Definitive END of Aryan Invasion Theory - Founders and Genetic origins of Indians.

[Gadkari]

AIT - Facts and Myths - By Proffesor Dr. Lavanya Vemsani


1. What are Your Qualifications and Background on Early History of India Especially Prehistory and Early Settlements of India?

My research and academic presentations almost a decade ago focused on how genetic evidence disproves the Aryan invasion/migration theory. I also wrote an academic paper almost a decade ago, which was published in an academic book on Sindhu Saraswati Civilization.
You can read my paper on the link here: https://www.academia.edu/7893126/Ge...n_Disproves_Aryan_Migration_Invasion_Theories.

Currently, my books on Indian History India, A New History and Early Settlement Patterns in India are under publication.

• Lavanya Vemsani is Professor of History in the Department of Social Sciences at Shawnee State University.
• Prof. Vemsani is awarded BOT (Board of Trustees) Distinguished Teaching Award (2013) and Faculty Research Award (2020).
• She was awarded the South Asia Council of the Canadian Asian Studies Association's (CASA/ACÉA) Best Thesis Honorable Mention prize for her Ph.D. thesis at McMaster University.
• She holds two doctorates in the subjects of Religious Studies (McMaster University) and History (University of Hyderabad).
• Dr. Vemsani’s published books include Modern Hinduism in Text and Context, Krishna in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Lord of Many Names, and Hindu and Jain Mythology of Balarama in addition to numerous articles.
• India, A New History, and Feminine Journeys of the Mahabharata are her upcoming books.
• She serves as the Editor-in-Chief of Academic journals including the International Journal of Indic Religions, Associate Editor of Canadian Journal of History, and Editorial Board of Airforce Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs.
• Dr. Vemsani delivered Keynote addresses as Honorable Guest at International Academic Conferences such as South Indian History Congress and Deccan History Society Joint Seminar on India and Iranian History.
• Dr. Vemsani served as the President of the Ohio Academy of History (2019-20).

2. What do we know about First Humans ?

There are two Founder Events (Early Pleistocene Event and Late Pleistocene Event) in this world: the first is that of Homo Erectus (also called Homo Sapiens) and the second is that of Anatomically Modern Humans, AMA, (also called Homo Sapiens Sapiens). The earliest evidence for both founder events is noticed in Africa.

African Origins of Humanity:

• All non-Africans female lines have inherited a subset of the L3 ancestral line out of Africa. African female genetic lines are different from non-African genetic lines.

• Similarly, male African genetic lines are different from non-African male genetic lines. Male African Lines belong to A and B. Most of the non-African male genetic lines trace back to M1, and the derivatives C, D, and F. Based on Phylogenetic geography, it has been postulated that YAP (Y-Alu Polymorphism) also known as M1 arose in Africa from M168 and later this M1/YAP departed from Africa in an early dispersal event.

• C & D- are Directly evolved from M1(YAP)

Similarly, two Founder Events are noticed in the prehistory of India: Australopithecus and AMA. Paleolithic in its three stages of Lower Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic, and Upper Paleolithic are found across India. This means that the initial founders Homo Erectus known by different names in India- as Siva Pithecus and Rama Pithecus- are spread across India. However, these first humans are replaced by the Anatomically Modern Humans by the Upper Paleolithic period. This second founder event of Anatomically Modern Humans is dated to 75,000-80,000 Years Ago roughly coeval with the Upper Paleolithic period noticed in archeological excavations across India. It is this AMA that is traced in the modern populations of all of India. We all derive our genetic heritage from these Late Pleistocene Founders.

Following this Upper Paleolithic foundational event in India, no Neolithic cultural disruption or displacement is found in either the Archeological record or genetic record to indicate the arrival of any new invaders or large scale migrations, which proves that there had been no new population in India since the foundational event 80 thousand years ago (KYA).



3. Does the late Pleistocene Founder's Genetic Heritage Continue in India ?

Yes. The genetic heritage of these Late Pleistocene Founders is found in India. In addition, this is the earliest genetic heritage traced anywhere in this world. Hence, almost 95% of the Non-African world population trace their origins to these genetic lines.

The first evidence of AMA is found in Africa, but when they left Africa or what happened to them after they left Africa is not clearly known. Whatever may have happened once they left Africa, only a single genetic source is left, which is traced to India. Therefore, the consensus is that India is the first (Sub)Continent for the Non-African Foundational Event.

Some Geographers have offered the explanation that the Toba volcano eruption (75-73 KYA) may have caused the complete destruction of human species leaving only a few human survivors. Whatever may have been the explanation, it is true that India plays a central role in the Foundational Event.


4. How does Archaeological Data Correlate With Peopling of India?

Paleolithic Culture is dated from 7 Million Years Ago. However, the Lower Paleolithic phase is widespread across India with disruptions noted in the Middle Paleolithic phase, while Upper Paleolithic is widespread and the emergence of more sophisticated stone tools across India. Archeologists and historians working on the Early Settlement Patterns postulate that the population replacement might have been complete by Upper Paleolithic Period. AMA is genetically traced to 74,000 years ago. Hence, this also coincides with the Upper Paleolithic period in India. Therefore, it can be said that the Australopithecine may have been the people of Lower Paleolithic and part of the Middle Paleolithic phase, but they may be replaced during this phase gradually to completely replace them by Upper Paleolithic Period, which is characteristically associated with AMA.


5. What are the Origins of AMA and Their Genetic Heritage in India?

The earliest genetic evidence of the oldest AMA is traced to India indicates that India is the most important region in the Foundational Event.

Genetic Evidence:

The human genome holds genetic information encoded in the coiled DNA of the chromosomes, which is an immense document written in four letters. G, C, A, T (guanine, cytosine, adenine, and thymine). Both X and Y-chromosomes are sex-specific chromosomes, and haploid (that has only one combination of X or Y, with 23 chromosomes), while all the other cells have 46 chromosomes. The human Y-chromosome consists of a Non-Recombining Region (NRY), making up 95 percent of its length, flanked by autosomal regions, which is passed intact without a change in the male line except for mutations. Binary polymorphisms of the non-recombining region of the human Y chromosome preserves the paternal genetic legacy of humans that has persisted up to the present. While mtDNA is a female-specific gene passed through the female line from mother to daughter without change except for mutations, therefore permits tracking female heritage.

• Genetic research shows that Anatomically Modern Humans (AMA) settled in India during late Pleistocene migrations marking a Foundational Event and continued to settle India and then migrate on to Australia and Eastern Asia and then on to West.

• India shows very old female/mitochondrial DNA (female) with M, N, and R lines. These three founder lines originated in India itself.

• India also shows very old Y DNA (male) heritage, which is also diverse in India

• The female DNA Macro Haplogroup M dates to 80,000-73,000 Years Ago, while N and R date between 70,000-50,000 years ago.

• The male genetic lines: M130 date to 70,000 Years Ago; CDF date to 50,000 years ago while R (from which arise a number of clades of R1a, Ra1a, Ra1a1a, etc.) dates to 43,000 KYA.



6. What is the Female Genetic Heritage of India?

• Scholars debated whether M originated in India or outside of India. However, oldest M lines and a large variety of M lines are found in India, hence many scholars favor placing the origin of M in India
• · There is a very young M1 clade in Ethiopia, but it was considered to have been a result of back migration
• · N and later R originated in India itself from M
• · The Haplogroups M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M18, and M25 are exclusive to India as well as M*, C, D, G, E, and Z are observed in Asia- Almost 23 lineages arising out of M trunk are found in India. About 60% Indians have M (58%caste, 42%tribe) genetic heritage
• · The N Haplogroup W is represented by 5% of the population, and the R Haplogroup is represented by its subclade U by its Indian specific branches of U2 (U2i: U2a, U2b, U2c) throughout India at 15% among caste and 8% among tribal population (Kaldma et al. 1999). U7 is noted in Punjab. The recently examined Rakhigarhi skeleton reveals U2b, which is specific to India.
• · Andaman and Nicobar Islanders also show similar genetic heritage although they were classed differently- They show M2 and M4 The British classified them into 19 ethnolinguistic groups upon colonization of these islands. All the people belong to a single genetic source of M from India (Oppenheimer 2004; Tangaraj 2005)

7. What is the Male Genetic Heritage of India ?

• M130 date to about 70000 Year Ago
• C & D- are Directly evolved from M1(YAP)
• C&D along with O is commonly found in East Asia along with Oceania and Australia
• 24 Onge and 4 Jorawa of Andaman Islands showed M174 defined D Haplogroup also noticed in Tibet, Nepal, and Burmese population- as well as East Asia.
• F probably originated (45,000 Years Ago) in India, gives rise to later mutations leading to K, O, P, Q, R.
• R lineages derive from P1, which is a derivative of K (K2b2a): M45/P1 (k2b2a): R1 (M173), R1a (M17), and R2b (M269) originated in larger Indian Subcontinent
• Overall the clades C, D, F contribute to about 95% of the genetic heritage of the Non-African World.
• Y Chromosomal groups of initial settlement C/M130, D/M174, F/M89, and K, as well as several subclades of H, L, R2, and F, are commonly found in India.
• Subclades of F (FGHIJK, LMN, O (O1-3), and P, Q, R also occur in India
• The Haplogroups, C, D, F, are found in India and Oceania and places India in the Founder Event
• No new gene pool datable to 12,000-4,000 years ago is noticed in India. Continuity of these ancient ancestor lineages across India places India in an important position in the founder event of the population of the world continuing from Late Pleistocene arrivals
• Almost all the Indian population is derived from these male founder lines

8. Ancient Skeleton from Rakhigarhi and What Does That Tell About the Population History of India ?

It only establishes the continuity of Late Pleistocene genetic heritage definitively. The Rakhigarhi skeletal evidence provided definitive evidence for continuity of Indians in India from the foundation event 80000 Years Ago (KYA). Shows with evidence that India was the first (Sub)Continent founded after Africa and her place in the origin of all Non-African human populations are at the foundation.

The Rakhigarhi skeleton is a female skeleton that revealed U2b2 which originated in India and specific to India. This shows that Indians from Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) shared the same ancestry with the rest of Indians who have all derived from original founders 80,000 Year Ago. This genetic evidence is significant considering the fact that it also matched several other ancient skeletons identified as IVC and found across Turkmenistan.

You can read more about it here on the link below:

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30967-5.pdf#secsectitle0010

In addition no Neolithic migrations or cultural replacements are noticed in archeological excavations. Archeologica evidence shows the continuity and origin of agriculture separately in India 12000 Years Ago. No new Neolithic arrivals, but only continuity is noticed in settlements since 80000 Year Ago.



9. What Can We Say With Certainty Now About Peopling and Cultural Development of India ?

Indians are Indians. There are no Aryan migrations/invasions whatever colonial theories might have said. Genetic evidence definitely disproves any migration or invasion by new human groups anytime. The modern Indians carry the original Founder genetic heritage through genetic clades that evolved from them in India. Therefore, Indians can say with confidence I am Indian and my ancestors lived here since 80000 Years Ago. No occupation or replacement during prehistory.


10. What Do You Say About R1a? They Say It Is Evidence of Aryans ?

No. That is a myth. Here is why: R or R1a or any clades of R doesn't represent Aryans. It is found across the world and it is oldest and more diverse in India. The basal R originated in India itself.

• R1/M 17 (later named M420) is one of the lines frequently found in India and Pakistan, but also across the Caucasus and Europe

• R1a is also found in north Africa and Subsaharan Africa- including Cameroon. This is considered to be a result of back migration

• M17 is found in high frequencies including caste and tribal groups across India

• Since R1a/M17 and its subsequent lineages are found frequently in India as well as Eurasia, it was considered to support the Aryan invasion/migration 3-4000 years ago into India. M17/R1a was initially thought of a marker of “male Aryan invasion”

• However, R1a is the oldest in India. R1a in India datable to 36000 Years Ago/Its occurrence in Europe could only be dated to 23,000 Years Ago

• So its deep-rooting and diversity in India proves the contrary

• Therefore, R originated in India and R1a is oldest and diverse in India, which shows India is at the base.

• R: Origin and frequent

• All R clades originate in India are more diverse

• - R1/M173

• -R1a/M420/M17

• -R1a1a/M459

• -R1b1a1/M269

• -R1b1/L278

• Presence of M17 widely across India and its long continuity in India disproves Aryan invasion/migration theories

• Continuity of Human groups from Paleolithic period onwards is established by the presence of this Genome: 80-30% of Indian possess this gene spread across the nation regardless of caste, tribe or geographical location

• The genome research supports the spread of R1a from India

• In addition to this ancient gene flow the R1a is also noticed in the Roma populations in Europe

• The European M17 is less diverse and dated to only 23,000 Years Ago

The Indian M17 is dated to 36,000 Years ago and hence deep-rooted and diverse in India



11. Final Facts About India and Indians. Historic Origins ?

Genetic Heritage of India shows only continuity and not a replacement. Aryan migration/invasion is a myth.

• Female and male genetic lines examined in this lecture show continuity of Late Pleistocene founder human groups that first settled the Indian Subcontinent about 80,000 years ago. 80,000 Years Ago marks the adjusted average time of when they may have reached India. Actual dates for Female lines date from 74,000 Years Ago and Male lines from 70,000 Years Ago.

• Similarly, Male genetic lines related to R examined in this lecture also show continuity from 50,000 Years ago.

• No population replacement is noticed- certainly, no Neolithic population replacement or discontinuity is noticed

• No genetic differences between caste, tribe, or language groups is noticed- either in male or in female genetic heritage

• This disproves any Aryan invasion/migration, let alone population replacement. Not even largescale population addition is noticed in the genetic heritage of India. The genetic lines continue unbroken since late Pleistocene.


12. Implications for World History ?

• Continuing Aryan race theories in books does immense injustice to the history of India. It teaches neighbors to hate neighbors, because of language and looks. There is no place for race theories in school textbooks and scholarly literature. Although Indian languages were categorized into Aryan, Dravidian, and Austronesian languages dividing India into different racial groups, based on languages, superimposing Aryan theory, it is disproven, as all language groups share a common genetic heritage.

• India struggled through millennia, but successfully preserved the longstanding continuous civilization in its people and culture

• India is the Second region to be settled after Africa in the Foundation Event for Non-African Populations. Oldest population base- 73,000 Years Ago for females and 70,000 for male genetic lines is noticed in India.

• Oldest Texts and Cultural sources- the oldest textual sources and oldest Paleolithic culture are noticed in India.

• Oldest agricultural and settlement patterns- independent agriculture, domestication, and culture are also found in India.

• India is at the root of human civilization - My research shows that India is the storehouse of early settlements and culture of the world, one of the true cradles of civilizations waiting to be explored fully - The first step is getting rid of Aryan racial theories from Indian history.

#NoAryans Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

#NOAryans: FACTS & MYTHS 1. What are Your Qualifications and Background on Early History of India Especially Prehistory and Early S...

manthratalk.blogspot.com

 

[Gadkari]

So why are there language and cultural elements common between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism / Iran ?

Our Parsi member @padamchen had posted about this years ago.

1. Linguistics is guess work. Genetics is HARD EVIDENCE.

2. Sanskrit is the root language. Hence "Out of India" migration results in ...

I think I know what was this "struggle".

I doubt it, but don't bother to tell me.

What are those texts ? Instructions on how to manufacture interplanetary craft, communication satellites and in vitro vessels ?

Vedas. Manasara Shilpashastra, Surya Siddhanta etc.

So India has had unscientific agriculture for tens of thousands of years ?

Farming in India started at least as early on 9000BC in the Mesolithic age. Wheat, barley, Cotton and jujube were amongst the most early sown and reaped in Indian subcontinent as back as 7000 BC. Barley, wheat and cotton cultivation-along with the domestication of lambs and goat-was noticeable in Mehrgarh by 8000-6000 BC.

The fast-growing 60-days rice strain described in the Vedic literature is called Shashtika (Sanskrit) or Njavara (in Dravidian etymology) in Ayurveda texts including the seminal texts Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita. There is nothing "unscientific: about that.

There it comes. Brahminical superiority against civilizations from Egypt, South / Central America etc. So you proudly are saying that the current socio-economic injustices and disparities in India are 80,000 years old and you want them to continue ?

I am not interested in addressing your islamic inferiority complex or demolishing your straw-man arguments.

Next time you want answer's, come to the original thread.

 

[Gibbs]

Aryan invasion is a myth but Ramayana with its flying monkey's , Hundred headed demon kings are facts Gotta love these Indian revisionist nationalists

I'd love to share some of the Manali hash she's been smoking

 

[peagle]

1. Linguistics is guess work. Genetics is HARD EVIDENCE.

2. Sanskrit is the root language. Hence "Out of India" migration results in ...




I doubt it, but don't bother to tell me.



Vedas. Manasara Shilpashastra, Surya Siddhanta etc.



Farming in India started at least as early on 9000BC in the Mesolithic age. Wheat, barley, Cotton and jujube were amongst the most early sown and reaped in Indian subcontinent as back as 7000 BC. Barley, wheat and cotton cultivation-along with the domestication of lambs and goat-was noticeable in Mehrgarh by 8000-6000 BC.

The fast-growing 60-days rice strain described in the Vedic literature is called Shashtika (Sanskrit) or Njavara (in Dravidian etymology) in Ayurveda texts including the seminal texts Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita. There is nothing "unscientific: about that.




I am not interested in addressing your islamic inferiority complex or demolishing your straw-man arguments.

Next time you want answer's, come to the original thread.

OK I've had enough of this, conclusion first fact finding mission.

I don't care what's what, I'm proudly South Asian, and you people need to stick to your history and stop claiming mine.

Indus Valley civilisation is first and foremost a history of the people of Pakistan. You need to start referring to it as South Asian history not indian history, they are two different and distinct categories.

It's not your father's India, that you need to teach him about his supposed complex, you hate mongering creature. Argue your point not your hate filled racism.

 

[Gadkari]

Aryan invasion is a myth but Ramayana with its flying monkey's , Hundred headed demon kings are facts Gotta love these Indian revisionist nationalists

I'd love to share some of the Manali hash she's been smoking

she is an American.

Don't let your bigotry, hate and prejudice blind you to the truth or reality.

 

[Gadkari]

OK I've had enough of this, conclusion first fact finding mission.

I don't care what's what, I'm proudly South Asian, and you people need to stick to your history and stop claiming mine.

Indus Valley civilisation is first and foremost a history of the people of Pakistan. You need to start referring to it as South Asian history not indian history, they are two different and distinct categories.

It's not your father's India, that you need to teach him about his supposed complex, you hate mongering creature. Argue your point not your hate filled racism.

It IS my fathers India and My India and as mentioned I have NO intentions of talking about his complex.

It is called the Indian subcontinent and the Indian ocean and there is nothing you can do about it.

You can take solace in the fact that the name India comes from Indus river that flows in pakistan. That's about it.

 

[LeGenD]

Members are advised to have sensible discussions in this thread. There are signs of flamebaiting in responses above.

Scientific/academic research should be respected. If the intent is to challenge these findings, potential arguments should also be grounded in scientific/academic findings but one should be mindful of publication years and advances in relation.

Research is ongoing process and older theories and findings are likely to be revisited/challenged in the face of new set of findings and resultant lines of arguments.

Modern-age divisions of the subcontinent are of little substance in this theme. Let genetics do the talking.

Of-course, there were numerous cases of migrations and invasions over the course of time. However, these occurrences do not dismiss evidence of genetic lines stretching all the way back to 80,000 years or close in a particular region.

 

[Mamluk]

None of the haplogroups that the author says originate in India actually originate there.

It also says C and D are directly evolved from 'YAP'. That's the funniest thing I ever heard. YAP defines E and D haplogroups, not C.

That pretty much destroys the entire post.

The oldest R was found in ancient DNA from MA1. That's in Siberia. The oldest R1 ancient DNA are found in Europe. The oldest R2 ancient DNA are found in Western Iran. With all that how does one reach the conclusion that R originates in India?

 

[jamahir]

2. Sanskrit is the root language. Hence "Out of India" migration results in ...

So you are saying that the current Iranic people and culture originated in India and traveled out to Iranic lands, or they stayed in Iranic lands and adopted Indian language ( Sanskrit ) and culture imported by Iranic travelers and merchants ?

 

[Gadkari]

So you are saying that the current Iranic people and culture originated in India and traveled out to Iranic lands, or they stayed in Iranic lands and adopted Indian language ( Sanskrit ) and culture imported by Iranic travelers and merchants ?

Yes, that is what the Genetic studies show.

They din't have to "adopt" sanskrit, they spoke it which later trans-mutated to Prakrit called Avestan. The further the ancient Indians migrated the more the sanskrit mutated forming which is now called the "indo-Aryan family of languages".

Hence English "man" comes from Snskrit "manu" first man.

 

[LeGenD]

Food for thought for this theme.

The Great Human Migration

Why humans left their African homeland 80,000 years ago to colonize the world

Christopher Henshilwood (in Blombos Cave) dug at one of the most important early human sites partly out of proximity—it’s on his grandfather’s property. (Centre for Development Studies, University of Bergen, Norway)

Seventy-seven thousand years ago, a craftsman sat in a cave in a limestone cliff overlooking the rocky coast of what is now the Indian Ocean. It was a beautiful spot, a workshop with a glorious natural picture window, cooled by a sea breeze in summer, warmed by a small fire in winter. The sandy cliff top above was covered with a white-flowering shrub that one distant day would be known as blombos and give this place the name Blombos Cave.

The man picked up a piece of reddish brown stone about three inches long that he—or she, no one knows—had polished. With a stone point, he etched a geometric design in the flat surface—simple crosshatchings framed by two parallel lines with a third line down the middle.

Today the stone offers no clue to its original purpose. It could have been a religious object, an ornament or just an ancient doodle. But to see it is to immediately recognize it as something only a person could have made. Carving the stone was a very human thing to do.

The scratchings on this piece of red ocher mudstone are the oldest known example of an intricate design made by a human being. The ability to create and communicate using such symbols, says Christopher Henshilwood, leader of the team that discovered the stone, is "an unambiguous marker" of modern humans, one of the characteristics that separate us from any other species, living or extinct.

Henshilwood, an archaeologist at Norway's University of Bergen and the University of the Witwatersrand, in South Africa, found the carving on land owned by his grandfather, near the southern tip of the African continent. Over the years, he had identified and excavated nine sites on the property, none more than 6,500 years old, and was not at first interested in this cliffside cave a few miles from the South African town of Still Bay. What he would find there, however, would change the way scientists think about the evolution of modern humans and the factors that triggered perhaps the most important event in human prehistory, when Homo sapiens left their African homeland to colonize the world.

This great migration brought our species to a position of world dominance that it has never relinquished and signaled the extinction of whatever competitors remained—Neanderthals in Europe and Asia, some scattered pockets of Homo erectus in the Far East and, if scholars ultimately decide they are in fact a separate species, some diminutive people from the Indonesian island of Flores (see "Were 'Hobbits' Human?"). When the migration was complete, Homo sapiens was the last—and only—man standing.

Even today researchers argue about what separates modern humans from other, extinct hominids. Generally speaking, moderns tend to be a slimmer, taller breed: "gracile," in scientific parlance, rather than "robust," like the heavy-boned Neanderthals, their contemporaries for perhaps 15,000 years in ice age Eurasia. The modern and Neanderthal brains were about the same size, but their skulls were shaped differently: the newcomers' skulls were flatter in back than the Neanderthals', and they had prominent jaws and a straight forehead without heavy brow ridges. Lighter bodies may have meant that modern humans needed less food, giving them a competitive advantage during hard times.

The moderns' behaviors were also different. Neanderthals made tools, but they worked with chunky flakes struck from large stones. Modern humans' stone tools and weapons usually featured elongated, standardized, finely crafted blades. Both species hunted and killed the same large mammals, including deer, horses, bison and wild cattle. But moderns' sophisticated weaponry, such as throwing spears with a variety of carefully wrought stone, bone and antler tips, made them more successful. And the tools may have kept them relatively safe; fossil evidence shows Neanderthals suffered grievous injuries, such as gorings and bone breaks, probably from hunting at close quarters with short, stone-tipped pikes and stabbing spears. Both species had rituals—Neanderthals buried their dead—and both made ornaments and jewelry. But the moderns produced their artifacts with a frequency and expertise that Neanderthals never matched. And Neanderthals, as far as we know, had nothing like the etching at Blombos Cave, let alone the bone carvings, ivory flutes and, ultimately, the mesmerizing cave paintings and rock art that modern humans left as snapshots of their world.

When the study of human origins intensified in the 20th century, two main theories emerged to explain the archaeological and fossil record: one, known as the multi-regional hypothesis, suggested that a species of human ancestor dispersed throughout the globe, and modern humans evolved from this predecessor in several different locations. The other, out-of-Africa theory, held that modern humans evolved in Africa for many thousands of years before they spread throughout the rest of the world.

In the 1980s, new tools completely changed the kinds of questions that scientists could answer about the past. By analyzing DNA in living human populations, geneticists could trace lineages backward in time. These analyses have provided key support for the out-of-Africa theory. Homo sapiens, this new evidence has repeatedly shown, evolved in Africa, probably around 200,000 years ago.

The first DNA studies of human evolution didn't use the DNA in a cell's nucleus—chromosomes inherited from both father and mother—but a shorter strand of DNA contained in the mitochondria, which are energy-producing structures inside most cells. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother. Conveniently for scientists, mitochondrial DNA has a relatively high mutation rate, and mutations are carried along in subsequent generations. By comparing mutations in mitochondrial DNA among today's populations, and making assumptions about how frequently they occurred, scientists can walk the genetic code backward through generations, combining lineages in ever larger, earlier branches until they reach the evolutionary trunk.

At that point in human history, which scientists have calculated to be about 200,000 years ago, a woman existed whose mitochondrial DNA was the source of the mitochondrial DNA in every person alive today. That is, all of us are her descendants. Scientists call her "Eve." This is something of a misnomer, for Eve was neither the first modern human nor the only woman alive 200,000 years ago. But she did live at a time when the modern human population was small—about 10,000 people, according to one estimate. She is the only woman from that time to have an unbroken lineage of daughters, though she is neither our only ancestor nor our oldest ancestor. She is, instead, simply our "most recent common ancestor," at least when it comes to mitochondria. And Eve, mitochondrial DNA backtracking showed, lived in Africa.

Subsequent, more sophisticated analyses using DNA from the nucleus of cells have confirmed these findings, most recently in a study this year comparing nuclear DNA from 938 people from 51 parts of the world. This research, the most comprehensive to date, traced our common ancestor to Africa and clarified the ancestries of several populations in Europe and the Middle East.

While DNA studies have revolutionized the field of paleoanthropology, the story "is not as straightforward as people think," says University of Pennsylvania geneticist Sarah A. Tishkoff. If the rates of mutation, which are largely inferred, are not accurate, the migration timetable could be off by thousands of years.

To piece together humankind's great migration, scientists blend DNA analysis with archaeological and fossil evidence to try to create a coherent whole—no easy task. A disproportionate number of artifacts and fossils are from Europe—where researchers have been finding sites for well over 100 years—but there are huge gaps elsewhere. "Outside the Near East there is almost nothing from Asia, maybe ten dots you could put on a map," says Texas A&M University anthropologist Ted Goebel.

As the gaps are filled, the story is likely to change, but in broad outline, today's scientists believe that from their beginnings in Africa, the modern humans went first to Asia between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago. By 45,000 years ago, or possibly earlier, they had settled Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia. The moderns entered Europe around 40,000 years ago, probably via two routes: from Turkey along the Danube corridor into eastern Europe, and along the Mediterranean coast. By 35,000 years ago, they were firmly established in most of the Old World. The Neanderthals, forced into mountain strongholds in Croatia, the Iberian Peninsula, the Crimea and elsewhere, would become extinct 25,000 years ago. Finally, around 15,000 years ago, humans crossed from Asia to North America and from there to South America.

Africa is relatively rich in the fossils of human ancestors who lived millions of years ago (see timeline, opposite). Lush, tropical lake country at the dawn of human evolution provided one congenial living habitat for such hominids as Australopithecus afarensis. Many such places are dry today, which makes for a congenial exploration habitat for paleontologists. Wind erosion exposes old bones that were covered in muck millions of years ago. Remains of early Homo sapiens, by contrast, are rare, not only in Africa, but also in Europe. One suspicion is that the early moderns on both continents did not—in contrast to Neanderthals—bury their dead, but either cremated them or left them to decompose in the open.

Blombos Cave held signs of early human creativity. (Centre for Development Studies, University of Bergen, Norway)

In 2003, a team of anthropologists reported the discovery of three unusual skulls—two adults and a child—at Herto, near the site of an ancient freshwater lake in northeast Ethiopia. The skulls were between 154,000 and 160,000 years old and had modern characteristics, but with some archaic features. "Even now I'm a little hesitant to call them anatomically modern," says team leader Tim White, from the University of California at Berkeley. "These are big, robust people, who haven't quite evolved into modern humans. Yet they are so close you wouldn't want to give them a different species name."

The Herto skulls fit with the DNA analysis suggesting that modern humans evolved some 200,000 years ago. But they also raised questions. There were no other skeletal remains at the site (although there was evidence of butchered hippopotamuses), and all three skulls, which were nearly complete except for jawbones, showed cut marks—signs of scraping with stone tools. It appeared that the skulls had been deliberately detached from their skeletons and defleshed. In fact, part of the child's skull was highly polished. "It is hard to argue that this is not some kind of mortuary ritual," White says.

Even more provocative were discoveries reported last year. In a cave at Pinnacle Point in South Africa, a team led by Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean found evidence that humans 164,000 years ago were eating shellfish, making complex tools and using red ocher pigment—all modern human behaviors. The shellfish remains—of mussels, periwinkles, barnacles and other mollusks—indicated that humans were exploiting the sea as a food source at least 40,000 years earlier than previously thought.

The first archaeological evidence of a human migration out of Africa was found in the caves of Qafzeh and Skhul, in present-day Israel. These sites, initially discovered in the 1930s, contained the remains of at least 11 modern humans. Most appeared to have been ritually buried. Artifacts at the site, however, were simple: hand axes and other Neanderthal-style tools.

At first, the skeletons were thought to be 50,000 years old—modern humans who had settled in the Levant on their way to Europe. But in 1989, new dating techniques showed them to be 90,000 to 100,000 years old, the oldest modern human remains ever found outside Africa. But this excursion appears to be a dead end: there is no evidence that these moderns survived for long, much less went on to colonize any other parts of the globe. They are therefore not considered to be a part of the migration that followed 10,000 or 20,000 years later.

Intriguingly, 70,000-year-old Neanderthal remains have been found in the same region. The moderns, it would appear, arrived first, only to move on, die off because of disease or natural catastrophe or—possibly—get wiped out. If they shared territory with Neanderthals, the more "robust" species may have outcompeted them here. "You may be anatomically modern and display modern behaviors," says paleoanthropologist Nicholas J. Conard of Germany's University of Tübingen, "but apparently it wasn't enough. At that point the two species are on pretty equal footing." It was also at this point in history, scientists concluded, that the Africans ceded Asia to the Neanderthals.

Then, about 80,000 years ago, says Blombos archaeologist Henshilwood, modern humans entered a "dynamic period" of innovation. The evidence comes from such South African cave sites as Blombos, Klasies River, Diepkloof and Sibudu. In addition to the ocher carving, the Blombos Cave yielded perforated ornamental shell beads—among the world's first known jewelry. Pieces of inscribed ostrich eggshell turned up at Diepkloof. Hafted points at Sibudu and elsewhere hint that the moderns of southern Africa used throwing spears and arrows. Fine-grained stone needed for careful workmanship had been transported from up to 18 miles away, which suggests they had some sort of trade. Bones at several South African sites showed that humans were killing eland, springbok and even seals. At Klasies River, traces of burned vegetation suggest that the ancient hunter-gatherers may have figured out that by clearing land, they could encourage quicker growth of edible roots and tubers. The sophisticated bone tool and stoneworking technologies at these sites were all from roughly the same time period—between 75,000 and 55,000 years ago.

Virtually all of these sites had piles of seashells. Together with the much older evidence from the cave at Pinnacle Point, the shells suggest that seafood may have served as a nutritional trigger at a crucial point in human history, providing the fatty acids that modern humans needed to fuel their outsize brains: "This is the evolutionary driving force," says University of Cape Town archaeologist John Parkington. "It is sucking people into being more cognitively aware, faster-wired, faster-brained, smarter." Stanford University paleoanthropologist Richard Klein has long argued that a genetic mutation at roughly this point in human history provoked a sudden increase in brainpower, perhaps linked to the onset of speech.

Did new technology, improved nutrition or some genetic mutation allow modern humans to explore the world? Possibly, but other scholars point to more mundane factors that may have contributed to the exodus from Africa. A recent DNA study suggests that massive droughts before the great migration split Africa's modern human population into small, isolated groups and may have even threatened their extinction. Only after the weather improved were the survivors able to reunite, multiply and, in the end, emigrate. Improvements in technology may have helped some of them set out for new territory. Or cold snaps may have lowered sea level and opened new land bridges.

Whatever the reason, the ancient Africans reached a watershed. They were ready to leave, and they did.

DNA evidence suggests the original exodus involved anywhere from 1,000 to 50,000 people. Scientists do not agree on the time of the departure—sometime more recently than 80,000 years ago—or the departure point, but most now appear to be leaning away from the Sinai, once the favored location, and toward a land bridge crossing what today is the Bab el Mandeb Strait separating Djibouti from the Arabian Peninsula at the southern end of the Red Sea. From there, the thinking goes, migrants could have followed a southern route eastward along the coast of the Indian Ocean. "It could have been almost accidental," Henshilwood says, a path of least resistance that did not require adaptations to different climates, topographies or diet. The migrants' path never veered far from the sea, departed from warm weather or failed to provide familiar food, such as shellfish and tropical fruit.

Tools found at Jwalapuram, a 74,000-year-old site in southern India, match those used in Africa from the same period. Anthropologist Michael Petraglia of the University of Cambridge, who led the dig, says that although no human fossils have been found to confirm the presence of modern humans at Jwalapuram, the tools suggest it is the earliest known settlement of modern humans outside of Africa except for the dead enders at Israel's Qafzeh and Skhul sites.

And that's about all the physical evidence there is for tracking the migrants' early progress across Asia. To the south, the fossil and archaeological record is clearer and shows that modern humans reached Australia and Papua New Guinea—then part of the same landmass—at least 45,000 years ago, and maybe much earlier.

But curiously, the early down under colonists apparently did not make sophisticated tools, relying instead on simple Neanderthal-style flaked stones and scrapers. They had few ornaments and little long-distance trade, and left scant evidence that they hunted large marsupial mammals in their new homeland. Of course, they may have used sophisticated wood or bamboo tools that have decayed. But University of Utah anthropologist James F. O'Connell offers another explanation: the early settlers did not bother with sophisticated technologies because they did not need them. That these people were "modern" and innovative is clear: getting to New Guinea-Australia from the mainland required at least one sea voyage of more than 45 miles, an astounding achievement. But once in place, the colonists faced few pressures to innovate or adapt new technologies. In particular, O'Connell notes, there were few people, no shortage of food and no need to compete with an indigenous population like Europe's Neanderthals.

Modern humans eventually made their first forays into Europe only about 40,000 years ago, presumably delayed by relatively cold and inhospitable weather and a less than welcoming Neanderthal population. The conquest of the continent—if that is what it was—is thought to have lasted about 15,000 years, as the last pockets of Neanderthals dwindled to extinction. The European penetration is widely regarded as the decisive event of the great migration, eliminating as it did our last rivals and enabling the moderns to survive there uncontested.

Did modern humans wipe out the competition, absorb them through interbreeding, outthink them or simply stand by while climate, dwindling resources, an epidemic or some other natural phenomenon did the job? Perhaps all of the above. Archaeologists have found little direct evidence of confrontation between the two peoples. Skeletal evidence of possible interbreeding is sparse, contentious and inconclusive. And while interbreeding may well have taken place, recent DNA studies have failed to show any consistent genetic relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals.

"You are always looking for a neat answer, but my feeling is that you should use your imagination," says Harvard University archaeologist Ofer Bar-Yosef. "There may have been positive interaction with the diffusion of technology from one group to the other. Or the modern humans could have killed off the Neanderthals. Or the Neanderthals could have just died out. Instead of subscribing to one hypothesis or two, I see a composite."

Modern humans' next conquest was the New World, which they reached by the Bering Land Bridge—or possibly by boat—at least 15,000 years ago. Some of the oldest unambiguous evidence of humans in the New World is human DNA extracted from coprolites—fossilized feces—found in Oregon and recently carbon dated to 14,300 years ago.

For many years paleontologists still had one gap in their story of how humans conquered the world. They had no human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa from between 15,000 and 70,000 years ago. Because the epoch of the great migration was a blank slate, they could not say for sure that the modern humans who invaded Europe were functionally identical to those who stayed behind in Africa. But one day in 1999, anthropologist Alan Morris of South Africa's University of Cape Town showed Frederick Grine, a visiting colleague from Stony Brook University, an unusual-looking skull on his bookcase. Morris told Grine that the skull had been discovered in the 1950s at Hofmeyr, in South Africa. No other bones had been found near it, and its original resting place had been befouled by river sediment. Any archaeological evidence from the site had been destroyed—the skull was a seemingly useless artifact.

But Grine noticed that the braincase was filled with a carbonate sand matrix. Using a technique unavailable in the 1950s, Grine, Morris and an Oxford University-led team of analysts measured radioactive particles in the matrix. The skull, they learned, was 36,000 years old. Comparing it with skulls from Neanderthals, early modern Europeans and contemporary humans, they discovered it had nothing in common with Neanderthal skulls and only peripheral similarities with any of today's populations. But it matched the early Europeans elegantly. The evidence was clear. Thirty-six thousand years ago, says Morris, before the world's human population differentiated into the mishmash of races and ethnicities that exist today, "We were all Africans."

LINK: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-human-migration-13561/

 

[jamahir]

They din't have to "adopt" sanskrit, they spoke it which later trans-mutated to Prakrit called Avestan.

Why did it mutate ? When was this period ?

 

[Gadkari]

None of the haplogroups that the author says originate in India actually originate there.

It also says C and D are directly evolved from 'YAP'. That's the funniest thing I ever heard. YAP defines E and D haplogroups, not C.

That pretty much destroys the entire post.

The oldest R was found in ancient DNA from MA1. That's in Siberia. The oldest R1 ancient DNA are found in Europe. The oldest R2 ancient DNA are found in Western Iran. With all that how does one reach the conclusion that R originates in India?

1. She clearly says " YAP (Y-Alu Polymorphism) also known as M1 arose in Africa from M168 " says later this M1/YAP departed from Africa in an early dispersal event, and that C & D - are Directly evolved from this line. This is TRUE.

2. R has originated from M line and the oldest M lines and a large variety of M lines are found in India. In India, the major maternal lineages are various M subclades, followed by R and U sublineages. About 60% Indians have M (58%caste, 42%tribe) genetic heritage.

This wide dispersion of this lineage makes it the oldest.

 

[Gadkari]

Why did it mutate ? When was this period ?

lol. Why does ANYTHING mutate ? and how does the age of mutation matter ?

 

[jamahir]

lol. Why does ANYTHING mutate ?

In case of this particular language you tell me.