Genetics and the Aryan invasion/Out of India theories
From time to time someone tries to have settled a cultural issue through biological elements. I tend to think that this is a fallacy of false cause. Consider, in this regard, the following comment by Jan Houben on the Indology mailing list (published with his consent):
The Error was (19th cent and nazi-time Aryan Invasion Theory) and is (Out-of-India-Theory) to think that GENETICS (and racial theories) can provide explanations in cultural questions in history, such as the well-attested spread of vedism between 1500 BCE (north-west of Indian subcontinent) and 1500 AD (throughout Indian subcontinent). Many scholars have remained unconvinced and unhappy with explanations in these terms from the beginning, innumerable are those who suffered from attempts to base state implemented policies on these theories but scientific ‘truth’ is ‘truth’ and in the absence of any other explanation … As I have been arguing in several studies, however, in our understanding of the phenomenon of the spread of vedism GENETICS need not be invoked at all as a crucial factor as it is to be understood rather in terms of MEMETICS and MEMORY CULTURE taking into account vedism’s interaction over centuries with its ecological and economic environment (for instance http://halshs.archives-
ouvertes.fr/halshs-00673190). Worries about genetic lineage became obsessively important only secondarily in the last or K-strategist (niche-exploitation) phase of vedism reflected in a relatively late work such as Manu (on Hitler and Manu see Halbfass India and Europe p 139).
What do you think? Do you trust biological explanations?
I briefly surveyed the genetic literature in for an article on the possible Iranian origins of the Śākya tribe: http://www.ocbs.org/ojs/index.php/jocbs/article/view/26
I think genetics is a vital part of reconstructing long term histories of humanity. However the resolution is as yet too poor to shed much light on the problem of the origins of Vedic as a language or culture. The resolution is not much better than ~10,000 years at present. The rates of change of genes is both too slow and too variable to be much help in the problem of where Vedic came from.
We do know, however, that all living humans are related to a group of perhaps 1000-10,000 that developed in Africa ca 100,000 ybp and migrated out of (and within) Africa ca 75,000 ybp. That a major change occurred ca 45-40,000 ybp that is also reflected in archaeology (a flowering of culture). Witzel plausibly ties this in with changes in mythology as well. Beyond this we don’t get much detail. We also know that modern humans interbred with other species of humans in Europe and Asia (but not in Africa).
Language, culture and genetic inheritance (replacing the outdated concept of “race”) are independent variables, i.e. independent of each other.
The little light that genetics seems to shed on the problem of Vedic history in India is that incomers were small in number because India genomes are have a high degree of homogeneity – with only very minor north/south differences despite major differences in language and culture.
Bust as the science improves and we collect data on more and more types of genetic change the resolution is improving and we may well find that genetics will begin to make more of a contribution to the question. Watch this space.
Thank you, Jayarava and many apologises for the late reply (as you surely noticed, I have been neglecting the blog lately). I went through your paper and found it quite interesting (also because it is much less bold than others concerning the impact of genetic research). The main point is that, as you say, language, culture and genetic inheritance are independent of each other. You point to the example of the Norses who quickly learnt French and one can easily imagine many more examples. More generally, my point is that there was no past in which to group A corresponded culture A and language A and so on with groups B, C, etc. Present-day cultural and genetic groups are mixed (do I look Italian? How New-Zealandian are you?:-) and there is no need to imagine that the past has ever been different. Better said: there is no need to imagine that *recent* past has been different (and, compared to 100,000 years back, 2,000 years BCE is very much recent).
You’re assuming the existence of incomers here (related to Vedic history), from the lack of evidence of the same in the genetic data.
Where is the evidence of the incomers themselves ?
One cannot have an explanatory system involving ‘incomers’ etc when they are unattested in their entirety.
Kumarila, thanks for your comment. As you might have noted, I (and perhaps also Jayarava) are careful in distinguishing genes and culture. From my point of view, genes can neither prove nor disprove the influence and intermixture of different cultures which, fortunately, has enrichened India throughout the centuries. What do you think?