AIT, NEW genetic evidence
David Salmon (Kettenpom)
dsalmon at SALMON.ORG
Tue Jan 11 12:42:03 EST 2000
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Kekai Manansala <kekai at JPS.NET>
To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: AIT, NEW genetic evidence
> > Simply put, the papers indicate that there are genetically speaking no
> > `Indo-Aryans' in India.
Which does not mean that there weren't some in the past. In fact, the
similarities imply a small contribution to the South Asian blood stream from
Caucasian types, just not enough to be of much significance.
>> So, bad news for both AIT as well as OIT. Of
> > course, this is just part of the data.
> Yes, just from the maternal side.
So-- how did the IA languages develop in South Asia/Central Asia/Europe
without any population transfer of significance between them?
Put another way, since the transfer -did- occur, the question is,
extrapolating from these data, what is the maximum number of
"Indo-Aryan"/Caucasian people entering into the South Asian bloodstream
which would account for the figures shown, at various alternative dates?
That number would tell you how many people it took to bring about the IA
language changes. If it is a small number and relatively recent (a few
thousands of years), then it would seem unlikely, from a social mechanics
point of view, that so vast a group of changes could have come about through
peaceful integration of nomadic herders and farmers. Something more
violently upsetting to the power and cultural framework would be required.
The IAs, despite their small numbers, had a transforming influence on South
Asian culture and languages. A collision of cultures, perhaps?
More information about the INDOLOGY