Genetic studies on India

From Dharmapedia Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1999[edit]

Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages[edit]

About a fifth of the human gene pool belongs largely either to Indo-European or Dravidic speaking people inhabiting the Indian peninsula. The ‘Caucasoid share’ in their gene pool is thought to be related predominantly to the Indo-European speakers. A commonly held hypothesis, albeit not the only one, suggests a massive Indo-Aryan invasion to India some 4,000 years ago [1] . Recent limited analysis of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Indian populations has been interpreted as supporting this concept [2,3] . Here, this interpretation is questioned. We found an extensive 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 is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia [4–8] and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe. Only a small fraction of the ‘Caucasoid-specific’ mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture.

The Place of the Indian Mitochondrial DNA Variants in the Global Network of Maternal Lineages and the Peopling of the Old World[edit]

The spectrum of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in India clearly supports the African origin of modern humans. In their deepest branching points Indian mtDNA clusters share common combinations of mutations with clusters specific for eastern and western Eurasian populations. However, their further diversification appears to be specific to India. The sub-clusters of haplogroup U in India and in Europe overlap only at the basis of the multifurcation. Also the structure of Asian dominant haplogroup M in India differs profoundly from that of other Asian populations. Around 10% of Indian mtDNAs are found around a phylogenetically crucial node—R*—which is ancestral to more than 90% of typically European mtDNAs and also to a portion of Asian specific mtDNA lineages such as haplogroups B and F. Coalescence estimates, calculated separately for these three major clusters in India, indicate a major radiation of mtDNA lineages starting approximately 50,000 years ago. The fraction of lineages attributable to a recent influx of maternal genes either from eastern or western Eurasia is below 10%. Furthermore, their spread does not correlate with the spread of the Sanskrit-and Dravidian-based languages in India.

Human evolution: The southern route to Asia[edit]

Todd R.Disotell

Research on human origins has tended to focus on the origins of western Eurasians; only recently have genetic studies examined south and east Asian populations in depth. Recent work suggests that the supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000–4,000 years ago was much less significant than is generally believed.

2000[edit]

An Indian Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond[edit]

A recent African origin of modern humans, although still disputed, is supported now by a majority of genetic studies. To address the question when and where very early diversification(s) of modern humans outside of Africa occurred, we concentrated on the investigation of maternal and paternal lineages of the extant populations of India, south- ern China, Caucasus, Anatolia and Europe. Through the analyses of about 1000 mtDNA genomes and 400 Y chromosomesfrom various locations in India we reached the following conclusions, relevant to the peopling of Europe in particular and of the Old World in general. First, we found that the node of the phylogenetic tree of mtDNA, ancestral to more than 90 per cent of the present-day typically European maternal lineages, is present in India at a relatively highfrequency. Inferred coalescence time of this ancestral node is slightly above 50,000 BP . Second, we found that haplogroup U is the second most abun- dant mtDNA variety in India as it is in Europe. Summing up, we believe that there are now enough reasons not only to question a 'recent Indo-Aryan invasion' into India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a part of the common gene pool ancestral to the diversity of human maternal lineages in Europe. Our results on Y-chromosomal diversity of various Indian populations support an early split between Indian and east of Indian paternal lineages, while on a surface, Indian (Sanskrit as well as Dravidic speak- ers) and European Y-chromosomal lineages are much closer than the corresponding mtDNA variants.

The origins of southern and western Eurasian populations: an mtDNA study[edit]

32 Conclusions 1. Populations inhabiting the Indian peninsula share in maternal descent lineage groups both with western and eastern Eurasian populations. All Indian mtDNA lineages coalesce ultimately to an African-specific lineage group L3. These findings support the scenario of replacement of any pre-existing hominid species in southern Asia by modern humans originating from Africa. 2. Coalescence calculations show that Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M lineages share a ~50,000 year old common ancestor and the gene flow between Mongoloids and Indians thereafter has been very restricted. 3. The maternal link between Indian and West Eurasian populations goes primarily through a share of haplogroup U which is the second most frequent lineage cluster in both regions. Haplogroup U sub-groups in India and western Eurasia are different and date to a common ancestor around 50,000 years ago. 4. The presence in India of two distinct, eastern and western Eurasian specific lineage groups, dating back to late Pleistocene, suggests that there were at least two separate migration events to India roughly 50,000 years ago. The first wave followed probably the southern route and inhabited the Indian sub-continent to extend further to eastern Asia. The second migration, from which most of western Eurasian populations descend from, reached India also during late Pleistocene and admixed with the first one. 5. Less than ten per cent of the extant mtDNA lineages in India can be explained by gene flow from the west during the last 10,000 years. This low percentage suggests that the total impact of Neolithic, Bronze Age and more recent migrations on Indian maternal gene pool has been limited in scale. 6. Both Indian and Trans-Caucasian populations are characterized by generally higher diversity than European populations and their mtDNA pool contains lineages that stand in or derive from the ancestral nodes (R and HV) that are absent or rare in Europe. Thus it is highly suggestive that India, Trans-Caucasus and the regions between them were the birthplace of the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups which are now widely spread throughout Europe.

2003[edit]

The Genetics of Language and Farming Spread in India[edit]

When discussing the genetics of Indian populations,different authors have now and then stressed theenormous complexity of their social systems, per-haps dating back much longer than written evidence.While that is certainly true, it nevertheless seems tous that knowledge accumulated thus far allows usnot only to draw the first reasonably well-supportedconclusions concerning what one may call the basictime-and-space oriented landmarks of the Indianmaternal and paternal lineages, but also to avoid thepitfalls so easily created by an obvious desire 'to tellan exciting tale'. Table 17.4 brings together our cur-rent understanding of the arrival of maternal line-ages to India — as far as it can be deduced from theapproximately 1300 extant mtDNAs analyzed.

The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations[edit]

Two tribal groups from southern India—the Chenchus and Koyas—were analyzed for variation in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the Y chromosome, and one autosomal locus and were compared with six caste groups from different parts of India, as well as with western and central Asians. In mtDNA phylogenetic analyses, the Chenchus and Koyas coalesce at Indian-specific branches of haplogroups M and N that cover populations of different social rank from all over the subcontinent. Coalescence times suggest early late Pleistocene settlement of southern Asia and suggest that there has not been total replacement of these settlers by later migrations. H, L, and R2 are the major Indian Y-chromosomal haplogroups that occur both in castes and in tribal populations and are rarely found outside the subcontinent. 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. Haplotype frequencies of the MX1 locus of chromosome 21 distinguish Koyas and Chenchus, along with Indian caste groups, from European and eastern Asian populations. Taken together, these results show 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 since the Holocene. The phylogeography of the primal mtDNA and Y-chromosome founders suggests that these southern Asian Pleistocene coastal settlers from Africa would have provided the inocula for the subsequent differentiation of the distinctive eastern and western Eurasian gene pools.

2004[edit]

Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans[edit]

Since the initial peopling of South and West Asia by anatomically modern humans, when this region may well have provided the initial settlers who colonized much of the rest of Eurasia, the gene flow in and out of India of the maternally transmitted mtDNA has been surprisingly limited. Specifically, our analysis of the mtDNA haplogroups, which are shared between Indian and Iranian populations and exhibit coalescence ages corresponding to around the early Upper Paleolithic, indicates that they are present in India largely as Indian-specific sub-lineages. In contrast, other ancient Indian-specific variants of M and R are very rare outside the sub-continent.

2006[edit]

A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion scenarios[edit]

Understanding the genetic origins and demographic history of Indian populations is important both for questions concerning the early settlement of Eurasia and more recent events, including the appearance of Indo-Aryan languages and settled agriculture in the subcontinent. Although there is general agreement that Indian caste and tribal populations share a common late Pleistocene maternal ancestry in India, some studies of the Y-chromosome markers have suggested a recent, substantial incursion from Central or West Eurasia. To investigate the origin of paternal lineages of Indian populations, 936 Y chromosomes, representing 32 tribal and 45 caste groups from all four major linguistic groups of India, were analyzed for 38 single-nucleotide polymorphic markers. Phylogeography of the major Y-chromosomal haplogroups in India, genetic distance, and admixture analyses all indicate that the recent external contribution to Dravidian- and Hindi-speaking caste groups has been low. 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. The dyadic Y-chromosome composition of Tibeto-Burman speakers of India, however, can be attributed to a recent demographic process, which appears to have absorbed and overlain populations who previously spoke Austro-Asiatic languages.

2007[edit]

Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India [archive][edit]

In recent years, mtDNA and Y chromosome studies involving human populations from South Asia and the rest of the world have revealed new insights about the peopling of the world by anatomically modern humans during the late Pleistocene, some 40,000–60,000 years ago, over the southern coastal route from Africa. Molecular studies and archaeological record are both largely consistent with autochthonous differentiation of the genetic structure of the caste and tribal populations in South Asia. High level of endogamy created by numerous social boundaries within and between castes and tribes, along with the influence of several evolutionary forces such as genetic drift, fragmentation and long‐term isolation, has kept the Indian populations diverse and distant from each other as well as from other continental populations. This review attempts to summarize recent genetic studies on Indian caste and tribal populations with the focus on the information embedded in the socially defined structure of Indian populations.

2009[edit]

The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system [archive][edit]

Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. Further, observation of R1a1* in different tribal population groups, existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* in ancestors and extended phylogenetic analyses of the pooled dataset of 530 Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 Central Asians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1* haplogroup supported the autochthonous origin of R1a1 lineage in India and a tribal link to Indian Brahmins. However, it is important to discover novel Y-chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higher resolution of R1a1* and confirm the present conclusions.

Reconstructing Indian population history [archive][edit]

Reich's 2009 publication Reconstructing Indian population history[1] was a landmark study in the research on India's genepool and the origins of its population. Reich et al. (2009), in a collaborative effort between the Harvard Medical School and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), examined the entire genomes worth 560,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), as compared to 420 SNPs in prior work. They also cross-compared them with the genomes of other regions available in the global genome database.[2] Through this study, they were able to discern two genetic groups in the majority of populations in India, which they called "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI) and "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI).[note 1] They found that the ANI genes are close to those of Middle Easterners, Central Asians and Europeans whereas the ASI genes are dissimilar to all other known populations outside India.[note 2][note 3] These two distinct groups, which had split ca. 50,000 years ago, formed the basis for the present population of India.[3]

A follow-up study by Moorjani et al. (2013) revealed that the two groups mixed between 1,900 and 4,200 years ago (2200 BCE-100 CE), where-after a shift to endogamy took place and admixture became rare.[note 4] Speaking to Fountain Ink, David Reich stated, "Prior to 4,2000 years ago, there were unmixed groups in India. Sometime between 1,900 to 4,200 years ago, profound, pervasive convulsive mixture occurred, affecting every Indo-European and Dravidian group in India without exception." Reich pointed out that their work does not show that a substantial migration occurred during this time.[4]

Metspalu et al. (2011), representing a collaboration between the Estonian Biocenter and CCMB, confirmed that the Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components. One of them is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette.[5]

2017[edit]

A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals[edit]

Marina Silva et al.: “A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals” (Evolutionary Biology BMC, March, 2017; the team was led by Prof. Martin Richards)
  • Thus, the quoted paper by Silva et al. states: “Indo-European has been frequently connected to the so-called ‘Indo-Aryan invasion’ from Central Asia ca. 3,5 ka, and the establishment of the caste system.” There never follows a critical second thought about this received wisdom. Not having studied this debate, they fall back on hearsay from their Orientalist colleagues, who all teach the AIT. What other influence would they have? Those capable of situating and defending the OIT can literally be counted on your fingers; none of them has functioned as an information source for geneticists. Though the geneticists certainly live up to the scientific method when it comes to handling genetic data; when they approach the AIT as possible explanation, they become mere followers of convention. (Elst 2018)
  • A second consideration is that an inflow does not prevent a movement in the other direction. If the Silva paper is sensational, it might be because of passages like this one, about the Bronze Age: “Gene flow at this time was clearly bi-directional, as seen in the expansion west of lineages M5a2a4, U2c1b + 146 and M3a1b + 13105. This is reflected in the genome-wide ADMIXTURE analysis (…), where the autochthonous South Asian component (…) appears at low levels in Iran.” .... “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.
  • Apparently, the split of the Indian people in a northern ANI and a southern ASI dates a lot deeper into the past than the fragmentation of Indo-European and than the “Bronze Age migration” discussed in Silva et al.’s paper, and need not even result from a migration, as Joseph had assumed. And if there was a migration at all, it may not have been the Aryan invasion, or may have nothing to do (causally nor chronologically) with the division of Indo-European. The concepts of ANI and ASI were developed by geneticists untrained in linguistics and never visibly bothering about a coordination between their own data and those of historical linguistics. So, it is not so scandalous if the two sets of data are greatly at variance.
  • As even Silva et al. acknowledge, “genetic data have provided no clear evidence for the ‘Indo-Aryan invasions’ so far, and their very existence is challenged by many archaeologists.” (Elst 2018)
    • (Elst 2018)

2018[edit]

2019[edit]

"An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers", Shinde et al.[edit]

  • This paper pertains only to the DNA analysis of the Rakhigarhi specimen, the sole available specimen of examinable DNA from ancient India from the Harappan area and period. It nowhere contains any data and analysis of the post-2000 BCE genetic analyses from the other paper, but, as quoted above, towards the end of the paper, it makes a totally extraneous and gratuitous reference to that alleged paper and its conclusions in order to reiterate that the Indo-European languages spread into India after 2000 BCE through Steppe migrants entering from Central Asia! As that is an extraneous and gratuitous conclusion, there is no need to waste time discussing this paper here. We can simply accept the conclusions of this paper that the Harappan people were a mixture of the First Indian and the (people who still continue to be referred to as) Iranian Agriculturist people (who were different from the Iranian/Zagros/Anatolian Agriculturists, having, as the geneticists now accept, separated from them 12000 years ago. Where and how this separation took place is not clear, but it is not strictly relevant to the issue here).
  • What were the expectations from this paper, and how valid were those expectations? The expectations of almost everyone were exactly what they turned out to be: that the Rakhigarhi DNA would show the two earlier ancestries (First Indian and "Iranian"), but no Steppe ancestry.
  • The present genetic data, on the basis of which these geneticists and their followers have claimed "genetic evidence" for these (Indo-European speaking) Steppe people spreading through Central Asia to India, is based only on the ancestries of three groups of ancient DNA from the northernmost part of Pakistan, the Swat Valley, as late as after 1200 BCE. There is no earlier date-wise evidence, and there is no ancient evidence south of the Swat Valley.
  • The genetic evidence now cited basically has only two valid points: a) The Harappan DNA (as proved by the three Indus Periphery specimens from the north and west of the Harappan area in the Harappan period, now confirmed by the Rakhigarhi specimen from an area east of the Harappan core areas also in the Harappan period) did not contain Steppe ancestry. b) The present-day population all over India does have Steppe DNA as part of their ancestry.
  • The Rakhigarhi report (Shinde et al) of the specimen from the eastern heartland of the Harappan area in the Harappan period, dated, as per newspaper reports, between 2800-2300 BCE, simply confirms what the earlier version of the Narasimhan et al report had told us last year in 2018 (on the basis of DNA analysis of Indus Periphery specimens from the north and east of the Harappan area in the Harappan period): that the Harappans were of First Indians + "Iranians" ancestry. The two reports together did give very important new evidence that the "Iranian" component of this joint ancestry was in the area since more than 10000 years, and that the development of agriculture in the area was fully indigenous. The Swat specimens merely tell us that by 1200 BCE, the Steppe DNA had spread into northernmost Pakistan.

"The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia", Narasimhan et al.[edit]

  • The new version is now modified on the basis of the other (Shinde et al) report that was released on the same day, which has the four above-named co-authors in common, and now accepts that the Harappan civilization at least is not rooted in external stimuli brought by Iranian Agriculturists - and in fact that the entire civilization from its very roots is thoroughly indigenous. Even agriculture was developed independently and not brought in by the Iranian Agriculturists (who are more or less identical to or related to Anatolian agriculturists) from whom these "Iranian" ancestors of the Harappans had separated 12000 years ago, long before the development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent of West Asia.
  • The present report, Narasimhan et al, tries hard to downplay the very vital objection of the archaeologists, by casually referring to it and dismissing it as follows: "Our observation of the spread of Central_ Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the second millennium BCE…" At this point, let us pause to note that they should have said "Our observation of the spread of Central_ Steppe_MLBA ancestry into the Swat Valley in northernmost Pakistan in the late second half of the second millennium BCE…", and as I have pointed out in my recent book, the chart in their earlier version of the report uploaded on the internet last year (I don't know if they have cleverly changed it now) gives the lie to even this, since the Swat DNA in their chart is not shown to have the "red" and "teal" ancestral sources contained in the Steppe_MLBA DNA. [Strangely enough, let me quote the article by Girish Shahane written in 2018, listed earlier, to explain why claiming that the Steppe_MLBA DNA, with the red, teal and orange ancestries, when it enters the DNA of the Swat samples, leaves only one of the three colors (orange) in the Swat DNA "is like claiming you could mix three colours thoroughly and daub them onto a plain piece of paper in such a way that only one of the three colours was deposited on the paper’s surface". Any rebuttals to your own argument, Mr. Shahane?]
  • But this is a known feature of "genetic studies" conducted by the main mover behind the two studies (though Indian geneticists have been used as fronts in the naming of the papers), David Reich. There have been many indictments of his genetic studies by western academicians on this score, e.g. here is what a group of 67 genuine scientists, in an article "How not to Talk about Race and Genetics", have to say about the type of racial "genetic studies" indulged in by David Reich and other scientists associated with him, and about the racially potent conclusions drawn by them in reports "peer-reviewed" by others of the same genre:
  • Thirdly, the very way in which the caste-wise data has been collected and presented shows a really shoddy and extremely premeditated agenda. As Vishal Agarwal has pointed out in a private article:

"For all the bombastic claims of the paper, the fact remains that it lists 6 castes as having the highest central Steppe genetic content as follows: 1. UP Bhumihar, 2. Bihar Bhumihar, 3. Jat Sikh, 4. Tiwari Brahmin, 5. Nepal Brahmin, 6. Brahmin UP. Can anyone tell my why 1 and 2 are counted separately; and whether the label 'Bhumihar' even has any relevance in precolonial times? (It does not). Can anyone tell me why Tiwari Brahmin (~ Trivedis/Tripathis) is classified separately from UP Brahmin? Most Tiwaris are from UP, and in fact many with this surname are even found in Nepal. And in Nepal itself, we have the Bahun (Khas) as well as Terai Brahmans who overlap with Bhumihars and Tiwaris. So essentially, one continuum of a population is arbitrarily split into 5. […] What if I make separate categories of Haryana Jats, Rajasthan Jats, UP Jats and then argue that many Shudra clans have the highest MLBA ancestry? […] If you scroll further, you will likewise find many 'populations' split unnecessarily (e.g., there are separate categories for 'Agarwal', 'Bania', 'Banias'). Why is it that the Jat Sikhs, considered Shudras along with other Jats (Hindus in Haryana, W Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan; Muslim Jutts in W Punjab) have the third or fourth highest central Steppe MLBA related ancestry? And it is not just this study which says so. Another study by Pathak et al actually notes that the Haryana (Hindu) Jats have even a greater European/MLBA genetic portion than Brahmins. So how does that fit the Aryan Migration as illustrated in the paper which says that higher the MLBA content, the higher in caste heirarchy (look also at the high MLBA of Chamars, Pasis)? In short, other explanations must be searched for than the simple 'higher Central Steppe MLBA means higher in Varna ladder' type of explanations, and then force fit them into the AMT paradigms. The data is shoddily coded and the resultant analysis apparently not uninodal or linear due to which the blanket judgments of the paper do not have much real explanatory value".

  • Further, note the following statements in the "report" which really go against their basic thesis:

1. “…there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians.”(Abstract). “The absence in the BMAC cluster of the Steppe_EMBA ancestry that is ubiquitous in South Asia today—along with qpAdm analyses that rule out BMAC as a substantial source of ancestry in South Asia (Fig. 3A)—suggests that while the BMAC was affected by the same demographic forces that later impacted South Asia (the southward movement of Middle to Late Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists described in the next section), it was also bypassed by members of these groups who hardly mixed with BMAC people and instead mixed with peoples further south.” “In fact, the data suggest that instead of the main BMAC population having a demographic impact on South Asia, there was a larger effect of gene flow in the reverse direction, as the main BMAC genetic cluster is slightly different from the preceding Turan populations in harboring ~5% of their ancestry from the AASI.”. All the 4 samples from Shahr-i-Sokhta in Eastern Iran also show South Asian admixture. In other words, based on the evidence given in the paper, there was a very large genetic contribution of South Asia in both the BMAC as well as in the Helmand civilization of which Shahr-i-Sokhta is a principal site. In fact, in both the Bronze Age Eastern Iran and Central Asia, the principal cattle is the Zebu cattle which is Indian in origin and there are besides many other lines of evidence suggesting Indus civilization influence in both these regions. 2. “… samples from three sites from the southern and eastern end of the Steppe dated to 1600-1500 BCE (Dashti-kozy, Taldysay and Kyzlbulak) show evidence of significant admixture from Iranian agriculturalist-related populations, demonstrating northward gene flow from Turan into the Steppe…”.[2] [archive]

  • The Indian Express article also quotes Michel Danino: "ICHR member and guest professor at IIT Gandhinagar, Michel Danino, said that the study is 'steeped in circularity'. 'It accepts the Indo-European migrations into Europe and into South Asia as a fact, then repeatedly fits the genetic evidence to this ‘fact’. This is faulty methodology…,' he said. He pointed out that 'No ancient Harappan DNA has been analysed, which could have provided some secure comparison for contemporary samples in Central Asia and elsewhere.' Danino also says that the study assumes that South Asia was more or less empty of population in the pre-Harappan era. 'It sweeps aside the subcontinent’s Mesolithic and Neolithic populations which undoubtedly have substantial contributions to the South Asian genome. It considers such Mesolithic and Neolithic populations only in the context of Central Asia and Europe! This is one example [among others] of a strong Eurocentric bias in the study,' he says.".[3] [archive]

Notes[edit]

  1. Reich et al. (2009) excluded the Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman speakers from their analysis in order to avoid interference.
  2. Reich et al. (2009): "We analyze 25 diverse groups to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the "Ancestral North Indians" (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other, the "Ancestral South Indians" (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."
  3. Moorjani et al. (2013): "Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent."
  4. Moorjani et al. (2013): "We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy."

References[edit]

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

Sources[edit]

  • Dr. Nupam Mahajan, a medical doctor, recently drew the attention of Indology list members to two recent articles in Current Biology (London), vol.9, nrs.22 and 24, by T. Kivisild et al. (“Deep common ancestry of Indian and Western-Eurasian mitochonrdial DNA lineages”) and by Todd R. Disotell (“Human evolution: the southern route to Asia”), about genetic connections between India and “Western Eurasia”. One finding is that during or before the Ice Age, a group of human beings migrated from Ethiopia and Somalia through Yemen and Oman to Gujarat and into India. The more important finding for our present purposes is that for the parameters studied, there is no north/south or Aryan/Dravidian divide in India; that one of the lineages showed a common origin between Indians and West-Asians in ca. 53,000 years before the present (this may be the spread of homo sapiens outside Africa, hence not very informative about more recent splits in the human family); that the West-Asian connection was highly minoritarian in the Indian gene pool, indicating only a small contribution by invaders from the West; and that the youngest split indicated by the genetic material dates to ca. 9,300 years BP. (Elst 2007)

Links[edit]