From: mkelkar2003
Message: 52618
Date: 2008-02-11
>Dravidians (and
> 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
> others) speaking a separately developed language still be a problemfor you?
>The combined evidence from Rig Veda and Avestha shows that the only
>
> Patrick
>Asia
>
> ----- 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
>most
>
> "Fuller's arguments in this volume also have a bearing on one of the
> contentious and long-term research problems in South Asia prehistory,"our
> 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,
> multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of anGandhara
> ancient
> Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and
> peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discretemuch to
> 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
> encourage firstly the importation of models from the West to interpretfor any
> 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
> outside origin (Shaffer and Lichtenstein, 2005). Even where potentiallimited
> 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
> 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...
>