Mapping Indian History Through Genetics

Vikas Maturi

As a young child, my grandfather shared with me the story of the saptharishis (seven

rishis). These rishis, or sages, were the great explorers of their time. Wandering across Asia, they

eventually made their way to Himalayan mountains - a sacred space where they encountered

Shiva, an embodiment of Brahman (the universal force) and an enlightened being in a state of

intense and complete ecstasy. The rishis begged to learn what Shiva knew, but Shiva dismissed

them, responding that the preparation required was too much. But from that day forth, the rishis

spent every waking hour preparing. Years upon years passed, with Shiva watching over them

quietly. After eighty-four years, Shiva looked upon the rishis and saw that they were ready to

receive his knowledge. And on that day, Shiva began sharing the Vedic science with the rishis.

Many years later, the saptharishis completed their learning and emerged as seven enlightened

beings. From the Himalayas, they travelled south to India - bringing with them their immense

wisdom. In their journey, they became the patriarchs of Vedic Brahmanism (ancient Hinduism).

And I, like all children of India, was a descendent of one of these seven men.This story, while a

magical journey for a child, may also have a basis in the historical reality. Home to over a billion

people, India is one of the most diverse communities on the planet, with thousands of cultures,

languages, and religious practices within its geographic boundaries. Currently, the amalgam of

anthropological, archaeological, linguistic, and ecological evidence has left researchers puzzled

as to the origins of the Indian people, with three theories exploring distinct timelines and nuances

of migration.
 Genetic research has shed new light on this mystery. Tracking haplogroups (mtDNA or

Y-linked genetic markers) across Eurasia has opened doors to understanding relative levels of

diversity. Moreover, advances in tracking the genetic material of ancestral populations has built

our understanding of the mixture between existing populations and migratory ones. Analysis of

population admixture and Y-linked genetic markers between distinct settled and migrant groups

presents a timeline of extensive, male-dominated migration to India by Indo-Europeans from

East-Central Asia during the early Bronze Age, followed by genetic admixture among these

migrants (with ancestral North Indian, or ANI, DNA) and a pre-existing people (with high

proportions of ancestral South Indian, or ASI, DNA). This updated timeline establishes a clear

migration between 4500 to 4000 years before present and suggests the emergence of modern

endogamous behaviors surrounding caste roughly 1850 years before present. These findings have

significant implications in reforming deep-seated beliefs around migration and caste

development currently present in India.

Background

India, a country with over a billion people, is largely culturally homogeneous (similar

religious and cultural traditions) with incredibly diverse linguistic pools and known migrations

from genetically distinct populations. This surprising discrepancy suggests that linguistic and

genetic evidence can provide unique insight into the peopling of the subcontinent. The vast

majority of Indian languages are derived from two distinct ancestral (parental) languages. Proto-

Indo-European (PIE), the parent of the Indo-European language family, led to languages as

diverse as German, English, Albanian, Iranian, and Sanskrit, with all current languages holding

an estimated 2.9 billion speakers combined. PIE is also the base of several contemporary North
Indian languages, including Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu), Bengali, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Gujurati, and

Marathi. These languages are collectively grouped under the language sub-family Indo-Aryan,

that includes languages native to Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. In contrast, South

Indian languages, including Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, and Malayalam, are derived from the

Dravidian language family. While the origins and development of the Dravidian language base

are still unclear, Dravidian languages are found almost exclusively in South India, suggesting

relatively isolated development of the language and ancient speakers. This linguistic history can

provide an understanding of potential migratory routes and places of origin but leaves questions

of timeline and scale unanswered.

Two primary ancestral genetic bases are well established in Indian populations, but

genetic mixture and crossover is less understood (Metspalu 2011). Ancestral South Indian (ASI)

DNA is the ‘pre-existing’ genetic base, presumably arriving approximately 40,000+ years before

present in conjunction with the migrations out of the Horn of Africa. The populations lived more

exclusively in South India, although the Indus historical scholars postulate that the Indus Valley

Civilization spoke and wrote a language with strong ties to modern-day Dravidian languages

(Mahadevan 2006). Ancestral North Indian (ANI) DNA has strong genetic links to several

Central Asian and Eastern European genomic markers. These connections suggest that this

genetic base was introduced far more recently to the Indian subcontinent, but the extent,

timeline, and impact of this genetic base in modern populations is unclear.

Researchers have proposed 3 primary Indo-Aryan migration theories based of various

streams of evidence:

1. Migrations occurred 6500+ years before present, prior to the development of agriculture.

The primary evidence of this lies in the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) lineages. By
 evaluating the level of diversity of mtDNA in current populations, an understanding of

the timing of the introduction of mtDNA into a genepool can be better understood. Broad

similarity of Indian mtDNA suggests an ancient common similarity has suggested that the

peopling of India is quite ancient, as only a small fraction of Indian mtDNA lineages are

due to recent admixture events (Kivisild 1999). Tracking of specific Y-linked genetic

markers has also pointed to a halting of major patrilineal gene flow since 6500 years

before present (Underhill 2016).

2. Migrations of western Asian people happened with the spread of agriculture, prior to

4600 years before present. Genetic differences between farmers and hunter-gatherers in

Scandinavia at approximately the same time implies southern European dispersals

coinciding with the agricultural revolution (Skoglund et. al. 2012). Evidence of minimal

overlap between hunter-gatherer mtDNA and modern European inhabitant DNA bolsters

this analysis (Bramanti et. al. 2009).

3. Migrations of western Asian people occurred after the spread of agriculture,

approximately 3500 years before the present. Archaeological evidence, including the

Gandhara grave culture established from 3500-2500 years before present in present-day

Afghanistan and Pakistan, lend credence to a migration of ANI genetic populations at this

time. However, evidence of substantial agriculture already present in North India at this

time implies, if there are high percentages of ANI in modern populations, that these

migrations would be massive (in order to drastically influence the genome).

Genetic Admixture and Haplogroup Tracking

 Recent genetic studies on South Asian populations have uncovered provocative new

evidence of far more recent population admixture of ANI and ASI. Research from Priya

Moorjani, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, David Reich, and Lalji Singh analyzed allele frequencies of

known ANI and ASI gene sequences among 571 individuals from 73 defined ethnolinguistic

groups. Utilizing the f4 ratio technique developed in the lab of David Reich, a Harvard

population geneticist, they can accurately infer mixture proportions of two distinct ancestry bases

without accurate surrogates (people who were purely ANI or ASI) from allelic frequencies alone

(Patterson et. al 2012). All 73 ethnolinguistic groups had a minimum ANI & ASI ancestry of

17%, and a maximum of 71% (Moorjani et. al. 2013). Despite some variation in proportion,

universally significant portions of ANI and ASI across all groups highlights the profound shared

ancestry of Indians. This finding is even more stunning in that this admixture spread wholly to

distinctly secluded populations, including tribal groups less likely to experience genetic

admixture due to cultural and geographic isolation. This ubiquity establishes that the Dravidian

natives and Indo-Aryan migrants mixed extensively before the emergence of the modern day

endogamous structures.

These findings are further complicated by the 2016 Basu et. al study on genetic

reconstruction of ancestral Indian DNA. Analyzing specific single base-pairs in genomes of 331

individuals, their team determined mainland Indians hold four distinct branches of ancestry - two

more than the previously assumed dual ANI/ASI ancestry. Both Ancestral Tibeto-Burman (ATB)

and Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) were small yet existent sources of ancestry for large swaths

of Indian populations. Currently, people with ATB ancestry (and speaking ATB languages) are

found in the Tibetian-Himalayan region and Myanmar, bordering Northeast India and Nepal.

People with AAA ancestry are more geographically removed, found primarily in Southeast
Asian countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Certain modern-day tribal

groups found in India are known to hold primarily AAA or ATB ancestry, and speak a language

deriving from the associated language bases. Several culturally Indian tribal groups with AAA or

ATB language bases were found to have remarkably high percentages (some at 95-97%) of the

same genetic ancestry. Particularly fascinating are the Manipuri Brahmins of the Manipur valleys

- while they hold an Indo-European language base, their estimated genetic ancestry is just 26%

ANI and over 65% ATB. Other tribal groups, including the Gondi and Ho tribes, hold relatively

balanced mixes of several ancestral groups (for Gondi, 30% ANI, 19% ASI, 38% AAA 6%

ATB). At the baseline level, these findings certainly elucidate a more largely-mixed heritage

than previously thought across the Indian population. For certain groups, they provide startling

new evidence for powerful genetic movement of AAA and ATB groups into India (or

potentially, even long-standing presence in Northeast India with a migration outward), holding

clear implications of a potential migration through India’s northeast corridor in the Himalayan

mountains.

Migration from Indo-Europeans (holding the ANI markers) appears to be heavily male-

dominated. Prior research often relied on tracking mtDNA as a mechanism for understanding

movement, as it can be analyzed from modern populations with a largely established existing

dataset (Kivisild 1999). However, this reliance on mtDNA may not be presenting a complete

picture. Analyses from ArunKumar et. al. found that modern geographic and linguistic groups

are significantly correlated with patrilineal, or male-lineage, haplogroups. As such, there are

“diverse Y-chromosomal haplogroups making up the Indian gene pool”. However, the same was

not true for mtDNA haplogroups, establishing that “almost 80% of Indian mtDNA lineages are

descendents of only two mtDNA haplogroups” (ArunKumar 2015). These findings suggest that
the expansion and diversity of the Indian gene pool is attributable to male-mediated migration of

Indo-European travelers.

Dating Admixture and Patrilineal Haplogroup Data

The advent of new genetic technologies has enabled researchers to correlate population

admixture data with estimated timelines. Moorjani et. al identified key linkage disequilibria

(non-random association of alleles within a given population) at specific places in DNA that

differ among ANI and ASI. With these variations, they measured levels of decay, or rates of

recombination of ancestral chromosomal “blocks”. Their team crafted an estimated period of

admixture from 1,856 to 4,176 years before present (64 to 144 generations ago) - a far more

recent period of mixture than previously anticipated, although prior to Muslim invasions of the

1400s. These findings were further substantiated in Basu et. al, utilizing a similar ancestral block

strategy, concluding that most upper-caste populations began practicing endogamy roughly 70

generations ago, at the tail end of Moorjani et. al’s proposed timeline (Basu et. al 2016). For a

culture perceived to have rules against intermarriage, high levels of mixture so recently reform

our conceptions on the timeline of caste development.

Both studies identified discrepancies across caste and language that qualify the

generalized findings. Indo-European speaking groups had significantly more recent dates of

estimated admixture (72 generations) as compared to Dravidian ones (108 generations).

Traditionally, lower caste and tribal groups tended to have “lower proportions of ANI ancestry

than traditionally upper caste and Indo-European groups” (Moorjani et. al. 2013). These findings

are qualified by further analysis demonstrating that people of traditionally lower-caste and tribal

groups tended to hold ancestries consistent with a single instance of admixture within the last
five thousand years, while middle and upper-caste groups holding evidence more consistent with

multiple waves of admixture (Moorjani et. al. 2013). Additionally, West-Eurasian haplogroups

hold strong phylogenetic affinity primarily among higher-ranked caste groups (Palachimany

2015). This substantiates Moorjani’s assertion of a second wave of admixture particularly

touching groups of higher caste rank.

Recent research has favored analysis of paternal lineages for understanding migration

timelines, as mtDNA (passed only by the mother) evidence does not capture the potential for a

male-dominated migration. Looking into 3 distinct Y-chromosome linked haplogroups, including

the R1a haplogroup found predominantly across Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia, Poznik

et. al. found striking expansion of R1a-Z93 (a sub-group of R1a) approximately 4500 - 4000

years before present (Poznik et. al 2016). Evaluating Y-chromosome lineages and the R1a

haplogroup, Silva et. al determined that genetic influx from Central Asia in the Bronze Age was

“strongly male-driven, consistent with the patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social structure

attributed to the inferred pastoralist early Indo-European society” (Silva et. al. 2017). The

estimated timing of this influx - between 5000 and 3500 years before present - affirms findings

from Poznik et. al. and further evidences a robust timeline for a key recent migration.

The prevalence of various recessive diseases across several endogamous Indian

communities contributes another valuable line of evidence. In “The promise of discovering

population-specific disease-associated genes in South Asia” published in Nature, Nakatsuka et.

al defined a metric (the IBD score) to quantify the strength of founder event’s using identity by

descent (IBD) segments, defined as “large stretches of DNA originating from a common founder

in the last approximately 100 generations” (Nakatsuka et. al). Their work established remarkably

high IBD scores for a majority of the 263 unique groups, with 81 groups receiving scores greater
than those of Ashkenazi Jews and Finns (both groups with heavily studied and highly established

founder events), correlated with greater likelihood of recessive conditions. For example, the

Vysya, a highly endogamous Central-South Indian group with over 3 million people, have “over

a 100-fold higher rate of butyrylcholinesterase deficiency than other groups”. This deficiency has

particularly serious implications during surgery, where it often counteracts muscle relaxants and

leads to difficult awakening, and death in the most serious of cases. Clearly, investigating and

addressing recessive-linked diseases are powerful motives for directing research funding, but

their prevalence and seriousness across social groups further affirms the strictness and speed of

any socio-cultural shifts that induced endogamy.

Implications for Migration

This research provides a substantive start to more genuinely understanding the timeline of

migration and settlement in the Indian subcontinent. Work from Silva et. al. and Poznik et. al.

identifies at least one clear wave of migration between 5000 to 3500 years before present,

potentially narrowed to 4500 to 4000 years before present. With the understanding that migration

must predate admixture, this estimate aligns with the findings from Moorjani et. al and Basu et.

al dating admixture at approximately 4000-1900 years before present. Combining these streams

of evidence establish a timeline of at least one key wave of Indo-European migration beginning

approximately 5000 to 4000 years ago, in alignment with the second theory. The similarity of

these lineages across other migratory events of the time corroborates theories placing the origin

of these migrants in the Pontic-Caspian region of Eurasia.

Furthermore, this body of research establishes the extent of male-mediated migration.

The shared maternal ancestry among Indians but the diversified Y-chromosome lineages suggest
the relative level of impact of recent male-dominated migration events. The high proportion of

ATB and/or AAA genetic markers in several Indian tribal groups, including some speaking Indo-

European languages, introduces the unique question of the emergence of ATB and AAA

populations in Northeast India. Genomic and linguistic evidence is mixed as to India as a

potential base for AAA, as the Munda people of India speak an indigenous Austro-Asiatic

dialect, with recent phylogenetic evidence implying a migration from modern-day Cambodia.

The small percentage of AAA or ATB genetic base in disparate Indian populations suggests

further research into an intrusive or extrusive theory of migration for AAA and ATB ancestral

bases, and the timeline of such migrations.

This genetic work also presents a fascinating discrepancy. Moorjani et. al clearly

established the prevalence of both ANI and ASI in every tested Indian population, with a

minimum of 19% of one or the other in all tested populations. However, several studies have

noted the relatively higher levels of ANI ancestry in traditionally higher caste groups, as

compared to lower-caste ones - with many of those same populations holding ancestries

consistent with a single period of extensive admixture. The imbalanced admixture, with ANI

populations supplying genomic inputs to tribal and traditionally lower caste groups (including

Dravidian tribes, AAA, and ATB) but not vice versa, reinforces the existence of a hierarchical

and patriarchal dominance. Males from these more powerful populations mated outside of their

group, but their children remained within the non-elite group. These findings appear to suggest

that intermarriage between ‘castes’ was frowned upon prior to the end of admixture, although

certainly not forbidden.

As generally north Indian, upper-caste populations experienced several waves of mixture

and ended their mixture period more recently, it is likely that a second, smaller wave of Indo-
Aryan migration happened within the 4200-1800 years before present timeline of admixture,

distinct from the 4500 years before present migration that affected the genomes of these specific

populations. This concurs with archaeological findings of migrations occurring approximately

3500 years before present. This new wave of migrations potentially began to slowly perpetuate a

system where migrants specifically chose to mate with only people in professions they approved

of - the start and potential inspiration for strict endogamy. Such a situation would explain how

every Indian population holds mixed ancestry, and why traditionally upper-caste populations

might have higher levels of ANI ancestry. This also affirms the linguistic evidence of significant

lexical interchange of Indo-Aryan to Dravidian languages, and structural interchange of

Dravidian to Indo-Aryan languages (“Dravidian Languages 2015”). Post-Vedic literature

represents a marriage of the two language bases, and even early Vedic works (traditionally

thought to be of Aryan migrant creation) include substantive Dravidian contributions

(Krishamurti 2003). Further archaeological, genetic, and linguistic research into the haplogroup

expansion and admixture is required to validate this hypothesis.

Implications on Caste Development

Extensive scholarship and written history indicate that the initial ‘caste’ system was

substantively different than the modern caste system (Olivelle 2008). According to the Rigveda,

a seminal and central Hindu text, castes were not relative levels of relative ‘purity’. Rather, gurus

(teachers) assigned their students to roles and occupations falling under the bucket of one caste

based on their individual strengths.

Bringing this genetic evidence to the established written and oral histories provides new

context to the socio-cultural assumptions around the emergence of modern caste behaviors. In
approximately 300 CE, India experienced a cultural transformation with the formation of the

Gupta empire. Considered a “Golden Age” of Indian history, Gupta kings presided over

substantive progress in literature, trade, local government, and the judicial system in a kingdom

spanning across North and East India. In this period, sacred epics including the Mahabharata and

Ramayana took their final form. The Dharmasastras - a codified compendium of religious and

moral rules to be followed by a Hindu - emerged and embedded themselves in the legal

framework. The earliest known of these texts is the Manusmriti (written in approximately 200

CE, approximately 40 years after the most recent estimated end admixture), which extensively

discussed the concept of Varna - a system of identification centered around societal roles. The

Manusmriti establishes a number of behavioral distinctions to be practiced by those of different

castes, including “On marrying a man of a higher caste, a Kshatriya bride must take hold of an

arrow, a Vaishya bride of a goad, and a Sudra female of the hem of the bridegroom’s garment”,

“the burnt offering which is defiled by the Sudra’s touch is detrimental to one’s passage to

heaven”, and “he who violates an unwilling maiden shall instantly suffer corporal punishment,

but a man who enjoys a willing maiden shall not suffer corporal punishment, if his caste is the

same as hers” (Manusmriti 3.44, 5.104, 8.364). These passages clearly stand opposed to the

equality and mutual respect between castes as understood prior to this date.

The role of the Manusmriti in either causing, perpetuating, or documenting the current

system of caste has created substantial scholarly disagreement. Anthropologist Tim Ingold has

noted that while varna was certainly delineated in the Manusmriti, they were more indicative of

“models, rather than descriptions” (Ingold 1994). Such interpretations are bolstered by

commentary from Susan Bayly, a professor of cultural anthropology at Cambridge, who writes

that these ancient texts did not “create the phenomenon of caste” (Bayly 2001). Others, such as
B.R.Ambedkar, India’s first post-colonial Minister of Law and Justice and active social reformer,

adamantly lamented the Manusmriti’s role in justifying caste discrimination, going so far as to

lead thousands of followers in a ceremonial burning of the text on December 25th, 1927

(Annihilating Caste 2003).

Genetic evidence of the abrupt shift from admixture to endogamy at this time suggests

that Ingold’s and Bayly’s analyses are incomplete. Widespread adoption of endogamy within

approximately 50 years of the writing of the Manusmriti- a practice with no evidence of adoption

in India in spite of varna but outlined in the text - suggest that this text was a critical informant of

this new social practice. The establishment of a widespread, highly developed legal system

during this age serves as a potential explanation for a quick, widely-accepted shift to this

practice, at least within Gutpa-controlled lands. With law considered above even the power of

the emperor, and the usage of the Manusmriti as the guiding force behind law, these social rules

would have spread quickly across a rural empire through legal channels. Thus, it is not a system

of caste that the Manusmriti explicitly created, but it may have played a significant role in the

endogamous behaviors that are a distinct part of the modern caste structure.

This judicial and moral pathway of implementation could partially explain the emergence

of thousands of various jati, or subcastes, along cultural, linguistic, and geographic lines that still

exist today. In a rural yet expansive empire, smaller communities would follow these extensive

rules, eventually leaving few eligible mates.

This analysis naturally begs the question of why such a system was implemented

following hundreds (if not thousands) of years of peaceful mixture. One potential explanation

draws from a mix of convenience and human nature. As the Mauryan Empire ended, India was

experiencing an estimated 18% population growth rate per century - stunning for a region with
nearly 60 million people already. This growth might have rendered the system of individual

sorting into social groups unmanageable. Additionally, Brahmins of the time might have been

reluctant to relinquish control over a burgeoning empire. Thus, establishing a system of

endogamous caste would ensure royal power would remain in the family. Relying on the

Manusmriti, which includes passages granting substantial power to Brahmins, as legal doctrine

would be a graceful method of implementation. However, this theory is highly speculative, and

based primarily upon temporal alignment. Additionally, it does not account for the geographic

limits of the Gupta empire, which would have left South Indian peoples relatively untouched by

these laws. Evidence that admixture did not universally halt at the same time across India also

poses additional concerns. Group such as the Vysya of South India have not experienced

significant gene flow for nearly 3000 years. Other groups, such as the Maratha, a heavily rural

class of landowners and soldiers, experienced admixture, in at least one estimate, less than 50

generations ago (Basu et. al 2016). Historical records demonstrate that this group was tasked

with becoming warriors (of higher status), at the need of the Rashtrakuta empire as late at 982

CE (Thapar 2004). Thus, while the Manusmriti may have been an important factor in spreading

endogamous practices, there was certainly a strong historical evidence for evading these

practices. Brahmins in power circumvented the rules laid out in the Manusmriti by requiring

other groups to break them when it suited their personal interests.

Socio-Political Implications

Precluding vastly new genetic evidence, it is abundantly clear that a period (or periods) of

admixture deeply affected the shared Indian genome, transcending even the most extreme

geographies, ideologies, cultures, and languages. This timeline and evidence of widely shared
ancestry further invalidates the presumption of ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’, a scientifically

unsubstantiated yet widely believed theory in India asserting that Indo-European ‘invaders’

destroyed the existing Indus Valley Civilization. Following, they assert, two ancestrally distinct

populations – migrant Aryans and native Dravidian – were in constant conflict. Modern

politicians will often reference this ‘Aryan/Dravidian divide’ as justification for either caste

superiority for more right-wing Hindu-nationalist parties, and validation of a classist war for the

Marxist movement. In the view of several prominent Indian leftists, a genetic distinction between

Aryans and Dravidians (with the Dravidians being primarily those beneath caste) validates an

argument for an uprising of Dravidians against those in power.

On the opposing spectrum, even stark opponents of the Aryan Invasion Theory view the

above Aryan Migration Theory as a simple repackaging, seeing both as antithetical to a unified

Indian heritage. Their indignation for these theories stem primarily from the ambiguity of the

Aryan Migration Theory prior to the most recent findings. First, before extensive data on

population admixture was available, the idea of a very recent migration into India would feasibly

support the presumed racial divide between ‘Aryan’ migrants and ‘Dravidian’ natives, as it might

be difficult for people to imagine extensive mixing in such a short time frame. Second, this

theory is often presented – both in textbooks and by historians – as part of a larger narrative of an

Indian history not controlled by Indians. After two centuries of the British perpetuating

objectively false theories around Indian racial divides and a larger ignorance of Indian history

across the Western world, these theories are often presented with the presumption of ‘savages’

entering the country and immediately dominating an entire established culture, which was said to

have contributed little to modern Indian history. Recalling the oral history presented earlier of

the saptharishis – revered sages and godly people – that were these same Aryan migrants, this
reductive narrative naturally incites disgust and disdain. However, with the understanding that

this more evidenced theory does not support a racial divide – particularly, just the opposite

considering the extent of genetic admixture present in nearly all Indian populations – further

support for this better evidenced Aryan Migration Theory may be forthcoming. Building this

understanding is certainly an uphill battle and requires first elucidating the extent of population

admixture in a short time frame, and returning to the narrative of the Aryan migrants as noble

peoples.

Conclusions

Integrating the findings of recent genetic studies has established a clearer timeline of

extensive, male-dominated migration to India by Indo-Europeans from East-Central Asia

approximately 4500-4000 years before present, followed by genetic admixture among these

migrants (with entirely ancestral North Indian, or ANI, DNA) and a pre-existing people (with

high proportions of ancestral South Indian, or ASI, DNA). Moreover, this migration event is

closely tied with the emergence of endogamy as a practice within castes. In a twist of irony, the

emergence of endogamous behavior so closely associated with the modern caste structure may

have been partially perpetuated by selective intermarriage from new migrants.

Moving forward, further research on admixture events and haplogroup lineages is

essential. Particularly, it is critical that future studies draw upon a diverse range of Indian

communities. Understanding the migratory events of ATB and AAA peoples through the

Northeast, the internal migration and mixture of Dravidian peoples and new migratory groups

before and up to the agricultural revolution, and the potential of other ANI migration events will

be critical in gaining a more complete sense of Indian ancestry. Additionally, this research
provides a compelling new narrative of migration that, if presented properly, may have the

potential to reform deeply-held beliefs surrounding migration across political and geographic

lines.

Are these male migrants the same as the saptharishis of my grandfather’s story? Quite

possibly. The people of India have a history that is still a mystery, and the real answer lies inside

them.
 Works Cited

"Annihilating caste". frontline.in. Archived from the original on 28 May 2014.

ArunKumar, GaneshPrasad; et al. (2015), "Genome-wide signatures of male-mediated migration

shaping the Indian gene pool", Journal of Human Genetics, 60 (9): 493–9,

doi:10.1038/jhg.2015.51,

Basu; Namita Mukherjee; Sangita Roy; Sanghamitra Sengupta; Sanat Banerjee; Madan

Chakraborty; Badal Dey; Monami Roy; Bidyut Roy; Nitai P. Bhattacharyya; Susanta

Roychoudhury; Partha P. Majumder (2003), "Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With

Special Reference to Peopling and Structure", Genome Research, 13: 2277–2290,

doi:10.1101/gr.1413403

Bayly, Susan (2001), Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the

Modern Age, Cambridge University Press, p. 29, ISBN 978-0-521-26434-1

Bramanti B., Thomas M.G., Haak W., Unterlaender M., Jores P., Tambets K., Antanaitis-Jacobs

I., Haidle M.N., Jankauskas R., Kind C.-J. Genetic discontinuity between local hunter-

gatherers and central Europe’s first farmers. Science. 2009;326:137–140.

"Dravidian languages". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 8 July 2015.

Ingold, Tim (1994). Companion encyclopedia of anthropology. Routledge. p. 1026. ISBN

978-0-415-28604-6.).

Kivisild; et al. (1999), "Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial

DNA lineages" (PDF), Current Biology, 9 (22): 1331–1334, doi:10.1016/s0960-

9822(00)80057-3,

Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju (2003). The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge Language Surveys.

 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-77111-5.

Mahadevan, Iravatham (6 May 2006). "Stone celts in Harappa". Harappa. Archived from the

original on 4 September 2006.

Manusmriti. Trans. By George Buhler, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 25

Metspalu, Mait; Gallego Romero, Irene; Yunusbayev, Bayazit; Chaubey, Gyaneshwer; Mallick,

Chandana Basu; Hudjashov, Georgi; Nelis, Mari; Mägi, Reedik; Metspalu, Ene; Remm,

Maido; Pitchappan, Ramasamy; Singh, Lalji; Thangaraj, Kumarasamy; Villems, Richard;

Kivisild, Toomas (2011), "Shared and Unique Components of Human Population

Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia", The American

Journal of Human Genetics, 89 (6): 731–744, doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.010,

Moorjani, P.; Thangaraj, K.; Patterson, N.; et al. (2013). "Genetic evidence for recent population

mixture in India". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 93 (3): 422–38.

doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.07.006.

Nakatsuka N, et. al. Nat Genet. 2017 Sep;49(9):1403-1407. doi: 10.1038/ng.3917. Epub 2017 Jul

17.

Palanichamy, Malliya Gounder (2015), "West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India: an insight into

the spread of the Dravidian language and the origins of the caste system", Human

Genetics, 134 (6): 637–647, doi:10.1007/s00439-015-1547-4, PMID 25832481

Patterson N1, Moorjani P, Luo Y, Mallick S, Rohland N, Zhan Y, Genschoreck T, Webster T,

Reich D. Ancient admixture in human history.Genetics. 2012 Nov;192(3):1065-93. doi:

10.1534/genetics.112.145037. Epub 2012 Sep 7.

Olivelle, Patrick (2008). Chapter 9. Caste and Purity in Collected essays. Firenze, Italy: Firenze

University Press. pp. 240–241. ISBN 978-88-8453-729-4.

Poznik GD, Xue Y, Mendez FL, Willems TF, Massaia A, Wilson Sayres MA, et al. Punctuated

bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome

sequences. Nat Genet. 2016;48:593–9.

Silva, Marina; et al. (2017), "A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily

sex-biased dispersals", BMC Evolutionary Biology, 17: 88, doi:10.1186/s12862-017-

0936-9

Thapar R (2004) Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 (Univ of California Press, Berkeley,

CA).

Skoglund P., Malmström H., Raghavan M., Storå J., Hall P., Willerslev E., Gilbert M.T.P.,

Götherström A., Jakobsson M. Origins and genetic legacy of Neolithic farmers and

hunter-gatherers in Europe. Science. 2012;336:466–469.

Underhill, Peter; et. al. (2010). “Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y

chromosomes within haplogroup R1a.” European Journal of Human Genetics volume18,

Pages 479–484 (2010) doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.194