What are your views on the Aryan Dravidian theory ?

[Muloghonto]

6 hours ago, Reddysaab said:

look at you kids. now let me sort it out for u guys. first i will go into history, then relate it to present. please save this post bcos u will never get this kind of gyaan everyday. so u can use it for future reference.

 

first of all let me categorically state that YES - CORE NORTH INDIAN ARYAN RACE IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RACE FROM CORE DRAVIDIAN RACE . so stop the politically correct crap. the so called "invasion" of North Indian Aryans was more of a settlement over a period of time rather than invasion. or u can say multiple small invasions. genetically speaking if u had to pick a nationality that is closest to Vedic north indians genetically, its the ancient pre-islamic persians. Punjabis are different and they are more of a relatively recent arrival to sub cont. and punjabis are post vedic settlers, and punjabis are closer to central asian Huns and scythians. ( hence the difference in facial features of say a Brahmin from Punjabi and a brahmin from UP)

 

actually the CORE south indians or dravidians are an australoid race (not african). if u look at Pangea, india and australia were sticking to each other. so thats why dravidians are the closest to the aboriginals of australia. when Pangea split, the aboriginals split and few went to Oz and few hitched a ride until Indian land mass collided with Asia. 

 

bcos of the more fertile and salubrious weather of the subcontinent, the australoid aboroginals who were in indian subcont, developed relatively more softer, languid and "relatively more" (relative is the key word here) aquiline features. the austrlian aborogines in Oz remained more or less the same due to the harsh climate of inner australia.

 

NOW that was the history.

 

now the PRESENT. due to heavy cross breeding over 1000s of years, the pure aryan and pure dravidian race is almost very less in the india of today. the andaman tribes bcos of their island location did not intermix...and also Tamil Nadu is the most dravidian state of India. most of india today excluding the extreme north  starting from Punjab ((aryan heartland)) and extreme south - Tamil Nadu (dravidian heartland) is actually a mixed race. mixed between aryan/dravidian and also burmese(mongoloid race) (bengalis, odiya and assamese). 

 

if u want to see how Vedic aryans look like before admixture with indian natives, look no further than the non-mongoloid Population of Nepal who till this day have very little admixture bcos of their geogrpahical mountaineous separation due to which they did not mix with indian australoid natives. Nepali aryans have that purity. Vedic Hindus looked like Nepali Aryans. ofcourse even in India u have ppl who look like Nepali aryan Hindus but percentage is less due to heavy admixture.

 

now the present practical socio economics ---> like anywhere else, like USA where even today whites are the ruling class, even in india same story. u will see that all the upper castes even in south india have more Aryan blood. even in south India, its aryans who dominate even today. Tamil nadu is an exception to this bcos very few aryans in TN, the only aryans in TN are tamil brahmins (who came from north), and the rest are natives. otherwise pretty much the top 3 VARNAS - brahmins, kshatriyas, vysyas even in south indian states are mostly of aryan blood. the darker the person in south india, the chances are that they are Sudras.

 

 

 

This is 100% nonsense. There is no major genetic influx into the Indian subcontinent since the ice ages. Genetic data is decisive on this. Ie, aryan migration theory is 100% nonsense. 

 

Pangea split 100 million years ago, is, 95 million years prior to any hominids whatsoever and 99.7 million years before species Homo sapiens has existed. 

[Alam_dar]

9 hours ago, MechEng said:

Why should anyone bother?

I am afraid that this issue has been so much highlighted while  the arrival of Aryans in India has been linked to the beginning of Hindu Religion, Caste systems, and North South (Aryan/Dravidian) divide, thus things became complicated. 

 

Now many South Indians want to have their Dravidian identity and want to get out of the control of the North Indians. They want more autonomy. Thus this Aryan Dravidian divide is highlighted. 

 

And then Dalits and perhaps Shudras too are against religion and the caste system which was the main cause of their oppression for thousands of years. Therefore, it is very important for them to claim that Hindu religion along with Caste system was initiated by the Aryans. 

 

And for the North Indians, it is opposite. They want to keep South with themselves, and perhaps also want to impose Hindi upon them, thus they don't want South Indians to go for their separate identity of Dravidians. 

 

And especially for the Hindutva supporters, it will be a big blow politically if it is proven that Hindu religion along with Caste system was initiated by the Aryans. Thus they have to oppose it in every way. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid that this issue has been so much highlighted while  the arrival of Aryans in India has been linked to the beginning of Hindu Religion, Caste systems, and North South (Aryan/Dravidian) divide, thus things became complicated. 

Aryans did not arrive. Cultural and genetic data shows nothing on this count. 

1 minute ago, Alam_dar said:

Now many South Indians want to have their Dravidian identity and want to get out of the control of the North Indians. They want more autonomy. Thus this Aryan Dravidian divide is highlighted. 

 

And then Dalits and perhaps Shudras too are against religion and the caste system which was the main cause of their oppression for thousands of years. Therefore, it is very important for them to claim that Hindu religion along with Caste system was initiated by the Aryans. 

 

And for the North Indians, it is opposite. They want to keep South with themselves, and perhaps also want to impose Hindi upon them, thus they don't want South Indians to go for their separate identity of Dravidians. 

 

And especially for the Hindutva supporters, it will be a big blow politically if it is proven that Hindu religion along with Caste system was initiated by the Aryans. Thus they have to oppose it in every way. 

Actually the situation is quite opposite. Presence of Brahui in Sindh, yet Brahui having ZERO middle or old Persian loan words but lots of modern Persian loan words indicate that they are a recent arrival, in the last millenia and half or so. Most likely guess would be during the domination of he Rashtrakuta power. Yet, Brahui is cited as evidence of Dravidian relic of IVC by those who know zilch of linguistics.

[Alam_dar]

People make a mistake by presenting earlier studies of 2004 or so upon genetics, and claim that no migration of Aryans took place to India. 

 

But here is the most modern study, published in 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’, which contradicts the earlier studies and tells that indeed the migration took place. Here is the direct link to this complete study: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9

 

A Brief introduction to this latest study is as following. It is telling why earlier studies made a mistake:

//

How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate

... 

Until recently, only data on mtDNA (or matrilineal DNA, transmitted only from mother to daughter) were available and that seemed to suggest there was little external infusion into the Indian gene pool over the last 12,500 years or so.

New Y-DNA data has turned that conclusion upside down, with strong evidence of external infusion of genes into the Indian male lineage during the period in question.

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way. ...

The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did...

 

One by one, therefore, every single one of the genetic arguments that were earlier put forward to make the case against Bronze Age migrations of Indo-European language speakers have been disproved. To recap:

 

1. The first argument was that there were no major gene flows from outside to India in the last 12,500 years or so because mtDNA data showed no signs of it. This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage. The reason why mtDNA data behaved differently was that Bronze Age migrations were severely sex-biased.

 

2. The second argument put forward was that R1a lineages exhibited much greater diversity in India than elsewhere and, therefore, it must have originated in India and spread outward. This has been proved false because a mammoth, global study of R1a haplogroup published last year showed that R1a lineages in India mostly belong to just three subclades of the R1a-Z93 and they are only about 4,000 to 4,500 years old.

 

3. The third argument was that there were two ancient groups in India, ANI and ASI, both of which settled here tens of thousands of years earlier, much before the supposed migration of Indo-European languages speakers to India. This argument was false to begin with because ANI — as the original paper that put forward this theoretical construct itself had warned — is a mixture of multiple migrations, including probably the migration of Indo-European language speakers.

//

 

There is no escape gate left in the light of this recent scientific study, other than to accept this migration. 

[MechEng]

10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid that this issue has been so much highlighted while  the arrival of Aryans in India has been linked to the beginning of Hindu Religion, Caste systems, and North South (Aryan/Dravidian) divide, thus things became complicated. 

 

Now many South Indians want to have their Dravidian identity and want to get out of the control of the North Indians. They want more autonomy. Thus this Aryan Dravidian divide is highlighted. 

 

And then Dalits and perhaps Shudras too are against religion and the caste system which was the main cause of their oppression for thousands of years. Therefore, it is very important for them to claim that Hindu religion along with Caste system was initiated by the Aryans. 

 

And for the North Indians, it is opposite. They want to keep South with themselves, and perhaps also want to impose Hindi upon them, thus they don't want South Indians to go for their separate identity of Dravidians. 

 

And especially for the Hindutva supporters, it will be a big blow politically if it is proven that Hindu religion along with Caste system was initiated by the Aryans. Thus they have to oppose it in every way. 

North Indians have no interest in imposing Hindi language on anyone, they are mostly individualistic and don't take their cultural identity too seriously, I can attest to this fact.

Again you haven't lived in India yet, so you won't be able to understand the reality of caste system.

[Stuge]

We all are basically Africans :p 

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/5/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

People make a mistake by presenting earlier studies of 2004 or so upon genetics, and claim that no migration of Aryans took place to India. 

 

But here is the most modern study, published in 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’, which contradicts the earlier studies and tells that indeed the migration took place. Here is the direct link to this complete study: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0936-9

 

A Brief introduction to this latest study is as following. It is telling why earlier studies made a mistake:

//

How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate

... 

Until recently, only data on mtDNA (or matrilineal DNA, transmitted only from mother to daughter) were available and that seemed to suggest there was little external infusion into the Indian gene pool over the last 12,500 years or so.

New Y-DNA data has turned that conclusion upside down, with strong evidence of external infusion of genes into the Indian male lineage during the period in question.

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way. ...

The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did...

 

One by one, therefore, every single one of the genetic arguments that were earlier put forward to make the case against Bronze Age migrations of Indo-European language speakers have been disproved. To recap:

 

1. The first argument was that there were no major gene flows from outside to India in the last 12,500 years or so because mtDNA data showed no signs of it. This argument was found faulty when it was shown that Y-DNA did indeed show major gene flows from outside into India within the last 4000 to 4,500 years or so, especially R1a which now forms 17.5% of the Indian male lineage. The reason why mtDNA data behaved differently was that Bronze Age migrations were severely sex-biased.

 

2. The second argument put forward was that R1a lineages exhibited much greater diversity in India than elsewhere and, therefore, it must have originated in India and spread outward. This has been proved false because a mammoth, global study of R1a haplogroup published last year showed that R1a lineages in India mostly belong to just three subclades of the R1a-Z93 and they are only about 4,000 to 4,500 years old.

 

3. The third argument was that there were two ancient groups in India, ANI and ASI, both of which settled here tens of thousands of years earlier, much before the supposed migration of Indo-European languages speakers to India. This argument was false to begin with because ANI — as the original paper that put forward this theoretical construct itself had warned — is a mixture of multiple migrations, including probably the migration of Indo-European language speakers.

//

 

There is no escape gate left in the light of this recent scientific study, other than to accept this migration. 

Stop spreading nonsense propaganda. 

 

R1a is y-chromosomal DNA, not mtDna.

 

furhermore, the actual paper cited does NOT say strong y-chromosomal DNA from Central Asia. It says this:

 

’ In particular, genetic influx from Central Asia in the Bronze Age was strongly male-driven, consistent with the patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social structure attributed to the inferred pastoralist early Indo-European society. ‘

 

Meaning what came brought was mostly guys. Which surprises absolutely no one since most migrants, even within family framework, are dudes. 

 

It further her says this:

 

In the last few years, genome-wide (GW) studies have been employed [27,28,29]. However, it remains difficult to make inferences concerning the timing and direction of migrations from GW results, without including ancient DNA (aDNA) data (still lacking for South Asia), and for India the results have been contradictory, especially for differentiating amongst various migration waves at greater time depths.

 

Your article is BUNK. 

[Real McCoy]

There is no aryan race nor is there a dravidian race Aryans used to be noblemen in every Indo-european feudal society. There is no more feudal concept in the modern world. The best example I can give you is in British society, the royals, earls, dukes, lords and the knighted ones are equivalent to "aryans" whereas Joe the plumber and George the farmer would not be considered aryans. This is a mind*ery by the British to rule over India which Hitler and the Nazis took over to propagate their political agenda. Nowadays, a lot of Iranians, Central Asians and Punjabis especially abroad believe in this sh1t and waste their lives away.

 

It also fuels the dravidian movement which is an equally moronic movement. Dravidian simply means peninsula in Sanskrit. It was used to denote those who reside in the Indian peninsula like how we use the term South Indians now. This shows how stupid people are. Why would someone hate an "aryan" language but use it to describe themselves. You can see that most "draviadian" movements are started by telugus who lived in TN. Telugu is the most sanskritized among the "dravidian" languages. They used dravidian because nobody in TN would vote for telugu munntra kazagam. Nor would the "dravidan" masters use tamil munnetra kazagam because they would lose their privilege. I'm not blaming the telugus living in AP nor the normal ones living in TN just for the record. I'm blaming the political SOBs

 

Genetically speaking there is not much difference between ANI and ASI. Most Indians would come under the R1a y-dna which is also a predominantly a South Asian DNA. That means most of the males in South Asia didn't come from cntral asia or caucusus mountians. In fact most of central asia was colder than now in the last ice age. It is probable that people from north India and Iran may have travelled there. Europe has R1b and R1a. They have more diversity that Indians. These genes dont make them white or brown. They are just genes. They affect phenotypes though. That is the reason even the darkest Indian is considered caucasian not mongoloid or negroid.

 

Most of the Tamil Kings had Varman in their name. Does it mean they are Aryan Tamil martial art is called varmam so is the mallu one. Varma was a martial caste in North India I think. Are people with Varma last name dravidian. See how stupid this is. Rajaraja Chola's original name is Arulmozhivarman. There are names of vedic gods such as Indra in Tamil epics. Agastya one of the vedic sages is the father of Tamil language and the compiler of the first tamil grammar called Agattiyam. SI languages are different from NI languages but there is no racial difference. I see alam dar taking a leaf out of the british playbook and getting pwned royally

[Alam_dar]

59 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

... It is probable that people from north India and Iran may have travelled there. Europe has R1b and R1a. They have more diversity that Indians ...

I see alam dar taking a leaf out of the british playbook and getting pwned royally

I would again say: Let us agree to disagree.

 

For me, after this latest research, no doubt has been left about the huge migration of Aryan race into India (and not opposite as has been fiercely claimed here) some 4000 years ago. Here came the Vedic religion (which is my main Interest). 

 

All the opponents of this recent study are doing is this to come up with assumption, without any solid proof. They have to come up with counter studies if they want to reject it, and not the assumptions. 

 

I presented only few points from this study. You have read it in full, or at least read the full conclusion of this study here (link), otherwise you are going to come up again and again with the same assumptions which have already been dealt in it. 

 

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way.

The paper that put all of the recent discoveries together into a tight and coherent history of migrations into India was published just three months ago in a peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’. In that paper, titled “A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals”, 16 scientists led by Prof. Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, U.K., concluded: “Genetic influx from Central Asia in the Bronze Age was strongly male-driven, consistent with the patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social structure attributed to the inferred pastoralist early Indo-European society. This was part of a much wider process of Indo-European expansion, with an ultimate source in the Pontic-Caspian region, which carried closely related Y-chromosome lineages… across a vast swathe of Eurasia between 5,000 and 3,500 years ago”.

In an email exchange, Prof. Richards said the prevalence of R1a in India was “very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India.” The robust conclusions of Professor Richards and his team rest on their own substantive research as well as a vast trove of new data and findings that have become available in recent years, through the work of genetic scientists around the world.

 

Peter Underhill, scientist at the Department of Genetics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, is one of those at the centre of the action. Three years ago, a team of 32 scientists he led published a massive study mapping the distribution and linkages of R1a. It used a panel of 16,244 male subjects from 126 populations across Eurasia. Dr. Underhill’s research found that R1a had two sub-haplogroups, one found primarily in Europe and the other confined to Central and South Asia. Ninety-six per cent of the R1a samples in Europe belonged to sub-haplogroup Z282, while 98.4% of the Central and South Asian R1a lineages belonged to sub-haplogroup Z93. The two groups diverged from each other only about 5,800 years ago. Dr. Underhill’s research showed that within the Z93 that is predominant in India, there is a further splintering into multiple branches. The paper found this “star-like branching” indicative of rapid growth and dispersal. So if you want to know the approximate period when Indo-European language speakers came and rapidly spread across India, you need to discover the date when Z93 splintered into its own various subgroups or lineages. We will come back to this later.

So in a nutshell: R1a is distributed all over Europe, Central Asia and South Asia; its sub-group Z282 is distributed only in Europe while another subgroup Z93 is distributed only in parts of Central Asia and South Asia; and three major subgroups of Z93 are distributed only in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Himalayas. This clear picture of the distribution of R1a has finally put paid to an earlier hypothesis that this haplogroup perhaps originated in India and then spread outwards. This hypothesis was based on the erroneous assumption that R1a lineages in India had huge diversity compared to other regions, which could be indicative of its origin here. As Prof. Richards puts it, “the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” thanks to the arrival of large numbers of genomic Y-chromosome data.

 

Gene-dating the migration

Now that we know that there WAS indeed a significant inflow of genes from Central Asia into India in the Bronze Age, can we get a better fix on the timing, especially the splintering of Z93 into its own sub-lineages? Yes, we can; the research paper that answers this question was published just last year, in April 2016, titled: “Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences.” This paper, which looked at major expansions of Y-DNA haplogroups within five continental populations, was lead-authored by David Poznik of the Stanford University, with Dr. Underhill as one of the 42 co-authors. The study found “the most striking expansions within Z93 occurring approximately 4,000 to 4,500 years ago”. This is remarkable, because roughly 4,000 years ago is when the Indus Valley civilization began falling apart. (There is no evidence so far, archaeologically or otherwise, to suggest that one caused the other; it is quite possible that the two events happened to coincide.)

The avalanche of new data has been so overwhelming that many scientists who were either sceptical or neutral about significant Bronze Age migrations into India have changed their opinions. Dr. Underhill himself is one of them. In a 2010 paper, for example, he had written that there was evidence “against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India” in the last five or six millennia. Today, Dr. Underhill says there is no comparison between the kind of data available in 2010 and now. “Then, it was like looking into a darkened room from the outside through a keyhole with a little torch in hand; you could see some corners but not all, and not the whole picture. With whole genome sequencing, we can now see nearly the entire room, in clearer light.”

Dr. Underhill is not the only one whose older work has been used to argue against Bronze Age migrations by Indo-European language speakers into India. David Reich, geneticist and professor in the Department of Genetics at the Harvard Medical School, is another one, even though he was very cautious in his older papers. The best example is a study lead-authored by Reich in 2009, titled “Reconstructing Indian Population History” and published in Nature. This study used the theoretical construct of “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI) and “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) to discover the genetic substructure of the Indian population. The study proved that ANI are “genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans”, while the ASI were unique to India. The study also proved that most groups in India today can be approximated as a mixture of these two populations, with the ANI ancestry higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. By itself, the study didn’t disprove the arrival of Indo-European language speakers; if anything, it suggested the opposite, by pointing to the genetic linkage of ANI to Central Asians ...

 

So far, we have only looked at the migrations of Indo-European language speakers because that has been the most debated and argued about historical event. But one must not lose the bigger picture: R1a lineages form only about 17.5 % of Indian male lineage, and an even smaller percentage of the female lineage. The vast majority of Indians owe their ancestry mostly to people from other migrations, starting with the original Out of Africa migrations of around 55,000 to 65,000 years ago, or the farming-related migrations from West Asia that probably occurred in multiple waves after 10,000 B.C., or the migrations of Austro-Asiatic speakers such as the Munda from East Asia the dating of which is yet to determined, and the migrations of Tibeto-Burman speakers such as the Garo again from east Asia, the dating of which is also yet to be determined.

What is abundantly clear is that we are a multi-source civilization, not a single-source one, drawing its cultural impulses, its tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. The Out of Africa immigrants, the pioneering, fearless explorers who discovered this land originally and settled in it and whose lineages still form the bedrock of our population; those who arrived later with a package of farming techniques and built the Indus Valley civilization whose cultural ideas and practices perhaps enrich much of our traditions today; those who arrived from East Asia, probably bringing with them the practice of rice cultivation and all that goes with it; those who came later with a language called Sanskrit and its associated beliefs and practices and reshaped our society in fundamental ways; and those who came even later for trade or for conquest and chose to stay, all have mingled and contributed to this civilization we call Indian. We are all migrants.

 

////

I wonder, how in the presence of these recent solid proofs, still people could claim that migration took place in the opposite direction i.e. from India to central Asia. 

Ok, you are free to believe whatever you want, but at least let give this right to the others too then. 

[mishra]

[mishra]

^ I think there was some tribe in Gujrat which was found to be exact match of some tribe in Africa. Humans have walked a long way in history.

 

Even now you hear occasional news of Tharaki Homo Sapiens are breeding with Goat right in our neighbourhood. I am sure that both Erecus and Neanderthal gene exist in modern human

Edited August 13, 2019 by mishra

[Epic]

2 hours ago, mishra said:

^ I think there was some tribe in Gujrat which was found to be exact match of some tribe in Africa. Humans have walked a long way in history.

 

Even now you hear occasional news of Tharaki Homo Sapiens are breeding with Goat right in our neighbourhood. I am sure that both Erecus and Neanderthal gene exist in modern human

I recall watching some documentary in which it described an entire village/tribe in Tamil Nadu has same DNA marker type as that of the oldest in Africa. I'll have to look for it again.

 

Here's another video stating the Cameroons actually speak a form of Tamil and find the similarities between the languages.

 

 

"Proud to be Tamil"

[Epic]

Ok found it, it's actually by BBC :P but still can't disregard the earliest migration DNA marker found in a village in Tamil Nadu

 

 

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I would again say: Let us agree to disagree.

 

For me, after this latest research, no doubt has been left about the huge migration of Aryan race into India (and not opposite as has been fiercely claimed here) some 4000 years ago. Here came the Vedic religion (which is my main Interest). 

 

All the opponents of this recent study are doing is this to come up with assumption, without any solid proof. They have to come up with counter studies if they want to reject it, and not the assumptions. 

Here's a rebuttal to the solid proof that you seem to claim.

 

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19265947.ece

 

With genetic data currently available, it is difficult to deduce the direction of migration either into India or out of India during the Bronze Age

This conclusion was mainly based on the results obtained from the paternally inherited markers (Y chromosome), published on March 23, 2017 in a scientific journal, BMC Evolutionary Biology, by a team of 16 co-authors including Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, which compiled and analysed Y chromosome data mainly from the targeted South Asian populations living in the U.K. and U.S. However, anyone who understands the complexity of Indian population will appreciate that Indians living outside the Subcontinent do not reflect the full diversity of India, as the majority of them are from caste populations with limited subset of regions.

 

Marina Silva/Richards et al. argued that the maternal ancestry (mtDNA) of the Subcontinent is largely indigenous, whereas 17.5% of the paternal ancestry (Y chromosome) is associated with the haplogroup R1a, an indication of the arrival of Bronze Age Indo-European speakers. However, India is a nation of close to 4,700 ethnic populations, including socially stratified communities, many of which have maintained endogamy (marrying within the community) for thousands of years, and these have been hardly sampled in the Y chromosome analysis led by Silva et al., and so do not provide an accurate characterisation of the R1a frequencies in India (several tribal populations carry substantial frequency of haplogroup R1a).

 

Quote

I presented only few points from this study. You have read it in full, or at least read the full conclusion of this study here (link), otherwise you are going to come up again and again with the same assumptions which have already been dealt in it. 

 

The reason for the difference in mtDNA and Y-DNA data is obvious in hindsight: there was strong sex bias in Bronze Age migrations. In other words, those who migrated were predominantly male and, therefore, those gene flows do not really show up in the mtDNA data. On the other hand, they do show up in the Y-DNA data: specifically, about 17.5% of Indian male lineage has been found to belong to haplogroup R1a (haplogroups identify a single line of descent), which is today spread across Central Asia, Europe and South Asia. Pontic-Caspian Steppe is seen as the region from where R1a spread both west and east, splitting into different sub-branches along the way.

The paper that put all of the recent discoveries together into a tight and coherent history of migrations into India was published just three months ago in a peer-reviewed journal called ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’. In that paper, titled “A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals”, 16 scientists led by Prof. Martin P. Richards of the University of Huddersfield, U.K., concluded: “Genetic influx from Central Asia in the Bronze Age was strongly male-driven, consistent with the patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social structure attributed to the inferred pastoralist early Indo-European society. This was part of a much wider process of Indo-European expansion, with an ultimate source in the Pontic-Caspian region, which carried closely related Y-chromosome lineages… across a vast swathe of Eurasia between 5,000 and 3,500 years ago”.

In an email exchange, Prof. Richards said the prevalence of R1a in India was “very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India.” The robust conclusions of Professor Richards and his team rest on their own substantive research as well as a vast trove of new data and findings that have become available in recent years, through the work of genetic scientists around the world.

 

Peter Underhill, scientist at the Department of Genetics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, is one of those at the centre of the action. Three years ago, a team of 32 scientists he led published a massive study mapping the distribution and linkages of R1a. It used a panel of 16,244 male subjects from 126 populations across Eurasia. Dr. Underhill’s research found that R1a had two sub-haplogroups, one found primarily in Europe and the other confined to Central and South Asia. Ninety-six per cent of the R1a samples in Europe belonged to sub-haplogroup Z282, while 98.4% of the Central and South Asian R1a lineages belonged to sub-haplogroup Z93. The two groups diverged from each other only about 5,800 years ago. Dr. Underhill’s research showed that within the Z93 that is predominant in India, there is a further splintering into multiple branches. The paper found this “star-like branching” indicative of rapid growth and dispersal. So if you want to know the approximate period when Indo-European language speakers came and rapidly spread across India, you need to discover the date when Z93 splintered into its own various subgroups or lineages. We will come back to this later.

So in a nutshell: R1a is distributed all over Europe, Central Asia and South Asia; its sub-group Z282 is distributed only in Europe while another subgroup Z93 is distributed only in parts of Central Asia and South Asia; and three major subgroups of Z93 are distributed only in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Himalayas. This clear picture of the distribution of R1a has finally put paid to an earlier hypothesis that this haplogroup perhaps originated in India and then spread outwards. This hypothesis was based on the erroneous assumption that R1a lineages in India had huge diversity compared to other regions, which could be indicative of its origin here. As Prof. Richards puts it, “the idea that R1a is very diverse in India, which was largely based on fuzzy microsatellite data, has been laid to rest” thanks to the arrival of large numbers of genomic Y-chromosome data.

All they got to say about the rebuttal about gene-diversity (given the data to back the evidence) is "fuzzy microsatellite data".

They took 16000 samples only, and came up with a wonderful theory. There is enough argument on the source of the samples not being diverse enough. So, they have collected data to fit their theory. This research is being rebutted by genealogists, not just cut and paste google specialists like you and me.  Read this one  mo time:

 

Equally important to understand is that the Y chromosome phylogeny suffered genetic drift (lineage loss), and thus there is a greater chance to lose less frequent R1a branches, if one concentrates only on specific populations, keeping in mind the high level of endogamy of the Subcontinent. These are extremely important factors one should consider before making any strong conclusions related to Indian populations. The statement made by Silva et al. that 17.5% of Indians carry R1a haplogroup actually means that 17.5% of the samples analysed by them (those who live in U.K. and U.S.) carry R1a, not that 17.5% of Indians carry R1a!

 

 

Quote

Gene-dating the migration

Now that we know that there WAS indeed a significant inflow of genes from Central Asia into India in the Bronze Age, can we get a better fix on the timing, especially the splintering of Z93 into its own sub-lineages? Yes, we can; the research paper that answers this question was published just last year, in April 2016, titled: “Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences.” This paper, which looked at major expansions of Y-DNA haplogroups within five continental populations, was lead-authored by David Poznik of the Stanford University, with Dr. Underhill as one of the 42 co-authors. The study found “the most striking expansions within Z93 occurring approximately 4,000 to 4,500 years ago”. This is remarkable, because roughly 4,000 years ago is when the Indus Valley civilization began falling apart. (There is no evidence so far, archaeologically or otherwise, to suggest that one caused the other; it is quite possible that the two events happened to coincide.)

The avalanche of new data has been so overwhelming that many scientists who were either sceptical or neutral about significant Bronze Age migrations into India have changed their opinions. Dr. Underhill himself is one of them. In a 2010 paper, for example, he had written that there was evidence “against substantial patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, including to India” in the last five or six millennia. Today, Dr. Underhill says there is no comparison between the kind of data available in 2010 and now. “Then, it was like looking into a darkened room from the outside through a keyhole with a little torch in hand; you could see some corners but not all, and not the whole picture. With whole genome sequencing, we can now see nearly the entire room, in clearer light.”

Dr. Underhill is not the only one whose older work has been used to argue against Bronze Age migrations by Indo-European language speakers into India. David Reich, geneticist and professor in the Department of Genetics at the Harvard Medical School, is another one, even though he was very cautious in his older papers. The best example is a study lead-authored by Reich in 2009, titled “Reconstructing Indian Population History” and published in Nature. This study used the theoretical construct of “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI) and “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) to discover the genetic substructure of the Indian population. The study proved that ANI are “genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans”, while the ASI were unique to India. The study also proved that most groups in India today can be approximated as a mixture of these two populations, with the ANI ancestry higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. By itself, the study didn’t disprove the arrival of Indo-European language speakers; if anything, it suggested the opposite, by pointing to the genetic linkage of ANI to Central Asians ...

Connecting DNA/Gene theories to linguistics is new emerging science. It is too early to assume theories of migration based on just genealogy. There is NO SUCH THING AS A English/German/Sanskrit speaking DNA. Based on the gene analysis and mapping it to what language they speak is like playing darts. You don't get bullseye everytime. It needs years of research and data collection. Besides these are modern DNAs they are collecting and checking their DNA imprint of generations of lineage and coming up with a migration pattern has got to be a theory rather than conclusive evidence.

 

Also, the article says:

 

Indian genetic affinity with Europeans is not new information. In a study published in Nature (2009; 461:489-494), scientists from CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, and Harvard Medical School (HMS), U.S., using more than 5,00,000 autosomal genetic markers, showed that the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) share genetic affinities with Europeans, Caucasians and West Asians. However, there is a huge difference between this study and the study published by Silva et al., as the study by CSIR-CCMB and HMS included samples representing all the social and linguistic groups of India. It was evident from the same Nature paper that when the Gujarati Indians in Houston (GIH) were analysed for genetic affinities with different ethnic populations of India, it was found that the GIH have formed two clusters in Principal Component Analysis (PCA), one with Indian populations, another an independent cluster. Similarly, a recent study (‘Neurology Genetics’, 2017; 3:3, e149) by Robert D.S. Pitceathly and colleagues from University College of London and CSIR-CCMB has analysed 74 patients with neuromuscular diseases (of mitochondrial origin) living in the U.K. and found a mutation in RNASEH1 gene in three families of Indian origin. However, this mutation was absent in Indian patients with neuromuscular diseases (of mitochondrial origin). This mutation was earlier reported in Europeans, suggesting that these three families might have mixed with the local Europeans; highlighting the importance of the source of samples.

 

Quote

So far, we have only looked at the migrations of Indo-European language speakers because that has been the most debated and argued about historical event. But one must not lose the bigger picture: R1a lineages form only about 17.5 % of Indian male lineage, and an even smaller percentage of the female lineage. The vast majority of Indians owe their ancestry mostly to people from other migrations, starting with the original Out of Africa migrations of around 55,000 to 65,000 years ago, or the farming-related migrations from West Asia that probably occurred in multiple waves after 10,000 B.C., or the migrations of Austro-Asiatic speakers such as the Munda from East Asia the dating of which is yet to determined, and the migrations of Tibeto-Burman speakers such as the Garo again from east Asia, the dating of which is also yet to be determined.

What is abundantly clear is that we are a multi-source civilization, not a single-source one, drawing its cultural impulses, its tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. The Out of Africa immigrants, the pioneering, fearless explorers who discovered this land originally and settled in it and whose lineages still form the bedrock of our population; those who arrived later with a package of farming techniques and built the Indus Valley civilization whose cultural ideas and practices perhaps enrich much of our traditions today; those who arrived from East Asia, probably bringing with them the practice of rice cultivation and all that goes with it; those who came later with a language called Sanskrit and its associated beliefs and practices and reshaped our society in fundamental ways; and those who came even later for trade or for conquest and chose to stay, all have mingled and contributed to this civilization we call Indian. We are all migrants.

 

Quote

////

I wonder, how in the presence of these recent solid proofs, still people could claim that migration took place in the opposite direction i.e. from India to central Asia. 

Ok, you are free to believe whatever you want, but at least let give this right to the others too then. 

So, you should read what you cut and paste, sometimes. Yes, we are all migrants. It doesn't mean there is a clear path of migration that can be established based on one theory. IT ALSO MEANS THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ARYAN DNA. There is no race in DNA. All are part of one common Homo Sapien human Race and there is DNA strains of lineages that can be established for a few 1000 years and not 10s of thousands! and there is gene mutation to defend diseases that are specific to a region.

 

If you provide one theory, it can be rebutted in many ways in science. We need empirical data and diverse samples of data to prove the theory.  I can form a school of thought and form a scientific society of scholars, come up with a theory based on a selection of data that is convenient to your theory and have it reviewed by your mates in your society and claim it to be evidence for Aryan Migration theory.  Peer-reviewed is nothing but an old boys' club. The Aryan Invasion theory is also a peer-reviewed scholarly analysis of lingusitics with common origin of words. What a farce it became leading to two WORLD WARS! Now, it has lead to a PIE language, whose homeland is still under debate. AIT has morphed into AMT (Aryan Migration Theory) trying to prove the the same thing  that Indians came from Europeans. THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THAT this region came up with a far modern civilization than the barbaric civilization that the west came from. 

 

In the absence of a clear scientific evidence for AMT (the modern version of AIT), we need to go by archaeological and linguistic evidence. We know how the Linguists bungled up with AIT trying find the first language. PIE is also a mapped language based on origin and metamorphisis of words based on again "Migration" of people. What does Archaeology say:

 

1. If Aryans indeed came from Central Asia, there should be some artifacts discovered that they got to connect them to artifacts in their homeland. There is no such thing collected in Indus Saraswathi Valley Civilization (ISVC) . Horse and CHariot theories have been proven to be false, with new evidence discovered in the region. There have been horses and chariots discovered that predates the AIT.

 

2. There have been artifacts found in EU/Central Asia that dates back to ISVC proving OIT very much as a archaeological evidence. There is a region in Serbia who believe they are descendants from India and follow vedic culture/chants etc. There is a Dravidian language in modern Pasthun area that can be dated to as early as CE, proving dravidians were not pushed dow by aryans. 

 

2. The river names in any region has not been changed, despite migration/invasions. In USA, river names are still called by their original river names - Missisippi, Missouri, Niagara and even in Europe - Seine, Danube are all original names of rivers named by the original inhabitants. If Aryans came from Central Asia and wrore the Vedas, they have called the rivers SapthaSindhu and named it exactly in the order from East to West in RigVeda.  There is no mention of any original geogrphical reference in RigVeda which mentions a far-away land that they hailed from, all geography mentioned in the vedas is in this region only!

 

3. Modern Hindu rituals and caste system was not invented by Aryans. There is no evidence for that as you keep harping about. Vedas and Upanishads are the "Shruthi" which has not been changed. They form the very essence of Sanatan Dharma. Smritis are written for the times they live in and the chaturvarna or jaathi is based on the occupation as it iwas intended. It has been spoiled an corrupted when it became by part of birth. But the very modern caste system and the order of hierarchy has definitely been forced by the British when they did the first  census in the 18th century and there is enough evidence to prove it was not as strict in the vedic times. 

 

Well, we can agree to disagree, keep your beliefs to yourself and try not to say there is strong evidence to prove your theories. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by coffee_rules

[sandeep]

21 hours ago, Reddysaab said:

educate yourself buddy

Reddy "saab", google R1A1 haplogroup, and come back and explain why this is prevalent in indian population both north and south.  

 

I'll wait. 

[Epic]

If you guys are really interested in your DNA genetic makeup, you can get kits from amazon like 23andme.  You get the raw data and feed it into various sites. 

[Alam_dar]

@Shaz1

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Here's a rebuttal to the solid proof that you seem to claim.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19265947.ece

Thank you for posting it. Your contribution/criticism is most welcome. 

 

I read this whole article. And my is this that it is not a study, but only a criticism by the writer on the original study. The main criticism is this that sample Data is not so much accurate. The writer is only trying to cast the doubts. 

 

As I reading this criticism, immediately I felt the problem with this criticism i.e. even if we consider the margin of error in this data, still facts are not going to change much. From 17%, it may come to 15% or even 12-10%, still facts will not change. Another Reason is this that opposite of this (i.e.Out of India) is absolutely not supported from the results of this study. 

 

Later I realised that I don't even have to answer it, while this same article (which you posted) has given the answer to it just under this criticism. It is strange that you missed it

 

The answer is (link):

 

Tony Joseph responds:

There is a technical point in suggesting that the South Asian populations included in the “1000 Genomes Project” under-represent the complete genomic diversity of the Subcontinent and, therefore, the 17.5 % R1a frequency the ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’ study arrived at may not be precise.

That a sample under-represents the complete genomic diversity of India could be said of virtually any study whatsoever, including the studies that the authors of the rejoinder have done. The point about the Marina Silva/Martin P. Richards et al. study is that its conclusions about the chronology of multiple migrations into South Asia are not dependent upon the precise percentage of R1a population — they remain robust whether the R1a percentage is 12.5 % or 17.5% or 22.5 %. The precision of the percentage or the impugned under-representation would have been an issue if the study were to make detailed conclusions about, say, how the Bronze Age migrations spread across different regions in India. Since it is not doing that, under-representation ceases to be a material issue.

In an email to me on May 29, weeks before my article was published, this is what Prof. Richards said about the sample: “It’s true that some of the 1000 Genomes Project (1KGP) sequences that we analysed for genome-wide and Y-chromosome data were sampled from Indians in the U.K. and U.S., and lack tribal groups, which might well be an issue for a detailed regional study of the subcontinent (our mtDNA database was much larger). But we are simply looking at the big picture across the region (what was the role of Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement, primarily) and the signals we describe across the five 1KGP sample sets are clear and consistent and also fit well with the lower-resolution data that has been collected in the past (e.g. for R1a distributions). By putting everything together, we feel the sketch of the big picture that we propose is very well supported, even though there will certainly be a huge amount of further analysis needed to work through the regional details.”

The second argument that the rejoinder makes, as summed up in its last paragraph, is that ‘Out of India’ is a possible explanation for the genetic spread that we observe. This is helpful insofar as it accepts that the genetic spread that we observe does need an explanation. But the problem with proposing ‘Out of India’ as that explanation is the following: it is not as if the ‘Out of India’ hypothesis is new; it has been around for decades. But the rejoinder makes no reference to a single peer-reviewed genetic study that makes a serious case for ‘Out of India’.

If the hypothesis (of Out of India) were tenable at all, shouldn’t there have been many peer-reviewed papers by now making the case and fleshing out the details?

//

 

For me it is enough evidence and I agree with the author of the study that results are not going to change the bigger picture. 

 

If you are still not convinced, then in name of margin of error,  you could wait till bigger study results come which include the tribes too. 

[Reddysaab]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Reddy "saab", google R1A1 haplogroup, and come back and explain why this is prevalent in indian population both north and south.  

 

I'll wait. 

hello brother. u did not read my post carefully.

 

"aryans" are very much there in south india speaking dravidian languages. the upper castes ( varnas) - brahmin, kshatriya, vysyas,  in south india have mostly aryan blood. 

[Alam_dar]

7 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

Wait why was I mentioned for this?

Sorry, my mistake. 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

@Shaz1

Thank you for posting it. Your contribution/criticism is most welcome. 

 

I read this whole article. And my is this that it is not a study, but only a criticism by the writer on the original study. The main criticism is this that sample Data is not so much accurate. The writer is only trying to cast the doubts. 

 

As I reading this criticism, immediately I felt the problem with this criticism i.e. even if we consider the margin of error in this data, still facts are not going to change much. From 17%, it may come to 15% or even 12-10%, still facts will not change. Another Reason is this that opposite of this (i.e.Out of India) is absolutely not supported from the results of this study. 

 

Later I realised that I don't even have to answer it, while this same article (which you posted) has given the answer to it just under this criticism. It is strange that you missed it

 

The answer is (link):

 

Tony Joseph responds:

There is a technical point in suggesting that the South Asian populations included in the “1000 Genomes Project” under-represent the complete genomic diversity of the Subcontinent and, therefore, the 17.5 % R1a frequency the ‘BMC Evolutionary Biology’ study arrived at may not be precise.

That a sample under-represents the complete genomic diversity of India could be said of virtually any study whatsoever, including the studies that the authors of the rejoinder have done. The point about the Marina Silva/Martin P. Richards et al. study is that its conclusions about the chronology of multiple migrations into South Asia are not dependent upon the precise percentage of R1a population — they remain robust whether the R1a percentage is 12.5 % or 17.5% or 22.5 %. The precision of the percentage or the impugned under-representation would have been an issue if the study were to make detailed conclusions about, say, how the Bronze Age migrations spread across different regions in India. Since it is not doing that, under-representation ceases to be a material issue.

In an email to me on May 29, weeks before my article was published, this is what Prof. Richards said about the sample: “It’s true that some of the 1000 Genomes Project (1KGP) sequences that we analysed for genome-wide and Y-chromosome data were sampled from Indians in the U.K. and U.S., and lack tribal groups, which might well be an issue for a detailed regional study of the subcontinent (our mtDNA database was much larger). But we are simply looking at the big picture across the region (what was the role of Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement, primarily) and the signals we describe across the five 1KGP sample sets are clear and consistent and also fit well with the lower-resolution data that has been collected in the past (e.g. for R1a distributions). By putting everything together, we feel the sketch of the big picture that we propose is very well supported, even though there will certainly be a huge amount of further analysis needed to work through the regional details.”

The second argument that the rejoinder makes, as summed up in its last paragraph, is that ‘Out of India’ is a possible explanation for the genetic spread that we observe. This is helpful insofar as it accepts that the genetic spread that we observe does need an explanation. But the problem with proposing ‘Out of India’ as that explanation is the following: it is not as if the ‘Out of India’ hypothesis is new; it has been around for decades. But the rejoinder makes no reference to a single peer-reviewed genetic study that makes a serious case for ‘Out of India’.

If the hypothesis (of Out of India) were tenable at all, shouldn’t there have been many peer-reviewed papers by now making the case and fleshing out the details?

//

 

For me it is enough evidence and I agree with the author of the study that results are not going to change the bigger picture. 

 

If you are still not convinced, then in name of margin of error,  you could wait till bigger study results come which include the tribes too. 

This proves nothing but the genome study shows migration theories are mere theries and not proof for AMT. You don't have anything to say about the archaeological evidences found, where there are none to prove AMT, there have been many evidences for OIT. This only proves that the reasearch is bogus. A better sample data provided in this research:

 

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetics-proves-indian-population-mixture

 

“The fact that every population in India evolved from randomly mixed populations suggests that social classifications like the caste system are not likely to have existed in the same way before the mixture,” said co–senior author Lalji Singh, currently of Banaras Hindu University, in Varanasi, India, and formerly of the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology. “Thus, the present-day structure of the caste system came into being only relatively recently in Indian history.”*

But once established, the caste system became genetically effective, the researchers observed. Mixture across groups became very rare.

“An important consequence of these results is that the high incidence of genetic and population-specific diseases that is characteristic of present-day India is likely to have increased only in the last few thousand years when groups in India started following strict endogamous marriage,” said co–first author Kumarasamy Thangaraj, of the CSIR-Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India.**

Mohan Rao, Director, CSIR-CCMB said, “CCMB's continuing efforts over a decade on this field had helped in understanding the complexity of Indian population history and social structure, such as caste systems.”