quote:The studied individuals [from ancient Mesopotamian sites in Syria] carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
According to this recent map which had theorized the early OOA exit was into Southern Arabia, rather than out of Egypt the path that follows is along the coast of Southern Iran/Pakistan to India.
Then it doubles back and again into Iran/Iraq (Mesopotamia) and then on to the entire Western half of Eurasia
A separate route goes into the Eastern half of Eurasia, the common factor, India
"Out of Africa Route-Into India and the Peopling of Eurasia"
posted
I know almost nothing about the story of Mesopotamia beside that it was great civilization. This article, if true, accurate and representative shows that the current people living in Syria today, the current population structure, are not the same as the ones in the past during the ancient empires.
It talks about "depopulation and recolonisation".
quote:This[preceding dental study] showed a stable population until after the Mongolian invasion which resulted in a large depopulation of northern Mesopotamia in the 13th century CE. The final major change occurred during the 17th century with Bedouin tribes arriving from the Arabian Peninsula.
We know that a similar situation probably happened between Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt.
Considering that Syria is at war at the moment, I hope to see the study previewed Beyoku out soon, with the official result out, we would have something concrete to talk about from that angle. Any news Beyoku?
aDNA of Ancient Egyptian remains, as well as aDNA study for other ancient civilizations in the Sahara and the rest of Africa can be very interesting to study ancient population structures (which are usually different that in the far past due to multiple migrations events, climate change, invasion, admixture, depopulation, etc).
What I retained is that ancient population in the past are not always the same as modern population.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody knows if those results make sense in relation to the history of Mesopotamia (past and more modern)? Was there a Mongolian and Bedouin invasion resulting in modern depopulation and repopulation?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I know almost nothing about the story of Mesopotamia beside that it was great civilization. This article, if true, accurate and representative shows that the current people living in Syria today, the current population structure, are not the same as the ones in the past during the ancient empires.
It talks about "depopulation and recolonisation".
quote:This[preceding dental study] showed a stable population until after the Mongolian invasion which resulted in a large depopulation of northern Mesopotamia in the 13th century CE. The final major change occurred during the 17th century with Bedouin tribes arriving from the Arabian Peninsula.
We know that a similar situation probably happened between Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt.
Considering that Syria is at war at the moment, I hope to see the study previewed Beyoku out soon, with the official result out, we would have something concrete to talk about from that angle. Any news Beyoku?
aDNA of Ancient Egyptian remains, as well as aDNA study for other ancient civilizations in the Sahara and the rest of Africa can be very interesting to study ancient population structures (which are usually different that in the far past due to multiple migrations events, climate change, invasion, admixture, depopulation, etc).
What I retained is that ancient population in the past are not always the same as modern population.
Of course they are not the same. The people living in these areas were black. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Elamites, Persians, Assyrians, Akkadians, and more were all black people. They had a profound influence on Greek mythology.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Of course they are not the same. The people living in these areas were black. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Elamites, Persians, Assyrians, Akkadians, and more were all black people. They had a profound influence on Greek mythology.
It doesn't seem they were black people (aka African people) either according to the haplogroups posted above. MtDNA M4b1, M49 and M61 haplogroups are very rare among modern unadmixed African people. Possibly maybe I don't know 30-60kya separate those haplogroups from their origin in Africa (those dating always changes I don't remember the latest) with little interaction with African people afterward (due to distances) for a relatively long time. That is the origin of all humans before the OOA migration.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote: black people (aka African people)
Major mistake confusing a continent for a color.
May I suggest Aeschylus, Manilius, and al~Jahiz for who are the black people of the old world.
Of course you're free to acquiesce to the 21st century revamped notion of the African "negro" as the only true black people on the planet, though I'd agree that Ebony Allen stretches black identity too freely disallowing the fact of colour variance among ancient Arabian plate and Arabian Sea people.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ebony Allen, just now reading your post above mine. Since its easy to misinterpret, I just like to point out that my "of course they were" is not in relation to you saying the Ancients weren't the same as the moderns, but to the thread title.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course they were. Now, where is Goredema?
posted
That was a great thread. Can someone find and bump it?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote: black people (aka African people)
Major mistake confusing a continent for a color.
May I suggest Aeschylus, Manilius, and al~Jahiz for who are the black people of the old world.
Of course you're free to acquiesce to the 21st century revamped notion of the African "negro" as the only true black people on the planet, though I'd agree that Ebony Allen stretches black identity too freely disallowing the fact of colour variance among ancient Arabian plate and Arabian Sea people.
I haven't read this one yet. But all recent papers on ancient DNA proved Sergi right thus far. Where am I going with this? Sergi suggested that the ancestral population of Mesopatamia originated in the same region as all Meditarrean civilizations...Sudan area.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This paper is interesting but it does not really show a relationship with India. We already have abundant evidence of a relationship between india and Sumer based on the trade between sumer and Dilmun, the name fo the Indus Valley.
This paper reexamines speciments from Terqa that date to the middle of the 2nd millenium BC.
Terqa is located between Ebla and Sumer. There is no evidence that this was a Sumerian site.
The original excavators of specimen TQ28F 112, which is now classified as hg M49, was originally said to belong to hg K (M9). This gentleman was tall and carried a bronze sword, he may have been indigenous, since the earliest skeleton from Terqa, date to 6000BC and carried hg K.
The people at Terqa were not isolated from the rest of the world. The people at Terqa had trade relationships with the East, as illustrated by the discovery of cloves at terqa. Cloves were cultivated on the Molucca Island. No matter what the origin for specimen TQ28F 112, the people of Terqa were not Sumerians. Specimen TQ28F 112, if we accept his identification as M49, would place the indidividual in Tibet and therefore would not confirm any alledged migration of Dravidian or Indo-Aryan people into Mesopotamia, from India.
We do have firm evidence of Dravidians using red-and-black ware migrating from Nubia, into India and Mesopotamia.The Sumerians and Dravidians belonged the Maa Civilization, that formerly existed in Middle Africa. The Dravidians who settled the Indus Valley, which was called Dilmun by the Sumerians according to Kramer, had intimate relations with the Sumerians, but not the people of Terqa.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I know almost nothing about the story of Mesopotamia beside that it was great civilization. This article, if true, accurate and representative shows that the current people living in Syria today, the current population structure, are not the same as the ones in the past during the ancient empires.
It talks about "depopulation and recolonisation".
quote:This[preceding dental study] showed a stable population until after the Mongolian invasion which resulted in a large depopulation of northern Mesopotamia in the 13th century CE. The final major change occurred during the 17th century with Bedouin tribes arriving from the Arabian Peninsula.
We know that a similar situation probably happened between Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt.
Considering that Syria is at war at the moment, I hope to see the study previewed Beyoku out soon, with the official result out, we would have something concrete to talk about from that angle. Any news Beyoku?
aDNA of Ancient Egyptian remains, as well as aDNA study for other ancient civilizations in the Sahara and the rest of Africa can be very interesting to study ancient population structures (which are usually different that in the far past due to multiple migrations events, climate change, invasion, admixture, depopulation, etc).
What I retained is that ancient population in the past are not always the same as modern population.
The war in Syria is also based on ethnic cleansing. Not just religious interpretation.
By this I mean, some ethnic groups may represent ancient populations. But we might never find out, since millions of people are fleeing the country at this moment, while other simply can make it out, and get killed.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The studied individuals [from ancient Mesopotamian sites in Syria] carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.
In addition, if I may?
Received: May 22, 2013; Accepted: July 20, 2013; Published: September 11, 2013
mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization
quote: Abstract
Ancient DNA methodology was applied to analyse sequences extracted from freshly unearthed remains (teeth) of 4 individuals deeply deposited in slightly alkaline soil of the Tell Ashara (ancient Terqa) and Tell Masaikh (ancient Kar-Assurnasirpal) Syrian archaeological sites, both in the middle Euphrates valley. Dated to the period between 2.5 Kyrs BC and 0.5 Kyrs AD the studied individuals carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Paleolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, they are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan. We anticipate that the analysed remains from Mesopotamia belonged to people with genetic affinity to the Indian subcontinent since the distribution of identified ancient haplotypes indicates solid link with populations from the region of South Asia-Tibet (Trans-Himalaya). They may have been descendants of migrants from much earlier times, spreading the clades of the macrohaplogroup M throughout Eurasia and founding regional Mesopotamian groups like that of Terqa or just merchants moving along trade routes passing near or through the region. None of the successfully identified nuclear alleles turned out to be ΔF508 CFTR, LCT-13910T or Δ32 CCR5.
quote:Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
--Priya Moorjani
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 93, Issue 3, 422-438, 08 August 2013
quote:Originally posted by lamin: That Stringer 2011 map is erroneous. Haplogroup analysis does not support a pre-Islamic movement from West Asia into Africa.
The map is also incomplete in that it does not show much of the intra-Africa continental movements. After all, humans were in Africa for more than 70% of the appearance of Homo Sapiens. That Africa map should therefore be denser with arrows than anywhere else in the world.
Haplogroup analysis DOES support a pre-Islamic movement from West Asia into Africa.
the map is not supposed to show intra-Africa continental movements. It's an Out of Africa map And it is alos focused on the Peopling of Eurasia as the subtitle on the map indicates
This map illustates the thread theme> a relation between Indians and Mesopotamians
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: It's becoming rather interesting,
quote:Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
--Priya Moorjani
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 93, Issue 3, 422-438, 08 August 2013
Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia
Mait Metspalu et al 2011
abstract
South Asia harbors one of the highest levels genetic diversity in Eurasia, which could be interpreted as a result of its long-term large effective population size and of admixture during its complex demographic history. In contrast to Pakistani populations, populations of Indian origin have been underrepresented in previous genomic scans of positive selection and population structure. Here we report data for more than 600,000 SNP markers genotyped in 142 samples from 30 ethnic groups in India. Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP. Consistent with the results of pairwise genetic distances among world regions, Indians share more ancestry signals with West than with East Eurasians. However, compared to Pakistani populations, a higher proportion of their genes show regionally specific signals of high haplotype homozygosity. Among such candidates of positive selection in India are MSTN and DOK5, both of which have potential implications in lipid metabolism and the etiology of type 2 diabetes.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: It's becoming rather interesting,
quote:Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent. The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history. We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago. In a subset of groups, 100% of the mixture is consistent with having occurred during this period. These results show that India experienced a demographic transformation several thousand years ago, from a region in which major population mixture was common to one in which mixture even between closely related groups became rare because of a shift to endogamy.
--Priya Moorjani
Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 93, Issue 3, 422-438, 08 August 2013
The dates conform to the dates for the Indo-European invasion of India. The Indo-Aryan Indians used painted grey ware.
.
Yes, it does. Whereas other studies dispute this invasion.
Here is an old study. From the same region. Not directly related to the issue. Never the less it's interesting. It gives explanation to the intrusion into Africa, from the Levant.
quote: ABSTRACT: The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times.
Thus, Palestinian- Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences.
The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Human Immunology 62, 889-900 (2001). ă American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, 2001. Published by Elsevier Sciece Inc.
[...]
During the second millennium BC, Egyptian hegemony and Canaanite autonomy were constantly challenged by such ethnically diverse invaders as the Amorites, Hittites, and Hurrians from Anatolia and the East. These invaders, however, were defeated by the Egyptians and absorbed by the Canaanites, who at that time may have numbered about 200,000. Egyptian power began to weaken, and new invaders or autochthonous people appeared or made themselves noticeable [4].
[...]
By 1500-1200 BC the Greek presence was very scarce in Canaan, according to archaeologic records [6]. In fact, the “Mycaenian” Greeks attacked Crete by 1450 BC after rendering tributes to Cretans by a relatively long period.
The Cretan Aegean Sea empire was destroyed and continued by the Mycaenians. Greeks are found to have a substantial HLA gene flow from sub-Saharan Ethiopian and Black people [3,20]. This is why Greeks are Mediterranean outliers in all kind of analyses [19-21,28]. This African genetic and cultural input was documented by Herodotus [33] who states that the daughters of Danaus (who were black) came from Egypt in great numbers to settle in Greece. Also, ancient Greeks believed that their religion and culture came from Egypt [33]. An explanation of the Egypt-to-Greece migration may be that a densely populated Sahara (before 5000 BC) may have contained an admixture of Negroid and Caucasoid populations, and some of the Negroid populations may have migrated by chance or unknown causes towards present day Greece [19,34-36].
This could have occurred when hyperarid Saharan condition become established and large-scale migration occurred in all directions out from the desert. In this case, the most ancient Greek Pelasgian substratum would come from a Negroid stock. A more likely explanation is that at an undetermined time during Egyptian pharaonic times a Black dynasty with their followers were expelled and went towards Greece where they settled [20, 30].
Once an African input to the ancient Greek genetic pool is established, it remains to be determined what the cultural importance of this input is for constructing the classical Hellenistic culture. The reason why a sub- Saharan admixture is not seen in Crete is unclear but may be related to the influential and strong Minoan empire, which hindered foreigners establishment if the African invasion occurred in Minoan times [19, 20].
--Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al.
The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With Other Mediterranean Populations
posted
The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India.http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GOMTUU: The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India.http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html
Yes, I know that one.
Then we have this:
The Aryan Invasion Theory is False - Genetic Evidence
No trace of “demographic disruption” in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.
Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”
Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and “Caucasoid” populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.”
- U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.
Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.
- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.
mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.” This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.
If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.
- Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.
“Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the linguistically defined groups in India should be considered more ‘autochthonous’ than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.”
- Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.
Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
Kivisild came to the conclusion that "southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup": "Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup".[12]
“Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation.”
- Kivilsid - 2003
Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a “Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,” i.e. of the Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an “Indo-European expansion,” an identification they called “convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic.” To them, the subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: “The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.”
“Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus....” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”
The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed. R2 is very rare in Europe.
Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006.
“The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.”
“The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.”
“Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.” As a result, “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools,” a conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.
Sanghamitra Sahoo, T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. - 2006.
When Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards the Middle East and Western Europe: “indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.”
-Lluís Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates
“For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”
-Stephen Oppenheimer
A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed "no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals". Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.
In its conclusions the study proposed "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins" as well as "the origin of R1a1* ... in the Indian subcontinent".
S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe. - Sharma et al 2009
"This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide." "There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."
The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
"Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different." The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
"The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world. Thangaraj and Singh at a press conference.
"Reconstructing Indian Population History" - David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh - 2009
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Swenet, I already had it posted earlier on. In this thread.
In their opening statement they start with:
quote: Most Indian groups descend from a mixture of two genetically divergent populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) related to Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and Europeans; and Ancestral South Indians (ASI) not closely related to groups outside the subcontinent.
The date of mixture is unknown but has implications for understanding Indian history.
Here is what is being said in a source, published in the: European Journal of Human Genetics (2003) 11, 253–264
quote:The Indian mtDNA gene pool appears to be more closely related to the east Eurasian gene pool (including central, east and southeast Asian populations) than the west Eurasian one (including European and Caucasian populations).
This is in a paper published by: Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 January; 19(1): 95–101.
quote: Major R1b Founder Effect in West Europe
R1b-M412 appears to be the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe (>70%), while being virtually absent in the Near East, the Caucasus and West Asia (Figure 1f). Recent founder effects could explain why the M412-L11 assemblage of chromosomes is abundant and restricted to Western parts of Europe (Figure 1f and g).
--Natalie M Myres et al.
A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe
And we have: BJMG 11/2 (2008) 25-30 10.2478/v10034-008-0030-0
quote:Although it was not possible to determine a contribution of Neolithic farmers to the Caucasian gene pool, the principal component analysis showed clear differences between these populations and those of Europe, Siberia and Asia. No evidence of correlation between genetic and linguistic data in our populations was disclosed.
Armenians are a separate ethnic group, which originated from Neolithic tribes of the Armenian Uplands. In the 12th- 11th centuries BC...
However, we cannot exclude a Neolithic contribution to the contemporary gene pool. The possible reason for the absence of the frequency distribution gradient can be genetic drift, reinforced by isolation that could conceal the influence of Neolithic farmers on the Caucasus populations [1,21].
While an Alu insertion marker does not have enough power of resolution to assess the contribution of the influence of Neolithic farmers on the Caucasian gene pool, it clearly separates both South and North Caucasus populations (except Karanogays) from Siberian and Asian populations.
--Litvinov S*, Kutuev I, Yunusbayev B, Khusainova R, Valiev R, Khusnutdinova E
ALU INSERTION POLYMORPHISMS IN POPULATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stringer/Nat Geo 2011
quote:Originally posted by lamin: That Stringer 2011 map is erroneous. Haplogroup analysis does not support a pre-Islamic movement from West Asia into Africa.
The map is also incomplete in that it does not show much of the intra-Africa continental movements. After all, humans were in Africa for more than 70% of the appearance of Homo Sapiens. That Africa map should therefore be denser with arrows than anywhere else in the world.
Haplogroup analysis DOES support a pre-Islamic movement from West Asia into Africa.
the map is not supposed to show intra-Africa continental movements. It's an Out of Africa map And it is alos focused on the Peopling of Eurasia as the subtitle on the map indicates
This map illustates the thread theme> a relation between Indians and Mesopotamians
The movement on that map seems odd, if you're trying to couple it with the spread of India, ancient Mesopotamia and North Africa at the same time.
Anyway, the most likely candite group to enter, I think, are Gypsy people. These people are from a India dispersal. However, it is being said that they entered Central Europe recently.
A Microsatellite Guided Insight into the Genetic Status of Adi, an Isolated Hunting-Gathering Tribe of Northeast India
S. Krithika, Suvendu Maji, T. S. Vasulu*
Biological Anthropology Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India
Tibeto-Burman populations of India provide an insight into the peopling of India and aid in understanding their genetic relationship with populations of East, South and Southeast Asia. The study investigates the genetic status of one such Tibeto-Burman group, Adi of Arunachal Pradesh based on 15 autosomal microsatellite markers. Further the study examines, based on 9 common microsatellite loci, the genetic relationship of Adi with 16 other Tibeto-Burman speakers of India and 28 neighboring populations of East and Southeast Asia. Overall, the results support the recent formation of the Adi sub-tribes from a putative ancestral group and reveal that geographic contiguity is a major influencing factor of the genetic affinity among the Tibeto-Burman populations of India.
Its not a critique of the paper as much as it is an analysis of the ramifications of the paper, within the context of a long history of (pseudo) scientific writing on the subject. I've never bought into the idea that the Indo-Aryan invasion is a myth (even though the amount of academics that were jumping on on that bandwagon was staggering). Forget the complex Linguistic and Morphometric stuff; if you're an academic and you're able to look at the Adivasi people and the people in the Bollywood movies, and somehow come to the conclusion that they're a continuum of the same meta-population (like Northern and Southern Europeans), then clearly, there is something horribly wrong with you. Razib Khan cites an academic who takes this to the max and who is of the mindset that not just the Indo-Aryan migration, but the caste system is a recent construct as well, which goes to show how far some of these researchers are willing to go with their blatant denialism. Make no mistake about it, there are flat-earthers in science, too.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is sad to say but much of the push to claim that the Dravidians are indiginous to India, amd there was no Aryan invasion is an attempt by the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) to make it appear that Dravidians are not related to Africans and that ancient Dravidians were Aryan speakers and did not recently settle in India.
Most Indian geneticists are Hindutva so they use genetics to attempt to deny that the Aryan invasion was a reality and that the Dravidians did not found the Indus Civilization. As a result, they ignore or intentionally refuse to publish data showing Dravidians and Africns are related--but they are unble to keep all geneticist lying about the myth of unity between Indian population.
The problem the Hindutva has is that they cannot rewrite decades of archeological and linguistic evidence supporting the unity of Dravidian and African people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is sad to say but much of the push to claim that the Dravidians are indiginous to India, amd there was no Aryan invasion is an attempt by the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) to make it appear that Dravidians are not related to Africans and that ancient Dravidians were Aryan speakers and did not recently settle in India.
Most Indian geneticists are Hindutva so they use genetics to attempt to deny that the Aryan invasion was a reality and that the Dravidians did not found the Indus Civilization. As a result, they ignore or intentionally refuse to publish data showing Dravidians and Africns are related--but they are unble to keep all geneticist lying about the myth of unity between Indian population.
The problem the Hindutva has is that they cannot rewrite decades of archeological and linguistic evidence supporting the unity of Dravidian and African people.
Refering to this quote from the study:
quote:The studied individuals [from ancient Mesopotamian sites in Syria] carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.
Are you saying the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 MtDNA haplogroups are haplogroups of African origin (post OOA of course, since all humans ultimately come from Africa, including indo-Aryan)? Those MtDNA hg seem to be rare in unadmixed African people.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Most Indian geneticists are Hindutva so they use genetics to attempt to deny that the Aryan invasion was a reality and that the Dravidians did not found the Indus Civilization.
Indeed. I do believe that the discomfort generated by the idea of highly civilized Indian aboriginals secretly plays a role in the staunch denialism of some of these proponents. After all, if the Aryan Invasion is not a myth, the creators of the Indus Valley complexes must be sought elsewhere. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time European ideologues and their lackeys concocted the presence of enlightened outside civilizing forces (who, for some reason always 'happen' to be molded in their image), to not have to deal with the distressing prospect of 'primitives' running the show, way before their ancestors did.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is sad to say but much of the push to claim that the Dravidians are indiginous to India, amd there was no Aryan invasion is an attempt by the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) to make it appear that Dravidians are not related to Africans and that ancient Dravidians were Aryan speakers and did not recently settle in India.
Most Indian geneticists are Hindutva so they use genetics to attempt to deny that the Aryan invasion was a reality and that the Dravidians did not found the Indus Civilization. As a result, they ignore or intentionally refuse to publish data showing Dravidians and Africns are related--but they are unble to keep all geneticist lying about the myth of unity between Indian population.
The problem the Hindutva has is that they cannot rewrite decades of archeological and linguistic evidence supporting the unity of Dravidian and African people.
Refering to this quote from the study:
quote:The studied individuals [from ancient Mesopotamian sites in Syria] carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.
Are you saying the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 MtDNA haplogroups are haplogroups of African origin (post OOA of course, since all humans ultimately come from Africa, including indo-Aryan)? Those MtDNA hg seem to be rare in unadmixed African people.
I neither have heard of that before, but who knows? Could be Clyde has different sources for info.
quote: The presence of M haplogroup in Ethiopia, named M1, led to the proposal that haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa, approximately 60,000 years ago, and was carried towards Asia [34].
Macrohaplogroup M is ubiquitous in India and covers more than 70 per cent of the Indian mtDNA lineages [28], [36]–[38]. Recent studies on complete mtDNA sequences (~187) tried to resolve the phylogeny of Indian macrohaplogroup M. As a result, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 [28], [36], [39]–[40], M18, M25 [38], M30, [41], M31 [42], [24] M33, M34, M35, M36, M37, M38, M39, M40 [22], M41, M42 [43], M43 [23], [44], M45 [45], [M48, M49, and M50 [46] haplogroups of M that was identified in India helped to a certain extent in understanding M genealogy in diversified Indian populations. In the above background, extensive sequencing of complete mtDNA of South Asia, particularly India, is essential for better understanding of the peopling of the non-African continents, and pathogenesis of diseases in various ethnic groups with different matrilineal backgrounds.
--Adimoolam Chandrasekar et al. 2009
Updating Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup M in India: Dispersal of Modern Human in South Asian Corridor
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Indeed. I do believe that the discomfort generated by the idea of highly civilized Indian aboriginals secretly plays a role in the staunch denialism of some of these proponents. After all, if the Aryan Invasion is not a myth, the creators of the Indus Valley complexes must be sought elsewhere. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time European ideologues and their lackeys concocted the presence of enlightened outside civilizing forces (who, for some reason always 'happen' to be molded in their image), to not have to deal with the distressing prospect of 'primitives' running the show, way before their ancestors did.
I believe the fundamental discomfort here comes from the fact that a barbarous light-skinned people (the Aryans) conquered and oppressed a dark-skinned civilization (the Indus Valley dudes) and that Hinduism as a belief system has its foundation in this oppression. That image isn't very flattering to upper-caste Hindus for obvious reasons.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is sad to say but much of the push to claim that the Dravidians are indigenous to India.....
what is your evidence that the Dravidians are not indigenous to India? If they are immigrants to India when did they come there?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Indeed. I do believe that the discomfort generated by the idea of highly civilized Indian aboriginals secretly plays a role in the staunch denialism of some of these proponents. After all, if the Aryan Invasion is not a myth, the creators of the Indus Valley complexes must be sought elsewhere. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time European ideologues and their lackeys concocted the presence of enlightened outside civilizing forces (who, for some reason always 'happen' to be molded in their image), to not have to deal with the distressing prospect of 'primitives' running the show, way before their ancestors did.
I believe the fundamental discomfort here comes from the fact that a barbarous light-skinned people (the Aryans) conquered and oppressed a dark-skinned civilization (the Indus Valley dudes) and that Hinduism as a belief system has its foundation in this oppression. That image isn't very flattering to upper-caste Hindus for obvious reasons.
Various Hindu people say that Aryan is a culture, nothing ethnic. I've heard many denounce the "race" claim.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes, this is cloudy. Some Indians say the old translations of the Vedas is corrupt when it comes to Aryas and Dasu because the Euros wanted to read their supposed ancestors into the record.
I have read of black Aryans (nobles) but the Veda xlations make the wars a white vs black thing with Indra aiding his white friends and Dasyu described as noseless (low or no bridge).
Thing is are Indians in the west going to tell the truth or deliver face saving PC? Does the code of Manu in fact state that something is odd when a Brahmin is black and a Sudra is white?
I don't think "white" dominance in India can be attributed to the British since it seems too ingrained in the society.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde the the Indus Valley Civilization aka Harappan is considered to have begun 3300 BC thats 500 years earlier but the roots of it are said to go back 7000 BC
Early Food Producing Era (Neolithic) 7000-5500 Mehrgarh I (aceramic Neolithic) 5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (ceramic Neolithic)
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It is sad to say but much of the push to claim that the Dravidians are indiginous to India, amd there was no Aryan invasion is an attempt by the Hindutva (Hindu Nationalist) to make it appear that Dravidians are not related to Africans and that ancient Dravidians were Aryan speakers and did not recently settle in India.
Most Indian geneticists are Hindutva so they use genetics to attempt to deny that the Aryan invasion was a reality and that the Dravidians did not found the Indus Civilization. As a result, they ignore or intentionally refuse to publish data showing Dravidians and Africns are related--but they are unble to keep all geneticist lying about the myth of unity between Indian population.
The problem the Hindutva has is that they cannot rewrite decades of archeological and linguistic evidence supporting the unity of Dravidian and African people.
Refering to this quote from the study:
quote:The studied individuals [from ancient Mesopotamian sites in Syria] carried mtDNA haplotypes corresponding to the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 haplogroups, which are believed to have arisen in the area of the Indian subcontinent during the Upper Palaeolithic and are absent in people living today in Syria. However, these same haplogroups are present in people inhabiting today’s Tibet, Himalayas, India and Pakistan.
Are you saying the M4b1, M49 and/or M61 MtDNA haplogroups are haplogroups of African origin (post OOA of course, since all humans ultimately come from Africa, including indo-Aryan)? Those MtDNA hg seem to be rare in unadmixed African people.
No. I am saying that they don't prove a relation between Dravidian and Mesopotamians.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde the the Indus Valley Civilization aka Harappan is considered to have begun 3300 BC thats 500 years earlier but the roots of it are said to go back 7000 BC
Early Food Producing Era (Neolithic) 7000-5500 Mehrgarh I (aceramic Neolithic) 5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (ceramic Neolithic)
The IVC did not begin 3000BC. Mehrgrh and IVC two different civilizations.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Good to meet with you Clyde I have a question for you about the Dravidians I have been reading books on Hebrew migrations all over Earth I came accross this book
On page 133 fishberg discusses Black Jews in India
Quote:
p 133
"The black Jews are of a totally different type. Schmidt observed that the colour of their skin is of various shadings, ranging from fair, like that of the European Jews, to dark, like that of the Dravidians, among whom they live."-------The Jews: a study of race and environment : Fishberg, Maurice
So according to Fishberg and Schmidt these BLACK HEBREWS look like the Dravidians that they live around.
He further stated
"Most of the black Jews are hardly to be distinguished from the native Hindus living on the Malabar coast"--------The Jews: a study of race and environment : Fishberg, Maurice
So Black Hebrews look just like hindus Dark skin
Now the Hebrew Historian Josephus quoted a man named Clearchus of Soli who mentioned a Hebrew people called "Calami" in India
Quote - "Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem." Josephus, Contra Apionem, I, 22.
So there is written EVIDENCE that a HEBREW PEOPLE called by Indians "Calami" lived in India
Also According to Josephus Hebrew tribes existed in India during the time of Rome.
CHAPTER 5. Josephus Antiquity of Jews book 11
HOW XERXES THE SON OF DARIUS WAS WELL DISPOSED TO THE JEWS; AS ALSO CONCERNING ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH,
"The entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers"
So black Hebrews lived in Asia
So my question is How do you know that the Dravidians are not descendants of exiled Hebrews?
Posts: 111 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde the the Indus Valley Civilization aka Harappan is considered to have begun 3300 BC thats 500 years earlier but the roots of it are said to go back 7000 BC
Early Food Producing Era (Neolithic) 7000-5500 Mehrgarh I (aceramic Neolithic) 5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (ceramic Neolithic)
The IVC did not begin 3000BC. Mehrgrh and IVC two different civilizations.
OK fine
you said
"Dravidians related to C-Group, research of B.B. Lal. They arrived in Indus Valley 2800BC."
Then were the people at Mehrgarh indigenous Indians?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Good to meet with you Clyde I have a question for you about the Dravidians I have been reading books on Hebrew migrations all over Earth I came accross this book
On page 133 fishberg discusses Black Jews in India
Quote:
p 133
"The black Jews are of a totally different type. Schmidt observed that the colour of their skin is of various shadings, ranging from fair, like that of the European Jews, to dark, like that of the Dravidians, among whom they live."-------The Jews: a study of race and environment : Fishberg, Maurice
So according to Fishberg and Schmidt these BLACK HEBREWS look like the Dravidians that they live around.
He further stated
"Most of the black Jews are hardly to be distinguished from the native Hindus living on the Malabar coast"--------The Jews: a study of race and environment : Fishberg, Maurice
So Black Hebrews look just like hindus Dark skin
Now the Hebrew Historian Josephus quoted a man named Clearchus of Soli who mentioned a Hebrew people called "Calami" in India
Quote - "Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city, it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem." Josephus, Contra Apionem, I, 22.
So there is written EVIDENCE that a HEBREW PEOPLE called by Indians "Calami" lived in India
Also According to Josephus Hebrew tribes existed in India during the time of Rome.
CHAPTER 5. Josephus Antiquity of Jews book 11
HOW XERXES THE SON OF DARIUS WAS WELL DISPOSED TO THE JEWS; AS ALSO CONCERNING ESDRAS AND NEHEMIAH,
"The entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers"
So black Hebrews lived in Asia
So my question is How do you know that the Dravidians are not descendants of exiled Hebrews?
The Hebrews originated in Egypt. By the exodus of the Hebrews the Dravidians had already founded the South Indian megalithic, and Indus Valley civilizations. Also the Dravidian languages are not related to Hebrew.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde the the Indus Valley Civilization aka Harappan is considered to have begun 3300 BC thats 500 years earlier but the roots of it are said to go back 7000 BC
Early Food Producing Era (Neolithic) 7000-5500 Mehrgarh I (aceramic Neolithic) 5500-3300 Mehrgarh II-VI (ceramic Neolithic)
The IVC did not begin 3000BC. Mehrgrh and IVC two different civilizations.
OK fine
you said
"Dravidians related to C-Group, research of B.B. Lal. They arrived in Indus Valley 2800BC."
Then were the people at Mehrgarh indigenous Indians?
Yes, they were Munda people.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the KushitesDravidians). The Proto-Australoid race, Mongoloid race and Africoid/ Mediterranean skeletal remains were all found at Harappan sites. The Australoid people are a mixed group that combines the classical Mongoloid and pgymies. The speech of this group of Austroloids is believed to be Austric, a specimen of this language survives in the Munda speech.(Thapar 1972,p.26) The Africoid/Mediterranean group is associated with Dravidian culture. The Negritos founded the earliest culture in the Indus Valley at Mehrgarh in 6000 B.C. They had domesticated goats and sheep and grew cereals.
posted
The Dravidians and Mande began to migrate out of Africa by 2800BC. They were part of the C-Group. They first settled in Iran and from here expanded into Central Asia and the Indus Valley.
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa . I call these people the Proto Saharans. I discuss their history here:
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups is called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
Up until the South Indian megalithic period the Dravidians continued to use black-and-red ware and Libyco-Berber/Indus Valley writing. Under the influence of the Ethiopians the script changed into what it is today. The architecture of the Dravidians is an ornamented pyramid with statues and other featured added within the construction of the pyramid.
Lal BB. 1963. “The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”. The Illustrated Times, London 20 April.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History and archaeology of Blackand Red ware. Vedic Books.net: Manchester.
Indus Valley
Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians were the founders of the Harappan culture which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan, on into Turkestan. The Harappan civilization existed from 2600-1700 B.C. The Harappan civilization was twice the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran, the Harappan city states also had active trade relations with the Central Asian peoples.(Winters 1990) Fairservis (1975) makes it clear that early cultures of Baluchistan are analogous to Early Dynastic Sumerian, this movement eastward of the ancient Kushites led to the rise of the Indus cultures. The Sumerians probably called the Indus Valley Dilmun. Dilmun was a rich trade center that provided Sumer with many valuable trade items.
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. The civilization here is called the megalithic, The ancient Indo-Aryan writings make it clear that the Indians were dark-skinned (varna) and had flat noses. (Durant 1935, p.396) This fact is supported by the Ali Tiraavitar (Old Dravidians) who are black as their African brothers with a difference in hair texture. In ancient Tamil poems they are described as mamai (black). In addition, the ancient Dravidians practiced a matriarchal system in Kerala and South Kanara.
In addition among the ali tiravitar, the system of inheritance passes from the uncle to his nephews, instead of to his sons (maru makkal Tayam) as in Africa. And in both South India and the Western Sudan of Africa, the dead were buried in terra cotta jars.
Dravidians used red-and Black pottery. They cultivated millet.
. All Indians are not Black. You may be able to classify the Dravidian and Munda people as Black.
There is mtDNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
Can Parallel Mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-1 motifs in Indian M haplogroup http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?hg07022
The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.
Reich et al, Reconstructing Indian population history, Nature 461:489-494 claims that the Indian Cline divides Indians into two groups Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI).
The ANI are related to western Eurasians and speak Indo-Euopean languages. The ASI on the otherhand speak Dravidian languages. This genetic data clearly divides the North and South Indians, and supports AIT; and the replacement of an original Dravidian speaking people in the north by the invading Indo-European speaking Vedic people.
After the Hittites defeated the Hatti and Kaska and other peoples belonging to the Hurrian and Mitanni kingdoms, these people were uprooted and forced into Iran. The lost of Anatolia to the Hittites, probably forced these people to become nomads.
In Iran they probably formed a significant portion of the Proto-Arya population. Here they may have met Indo-Iranian speaking people,who may have practiced a hunter-gatherer existence, that adopted aspects of their culture , especially the religion and use of Mitanni religious terms and chariot culture. Joining forces with the Mitannian-Hurrian exiles they probably attacked Dravidian and Austronesian speaking people who probably lived in walled cities. The Austronesian and Dravidian people probably came in intimate contact during the Xia and Shang periods of China.
I have to reject the Afghanistan origin for the Indo-Iranian speaking people because the cultures there in ancient times show no affinity to Indo-European civilization. Given the Austronesian and Dravidian elements in Sanskrit and etc., I would have to date the expansion of the Indo-Aryan people sometime after 800 BC, across Iran, India down into Afghanistan, since the Austro-asiatic people speaking languages related to Southeast Asian groups probably did not begin to enter India until after the fall of the Anyang Shang Dynasty sometime after 1000 BC.
This would explain why "the Vedic and Avestan mantras are not carbon copies of each other", they may have had a similar genesis, but they were nativised by different groups of Indic and Iranian speakers after the settlement of nomadic Hurrian and Mitanni people in Iran.
The Indo-Aryan speaking people became strong in India after 1000 B.C. The Aryans made the Dravidians and other native Indian people into slaves like the Munda. They organized a caste system based on race. The highest caste was based on the priesthood or Brahman, after him came the rajanya or warriors and aristocracy caste and then the craftsmen or Varsya caste, and lastly the Sudra caste, called pariah. The Sudra represented the first Black population that lived in India before the coming of the Indo-Aryans.
In the early Indian writings the aristocracy and warrior caste was referred too as rajanya. After the kshatriya conquered the Indo-Aryans, the warrior class was called Kshatriya.
The Brahmanic civilization lasted from the 3rd to the 4th centuries B.C. During this period the Laws of Manu were written.
The Laws of Manu became India's first civil and political code.
There were two Indo-Aryan migrations into India. The first waves of Indo-Aryans arrived from the Indo-Iranian borderlands when ecological conditions had improved.These Indo-Aryans began to settle areas formerly occupied by Dravidian-speaking Harappans.
As the Aryans moved southward other Dravidian-speaking groups living in isolated villages in the Punjab and Haryana, probably allowed Indo-Aryan tribal groups to settle in their respected urban centers. This would explain the association of BRW with PGW in the Punjab dating between 1000-1300 B.C.( Singh 1982, p.xli) It would also explain the mention of the highly developed civilization of the non-Indo-Aryan speakers in the Rg Veda.
The second and major wave of Indo-Aryans probably entered northern India around 1000-800 B.C. This would explain why almost all the dependable PGW dates cluster around 800-350 B.C.(Agrawal & Kusumgar 1974, p.132)
This corresponds to the research of --Priya Moorjani, Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India, See:The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 93, Issue 3, 422-438, 08 August 2013
The dates for ANI admixture of Moorjani et al, conform to the dates for the Indo-European invasion of India. The Indo-Aryan Indians used painted grey ware.
By the advent of the second Indo-Aryan migration the Dravidians were weakened by drought and famine and they were easily defeated and pushed out of the Gajarat. The PGW folk appears to have pushed the Dravidians into the Dekkan.
Due to the early Dravidian presence in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loan words in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this work were situated in the Punjab, which was occupied around this time by the BRW using Dravidians.
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. The Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan are expected to reach 750.
Indo-Aryan languages illustrates widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian in addition to the lexical loans. For example, Kuiper (1967) has noted the increasing frequency of Dravidian type retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan. Southward (1977) has also recorded the Dravidian structural features borrowed by the Indo-Aryans. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic