tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post7969016507470999543..comments2023-06-12T06:58:06.277-07:00Comments on Nj's arya blog: Neither Aryans migrated into north-west India, nor did Tamils migrate into South India: Michel DaninoNirjhar007http://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-28433750062677214982016-02-01T03:07:06.362-08:002016-02-01T03:07:06.362-08:00bmdriver,
What you say certainly has merit, the on...bmdriver,<br />What you say certainly has merit, the only way we can know about it is by ancient dna taken from India. Modern components are superficial and often misleading, so we need the collaboration of ancient genomes. Luckily we are going to have some aDNA before the 2000 BC period through Rakhigarhi, it will be fascinating to see how much ASI-ANI the samples show, or it is also possible we will see a whole new ancestral component which may change many ideas that we have now.<br />ASI is indeed a great mystery, no one really knows even after 7 years of discovery what it means. One possibility indeed is that its extremely basal.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-22527142260471469582016-02-01T00:54:55.166-08:002016-02-01T00:54:55.166-08:00Let me ask you a question, if there was only one m...Let me ask you a question, if there was only one migration out of Africa, and South Asia was of the first places to be settled, why is it not possible that ANI derives from ASI, with these two ancesteral groups becoming isolated over time, then four thousand years ago massive admixture takes place.<br /><br />The whole argument about India is ANI because Europeans share similarities with it now I have read studies which shows ANI diversity to be older that in India indicating a migration westward. So my question is it not more likely that both ANI and ASI have common origins, let's say Ancesteral Indians or AI. Or that ANI itself is a group separated from ASI?<br /><br /><br />''Outside Africa, the earliest and fastest growth is inferred in Southern Asia India -52 kya. Comparisons of relative regional population sizes through time suggest that between approximately 45,000 years and 20,000 years most of humanity lived in Southern Asia India.<br />-mtDNA Variation Predicts Population Size in Humans and Reveals a Major Southern Asian Chapter in Human Prehistory.......bmdriverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175936825472291559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-61572136686165070162016-01-31T20:17:38.842-08:002016-01-31T20:17:38.842-08:00Dear bmdriver,
Long time after :). Before answerin...Dear bmdriver,<br />Long time after :). Before answering, i must tell you that we first need the aDNA from S Asia to really know what happened.<br />As you know, there is a recent study on Indian population based on modern dna, the study has failed to provide something really new and also continued the dogma of AIT!. Anyway,if we seek some positives the paper speaks that there is a specific Austro-Asiatic component, and that ASI is essentially Dravidian.<br />Negritos of the islands belong to a very different type, closer to Melanesian folks.<br />http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/01/20/1513197113.abstract<br /><br />About Ancestral North Indians (ANI), it shows that they are very close to Pathans and Burusho and obviously Sindhi (idiotically excluded from ANI because they are in Pakistan, I guess), less to Balochi, which is not surprising, since Balochis should come partly from NW Iran, as the languages shows. It is also to note that Europeans and Middle Easterners cluster together, quite far from SC Asians. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I have not found a mention about who are these Middle Easterners, but this shows that ANI have no close links with Europeans. Kalash are closer to Middle Easterners compared to ANI.<br /><br />It is difficult to say if Ancestral North Indians are purely Neolithic or were already here from well before, but they are clearly connected with Indo-Europeans!, also Dravidian Iyers are Brahmins of Indo-Aryan origin. The sharp difference with South Indian tribes with their ASI component is impressive and confirms what we can notice in Kerala observing Brahmins and other local people.<br /><br />Instead, ASI from this study appears to be strongly Southern, and connected with Dravidians. My idea is that Dravidian speakers are the most ancient people of the Deccan, who developed there their own Neolithic culture with influence from IE from North and AA's from East, and that Indo-Aryans migrating there had to adopt their language, though bringing many loanwords from Sanskrit <br />or Prakrit.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-63554822170751731452016-01-31T10:59:30.812-08:002016-01-31T10:59:30.812-08:00https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QNAt5cLuHd
Please g...https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QNAt5cLuHd<br /><br />Please give feedback. My assumption is there was ancesteral Indian group, that settled South India, then separate migration took place back to North East and North west India, over time these populations become isolated. With changing climate North India becomes the ideal place for the onset of farming, with flat wet lands, over the mountainous regions of South India. North becomes the area of farming and in with India they remain hunter gatherers for longer. With development of farming, cultivation, domestication, technology migration takes place into Central Asia and beyond, then massive admixture in India merging the three ancestral groups back into one. Around 1500 years ago development of planned cities and city states means society has become more planned and orchestrated with permanent settlements over wandering tribal hunter gatherers, which means less admixture, with the rise of trade, guilds and occupations which is classed as the caste system or varna system. So all Indians come from two maybe three ancestral groups, which In turn come from the first ancestral group to settle India. Then with Islamic and Christian invasion during the times of colonialism and imperialism, society became very rigid as it became in Africa, America, Australia with such things as the slave system of American and African society. And then during colonial times this white Aryan's and black Dravidian concept created by racist and predjucial imperialist became the established view point of the Indian intellectual elite, who have continued this distortion. And today this distortion has become political and generates wealth. <br /><br />---<br /><br />“We have conclusively proved that there never existed any aryans or dravidians in the indian sub continent. the aryan-dravidian classification was nothing but a misinformation campaign carried out by people with vested interests,” Prof Lalji Singh, Vice-chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, told DNA.<br /><br />The findings of a three-year research by a team of scientists, including Prof Singh and others from various countries, has been published by American Journal of Human Genetics in its issue dated december 9.<br /><br />“The study effectively puts to rest the argument that south indians are dravidians and were driven to the peninsula by aryans who invaded north india,” said Prof Singh, a molecular biologist and former chief of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad.<br /><br />According to Dr Gyaneshwer chaubey, Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia, who was another indian member of the team, the leaders of dravidian political parties may have to find another answer for their raison d'être. “we have proved that people all over india have common genetic traits and origin. all indians have the same dna structure. no foreign genes or dna has entered the indian mainstream in the last 60,000 years,” dr chaubey said.<br /><br />Dr Chaubey had proved in 2009 itself that the aryan invasion theory is bunkum. “that was based on low resolution genetic markers. this time we have used autosomes, which means all major 23 chromosomes, for our studies. the decoding of human genome and other advances in this area help us in unraveling the ancestry in 60,000 years,” he explained.bmdriverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175936825472291559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-3632334762245987002016-01-29T05:06:11.495-08:002016-01-29T05:06:11.495-08:00Welcome Aniketana :) ,
About the slavery question ...Welcome Aniketana :) ,<br />About the slavery question in SSC , i think what you say is quite obvious, though i must tell you that i have not studied deeply on the subject and it is indeed an interesting topic.<br /><br />I think its not necessary for Dravidians to have settlements, the transition from Stone age to Neolithic to Chalcolithic in South was relatively late. And importantly the idea itself that Dravidians were urban agarian type came from the idea that IE's reached India only around 1500 BC , so SSC/IVC Can't be Indo-European but Dravidian since it was from a period before.<br />My idea though just an Idea is that Dravidians were mostly hunter gatherers of South who were later to involve in farming and pastoral from IE influence from the North and Perhaps with Munda type of influence coming from the east.<br />We must also take into consideration that if IE came here very anciently, say from around 4500-3800 BC , a period marked by another climatic event of 5.9 kyo event and records do show coming of new people , then we must accept that there was a population which spoke an Non-IE language. Judging by the substratum structure one possibility is that it was a para-Munda type but the case of Dravidian is weak and sometimes can be considered exaggerated -<br />https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/cerebrals-or-retroflexes-in-indo-aryan/<br />Another possibility is that it was language X because there are some unidentifiable words in Indic. <br />So where the Dravidians came from ? Archaeology don't help and certainly don't speak of migrations from north. Where they indigenous of south? not impossible . Did the come from Elam? not very sure as there is no trail from there. Also we must take into account if they were the bearers of SSC, why we don't see the archaeological artifacts of the civilization in the south?. My bet at the moment is that they were indigenous of South .Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-81558008019554955562016-01-29T04:18:59.116-08:002016-01-29T04:18:59.116-08:00When one mentions that Indus civilazation could no...When one mentions that Indus civilazation could not boast of imposing structures like pyramids, one also need to take into account, those structures were built out of slave labour, (where many died during its construction). In my knowledge, Indus civilization do not show any evidence for the practice of slavery. <br /><br />If Dravidians did not come from North, why no early settlements are found in South India? I have visited many historical places, where tour guides say the paintings on rocks are from Stone Age. Still we have not come across large early settlements (which we can call as a city). <br />Is there any explanation, why we cannot find? Or is it something one might explore in future?Aniketanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09085533531037442514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-32363599109484478552016-01-26T20:23:02.606-08:002016-01-26T20:23:02.606-08:00Andrew ,
There is nothing that can show that there...Andrew ,<br />There is nothing that can show that there were any Aryan migration to India in 2nd millennium BC. Cemetery H show a slight change in tradition but its ultimately from the local origin, it don't have any trail from outside except that it may reflect an arrival of some Afghan and near by related population.<br />The effect of the 4.2 kyo event was massive it collapsed the SSC, Sarasvati started to dry around the same period because of the lack of rain, though others have shown other possibilities -<br />http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/104/01/0042.pdf<br />For the relation of Vedic traditions with Harappan archaeology you can read for example the book by Bhagwan Singh <i> The Vedic Harappans</i> or you can take a look of detailed archaeological descriptions from this veteran archaeologist here -<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._B._Lal#Works<br />About the intrusion of ''west eurasian specific'' genes to India around 2000 BC, the only way that can be established is by taking the aDNA of harappans.<br />Y-DNA Z-93 can be a crucial indicator, i totally agree, but we should also remember that vast areas of Asia is yet to be sampled! . So, who knows if the marker which seems to be the best candidate so far for success of Kurgan model in case of S Asia turns out to be an Asian marker!, many agree with that possibility and of course there are also some who suggest that the Indo-Europeanization of S Asia didn't have any Genetic or Archaeological impact! i.e. Elite Dominance, but IMO that can't be, you need some significant intrusion with at least some indications from Archaeology. Anyway, you can read this too, which has a given a nice summary of relation between SSC and IE people in S Asia.<br />http://www.academia.edu/7683313/The_Chronology_of_Puranic_Kings_and_Rigvedic_Rishis_in_Comparison_with_the_Phases_of_the_Sindhu_Sarasvati_Civilization<br />and of course <b>welcome</b> :) .<br />Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3756272660800605663.post-4647970157841302232016-01-26T18:46:15.437-08:002016-01-26T18:46:15.437-08:00The Sarasvati’s identification with the dry bed of...The Sarasvati’s identification with the dry bed of the Ghaggar-Hakra and the approximate date that it dried out and the fact that this had a negative effect on the vitality of Harappan culture are all well established.<br /><br />The case that the Brahui language migrated there from South India ca. 1000 CE, with substantial language shift of the indigenous population is likewise very solid.<br /><br />There is a pretty decent case for putting the earliest Aryan influence in NW India at around 1900 BCE in the vicinity of Cemetery H which also coincides with the earliest appearance of certain kinds of metallurgy in NW India (at which point there was migration to the Ganges basin). A 1500 BCE date for first Aryan contact is too late. And, the genetic case for some sort of major introgression of new West Eurasian stock into South Asia at about the right time is very strong too. <br /><br />There are some legacies of Harappan civilization that can be established, e.g. the consumption of curry, and a game similar to chess. It isn't implausible to attribute the distinctive aspects of Vedic religion relative to other Indo-European cultures to the Harappans as well. And, it could be that the Aryans had a pretty easy time taking the reigns without much of a fight simply because the Harappan civilization had collapsed and its leaders had probably lost all credibility.<br /><br />But, the case against an Aryan migration into India sometime in the 2nd millenium BCE is ultimately very weak.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.com