Caucasian genes in Dravidian wombs

[Dr Y. Vassilkov]

Dear Mr. Joshi,
    first of all, Dr. Stanley Wolpert seem to be not an American, but
European writer (at least most of his books are published in Oxford, UK).
And I think that we hardly can call him an Indologist in the sense the word
is used in this list. He is known as the author of monographs on some modern
political leaders: Jinnah, Nehru, Tilak, Gokhale, Zulfikar Bhutto... And of
"A New History of India" (first published in 1977), which is not a new
version of general history of India, but namely  "A New (meaning: Modern)
History...". In other words, he is simply not competent enough to comment on
the origins of the Indian Civilisation. The phrase you quote is certainly
based on some very old source, at least several decades old even in 1977. In
our time no "trained Indologist", at least Classical Indologist, specialist
in Ancient India, would say anything like that. For several decades it is an
established fact that the anthropological characteristics of Indian
population have not changed since at least Neolithic, when predominant, i.e.
the most widespread anthropological type was already, in anthropological
terminology, Southern Caucasoid or Southern Europeoid - the type which is
also characteristic for the peoples living in Southern parts of Europe. The
ancestors of peoples speaking now both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages
belonged predominantly to this type, though in some localities there is
evident even now some admixture of  Austroloid or Mongoloid features. In any
case, it is obvious, that the spread of a particular branch of Aryan
(Indo-Iranian) language group over Northern India in the 2nd-1st millenium
BC was not accompanied with any increase of  "Caucasian" element in the
anthropological complex of India.
      The spread of the new language (languages) resulted, of course, in the
change of a cultural paradigm, though from the very beginning the process of
synthesis was at work But for many decades nobody among people dealing with
ancient Indian culture defines the coming of IA languages to India in terms
of the "Aryan invasion". The last revival of this long-dead concept was
connected with the sensational "discovery" of the "massacre at
Mohenjo-Daro", which very soon proved to be mythical. How long ago it was:
forty years, or more? Several new generations of Indologists grew after
that.
       Recently you could learn from the mass media about the latest
discovery of geneticists who proved that 80% of total European population
are direct genetic descendants of a very small group (a dozen individuals or
so) which had come in the Paleolithic period from the Ural mountains. I hope
very much that the same kind of analysis will be done soon for India and I
am almost sure the results would be similar. Because linguistic changes have
nothing in common with racial and genetic characteristics. Please, try to
imagine how many different languages replaced each other in ancient and
mediaeval Europe - but all the time the core of the population genetically
remained the same.
    In conclusion one humble request: if anybody in Europe or America writes
something foolish or makes a mistake, please, do not make generalisations
about mentality and attitudes of all European/American/Western scholars.
    Best regards,

Yaroslav Vassilkov
----- Original Message -----
From: "Narayan R. Joshi" <giravani at JUNO.COM>
To: <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 5:20 PM
Subject: Caucasian genes in Dravidian wombs


> American Indologists(few, not all)are not behind the European Indologists
> (Nov.27,Larse Martin Fosse-Europeans have a lot more to answer...)in
> creating facts using linguistic analytical tool(Vanbakkam..No.29).Here is
> one example.To quote Dr.Stanley Wolpert(trained Indologist?)from p.27(A
New
> History of India,4th Edition, OUP),"This was the most important invasion
in
> all of India's history, since the Aryans brought with their Caucasian
genes
> a new language-Sanskrit-and a new pantheon of gods....". Now when did
> Aryans become Caucasians? Does it mean the pre-invasion Dravidian
> population of the sub-continent was Negroid and then after invasion around
> 1000 BCE, it became hybrid around 500 BCE due to entrance of Caucasian
> genes in Dravidian wombs? The word "Caucasian" is fabricated label just
> like the label "Semitic"and may mean different things to different people.
> The label is without archaeological, historical and anthropological
> foundations.Is the trained Indologist mixing Aryans from Central Asia,
with
> Iranians of Caucasian regions of 500 BCE and with white Europeans of
> American Immigration Authorities? David Marshall Lang in his book "The
> Georgians"(pub:Frederick A.Prager)explodes the myth. To quote him, "In
view
> of wide misconceptions, a word must be said about the term "Caucasian"
> itself.Certain physical anthropologist who know better, and also Ammerican
> immigration authorities who cannot be expected to do so,habitually use
this
> word to denote virtually anyone who is not a Negro,a Jew,
Indian,Chinese-in
> fact, as the virtual opposite of "Colored". In short,a "Caucasian" in this
> context comes to be the White Man par excellence, so the term has taken on
> something of the meaning which in Hitler's time attached to "Aryan". This
> is utterly unscientific and a complete misnomer. The Anglo/Saxons,
> Latins,Slavs, and others to whom this term is so loosely applied have
> absolutely no historical or ethnic connection with the Caucasian peoples
> proper, except for certain recent waves of immigration...". Is the trained
> Indologist then dreaming the impregnation of Negroid Dravidian ladies of
> the sub-continent by his European ancestors around 1000 BCE in the way
some
> of his ancestors impregnated slave Negro ladies in the past 200 years in
> USA? As a matter of fact careful research may prove that there was the
> South Indian-Georgian connection in prehistoric times and the South Indian
> Dravidian brown masters were present among the Europeans of the
prehistoric
> times. Thanks.