From: Rick McCallister
Message: 52611
Date: 2008-02-11
> Thank you for the interesting material.=== message truncated ===
>
> 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,
>