Skip to content

The Great Aryan Hoax – Exposed by Genetics(http://bit.ly/i62hAq)

January 31, 2011

This post is from http://www.tatvaanveshanam.org/2010/06/15/the-great-aryan-hoax-exposed-by-genetics/and my blog is only to put all articles related to pride of Vedic culture under single blog post. You can get many such articles from above mentioned blog.

“INTRODUCTION

This post in “The Great Aryan Hoax” series [1] will cover the genetic research that disproves the racist Aryan invasion/migration theories.

GENETIC EVIDENCE DEBUNKS ARYAN THEORIES

Kivisild et al. 2003 [2] emphasize that the combined results from mtDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal markers suggest that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions.

Kashyap 2006 [3] reports in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science that most modern Indians descended from South Asians, not invading Central Asian steppe dwellers. A blogger did dwell upon an interesting point [4].

What is really interesting about the article though is not its mention of AIT being disputed but the surreptitious (and easily overlooked) mention of “technology” amongst things that do not appear to be indigenous and may have come from outside the region (excerpt: “If steppe-dwelling Central Asians did lend language and technology, but not many genes”)

Oddly though, nowhere in the article is there any evidence of “technology” being borrowed from Central Asia.
I wonder if this is just a bad copy or a subtle attempt at undermining the “scientific and technological achievements in ancient India? (Please read: “Does no one remember the Indian contribution to Technology?“)

Scientific and technological achievements in ancient India (Bharata) are however a tangential topic and will be covered in a different post.

Sharma et. al. 2009 [5] proposed “the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins” as well as “the origin of R1a1* … in the Indian subcontinent” [6]. Hinduism Today provided a very lucid summary [7]of of this highly technical paper.

  1. If Central Asians invaded India to form the high castes, you would expect that brahmins have many Central Asian genes. They do not.
  2. R1a1 genes associated with high caste brahmins are highly concentrated in India but sparse in Central Asians.
  3. Brahmins, scheduled castes and tribals all show a common genetic ancestry.
  4. The age of this yet to be determined common parentage goes back, in India itself, to at least 9,000 years and possibly 20,000 years, leaving no genetic support for recent migrations.

Several recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,microsatellite DNA,and mitochondrial DNA in India by Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology scientists in collaboration with researchers at Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT have cast strong doubt on the idea of a biological Dravidian “race” distinct from non-Dravidians (read Aryans from the Max Mueller, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, et. al. “school of thought”) in the Indian subcontinent. [8] [9]

A more exhaustive list of genetic evidence that debunks the racist Aryan invasion/migration theories is available at [6], and is quoted here.

The Aryan Invasion Theory is False – Genetic Evidence

  • No trace of “demographic disruption” in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.
  • Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”
  • Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and “Caucasoid” populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.”

– U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.

  • Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.”  There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is,  part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

– U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.

  • There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.

– Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.

  • mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.” This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.
  • If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
  • The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.

– Twenty authors headed by Kivisild – Archaeogenetics of Europe – 2000.

  • “Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the linguistically defined groups in India should be considered more ‘autochthonous’ than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.”

– Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.

  • Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
  • Kivisild came to the conclusion that “southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup”: “Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup”.[12]
  • “Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation.     ”

– Kivilsid – 2003

  • Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a “Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,” i.e. of the Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an “Indo-European expansion,” an identification they called “convenient but incorrect … overly simplistic.” To them, the subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: “The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. … There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.”
  • “Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus….” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”
  • The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed. R2 is very rare in Europe.

– Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. – 2006.

  • “The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.”
  • “The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.”
  • “Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.” As a result, “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools,” a conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.

read complete article at http://www.tatvaanveshanam.org/2010/06/15/the-great-aryan-hoax-exposed-by-genetics/

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. February 1, 2011 8:39 am

    I am happy to see young Indians interested in educating themselves and others about genetic research that debunks the Aryan hoax. However, this article is a exact replication of my blog post (http://bit.ly/i62hAq), without any attribution. Please put all material from my post within quotation, and explicitly mention that its from my blog with a link back to it. Otherwise its just blatant copy-paste. You might note from the legal page of my blog that I allow usage of my articles only under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license. Kindly ensure that you
    (a) Explicitly mention right at the beginning of the post that this was obtained from my blog with a link back to the post URL.
    (b) Put all material obtained from my article in quotation.
    (c) Change the post title to be different from my post title.
    Thanks.

  2. February 1, 2011 6:45 pm

    Thanks for making the changes, and no problem about the non-attribution earlier. As I said in my earlier comment, I am happy to see young Indians interested in educating themselves and others about genetic research that debunks the Aryan hoax. Your effort to collate essays related to native Indian and dharmika matters is worthy of appreciation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: