sign in sign up
<<
Home , Agriculture in India, David Reich (geneticist), Dutta, Mahajanapadas, Peopling of India

History of Ancient Volume III

THE TEXTS, POLITICAL HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATION Till c. 200 BC

Editors Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Makkhan Lal

Vivekananda International Foundation New

Aryan Books International New Delhi Cataloging in Publication Data—DK [Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. ]

History of ancient India / editors, Dilip K. Chakrabarti and Makkhan Lal. v. 3 cm. Contributed articles. Includes index. Contents: v. 3. The texts, political history and administration, till c. 200 BC. ISBN 9788173054822

1. India—History. 2. India—Politics and government. I. Chakrabarti, Dilip K., 1941- II. Makkhan Lal, 1954- III. Vivekananda International Foundation.

DDC 954 23

ISBN: 978-81-7305-482-2

© Vivekananda International Foundation

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, utilised in any form or by any means, electronic and mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without prior permission of the authors and the publishers.

Responsibility for statements made and visuals provided in the various papers rest solely with the contributors. The views expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of the editors or of publishers.

First Published in 2014 by Vivekananda International Foundation 3, San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 110 021 Tel.: 24121764, 24106698; Fax: 91-11-43115450 E-mail: [email protected] www.vifindia.org in association with Books International Pooja Apartments, 4B, Ansari Road, New Delhi - 110 002 Tel.: 23287589, 23255799; Fax: 91-11-23270385 E-mail: [email protected] www.aryanbooks.co.in

Designed and Printed in India at ABI Prints & Publishing Co., New Delhi. Foreword ix Contents Editorsí Preface xix

Part I THE VEDIC TEXTS AND RELATED ISSUES I.1. The Aryan Hypothesis: Theories 3 and Arguments ó Makkhan Lal I.2. The Horse and the Aryan Debate 30 ó M. Danino I.3. and the Aryan Issue 44 ó M. Danino I.4. India of the Vedic Texts 65 ó Dilip K Chakrabarti I.5. Traditional Political History 112 ó Dilip K Chakrabarti

Part II THE BUDDHIST AND JAINA TEXTS II.1. The Buddhist and Jaina Texts 127 ó K.T.S. Sarao and Anita Sharma

Part III POLITICAL HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATION TILL c. 200 BC III.1. , , 183 Kingdoms, and ó K.T.S. Sarao III.2. The Achaemenid Expansion 205 to the Indus and Alexanderís Invasion of the North-West ó Cameron A. Petrie and Peter Magee The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC vi

III.3. The Mauryas 231 VII.3. Charsadda 512 ó Ranabir Chakravarti ó Cameron A. Petrie III.4. Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas 276 VII.4. Hathab 523 ó K.Rajan ó Milisa Srivastava Part IV VII.5. Jhusi (Pratishthanpur) 525 AGE TO EARLY HISTORY ó J.N. Pal IV.1. Ganga Plain and North-Central 301 VII.6. Kapilavastu-Lumbini 541 Vindhyas ó Rakesh Tewari ó Rakesh Tewari VII.7. Kausambi 551 IV.2. Peninsular and Southern India 343 ó J.N. Pal ó R.K. Mohanty and Tilok Thakuria VII.8. Mahasthangarh 566 IV.3. Early in the Middle 379 ó Sufi Mostafizur Rahman Ganga Plain VII.9. 574 ó K.S. Saraswat ó Vinay Gupta Part V VII.10. 593 INSCRIPTIONS AND COINS ó B.R. Mani and Vinay Gupta V.1. Asokan and Post-Asokan 413 VII.11. Rajagriha 599 Inscriptions (up to c. 200 BC) ó B.R. Mani and Vinay Gupta ó Ashvini Agrawal VII.12. Sarnath 609 V.2. Evolution of Coinage and 422 ó B.R. Mani Early Indian Coins VII.13. Sisupalgarh 617 ó Devendra Handa ó B.B. Lal, R.K. Mohanty and Part VI Monica Smith THE GROWTH OF EARLY HISTORIC CITIES VII.14. Sravasti 629 AND STATES ó Ashok K Singh VI.1. Early Historical Urbanism and 435 State Formations VII.15. Sugh 635 ó Makkhan Lal ó Devendra Handa VII.16. Sunet 643 Part VII SITE REPORTS ó Devendra Handa VII.1. 501 VII.17. 652 ó Ashok K Singh ó Cameron A. Petrie VII.2. Chandraketugarh 506 VII.18. Tosali 664 ó Dilip K Chakrabarti ó Dilip K Chakrabarti Contents vii

VII.19. Vaisali 668 VII.21. Wari-Bateshwar 681 ó Ashok K. Singh ó Sufi Mostafizur Rahman

VII.20. 673 Contributors 691 ó Ashok K Singh Index 693 Editorial Note I.3. Genetics and the [There cannot be anything more unpleasant in the study of affairs than the concept of race and the Aryan Issue enormous literature built around it. The modern DNA studies have cast doubt on the validity of many of the earlier assumptions, and in this paper Danino demonstrates how the notion of the has not been supported by these studies in any way. This paper by Danino also provides an excellent introduction to the relevant DNA literature, including the opinions of M. Bamshad, P. Majumdar and others who seem to be keen on justifying the nineteenth century assumptions of race and language through something as sophisticated as molecular biology. He, however, makes it abundantly clear through his literature review that such attempts are thoroughly belied by the researches of scholars like Oppenheim, Kivisild, Sahoo, Sengupta, Raychaudhuri and many others.]

h

BACKGROUND Until the mid-twentieth century, anthropology was rooted in the concept of race. It took World War II and the horrors perpetrated in the name of an Aryan Herrenfolk for racialóand, generally, racistótheories to collapse. Rather late in the day, anthropologists realized that race cannot be scientifically defined, setting at naught over a century of scholarly divagations on ìsuperiorî and ìinferiorî races. Following in the footsteps of pioneers like Franz Boas (1912), scientists such as Ashley Montagu (1942) now strongly criticized the ìfallacy of raceî. Despite notable exceptions (e.g., Datta 1935), Indian anthropologists, building on nineteenth-century work (especially that of H.H. Genetics and the Aryan Issue 45

Risley, see Trautmann 1997; Chakrabarti 1997), study, Mortimer Wheelerís claim that skeletons went on listing imaginary Indian racesó found in the streets of Mohenjodaro were including the fabled Aryan and Dravidian evidence of a massacre by invading Aryans. In racesófor a few more decades, and indeed further research, Kennedy questioned the whole some of them occasionally linger on in todayís Aryan construct from an anthropological history textbooks. Until the 1960s, for example, standpoint, calling the said Aryans ìillusiveî skeletal studies from Mohenjodaro and Harappa (Kennedy 1999: 182) and asking, ìHow could found it natural to stick colourful labels on the one recognize an Aryan, living or dead, when different ìracesî supposedly going into the the biological criteria for Aryanness are non- composition of the Harappan population: existent?î (Kennedy 1995: 61) His conclusion Caucasoid, Mediterranean, Caspian, Proto- was emphatic: Australoid, Mongoloid, etc. (Sewell & Guha 1931; Bose et al. 1962) Such a method, or lack Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan of it, left unanswered the big question at the biological or demographic entity.... What the heart of the Aryan debate in India: Could the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races hypothesis of the entry into the subcontinent of are apparent from laboratory studies of human a new people (since we will henceforth shun remains excavated from any archaeological sites.... the word ìraceî) in the 2nd millennium BC be All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far proved or disproved on biological grounds? from the are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there Only from about the 1970s did non-racial is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the anthropological work begin to provide reliable north-western sector of the subcontinent during and leads on Indiaís protohistory. Revisiting the immediately after the decline of the Harappan skeletal data, Pratap C. Dutta (of the culture. (Kennedy 1995: 60, 54) Anthropological Survey of India) found that however great the Harappansí internal diversity The last statement rules out the arrival of a may have been, there was ìa genetic continuum new people in the 2nd millennium BC as envisaged by the Aryan scenario. It was between the Harappans and the present-day endorsed by other experts, such as Brian people of the region.î (Dutta 1984: 73) While Hemphill and John Lukacs (Hemphill et al. Dutta refrained from drawing further 1991, 1997), who found only two pre-and conclusions, S.R. Walimbe was more protohistoric discontinuities in the populations forthcoming: of the Indus Valley, especially its western and Reassessment of the [Harappan] skeletal record northern fringes: ìThe first occurs between 6000 strongly indicates that the hypothesis of and 4500 BC... [with] another discontinuity at some identification of ìforeignî phenotypic element or point after 800 BC but before 200 BC.î (Hemphill unceremonious slaughter of native Harappans is not et al. 1991: 174) If, then, the biological supplemented by bone evidence. (Walimbe 1993: continuity extends from 4500 to 800 BC, it again 113) leaves no room for any mass immigration around Walimbeís conclusion was partly based on 1500 BC. the work of Kenneth Kennedy (1982, 1984) who Such conclusions are implicitly endorsed in had refuted, on the ground of a careful skeletal a 2007 study led by Jay T. Stock, which observes The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 46 a general level of homogeneity among the South sizeable invasions of the historical period failed Asian samples.... An analysis of South Asian to do so. More logically, other scholars still insist cranial morphology in the context of the global that ìthe Indo-Aryan immigrants seem to have pattern of human variation suggests that been numerous and strong enough to continue populations of the Indian subcontinent have a and disseminate much of their cultureî (Sharma relatively unique and homogenous pattern of 2001: 52), but they now find themselves on the cranial morphology.... [This] suggests that, wrong side of archaeological and biological independent of whether or not there was an evidence. important demographic event in the mid- [i.e., c. 4000 BC], there was relatively A POWERFUL NEW TOOL little gene flow from outside of The last two decades have seen the entry of afterwards. (Stock et al. 2007: 257, 262) genetics into the arena. While it may be argued The study also finds that ìthe tribal/nontribal that bioanthropologists could have missed a few boundary has been genetically more fluid than tell-tale skulls, Indian populations still carry generally thoughtî (Stock et al. 2007: 262), an genetic markers which, one day, will enable us important observation which, as we will see, will to reconstitute the history of their settling in India be amply confirmed by genetics studies. in fairly complete detail. In the meantime, important results have come to light. In 2007, too, Walimbe showed the pitfalls of interpreting changes in cranial shapes in terms In trying to reconstruct ancestry, biologists of foreign gene flow, and concluded: use two types of DNA, the complex molecule that carries genetic information. The first, Y- Cranial and dental morphological data clearly DNA, is contained in the Y-chromosome, one indicate genetic continuity from the Mesolithic era. of the two sex chromosomes; it is found in the The hypotheses regarding massive population cellís nucleus and is transmitted from father to movements during the protohistoric period cannot son. The second, mtDNA or mitochondrial DNA, be supported on available skeletal data. (Walimbe is found in mitochondria, kinds of power 2007: 315) generators found in the cell, but outside its Turning to archaeology, it is now well nucleus; this mtDNA is independent of the Y- accepted that there is no sign in the Northwest DNA, simpler in structure, and transmitted by of an intrusive material culture in the 2nd the mother alone (to her male or female child). millennium BC (Bryant 2001; Chakrabarti 2008; For various reasons, all this genetic material Danino 2006b; Danino 2010; Gupta 1996; Jarrige undergoes slight alterations or ìmutationsî in the 1995; Kenoyer 1998; Lal 1998; Lal 2002; Shaffer course of time; those mutations then become 1984). This double invisibilityóarchaeological characteristic of the line of descendants and are and biologicalóhas compelled die-hard called ìgenetic markersî. If, for instance, the proponents of the invasion / migration scenario mtDNAs of two , however distant to downscale it to a ìtrickle-inî infiltration (Witzel geographically, exhibit the same mutation, they 2001), limited enough to have left no physical necessarily share a common ancestor in the traces. But they are at pains to explain how such maternal line. a ìtrickleî could have radically altered Indiaís Much of the difficulty lies in grouping linguistic and cultural landscape, when far more genetic markers that share the same sets of Genetics and the Aryan Issue 47 mutations into ìhaplotypesî (from a Greek word with distinct ethnic entitiesóa relic of the meaning ìsingleî), genetic fingerprints of sorts nineteenth-century erroneous identification that have found a wide array of applications, between language and race; as a result, a genetic from therapeutics to crime detection to connection between north Indians and Central genealogy. Similar haplotypes are then brought Asians has automatically been taken to confirm together into ìhaplogroupsîónot to be confused an Aryan immigration in the 2nd millennium BC, with the old notion of ìraceî. Such genetic disregarding a number of alternative markers can then be used to establish a ìgenetic explanations. We will return to these pitfalls. distanceî between two individuals or two More recent studies, using larger samples populations. and more refined methods of analysis, both at Identifying and making sense of the right the conceptual level and in the laboratory, have genetic markers is not the only difficulty; dating often reached very different conclusions. One their mutations remains a major challenge: a of the first such studies, in 1999, was conducted marker of Y-DNA may undergo one mutation by a team directed by the Estonian biologist every 250 to 500 generations, which is not too Toomas Kivisild (who will be associated as precise. Genetics, therefore, needs inputs from author or co-author with many of the studies palaeontology and archaeology, among other cited below); it relied on 550 samples of mtDNA disciplines, to verify its historical conclusions. and identified a haplogroup ìUî as indicating a With their help, it becomes tempting to turn deep connection between Indian and West- human genetic variation into actual history. Eurasian populations. However, the authors Several ambitious attempts at a comprehensive opted for a very remote separation of the two story of human prehistoric migrations have come branches rather than a recent population out in recent years, including ìclassicsî such as movement towards India; in fact, ìthe L.L. Cavalli-Sforzaís Genes, Peoples, and subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward Languages (2000), Stephen Oppenheimerís The migration of modern humansî from some Real Eve: Modern Manís Journey Out of Africa 40,000 years ago: (2004) or Spencer Wellsís The Journey of Man: We found an extensive deep late A Genetic Odyssey (2004). Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA INDIAíS CASE haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a Since the 1990s, there have been numerous fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our genetic studies of Indian populations, often estimate for this split [between Europeans and reaching apparently divergent conclusions. Indians] is close to the suggested time for the There are at least three reasons for this: (1) the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of Indian region happens to be the most genetically anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and diverse in the world after Africa, which makes likely pre-dates their spread to . (Kivisild the interpretation of the data a complex and et al. 1999: 1331) delicate exercise; (2) early studies relied on small In other words, the genetic affinity between samples, while thousands are required for the Indian subcontinent and Europe ìshould not statistical reliability; (3) some of the studies fall be interpreted in terms of a recent admixture of into the trap of trying to equate linguistic groups western Caucasoids with Indians caused by a The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 48 putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000ñ4,000 years (Roychoudhury et al. 2000: 1190) Significantly, BP [before present].î (Kivisild et al. 1999: 1333) most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian This was probably the first major challenge to populations is between individuals within the invasionist model arising out of genetics. populations; there is no significant structuring The second was published just a month later. of haplotype diversity by socio-religious Authored by the U.S. biological anthropologist affiliation, geographical location of habitat or Todd R. Disotell, the study dealt with the first linguistic affiliation. (Roychoudhury et al. 2000: migration of modern man from Africa towards 1187). Asia, and found that migrations into India ìdid That is a crucial observation, which later occur, but rarely from western Eurasian studies will endorse: on the maternal side at populations.î Disotell made observations very least, and in the regions studied, there is no such similar to those of the preceding paper: thing as a ìHinduî or ìMuslimî genetic identity, nor also a high- or low-caste oneóhence the The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,000 paperís title: ìFundamental genomic unity of years before present therefore did not make a major ethnic revealed by analysis of splash in the Indian gene pool. This is especially mitochondrial DNA.î The authors also noted that counter-indicated by the presence of equal, though haplogroup ìUî, already noted by Kivisild et al. very low, frequencies of the western Eurasian (1999) as being common to north Indian and mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ìcaucasoidî features of south Asians may ìCaucasoidî populations, was found in tribes of best be considered ìpre-caucasoidî ó that is, part eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals. This of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool would not be the case if it had been introduced that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years the haplogroup ìMî, another marker frequently ago. (Disotell 1999: R926) mentioned in the early literature as evidence of the invasion: in reality, ìWe have now shown Here again, the Eurasian connection is traced that indeed haplogroup M occurs with a high to the original migration out of Africa, so that frequency, averaging about 60%, across most ìthe supposed Aryan invasion of India 3000ñ Indian population groups, irrespective of 4000 years ago was much less significant than geographical location of habitat. We have also is generally believed.î (Disotell 1999: R925) shown that the tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste GENES, RELIGION, CASTE AND LANGUAGE populations.î (Roychoudhury et al. 2000: 1189) A year later, thirteen Indian scientists led by Also in 2000, twenty authors headed by Susanta Roychoudhury studied 644 samples of Kivisild contributed a chapter to a book on mtDNA from some ten Indian ethnic groups, Europeís archaeogenetics. They first stressed the especially from the East and South. They found importance of the mtDNA haplogroup ìMî ìa fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, common to India (with a frequency of 60%), in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic central and eastern Asia (40% on average), and diversityî, pointing to ìa relatively small even to American Indians; however, this founding group of females in India.î frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is Genetics and the Aryan Issue 49

ìinconsistent with the ëgeneral Caucasoidnessí The second study, a particularly detailed one of Indians.î This shows, once again, that ìthe dealing with the genetic heritage of Indiaís Indian maternal gene pool has come largely earliest settlers, relied on nearly a thousand through an autochthonous history since the Late samples from the subcontinent, including two Pleistoceneî (Kivisild et al. 2000: 271), in other Dravidian-speaking tribes from . words, before some 15,000 years ago. Looking Among other findings, it stressed that the Y-DNA at mtDNA as a whole, the paper stated, ìEven haplogroup M17, regarded till recently as a the high castes share more than 80 per cent of genetic marker for an Indo-Aryan migration, and their maternal lineages with the lower castes and indeed frequent in Central Asia, is equally found tribalsî (Kivisild et al. 2000: 271), which also in the two tribes under consideration, which is runs counter to the invasionist thesis. Taking all inconsistent with the invasionist framework. aspects into consideration, the authorsí Moreover, one of the two tribes, the Chenchus, conclusion was: is genetically close to several castes, so that there is a ìlack of clear distinction between We believe that there are now enough reasons not Indian castes and tribesî (Kivisild et al. 2003b: only to question a ìrecent IndoñAryan invasionî into 329)ó fact that can hardly be overemphasized. India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a part of the common gene pool ancestral This also emerges from a study of genetic to the diversity of human maternal lineages in distances between eight Indian and seven Europe. (Kivisild et al. 2000: 267) Eurasian populations. These distances, calculated on the basis of 16 Y-DNA In 2003, Kivisild published two more haplogroups (Fig. 1), challenge many common studies. The first dealt with the origin of assumptions: not only are the Chenchus close languages and and stressed to five castes, as just mentioned, but we find Indiaís genetic complexity and antiquity, since another tribe, the Lambadis (probably of ìpresent-day Indians [possess] at least 90 per Rajasthani origin), stuck between western cent of what we think of as autochthonous Europe and the , Bengalis of various Upper Palaeolithic maternal lineages.î (Kivisild castes close to Mumbai , and Goan et al. 2003a: 221) The authors noted: Brahmins and Punjabis (both of whom one The Indian mtDNA tree in general [is] not would have expected to be closest to Central subdivided according to linguistic (Indo- Asia (assuming an Aryan immigration) as far European, Dravidian) or caste affiliations, away as possible from it. It becomes clear that although there may occur (sometimes drastic) no simple framework can account for such population-wise differences in frequencies of complexity. particular sub-clusters. (Kivisild et al. 2003a: The next year, a study directed by Mait 216) Metspalu analyzed 796 Indian (including tribal This again highlights the old error of and caste populations from different parts of conflating language and race or : India) and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. Of relevance there is no ìHindi-speaker geneî or ìTamil- to our purpose is the following observation: speaker geneî, and again no ìupper-caste geneî or ìlow-caste geneî, despite entrenched Language families present today in India, such as misconceptions still prevalent in this regard. Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 50

Fig. 1. Genetic distances between eight Indian and seven western Eurasian populations, calculated for 16 Y-DNA haplogroups (adapted from Kivisild et al. 2003b: 325).

much younger than the majority of indigenous European, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto- mtDNA lineages found among their present-day Burmese being the main onesótook shape speakers at high frequencies. It would make it later, without requiring massive population highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA displacements. The authors do find traces of an pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed ìEurasian contributionî to the Indian maternal above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more ìautochthonousî than any other gene pool, but they attribute it partly to a ìlarge- in respect of its presence in the subcontinent. scaleî immigration some 40,000 years ago, and (Metspalu et al. 2004) partly to ìrelatively low-intensity long-lasting Thus, Indian populations probably spoke admixture at the border regions as well as a now extinct languages when they settled in consequence of numerous but probably limited India; the current language familiesóIndo- migrations during the last 10,000 ybp [years Genetics and the Aryan Issue 51 before present].î (Metspalu et al. 2004) In IndoñAryan immigration: ìThe influence of conclusion, the authors see: Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to a genetic continuum that spans from the Near East conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily into India extending north into Central Asia. The the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a coalescence times of these haplogroups suggest lineages.î (Sengupta et al. 2006: 218; the R1a that this continuum took shape somewhere between 30,000 to 50,000 ybp, thus falling within lineages being a different way to denote the the climatically favorable interglacial period. We haplogroup M17). notice that the extant U7 and W frequencies along Finally, and significantly, this study indirectly the proposed continuum are not uniform. U7 is more rejected a ìDravidianî authorship of the Indus- predominant in , , northwestern India Sarasvati Civilization, since it noted, ìOur data and the , while W is more frequent are also more consistent with a peninsular origin in the western Near-East, Anatolia and the . of Dravidian speakers than a source with The coalescence ages of the Indian- and Iranian- proximity to the Indus....î (Sengupta et al. 2006: specific U7 clades suggest that the time-window of this continuum was closed by ca. 20,000 ybp. 202) They found, in conclusion, ìoverwhelming (Metspalu et al. 2004) support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.î (Sengupta et al. 2006: 219) This runs If so, the main genetic connection between counter to a popular but merely speculative northwest India and Iran, would date to before thesis that the Harappans were basically 20,000 years ago, and would not be attributable ìDravidiansî, a thesis which archaeology also to a recent split between Indo-Aryans and Irano- fails to support (Danino 2009). Aryans. Another Indian biologist, Sanghamitra Sahoo, CENTRAL ASIA; DRAVIDIAN SPEAKERS; CASTE- headed a study of the Y-DNA of 936 samples TRIBE CONTINUUM covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them tribes. Their work confirmed earlier findings: Three studies relevant to our investigation ìThe sharing of some Y-chromosomal appeared in 2006. The first was headed by the haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian Indian biologist Sanghamitra Sengupta. Based on populations is most parsimoniously explained 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it by a deep, common ancestry between the two announced in its very title how its findings regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific revealed a ìMinor Genetic Influence of Central lineages northward.î (Sahoo et al. 2006: 843) Asian Pastoralistsî, i.e. of supposed Indoñ So the southward gene flow that had been Aryans, and stated its general agreement with imprinted on our minds for two centuries may the previous study. For instance, the authors turn out to be wrong: it appears that early rejected the identification of some Y-DNA population flow was out of, not into, India. The genetic markers with an ìIndo-European authors continue: expansionî, an identification they called ìconvenient but incorrect... overly simplistic.î The Y-chromosomal data consistently (Sengupta et al. 2006: 217-18) To them, the suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian subcontinentís genetic landscape was formed caste communities and therefore argue against much earlier than the dates proposed for an any major influx, from regions north and west The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 52

Fig. 2. Genetic distances between populations estimated from Y-haplogroup frequencies (from Sahoo et al. 2006). of India, of people associated either with the other (average Fst value = 0.07) than they are to development of agriculture or the spread of the the tribal groups (average Fst value = 0.06)î Indo-Aryan language family. (Sahoo et al. 2006: (Sahoo et al. 2006: 844), an important 843) confirmation of earlier studies. (Fst is, simply The second of the two rejected associations put, a measure of the degree of differentiation is that of the Indo-Aryan expansion. The first, among populations; its values range from 0 to that of the spread of agriculture, is the well- 1). In particular, ìSouthern castes and tribals are known thesis of Colin Renfrew (1989), which very similar to each other in their Y- traces IndoñEuropean origins to the beginnings chromosomal haplogroup compositions.î of agriculture in Anatolia and sees Indo- (Sahoo et al. 2006: 845) As a result, ìit was not Europeans entering India around 9000 BP along possible to confirm any of the purported with agriculture: Sahoo et al. see no evidence differentiations between the caste and tribal of this in the genetic record. (There are also poolsî (Sahoo et al. 2006: 847)ówhich considerable archaeological difficulties with effectively negates the picture dictated by the Renfrewís thesis, both in and outside India; Aryan paradigm of tribal vs. caste besides, recent evidence on the practice of as descendants of Indo-Aryans agriculture in the Valley as early as in immigrants. In reality, today we have no way to the eighth millennium points to an indigenous determine who in India is an ìadiî-vasi (original origin of Indian agriculture; however, a inhabitant), but enough data to reject this label discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of as misleading and unnecessarily divisive. Our this paper.) whole notion of ìtribeî in the Indian context, which anyhow carries a heavy colonial baggage, The same data allow the authors to construct turns out to be deeply flawed, as a few Indian an eloquent table of genetic distances between anthropologists had already pointed out (e.g., several populations, based on Y-haplogroups Singh 2011). (Fig. 2). We learn from it, for instance, that ìthe caste populations of ënorthí and ësouthí India The same year, Noah A. Rosenberg directed are not particularly more closely related to each a study on ìLow Levels of Genetic Divergence Genetics and the Aryan Issue 53 across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse modern Dravidian-speaking and non-Dravidian- Populations from Indiaî. It found that ìgenetic speaking groups of our study.î In other terms, variation in India is distinctive with respect to the ìadmixtureî between the two linguistic the rest of the world, but that the level of genetic groups, if it took place, could have resulted from divergence is smaller in Indians than might be repeated population contacts over a long time. expected for such a geographically and In 2007, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, together linguistically diverse groupî (Rosenberg et al. with M. Metspalu, T. Kivisild and R. Villems, 2006: 2053), stressing again the subcontinentís reviewed many earlier studies, including some genomic unity, in contrast with regions outside of those quoted above, and stressed the ìcaste- the subcontinent: ìThe noticeable genetic tribe continuumî, as it is now called. The paper divergence of India from other regions is asked: coupled with low levels of genetic divergence across the subgroups within India.î (Rosenberg whether any of these can be singled out as more et al. 2006: 2053) Significantly (and keeping in ìautochthonousî than others. However ... this would mind that Fst is an index of genetic distance or be highly problematic, first, because the language differentiation). families involved are generally believed to be far younger than the time frame required for the Compared to groups that speak Indo- peopling of India. Secondly, such ìautochthonousî European languages, the groups in our study that Indian-specific mtDNA and Y chromosome lineage speak (Kannada, groups are widely spread across language borders Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu) did not show in the subcontinent ... and the putative language noticeably different patterns of pairwise Fst shifts make it hard to infer the original tongue for values, and in particular, they did not show a every population studied even during the historic greater Fst from populations of Europe and the period and perhaps impossible for earlier times. Middle East. Although a process of ancient Thus, the present-day linguistic affinities of different admixture with indigenous Dravidian speakers Indian populations per se are perhaps among the most ambiguous and even potentially controversial by Indo-European populations originating to the lines of evidence in the reconstruction of prehistoric west of India might have been expected to result demographic processes in India. (Chaubey et al. in an elevated genetic distance from modern 2007: 97) Dravidians to European and Middle Eastern populations, our analysis does not find evidence In lay terms, this means, once again, that of such an admixture process. (Rosenberg et al. current linguistic groups in India cannot be 2006: 2054-55) equated to corresponding ethnic groups: the demarcation lines do not coincide. The paper This ìadmixture processî is the one that also agreed with earlier studies that ìMost of the would have followed an Aryan invasion or Indian-specific mtDNA haplogroups show immigration, and which the study failed to coalescent times 40,000ñ60,000 YBP.î document. ìHowever,î it continued, ìthe (Chaubey et al. 2007: 97) admixture scenario is not directly contradicted: the data are compatible with a view in which The same year, Phillip Endicott, together the admixture occurred in such a manner that at with Metspalu and Kivisild, took a closer look at its conclusion, similar contributions of ancestral the question of ìmodern human dispersals in Dravidians were present in the precursors of the South Asiaî. Their observation as regards Indiaís The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 54 linguistic demarcation lines is an unambiguous sometime after an initial colonization, in a rejection of the older paradigm: polarity opposite that expected by the McAlpin model. ... This population subdivision occurred The Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman language during pre-historical times and argues against groups may retain a distinctive genetic signature an origin of Dravidian in the Iranian plateau and due to their relatively recent introduction and recent displacement southward by Indo- limited subsequent male gene flow. However, consistent divisions between populations speaking European agriculturists. The current data are Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages are harder to more consistent with the Deccan origin modelî define with reliability. The complex and intertwined (Underhill 2008: 108). In other words, Dravidian history of changes in language, subsistence patterns, speakers appear to have originated within the demography and political intervention, makes it Indian subcontinent, a view already proposed difficult to relate genetic patterns to these by the American archaeobotanist Dorian Fuller widespread linguistic categories. The evidence from who, on the basis of archaeobotanical as well as mtDNA argues against any strong differentiation linguistic evidence, opted for ìproto-Dravidians between these (and other) major language groups ..., and therefore nullifies attempts to trace, somewhere within the core range of modern maternally, the large-scale population movements Dravidians... the main directions of dispersal once speculated to have accompanied the arrival would have been out from the Deccan towards of Indo-Aryan languages. (Endicott et al. 2007: 238) its peripheries and zones of isolationî (Fuller 2003: 207-208). In a 2008 paper, Peter A. Underhill warned against what he called ìpitfallsî in interpreting BACK TO CASTE the genetic data, in particular ìa simplistic understanding of the seductive storyline The next year, the Indian geneticist Swarkar provided by the Y chromosomeî (Underhill Sharma piloted a study on the vexed issue of 2008: 105). Without going into the technical the origins of the caste system. It reviewed and intricacies involved, let us mention that Underhill attempted to assess the competing theses in the is led to question the conventional view that field. Studying a sample of 681 Brahmins and Dravidian speakers originated from southwest 2128 tribals and Scheduled Castes, the authors Persia, a view that derived, among others, from found ìno consistent pattern of the exclusive the work of the U.S. linguist David W. McAlpin presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to in the 1970s (see McAlpin 1981), which built distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, upon perceived parallels between Dravidian from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and and Elamite. Although often quoted as the last tribals.î (Sharma et al. 2009: 51) In their view, word on the origin of Dravidian speakers, the Y-haplogroup R1a1 held the key to the McAlpinís thesis had failed to convince some origins of the caste system; exploring its of his own colleagues, including experts on frequency not only in India but also in the rest Dravidian linguistics (see Comments in McAlpin of Eurasia and Central Asia in particular, they 1975; also Zvelebil 1990: 104-115). With a fresh found that ìthe age of R1a1 was the highest in look at the data from genetics, Underhill finds a the Indian subcontinentî and concluded ìin favor haplogroup (called L1-M27), which forms an of the suggestion that there has been no bulk important component of genetic make-up of migration from Central Asia to India.î (Sharma West Asian populations, ìemanating from India et al. 2009: 54, 52) Their next observation was: Genetics and the Aryan Issue 55

Interestingly, among different groups, the age of and predate the upper bound of the age estimate Y-haplogroup R1a1 was highest in scheduled of the Indo-European language tree. ... The castes/tribes when compared with Central Asians presence and overall frequency of haplogroup and Eurasians. These observations weaken the R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno- hypothesis of introduction of this haplogroup and Ugric, Dravidian or Turkic speakers from each the origin of Indian higher most castes from Central other.î The earlier use of this marker for Indo- Asian and Eurasian regions, supporting their origin within the Indian subcontinent (Sharma et al. 2009: European migrations would thus be unjustified, 54). unless proto-Indo-European can be pushed back beyond 10000 BC, which most linguists would Their conclusion deserves to be quoted at be unwilling to accept. Moreover, the some length: distribution of sub-haplogroups of R1a ìwould exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow The observation of R1a in high frequency for the first time in the literature, as well as analyses using from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid- different phylogenetic methods, resolved the Holocene periodî (Underhill et al. 2010: 483), controversy of the origin of R1a1, supporting its precluding once again any significant migration origin in the Indian subcontinent. Simultaneously, from eastern Europe to Asia since about 4000 the presence of R1a1 in very high frequency in BC. Brahmins, irrespective of linguistic and geographic Significantly, the authorsí study of frequency affiliations, suggested it as the founder haplogroup distribution for the haplogroup most commonly for the population. The co-presence of this haplogroup in many of the tribal populations of India, associated with Indo-European speakers, R1a1a its existence in high frequency in Saharia (present (which, for our purpose, is the same as M17), study) and Chenchu tribes, the high frequency of differs from more conventional studies, but R1a in Kashmiri Pandits (KPsóBrahmins) as well as agrees with the preceding one (Sharma et al. Saharia (tribe) and associated phylogenetic ages 2009), in that it displaces the centre of gravity supported the autochthonous origin and tribal links for this marker from eastern Europe or Central of Indian Brahmins, confronting the concepts of Asia to the Indian subcontinent (see Fig. 3). recent Central Asian introduction and rank-related Eurasian contribution of the Indian caste system. For our most recent study, we turn again to (Sharma et al. 2009: 54) Metspalu, who piloted in 2011 a study of 142 samples from 30 ethnic groups in India. The This is an emphatic rejection of the Aryan chief finding was that ìIndian populations are scenarioís views on the origins of caste, although characterized by two major ancestry the paper ended on a cautionary note calling components, one of which is spread at for more representative samples. comparable frequency and haplotype diversity In 2010, Underhill was the lead author of a in populations of South and West Asia and the study that examined the relationship between Caucasus. The second component is more European and Asian Y chromosomes within the restricted to South Asia and accounts for more haplogroup R1a, which has been regarded as a than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populationsî marker of the supposed Indo-European (Metspalu et al. 2011: 731). But the first migrations. The authors found that ìcoalescent component, shared with regions west of India, time estimates of R1a1a correlate with the timing ìcannot be explained by recent gene flow, such of the recession of the Last Glacial Maximum as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migrationî The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 56

Fig. 3. Geographic distribution of haplogroup R1a1a frequency; see Underhill et al. 2010: 481 for detailed explanation.

(Metspalu et al. 2011: 740). The evidence, U.S. biologist Michael Bamshad found that instead, ìsuggests multiple gene flows to the ìupper castes are more similar to Europeans than South Asian gene pool, both from the west and to Asiansî and concluded that ìY-chromosome east, over a much longer time spanî (Metspalu variation confirms Indo-European admixtureî et al. 2011: 741). The authors also offered a (Bamshad et al. 2001). Such conclusions were welcome reminder of the complexity of genetic soon cited (not without some glee) as proof of origins in the Indian context: the Aryan migration theory, until they were swept away by later studies. Several aspects of the nature of continuity and discontinuity of the genetic landscape of South Asia The same year, the Indian geneticist Partha and West Eurasia still elude our understanding. P. Majumder acknowledged the ìfundamental Whereas the maternal gene pool of South Asia is unity of mtDNA lineages in India in spite of the dominated by autochthonous lineages, Y extensive cultural and linguistic diversityî chromosome variants of the R1a clade are spread (Majumder 2001: 535), but, citing Romila Thapar, from India (ca 50%) to eastern Europe and their remained committed to the view that ìpastoral precise origin in space or time is still not well nomads originating in the Central Asian steppes understood (Metspalu et al. 2011: 739). may also have contributed to the gene pool of India. The entry of humans from these regions DIVERGING VIEWS into India was through the northwest corridor of Despite the above barrage of studies challenging India. ... It is known that after the entry of the the conventional scenario, geneticists are yet to Aryan-speakers into India, the Brahmins were reach unanimity about the origins of Indian the torch-bearers and promoters of Aryan ritualsî populations. Thus a 2001 study directed by the (Majumdar 2001: 541-44). In a more recent Genetics and the Aryan Issue 57 study, Majumdar repeated the same supportî it. Quite the contrary, as mentioned methodological error, basing himself on the earlier, archaeological evidence actually runs belief that there was ìa conquest of this region against the migrationist view, while linguistic [the Northwest] by nomadic people from Central evidence is ambivalent and can be explained Asia, who spoke Indo-European languages. This through non-diffusionist models. The authors do conquest by Indo-European speakers introduced not seem to have realized the circularity of their a social structure that is hierarchical (the caste approach, accepting the supposed Indo- system), and persists even to this dayî (Majumdar European migration and suiting the genetic 2008: 280). Additionally, he invoked obsolete evidence to it. linguistic evidence such as the existence of ìthe In 2008, a study entitled ìGenetic landscape existence of a solitary Dravidian-speaking of the people of India: a canvas for disease gene group, the Brahuiî as evidence for the spread explorationî was published by the Indian of Dravidian speakers into South Asia, unaware Variation Consortium (with seven co- of the fact that Brahui has long been shown to authors and some 150 collaborators); its primary be a recent entrant into Baluchistan (see focus was to identify ìmarkers on disease or references in Danino 2009: 76-77). Similarly, the drug-response related genes in diverse notion of a ìproto-Elamo-Dravidian languageî populationsî. However, it did remark on the (Majumdar 2008: 282) refers to the above- connection between linguistic and ethnic groups, mentioned thesis by McAlpin, which as we saw noting ìhigh levels of genetic divergence stands challenged by genetics and between groups of populations that cluster archaeobotany. This shows the danger of trying largely on the basis of ethnicity and languageî to suit the genetic evidence to predetermined (Indian Genome Variation Consortium 2008: 3), theories instead of letting it speak on its own while most of the above-mentioned studies saw terms. However, in a recent popular article, no such coincidence between genetic and Majumdar adopted a more cautious line: ìThe linguistic clusters. Again, ìWe observed that on initial view that there was large-scale migration a pan-India level, the tribal and caste populations from Central Asia into India has been are significantly differentiated. Besides, within significantly modulated.î (Majumdar and some geographical regions, tribes and castes Balasubramanian 2009: 76) subclassified by language are also well The same pattern can be found in the 2004 differentiatedî (Indian Genome Variation study directed by the French geneticist Richard Consortium 2008: 11), in apparent contradiction Cordaux, who argued that ìpaternal lineages of to the above caste-tribe continuum. It is difficult Indian caste groups are primarily descended to decide whether there is an absolute criterion from Indo-European speakers who migrated for such ìdifferentiationsî or if they are a matter from Central Asia 3,500 years ago. Conversely, of relative emphasis and ultimately personal paternal lineages of tribal groups are inclinations. Finally, the authors, referring to predominantly derived from the original Indian Romila Thaparís of 1966, write: gene pool.î (Cordaux et al. 2004: 231) But the ìIt is contented that the Dravidian speakers, now precision of the date is suspect, and the only geographically confined to southern India, were evidence provided for the said migration was more widespread throughout India prior to the that ìarchaeological and linguistic evidence arrival of the Indo-European speakers. They, The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 58 possibly after a period of social and genetic acceptance, again, of a ìtemptingî linguistic admixture with the Indo-Europeans, retreated theory, the study did not offer a date for the to southern India.... Our results showing genetic proposed separation of ANI from European heterogeneity among the Dravidian speakers populations. Moreover, its statistical methods are further supports the above hypothesis. The Indo- very elaborate and need to be tested by other European speakers also exhibit a similar or higher workers in the field. For instance, whether its degree of genetic heterogeneity possibly populations samples were adequate is doubtful: because of different extents of admixture with although the study involved 25 Indian the indigenous populations over different time populations, it was far from representative: many periods after their entry into India.î (Indian Indian states were completely left out (Himachal Genome Variation Consortium 2008: 9-10) This Pradesh, Punjab, , , West , is another clear case of circularity: a now Orissa, , and a few discarded thesis is accepted a priori and ìgenetic Northeastern states) or represented by a single heterogeneityî interpreted along those lines in population (Jammu & , Uttaranchal, disregard of more likely alternatives: if those , , , , populations were long settled in India, limited Chattisgarh, Kerala). With such a poor population movements and complex interactions distribution, it is hard to take seriously the (not just from north to south) since Palaeolithic concepts of ANI and ASI, which, moreover, are times could easily account for ìgenetic hardly defined; it may be asked whether heterogeneity among the Dravidian speakersî. introducing them does not also introduce an Such methodological flaws are not expected of a artificial division among Indian populations. The scientific study of this standard. authors were however careful enough to qualify Another differing view was published in their conclusions: Nature in 2009. An Indo-U.S. team directed by We warn that ìmodelsî in population David Reich introduced the concepts of genetics should be treated with caution. Although ìAncestral North Indiansî (ANI) and ìAncestral they provide an important framework for South Indiansî (ASI) and found them ìgenetically testing historical hypotheses, they are divergentî. For instance, the ANI were found to oversimplifications. For example, the true be ìgenetically close to Middle Easterners, ancestral populations of India were probably not Central Asians, and Europeansî and ìANI homogeneous as we assume in our model, but ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian instead were probably formed by clusters of groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste related groups that mixed at different times. and Indo-European speakers.î (Reich et al. 2009: (Reich et al. 2009: 492) 489) Although the study noted degrees of ìANI- More examples of methodological flaws in ASI mixtureî, it found it ìtempting to assume genetics studies were discussed by Nicole that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU Boivin in 2007: spoke ëProto-Indo-Europeaní, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both and In reading the genetics literature on South Asia, it is European languages, although we cannot be very clear that many of the studies actually start out certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture.î with some assumptions that are clearly problematic, (Reich et al. 2009: 492) Apart from the a priori if not in some cases completely untenable. Perhaps Genetics and the Aryan Issue 59

the single most serious problem concerns the immigration left no trace in Indian assumption, which many studies actually start with literature, in the archaeological and the as a basic premise ... that the Indo-Aryan invasions anthropological record, it is undetectable are a well-established (pre)historical reality. (Boivin at the genetic levelóunless a priori 2007: 352) assumed to be true. Boivin discusses this flaw in several studies, “ A rejection of facile and largely colonial such as Bamshad et al. 2001 or Cordaux et al. assumptions that tribal groups are 2004 cited above, pointing out that they ìconfirm descendants of Indiaís ìoriginalî such invasions in large part because they actually inhabitants (adivasis), while Dravidian as assume them to begin with.î (Boivin 2007: 352) well as Indo-European speakers have later Among other methodological issues, she notes entrants as ancestors. the failure to take into account the genetic legacy “ A rejection of a sharp genetic demarcation of known invasions, especially of historical line between tribal and caste populations: periods, and the ìproblematic assumption ... that there is no significant (or, at least, caste is unchangingî, e.g. that todayís definable) genetic pattern to differentiate necessarily had Brahmin ancestors, which need Brahmins, and tribals, all of whom not be correct, or again that castes were strictly may be regarded as autochthonous in endogamous, which is rarely the case (Boivin origin. 2007: 354). In other words, genetics studies Besides, Indiaís considerable genetic ignoring the fluidity of the social entities going diversity can make sense only by using a time- by the name of castes are likely to reach scale not of a few millennia, but of 40,000 to erroneous conclusions. 60,000 years. In fact, several studies, such as Stephen Oppenheimer (2003), Llu·s Quintana- CONCLUSIONS Murci et al. (2004), Vincent Macaulay et al. Genetics of human populations is a relatively (2005), Hannah V.A. James and Michael D. young discipline, which, in the Indian context, Petraglia (2005), have in the last few years has to contend with an acknowledged diversity proposed that modern humans migrating out of as well as complexity. We are still far from being Africa first reached southwest Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts able to re-create a comprehensive genetic of the world. In simple terms, except for history of Indian populations. In the meantime, Africans, all humans would have ancestors there. let us sum up the main conclusions reached by In particular, one migration started around 50,000 the first group of sixteen studies examined in BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: this chapter as far as the Aryan debate is concerned: Indeed, nearly all Europeansóand by extension, “ A rejection of the addition to Indian many Americansócan trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 populations of a ìCaucasoidî or Central and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asian gene pool about 1500 BC, and the Asia. (Allman 2004) assertion of an indigenous origin for most Indian populations, including upper Oppenheimer, a leading advocate of this castes. Just as the putative Aryan scenario, summarizes it in these words: The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 60

For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically human prehistory, but that the autochthonous the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and elements of its genetic heritage have not been sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest dominated by these later comings and goings. diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and (Endicott et al. 2007: 240) eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central In the authorsí opinion, more refined studies Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in based on larger population samples ìwill isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining continue to emphasize the genetically complex any theory of M17 as a marker of a ëmale Aryan patterns present, and are increasingly unlikely invasioní of India. One average estimate for the to support reductionist explanations of simplistic origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. demographic and cultural scenarios. Rather, they All this suggests that M17 could have found his way should put weight behind the suggestion that initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, West and South Asia, as conduits for the then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally settlement of the rest of the world, are coming into Europe. (Oppenheimer 2003: 152) central to comprehending modern human This would mean that India acted ìas an evolution outside of Africa.î (Endicott et al. incubator of early genetic differentiation of 2007: 240) modern humans moving out of Africa.î (Kivisild Genetics is a fast-evolving discipline, and et al. 2003b: 327) Endicottís study quoted earlier while we must expect frequent new also argued in favour of: developments to gradually build up a synthetic view of the origins of Indian populations, it is a rapid dispersal of modern humans from eastern certain that we will never have to return to the Africa and subsequent settlement of South Asia. A nineteenth-century racial fallacies of waves of single exodus along a southern, possibly coastal, Aryan migrants driving tribal autochthons into route is a parsimonious conclusion to draw from the hills or Dravidian speakers southward. Such contemporary patterns of haploid genetic distribution and diversity. ... The population entities have no reality in genetic, movements of the Holocene, together with the bioanthropological, archaeological or cultural appearance of West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in terms. In this sense, genetics is joining other the period 40ñ20 ka, indicate that South Asia has disciplines in helping to clean the cobwebs of indeed been ìat the crossroadsî for much of modern colonial historiography.

REFERENCES Note: Most of the genetics papers listed below Bamshad, Michael. et al. 2001. Genetic Evidence on the are available on the Internet; entering their full Origins of Indian Caste Populations. Genome title and their lead author in a search engine Research 11: 994-1004. should suffice to locate them. Boas, Franz. 1912. Race, Language and Culture. New Allman, William F. 2004. Eve Explained: How Ancient York: Macmillan. Humans Spread Across the Earth. Website of Boivin, Nicole. 2007. In Michael D. Petraglia & Bridget Discovery Channel, 21 August 2004; available Allchin (eds.), The Evolution and History of online at http://webhost.bridgew.edu/rsylvester/ Human Populations in South Asia: Inter- eve.rtf. disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Genetics and the Aryan Issue 61

Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics. Springer, R. Lukacs (ed.), The People of South Asia: The Dordrecht, pp. 341-61. Biological Anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Bose, N.K., et al. 1962. Human skeletal remains from . New York & London: Plenum Press, pp. Harappa. Anthropological Survey of India, 59-75. Calcutta. Endicott, Phillip, Mait Metspalu and Toomas Kivisild. Bryant, Edwin. 2001. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic 2007. Genetic evidence on modern human Culture: The IndoñAryan Migration Debate. New dispersals in South Asia: Y chromosome and York: . mitochondrial DNA perspectives: The world through the eyes of two haploid . In Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1997. Colonial : Michael D. Petraglia & Bridget Allchin (eds.), The Sociopolitics of the Ancient Indian Past. New Evolution and History of Human Populations Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in óñ. 2008. The Battle for Ancient India: An Essay in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics the Sociopolitics of Indian Archaeology. New and Genetics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 299-44. Delhi: Aryan Books International. Fuller, Dorian. 2003. An Agricultural Perspective on Chaubey, Gyaneshwer, Mait Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild Dravidian Historical Linguistics: Archaeological & Richard Villems. 2007. Peopling of South Asia: Crop Packages, Livestock and Dravidian Crop Investigating the CasteñTribe Continuum in India. Vocabulary. In Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew Bio Essays 29: 91-100. (eds.), Examining the Farming/Language Cordaux, Richard, Robert Aunger, Gillian Bentley, Ivane Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Nasidze, S.M. Sirajuddin & Mark Stoneking. 2004. Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 191-213. Independent Origins of Indian Caste and Tribal Gupta, S.P. 1996. The IndusñSarasvati Civilization: Paternal Lineages. Current Biology 14: 231-35. Origins, Problems and Issues. Pratibha Prakashan, Danino, Michel. 2006a. Genetics and the Aryan Debate. Delhi. Puratattva (36) 2005-06: 146-54. Hemphill, B.E., J.R. Lukacs & K.A.R. Kennedy. 1991. óñ. 2006b. LíInde ou líinvasion de nulle part: Le Biological Adaptations and Affinities of the dernier repaire du mythe aryen, Les Belles Age Harappans. In R.H. Meadow (ed.), Harappa Lettres, Paris. Excavations 1986ñ90: A Multidisciplinary óñ. 2009. A Dravido-Harappan Connection? The Issue Approach to Third Millennium Urbanism, of Methodology. In T.S. Sridhar & N. Marxia Gandhi Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 137-182. (eds.), Indus Civilization and Tamil Language. Hemphill, B.E., A.F. Christensen & S.I. Mustafakulov. Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamil 1997. Trade or Travel: An Assessment of Nadu, Chennai, pp. 70-81. Interpopulational Dynamics among óñ. 2010. Les migrations aryennes en Inde. Dossiers IndoñIranian Populations. In Raymond Allchin & díArchèologie 338: 54-61. Bridget Allchin (eds.), South Asian Archaeology, Datta, Bhupendranath. 1935. Races of India: A critique 1995. Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, vol. 2, of Reports on Indian Anthropology. Journal of the pp. 855-71. Department of Letters. University of Calcutta, vol. Indian Genome Variation Consortium. 2008. Genetic 26, pp. 1-84. Landscape of the People of India: A Canvas for Disotell, T.R. 1999. : The Southern Disease Gene Exploration. Journal of Genetics Route to Asia. Current Biology. 9(24): R925-28. 87(1): 3-20. Dutta, Pratap C. 1984. Biological Anthropology of James, Hannah V.A. & Michael D. Petraglia. 2005. Modern Bronze Age Harappans: New Perspectives. In John Human Origins and the Evolution of Behavior in The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 62

the Later Pleistocene Record of South Asia. Current DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. Anthropology 46 (Supplement): S3-S27. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Jarrige, Jean-François. 1995. Du nèolithique ã la Cambridge, pp. 267-75. civilisation de líInde ancienneî. Arts Asiatiques. Kivisild, Toomas, Siiri Rootsi, Mait Metspalu, Ene Paris, vol. L, pp. 5-29. Metspalu, Juri Parik, Katrin Kaldma, Esien Usanga, Kennedy, Kenneth A.R. 1982. Skulls, Aryans and Flowing Sarabjit Mastana, Surinder S. Papiha & Richard Drains: The Interface of Archaeology and Skeletal Villems. 2003a. The Genetics of Language and Biology in the Study of the Harappan Civilization. Farming Spread in India. In Peter Bellwood & Colin In Gregory L. Possehl (ed.), Harappan Renfrew (eds.), Examining the Farming/ CivilizationóA Contemporary Perspective. 1st Language Dispersal Hypothesis, McDonald edn., Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, pp. Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, 289-95. pp. 215-22. óñ. 1984. Trauma and Disease in the Ancient Kivisild, T., S. Rootsi, M. Metspalu, S. Mastana, K. Kaldma, Harappans. In B.B. Lal & S.P. Gupta (eds.), The J. Parik, E. Metspalu, M. Adojaan, H.-V. Tolk, V. Frontiers of the Harappan Civilization. Books Stepanov, M. Gölge, E. Usanga, S.S. Papiha, C. and Books, New Delhi, 1984, pp. 425-36. Cinnioglu, R. King, L. Cavalli-Sforza, P.A. Underhill & R. Villems. 2003b. The Genetic Heritage of the óñ. 1995. Have Aryans Been Identified in the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Prehistoric Skeletal Record from South Asia? In Caste Populations. American Journal of Human George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient Genetics 72(2): 313-32. South Asia. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin & New York, pp. 32-66. Lal, B.B. 1998. India 1947ñ97: New Light on the Indus Civilization. Aryan Books International, New óñ. 1999. Paleoanthropology of South Asia. Delhi. Evolutionary Anthropology 8(5): 165-85. óñ. 2002. The Sarasvati Flows On: The Continuity of Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indian Culture, Aryan Books International, New Indus Valley Civilization. Oxford University Press & American Institute of , Karachi Delhi. & Islamabad. Macaulay, Vincent, Catherine Hill, Alessandro Achilli, Kivisild, T., M.J. Bamshad, K. Kaldma, M. Metspalu, E. Chiara Rengo, Douglas Clarke, William Meehan, Metspalu, M. Reidla, S. Laos, J. Parik, W.S. Watkins, James Blackburn, Ornella Semino, Rosaria Scozzari, M.E. Dixon, S.S. Papiha, S.S. Mastana, M.R. Mir, V. Fulvio Cruciani, Adi Taha, Norazila Kassim Shaari, Ferak & R. Villems. 1999. Deep Common Ancestry Joseph Maripa Raja, Patimah Ismail, Zafarina of Indian and WesternñEurasian Mitochondrial DNA Zainuddin, William Goodwin, David Bulbeck, Lineages. Current Biology 9(22): 1331-34. Hans-Jürgen Bandelt, Stephen Oppenheimer, Antonio Torroni & Martin Richards. 2005. Single, Kivisild, Toomas, Surinder S. Papiha, Siiri Rootsi, Jüri Parik, Rapid Coastal Settlement of Asia Revealed by Katrin Kaldma, Maere Reidla, Sirle Laos, Mait Analysis of Complete Mitochondrial Genomes. Metspalu, Gerli Pielberg, Maarja Adojaan, Ene Science 308(5724): 1034-36. Metspalu, Sarabjit S. Mastana, Yiming Wang, Mukaddes Golge, Halil Demirtas, Eckart Majumdar, Partha P. 2001. Ethnic Populations of India as Schnakenberg, Gian Franco de Stefano, Tarekegn Seen from an Evolutionary Perspective. Journal Geberhiwot, Mireille Claustres & Richard Villems. of Biosciences 26(4) Suppl. 533-45. 2000. An Indian Ancestry: A Key for Understanding óñ. 2008. Genomic Inferences on Peopling of South Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond. In Colin Asia. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development Renfrew & Katie Boyle (eds.), Archaeogenetics: 18: 280-84. Genetics and the Aryan Issue 63

Majumdar, Partha P. & Balasubramanian. 2009. Who are Central Asian Corridor. American Journal of We? Geo (Indian edn.). June, pp. 73-76. Human Genetics 74(5): 827-45. McAlpin, David. 1975. Elamite and Dravidian: Further Reich, David, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Evidence of Relationship. Current Anthropology Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh. 2009. Reconstructing 16(1): 105-15 Indian Population History. Nature 461(7263): 489- McAlpin, David W. 1981. Proto-Elamo-Dravidian: The 94. Evidence and Its Implications. Transactions of the Renfrew, Colin. 1989. Archaeology and Language: The American Philosophical Society 71: 3-155. Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Penguin Books, Metspalu, Mait, Toomas Kivisild, Ene Metspalu, Jüri Parik, London, 1989. Georgi Hudjashov, Katrin Kaldma, Piia Serk, Monika Rosenberg, Noah A., Saurabh Mahajan, Catalina Karmin, Doron M. Behar, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Gonzalez-Quevedo, Michael G.B. Blum, Laura Phillip Endicott, Sarabjit Mastana, Surinder S. Papiha, Nino-Rosales, Vasiliki Ninis, Parimal Das, Madhuri Karl Skorecki, Antonio Torroni & Richard Villems. Hegde, Laura Molinari, Gladys Zapata, James L. 2004. Most of the Extant mtDNA Boundaries in South Weber, John W. Belmont & Pragna I. Patel. 2006. and Southwest Asia Were Likely Shaped during the Low Levels of Genetic Divergence Across Initial Settlement of Eurasia by Anatomically Modern Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Humans. BMC Genetics 5: 26. Populations from India. PLoS Genetics 2(12): e215, Metspalu Mait, Irene Gallego Romero, Bayazit 2052-61. Yunusbayev, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Chandana Roychoudhury, Susanta, Sangita Roy, Badal Dey, Madan Basu Mallick, Georgi Hudjashov, Mari Nelis, Reedik Chakraborty, Monami Roy, Bidyut Roy, A. Ramesh, M‰gi, Ene Metspalu, Maido Remm, Ramasamy N. Prabhakaran, M.V. Usha Rani, H. Vishwanathan, Pitchappan, Lalji Singh, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Mitashree Mitra, Samir K. Sil & Partha P.Majumder. Richard Villems & Toomas Kivisild. 2011. Shared 2000. Fundamental Genomic Unity of Ethnic India and Unique Components of Human Population is Revealed by Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA. Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Current Science 79(9): 1182-92. Selection in South Asia. The American Journal of Sahoo, Sanghamitra, Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Human Genetics. December 9, 89: 731-44. Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali Gaikwad, Montagu, Ashley. 1942. Manís Most Dangerous Myth: R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait The Fallacy of Race. Columbia University Press, Metspalu, Richard Villems, & V.K. Kashyap. 2006. New York. A Prehistory of Indian Y Chromosomes: Evaluating Oppenheimer, Stephen. 2003. The Real Eve: Modern Demic Diffusion Scenarios. Proceedings of the Manís Journey out of Africa. Carroll & Graf National Academy of Sciences 103(4): 843-48. Publishers, New York. (For an introduction to Sengupta, Sanghamitra, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Roy King, Oppenheimerís theory, see S.Q. Mehdi, Christopher A. Edmonds, Cheryl- www.bradshawfoundation.com.) Emiliane T. Chow, Alice A. Lin, Mitashree Mitra, Quintana-Murci, Llu·s, Rapha‡lle Chaix, R. Spencer Wells, Samir K. Sil, A. Ramesh, M.V. Usha Rani, Chitra M. Doron M. Behar, Hamid Sayar, Rosaria Scozzari, Thakur, L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, Chiara Rengo, Nadia Al-Zahery, Ornella Semino, & Peter A. Underhill. 2006. Polarity and A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti, Alfredo Coppa, Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Qasim Ayub, Aisha Mohyuddin, Chris Tyler-Smith, Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and S. Qasim Mehdi, Antonio Torroni, & Ken Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic McElreavey. 2004. Where West Meets East: The Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists. American Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Journal of Human Genetics 78(2): 202-21. The Texts, Political History and Administration till c. 200 BC 64

Sewell R.B.S. & B.S. Guha. 1931. Human Remains. In Paper 5. Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human John Marshall (ed.), Mohenjodaro and the Indus Past. Kyoto, pp. 103-09. Civilization. Arthur Probsthain, London, vol. 2, pp. Underhill, Peter A., Natalie M. Myres, Siiri Rootsi, Mait 599-648. Metspalu, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Roy J King, Alice A. Shaffer, Jim G. 1984. The Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Lin, Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow, Ornella Semino, Myth and Archaeological Reality. In John R. Lukacs Vincenza Battaglia, Ildus Kutuev, Mari Järve, (ed.), The People of South Asia: The Biological Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Qasim Ayub, Aisha Anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Nepal. Mohyuddin, S. Qasim Mehdi, Sanghamitra Sengupta, Plenum Press, New York & London, pp. 77-90. Evgeny I Rogaev, Elza K. Khusnutdinova, Andrey Pshenichnov, Oleg Balanovsky, Elena Balanovska, Sharma, Ram Sharan. 2001. Advent of the Aryans in Nina Jeran, Dubravka Havas Augustin, Marian India. Manohar, New Delhi. Baldovic, Rene J Herrera, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Sharma, Swarkar, Ekta Rai, Prithviraj Sharma, Mamata Vijay Singh, Lalji Singh, Partha Majumder, Pavao Jena, Shweta Singh, Katayoon Darvishi, Audesh K. Rudan, Dragan Primorac, Richard Villems & Toomas Bhat, A.J.S Bhanwer, Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Kivisild. 2010. Separating the Post-Glacial Rameshwar N.K Bamezai. 2009. The Indian origin Coancestry of European and Asian Y Chromosomes of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the within Haplogroup R1a. European Journal of autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste Human Genetics 18: 479-84. system. Journal of Human Genetics 54: 47-55. Walimbe, S.R. 1993. The Aryans: The Physical Singh, K.S. 2011. Diversity, Identity, and Linkages: Anthropological Approach. In S.B. Deo & S. Kamath Explorations in Historical Ethnography. Oxford (eds.), The Aryan Problem. Bharatiya Itihasa University Press, New Delhi. Sankalana Samiti, Pune, pp. 108-15. *Stock, Jay T., Marta Miraz˙n Lahr and Samanti Kulatilake. Walimbe, S.R. 2007. Population Movements in the Indian 2007. Cranial Diversity in South Asia Relative to Subcontinent during the Protohistoric Period: Modern Human Dispersals and Global Patterns of Physical Anthropological Assessment. In Michael Human Variation. In Michael D. Petraglia & Bridget D. Petraglia & Bridget Allchin (eds.), The Evolution Allchin (eds.), The Evolution and History of and History of Human Populations in South Human Populations in South Asia: Inter- Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics. Springer, Genetics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 297-319. Dordrecht, pp. 245-68. Witzel, Michael. 2001. Autochthonous Aryans? The Trautmann, Thomas R. 1997. Aryans and British India. Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. Indian edn., Vistaar, New Delhi. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7(3) §8. Underhill, Peter A. 2008. Interpreting Patterns of Y Zvelebil, Kamil V. 1990. Dravidian Linguistics: An Chromosome Diversity: Pitfalls and Promise. Introduction. Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics Toshiki Osada & Akinori Uesugi, (eds.), Occasional and Culture, Pondicherry. [MD]