Re: Evoluation and History of Human Populations in South Asia

From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52597
Date: 2008-02-10

Thank you for the interesting material.

I was just wondering - if we assume an ethnically related population in
Iran, would an invasion or move into India by Iranians speaking an IE
language coming into contact with virtually the same ethnic Dravidians (and
others) speaking a separately developed language still be a problem for you?


Patrick


----- Original Message -----
From: "mkelkar2003" <swatimkelkar@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 11:41 AM
Subject: [tied] Evoluation and History of Human Populations in South Asia


"Fuller's arguments in this volume also have a bearing on one of the most
contentious and long-term research problems in South Asia prehistory,
i.e., the
origin and spread of languages, including hypotheses which envision that
Indo-European languages were imported by farming or later pastoral
communities
from the west(e.g., Allchin and Allchin, 1982; Renfrew, 1987). Though
genes and
languages have been correlated with demographic expansions of farming
populations and migrations towards South Asia (Cavalli-Sforza et al.,
1994),
recent studies of mitochondrial DNA argue against a strong
differentiation of
peoples speaking Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages (Metspalu et al.,
2004;
Endicott et. al.; this volume) and no support for the entry of `Aryan'
populations is found in physical anthropological data (Kennedy, 1995;
Walimbe,
this volume). Genetic studies have however, recently been used to
support the
idea of migrations of Tibeto-Burman and Austro-Asiatic speaking groups
from East
and Southeast Asia into India (see Endicott, et. al. this volume),
which is consistent with
archaeological hypotheses which infer that the Austro-Asiatic Munda
languages
were introduced by Neolithic populations from the Northeast (e.g.,
Bellwood,
2005) (though see Fuller, this volume, for a contrasting opinion.),
(Petraglia
and Allchin 2007, pp. 15-15)."
Petraglia, M., and Allchin, B. (2007). Human evolution and culture
change. In:
The evolution and history of human populations in south asia.
Petraglia, M.,
and Allchin, B. (Eds.), Netherlands: Stringer, pp. 1-20.
"Physical anthropological studies do not support an a (sic) movement
of Aryan
speakers into the Indus Valley around 3.5ka (Hemphill et al., 1991,
1997).
According to these investigators, gene flow from Bactria is an event
of much
later date, not having any impact of Indus Valley gene pools until
around 2ka.
Kennedy (1984b) examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley
Civilization and
concluded that the ancient Harrapans are not markedly different in their
skeletal biology from the present-day inhabi-tants(sic) of North
western India and
Pakistan. Kennedy (1995) also remarks that if an Aryan invasion had
taken
place, obvious discontinuities in the skeletal record should be found.
Hemphill
et. al. (1991) and Kennedy (1995) suggest that there existed two
phases of
biological discontinuity within the Indus Valley from the Neolithic
times to
around 2ka. The first is said to occur between 8 and 4.5 ka which is
reflected
in the strong differences irrespective of the occupational cont
inuity between the Neolithic and Chalco-lithic (sic) inhabitants of
Mehrgarh and
post-Harrapan. The second discontinuity exists between the
inhabitants of
Harrapa, Chalcolithic Mehrgarh and Post-Harrapa Timargarha on the one
hand, and
the Early Iron Age (better known as the Gandhara Grave culture)
inhabitants
Sarai Khola, on the other, between 2.8 and 2.2 ka. Kennedy (1995:53)
concludes
that, "if Vedic Aryans were a biological entity represented by the
skeletons
from Timargarah then their biological features of cranial and dental
anatomy were not distinct to a marked
degree from what we encountered in the ancient Harrapans." Comparing the
Harrapan and the Gandhara Grave Cultures, Kennedy (1995:54) remarks, "our
multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an
ancient
Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara
peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete
traits that
point to a high degree of biological affini
ty (Walimbe 2007, pp. 312-313)."
"If the hypothesis of an `Aryan Invasion' cannot be supported using
physical
anthropological data, then the spread of Indo-European languages in the
subcontinent needs to be explained on non-biological grounds. There
is no doubt
that surplus agricultural economy of Harrapans induced increased trade
contacts
with others (especially to the West). It seems much more likely that
multiple
waves of Indo-European migration, in small numbers, are possible
causing a
mingling of the immigrants and local populations. There may have been
significant exchange and
assimilation of culture and languages on both sides. The immigrants
may have
traveled back and forth to their original lands taking language and
culture to
other Indo-European peoples. Human skeletal remains excavated from
sites of
Harrapa and Mohenjodaro show a mixed ethnic composition similar to the
present
(Kennedy, 1984b, 1995), showing support for migration rather than an
invasion.
In recent years, human population genetics data corroborates some
physical
anthropological influences, concluding that there is no material
evidence for
any large scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800
BC (Walimbe
2007, p. 313)."
Walimbe, S. R. (2007). Population movement in the Indian
subcontinent. In: The
evolution and history of human populations in south asia. Petraglia,
M., and
Allchin, B. (Eds.), Netherlands: Stringer, pp. 297-319.
"Colonial politics and migrationist tendencies in archaeology did much to
encourage firstly the importation of models from the West to interpret
South Asia's ancient
remains (Boivin and Fuller, 2002; Morrison, 1994), and secondly the
interpretation of change not as coming from within a dynamic and
evolving South
Asian society, but as resulting from the migration of new peoples,
inevitably
from the west (Cohn, 1996; Fuller and Boivin, 2002), (Boivin 2007, p.
348)."
"Over the course of the past half century, the model of an Indo-Aryan
population
invasion has been thoroughly problematized, and largely discredited
within
archaeology (Shaffer, 1984; Erdosy, 1995a, 1995b; Kennedy, 1995, 2000;
Possehl,
2002; Shaffer and Lichtenstein, 1995; Kenoyer, 2005). The demise of
the Indus
Valley civilization is now understood largely in terms of much more
gradually
unfolding, localized processes that have been convincingly linked to
major
hydrological and environmental changes in the north-western part of the
subcontinent (Dales, 1996; Raikes, 1968; Mughal, 1982). Other
attempts to link
major material culture transformations in South Asia archaeology,
including the introduction of the
Painted Grey Ware in the north and the beginnings of megalith-creation
in South
India, to the proposed Indo-Aryan invasions have proven similarly
unconvincing
(Shaffer, 1984; Erdosy, 1995b). What the accumulation of archaeological
evidence over the course of the twentieth cen
tury has inevitably demonstrated is that the major transitions in
South Asian
pre- and proto-history are gradual and often show little evidence for any
outside origin (Shaffer and Lichtenstein, 2005). Even where potential
external
material culture links are found, as in the Late Harrapan period, they
can in no
sense be taken to indicate any large-scale influx of people.
Archaeologist in
particular have thus very much moved away from the migration models,
including
the idea of Indo-Aryan invasions as an explanation for cultural change
in South
Asia (Boivin 2007, p. 348)."
"In reading the genetics literature on South Asia, it is very clear
that many
of the studies actually start with some assumptions that are clearly
problematic, if not in
some cases completely untenable. Perhaps the single most serious problem
concerns the assumption, which many studies actually start with as a
basic
premise (e.g., Watkins, 1999; Roychoudhury et. al., 2000; Bamshad et
al., 2001;
Quintana-Murci et al., 2001;), that the Indo-Aryan invasions are a
well-established (pre) historical reality. The studies confirm such
invasions
in large part because thy actually assume them to begin with (Boivin
2007, p.
352)."
"Clearly, however, as outlined previously, archaeological
understandings of
Indo-Aryan invasions have changed, and indeed have changed
dramatically, over
the course of the last three decades, and it is simply not accurate
to state
any longer that modern Indian caste populations derive from recent (i.e.
Indo-Aryan) immigrants (Boivin 2007, p. 352)."
"The assumption of Indo-Aryan invasions into the subcontinent is so
entrenched
that when genetics findings contradict the notion of invasions,
geneticists generally see it as problematic, and often try to
interpret it away. Thus, Cordaux and colleagues are so wedded to the
idea of a
full fledged Indo-Aryan invasion that they explain the contradictory
mitochondrial evidence, indicative of high indigenous contribution, as
resulting
from combined practices over the centuries since invasion of hypergyny
and
preferential female infanticide, (Boivin 2007, p. 352)."
Boivin, N., (2007). On the origins of caste in south asia. In: The
evolution
and history of human populations in south asia. Petraglia, M., and
Allchin, B.
(Eds.), Netherlands: Stringer, pp. 341-361.
"The Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman language groups may retain a
distinctive
genetic signature due to their relatively recent introduction and limited
subsequent make gene flow. However, consistent divisions between
populations
speaking Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages are harder to define with
reliability (Endicott et al. 2007, p. 238)."
"On the basis of such approaches claims for the external origin of
major Y haplogroups of India (other than J2)
have been made (R1a, R2, L)(Wells et al., 2001; Cordaux et al.,
2004a). Yet
their distribution can more parsimoniously be seen as local
developments with
movements taking place in the opposite direction. For example, R1a
has been
shown to have lower diversity in Central Asia and Eastern Europe
(Kivisild et
al., 2003), and, as such, these are unlikely sources for the Indian
variants.
Interestingly, R1a also displays high concentrations in the northwest
of India
suggesting a possible source of expansion in this region. As there is
general
agreement that the maternal heritage of India displays no recent
widespread
intrusion of mtDNA, the search for a haploid marker for the spread of
the caste
system, Indo-Aryan languages, or agriculture, lies with these particular
haplogroups (Cordaux et al., 2004a). As yet the evidence is equivocal
and there
no strong genetic signal fo
r a major genetic component accompanying either the spread of
Indo-Aryan languages or the cast system within India. Attempts to this
association of genetics with cultural continuums into the realms of
subsistence
categories (Cordaux et al., 2004a) are unlikely to be more successful
(Sahoo et
al., 2006), (Endicott et al. 2007, p. 239)."
Endicott, P., Metspalu M. and Kivisild T., (2007). Genetic evidence
on modern
human dispersals. In: the evolution and history of human populations
in south
asia. Petraglia, M., and Allchin, B. (Eds.), Netherlands: Stringer, pp.
229-244...