Sanskrit and the people who spoke it?

^ well its it is obvious to point out the aryan migration or invasion did not change the genetic, speically present day indian genetics at all, this is what the paper is pointing out and i already said this before, when aryan invaded or migrated they settled in what is now (pakistan) indus, but in even pakistan their genetic influence was very little since pakistan already had a big population at that time. aryans were not big in numbers when they came, in india of today (genetically) they had no influence at all.

A few points mentioned in the paper are:-

1. Based on the work of US anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs & Brian Hemphill, there is no case of demographic disruption in the north-west of the subcontinent between 4500 BC & 800 BC. This negates the possibility of any massive intrusion by the so-called Indo-aryans.

2. There is 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. The 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.

3. 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.

4. A fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages exists in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. 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.

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.

5. 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 in India which runs counter to the invasionist thesis.

6. In 2000, twenty authors headed by Kivisild, a pioneering Estonian biologist contributed a chapter to a book on the “archaeogenetics” of Europe. 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

For those who believe that the Aryan Migration Theory is supported by genetics, here is a link
http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Genetics_and_the_Aryan_Debate.pdf

Read it carefully. Clearly, there is no proof genetically, to support the Aryan Migration Theory. 

Old warrior proverb: Remember there is more then one way to engage.

Indo-European origins: Neolithic Anatolia still the best hypothesis   http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/indo-european-origins-neolithic.html   http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000434.html

Edited by MediaWarLord - 03-May-2011 at 09:54

Great thread guys.  Let's keep it going like this and keep our collective cool.

Dear Balochi, didn't mean to hurt you, but I do think you sometimes draw extreme conclusions. I think India and Pakistan has shared history, few things happened in todays pakistan and few in present India but lots were shared with each other. 

Edited by innocent - 03-May-2011 at 07:57

To MediaWarLord:

Where is the evidence of Aryan Migration in Indian Subcontinent? Since you seem to believe in it give us the evidence please.

Aryan Migration is just a theory and NOT A FACT. Is that hard to understand? THE EVIDENCE FOR IT IS NON-EXISTENT.

I gave you a link where Out Of India theory has been explained. Did you read it ? If so, please explain what is so absurd about it. If you haven't read it, I suggest you read it first http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php/Out_of_India_theory.

You say that in 8000 BC people in the near east were much more advanced than in India. Do you have any facts to back up this claim?

The earliest Harappan settlement is Mehrgarh according to present evidence.
 
The earliest settlement at Mehrgarh—in the northeast corner of the 495-acre (2.00 km²) site—was a small farming village dated between 7000 BC to 5500 BC.

In April 2006, it was announced in the scientific journal Nature that the oldest (and first early Neolithic) evidence in human history for the drilling of teeth in vivo (i.e. in a living person) was found in Mehrgarh.

What makes you think that in 2000 BC the people in the northern parts of mesopotamia were more advanced than people in Indus Valley ? Can you give us some evidence for that claim of yours ?

You said "Aryans from Kurdistan introduced iron smithing to the Indus valley people around 1800 BCE. These are facts!!!". Can you provide me a source for this information of yours ?

^ what are the facts according to you? that india is the mother land of the world, i am not against indians only against indian or any other nationlistics who twist the facts to make their fantasies come true