The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

ncomms9912-f451IZQjMbVlL._SX346_BO1,204,203,200_Update: Here is a post that you must read, A note on the early expansions of the Indo-Europeans. The post dates to the middle of December, and is similar in many ways to my own thoughts. But, the author rejects a two wave model where the first wave has a deep time history, and seems to give the balance of opinion that agriculture is predominantly indigenous in development to South Asia, and not primarily an exogenous event. Rather, they suggest that there were multiple waves of Indo-Aryans into South Asia, with the steppe cultures being parallel and pulses from the Indo-Iranian ur-heimat. The primary criticism of the genetic interpretation that I would make is that from what I am to understand LD decay methods seem to catch the last admixture event and/or underestimate time since initiation of mixture. Therefore, though I accept a substantial mixture event ~4,000 years before the present, my own model present below suggests that older ones occurred thousands of years earlier.

That being said, I have updated my own views to rather uncertain at this point. I would not be surprised if on the whole a model as the one proposed in the blog post is closer to the truth than the one below. My reasoning has less to do with the details of the argumentation, and more to do with authority.

1) the individual who wrote the above post has comparable mastery of the historical genetic descriptive results.

2) but, the individual has far superior understanding of the archaeology and philology in comparison to me.

Ignoring the details of any argument, on a priori grounds I find that the individual above could give a better appraisal of the probabilities in regards to South Asian archaeogenetics than I could. The main thing that is holding me back from suggesting that I now find their model more probable than mine is the issue in regards to LD and rolloff methods. But I’ve definitely increased my uncertainty, from ~25% to ~50%, with the balance split between the two models (or some combinations thereof).

End Update

Sometimes you see things in fragments, disparate threads, which only snap into focus in hindsight. In this post I will hazard a prediction of results which are going to come out of remains from Indus valley sites in South Asia, which will confirm that there were two major demographic pulses which entered the subcontinent from the Northwest over the past 10,000 year. The first wave was the dominant one in comparison to the second genetically, and began at Mehrgarh 9,000 years ago. Its locus of origin was in the highlands of Western Asia, between the Caucasus and the Fertile Crescent. The second wave though left its mark culturally, as it is associated with Indo-Aryans, and likely derives ultimately from the trans-Volga steppe societies. The genetic signatures of the former people are found in nearly every indigenous South Asian group, as they amalgamated with a deeply entrenched local group of peoples who were distantly related to those of Oceania and eastern Eurasia. In short, the latter are the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) and the former are the “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI, see Reconstructing Indian Population History).

Screenshot - 01022016 - 09:46:36 PM The figure above is from Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians (open access), which found that ancient DNA from two samples in the northern Caucasus region are representatives of a population which contributed to the origins of the steppe people who swept into Northern Europe ~4,500 years ago. It shows how contemporary populations are best modeled as admixture events between reference populations. What you see is that most South Asian groups are well modeled as a mixture between “Caucasian hunter-gatherers” (CHG), and another element which is labeled “South Asian” because it is mostly restricted to the subcontinent. But wait there’s more! In the supporting materials the statistics show that though most South Asian groups have more potential mixture from the high quality CHG sequence, Kotias, a subset, unspecified Gujarati groups and Tiwaris, share more drift with the Afanasevo culture, which flourished in the Altai region of Central Asia between 5,500 and 4,500 years ago. We have enough ancient DNA to infer that the Afanasevo basically the same people as the Yamna culture, who were present between the Volga and Dnieper, far to the west. The Tiwari are an upper caste group which is present across Northern India. The second wave component is clearly strongest in the Northwest, as indicated by the Kalash sharing so much drift with Ma’lta. Before subsequent waves of gene flow into the steppe people, which brought dollops of European farmer and hunter-gatherer ancestry into the mix, they had a higher fraction of Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE) than any contemporary Northern European population. Their contribution to South Asian groups on the Northwest fringe of the subcontinent explains then the presence of high fractions of ANE there.

A final aspect which needs to be mentioned is that the Z93 subclade of R1a1a is found across much of South Asia. Though it is correlated with higher caste, and Indo-Aryan speaking, populations, it is not exclusive to them. In fact it is found in substantial fractions among notionally primal tribal people in South India who traditionally practice primitive slash and burn agriculture and engage in extensive hunting and gathering. Ancient DNA results from the Sbruna culture of Central Eurasia have yielded Z93 among buried males. This subclade is rather rare in this region today, and, it succeeded groups which were carrying R1b, today dominant across Western Europe. The details are to be worked out, but, I believe that are associated with, but more expansive than, the Indo-Aryans. Beyond the limits of the folk migrations were outrider groups of males who integrated themselves into indigenous societies, often taking elite positions as members of a dominant patrilineage. If there was a strong bias for male descendants of a small number of these individuals, but not female ones, to have higher reproductive fitness, than over time their Y chromosomes might be far more common than their total genome contribution (to illustrate what I’m talking about, a recent paper in Australian Aboriginals admits that 56% of their Y chromosomes introgressed over the past 200 years from Europeans!).

Bringing it together one implication of the above is that the Dravidian languages of the Indian subcontinent were probably brought by the West Asian farmers (perhaps confirming an ancient link to Elamite?). Therefore, the language(s) of the Indus valley civilization was probably a form of Dravidian. Another aspect to consider is that no South Asian population lacks the genetic imprint of these West Asian farmers. It seems likely that as in Europe the farmer populations which entered the subcontinent via the northwest totally marginalized most of the hunter-nihms137159f3 gatherer groups, which were numerically less substantial in any case. But, why do all South Asian groups also exhibit ASI ancestry, which is deeply rooted in the subcontinent? Just as in Europe the initial populations of farmers on the fringes of the subcontinent mixed with the local hunter-gatherers, producing a synthetic population which over time evolved its cultural toolkit to become more well adapted to South Asian geographies. Once the crucial cultural adaptations occurred then the synthetic population underwent a phase of massive demographic expansion beyond its delimited ghetto on the fringes, where West Asian climatic parameters allowed for the initial phase of near total cultural transplantation. As in Europe the expanding South Asian farmer groups absorbed hunter-gatherer substrate, accruing greater and greater ASI fractions on the wave of demographic advance, and so generating the ANI-ASI cline evident in genetic analyses. The presence of ASI in groups like the Pashtuns in Afghanistan is probably due to the fact that the synthetic populations, what we now term “South Asians” or “Indians” or “desis”, exhibited enough cultural hegemony and influence to reach deep into the plateau of modern Afghanistan and impacted both the pre-Iranic and East Iranic people of Afghanistan (also, note that Indians were very common as slaves in the cities of Afghanistan during the early Islamic period).

The reason I took time to put this post up now is that it looks like the publication of ancient South Asian genomes from the Indus valley period is imminent. From The Guardian on December 30th, Rakhigarhi: Indian town could unlock mystery of Indus civilisation:

One has stood out: who exactly were the people of the Indus civilisation? A response may come within weeks.

“Our research will most definitely provide an answer. This will be a major breakthrough. I am very excited,” said Vasant Shinde, an Indian archaeologist leading current excavations at Rakhigarhi, which was discovered in 1965.

Shinde’s conclusions will be published in the new year. They are based on DNA sequences derived from four skeletons – of two men, a woman and a child – excavated eight months ago and checked against DNA data from tens of thousands of people from all across the subcontinent, central Asia and Iran.

They looked somewhat like a recent Miss America!

They looked somewhat like a recent Miss America!

I predict that the Y chromosomal haplogroups will be H or J2. Both these are common in Dravidian speaking groups of Southern India, and, are found at some fractions in West Asia. I predict that these individuals who share gene flow with Kotias, and not with Central Eurasian groups. I predict that these individuals will not be enriched for ANE ancestry. I predict these individuals will have mtDNA lineages present in modern Indian populations, probably M. Though excavated in a region of South Asia where today lactase persistence (LP( is common, none of the individuals with carry the common derived Eurasian haplotype conferring LP. They will segregate for the derived variant of SLC24A5. On a PCA plot these individuals will cluster with non-Brahmin upper/middle caste South Indian populations, such as the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh. 

Note: I’ve been told by friends for two years and more that there are efforts to sequence and type Indus valley individuals. But I have no inside information. If you are an individual in the media who has early access feel free to send me a PDF with the understanding that I will honor the embargo! (if you don’t send me the PDF I’m mildly confident I’ve already hit the major themes you are safeguarding)

 
• Category: Science • Tags: India, Indian Genetics 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “It seems likely that as in Europe the farmer populations which entered the subcontinent via the northwest totally marginalized most of the hunter-gatherer groups”

    Were the Dravidian farmers who entered India closely related to the Early European Farmers? They all seem to have come from the mountains of Turkey & Iraq, where farming first developed?

    Farming seems to have independently developed relatively few times, and seen massive population expansions wherever it happened – in north-east Asia, the Americas, more recently the Bantu expansion – replacing hunter-gatherers across huge areas with relatively homogenous farmer populations.

    Then in Eurasia that was followed by the pastoralist/nomad expansion of the Indo-Europeans, then the Huns, Mongols etc. And we seem to see similar farmer vs pastoralist conflict currently in Africa, with the pastoralists (eg the Sudanese ‘Arabs’ & other Sahel Muslims, or the Tutsis) generally dominant over the Bantu farmers.

    I was impressed a while back reading about the Indian Wars, a few thousand Pastoralist Sioux horsemen seemed to be a match for millions of Mexican and American (USA) farmers, even with the Sioux having only recently adapted the horse culture and their foes having superior technology.

    One thing I wonder is how the Russian Empire was able to conquer north-Asian pastoralists with apparent ease, given that they are traditionally the toughest foes of all. What strategies were so successful? Was it climate? Culture? Tech?

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    Were the Dravidian farmers who entered India closely related to the Early European Farmers?

    in TreeMix i see gene flow from anatolian farmers/LBK to georgians and armenians. i think that implies that there was eventual back-mixing. i posit that the dravidian farmers derived from an earlier, relatively unmixed group, deeply structured from anatolian farmers (not exactly CHG, but much closer to them).
    , @rumcrook
    In a skirmish to skirmish basis what your saying may hold true, but the farmers can support a larger population, and in the long haul, that dooms the hold out hunter gatherers to be constantly pressured by the ever expanding growing farmer population, who also can afford through food surplus to fund job specialization, like a quasi military class to go out and clear land of hunter gatherer tribes and exact retribution on them for attacks on the farmers. Over a thousand years or more who's going to win? Farming is a more efficient life than hunter gatherer. It means surpluses of wealth in the form of excess grain and livestock which then needs a long term way to transmit the stored wealth, in comes currency in the form of gold which doesn't rust or change ever, and you can see how the explosion of prosperity funds expansion in all manor of ways. There was just no way to beat it by the hunter gatherers.
    , @rumcrook
    As for the nomadic people's your speaking about, they were not hunter gatherers they were herders, a variant of the farmer who was efficiently using the steppe land tpby ditching the farming aspect of farming and keeping the animal husbandry aspect by having great herds of cattle, goats sheep what ever, which also translated to stored wealth and allowed them to support a vastly larger population on a virtually barren landscape than ever possible through just hunting and gathering. This afforded them the ability to attack and often subjugate farming communities.
  2. Makes a lot of sense to me.

    If you imagine a farmer advance it’s easy to picture HGs being displaced everywhere that could be farmed because of their lower population density but still surviving in numerous islands of swamp, jungle and mountain where farming wasn’t yet viable.

    If the farmers in the resulting frontier zones eventually mixed with the HGs and the HGs had adaptations for the local region then the hybrid farmer-HG population might end up being better suited to the region than the farmer population alone – hence a resurgence in HG dna among the farmers.

  3. @Simon in London
    "It seems likely that as in Europe the farmer populations which entered the subcontinent via the northwest totally marginalized most of the hunter-gatherer groups"

    Were the Dravidian farmers who entered India closely related to the Early European Farmers? They all seem to have come from the mountains of Turkey & Iraq, where farming first developed?

    Farming seems to have independently developed relatively few times, and seen massive population expansions wherever it happened - in north-east Asia, the Americas, more recently the Bantu expansion - replacing hunter-gatherers across huge areas with relatively homogenous farmer populations.

    Then in Eurasia that was followed by the pastoralist/nomad expansion of the Indo-Europeans, then the Huns, Mongols etc. And we seem to see similar farmer vs pastoralist conflict currently in Africa, with the pastoralists (eg the Sudanese 'Arabs' & other Sahel Muslims, or the Tutsis) generally dominant over the Bantu farmers.

    I was impressed a while back reading about the Indian Wars, a few thousand Pastoralist Sioux horsemen seemed to be a match for millions of Mexican and American (USA) farmers, even with the Sioux having only recently adapted the horse culture and their foes having superior technology.

    One thing I wonder is how the Russian Empire was able to conquer north-Asian pastoralists with apparent ease, given that they are traditionally the toughest foes of all. What strategies were so successful? Was it climate? Culture? Tech?

    Were the Dravidian farmers who entered India closely related to the Early European Farmers?

    in TreeMix i see gene flow from anatolian farmers/LBK to georgians and armenians. i think that implies that there was eventual back-mixing. i posit that the dravidian farmers derived from an earlier, relatively unmixed group, deeply structured from anatolian farmers (not exactly CHG, but much closer to them).

  4. @Simon in London
    "It seems likely that as in Europe the farmer populations which entered the subcontinent via the northwest totally marginalized most of the hunter-gatherer groups"

    Were the Dravidian farmers who entered India closely related to the Early European Farmers? They all seem to have come from the mountains of Turkey & Iraq, where farming first developed?

    Farming seems to have independently developed relatively few times, and seen massive population expansions wherever it happened - in north-east Asia, the Americas, more recently the Bantu expansion - replacing hunter-gatherers across huge areas with relatively homogenous farmer populations.

    Then in Eurasia that was followed by the pastoralist/nomad expansion of the Indo-Europeans, then the Huns, Mongols etc. And we seem to see similar farmer vs pastoralist conflict currently in Africa, with the pastoralists (eg the Sudanese 'Arabs' & other Sahel Muslims, or the Tutsis) generally dominant over the Bantu farmers.

    I was impressed a while back reading about the Indian Wars, a few thousand Pastoralist Sioux horsemen seemed to be a match for millions of Mexican and American (USA) farmers, even with the Sioux having only recently adapted the horse culture and their foes having superior technology.

    One thing I wonder is how the Russian Empire was able to conquer north-Asian pastoralists with apparent ease, given that they are traditionally the toughest foes of all. What strategies were so successful? Was it climate? Culture? Tech?

    In a skirmish to skirmish basis what your saying may hold true, but the farmers can support a larger population, and in the long haul, that dooms the hold out hunter gatherers to be constantly pressured by the ever expanding growing farmer population, who also can afford through food surplus to fund job specialization, like a quasi military class to go out and clear land of hunter gatherer tribes and exact retribution on them for attacks on the farmers. Over a thousand years or more who’s going to win? Farming is a more efficient life than hunter gatherer. It means surpluses of wealth in the form of excess grain and livestock which then needs a long term way to transmit the stored wealth, in comes currency in the form of gold which doesn’t rust or change ever, and you can see how the explosion of prosperity funds expansion in all manor of ways. There was just no way to beat it by the hunter gatherers.

  5. @Simon in London
    "It seems likely that as in Europe the farmer populations which entered the subcontinent via the northwest totally marginalized most of the hunter-gatherer groups"

    Were the Dravidian farmers who entered India closely related to the Early European Farmers? They all seem to have come from the mountains of Turkey & Iraq, where farming first developed?

    Farming seems to have independently developed relatively few times, and seen massive population expansions wherever it happened - in north-east Asia, the Americas, more recently the Bantu expansion - replacing hunter-gatherers across huge areas with relatively homogenous farmer populations.

    Then in Eurasia that was followed by the pastoralist/nomad expansion of the Indo-Europeans, then the Huns, Mongols etc. And we seem to see similar farmer vs pastoralist conflict currently in Africa, with the pastoralists (eg the Sudanese 'Arabs' & other Sahel Muslims, or the Tutsis) generally dominant over the Bantu farmers.

    I was impressed a while back reading about the Indian Wars, a few thousand Pastoralist Sioux horsemen seemed to be a match for millions of Mexican and American (USA) farmers, even with the Sioux having only recently adapted the horse culture and their foes having superior technology.

    One thing I wonder is how the Russian Empire was able to conquer north-Asian pastoralists with apparent ease, given that they are traditionally the toughest foes of all. What strategies were so successful? Was it climate? Culture? Tech?

    As for the nomadic people’s your speaking about, they were not hunter gatherers they were herders, a variant of the farmer who was efficiently using the steppe land tpby ditching the farming aspect of farming and keeping the animal husbandry aspect by having great herds of cattle, goats sheep what ever, which also translated to stored wealth and allowed them to support a vastly larger population on a virtually barren landscape than ever possible through just hunting and gathering. This afforded them the ability to attack and often subjugate farming communities.

  6. This analysis is on point so far as the linguistic origins of Indus River Valley people. The evidence that the Dravidian language was derived from the Indus River Valley is far more tenuous and indeed tends to point to the opposite conclusion – that it was independent in origins.

    The approximate epicenter of proto-Dravidian is on the middle of the eastern coast of the Deccan peninsula which is just the opposite of where it should be if it had IVC origins. Only a tiny corner of the IVC territory at is most southeastern extent which was at the fringe of the IVC culture (really its frontier territory) has any Dravidian toponymns. Harappans used proto-linguistic seals comparable to those used in Mesopotamia and in the Vinca culture. People in the Dravidian territory never did. Given this focal point, even if Dravidian does derive in some way from West Eurasia, it does so independently of Harappan influence.

    There also virtually nothing in the Dravidian language itself in terms of significant shared lexicon or grammatical or phonetic features that suggests this connection, which is why the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis has never received widespread acceptance in linguistic circles. (Likewise, there is no evidence of Dravidian linguistic similarity with the Munda languages.)

    Contact between Dravidians and the Harappans was largely mediated through a few trade posts on the western fringe of the Harappan area that were not heavily populated and that were the only fortified population centers of the IVC until the very end of their civilization. There is no evidence whatsoever of regular direct trade between non-IVC area and South and Central India (the homeland of the Dravidian language) and West Eurasia.

    The South Indian Neolithic technological package bears little resemblance to the IVC technological package (e.g., employing different primary crops and different kinds of architecture). This is particularly notable because the Harappan civilization was by all accounts remarkably unified for more or less its entire existence and thus very distinctive visa-a-vis other archaeological cultures.

    The presence of IVC genetics in South Indians is easily explained through contacts primarily dating to Aryan invasion and subsequent times. I suspect that IVC genetics will show a significant portion of Y-DNA L which is much more common in the IVC than in the rest of India.

    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    You are thinking of the past by the geographical presence of Dravidian languages today. The Rig Veda does have a Dravidian substratum , though Witzel says the earliest section in the RV shows Munda substratum and Dravidian is found in the 3rd installement. The RV was composed in the Punjab. Maharashtra also has Dravdian place names.

    Since independence the Indian government has been trying to wipe out Dravidian languages , and replace them with Hindi. Suppose they were successfull and this happened in antiquity , leaving only Northern Sri Lanka with a Dravidian language, then one would assume Dravidian languages couldn't have been present in the IVC since it isn't even present in the SubContinent. Kannada and Telegu have more Indo-Aryan influence than Tamil, obviously because both these languages are closer geographically to the NorthWest of the Indian Subcontinent.

    2 points why Dravidian is not autochthonous to Southern India.

    a) Malayalam and Tamil are linguistically too close to each other for Dravidian languages to have arose in Southern India.
    b) If Dravidian was native to the South then Sri Lanka should have been majority Dravidian speaking.

    Razib mentioned either A) or B) on Brown Pundits (can't recal which one ). The other point is mentioned in a book called Zeylanica (book about Ceylon cultures).

    As far as the Y-Dna of IVC inhabitants at the height of the civilization (around 2500BC) , I would guess L, H or J2 to be the most common.

    -

    There is 1 point I would like to pose:
    Assuming Dravidian was not the major language of the IVC then shouldn't the Dravidian languages show strong influence from the IVC language.

  7. “which will confirm that there were two major demographic pulses which entered the subcontinent from the Northwest over the past 10,000 year”

    Should we change it to “two or more major demographic pulses”?

    “Therefore, the language(s) of the Indus valley civilization was probably a form of Dravidian.”

    Asko Parpola has been claiming this, but evidence does not exist yet. IVC could possibly be Dravidian even if they did not speak Dravidian languages. There is no evidence that Dravidian languages existed well before 4000 BP. I think the expansion of West Asian farmer into India created the neolithic ashmound herders of South India.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    There is no evidence that Dravidian languages existed well before 4000 BP

    u mean from archaeology, right? sangam is earliest dravidian stuff ~2000 BP right?
  8. There seems to be an early stratum in the Rig Veda of “Para-Munda” loan words, borrowed from an Austro-Asiatic family related to Munda, but not Munda. Here’s an article by Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel: http://michaelwitzel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ejvs0501article.pdf Austro-Asiatic, including Vietnamese and Khmer as well as the scattered Munda languages of east India, looks like early farmers expanding out of South China / SE Asia. So I’ll stick my neck out and guess that traces (but only traces) of a recent (Holocene) expansion from E/SE Asia to the Indus / greater Punjab area may show up in ancient DNA.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    nick patterson was with witzel 2 years ago when we talked about this. i'm skeptical because there is literally zero imprint of the e. asian in non-mundari people (derived EDAR or much of the east asian Y). then again, replacements have happened, but it's weird to get TOTALLY genetically replaced and have cultural influences isn't it?
  9. I remember reading a genetic study a few years back which concluded that most of the Australo-Melanesian ancestry in Eastern Indonesia was in fact not hunter-gather. Instead, it appears that there was an abortive Papuan neolithic expansion based around taro cultivation which was cut short by the expansion of East Asian groups (Austro-Asiatic and later Austronesian) into the East Indies. This makes a lot of sense, when you consider there are deeply nested Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages spoken on Timor. There may indeed be something similar lurking in the ASI component – an abortive neolithic expansion which was dashed against the rocks by the the movement of post-Harappan migrants out of the Indus Valley and into wider India.

    I do tend to concur with Razib though that the IVC was Dravidian, and probably not indigenous. I say this for one reason – the Brahui. I am aware that linguists tend to believe the Brahui were relatively recent migrants from Central India. But their genetics point to being indigenous to the region. IIRC, they are genetically indistinguishable from the Balochi save for lacking the “cosmopolitan” elements of admixture (e.g., Iranian, Arab, and SSA). They also have relatively little ASI ancestry, as you would expect given their location. I suppose there could have been some sort of Hungarian-style elite dominance which left no genetic impact, but it seems less likely than the alternative to me, at least at this point.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    yeah, i looked. they are genetically just as you say. though their affinities are more with southwest asian than northwest asian, so who knows?
  10. @Karl Zimmerman
    I remember reading a genetic study a few years back which concluded that most of the Australo-Melanesian ancestry in Eastern Indonesia was in fact not hunter-gather. Instead, it appears that there was an abortive Papuan neolithic expansion based around taro cultivation which was cut short by the expansion of East Asian groups (Austro-Asiatic and later Austronesian) into the East Indies. This makes a lot of sense, when you consider there are deeply nested Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages spoken on Timor. There may indeed be something similar lurking in the ASI component - an abortive neolithic expansion which was dashed against the rocks by the the movement of post-Harappan migrants out of the Indus Valley and into wider India.

    I do tend to concur with Razib though that the IVC was Dravidian, and probably not indigenous. I say this for one reason - the Brahui. I am aware that linguists tend to believe the Brahui were relatively recent migrants from Central India. But their genetics point to being indigenous to the region. IIRC, they are genetically indistinguishable from the Balochi save for lacking the "cosmopolitan" elements of admixture (e.g., Iranian, Arab, and SSA). They also have relatively little ASI ancestry, as you would expect given their location. I suppose there could have been some sort of Hungarian-style elite dominance which left no genetic impact, but it seems less likely than the alternative to me, at least at this point.

    yeah, i looked. they are genetically just as you say. though their affinities are more with southwest asian than northwest asian, so who knows?

  11. @Doug Jones
    There seems to be an early stratum in the Rig Veda of "Para-Munda" loan words, borrowed from an Austro-Asiatic family related to Munda, but not Munda. Here's an article by Harvard Sanskritist Michael Witzel: http://michaelwitzel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ejvs0501article.pdf Austro-Asiatic, including Vietnamese and Khmer as well as the scattered Munda languages of east India, looks like early farmers expanding out of South China / SE Asia. So I'll stick my neck out and guess that traces (but only traces) of a recent (Holocene) expansion from E/SE Asia to the Indus / greater Punjab area may show up in ancient DNA.

    nick patterson was with witzel 2 years ago when we talked about this. i’m skeptical because there is literally zero imprint of the e. asian in non-mundari people (derived EDAR or much of the east asian Y). then again, replacements have happened, but it’s weird to get TOTALLY genetically replaced and have cultural influences isn’t it?

  12. @Vijay
    "which will confirm that there were two major demographic pulses which entered the subcontinent from the Northwest over the past 10,000 year"

    Should we change it to "two or more major demographic pulses"?

    "Therefore, the language(s) of the Indus valley civilization was probably a form of Dravidian."

    Asko Parpola has been claiming this, but evidence does not exist yet. IVC could possibly be Dravidian even if they did not speak Dravidian languages. There is no evidence that Dravidian languages existed well before 4000 BP. I think the expansion of West Asian farmer into India created the neolithic ashmound herders of South India.

    There is no evidence that Dravidian languages existed well before 4000 BP

    u mean from archaeology, right? sangam is earliest dravidian stuff ~2000 BP right?

    • Replies: @rec1man
    Sangam period is roughly from 300 bc to 300 AD ;

    This already shows a lot of Sanskritic / Brahmin influence

    Sangham itself is a sanskrit derived word

    The earliest tamil grammar book, Tolkappiam, was written by a brahmin migrant, named
    Tolkappiar
  13. @Razib Khan
    There is no evidence that Dravidian languages existed well before 4000 BP

    u mean from archaeology, right? sangam is earliest dravidian stuff ~2000 BP right?

    Sangam period is roughly from 300 bc to 300 AD ;

    This already shows a lot of Sanskritic / Brahmin influence

    Sangham itself is a sanskrit derived word

    The earliest tamil grammar book, Tolkappiam, was written by a brahmin migrant, named
    Tolkappiar

  14. This…

    https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/

    Starts off well, but then fails horribly because the author doesn’t understand the genetic evidence, and appears to want to see PIE in Maykop and the proto-Indo-Iranians and R1a-Z93 also in the Caucasus. It won’t work.

    CHG is present at high levels deep in South India, along with Y-HG J, which has a deep rooted geneology in South Asia very likely dating to the Neolithic.

    So one way or another, these signals arrived in India during the Neolithic. Around 1800 BC came R1a-Z93, with its shallow genealogy, which matches the traditional narrative of the early Indo-Aryans coming from Sintashta-Andronovo.

  15. @ohwilleke
    This analysis is on point so far as the linguistic origins of Indus River Valley people. The evidence that the Dravidian language was derived from the Indus River Valley is far more tenuous and indeed tends to point to the opposite conclusion - that it was independent in origins.

    The approximate epicenter of proto-Dravidian is on the middle of the eastern coast of the Deccan peninsula which is just the opposite of where it should be if it had IVC origins. Only a tiny corner of the IVC territory at is most southeastern extent which was at the fringe of the IVC culture (really its frontier territory) has any Dravidian toponymns. Harappans used proto-linguistic seals comparable to those used in Mesopotamia and in the Vinca culture. People in the Dravidian territory never did. Given this focal point, even if Dravidian does derive in some way from West Eurasia, it does so independently of Harappan influence.

    There also virtually nothing in the Dravidian language itself in terms of significant shared lexicon or grammatical or phonetic features that suggests this connection, which is why the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis has never received widespread acceptance in linguistic circles. (Likewise, there is no evidence of Dravidian linguistic similarity with the Munda languages.)

    Contact between Dravidians and the Harappans was largely mediated through a few trade posts on the western fringe of the Harappan area that were not heavily populated and that were the only fortified population centers of the IVC until the very end of their civilization. There is no evidence whatsoever of regular direct trade between non-IVC area and South and Central India (the homeland of the Dravidian language) and West Eurasia.

    The South Indian Neolithic technological package bears little resemblance to the IVC technological package (e.g., employing different primary crops and different kinds of architecture). This is particularly notable because the Harappan civilization was by all accounts remarkably unified for more or less its entire existence and thus very distinctive visa-a-vis other archaeological cultures.

    The presence of IVC genetics in South Indians is easily explained through contacts primarily dating to Aryan invasion and subsequent times. I suspect that IVC genetics will show a significant portion of Y-DNA L which is much more common in the IVC than in the rest of India.

    You are thinking of the past by the geographical presence of Dravidian languages today. The Rig Veda does have a Dravidian substratum , though Witzel says the earliest section in the RV shows Munda substratum and Dravidian is found in the 3rd installement. The RV was composed in the Punjab. Maharashtra also has Dravdian place names.

    Since independence the Indian government has been trying to wipe out Dravidian languages , and replace them with Hindi. Suppose they were successfull and this happened in antiquity , leaving only Northern Sri Lanka with a Dravidian language, then one would assume Dravidian languages couldn’t have been present in the IVC since it isn’t even present in the SubContinent. Kannada and Telegu have more Indo-Aryan influence than Tamil, obviously because both these languages are closer geographically to the NorthWest of the Indian Subcontinent.

    2 points why Dravidian is not autochthonous to Southern India.

    a) Malayalam and Tamil are linguistically too close to each other for Dravidian languages to have arose in Southern India.
    b) If Dravidian was native to the South then Sri Lanka should have been majority Dravidian speaking.

    Razib mentioned either A) or B) on Brown Pundits (can’t recal which one ). The other point is mentioned in a book called Zeylanica (book about Ceylon cultures).

    As far as the Y-Dna of IVC inhabitants at the height of the civilization (around 2500BC) , I would guess L, H or J2 to be the most common.

    -

    There is 1 point I would like to pose:
    Assuming Dravidian was not the major language of the IVC then shouldn’t the Dravidian languages show strong influence from the IVC language.

    • Replies: @Vijay
    Most of this comment is based on conjecture and not on literature. Campbell's "Concise compendium of World Languages" chapter on Dravidian languages and Andronov provides dates of separation of Dravidian languages. Tamil and Malayalam separated from a proto-tamil-malayalam in about the end of 9th century AD. In the book "The Indo-Aryan languages" James Gair provides a summary of how Sinhala separated out of the Indo Aryan language continuum. There are people speaking Dravidan languages in Chota Nagpur, Rajmahal Hills in West Bengal and Baluchistan, completely surrounded by Indo Aryans!

    In addition, little is known about IVC language to relate it to Dravidan languages in any form. Witzel calls IVC language "Para Munda"; Parpola calls it "Dravidan" and nothing is settled

    Witzel remarks on Munda-> veda are also outdated. After Kuiper's Munda words to Vedic lit. was found not supportable, Witzel changed the term Munda to Kubhā-Vipāś substrate. This is based on the idea that the Vedic Aryans encountered Harappan language speakers, and not Dravidians in Punjab. The argument between Krishnamurthy (Dravidian Languages, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p38 ) and Witzel has not been settled regarding Munda words in Veda.
    , @ohwilleke
    @ Karl Zimmerman - there are multiple lines of corroborating evidence suggesting that the Brahui are outside the original Dravidian linguistic area and represent a case of language shift, including internal linguistic features and corroborating legendary history (the Brahui and a couple other parts of that part of the Dravidian language family have origin myths about a migration at a time consistent with the grammar (i.e. ca. 1000 CE), from a specific place where Dravidian was spoken.

    @ Nathan - Witzel says a Dravidian substrate is missing from the earliest layer of the RV. It makes sense that there would be Dravidian influences later due to Indo-Aryan expansion into historically Dravidian territory. This argues against an equivalence of Harappan and Dravidian languages.

    Re Southern India - I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that Dravidian languages originated somewhere that it is already spoken given the likely phylogeny of these languages. There is some possibility that Dravidian was wiped out for a period of time in antiquity except a small region of India and then re-expanded to its current range after that time which would account for the shallow time depth of the Dravidian language family despite the fact that it would seem like it should date to at least ca. 2500 BCE with the South Indian Neolithic, rather than ca. 500 BCE as estimated by linguists.

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don't really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there. The division between ANI and ASI likewise points to deep divisions between the two regions and the percentages of ANI now found in South India and their age per linkage disequilibrium measures are consistent with almost all of the ANI now in South India being attributable to Indo-Aryans. Per Moorjani discussed at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/08/explaining-south-asian-genetics-and.html

    I would expect proto-Dravidian languages to have a fair number of loan words from Harappan particular those applicable to trade goods not found in their region, and visa versa, but probably not much grammatical influence or Swadesh list word influence because the Harappan territory and the Dravidian territory have only modest overlap around the delta of the IVC and the core area of the IVC civilization was much further upstream in the Indus River Valley and what is now a desert on the Pakistan-Indian border, and it migrated to the Northeast to the Ganges River when it collapsed, not to the South. It is possible that there are cases of a Harappan substrate in Indo-Aryan influencing Sanskrit and in turn influencing Dravidian since the Indo-Aryans clearly did conquer most of India (hence the spread of Hinduism and North Indian genetics among the Brahmins) with language derived from Sanskrit spoken by at least a ruling class. The absence of cultural and material culture impacts of Harappans on the Dravidians while that cultural region thrived suggests that linguistic influence too may have been modest and, e.g., relatively low levels of Y-DNA L in core Dravidian areas supports that inference as well.

    I have more analysis at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2011/10/evidence-regarding-dravidian-linguistic.html and http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/01/munda-as-intrusive-to-india.html

  16. Any comment as to the possible association of Tamil, Japanese, and Fenno-Ugric languages under the Uralic language group? The similarities between Tamil and both Finnish and Japanese have been noted. Japanese has been regarded as similar to the Turkic languages, possibly under an ancestral Altaic language group, but lumping it with the Fenno-Ugric and Dravidian languages under the Uralic group seems like an intriguing alternate hypothesis.

    • Replies: @Bultare
    Kelteminar culture of Central Asia may have been connected to Dravidian languages(or more likely a substrate to them) and contributed vocabulary to western Siberian languages but you would need a lot of imagination to directly connect it with Uralic.
    Uralic-Japanese is a more realistic possibility but with a depth of so many millenia that it might never be conclusively proven.
    , @Shaikorth
    Presently it very much looks like the numerous attempts to connect Japanese to Altaic languages have not been successful, and in fact even the once established core Altaic has become a disputed family as the connections between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic may be just contact-induced. As for connecting Japanese with something other than "Altaic", prospects for Japanese-Uralic I'd say are about as high as those for Sino-Basque.
  17. @Thirdeye
    Any comment as to the possible association of Tamil, Japanese, and Fenno-Ugric languages under the Uralic language group? The similarities between Tamil and both Finnish and Japanese have been noted. Japanese has been regarded as similar to the Turkic languages, possibly under an ancestral Altaic language group, but lumping it with the Fenno-Ugric and Dravidian languages under the Uralic group seems like an intriguing alternate hypothesis.

    Kelteminar culture of Central Asia may have been connected to Dravidian languages(or more likely a substrate to them) and contributed vocabulary to western Siberian languages but you would need a lot of imagination to directly connect it with Uralic.
    Uralic-Japanese is a more realistic possibility but with a depth of so many millenia that it might never be conclusively proven.

  18. @greysquirrell
    You are thinking of the past by the geographical presence of Dravidian languages today. The Rig Veda does have a Dravidian substratum , though Witzel says the earliest section in the RV shows Munda substratum and Dravidian is found in the 3rd installement. The RV was composed in the Punjab. Maharashtra also has Dravdian place names.

    Since independence the Indian government has been trying to wipe out Dravidian languages , and replace them with Hindi. Suppose they were successfull and this happened in antiquity , leaving only Northern Sri Lanka with a Dravidian language, then one would assume Dravidian languages couldn't have been present in the IVC since it isn't even present in the SubContinent. Kannada and Telegu have more Indo-Aryan influence than Tamil, obviously because both these languages are closer geographically to the NorthWest of the Indian Subcontinent.

    2 points why Dravidian is not autochthonous to Southern India.

    a) Malayalam and Tamil are linguistically too close to each other for Dravidian languages to have arose in Southern India.
    b) If Dravidian was native to the South then Sri Lanka should have been majority Dravidian speaking.

    Razib mentioned either A) or B) on Brown Pundits (can't recal which one ). The other point is mentioned in a book called Zeylanica (book about Ceylon cultures).

    As far as the Y-Dna of IVC inhabitants at the height of the civilization (around 2500BC) , I would guess L, H or J2 to be the most common.

    -

    There is 1 point I would like to pose:
    Assuming Dravidian was not the major language of the IVC then shouldn't the Dravidian languages show strong influence from the IVC language.

    Most of this comment is based on conjecture and not on literature. Campbell’s “Concise compendium of World Languages” chapter on Dravidian languages and Andronov provides dates of separation of Dravidian languages. Tamil and Malayalam separated from a proto-tamil-malayalam in about the end of 9th century AD. In the book “The Indo-Aryan languages” James Gair provides a summary of how Sinhala separated out of the Indo Aryan language continuum. There are people speaking Dravidan languages in Chota Nagpur, Rajmahal Hills in West Bengal and Baluchistan, completely surrounded by Indo Aryans!

    In addition, little is known about IVC language to relate it to Dravidan languages in any form. Witzel calls IVC language “Para Munda”; Parpola calls it “Dravidan” and nothing is settled

    Witzel remarks on Munda-> veda are also outdated. After Kuiper’s Munda words to Vedic lit. was found not supportable, Witzel changed the term Munda to Kubhā-Vipāś substrate. This is based on the idea that the Vedic Aryans encountered Harappan language speakers, and not Dravidians in Punjab. The argument between Krishnamurthy (Dravidian Languages, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p38 ) and Witzel has not been settled regarding Munda words in Veda.

    • Replies: @greysquirrell
    Witzel has said that the earliest Dravidian influence into Indo-Aryan came about in the Punjab . Witzel states the earliest RV does not show Dravidian , only the middle and later RV.
  19. @Thirdeye
    Any comment as to the possible association of Tamil, Japanese, and Fenno-Ugric languages under the Uralic language group? The similarities between Tamil and both Finnish and Japanese have been noted. Japanese has been regarded as similar to the Turkic languages, possibly under an ancestral Altaic language group, but lumping it with the Fenno-Ugric and Dravidian languages under the Uralic group seems like an intriguing alternate hypothesis.

    Presently it very much looks like the numerous attempts to connect Japanese to Altaic languages have not been successful, and in fact even the once established core Altaic has become a disputed family as the connections between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic may be just contact-induced. As for connecting Japanese with something other than “Altaic”, prospects for Japanese-Uralic I’d say are about as high as those for Sino-Basque.

    • Replies: @notanon

    As for connecting Japanese with something other than “Altaic”, prospects for Japanese-Uralic I’d say are about as high as those for Sino-Basque.
     
    Anyone tried looking for very old (short) IBD/IBS chunks between Japan (Jomon) and Ireland?

    (based on premise of common Uralic ancestors)

    could be fun

    Miyamoto O'Malley

    http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p104/kinnchii/MM-M98-0044.jpg

    http://www.2flashgames.com/photo/file/masaya_kato/Masaya_Kato_0004.jpg
  20. @Vijay
    Most of this comment is based on conjecture and not on literature. Campbell's "Concise compendium of World Languages" chapter on Dravidian languages and Andronov provides dates of separation of Dravidian languages. Tamil and Malayalam separated from a proto-tamil-malayalam in about the end of 9th century AD. In the book "The Indo-Aryan languages" James Gair provides a summary of how Sinhala separated out of the Indo Aryan language continuum. There are people speaking Dravidan languages in Chota Nagpur, Rajmahal Hills in West Bengal and Baluchistan, completely surrounded by Indo Aryans!

    In addition, little is known about IVC language to relate it to Dravidan languages in any form. Witzel calls IVC language "Para Munda"; Parpola calls it "Dravidan" and nothing is settled

    Witzel remarks on Munda-> veda are also outdated. After Kuiper's Munda words to Vedic lit. was found not supportable, Witzel changed the term Munda to Kubhā-Vipāś substrate. This is based on the idea that the Vedic Aryans encountered Harappan language speakers, and not Dravidians in Punjab. The argument between Krishnamurthy (Dravidian Languages, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p38 ) and Witzel has not been settled regarding Munda words in Veda.

    Witzel has said that the earliest Dravidian influence into Indo-Aryan came about in the Punjab . Witzel states the earliest RV does not show Dravidian , only the middle and later RV.

    • Replies: @Vijay
    At this point, there is no real information on IVC languages. The interaction between Vedic "Aryans" in Punjab and the people who lived there, as argued about by Witzel, Porpola, Kuiper and Krishnamurthy, is conjecture. As compared with the advances in genetics being discussed by this author, using language and literature to conjecture on IVS vs. dravidan vs. Vedic "Aryans" is futile, because of the lack of agreement. This is all due to rapid advances being made in genetics and ancient skeletons.
  21. @greysquirrell
    Witzel has said that the earliest Dravidian influence into Indo-Aryan came about in the Punjab . Witzel states the earliest RV does not show Dravidian , only the middle and later RV.

    At this point, there is no real information on IVC languages. The interaction between Vedic “Aryans” in Punjab and the people who lived there, as argued about by Witzel, Porpola, Kuiper and Krishnamurthy, is conjecture. As compared with the advances in genetics being discussed by this author, using language and literature to conjecture on IVS vs. dravidan vs. Vedic “Aryans” is futile, because of the lack of agreement. This is all due to rapid advances being made in genetics and ancient skeletons.

  22. @greysquirrell
    You are thinking of the past by the geographical presence of Dravidian languages today. The Rig Veda does have a Dravidian substratum , though Witzel says the earliest section in the RV shows Munda substratum and Dravidian is found in the 3rd installement. The RV was composed in the Punjab. Maharashtra also has Dravdian place names.

    Since independence the Indian government has been trying to wipe out Dravidian languages , and replace them with Hindi. Suppose they were successfull and this happened in antiquity , leaving only Northern Sri Lanka with a Dravidian language, then one would assume Dravidian languages couldn't have been present in the IVC since it isn't even present in the SubContinent. Kannada and Telegu have more Indo-Aryan influence than Tamil, obviously because both these languages are closer geographically to the NorthWest of the Indian Subcontinent.

    2 points why Dravidian is not autochthonous to Southern India.

    a) Malayalam and Tamil are linguistically too close to each other for Dravidian languages to have arose in Southern India.
    b) If Dravidian was native to the South then Sri Lanka should have been majority Dravidian speaking.

    Razib mentioned either A) or B) on Brown Pundits (can't recal which one ). The other point is mentioned in a book called Zeylanica (book about Ceylon cultures).

    As far as the Y-Dna of IVC inhabitants at the height of the civilization (around 2500BC) , I would guess L, H or J2 to be the most common.

    -

    There is 1 point I would like to pose:
    Assuming Dravidian was not the major language of the IVC then shouldn't the Dravidian languages show strong influence from the IVC language.

    @ Karl Zimmerman – there are multiple lines of corroborating evidence suggesting that the Brahui are outside the original Dravidian linguistic area and represent a case of language shift, including internal linguistic features and corroborating legendary history (the Brahui and a couple other parts of that part of the Dravidian language family have origin myths about a migration at a time consistent with the grammar (i.e. ca. 1000 CE), from a specific place where Dravidian was spoken.

    @ Nathan – Witzel says a Dravidian substrate is missing from the earliest layer of the RV. It makes sense that there would be Dravidian influences later due to Indo-Aryan expansion into historically Dravidian territory. This argues against an equivalence of Harappan and Dravidian languages.

    Re Southern India – I don’t think that it is unreasonable to assume that Dravidian languages originated somewhere that it is already spoken given the likely phylogeny of these languages. There is some possibility that Dravidian was wiped out for a period of time in antiquity except a small region of India and then re-expanded to its current range after that time which would account for the shallow time depth of the Dravidian language family despite the fact that it would seem like it should date to at least ca. 2500 BCE with the South Indian Neolithic, rather than ca. 500 BCE as estimated by linguists.

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don’t really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there. The division between ANI and ASI likewise points to deep divisions between the two regions and the percentages of ANI now found in South India and their age per linkage disequilibrium measures are consistent with almost all of the ANI now in South India being attributable to Indo-Aryans. Per Moorjani discussed at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/08/explaining-south-asian-genetics-and.html

    I would expect proto-Dravidian languages to have a fair number of loan words from Harappan particular those applicable to trade goods not found in their region, and visa versa, but probably not much grammatical influence or Swadesh list word influence because the Harappan territory and the Dravidian territory have only modest overlap around the delta of the IVC and the core area of the IVC civilization was much further upstream in the Indus River Valley and what is now a desert on the Pakistan-Indian border, and it migrated to the Northeast to the Ganges River when it collapsed, not to the South. It is possible that there are cases of a Harappan substrate in Indo-Aryan influencing Sanskrit and in turn influencing Dravidian since the Indo-Aryans clearly did conquer most of India (hence the spread of Hinduism and North Indian genetics among the Brahmins) with language derived from Sanskrit spoken by at least a ruling class. The absence of cultural and material culture impacts of Harappans on the Dravidians while that cultural region thrived suggests that linguistic influence too may have been modest and, e.g., relatively low levels of Y-DNA L in core Dravidian areas supports that inference as well.

    I have more analysis at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2011/10/evidence-regarding-dravidian-linguistic.html and http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/01/munda-as-intrusive-to-india.html

    • Replies: @Tribunal

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don’t really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there.
     
    ^ That whole segment is laughable and definitely wrong. First of all, in those times, there where no such thing as "somali", also modern somalians are mixed with backmigrating euroasian men who took local african women as wifes.

    Finally Haplogroup T is not indigenous to Africa, it migrated there from the middle east. And dravidian languages and people have nothing to do with any africans.
  23. @Shaikorth
    Presently it very much looks like the numerous attempts to connect Japanese to Altaic languages have not been successful, and in fact even the once established core Altaic has become a disputed family as the connections between Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic may be just contact-induced. As for connecting Japanese with something other than "Altaic", prospects for Japanese-Uralic I'd say are about as high as those for Sino-Basque.

    As for connecting Japanese with something other than “Altaic”, prospects for Japanese-Uralic I’d say are about as high as those for Sino-Basque.

    Anyone tried looking for very old (short) IBD/IBS chunks between Japan (Jomon) and Ireland?

    (based on premise of common Uralic ancestors)

    could be fun

    Miyamoto O’Malley

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    My understanding of the Jomon is that they were derived from a northern continental Australoid population and a southern Ryukyuan Austronesian population. The Ryukyuan population got to the main islands first, but the northern Australoid population became dominant. The Altai region seems like it was a big trading post for genes and languages from which the proto-Jomon migrated.
  24. That would be something no one has yet tried.

    Considering the Japanese ethnogenesis and likely age of any segments they might share with British or Irish, I wonder if it’s even possible to come up with anything that can be connected to Japanese specifically and not to either Ainu or non-Ainu part of Japanese genome shared with Koreans and Chinese. These speak languages with no clear relation to Japanese or to each other so…

    • Replies: @notanon
    I wouldn't claim it was likely - just thinking that these various language family theories I've read about might be - not exactly testable - but prodded a bit by looking for very old traces of IBD/IBS between the groups suggested to be in the same language families.
    , @Thirdeye
    It really does look like the Ainu are the result of an Australoid migration distinct from the Australoid Jomon founders and the languages tend to support that. MtDNA Haplogroup D1 shows up in Jomon skeletons but not among the Ainu. It has also been found among some villages on the lower Amur River. Its rare presence among Native Americans is suggestive of an early Australoid migration. It's one of the more common clades in paleoindian skeletons.
  25. My guess is that they will be very similar to the Brahmin/Kshatriya of Gangetic plain!

    • Replies: @Davidski
    Brahmin/Kshatriya show elevated levels of IBD sharing with Srubnaya, basically on a par with North/East Europeans, and Srubnaya are very European genetically in the modern sense, much more so than Yamnaya.

    Dravidian speakers don't show any such links.

    Also, Srubnaya are the first ancient group on the steppe to show the LP allele at observed rather than imputed sites. Yamnaya only shows it in imputed data.

    Srubnaya also show a high frequency of R1a-Z93, which is today very common in India, especially North India, and is the sister clade of the main R1a in Corded Ware, Balts, Slavs and Norse.

    Put all of this together, and you'll see that Brahmin/Kshatriya have direct and recent ancestry from a European group closely related to Srubnaya. Dravidians don't.

    So Harappans won't resemble Brahmin/Kshatriya, unless they were also closely related to Srubnaya and Europeans. But of course they weren't.
  26. How “West Eurasian” would you say are South Indian groups like the Paniya? I seem to recall the “South Indian” cluster (no doubt a somewhat unreliable modern cluster carrying some CHG-related ancestry in it…) often peaking in these groups and their phenotypic traits have them looking quite similar to peoples like Australian Aborigines, they also seem to cluster relatively close to the likes of Melanesians, Aborigines and so on on a global PCA:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2ARnUeK-Y8WTTI0UmNldWRta3c/view?usp=sharing

    Would you say there’s a lot of CHG-related admixture in them much like with other South Asians despite all of the above?

  27. @Shaikorth
    That would be something no one has yet tried.

    Considering the Japanese ethnogenesis and likely age of any segments they might share with British or Irish, I wonder if it's even possible to come up with anything that can be connected to Japanese specifically and not to either Ainu or non-Ainu part of Japanese genome shared with Koreans and Chinese. These speak languages with no clear relation to Japanese or to each other so...

    I wouldn’t claim it was likely – just thinking that these various language family theories I’ve read about might be – not exactly testable – but prodded a bit by looking for very old traces of IBD/IBS between the groups suggested to be in the same language families.

    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    It is an innovative approach really, I just suspect that particular test might not find anything informative because the Japanese are not as distinct genetically as they are in a linguistic sense. Now with something like Ainu there'd be less problems.

    @Awale

    David at Eurogenes modelled Paniya as 65/35 CHG/Dai with qpAdm, according to D-stats they're still non-significantly closer to Japanese than to Native Americans and significantly closer to Japanese than to Siberian Kets.

    Outgroup Test Pop1 Pop2 D Z SNP
    Chimp Paniya Japanese Karitiana -0.0043 -1.317 134979
    Chimp Paniya Japanese Ket -0.0168 -6.6 134889

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/first-look-at-caucasus-hunter-gatherer.html?commentPage=2

    I'd like to see what TreeMix shows in this case.

    BTW, received SSA chunks in Chromopainter decrease in number when moving east from Iraq along the coastline but after a point start to increase again. There's a South Indian peak in Paniya.

  28. Thanks for this post as well as the link to Manastarmgini, Razib! Enlightening.

    With my admittedly limited knowledge of all this, I tend to think that though the question of the origin of ANI/ Indo-Aryan the modern Indian/South Asian genome is usually treated together with the question of *when* it happened, the former is better understood than the latter.

    I think your model of (at least) two waves, one predominantly responsible for the ANI genetic influence and a later one responsible for the Indo-Aryan cultural influence is probably the right one. It might also serve as an explanation for the high ANI signal in speakers of the Dravidian Brahui language . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahui_language (I may be getting this wrong)

    I find it quite interesting that the Manastarmgini blog, in the horse race for the 3 competing theories of the IA cultural influence in India, is willing to allow for the 2-3 centuries of uncertainty between 4.2kyrs BP and 3.8k yrs BP to accommodate for the philological/ archaeo-astronomical evidence (descriptions?) of the Sarasvati and Krritika (to be fair, they only mention it as one of the 3 alternatives and not necessarily the strongest). A reliance on archaeo-astronomy would probably be deemed unscientific from a reductionist perspective but has always formed the bulwark of the OIT-ists upon which they launch their other, admittedly unscientific claims. But it is hard to be sympathetic to the Indo-Aryan civilisation and not be sympathetic to its system and facility with celestial calculations – this shows through in the Manastarmgini blog.

    Now, there’s a professor at IIT Bombay who has published a couple of papers around how the astronomical descriptions in the Brahmana are off by about 1000-1200 yrs because they get interpretation of the then extant luni-solar calendar incorrect. (Essentially a new month should begin at the new moon as in the current South/West tradition rather than the full moon as in the North/East tradition so that axial precession calculations have been off by about 15 days or 15 degrees and hence by about 15 x 72 years historically) http://www.met.iitb.ac.in/~prasanna/AncientIndianAstronomy.pdf

    I haven’t been able to see any obvious flaws in the critique, and have been wondering what it means for the standard dating of the Indo-Aryan influx, which seemed to be roughly corroborate through the standard archaeoastronomical consensus.

    I am inclined to believe that it is entirely possible that this cultural influx may have been a millennium or so prior to 4k years currently envisaged – most of what we used to believe about civilisational timelines through archaeological evidence has consistently been pushed back when more archaeological evidence was discovered. I am not clear how robust the timing of the the genetic evidence is – can the degree of variability in dating of admixture events be of the order of 25% or more? (i.e. 1k yrs for 4k years)

    As a corollary, if the Rakhigarhi individuals *are* enriched for ANE or display the LP haplotype, do you think the case for pushing back the Indo-Aryan cultural influence in the subcontinent by a few centuries will become stronger at the margin?

  29. @notanon
    I wouldn't claim it was likely - just thinking that these various language family theories I've read about might be - not exactly testable - but prodded a bit by looking for very old traces of IBD/IBS between the groups suggested to be in the same language families.

    It is an innovative approach really, I just suspect that particular test might not find anything informative because the Japanese are not as distinct genetically as they are in a linguistic sense. Now with something like Ainu there’d be less problems.

    David at Eurogenes modelled Paniya as 65/35 CHG/Dai with qpAdm, according to D-stats they’re still non-significantly closer to Japanese than to Native Americans and significantly closer to Japanese than to Siberian Kets.

    Outgroup Test Pop1 Pop2 D Z SNP
    Chimp Paniya Japanese Karitiana -0.0043 -1.317 134979
    Chimp Paniya Japanese Ket -0.0168 -6.6 134889

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/first-look-at-caucasus-hunter-gatherer.html?commentPage=2

    I’d like to see what TreeMix shows in this case.

    BTW, received SSA chunks in Chromopainter decrease in number when moving east from Iraq along the coastline but after a point start to increase again. There’s a South Indian peak in Paniya.

    • Replies: @notanon
    Interesting info, ty.
  30. @ohwilleke
    @ Karl Zimmerman - there are multiple lines of corroborating evidence suggesting that the Brahui are outside the original Dravidian linguistic area and represent a case of language shift, including internal linguistic features and corroborating legendary history (the Brahui and a couple other parts of that part of the Dravidian language family have origin myths about a migration at a time consistent with the grammar (i.e. ca. 1000 CE), from a specific place where Dravidian was spoken.

    @ Nathan - Witzel says a Dravidian substrate is missing from the earliest layer of the RV. It makes sense that there would be Dravidian influences later due to Indo-Aryan expansion into historically Dravidian territory. This argues against an equivalence of Harappan and Dravidian languages.

    Re Southern India - I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that Dravidian languages originated somewhere that it is already spoken given the likely phylogeny of these languages. There is some possibility that Dravidian was wiped out for a period of time in antiquity except a small region of India and then re-expanded to its current range after that time which would account for the shallow time depth of the Dravidian language family despite the fact that it would seem like it should date to at least ca. 2500 BCE with the South Indian Neolithic, rather than ca. 500 BCE as estimated by linguists.

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don't really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there. The division between ANI and ASI likewise points to deep divisions between the two regions and the percentages of ANI now found in South India and their age per linkage disequilibrium measures are consistent with almost all of the ANI now in South India being attributable to Indo-Aryans. Per Moorjani discussed at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/08/explaining-south-asian-genetics-and.html

    I would expect proto-Dravidian languages to have a fair number of loan words from Harappan particular those applicable to trade goods not found in their region, and visa versa, but probably not much grammatical influence or Swadesh list word influence because the Harappan territory and the Dravidian territory have only modest overlap around the delta of the IVC and the core area of the IVC civilization was much further upstream in the Indus River Valley and what is now a desert on the Pakistan-Indian border, and it migrated to the Northeast to the Ganges River when it collapsed, not to the South. It is possible that there are cases of a Harappan substrate in Indo-Aryan influencing Sanskrit and in turn influencing Dravidian since the Indo-Aryans clearly did conquer most of India (hence the spread of Hinduism and North Indian genetics among the Brahmins) with language derived from Sanskrit spoken by at least a ruling class. The absence of cultural and material culture impacts of Harappans on the Dravidians while that cultural region thrived suggests that linguistic influence too may have been modest and, e.g., relatively low levels of Y-DNA L in core Dravidian areas supports that inference as well.

    I have more analysis at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2011/10/evidence-regarding-dravidian-linguistic.html and http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/01/munda-as-intrusive-to-india.html

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don’t really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there.

    ^ That whole segment is laughable and definitely wrong. First of all, in those times, there where no such thing as “somali”, also modern somalians are mixed with backmigrating euroasian men who took local african women as wifes.

    Finally Haplogroup T is not indigenous to Africa, it migrated there from the middle east. And dravidian languages and people have nothing to do with any africans.

    • Replies: @Awale
    Somalis are not mainly derived from mixing between West Asian men and "African" women. Somalis are indeed a mixture between West Asians and pre-historic East Africans who seem quite similar to the majority of the ancestry in the modern South Sudanese:

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html

    But the inter-mixture was clearly "complicated" in that Somalis carry both male and female ultimately West Eurasian-derived lineages. Maternal lineages like: N1a (my own maternal lineage), K1a, R0a, HV, U and M1 are common enough for example:

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/08/somali-mtdna-frequencies.html

    But you're ultimately correct in that Somalis did not exist at that point in history (our language only really developed into an independent one from various other Lowland East Cushitic languages at around ~3,000 BP if we're to take the linguistics seriously and we should...) and that the Y-DNA T present in us is ultimately West Eurasian-derived. And if I may add my own input; it's now so common among us most likely due to some kind of founder effect.


    @ Shaikorth

    Thank you for the help. :-)

    , @ohwilleke
    Obviously, I am only using the term "Somali" as a geographic reference point. The political and cultural geography of the world has changed profoundly and repeatedly over the last 4500 years. But, nobody knows what the geographic area involved was called at the time, so we make do.

    And, while I agree that haplogroup T is a back migration to Africa, probably from the Middle East, it is quite likely that this back migration had already taken place by 2500 BCE, which is around the time of the South Indian Neolithic. The question, which is readily amenable to resolution even without ancient DNA, is whether the clades of Y-DNA haplogroup T found in India are derived from the clades that back migrated to Africa, or came directly from Mesopotamia.

    There is published high resolution Y-DNA haplogroup Y data available for almost everyplace that it is found outside of India in a paper of a few years ago, but there is not high resolution Y-DNA data available from India in any published source, so we will have to wait to learn where it came from.

    Simply rejecting any link between the Dravidian languages and people and Africans out of hand and without well reasoned argument is foolish. We know that Dravidian crops came in significant part from Africa. It is very plausible that Y-DNA T in India could be derived from Y-DNA T that first migrated to the Horn of Africa. There are cultural and architectural links between Dravidian culture and Africa. And, we know that Austronesian seafarers picked up some Indian DNA on their long passage from Borneo to Madagascar via East Africa (which contributed about half of the DNA of Madagascar) ca. 0 CE to 1000 CE, so maritime travel between Africa and Southern India was certainly possible. There are also linguistic correspondences between Dravidian and some African languages that are at least as strong as any other linguistic comparison that has been made to date (and which would be expected to be diluted at 4500 years of time depth).

    Now, apart from Y-DNA T in India, there is very little connection genetically between any Indian genetics like to have a non-Indo-Aryan source. So, any cultural and linguistic connection to either West Asia or Africa in Dravidian India could not have been due to a mass demic migration and instead had to derive from a few male individuals who brought, at a minimum knowledge regarding the cultivation of Africa crops, who were probably Y-DNA T men. But, those few people would have been the source of such essential cultural knowledge that they could very well have had outsized influence that endured.
  31. @Tribunal

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don’t really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there.
     
    ^ That whole segment is laughable and definitely wrong. First of all, in those times, there where no such thing as "somali", also modern somalians are mixed with backmigrating euroasian men who took local african women as wifes.

    Finally Haplogroup T is not indigenous to Africa, it migrated there from the middle east. And dravidian languages and people have nothing to do with any africans.

    Somalis are not mainly derived from mixing between West Asian men and “African” women. Somalis are indeed a mixture between West Asians and pre-historic East Africans who seem quite similar to the majority of the ancestry in the modern South Sudanese:

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/07/horn-africans-mixture-between-east.html

    But the inter-mixture was clearly “complicated” in that Somalis carry both male and female ultimately West Eurasian-derived lineages. Maternal lineages like: N1a (my own maternal lineage), K1a, R0a, HV, U and M1 are common enough for example:

    http://anthromadness.blogspot.ae/2015/08/somali-mtdna-frequencies.html

    But you’re ultimately correct in that Somalis did not exist at that point in history (our language only really developed into an independent one from various other Lowland East Cushitic languages at around ~3,000 BP if we’re to take the linguistics seriously and we should…) and that the Y-DNA T present in us is ultimately West Eurasian-derived. And if I may add my own input; it’s now so common among us most likely due to some kind of founder effect.

    @ Shaikorth

    Thank you for the help. :-)

  32. @Anonymous
    My guess is that they will be very similar to the Brahmin/Kshatriya of Gangetic plain!

    Brahmin/Kshatriya show elevated levels of IBD sharing with Srubnaya, basically on a par with North/East Europeans, and Srubnaya are very European genetically in the modern sense, much more so than Yamnaya.

    Dravidian speakers don’t show any such links.

    Also, Srubnaya are the first ancient group on the steppe to show the LP allele at observed rather than imputed sites. Yamnaya only shows it in imputed data.

    Srubnaya also show a high frequency of R1a-Z93, which is today very common in India, especially North India, and is the sister clade of the main R1a in Corded Ware, Balts, Slavs and Norse.

    Put all of this together, and you’ll see that Brahmin/Kshatriya have direct and recent ancestry from a European group closely related to Srubnaya. Dravidians don’t.

    So Harappans won’t resemble Brahmin/Kshatriya, unless they were also closely related to Srubnaya and Europeans. But of course they weren’t.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    Can you clarify who you mean by "Brahmin/Kshatriya"? Remember that the caste system cuts across India, across Indo-Aryan and Dravidian-speaking regions. There are lots of Dravidian-speaking Brahmins.
  33. @Davidski
    Brahmin/Kshatriya show elevated levels of IBD sharing with Srubnaya, basically on a par with North/East Europeans, and Srubnaya are very European genetically in the modern sense, much more so than Yamnaya.

    Dravidian speakers don't show any such links.

    Also, Srubnaya are the first ancient group on the steppe to show the LP allele at observed rather than imputed sites. Yamnaya only shows it in imputed data.

    Srubnaya also show a high frequency of R1a-Z93, which is today very common in India, especially North India, and is the sister clade of the main R1a in Corded Ware, Balts, Slavs and Norse.

    Put all of this together, and you'll see that Brahmin/Kshatriya have direct and recent ancestry from a European group closely related to Srubnaya. Dravidians don't.

    So Harappans won't resemble Brahmin/Kshatriya, unless they were also closely related to Srubnaya and Europeans. But of course they weren't.

    Can you clarify who you mean by “Brahmin/Kshatriya”? Remember that the caste system cuts across India, across Indo-Aryan and Dravidian-speaking regions. There are lots of Dravidian-speaking Brahmins.

    • Replies: @Davidski
    I was replying to Gyaneshwer, who was talking about Brahmin/Kshatriya of Gangetic plain.

    That's where my Brahmin/Kshatriya samples are from, and they show ridiculous levels of IBD sharing with Srubnaya. But other Indo-Aryan Indian groups from further south do as well.
  34. @Numinous
    Can you clarify who you mean by "Brahmin/Kshatriya"? Remember that the caste system cuts across India, across Indo-Aryan and Dravidian-speaking regions. There are lots of Dravidian-speaking Brahmins.

    I was replying to Gyaneshwer, who was talking about Brahmin/Kshatriya of Gangetic plain.

    That’s where my Brahmin/Kshatriya samples are from, and they show ridiculous levels of IBD sharing with Srubnaya. But other Indo-Aryan Indian groups from further south do as well.

  35. @Shaikorth
    It is an innovative approach really, I just suspect that particular test might not find anything informative because the Japanese are not as distinct genetically as they are in a linguistic sense. Now with something like Ainu there'd be less problems.

    @Awale

    David at Eurogenes modelled Paniya as 65/35 CHG/Dai with qpAdm, according to D-stats they're still non-significantly closer to Japanese than to Native Americans and significantly closer to Japanese than to Siberian Kets.

    Outgroup Test Pop1 Pop2 D Z SNP
    Chimp Paniya Japanese Karitiana -0.0043 -1.317 134979
    Chimp Paniya Japanese Ket -0.0168 -6.6 134889

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/first-look-at-caucasus-hunter-gatherer.html?commentPage=2

    I'd like to see what TreeMix shows in this case.

    BTW, received SSA chunks in Chromopainter decrease in number when moving east from Iraq along the coastline but after a point start to increase again. There's a South Indian peak in Paniya.

    Interesting info, ty.

  36. @notanon

    As for connecting Japanese with something other than “Altaic”, prospects for Japanese-Uralic I’d say are about as high as those for Sino-Basque.
     
    Anyone tried looking for very old (short) IBD/IBS chunks between Japan (Jomon) and Ireland?

    (based on premise of common Uralic ancestors)

    could be fun

    Miyamoto O'Malley

    http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p104/kinnchii/MM-M98-0044.jpg

    http://www.2flashgames.com/photo/file/masaya_kato/Masaya_Kato_0004.jpg

    My understanding of the Jomon is that they were derived from a northern continental Australoid population and a southern Ryukyuan Austronesian population. The Ryukyuan population got to the main islands first, but the northern Australoid population became dominant. The Altai region seems like it was a big trading post for genes and languages from which the proto-Jomon migrated.

    • Replies: @notanon
    Yeah.

    I was reading about language family theories and looking at maps and wondering about how you might get from the Urals to Japan e.g. Kamchatka -> Kuril island chain

    http://www.geocities.jp/warera_tikyujin/islands/map_wide.gif

    Just messing really but funny if it were true.
  37. Jan 6, 2016 The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!

    Thanks for the link to the manasa-taramgini blog. I suspect that the anonymous author of the article is none other than Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. That would explain the philological knowledge. He would also have been briefed by his colleagues from the Reich Lab on their findings. This would also explain his speculation (much to the annoyance of Davidski) that the Maikop or some other North Caucasian culture spoke PIE. Patterson of the Reich Lab made the same speculation as reported in the Harvard Gazette.

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

    As of now, I am an unabashed OIT-ist. If the Rakhigarhi people turn out to have as much ASI as Miss America 2014, I will have to eat humble pie. I expect them to have higher ANI than North Indian Brahmins.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i know who it is. it's not michael witzel. i can tell you that the person is of south asian background who would share a lot of IBD segments with with no association with any of the individuals you name above.
    , @Davidski
    Do you really believe Michael Witzel would write something as stupid as this?

    -A two invasion scenario with a non-Indo-European population with primarily CHG ancestry that came first followed by Indo-Europeans. So only a part of the Indians with ANI have really Indo-Aryan ancestry with rest of ANI being from a non-Indo-European source. Some whites and their fellow travelers with a poor understanding of Indian ethnography seem to like this scenario. However, we hold that this is unlikely because even given a multiple invasion scenario (which in itself is possible) the earliest admixtures as calculated by linkage disequilibrium are too recent for such an imagined non-IE invasion.
     
    This guy seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder, and obviously can't bear the thought of the Indo-Aryans coming from Europe and looking European.

    But he'll have to bear it at some stage, because the idea that Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans came from Maikop and R1a-Z93 from the Caucasus makes no sense.

    Close relatives of Andronovo, Potapovka, Srubnaya and Sintashta did migrate to South Asia, and made a huge impact there, and they were closely related to Corded Ware and came from either the Corded Ware horizon or nearby. They did not come from the Caucasus nor did they develop from Maikop.

    Anyone who can't see this yet doesn't understand the data or doesn't want to because it makes their own pet theories look stupid.

  38. @Balaji
    Jan 6, 2016 The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!

    Thanks for the link to the manasa-taramgini blog. I suspect that the anonymous author of the article is none other than Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. That would explain the philological knowledge. He would also have been briefed by his colleagues from the Reich Lab on their findings. This would also explain his speculation (much to the annoyance of Davidski) that the Maikop or some other North Caucasian culture spoke PIE. Patterson of the Reich Lab made the same speculation as reported in the Harvard Gazette.

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

    As of now, I am an unabashed OIT-ist. If the Rakhigarhi people turn out to have as much ASI as Miss America 2014, I will have to eat humble pie. I expect them to have higher ANI than North Indian Brahmins.

    i know who it is. it’s not michael witzel. i can tell you that the person is of south asian background who would share a lot of IBD segments with with no association with any of the individuals you name above.

  39. @Balaji
    Jan 6, 2016 The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!

    Thanks for the link to the manasa-taramgini blog. I suspect that the anonymous author of the article is none other than Michael Witzel, Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. That would explain the philological knowledge. He would also have been briefed by his colleagues from the Reich Lab on their findings. This would also explain his speculation (much to the annoyance of Davidski) that the Maikop or some other North Caucasian culture spoke PIE. Patterson of the Reich Lab made the same speculation as reported in the Harvard Gazette.

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

    As of now, I am an unabashed OIT-ist. If the Rakhigarhi people turn out to have as much ASI as Miss America 2014, I will have to eat humble pie. I expect them to have higher ANI than North Indian Brahmins.

    Do you really believe Michael Witzel would write something as stupid as this?

    -A two invasion scenario with a non-Indo-European population with primarily CHG ancestry that came first followed by Indo-Europeans. So only a part of the Indians with ANI have really Indo-Aryan ancestry with rest of ANI being from a non-Indo-European source. Some whites and their fellow travelers with a poor understanding of Indian ethnography seem to like this scenario. However, we hold that this is unlikely because even given a multiple invasion scenario (which in itself is possible) the earliest admixtures as calculated by linkage disequilibrium are too recent for such an imagined non-IE invasion.

    This guy seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder, and obviously can’t bear the thought of the Indo-Aryans coming from Europe and looking European.

    But he’ll have to bear it at some stage, because the idea that Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans came from Maikop and R1a-Z93 from the Caucasus makes no sense.

    Close relatives of Andronovo, Potapovka, Srubnaya and Sintashta did migrate to South Asia, and made a huge impact there, and they were closely related to Corded Ware and came from either the Corded Ware horizon or nearby. They did not come from the Caucasus nor did they develop from Maikop.

    Anyone who can’t see this yet doesn’t understand the data or doesn’t want to because it makes their own pet theories look stupid.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    Do you really believe Michael Witzel would write something as stupid as this?


    dawg, be chill please.
  40. @Davidski
    Do you really believe Michael Witzel would write something as stupid as this?

    -A two invasion scenario with a non-Indo-European population with primarily CHG ancestry that came first followed by Indo-Europeans. So only a part of the Indians with ANI have really Indo-Aryan ancestry with rest of ANI being from a non-Indo-European source. Some whites and their fellow travelers with a poor understanding of Indian ethnography seem to like this scenario. However, we hold that this is unlikely because even given a multiple invasion scenario (which in itself is possible) the earliest admixtures as calculated by linkage disequilibrium are too recent for such an imagined non-IE invasion.
     
    This guy seems to have a huge chip on his shoulder, and obviously can't bear the thought of the Indo-Aryans coming from Europe and looking European.

    But he'll have to bear it at some stage, because the idea that Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans came from Maikop and R1a-Z93 from the Caucasus makes no sense.

    Close relatives of Andronovo, Potapovka, Srubnaya and Sintashta did migrate to South Asia, and made a huge impact there, and they were closely related to Corded Ware and came from either the Corded Ware horizon or nearby. They did not come from the Caucasus nor did they develop from Maikop.

    Anyone who can't see this yet doesn't understand the data or doesn't want to because it makes their own pet theories look stupid.

    Do you really believe Michael Witzel would write something as stupid as this?

    dawg, be chill please.

  41. @Thirdeye
    My understanding of the Jomon is that they were derived from a northern continental Australoid population and a southern Ryukyuan Austronesian population. The Ryukyuan population got to the main islands first, but the northern Australoid population became dominant. The Altai region seems like it was a big trading post for genes and languages from which the proto-Jomon migrated.

    Yeah.

    I was reading about language family theories and looking at maps and wondering about how you might get from the Urals to Japan e.g. Kamchatka -> Kuril island chain

    Just messing really but funny if it were true.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    If you're talking about physical migration, the main Japanese islands were connected to the mainland when the sea level was lower.

    The Tamil-Finnish association spun a few heads. The Runic Swastika in Scandinavia appears to be another central Asian connection.

    If the Uralic group is really as widespread as a possible inclusion of Dravidian and Japanese languages suggests, it makes me wonder about a possible relationship to the origins of the Turkic and Mongolic languages.
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Razib,

    I think your theory is most likely correct. However I do not share your confidence in the results from Rakhigarhi. The dig there is highly politicized and I think the ASI archaeologists have already made up their mind that Rakhigarhi will disprove any IndoEuropean migration in to India. There have already been sketchy reports about cremation grounds and vedic sacrificial altars being found at Rakhigarhi based on what seems to be to be very sketchy evidence. I certainly hope that a competent lab like Reich lab or ICBS Hyderabad does the study and not the ASI.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i am pessimistic in that i assume in india it will be spun to 'prove' or support OIT. that's what happened to the previous results which clearly showed the converse. i don't care, indians gonna india. if the data is open you can reanalyze trivially. the original 2009 reich paper was reported in india as disproving the 'aryan invasion theory' when it was consistent with it, even if it did not prove it (from what i can tell even then the reich group were surprised about how recent and substantial much of the ancestry was).
    , @Jaydeepsinh Rathod
    I find it rather infuriating how these AMT/AIT proponents feel as if they are such holy cows who only have the best interests of science at heart & how the Indians opposed to it are biased and will try every trick to disprove it even if there is no evidence to support OIT.

    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is - AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    And lastly, be prepared for one thing - ancient DNA from South Asia might just bury the Aryan Migration Theory into the dust foreover. Stay open to that idea. What I fear is - if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

  43. @Anonymous
    Razib,

    I think your theory is most likely correct. However I do not share your confidence in the results from Rakhigarhi. The dig there is highly politicized and I think the ASI archaeologists have already made up their mind that Rakhigarhi will disprove any IndoEuropean migration in to India. There have already been sketchy reports about cremation grounds and vedic sacrificial altars being found at Rakhigarhi based on what seems to be to be very sketchy evidence. I certainly hope that a competent lab like Reich lab or ICBS Hyderabad does the study and not the ASI.

    i am pessimistic in that i assume in india it will be spun to ‘prove’ or support OIT. that’s what happened to the previous results which clearly showed the converse. i don’t care, indians gonna india. if the data is open you can reanalyze trivially. the original 2009 reich paper was reported in india as disproving the ‘aryan invasion theory’ when it was consistent with it, even if it did not prove it (from what i can tell even then the reich group were surprised about how recent and substantial much of the ancestry was).

    • Replies: @Vijay
    Why were they surprised? everything from history, religion, literature, coins, myth have shown a series of (unfortunate?) events starting from 2000 BC all the way to 1000 AD.
  44. @Razib Khan
    i am pessimistic in that i assume in india it will be spun to 'prove' or support OIT. that's what happened to the previous results which clearly showed the converse. i don't care, indians gonna india. if the data is open you can reanalyze trivially. the original 2009 reich paper was reported in india as disproving the 'aryan invasion theory' when it was consistent with it, even if it did not prove it (from what i can tell even then the reich group were surprised about how recent and substantial much of the ancestry was).

    Why were they surprised? everything from history, religion, literature, coins, myth have shown a series of (unfortunate?) events starting from 2000 BC all the way to 1000 AD.

  45. There is no need to be concerned with the accuracy of the analysis of the Rakhigarhi skeletons. This will be done by the Shin Lab in Korea and can be replicated by labs anywhere in the world.

    http://shinpaleopathology.blogspot.com/

  46. Whether Davidski is Polako or not, I have not seen either of them ever admitting he was wrong in anything. Either he is an infallible genius or a very self assured charlatan.

    His use of the word “European” is very problematic. I have seen him claiming genetic continuity at least in the Eastern part of Europe(Steppe) in the Holocene, but it was not very convincing and appears to stem from amateur misunderstanding of statistics.

    Shared ancestry between Europeans and South Asians is just that. There is nothing that justifies his notion that Europeans are purer, nobler and more legitimate successors to that ancestry. Whether one group geographically moved around more is immaterial. All modern populations are results of admixture. Theoretically it is possible that Eastern Europeans admixed less thus are closer to the ancestral form but that is not what happened, at least not to the extent one can draw a clear boundary.

    Also “looking European” is not a very scientific term. It should be reminded that Malta boy was originally classified by Soviet scientists as “Mongoloid”.

  47. @Anonymous
    Razib,

    I think your theory is most likely correct. However I do not share your confidence in the results from Rakhigarhi. The dig there is highly politicized and I think the ASI archaeologists have already made up their mind that Rakhigarhi will disprove any IndoEuropean migration in to India. There have already been sketchy reports about cremation grounds and vedic sacrificial altars being found at Rakhigarhi based on what seems to be to be very sketchy evidence. I certainly hope that a competent lab like Reich lab or ICBS Hyderabad does the study and not the ASI.

    I find it rather infuriating how these AMT/AIT proponents feel as if they are such holy cows who only have the best interests of science at heart & how the Indians opposed to it are biased and will try every trick to disprove it even if there is no evidence to support OIT.

    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is – AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    And lastly, be prepared for one thing – ancient DNA from South Asia might just bury the Aryan Migration Theory into the dust foreover. Stay open to that idea. What I fear is – if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

    • Replies: @Bultare
    Care to tell what kind of proof would be necessary for you to switch over to the AIT camp?
    , @Razib Khan
    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is – AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    they are plenty of data. some of it i've posted on this blog and you are familiar with. you are either ignorant, stupid, or biased, on this issue, or a combination thereof.

    my posting of your comment and response is not cart blanche for you to start unleashing incoherent and contentless verbal volleys (i approve comments, and i've seen your aptitude and inclination in this direction on *some* topics).

    What I fear is – if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

    if OIT is validated i'd be kind of excited. lots of stuff to re-work, but lots of more funding for ancient DNA and genetics, since some basic assumptions are wrong. i don't care about indian genetics from a political perspective, so admixture or not is irrelevant (i'm not a white nationalist or a an indian nationalist, the two groups who seem to care).

  48. @Shaikorth
    That would be something no one has yet tried.

    Considering the Japanese ethnogenesis and likely age of any segments they might share with British or Irish, I wonder if it's even possible to come up with anything that can be connected to Japanese specifically and not to either Ainu or non-Ainu part of Japanese genome shared with Koreans and Chinese. These speak languages with no clear relation to Japanese or to each other so...

    It really does look like the Ainu are the result of an Australoid migration distinct from the Australoid Jomon founders and the languages tend to support that. MtDNA Haplogroup D1 shows up in Jomon skeletons but not among the Ainu. It has also been found among some villages on the lower Amur River. Its rare presence among Native Americans is suggestive of an early Australoid migration. It’s one of the more common clades in paleoindian skeletons.

    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    On a genomewide level all analyzed paleoamerican remains are like modern natives though, see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884.abstract
  49. @Jaydeepsinh Rathod
    I find it rather infuriating how these AMT/AIT proponents feel as if they are such holy cows who only have the best interests of science at heart & how the Indians opposed to it are biased and will try every trick to disprove it even if there is no evidence to support OIT.

    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is - AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    And lastly, be prepared for one thing - ancient DNA from South Asia might just bury the Aryan Migration Theory into the dust foreover. Stay open to that idea. What I fear is - if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

    Care to tell what kind of proof would be necessary for you to switch over to the AIT camp?

  50. @notanon
    Yeah.

    I was reading about language family theories and looking at maps and wondering about how you might get from the Urals to Japan e.g. Kamchatka -> Kuril island chain

    http://www.geocities.jp/warera_tikyujin/islands/map_wide.gif

    Just messing really but funny if it were true.

    If you’re talking about physical migration, the main Japanese islands were connected to the mainland when the sea level was lower.

    The Tamil-Finnish association spun a few heads. The Runic Swastika in Scandinavia appears to be another central Asian connection.

    If the Uralic group is really as widespread as a possible inclusion of Dravidian and Japanese languages suggests, it makes me wonder about a possible relationship to the origins of the Turkic and Mongolic languages.

  51. @Thirdeye
    It really does look like the Ainu are the result of an Australoid migration distinct from the Australoid Jomon founders and the languages tend to support that. MtDNA Haplogroup D1 shows up in Jomon skeletons but not among the Ainu. It has also been found among some villages on the lower Amur River. Its rare presence among Native Americans is suggestive of an early Australoid migration. It's one of the more common clades in paleoindian skeletons.

    On a genomewide level all analyzed paleoamerican remains are like modern natives though, see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884.abstract

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    I wonder what their explanation for the distribution of D1 would be. I understand some researchers consider it a novel North American clade, but it's not.
  52. @Jaydeepsinh Rathod
    I find it rather infuriating how these AMT/AIT proponents feel as if they are such holy cows who only have the best interests of science at heart & how the Indians opposed to it are biased and will try every trick to disprove it even if there is no evidence to support OIT.

    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is - AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    And lastly, be prepared for one thing - ancient DNA from South Asia might just bury the Aryan Migration Theory into the dust foreover. Stay open to that idea. What I fear is - if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is – AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    they are plenty of data. some of it i’ve posted on this blog and you are familiar with. you are either ignorant, stupid, or biased, on this issue, or a combination thereof.

    my posting of your comment and response is not cart blanche for you to start unleashing incoherent and contentless verbal volleys (i approve comments, and i’ve seen your aptitude and inclination in this direction on *some* topics).

    What I fear is – if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

    if OIT is validated i’d be kind of excited. lots of stuff to re-work, but lots of more funding for ancient DNA and genetics, since some basic assumptions are wrong. i don’t care about indian genetics from a political perspective, so admixture or not is irrelevant (i’m not a white nationalist or a an indian nationalist, the two groups who seem to care).

    • Replies: @Vijay
    Why is there a need to even entertain an Out-of-India theory? Is there a skull, a skeleton, a DNA fragment that gives us anything to indicate there existed anything that can come out of India?
  53. @Shaikorth
    On a genomewide level all analyzed paleoamerican remains are like modern natives though, see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/aab3884.abstract

    I wonder what their explanation for the distribution of D1 would be. I understand some researchers consider it a novel North American clade, but it’s not.

  54. @Razib Khan
    The fact is, AIT/AMT has not been proven despite being a theory in existence from 150 years. Any sensible scholarly discipline would discard a theory as useless as this which cannot even after 150 years find any evidence in support of its argument. The fact is – AIT/AMT proponents are biased. Learn to accept this about yourself. Do not think you fellows are any neutral. OIT proponents have as much a right to put forward their argument as you fellows.

    they are plenty of data. some of it i've posted on this blog and you are familiar with. you are either ignorant, stupid, or biased, on this issue, or a combination thereof.

    my posting of your comment and response is not cart blanche for you to start unleashing incoherent and contentless verbal volleys (i approve comments, and i've seen your aptitude and inclination in this direction on *some* topics).

    What I fear is – if an OIT scenario does appear most likely from ancient DNA, all these bloggers are going to start crying wolf. It would be interesting to see how sportingly they take evidence which is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

    if OIT is validated i'd be kind of excited. lots of stuff to re-work, but lots of more funding for ancient DNA and genetics, since some basic assumptions are wrong. i don't care about indian genetics from a political perspective, so admixture or not is irrelevant (i'm not a white nationalist or a an indian nationalist, the two groups who seem to care).

    Why is there a need to even entertain an Out-of-India theory? Is there a skull, a skeleton, a DNA fragment that gives us anything to indicate there existed anything that can come out of India?

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    Why is there a need to even entertain an Out-of-India theory? Is there a skull, a skeleton, a DNA fragment that gives us anything to indicate there existed anything that can come out of India?

    OIT actually makes a lot of sense in the pleistocene. all east eurasian/oceanian/and amerindian groups probably have most of their ancestry coming from/through s. asia (the ANE in amerindians no). also, there are suggestions from mtDNA that many west eurasian groups may be basal from south asia, though less consensus (so s. asia might have served as a refuge).
  55. Hey Razib, which groups would then have the highest hunter-gatherer/first migration ancestry in the indian subcontinent? Would it still be concentrated in tribal groups and low castes, despite their y-dnas being similar to other populations?

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2024885451/2044556518/mmc1.pdf

    check table s4
  56. “But I’ve definitely increased my uncertainty, from ~25% to ~50%, with the balance split between the two models (or some combinations thereof).”

    How Tetlockian! Have you gotten involved in any of the tournaments? It appears to become (for some) a mind-boggling commitment. I know one can do as little or as much as one wants, but for this kind of intellectual crack that smacks of famous last words.

  57. @Guy
    Hey Razib, which groups would then have the highest hunter-gatherer/first migration ancestry in the indian subcontinent? Would it still be concentrated in tribal groups and low castes, despite their y-dnas being similar to other populations?
  58. @Vijay
    Why is there a need to even entertain an Out-of-India theory? Is there a skull, a skeleton, a DNA fragment that gives us anything to indicate there existed anything that can come out of India?

    Why is there a need to even entertain an Out-of-India theory? Is there a skull, a skeleton, a DNA fragment that gives us anything to indicate there existed anything that can come out of India?

    OIT actually makes a lot of sense in the pleistocene. all east eurasian/oceanian/and amerindian groups probably have most of their ancestry coming from/through s. asia (the ANE in amerindians no). also, there are suggestions from mtDNA that many west eurasian groups may be basal from south asia, though less consensus (so s. asia might have served as a refuge).

  59. @Tribunal

    Dravidian might be authochronous, but I don’t really think that is the most likely possibility. I think it is most likely that a fairly modest number of Y-DNA T men (probably Somalian) who were also the bearers of the crop package that was adopted in the South Indian Neolithic expanded from the middle of the Eastern coast of the Deccan Peninsula and that their language, with heavy substrate influence gave rise to the Dravidian language, and that they probably spoke a language at the far fringe of a historic Niger-Congo language range (sort of like proto-Swahili) that verged on a creole. I is hard to say anything with confidence about that, but Bernard Sargent has identified a lot of pretty compelling cultural similarities among Dravidian language speaking people that would coroborate such a hypothesis. Re the transfer of crops from Africa see Dorian Fuller et al., (2007) discussed at http://r.blogspot.com/2012/05/how-did-african-crops-get-to-india.html

    Y-DNA T is very common at a likely point of origin of proto-Dravidian and is essentially absent from the IVC and is also almost surely not autochronous in India, and is also very common on the Horn of Africa a likely departure place from maritime travelers carrying African crops there.
     
    ^ That whole segment is laughable and definitely wrong. First of all, in those times, there where no such thing as "somali", also modern somalians are mixed with backmigrating euroasian men who took local african women as wifes.

    Finally Haplogroup T is not indigenous to Africa, it migrated there from the middle east. And dravidian languages and people have nothing to do with any africans.

    Obviously, I am only using the term “Somali” as a geographic reference point. The political and cultural geography of the world has changed profoundly and repeatedly over the last 4500 years. But, nobody knows what the geographic area involved was called at the time, so we make do.

    And, while I agree that haplogroup T is a back migration to Africa, probably from the Middle East, it is quite likely that this back migration had already taken place by 2500 BCE, which is around the time of the South Indian Neolithic. The question, which is readily amenable to resolution even without ancient DNA, is whether the clades of Y-DNA haplogroup T found in India are derived from the clades that back migrated to Africa, or came directly from Mesopotamia.

    There is published high resolution Y-DNA haplogroup Y data available for almost everyplace that it is found outside of India in a paper of a few years ago, but there is not high resolution Y-DNA data available from India in any published source, so we will have to wait to learn where it came from.

    Simply rejecting any link between the Dravidian languages and people and Africans out of hand and without well reasoned argument is foolish. We know that Dravidian crops came in significant part from Africa. It is very plausible that Y-DNA T in India could be derived from Y-DNA T that first migrated to the Horn of Africa. There are cultural and architectural links between Dravidian culture and Africa. And, we know that Austronesian seafarers picked up some Indian DNA on their long passage from Borneo to Madagascar via East Africa (which contributed about half of the DNA of Madagascar) ca. 0 CE to 1000 CE, so maritime travel between Africa and Southern India was certainly possible. There are also linguistic correspondences between Dravidian and some African languages that are at least as strong as any other linguistic comparison that has been made to date (and which would be expected to be diluted at 4500 years of time depth).

    Now, apart from Y-DNA T in India, there is very little connection genetically between any Indian genetics like to have a non-Indo-Aryan source. So, any cultural and linguistic connection to either West Asia or Africa in Dravidian India could not have been due to a mass demic migration and instead had to derive from a few male individuals who brought, at a minimum knowledge regarding the cultivation of Africa crops, who were probably Y-DNA T men. But, those few people would have been the source of such essential cultural knowledge that they could very well have had outsized influence that endured.

    • Replies: @Tribunal
    @ohwilleke

    Your theory is not plausible at all. Its far more likely Y-dna T in India is part of the whole west euroasian package that accounts for the earliest introductions of west euroasian ancestry in south asia. It didnt come from Africa for sure. Middle eastern populations could easily have brought african crops with them to south asia. This is most likely what happened. And we have seen evience of asians being able to take the sea route towards africa, but no evidence of the contrary that africans where capable of traveling that distance taking the searoute.
  60. @ohwilleke
    Obviously, I am only using the term "Somali" as a geographic reference point. The political and cultural geography of the world has changed profoundly and repeatedly over the last 4500 years. But, nobody knows what the geographic area involved was called at the time, so we make do.

    And, while I agree that haplogroup T is a back migration to Africa, probably from the Middle East, it is quite likely that this back migration had already taken place by 2500 BCE, which is around the time of the South Indian Neolithic. The question, which is readily amenable to resolution even without ancient DNA, is whether the clades of Y-DNA haplogroup T found in India are derived from the clades that back migrated to Africa, or came directly from Mesopotamia.

    There is published high resolution Y-DNA haplogroup Y data available for almost everyplace that it is found outside of India in a paper of a few years ago, but there is not high resolution Y-DNA data available from India in any published source, so we will have to wait to learn where it came from.

    Simply rejecting any link between the Dravidian languages and people and Africans out of hand and without well reasoned argument is foolish. We know that Dravidian crops came in significant part from Africa. It is very plausible that Y-DNA T in India could be derived from Y-DNA T that first migrated to the Horn of Africa. There are cultural and architectural links between Dravidian culture and Africa. And, we know that Austronesian seafarers picked up some Indian DNA on their long passage from Borneo to Madagascar via East Africa (which contributed about half of the DNA of Madagascar) ca. 0 CE to 1000 CE, so maritime travel between Africa and Southern India was certainly possible. There are also linguistic correspondences between Dravidian and some African languages that are at least as strong as any other linguistic comparison that has been made to date (and which would be expected to be diluted at 4500 years of time depth).

    Now, apart from Y-DNA T in India, there is very little connection genetically between any Indian genetics like to have a non-Indo-Aryan source. So, any cultural and linguistic connection to either West Asia or Africa in Dravidian India could not have been due to a mass demic migration and instead had to derive from a few male individuals who brought, at a minimum knowledge regarding the cultivation of Africa crops, who were probably Y-DNA T men. But, those few people would have been the source of such essential cultural knowledge that they could very well have had outsized influence that endured.

    Your theory is not plausible at all. Its far more likely Y-dna T in India is part of the whole west euroasian package that accounts for the earliest introductions of west euroasian ancestry in south asia. It didnt come from Africa for sure. Middle eastern populations could easily have brought african crops with them to south asia. This is most likely what happened. And we have seen evience of asians being able to take the sea route towards africa, but no evidence of the contrary that africans where capable of traveling that distance taking the searoute.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS