ganestics and aryan invasion theory

[Guest guest]

ENETICS AND THE ARYAN DEBATE

 

By Michel Danino

 

http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate.html

 

 

Background

 

 

Along with the birth of anthropology, the nineteenth century saw the

development of semi-scientific to wholly unscientific disciplines, such

as anthropometry, craniometry or phrenology. Unquestioningly accepting

the prevalent concept of race, some scientists constructed facial and

nasal indexes or claimed to measure the skull's volume for every race,

of course with the result that the white race's cranium was the most

capacious and its owner, therefore, the most intelligent; others went

further, insisting that amidst the white race, only the Germans were

the "pure" descendants of the "Aryan race" which was destined the rule

the earth.

 

In India, from 1891 onward, Herbert H. Risley, an official with the

colonial government, set about defining in all seriousness 2,378 castes

belonging to 43 "races," all of it on the basis of a "nasal index." The

main racial groups were Indo-Aryan, Turko- Iranian, Scytho-Dravidian,

Aryo-Dravidian, Mongoloid and Mongolo-Dravidian.

 

Unfortunately, this imaginative but wholly unscientific work

weighed heavily on the first developments of Indian anthropology; in

the 1930s, for instance, B. S. Guha studied skeletons from Mohenjo-daro

and submitted a detailed report on the proto- Australoid,

Mediterranean, Mongoloid and Alpine races peopling the city, all of

them "non-Aryan" of course. Long lists of such fictitious races filled

academic publications, and continue to be found in Indian textbooks

today.

 

In the wake of World War II, the concept of race collapsed in the

West. Rather late in the day, anthropologists realized that race cannot

be scientifically defined, much less measured, thus setting at naught a

whole century of scholarly divagations on "superior" and "inferior"

races. Following in the footsteps of pioneers like Franz Boas,1 leading

scientists, such as Ashley Montagu,2 now argued strongly against the

"fallacy of race." It is only with the emergence of more reliable

techniques in biological anthropology that anthropometry got a fresh

chance; it concentrated not on trying to categorize noses or spot

"races," but on tracing the evolution of a population, on signs of

continuity or disruption, and on possible kinships between neighbouring

populations.

 

In the Indian context, we are now familiar with the work of U.S

anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.3 Their

chief conclusion, as far as the Aryan debate is concerned, is that

there is no trace of "demographic disruption" in the North-West of the

subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of

any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations,

during that period.

 

Die-hard proponents of such an invasion / migration have therefore

been compelled to downscale it to a "trickle-in" infiltration,4 limited

enough to have left no physical trace, although they are at pains to

explain how a "trickle" was able to radically alter India's linguistic

and cultural landscape when much more massive invasions of the

historical period failed to do so.5 Other proponents still insist that

"the Indo-Aryan immigrants seem to have been numerous and strong enough

to continue and disseminate much of their culture,"6 but do not explain

how the "immigrants" failed to leave any trace in the anthropological

record.

 

 

A powerful new tool

 

In the 1980s, another powerful tool of inquiry came on the scene:

genetics, with its growing ability to read the history contained in a

human body's three billion bits of information. In particular,

techniques used in the identification of genetic markers have been fast

improving, leading to a wide array of applications, from therapeutics

to crime detection to genealogy. Let us first summarize the basic

definitions relevant to our field.

 

In trying to reconstruct ancestry, biologists use two types of DNA,

the complex molecule that carries genetic information. The first,

Y-DNA, is contained in the Y- chromosome, one of the two sex

chromosomes; it is found in the cell's nucleus and is transmitted from

father to son. The second, mtDNA or mitochondrial DNA, is found in

mitochondria, kinds of power generators found in a cell, but outside

its nucleus; this mtDNA is independent of the Y-DNA, simpler in

structure, and transmitted by the mother alone. For various reasons,

all this genetic material undergoes slight alterations or "mutations"

in the course of time; those mutations then become characteristic of

the line of descendants: if, for instance, the mtDNAs of two humans,

however distant geographically, exhibit the same mutation, they

necessarily share a common ancestor in the maternal line.

 

Much of the difficulty lies in organizing those mutations, or

genetic markers, in consistent categories called "haplotypes" (from a

Greek word meaning "single"), which constitute an individual's genetic

fingerprint. Similar haplotypes are then brought together in

"haplogroups," each of which genetically identifies a particular ethnic

group. Such genetic markers can then be used to establish a "genetic

distance" between two populations.

 

Identifying and making sense of the right genetic markers is not

the only difficulty; dating their mutations remains a major challenge:

on average, a marker of Y- DNA may undergo one mutation every 500

generations, but sudden changes caused by special circumstances can

never be ruled out. Genetics, therefore, needs the inputs from

palaeontology and archaeology, among other disciplines, to confirm its

historical conclusions.

 

 

India's case

 

Since the 1990s, there have been numerous genetic studies of Indian

populations, often reaching apparently divergent conclusions. There are

three reasons for this: (1) the Indian region happens to be one of the

most diverse and complex in the world, which makes it difficult to

interpret the data; (2) early studies relied on too limited samples, of

the order of a few dozens, when hundreds or ideally thousands of

samples are required for some statistical reliability; (3) some of the

early studies fell into the old trap of trying to equate linguistic

groups with distinct ethnic entities — a relic of the

nineteenth-century erroneous identification between language and race;

as a result, a genetic connection between North Indians and Central

Asians was automatically taken to confirm an Aryan invasion in the

second millennium BCE, disregarding a number of alternative

explanations.7

 

More recent studies, using larger samples and much refined methods

of analysis, both at the conceptual level and in the laboratory, have

reached very different conclusions (interestingly, some of their

authors had earlier gone along with the old Aryan paradigm8). We will

summarize here the chief results of nine studies from various Western

and Indian Universities, most of them conducted by international teams

of biologists, and more than half of them in the last three years;

since their papers are complex and technical, what follows is,

necessarily, highly simplified and represents only a small part of

their content.

 

The first such study dates back to 1999 and was conducted by the

Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, a pioneer in the field, with

fourteen co-authors from various nationalities (including M. J.

Bamshad).9 It relied on 550 samples of mtDNA and identified a

haplogroup called "U" as indicating a deep connection between Indian

and Western-Eurasian populations. However, the authors opted for a very

remote separation of the two branches, rather than a recent population

movement towards India; in fact, "the subcontinent served as a pathway

for eastward migration of modern humans" from Africa, some 40,000 years

ago:

 

"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 [between Europeans and

Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and

the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely

pre-dates their spread to Europe."

 

In other words, the timescale posited by the Aryan invasion /

migration framework is inadequate, and the genetic affinity between the

Indian subcontinent and Europe "should not be interpreted in terms of a

recent admixture of western Caucasoids10 with Indians caused by a

putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000–4,000 years BP."

 

The second study was published just a month later. Authored by U.S.

biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell,11 it dealt with the first

migration of modern man from Africa towards Asia, and found that

migrations into India "did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian

populations." Disotell made observations very similar to those of the

preceding paper:

 

 

"The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000–4,000 years before

present therefore did not make a major splash in the Indian gene pool.

This is especially counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though

very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both

southern and northern India. Thus, the 'caucasoid' features of south

Asians may best be considered 'pre-caucasoid' — that is, part of a

diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate

origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000

years ago."

 

 

Here again, the Eurasian connection is therefore traced to the

original migration out of Africa. On the genetic level, "the supposed

Aryan invasion of India 3000-4000 years ago was much less significant

than is generally believed."

 

A year later, thirteen Indian scientists led by Susanta

Roychoudhury studied 644 samples of mtDNA from some ten Indian ethnic

groups, especially from the East and South.12 They found "a fundamental

unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural

and linguistic diversity," pointing to "a relatively small founding

group of females in India." Significantly, "most of the mtDNA diversity

observed in Indian populations is between individuals within

populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity

by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or

linguistic affiliation." That is a crucial observation, which later

studies will endorse: on the maternal side at least, there is no such

thing as a "Hindu" or "Muslim" genetic identity, nor even a high- or

low-caste one, a North- or South-Indian one — hence the expressive

title of the study: "Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India is

revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA."

 

The authors also noted that haplogroup "U," already noted by

Kivisild et al. as being common to North Indian and "Caucasoid"

populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas

and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced

through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup "M,"

another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence

of the invasion: in reality, "we have now shown that indeed haplogroup

M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian

population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. We

have also shown that the tribal populations have higher frequencies of

haplogroup M than caste populations."

 

Also in 2000, twenty authors headed by Kivisild contributed a

chapter to a book on the "archaeogenetics" of Europe.13 They first

stressed the importance of the mtDNA haplogroup "M" common to India

(with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average),

and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in

Europe, which is "inconsistent with the 'general Caucasoidness' of

Indians."

 

This shows, once again, that "the Indian maternal gene pool has

come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late

Pleistocene." The authors then studied the "U" haplogroup, finding its

frequency to be 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24%

from Europe to Anatolia; but, in their opinion, "Indian and western

Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has

occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern

Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited

an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened

after the corresponding splits." In other words, there is a genetic

connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than

was thought.

 

Another important point is that looking at mtDNA as a whole, "even

the high castes share more than 80 per cent of their maternal lineages

with the lower castes and tribals"; this obviously runs counter to the

invasionist thesis. Taking all aspects into consideration, the authors

conclude: "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." Mark

the word "ancestral."

 

After a gap of three years, Kivisild directed two fresh studies.

The first, with nine colleagues, dealt with the origin of languages and

agriculture in India.14 Those biologists stressed India's genetic

complexity and antiquity, since "present-day Indians [possess] at least

90 per cent of what we think of as autochthonous Upper Palaeolithic

maternal lineages." They also observed that "the Indian mtDNA tree in

general [is] not subdivided according to linguistic (Indo-European,

Dravidian) or caste affiliations," which again demonstrates the old

error of conflating language and race or ethnic group.

 

Then, in a new development, they punched holes in the methodology

followed by studies basing themselves on the Y-DNA (the paternal line)

to establish the Aryan invasion, and point out that if one were to

extend their logic to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one

would be led to an exactly opposite result: "the straightforward

suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European

languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe." The authors

do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against "misleading

interpretations" based on limited samples and faulty methodology.

 

The second study of 2003, a particularly detailed one dealing with

the genetic heritage of India's earliest settlers, had seventeen

co-authors with Kivisild (including L. Cavalli-Sforza and P. A.

Underhill), and relied on nearly a thousand samples from the

subcontinent, including two Dravidian-speaking tribes from Andhra

Pradesh.15 Among other important findings, it stressed that the Y-DNA

haplogroup "M17," regarded till recently as a marker of the Aryan

invasion, and indeed frequent in Central Asia, is equally found in the

two tribes under consideration, which is inconsistent with the

invasionist framework. Moreover, one of the two tribes, the Chenchus,

is genetically close to several castes, so that there is a "lack of

clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes," a fact that can

hardly be overemphasized.

 

 

genetic map

 

This also emerges from a diagram of genetic distances between eight

Indian and seven Eurasian populations, distances calculate on the basis

of 16 Y-DNA haplogroups (Fig. 1). The diagram challenges many common

assumptions: as just mentioned, five castes are grouped with the

Chenchus; another tribe, the Lambadis (probably of Rajasthani origin),

is stuck between Western Europe and the Middle East; Bengalis of

various castes are close to Mumbai Brahmins, and Punjabis (whom one

would have thought to be closest to the mythical "Aryans") are as far

away as possible from Central Asia! It is clear that no simple

framework can account for such complexity, least of all the Aryan

invasion / migration framework.

 

The next year, Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzed 796

Indian (including both tribal and caste populations from different

parts of India) and 436 Iranian mtDNAs.16 Of relevance here is the

following observation, which once again highlights the pitfalls of any

facile ethnic-linguistic equation:

 

"Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European,

Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of

indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at

high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from

the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed

above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more

'autochthonous' than any other in respect of its presence in the

subcontinent."

 

We finally jump to 2006 and end with two studies. The first was

headed by Indian biologist Sanghamitra Sengupta and involved fourteen

other co-authors, including L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and

P. A. Underhill.17 Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations,

it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a "Minor

Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists," i.e. of the mythical

Indo- Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study.

For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA

genetic markers with an "Indo- European expansion," an identification

they called "convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic." To them,

the subcontinent's genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the

dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: "The influence of Central

Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence

whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the

recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages." This is also

highly suggestive (the R1a lineages being a different way to denote the

haplogroup M17).

 

Finally, and significantly, this study indirectly rejected a

"Dravidian" authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization, since it

noted, "Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of

Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus...." They

found, in conclusion, "overwhelming support for an Indian origin of

Dravidian speakers."

 

Another Indian biologist, Sanghamitra Sahoo, headed eleven

colleagues, including T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap, for a study of the

Y-DNA of 936 samples covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them

tribes.18 The authors left no room for doubt:

 

"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."

 

So the southward gene flow that had been imprinted on our minds for

two centuries was wrong, after all: the flow was out of, not into,

India. The authors continue:

 

"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 last of the two rejected associations is that of the Indo-Aryan

expansion; the first, that of the spread of agriculture, is the

well-known thesis of Colin Renfrew,19 which traces Indo-European

origins to the beginnings of agriculture in Anatolia, and sees

Indo-Europeans entering India around 9000 BP, along with agriculture:

Sanghamitra Sahoo et al. see no evidence of this in the genetic record.

 

The same data allow the authors to construct an eloquent table of

genetic distances between several populations, based on Y-haplogroups

(Fig. 2). We learn from it, for instance, that "the caste populations

of 'north' and 'south' India are not particularly more closely related

to each other (average Fst value = 0.07) than they are to the tribal

groups (average Fst value = 0.06)," an important confirmation of

earlier studies. In particular, "Southern castes and tribals are very

similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions."

As a result, "it was not possible to confirm any of the purported

differentiations between the caste and tribal pools," a momentous

conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan paradigm, which

imagined Indian tribes as adivasis and the caste Hindus as descendants

of Indo-Aryans invaders or immigrants.

 

In reality, we have no way, today, to determine who in India is an

"adi"-vasi, but enough data to reject this label as misleading and

unnecessarily divisive.

 

 

genetic-distance

 

 

Conclusions

 

It is, of course, still possible to find genetic studies trying to

interpret differences between North and South Indians or higher and

lower castes within the invasionist framework, but that is simply

because they take it for granted in the first place. None of the nine

major studies quoted above lends any support to it, and none proposes

to define a demarcation line between tribe and caste. The overall

picture emerging from these studies is, first, an unequivocal rejection

of a 3500-BP arrival of a "Caucasoid" or Central Asian gene pool. Just

as the imaginary Aryan invasion / migration left no trace in Indian

literature, in the archaeological and the anthropological record, it is

invisible at the genetic level. The agreement between these different

fields is remarkable by any standard, and offers hope for a grand

synthesis in the near future, which will also integrate agriculture and

linguistics.

 

Secondly, they account for India's considerable genetic diversity

by using a time- scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 or 50,000

years. In fact, several experts, such as Lluís Quintana-Murci,20

Vincent Macaulay,21 Stephen Oppenheimer,22 Michael Petraglia,23 and

their associates, have in the last few years proposed that when Homo

sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around

75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In

simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the

North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration

started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe:

 

"indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans —

can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared

between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia." 24

 

 

Oppenheimer, a leading advocate of this scenario, summarizes it in these words:

 

"For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the

ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the

highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan,

India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only

more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity

characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus

undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a 'male Aryan invasion' of

India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as

much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his

way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central

Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe."25

 

 

We will not call it, of course, an "Indian invasion" of Europe; in

simple terms, India acted "as an incubator of early genetic

differentiation of modern humans moving out of Africa."26

 

Genetics is a fast-evolving discipline, and the studies quoted

above are certainly not the last word; but they have laid the basis for

a wholly different perspective of Indian populations, and it is most

unlikely that we will have to abandon it to return to the crude racial

nineteenth-century fallacies of Aryan invaders and Dravidian

autochthons. Neither have any reality in genetic terms, just as they

have no reality in archaeological or cultural terms. In this sense,

genetics is joining other disciplines in helping to clean the cobwebs

of colonial historiography. If some have a vested interest in patching

together the said cobwebs so they may keep cluttering our history

textbooks, they are only delaying the inevitable.