509 Aryans invaded Dravidian north India, but Dravidians had invaded Tribals in south India

Aryans invaded Dravidian north India, but Dravidians had invaded Tribals
in south India

This material has been added to my webpage on the Rig-Veda:
http://mailstar.net/rig-veda.html

The Genetics quotes are from http://mailstar.net/wells-genetics.html

Persons sharing a genetic marker eg M9 or M52 are assigned to haplogroups.

Male lines of descent are traced through the Y chromosome; female lines
through mitochondrial DNA.

Spencer Wells is a genetic anthropologist who leads The Genographic
Project (an initiative of the National Geographic Society and IBM).

His two books on human ancestry, The Journey of Man (2002) and Deep
Ancestry (2006), lay out the genetic evidence for the Aryan invasion of
India - a displacement of Dravidian peoples in north India.

But Wells also uncovers an earlier Dravidian displacement of Tribals in
south India. They were bearers of the M130 genetic marker; they arrived
much earlier as part of the coastal migration eastwards from Africa to
South-East Asia to Australia..

The Dravidians entered India, and the Europeans entered Europe, by way
of Central Asia.

Please consult this map to follow the argument:
http://mailstar.net/wells-Y-marker-map.jpg

Europeans are mainly of Cro-Magnon ancestry (Journey of Man, p. 154),
with admixture from Mid-East farmers (<20%) and Aryan invaders from the
steppes.

- The Cro Magnon Y haplogroup is R1b; its defining genetic marker is
M343. For R1b, the ancestral line is "Adam" -> M168 -> M89 -> M9 -> M207
-> M173 -> M343 (Deep Ancestry p. 226).

- The Aryan (invaders from the steppes) Y haplogroup is R1a1; its
defining genetic marker is M17. For R1a1, the ancestral line is "Adam"
-> M168 -> M89 -> M9 -> M45 -> M207 -> M173 -> M17 (Deep Ancestry pp.
224-6). They bequeathed their languages (the Indo-European languages) to
Europe and western Asia.

- The farmers (from the Middle East) Y haplogroup is J2; ; its defining
genetic marker is M172 (Journey of Man, p. 154). For haplogroup J2, the
Ancestral line is: "Adam" -> M168 -> M89 -> M304 -> M172 (Deep Ancestry
p. 215).

"The marker M172, associated with the spread of agriculture, is found
throughout India - consistent with an early introduction from the Middle
East, most likely during the Neolithic. But the frequency is comparable
in Indo-European and Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the
introduction of agriculture pre-dated that of the Indo-European
languages. {Journey of Man, pp. 167-8}

About 30% of Jews belong to Haplogroup J and its subgroup J2 (Deep
Ancestry, p. 215); 15% belong to J2 (see the Wikipedia article below).
But in the female line Ashkenazi Jews mostly belong to Haplogroups K (p.
201) or N1 (p. 187).

The distribution of J2 among Middle-Eastern peoples is described at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_(Y-DNA), and a map of it is
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000px-Distribution_Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.jpg

M20 is the marker of the speakers of Dravidian languages in India; they
belong to Haplogroup L (Deep Ancestry p. 217). They migrated into India
about 30,000 years ago (Journey of Man, p. 166).

The Tribals, descendants of the coastal migration out of Africa, belong
to the M mtDNA cluster and bear the M130 Y-marker (Journey of Man, p. 72).

The Aryans invaded Dravidian India, but Dravidian speakers had earlier
committed a genocide of the Tribals:

"The ancestors of the Indian clan, who moved into southern India around
30,000 years ago, would have encountered the earlier coastal migrants
still living there. ... mitochondrial DNA retains strong evidence of the
coastal migrants in the form of haplogroup M, while the Y-chromosome
primarily shows evidence of later migrants from the north. Thinking back
to the scenario we imagined for the birth of the Upper Palaeolithic in
Africa, this is the pattern we would expect to see if the invaders took
wives from the coastal population, but the coastal men were largely
driven away, killed, or simply not given the chance to reproduce. The
result would be the widespread introduction of M mtDNA lineages into the
Indian population, while the Coastal Y-chromosome lineages would not be
nearly as common - precisely the pattern we see." (Journey of Man, p. 113)

Wells says that the Tribals themselves may have committed a genocide of
other hominids - eg Java Man (p. 76).

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey

Spencer Wells.

ALLEN LANE an imprint of PENGUIN BOOKS

London 2002

http://mailstar.net/wells-genetics.html

{p. 74} ... M130 provides us with a clear fingerprint of the coastal
migration out of Africa. ...

{p. 164} Gordon Childe, who coined the term 'Neolithic revolution',
proposed in the 1920s that the Indo-European homeland should be
identified with a culture originating north of the Black Sea that had
distinctive 'corded' pottery - marks that resembled impressions left by
cord or twine. The theory was revived by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas
in a series of articles published in the 1970s. Gimbutas argued that the
remains left by nomadic horsemen of the southern Russian steppes, dating
from around 6,000 years ago, mark the earliest signs of a culture that
can be identified as proto-Indo-European (PIE), which included Childe's
Corded Ware people. The Kurgan culture, as she called it, left enormous
burial mounds (known as kurgans) that are still dotted across the
entirety of the Eurasian steppe, from Ukraine to Mongolia and south to
Afghanistan. The golden treasure hoards recovered from kurgan
excavations in the twentieth century confirmed the existence of a people
who were known to Herodotus as the Scythians - fearsome horsemen of the
Asian grasslands, and previously thought by many scholars to be mythical.

The evidence that the Kurgan people spoke PIE is based on an analysis of
words common throughout Indo-European languages. ...

But while the evidence in favour of the Kurgan people being early
Indo-Europeans was compelling, there was no archaeological evidence for
the spread of their culture into western Europe. Their culture,
dominated by horses, was ideal for the steppes, but it was not well
suited to European forests and mountains. It was difficult to see why
the steppe horsemen would have been able to conquer Europe and

{p. 165} impose their language upon its inhabitants. For this reason,
Colin Renfrew proposed in his 1987 book Archaeology and Language that
the Kurgan culture did not mark the origins of Indo-European, but rather
a later, eastern extension of it. Renfrew suggested that PIE had been a
Middle Eastern language, originally spoken 9,000 years ago, which spread
with the agricultural Wave of Advance into Europe. ...

Of course, as the name suggests, Indo-European languages are spoken not
only in Europe. Modern Iran, Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent all
have a majority of Indo-European speakers. How did they come to speak
languages related to Irish Gaelic, thousands of miles away? Again, there
are competing hypotheses. The first, advanced by Childe, Gimbutas and
others, is that the early steppe horsemen carried their language from
central Asia into India when they invaded around 1500 BC. The Rig Veda,
an early Indian religious text, records the conquest of India by mounted
warriors from the north. This received corroboration in the 1920s when
Sir John Marshall and his colleague excavated Mohenjo Daro and Harappa
in the Indus Valley. These great cities date from around 3500 BC and by
the second millennium BC they were massive settlements with thousands of
houses, extensive agriculture and enormous populations. Then, around
1500 BC they entered a period of decline, and by AD 1,000 the Harappan
culture had

{p. 166} disbanded, its cities abandoned. What caused this sudden
cultural collapse? To the archaeologists, it seemed to correlate
perfectly with an invading force of Aryans from the Steppes. Archaeology
seemed to be reinforcing Childe's argument, and corroborating the Rig
Veda. ...

The test of the Childe-Gimbutas and Renfrew hypotheses awaited the
development of markers that were capable of distinguishing between
populations from the steppe and the indigenous Indian gene pool. As we
saw in Chapter 6, M20 defines the first major wave of migration into
India from the Middle East, around 30,000 years ago. It is found at
highest frequency in the populations of the south, who speak Dravidian
languages - a language family completely unrelated to Indo-European. In
some southern populations, M20 reaches a frequency of over 50 per cent,
while it is found only sporadically outside India. Thus, for our
purposes, it is an indigenous Indian marker. What was needed to complete
the analysis was a steppe marker, in order to see what contribution it
may have made to the genetic diversity present in India.

This came with the discovery of a marker known as M17, which is

{p. 167} present at high frequency (40 per cent plus) from the Czech
Republic across to the Altai Mountains in Siberia and south throughout
central Asia. Absolute dating methods suggest that this marker is
10-15,000 years old, and the microsatellite diversity is greatest in
southern Russia and Ukraine, suggesting that it arose there. M17 is a
descendant of M173, which is consistent with a European origin. The
origin, distribution and age of M17 strongly suggest that it was spread
by the Kurgan people in their expansion across the Eurasian steppe. The
key to solving our language puzzle is to see what it looks like in India
and the Middle East.

The answer is that M17 in India is found at high frequency in those
groups speaking Indo-European languages. In the Hindi-speaking
population of Delhi, for example, around 35 per cent of men have this
marker. Indo-European-speaking groups from the south also show similarly
high frequencies, while the neighbouring Dravidian speakers show much
lower frequencies - 10 per cent or less. This strongly suggests that M17
is an Indo-European marker, and shows that there was a massive genetic
influx into India from the steppes within the past 10,000 years. Taken
with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an
invasion of people - not merely their language - from the steppe appears
to be true.

And what of the Middle East? Interestingly, M17 is not found at high
frequency there - it is present in only 5-10 per cent of Middle Eastern
men. This is true even for the population of Iran, speaking Farsi, a
major Indo-European language. Those living in the western part of the
country have low frequencies of M17, while those living further east
have frequencies more like those seen in India. What lies between the
two regions is, as we learned in Chapter 6, an inhospitable tract of
desert. The results suggest that the great Iranian deserts were barriers
to the movement of Indo-Europeans in much the same way that they had
been to late Upper Palaeolithic migration.

The Y-chromosome results from Iran and the Middle East also suggest that
early Middle Eastern agriculturalists did not spread Indo-European
languages eastward as they moved into the Indus Valley. The marker M172,
associated with the spread of agriculture, is found throughout India -
consistent with an early introduction from the Middle East, most likely
during the Neolithic. But the frequency is

{p. 168} comparable in Indo-European and Dravidian speakers, suggesting
that the introduction of agriculture pre-dated that of the Indo-European
languages. Thinking in terms of actual behaviour, many Indian
descendants of Neolithic farmers have learned to speak Indo-European
languages, while fewer M17-carrying Indo-European speakers - up to this
point - have given up their language in favour of Dravidian.

The low frequency of M17 in western Iran suggests that, in this case,
exactly the sort of scenario envisaged by Renfrew in his second model
has occurred. It is likely that a few invading Indo-European speakers
were able to impose their language on an indigenous Iranian population
by a process Renfrew calls elite dominance. In this model, something -
be it military power, economic might, or perhaps organizational ability
- allowed the Indo-Europeans of the steppes to achieve cultural hegemony
over the ancient, settled civilizations of western Iran. One candidate
for this 'something' was their use of horses in warfare, either to pull
chariots or as mounts. Cavalry and chariots, both steppe inventions,
would have given the early nomadic Indo- Europeans a distinct advantage
over their adversaries' infantry. The use of horses would provide a
major technological advantage to armies over the next three millennia.
It is not difficult to imagine that it gave an early advantage to the
people of the Eurasian steppe.

Thus, while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for
an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes,
there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration
from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much
earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic
signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have
dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for
migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues
showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the
distribution of Neolithic lineages throughout the entirety of
Indo-European- speaking Europe. Cavalli-Sforza has suggested that an
initial migration of Neolithic pre-PIE speakers from the Middle East
could have introduced a language to Europe, including our Kurgan people,
which later became PIE. There is nothing to contradict this model,
although the genetic patterns do not provide clear support either.

There is another possibility, which comes from the distribution and

{p. 169} relationships among extinct languages in the Middle East and
Europe. What if the language of the first farmers was not Indo-European,
but another language entirely? The Basques, who live in north-eastern
Spain, speak a language unrelated to any other in the world. Jared
Diamond, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee,
suggested that it might be a remnant of the agricultural Wave of Advance
from the Middle East. Interestingly, some linguists have suggested that
Basque is related to languages spoken in the Caucasus, while others find
similarities to Burushaski, a language isolate spoken in a remote part
of Pakistan. Similarly, there were other now-extinct languages spoken
throughout the Mediterranean world, in south-eastern Spain (Tartessian
and Iberian), Italy (Etruscan and Lemnian and Sardinia (there is a
non-Indo-European source for many place names). Place names in southern
France similarly suggest that Basque was much more widely spoken in the
past than it is today, and Greek place names indicate the presence of a
pre-Indo-European element there as well. Overall, there is reasonable
evidence for a 'Mediterranean' collection of pre-Indo-European languages
that were later replaced by the expansion of Greek and Latin.

Taken at face value, then, we have a set of languages that were once
widespread around the Mediterranean and Middle East, extending eastward
into Pakistan. This is precisely the territory colonized by early
Neolithic farmers during the period between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago.
One possibility is that these early farmers spread 'Mediterranean'
languages as they expanded their populations. The Palaeolithic
populations of Europe took on the language of farming, and its culture,
even if (as in the case of the Basques) there was hardly any genetic
influx. These languages also spread to the east, introducing farming
throughout the river valleys of central Asia and Pakistan. Later
migrations, of Dravidian and Indo-European speakers in the case of
Pakistan, and Indo-Europeans in the case of Europe, would have reduced
the current speakers of the Mediterranean languages to the isolated
pockets we see today.

Of course, this scenario is purely speculative, but it may be a
plausible alternative to Renfrew's Indo-European farmers and
Cavalli-Sforza's pre-PIE farmers. Furthermore, the genetic data shows
some correlations: most of the regions mentioned, from the Mediterranean

{p. 170} to the Caucasus to Pakistan, have substantial frequencies of
M172, our canonical Neolithic marker. This is particularly true for
populations from the Caucasus, some of which have frequencies of M172 in
excess of 90 per cent. The generally close genetic similarly between
Caucasian populations and those from the Middle East suggests that there
was a substantial influx of people during the Neolithic, who may have
introduced languages related to Sumerian to the region.

{p. 173} The spread of languages is a special case of cultural
diffusion, or change. Unfortunately, the attempt to identify cultural
change with the migration of people is now seen as old-fashioned in many
archaeological circles. Instead, modern archaeologists stress indigenous
reasons for the development of cultural attributes, or their borrowing
from other cultures. The old school of diffusionism, which attempted to
trace the expansion of particular cultures from a single place of
origin, has fallen out of favour. However, the genetic results show that
in some cases, this has clearly occurred. ...

{p. 113} [...] M20 ... marks the earliest significant settlement of
India, forming a uniquely Indian genetic substratum - which we can call
the Indian clan - that pre-dates later migrations from the north. The
ancestors of the Indian clan, who moved into southern India around
30,000 years ago, would have encountered the earlier coastal migrants
still living there. From the genetic pattern, it seems likely that any
admixture with them was not reciprocal: as we saw in Chapter 4,
mitochondrial DNA retains strong evidence of the coastal migrants in the
form of haplogroup M, while the Y-chromosome primarily shows evidence of
later migrants from the north. Thinking back to the scenario we imagined
for the birth of the Upper Palaeolithic in Africa, this is the pattern
we woul expect to see if the invaders took wives from the coastal
population, but the coastal men were largely driven away, killed, or
simply not given the chance to reproduce. The result would be the
widespread introduction of M mtDNA lineages into the Indian population,
while the Coastal Y-chromosome lineages would not be nearly as common -
precisely the pattern we see. Today, the frequency of the Coastal marker
is only around 5 per cent in southern India, and it falls in frequency
as we move northward. This pattern suggests that the contribution from
the coastal populations was minimal, at least on the male side.

{p. 75} The suggestion made by many anthropologists, particularly Peter
Bellwood of the Australian National University, is that the population
of south-east Asia prior to 6,000 years ago was composed largely of
groups of hunter-gatherers very similar to modern Negritos. Migrations
from north-east Asia over the past few millennia have erased the
evidence of these early south-east Asians, except in the case of small
groups living deep in the jungles or - in the case of the Andamanese -
on remote islands. ...

{p. 76} As we have seen, though, there were other hominids living along
the route followed by these beach dwellers. They also made stone tools,
and these have been found throughout Eurasia. The easternmost extension
of the range of Homo erectus was Java, and it is possible that they even
survived until around 40-5,0000 years ago - long enough for the coastal
migrants to have encountered them as they moved through the Indonesian
archipelago. It is clear, though, that they must have become extinct
almost immediately after the arrival of the Moderns, if not before.

{p. 178} If there are fewer men than women in a population, then the
rate at which Y-chromosome lineages are lost will be greater. But this
can't be true, you might be saying - the birth ratio is 50: 50. Surely
there are the same number of men and women in every population?
Surprisingly, while this is true in terms of numbers, it is not true for
the number that pass on their genes by leaving offspring. In the genetic
sense, those who don't reproduce don't count, and should be excluded
from the equation. What we are interested in, then, is what is known as
the effective population size - the number of breeding men and women.
This is where we see the difference.

The likely explanation for why there is a greater rate of lineage loss
for the Y-chromosome is that a few men tend to do most of the mating.
Furthermore, their sons - who inherit their wealth and social standing -
also tend to do most of the mating in the next generation. Carried
through a few generations, this social quirk will produce exactly the
sort of pattern we see for the Y-chromosome: a few lineages within
populations, and different lineages in neighbouring populations.

{endquotes}

(2) Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project, by Spencer Wells

Spencer Wells' follow-up book is Deep Ancestry (2006).

It goes into greater detail about haplogroups (of both mtDNA and Y
Chromosome). Persons sharing a genetic marker eg M9 or M52 are assigned
to haplogroups.

The major Y chromosome haplogroups for Europe are R1a1, R1b, I1a, I1b,
J2, N and E36. Major mitochondrial haplogroups for Europe are H, K, T,
U, V and J.

Haplogroup J is a genetic signature from the first Neoloithic
agriculturalists in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago; they
expanded outwards from there, east as far as the Indus Valley, and also
into east and central Europe, but the lineages carried by these
Neolithic expansions are found today at low frequencies.

For Haplogroup J, the ancestral line is "Eve" -> L1/L0 -> L2 -> L3 -> N
-> R -> J.

For R1b, the ancestral line is "Adam" -> M168 -> M89 -> M9 -> M207 ->
M173 -> M343. Persons in R1b are descendants of the Cro-Magnon people,
some of whom created the cave paintings in southern France. M343 is the
defining marker of haplogroup R1b.

For R1a1, the ancestral line is "Adam" -> M168 -> M89 -> M9 -> M45 ->
M207 -> M173 -> M17. M17 is the defining marker of haplogroup R1a1; its
bearers were the Aryan invaders from the steppes. ...

http://mailstar.net/wells-genetics.html