Wednesday, December 21, 2005

economist on evolution: more blows to witzel et al

dec 20th

i'm afraid this link is premium content, but it clearly states that the evidence from genetics precludes an 'aryan' invasion of india in 1500 BCE. the first human migration to india is around 60,000 years ago, and europe was populated much later.

however, there are elements of 'conquest' still in the theories about india, see end of the excerpts below about female and male dna. this sounds like 'aryan tourist theory' (trademarked by me) warmed over, and i am sceptical about it. southerners ki jai :-)

TM 'aryan tourist theory': white guys go live in other countries on tourist visas, marry local women and settle down. thus their genes appear in the local population.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNJJNDJ

excerpts only, to protect the economist's copyright. it has a great chart too.

Detail, however is not the same as consensus, and there are two schools of thought about how people left Africa in the first place. Appropriately, some of their main protagonists are at the rival English universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Oxford school, championed by Stephen Oppenheimer, believes that the descendants of a single emigration some 85,000 years ago, across the strait of Bab el Mandeb at the southern end of the Red Sea, are responsible for populating the rest of the world. The Cambridge school, championed by Robert Foley and Marta Mirazón Lahr, agrees that there was, indeed, a migration across this strait, though probably nearer to 60,000 years ago. However, it argues that many non-Africans are the descendants of at least one subsequent exodus.

Both schools agree that the Bab el Mandebites spread rapidly along the coast of southern Arabia and thence along the south coast of Asia to Australia, though Dr Oppenheimer has them turning inland, too, once they crossed the strait of Hormuz. But it is in describing what happened next that the two versions really part company, for it is here that the descendants of the Oxford migration run into the eruption of Toba.

That Toba devastated South and South-East Asia is not in doubt. Thick layers of ash from the eruption have been found as far afield as northern Pakistan. The question is whether there were people in Asia at the time. One of the most important pieces of evidence for Dr Oppenheimer's version of events is some stone tools in the ash layer in Malaysia, which he thinks were made by Homo sapiens. Molecular clocks have a regrettable margin of error, but radioactive dating is a lot more accurate. If he is right, modern humans must have left Africa before the eruption. The tools might, however, have been crafted by an earlier species of human that lived there before Homo sapiens.

For Dr Oppenheimer, the eruption was a crucial event, dividing the nascent human population of Asia into two disconnected parts, which then recolonised the intermediate ground. In the Cambridge version, Homo sapiens was still confined to Africa 74,000 years ago, and would merely have suffered the equivalent of a nuclear winter, not an ash-fall of up to five metres—though Dr Ambrose and his colleagues think even that would have done the population no good.

The Cambridge version is far more gentle. The descendants of its subsequent exodus expanded north-eastwards into central Asia, and thence scattered north, south, east and west—though in a spirit of open-mindedness, Sacha Jones, a research student in Dr Foley's department, is looking in the ash layer in India to see what she can find there.

Both also agree that Europe received two waves of migration. The ancestors of the bulk of modern Europeans came via central Asia about 35,000 years ago, though some people in the Balkans and other parts of southern Europe trace their lines back to an earlier migration from the Middle East. But the spread of agriculture from its Middle Eastern cradle into the farthest reaches of Europe does not, as some researchers once thought, seem to have been accompanied by a mass movement of Middle Eastern farmers.

The coming together of two groups of humans can be seen in modern India, too. In the south of the subcontinent, people have Y-chromosomes derived almost exclusively from what the Cambridge school would interpret as being northern folk (and the Oxford school as the western survivors of Toba). However, more than 20% of their mitochondria arrived in Asia with the first migration from Africa (or, according to taste, clung on along the south-eastern fringes of the ash plume).

That discovery speaks volumes about what happened when the two groups met. It suggests that many modern south Indians are descended from southern-fringe women, but few from southern-fringe men—implying a comprehensive conquest of the southerners by the northerners, who won extra southern wives.


14 comments:

habc said...

Sorry for the OT in the very first comment

I just hought of something - You popularized the term "Nehruvian Penalty" this has done its work. I think that words are very important in this battle. Notice how the word "Eurabia" conveys a lot of meaning. We need to coin words like this to convey the right message. The only one I could think of was "Indrabia"

Also as Rajiv Malhotra stated in his debate with Vijay Prasad, that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" do not apply to India or Indian politics - it is also very difficult to convey to the common man who has less exposure to the west. I think that we should have the following words which also convey much more meaning.

Dhimmi wing - Congress party
Loonie wing - commies
Non-dhimmi wing - (?) (obviously hajpayee led BJP cannot be this wing)

How does it sound? If someone can come up with even better names please feel free. Do you think these words can/should be popularised? Everyone feel free to use - no copyright;)

habc said...

Hey I forgot - the new word coined ATT- Aryan Tourist Theory is soooo good

daisies said...

Re. above, I thought Rajeev was
pointing to the "conquest" element
in the article in economic times -
it seemed to imply that
northerners conquered southerners,
and Rajeev did not like to hear
that. Naturally, one reason is
because he is a southie :-), and
maybe he also has other scientific
reasons and will shortly tell us..
:-):-) He better!! :):)

daisies said...

I just read Rajeev's comment more
closely, and he only says: "I am
sceptical about it". He hasnt
tossed the theory aside completely
though one is tempted to.

Maybe someone will come up with a
different theory to explain the
last observation about the south
Indian population.

daisies said...

I have one theory.

Maybe southern-fringe men got tired
of southern-fringe women and headed
north or east after "prettier"
women, while their northern-fringe
counterparts ran south, doing
exactly the same thing.

All human beings after all. And
in those days, women probably didnt
have much mobility and flexibility,
so they stayed put. Or they would
have also gone north/south or
wherever they pleased.

That's my theory....:-)

nizhal yoddha said...

darkstorm, you and i are in violent agreement, i dont believe there was an invasion of northern males into the south.

although, there might be such in future.

because there are a lot more females in the south than in the north :-)

kerala 1130 women per 1000 men (approx)
punjab 960 women per 1000 men (approx)

so will we see wife-seeking bands of invaders in future? :-) the chinese will be doing this in korea etc.

to nip this idea in the bud, let's point out that kerala's women live on average to age 79, and also lots of men have gone to the gulf. so the extra women may be old or already married :-)

daisies, the word is that indian women are more sexy than white women. white women are better at marketing themselves.

i shouldn't be giving people ideas. bad, bad me. slap on wrist.

daisies said...

Rajeev & Darkstorm,

I agree biological studies are
more reliable than imaginative
speculation.

And hence, I feel Rajeev's tourism
theory does not match the DNA
evidence of "many modern south Indians are descended from southern-fringe women, but few from southern-fringe men"

A more suitable theory than tourism
is needed.

And btw, rajeev, the indian woman
you are talking of is from the
final mixed gene-pool...

the original "southern-fringer" was
closer to african, i guess ?

but even then you are right. becoz
i consider african women very very
beautiful.

p.s. i am awaiting a better theory
for the southern-fringe thing.

daisies said...

i was thinking again about this.

i dont think there was any
"conquest".

but there has been a general
southward movement. perhaps a natural movement as population increased and more people wanted their "own" patch of land
- the only way to do that is by moving and resettling. the only direction to move was southwards.

The second wave of people must have
been taller than the first wave, and also must have been light-skinned. Maybe they had a certain
culture, or maybe they were armed.
Either way, a case for respect.

The original southern-fringers
must have been shorter and dark.

They may have felt a natural awe and reverence for people much taller than them, and with light skin.

They may have just allowed them to marry more of their women.

Something like "Welcome to our
beloved invaders...." :-) (that's a
hilarious line I learnt from Asterix comics).

So that's my theory and
imagination.

I always wonder though, whatever
happened to the blonde hair and
blue eyes from the people who came
from the west ? How did all that
disappear in the gene-pool mixing here....?

Anyway, I would love to hear any
other theories anyone might have
on the south indian pouplation's
DNA make-up, mentioned in the
article.

daisies said...

also, a search for more
temperate climate may have been a
reason for moving southwards, in
the indian subcontinent.
and maybe some other environmental factors.

daisies said...

In that case, we have to say that
the following statements are not
correct:

"The coming together of two groups of humans can be seen in modern India, too. In the south of the subcontinent, people have Y-chromosomes derived almost exclusively from what the Cambridge school would interpret as being northern folk (and the Oxford school as the western survivors of Toba). However, more than 20% of their mitochondria arrived in Asia with the first migration from Africa (or, according to taste, clung on along the south-eastern fringes of the ash plume)".

Rajeev, are you willing to call
them incorrect ? This is a piece of
evidence you yourself have
presented here, in support of the
theory that there was no invasion.

All my comments were based on the
same evidence...not on what I feel
about any individual.

daisies said...

whether my understanding of indian
history is getting better or not,
i'm mostly splitting with laughter,
everything is sooooo funny, it
doesnt matter if it's right or
wrong - i think i got the full
worth of my free subscription to
the blog...it's all soooo funny...
oh my..!!! :-)

but i still hope to see some
closing comments from Rajeev on
my theory vs his tourism theory...

:-)

daisies said...

Hi Rajeev,

I didnt mean to belittle your
efforts on this blog. It's all
most laudable. I'm not making
fun of you.

This particular article with the
comments exchange had me rolling
with laughter, and I was caught
totally unawares.

Comic relief, I guess :-)

I like to have a hearty laugh
every now and then.

uuuluuu said...

I know I'm 2 years late but... guess what? this research has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the "Aryan invasion"! The Indo-European language family didn't arise until, oh, about 60,000 years after the dates they're talking about here. This is like saying "humans arrived in the Americas 10,000 years ago, therefore the Spanish never invaded Mexico".

asd123 said...

No, what this study shows is that there has been no migration into india. There were once ancient migrations outward, to explain for any genetic or even phenotypical similarities.