No matter what branch of the science they use, whether archaeology, scriptural, linguistics or genetics, there are two sides standing opposite of each other to prove Aryan migration or no migration using the same data. They just have to either misinterpret, distort or fake the extant proofs Why so? And what could be the truth?
Indo-Aryan migration theory proponents were the westerners those wanted to pull back their history to remote past in an order to prove the whites were superior to the human races. Since the Aryan term came forth from Rig Veda, they had to add Vedics also in the Aryan fold to make out their theory. Horses and Chariots became the centre of their fancy as Rig Vedic Aryans rode chariots driven by the domesticated horses, they were fair, tall, blue eyed and with golden hair and were made heroes out of the fancied illusions of a superior race!
The theory of Aryan origin has taken so much so turns and twists that it is highly difficult to understand its course. When Aryan Race Theory got defamed, thanks to Hitler, they came forth with linguistic theory supported by archaeology. The main attention was focused on the horse-chariot burials. It was utterly forgotten that though Vedic Aryans performed horse sacrifices it was not their custom to bury the dead men with horses and chariots. The people of ancient times roaming in the territories of Pontiac Stepps and nearby areas used domesticated horses because they were still pastoralists and horses available in these regions.
The horses make no tribe superior in warfare and language. Still, the horse-chariot issue and the burials became a significant basis for drawing the migration maps for IE proponents. They forgot that the technologies do spread in many ways including religious concepts. There is no necessary need for physical migration of the people. Vedic religion finds no parallel in the so-called IE world except for Avesta. Elsewhere we do not find so much so affinity in linguistic and religious similarity. They had migrated to India, yes, but their number was too small to cause any genetic impact on the huge populations here.
IE language group is not caused by demographic migrations. It has no biological connection as suggested by Talageri. Genetics does not confirm the language spoken by the people. Genetical proofs do not indicate the migrations but show the affinity with the geological and geographical features wherever so-called IE languages are spoken. The regional markers do derive from the geological features of the land where human beings lived for generations. The geology and mineral distribution of the landmass decide the general psychology and languages of the people. Rather human genetics is influenced by these physical factors and none else.
ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians) DNA variation belongs to the geological construction of both regions. They vary in a great degree. You may refer to geological reports and can see clearly what demarcates ANI and ASI. The same thing applies to the South Asia and most of Europe where we find the whole land mass have similar geological features and hence the languages spoken in these regions find some or other general similarities or affinity. The similarities in the mix of DNA elements like R1a and others in varied percentage is most likely is owed to the geological and geographical factors. It does not prove the migrations but the degree of impact of the geological factors on the DNA. Rather R1a Haplogroup is not the migration marker but is a geographical marker that is influenced by the geology of the region the person in question lived.
ANI (Ancestral North Indians) and ASI (Ancestral South Indians) DNA variation belongs to the geological construction of both regions. They vary in a great degree. You may refer to geological reports and can see clearly what demarcates ANI and ASI. The same thing applies to the South Asia and most of Europe where we find the whole land mass have similar geological features and hence the languages spoken in these regions find some or other general similarities or affinity. The similarities in the mix of DNA elements like R1a and others in varied percentage is most likely is owed to the geological and geographical factors. It does not prove the migrations but the degree of impact of the geological factors on the DNA. Rather R1a Haplogroup is not the migration marker but is a geographical marker that is influenced by the geology of the region the person in question lived.
Indus civilisation had trade connections with the Semitics from for at the least 1500 years. Through the vast course of the time, North-Western Indians and Iraqi people’s DNA too should find some affinities to count on. But the geneticists are silent on this part. Indians have traveled for the trade not only taking sea route but the land route that courses through Iran. The men must have come in the intimate contacts with the women of society delving in the en route regions in question. The DNA results would be stronger to suggest an Indo-Semitic connection but it is not yet looked for!
However, the linguists like Graziadio Ascoli was first to scientifically advocate this relationship in 1943 though it was proposed first by Richard Lepsius in 1836! However, this discussion was limited to the relationship between Semitic and Indo-European languages. The similarities are not negligible. However, the supremacist European scholars kept on their research limited to find the original homeland of the mysterious Indo-Europeans and their movements in different parts of the globe. However, R1a is not traceable in the Semitic populations. Their geology is quite different!
However, the linguists like Graziadio Ascoli was first to scientifically advocate this relationship in 1943 though it was proposed first by Richard Lepsius in 1836! However, this discussion was limited to the relationship between Semitic and Indo-European languages. The similarities are not negligible. However, the supremacist European scholars kept on their research limited to find the original homeland of the mysterious Indo-Europeans and their movements in different parts of the globe. However, R1a is not traceable in the Semitic populations. Their geology is quite different!
The haplogroup was first identified in the 24000-year-old remains of so-called Malta boy from Altai region. It is assumed that R1a probably branched from R1* after last glacial maximum. Geneticists assume that place of the origin of R1a is Central Asia and Southern Russia and from there they migrated to Europe and elsewhere. Based on this insignificant raw material various scholars have used genetical data to assume the periods when the migrations took place.
It also is claimed that the European Neolithic farmers genome miss the R1a in the European autosmal admixture. Hence it is claimed that R1a did not come to Europe with Neolithic farmers only propagated from Eastern Europe. However, the fact that geneticists admit is that modern Sardinians also lack this admixture! Did they check geological features of Sardinia?
Ancient DNA testing has confirmed the presence of haplogroup R1a1a in samples from the Corded Ware culture in Germany (2600 BCE), from Tocharian mummies (2000 BCE) in Northwest China, from Kurgan burials (circa 1600 BCE) from the Andronovo culture in southern Russia and southern Siberia, as well as from a variety of Iron-age sites from Russia, Siberia, Mongolia and Central Asia. New found skeletal remains also have been examined.
Now, the billion dollar question is, the Indo-European migrators that possessed R1a could migrate to the difficult terrains of Europe and North India, but why they did not migrate, even in small branches, to North Africa and South India? What prohibited their journey to these lands that could influence their superior language and culture over the local populace?
Why there is no Indo-Semitic haplotype has been traced so far when all probabilities there was relationship over the millenniums between the Indians and the North Africans and interaction of Central Asian populations with both as well?
I think, the genetics too, like linguistics has been misused. Both the parties to the debate, i.e. indigenous Aryan Theory proponents and Aryan Migration Theorists are misusing the data and using the same to make out their rustic theories. I have proposed first time the relationship between geology and the language. I am sure and will prove that there is corelationship between certain percentages of genetic markers and the local geology and geography. Geology of the regions does impact the chemistry of the human body (and genetic structures) living for generations moulding their psychology and so the material expressions through language and culture. The overall geology of Eurasia is a single plate though is filled up with different geological features those mark the individual linguistic boundaries as well though the basic structure remains moreover common to varying degree. There are other factors as well that influence the genetic structures of the people with regions but we will discuss this in great detail in the next installment.
Trying to find caste dynamics from genomic data is a foolish adventure. Trying to prove migrations of the people speaking some hypothetical language too is misleading and is not a good science. Using the same data attempting to prove the Aryans were indigenous is another falsity studded with supremacist approach. The migrations are the fact and will remain a trend in future as well. The M17 distribution or R1a is not a product of the migrations but it is natural development caused by the geological features of the lands people live in.
We haven't been told what was the population of so-called PIE speakers those could subjugate the locals to enable them to enforce their language and culture. We are not told how many so-called Indo-Aryans entered India. Nor it is calculated ever how many migrated out from India from its local stock. It is not considered the formation of R1a or other admixture might have related to some other unknown and yet explicable phenomena. Why Indo-Semitic gene flow is not traceable when in all probability it should form a major genetic structure of the North-Indians and Middle –East populations along with the Iranians and Afghans! But so far it is not a case.
It appears that the racial war fought on academic grounds has reached to the despicable proportions. They misused the linguistics, archaeology and now using the baby science that is called genomics!
-Sanjay Sonawani
Sanjay ji , what you say , that geological conditions are responsible to develop the particular changes in DNA is absurd . DNA can only be added through the sexual relationship between two different people having different DNA structure only . What talageri says " a complete clan started their journey outwards from India . Also there is no significant changes in DNA of India as whole from last thirty thousands of years . So Arian coming to India is fake indeed . The DNA of so called aadivasi and that of brahmin also don't differ a much . So trying to find roots of cast system in genetics is nonsense . You write good sir . Keep it up . Thanks !
ReplyDeleteLiars. Brahmins (70%) DNA is R1A1, while Adhivasi is M or N. Yes, DNA is different. This R1a DNA is 60% match with polish and 40% match with Russian. This data was made available in 2006 as there were 18,000 mtDNA tests done.
DeleteSemen of the man and women carry the bio-chemical specific formation that has influence of the chemistry of their particular geography. Hence geological connection with the genetic marker is obvious that represents the geology.
ReplyDelete