

> it is incumbent on you, who made it, to argue for it.

What I am saying is that anyone engaging in the AIT/OIT debate
unwittingly and needlessly legitimizes the untestable and unproven
assumptions made by Indo-Eureopean linguists. There are many other
models out there to explain the real or perceived similarities among
languages; Dixon's (1997) punctuality equilibrium model for one.

M. Kelkar

>
> Torsten
>