The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Gene Expression BlogTeasers
The Harappa Civilization May Have Deep Roots in India
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

57348Like you, I am waiting on the Rakhigarhi DNA results. Whatever they come back with is going to definitely impact the textbooks. But until then, I thought this paper in Scientific Reports was interesting (sort of), Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization.

I say sort of because 1) a lot of archaeology is impenetrable to me 2) everything is about climate change. What is interesting to me is that these researchers seem to favor an old date for origins of the Harappan civilization within India. Here’s the relevant section:

At Bhirrana the earliest level has provided mean 14C age of 8.35 ± 0.14 ka BP (8597 to 8171 years BP8). The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP), Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP), Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP8,17,18,20,34).

Setting the Hakra culture to the side, Early Harappan at 6,000 BC suggests to me that the demographic parameters which led to the creation of the ANI-ASI genetic complex may already have been present then. If, the ASI are intrusive to the subcontinent it may even be that the Early Harappan were more West Asian than the final late stage Harappans.

 
• Category: History, Science • Tags: India 
    []
  1. Has there been evidence from any study of underlying substructure within the ASI component in modern South Asians?

    I ask because I remember reading that paper a few years back which found among eastern Indonesians the Austro-Melanesian component of their ancestry was actually a compound itself. Only a minority of this component was judged to be from indigenous hunter gatherers. The majority of the Austro-Melanesian ancestry was actually relatively recent introgression from Papua New Guinea – not that surprising when you consider Papuan languages are spoken on Timor. There was an abortive move of Papuan agriculturalists westward, which was later lapped by Austronesians moving eastward.

    As you noted in your thread earlier this week, it seems likely that there were multiple waves of admixture of ASI groups into South Asians. The question is how divergent these different ASI populations were. If they had deep roots in South Asia, or if some groups were relatively recent migrants from eastward, we would expect some variation. On the other hand, if they were either bottlenecked or almost entirely the descendants of recent migrants, there would probably have been low variation.

    As an aside, has anyone looked at Nihali DNA yet? They’re likely the only remaining candidate for speaking an “ASI language” although they have come under heavy Munda influence and don’t look too different from Munda groups in terms of phenotype. I know I read someone is currently looking at Kusunda DNA, but I doubt they would illuminate much on South Asia (although they might be a purer example of what makes the Sherpa so distinctive from Tibetans).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    Has there been evidence from any study of underlying substructure within the ASI component in modern South Asians?


    not that i know.

    As an aside, has anyone looked at Nihali DNA yet?

    i think the estonian biocentre has one. i might have looked. nothing special.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /gnxp/the-harappa-civilization-may-have-deep-roots-in-india/#comment-1438728
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. ohwilleke says: • Website

    The Indus River Valley was one of the first places outside the Fertile Crescent to experienced the Neolithic Revolution (contemporaneous with Egypt) and when it did so it received the Fertile Crescent Neolithic package of domesticated plants, domesticated animals and technologies. So, one would expect a West Asian + Indus River Valley hunter-gather mix which there is no sign was disturbed from the outside until it collapsed ca. 4 kya.

    Unlike Mesopotamia, there is no evidence that the multiple cities in the IVC were ever divided into balkanized, warring city-states. Seeing late Harappan culture as in continuity with early Neolithic civilization, uninterrupted by mass migrations, in the region is a mainstream view.

    Archaeological evidence suggests that the IVC civilization’s trade ties to Mesopotamia and BMAC were stronger than its trade ties with Southern India which were very thin and mediated through just one or two trading posts. These two distinct eco-regions have very little overlap.

    Southern India adopted ca. 2500 BCE, a package of crops mostly domesticated in the African Sahel which were different than the ones in the Fertile Crescent package which were ill adapted ecologically to the temperatures and precipitation patterns of Southern India. Many characteristic technological features of the IVC such as the use of proto-linguistic seals and architectural layouts were not adopted in Southern India.

    Any ASI in the IVC populations may derive from the pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer population of the Indus River Valley.

    Read More
    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    @ohwilleke
    You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn't supported by mainstream Indology.


    Re. "If, the ASI are intrusive to the subcontinent it may even be that the Early Harappan were more West Asian than the final late stage Harappans."

    Why would ASI be intrusive to the SubContinent after ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI. Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn't there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.
    , @Vijay
    There is a number of confused statements in this jumble of email. First, the Neolithic in south India started at 3000 BC (much later than other nations). The crops in south India at that time are Brown Millet, fox millet, kodo millet, finger millet, horse gram, pigeon pea and mungbean. (Reference: Agroecosystems of south India, K. R. Krishna) Both barley and wheat came a little later via IVC. The above crops were not from Africa. The Neolithic ashmound people were cowherders, and gods like Krishna and Shiva were already present at this point. The burning of cowdung to form giant ash heap is a practice that started here, and still finds use as a prayer to gods in much smaller scale. At a broad look, they appear similar to African crops, but they are not. Horsegram and the other millets are not african crops. The pearl millet varieties arrived from China , and not the African varieties. Both Sorghum and cowpea, the African staples arrived 1000 years later, but the cowherders were not present in that form at this time, having been subsumed into a farmer strata.

    The IVC collapsed in the 2000 BC period, but there is NO indication of trade with the southern ashmound people. Multiple cities existed in IVC, but at different times. The crops of South India had African origins but took root in South India after the arrival of people from both, West Asia and Central Asia, after 1500 BC. The presence of cow, and the importance of cow dung give an indication that it followed the MIDDLE EASTERN people who domesticated cow between 7500 and 9000 years ago. In addition, lactase persistence in south India did not follow the Eastern African model of LP growth, but seemed to have arrived along with ANI after 2000 BC.

    I am not even convinced that the Birana age evidence is correct or related to Harappan. The Harappan age literally started at 5300 BP. Mehrgarh was the 8000-9000 years BP, but a continuous relationship between Mehrgarh and Harappan is tenuous because the architecture, agriculture and pottery are different. Similarly, the Harappan and the South Indian Neolithic are quite different.

    I realize that the terms ASI and ANI are getting increasingly irrelevant, but the multiple stages that correspond to both, the ASI and ANI intrusions may be both, contemporaneous, or separated only by a few 1000 years. It is entirely possible that ASI and ANI had common components between Turkey and Central Asia, or admixture occurred even outside Baluchistan.
  3. @ohwilleke
    The Indus River Valley was one of the first places outside the Fertile Crescent to experienced the Neolithic Revolution (contemporaneous with Egypt) and when it did so it received the Fertile Crescent Neolithic package of domesticated plants, domesticated animals and technologies. So, one would expect a West Asian + Indus River Valley hunter-gather mix which there is no sign was disturbed from the outside until it collapsed ca. 4 kya.

    Unlike Mesopotamia, there is no evidence that the multiple cities in the IVC were ever divided into balkanized, warring city-states. Seeing late Harappan culture as in continuity with early Neolithic civilization, uninterrupted by mass migrations, in the region is a mainstream view.

    Archaeological evidence suggests that the IVC civilization's trade ties to Mesopotamia and BMAC were stronger than its trade ties with Southern India which were very thin and mediated through just one or two trading posts. These two distinct eco-regions have very little overlap.

    Southern India adopted ca. 2500 BCE, a package of crops mostly domesticated in the African Sahel which were different than the ones in the Fertile Crescent package which were ill adapted ecologically to the temperatures and precipitation patterns of Southern India. Many characteristic technological features of the IVC such as the use of proto-linguistic seals and architectural layouts were not adopted in Southern India.

    Any ASI in the IVC populations may derive from the pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer population of the Indus River Valley.


    You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn’t supported by mainstream Indology.

    Re. “If, the ASI are intrusive to the subcontinent it may even be that the Early Harappan were more West Asian than the final late stage Harappans.”

    Why would ASI be intrusive to the SubContinent after ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI. Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn’t there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    Seems to be a kooky website, but what do you think about this? http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/Sudroid.htm#circ
    , @Razib Khan
    ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI.

    some "low caste" or tribal groups have highly intrusive components. the munda people have

    1) east derived Y (the se asian ones are basal)
    2) low, but nontrvial, fraction of east asian derived EDAR

    (some of the same is true of bengalis, and in particular non-brahmin bengalis, though that's clearly recent tibeto-burman)

    Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn’t there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.

    first, if you read this blog you know that evolution happens in situ. lots of it. so the logic is not strong. second, lots of people have suggested broad similarities between austro-melanesian groups and indians, in particular south indians (e.g., "austroloid"). so you can argue that.

    the model is straightforward: ASI were swamped out in se asia by farmers. but their heritage exists on the order of 10-20% depending on the region (alluded to above by karl confounded by back migration from papua in indonesia). there was a massive morphological shift about 4,000 years ago.
    , @ohwilleke
    "You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn’t supported by mainstream Indology."

    The fact that some of the core crops of the Southern Indian Neolithic were domesticated in the African Sahel is pretty much an indisputable biological fact, as is the fact that lots of Fertile Crescent Neolithic crops are ill suited to Southern India.

    How the crops got there isn't really known as the evidence is very thin. But, plant genetics and the dates of paleobotanical finds makes the connection between the African Sahel and the South Indian Neolithic pretty much irrefutable and the wild types of the crops in question are found in Africa but not in South India.

    Mainstream Indology may not have caught up with the paleo-botanic evidence - I don't know one way or the other on that, but the crop package link is very powerful and needs some sort of explanation.

    Given that this happened before the widespread use of writing by farmers, it is pretty much a necessary conclusion that the diffusion of African Sahel crops to South India was accompanied by people explaining who to cultivate these crops. And, it is not at all clear what, if any, population genetic traces they left. (Hungary is the classic example of an entire language shift being something that can be accomplished with essentially no gene pool impact.)

    The lack of cultural connections, and thin trade connections, between IVC and South India are likewise well established.
  4. Marcus says:
    @greysquirrell
    @ohwilleke
    You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn't supported by mainstream Indology.


    Re. "If, the ASI are intrusive to the subcontinent it may even be that the Early Harappan were more West Asian than the final late stage Harappans."

    Why would ASI be intrusive to the SubContinent after ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI. Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn't there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.

    Seems to be a kooky website, but what do you think about this? http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/Sudroid.htm#circ

    Read More
  5. @Karl Zimmerman
    Has there been evidence from any study of underlying substructure within the ASI component in modern South Asians?

    I ask because I remember reading that paper a few years back which found among eastern Indonesians the Austro-Melanesian component of their ancestry was actually a compound itself. Only a minority of this component was judged to be from indigenous hunter gatherers. The majority of the Austro-Melanesian ancestry was actually relatively recent introgression from Papua New Guinea - not that surprising when you consider Papuan languages are spoken on Timor. There was an abortive move of Papuan agriculturalists westward, which was later lapped by Austronesians moving eastward.

    As you noted in your thread earlier this week, it seems likely that there were multiple waves of admixture of ASI groups into South Asians. The question is how divergent these different ASI populations were. If they had deep roots in South Asia, or if some groups were relatively recent migrants from eastward, we would expect some variation. On the other hand, if they were either bottlenecked or almost entirely the descendants of recent migrants, there would probably have been low variation.

    As an aside, has anyone looked at Nihali DNA yet? They're likely the only remaining candidate for speaking an "ASI language" although they have come under heavy Munda influence and don't look too different from Munda groups in terms of phenotype. I know I read someone is currently looking at Kusunda DNA, but I doubt they would illuminate much on South Asia (although they might be a purer example of what makes the Sherpa so distinctive from Tibetans).

    Has there been evidence from any study of underlying substructure within the ASI component in modern South Asians?

    not that i know.

    As an aside, has anyone looked at Nihali DNA yet?

    i think the estonian biocentre has one. i might have looked. nothing special.

    Read More
  6. @greysquirrell
    @ohwilleke
    You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn't supported by mainstream Indology.


    Re. "If, the ASI are intrusive to the subcontinent it may even be that the Early Harappan were more West Asian than the final late stage Harappans."

    Why would ASI be intrusive to the SubContinent after ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI. Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn't there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.

    ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI.

    some “low caste” or tribal groups have highly intrusive components. the munda people have

    1) east derived Y (the se asian ones are basal)
    2) low, but nontrvial, fraction of east asian derived EDAR

    (some of the same is true of bengalis, and in particular non-brahmin bengalis, though that’s clearly recent tibeto-burman)

    Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn’t there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.

    first, if you read this blog you know that evolution happens in situ. lots of it. so the logic is not strong. second, lots of people have suggested broad similarities between austro-melanesian groups and indians, in particular south indians (e.g., “austroloid”). so you can argue that.

    the model is straightforward: ASI were swamped out in se asia by farmers. but their heritage exists on the order of 10-20% depending on the region (alluded to above by karl confounded by back migration from papua in indonesia). there was a massive morphological shift about 4,000 years ago.

    Read More
  7. Vijay says:
    @ohwilleke
    The Indus River Valley was one of the first places outside the Fertile Crescent to experienced the Neolithic Revolution (contemporaneous with Egypt) and when it did so it received the Fertile Crescent Neolithic package of domesticated plants, domesticated animals and technologies. So, one would expect a West Asian + Indus River Valley hunter-gather mix which there is no sign was disturbed from the outside until it collapsed ca. 4 kya.

    Unlike Mesopotamia, there is no evidence that the multiple cities in the IVC were ever divided into balkanized, warring city-states. Seeing late Harappan culture as in continuity with early Neolithic civilization, uninterrupted by mass migrations, in the region is a mainstream view.

    Archaeological evidence suggests that the IVC civilization's trade ties to Mesopotamia and BMAC were stronger than its trade ties with Southern India which were very thin and mediated through just one or two trading posts. These two distinct eco-regions have very little overlap.

    Southern India adopted ca. 2500 BCE, a package of crops mostly domesticated in the African Sahel which were different than the ones in the Fertile Crescent package which were ill adapted ecologically to the temperatures and precipitation patterns of Southern India. Many characteristic technological features of the IVC such as the use of proto-linguistic seals and architectural layouts were not adopted in Southern India.

    Any ASI in the IVC populations may derive from the pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer population of the Indus River Valley.

    There is a number of confused statements in this jumble of email. First, the Neolithic in south India started at 3000 BC (much later than other nations). The crops in south India at that time are Brown Millet, fox millet, kodo millet, finger millet, horse gram, pigeon pea and mungbean. (Reference: Agroecosystems of south India, K. R. Krishna) Both barley and wheat came a little later via IVC. The above crops were not from Africa. The Neolithic ashmound people were cowherders, and gods like Krishna and Shiva were already present at this point. The burning of cowdung to form giant ash heap is a practice that started here, and still finds use as a prayer to gods in much smaller scale. At a broad look, they appear similar to African crops, but they are not. Horsegram and the other millets are not african crops. The pearl millet varieties arrived from China , and not the African varieties. Both Sorghum and cowpea, the African staples arrived 1000 years later, but the cowherders were not present in that form at this time, having been subsumed into a farmer strata.

    The IVC collapsed in the 2000 BC period, but there is NO indication of trade with the southern ashmound people. Multiple cities existed in IVC, but at different times. The crops of South India had African origins but took root in South India after the arrival of people from both, West Asia and Central Asia, after 1500 BC. The presence of cow, and the importance of cow dung give an indication that it followed the MIDDLE EASTERN people who domesticated cow between 7500 and 9000 years ago. In addition, lactase persistence in south India did not follow the Eastern African model of LP growth, but seemed to have arrived along with ANI after 2000 BC.

    I am not even convinced that the Birana age evidence is correct or related to Harappan. The Harappan age literally started at 5300 BP. Mehrgarh was the 8000-9000 years BP, but a continuous relationship between Mehrgarh and Harappan is tenuous because the architecture, agriculture and pottery are different. Similarly, the Harappan and the South Indian Neolithic are quite different.

    I realize that the terms ASI and ANI are getting increasingly irrelevant, but the multiple stages that correspond to both, the ASI and ANI intrusions may be both, contemporaneous, or separated only by a few 1000 years. It is entirely possible that ASI and ANI had common components between Turkey and Central Asia, or admixture occurred even outside Baluchistan.

    Read More
  8. ohwilleke says: • Website
    @greysquirrell
    @ohwilleke
    You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn't supported by mainstream Indology.


    Re. "If, the ASI are intrusive to the subcontinent it may even be that the Early Harappan were more West Asian than the final late stage Harappans."

    Why would ASI be intrusive to the SubContinent after ANI? ASI being higher in lower castes and Southerners would suggest ANI groups came after ASI. Phenotypically lower castes and Southerners have more of the look that is distinct to the SubContinent and not found elsewhere , so ASI must have been in the SubCon before ANI groups. If ASI intruded after some ANI group, shouldn't there be people outside of the SubCon that show phenotypic similarity towards Indian lower castes and Southerners.

    “You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn’t supported by mainstream Indology.”

    The fact that some of the core crops of the Southern Indian Neolithic were domesticated in the African Sahel is pretty much an indisputable biological fact, as is the fact that lots of Fertile Crescent Neolithic crops are ill suited to Southern India.

    How the crops got there isn’t really known as the evidence is very thin. But, plant genetics and the dates of paleobotanical finds makes the connection between the African Sahel and the South Indian Neolithic pretty much irrefutable and the wild types of the crops in question are found in Africa but not in South India.

    Mainstream Indology may not have caught up with the paleo-botanic evidence – I don’t know one way or the other on that, but the crop package link is very powerful and needs some sort of explanation.

    Given that this happened before the widespread use of writing by farmers, it is pretty much a necessary conclusion that the diffusion of African Sahel crops to South India was accompanied by people explaining who to cultivate these crops. And, it is not at all clear what, if any, population genetic traces they left. (Hungary is the classic example of an entire language shift being something that can be accomplished with essentially no gene pool impact.)

    The lack of cultural connections, and thin trade connections, between IVC and South India are likewise well established.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    andrew, could u help a brother out and link to an accessible review of the lit you are talking about?
    , @Vijay
    It is not clear why repeating the same comments make them true. May be Indology does not realize the history of crops in India, scientists do. You keep asserting Sahelian crops, but what are they?

    "Sorghum was probably taken to India from eastern Africa during the first millennium BC. It is reported to have existed there around 1000 BC. Sorghum was probably taken in ships as food in the first instance; chow traffic has operated for some 3 000 years between East Africa (the Azanean Coast) and India via the Sebaean Lane in southern Arabia. The sorghums of India are related to northeastern Africa and the coast between Cape Guardafui and Mozambique" ("Sorghum and millets in human nutrition..." FAO)

    "Pearl millet, Pennisetum glaucum, is also known as spiked millet, bajra (in India) and bulrush millet (Purseglove, 1972). Pearl millet may be considered as a single species but it includes a number of cultivated races. It almost certainly originated in tropical western Africa, where the greatest number of both wild and cultivated forms occurs. About 2 000 years ago the crop was carried to eastern and central Africa and to India, where because of its excellent tolerance to drought it became established in the drier environments. (Reference: "("Sorghum and millets in human nutrition..." FAO")

    It is clear to Indian and other scientists that both Sorghum (the east African variety) and Pearl Millet Arrived between 2000 and 3000 BP.

    "Minor millets (also referred to as small millets) .... include finger millet (Eleusine coracana), foxtail millet (Setaria italica), kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum), common or prove millet (Panicum miliaceum), little millet (Panicum sumatrense) and barnyard or sawa millet (Echinochloa crus-galli and Echinochloa corona) "

    "Finger millet can be stored for long periods without insect damage..... In India and Africa, two groups are recognized: African highland types with grains enclosed within the florets; and Afro-Asiatic types with mature grains exposed outside the florets. It is believed that Uganda or a neighbouring region is the centre of origin of E. coracana, and it was introduced to India at a very early date, probably over 3 000 years ago, but the Afro-Asiatic type evolved in India to be different"

    "Kodo millet, Paspalum scrobiculatum L., is a minor grain crop in India but is of great importance in the Deccan Plateau. Its cultivation in India is generally confined to Gujarat, Karnataka and parts of Tamil Nadu. It is classified into the groups Haria, Choudharia, Kodra and Haria-Choudharia depending on panicle characters"

    And so forth. The moral of this story is that both, African crops, Sorghum and Millet arrived in India even later than the arrival of the ANI (not ASI). There is no evidence of these crops at the Neolithic herders, except the Indian variants like horsegran, kodo millet and some barnyard millets. The pearl millet varieties have their origin in China.


    The African->South Indian Neolithic is overstated and not based on the crops. You are probably looking at the color of the people, hair texture, etc. and making guesses. I do not question the OOA or travel through the Anatolia to India, but the Indian Neolithic is a late flowering entity.
  9. @ohwilleke
    "You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn’t supported by mainstream Indology."

    The fact that some of the core crops of the Southern Indian Neolithic were domesticated in the African Sahel is pretty much an indisputable biological fact, as is the fact that lots of Fertile Crescent Neolithic crops are ill suited to Southern India.

    How the crops got there isn't really known as the evidence is very thin. But, plant genetics and the dates of paleobotanical finds makes the connection between the African Sahel and the South Indian Neolithic pretty much irrefutable and the wild types of the crops in question are found in Africa but not in South India.

    Mainstream Indology may not have caught up with the paleo-botanic evidence - I don't know one way or the other on that, but the crop package link is very powerful and needs some sort of explanation.

    Given that this happened before the widespread use of writing by farmers, it is pretty much a necessary conclusion that the diffusion of African Sahel crops to South India was accompanied by people explaining who to cultivate these crops. And, it is not at all clear what, if any, population genetic traces they left. (Hungary is the classic example of an entire language shift being something that can be accomplished with essentially no gene pool impact.)

    The lack of cultural connections, and thin trade connections, between IVC and South India are likewise well established.

    andrew, could u help a brother out and link to an accessible review of the lit you are talking about?

    Read More
  10. Vijay says:
    @ohwilleke
    "You have mentioned before about links between Southern India and Africa but this isn’t supported by mainstream Indology."

    The fact that some of the core crops of the Southern Indian Neolithic were domesticated in the African Sahel is pretty much an indisputable biological fact, as is the fact that lots of Fertile Crescent Neolithic crops are ill suited to Southern India.

    How the crops got there isn't really known as the evidence is very thin. But, plant genetics and the dates of paleobotanical finds makes the connection between the African Sahel and the South Indian Neolithic pretty much irrefutable and the wild types of the crops in question are found in Africa but not in South India.

    Mainstream Indology may not have caught up with the paleo-botanic evidence - I don't know one way or the other on that, but the crop package link is very powerful and needs some sort of explanation.

    Given that this happened before the widespread use of writing by farmers, it is pretty much a necessary conclusion that the diffusion of African Sahel crops to South India was accompanied by people explaining who to cultivate these crops. And, it is not at all clear what, if any, population genetic traces they left. (Hungary is the classic example of an entire language shift being something that can be accomplished with essentially no gene pool impact.)

    The lack of cultural connections, and thin trade connections, between IVC and South India are likewise well established.

    It is not clear why repeating the same comments make them true. May be Indology does not realize the history of crops in India, scientists do. You keep asserting Sahelian crops, but what are they?

    “Sorghum was probably taken to India from eastern Africa during the first millennium BC. It is reported to have existed there around 1000 BC. Sorghum was probably taken in ships as food in the first instance; chow traffic has operated for some 3 000 years between East Africa (the Azanean Coast) and India via the Sebaean Lane in southern Arabia. The sorghums of India are related to northeastern Africa and the coast between Cape Guardafui and Mozambique” (“Sorghum and millets in human nutrition…” FAO)

    “Pearl millet, Pennisetum glaucum, is also known as spiked millet, bajra (in India) and bulrush millet (Purseglove, 1972). Pearl millet may be considered as a single species but it includes a number of cultivated races. It almost certainly originated in tropical western Africa, where the greatest number of both wild and cultivated forms occurs. About 2 000 years ago the crop was carried to eastern and central Africa and to India, where because of its excellent tolerance to drought it became established in the drier environments. (Reference: “(“Sorghum and millets in human nutrition…” FAO”)

    It is clear to Indian and other scientists that both Sorghum (the east African variety) and Pearl Millet Arrived between 2000 and 3000 BP.

    “Minor millets (also referred to as small millets) …. include finger millet (Eleusine coracana), foxtail millet (Setaria italica), kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum), common or prove millet (Panicum miliaceum), little millet (Panicum sumatrense) and barnyard or sawa millet (Echinochloa crus-galli and Echinochloa corona) ”

    “Finger millet can be stored for long periods without insect damage….. In India and Africa, two groups are recognized: African highland types with grains enclosed within the florets; and Afro-Asiatic types with mature grains exposed outside the florets. It is believed that Uganda or a neighbouring region is the centre of origin of E. coracana, and it was introduced to India at a very early date, probably over 3 000 years ago, but the Afro-Asiatic type evolved in India to be different”

    “Kodo millet, Paspalum scrobiculatum L., is a minor grain crop in India but is of great importance in the Deccan Plateau. Its cultivation in India is generally confined to Gujarat, Karnataka and parts of Tamil Nadu. It is classified into the groups Haria, Choudharia, Kodra and Haria-Choudharia depending on panicle characters”

    And so forth. The moral of this story is that both, African crops, Sorghum and Millet arrived in India even later than the arrival of the ANI (not ASI). There is no evidence of these crops at the Neolithic herders, except the Indian variants like horsegran, kodo millet and some barnyard millets. The pearl millet varieties have their origin in China.

    The African->South Indian Neolithic is overstated and not based on the crops. You are probably looking at the color of the people, hair texture, etc. and making guesses. I do not question the OOA or travel through the Anatolia to India, but the Indian Neolithic is a late flowering entity.

    Read More
  11. Davidski says: • Website

    I reckon this might end up being relevant to the genetic structure of Harappans.

    The Neolithic Revolution developed among geographically adjacent but genetically distinct populations

    http://smbe-2016.p.asnevents.com.au/days/2016-07-07/abstract/35146

    Read More
  12. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    There has been lots written about this stuff in the last decade by archaeologists working in South Asia, summarized in this article: https://www.academia.edu/972264/Finding_Plant_Domestication_in_the_Indian_Subcontinent

    Lots more on the topic here: https://ucl.academia.edu/DorianFuller/South-Asian-Holocene-and-Neolithic

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vijay
    Dorian and UCL are the top dogs of Deccan Neolithic, and if you are them, hats off to you. The question still remains who the Neolithic herders are, where they come form, and what is their relationship to IVC. Are they ASI?
  13. Vijay says:
    @Anonymous
    There has been lots written about this stuff in the last decade by archaeologists working in South Asia, summarized in this article: https://www.academia.edu/972264/Finding_Plant_Domestication_in_the_Indian_Subcontinent

    Lots more on the topic here: https://ucl.academia.edu/DorianFuller/South-Asian-Holocene-and-Neolithic

    Dorian and UCL are the top dogs of Deccan Neolithic, and if you are them, hats off to you. The question still remains who the Neolithic herders are, where they come form, and what is their relationship to IVC. Are they ASI?

    Read More
  14. Vijay says:

    Returning back to the original post, a wise guy (Khushwant Singh?) says that Harappa must not have been from India because they had a city with a functional sewer system.

    Slinking away….

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.