Page 231 of 315 FirstFirst ... 131181221229230231232233241281 ... LastLast
Results 2,301 to 2,310 of 3150

Thread: Waves of migration into South Asia

  1. #2301
    Registered Users
    Posts
    206

    Quote Originally Posted by bmoney View Post
    According to the latest paper Indo-Aryan is tied to R1a/steppe, so language families can be tied to progenitor y-lines

    Heres my logic:

    As the Paniya and other hunter-gatherer tribes in the vicinity of the Nilgiris have the highest levels of unmixed AASI, they are the best representatives of the original paleolithic subcontinent inhabitants

    if they were the original speakers of the Dravidian language, the area would also be linguistic ground-zero for the language family with maximum diversity.

    As it turns out, they speak an offshoot of Malayalam which is a late-stage (within the last 1000 years) offshoot of Tamil which belongs to South-Dravidian, one of 4 branches of Dravidian of which the entire family is dated to 4,500 years ago, younger than proto-Indo-Iranian which seems hard to believe.

    If they were ground-zero of the Dravidian language family they would speak with archaic features not present or lost in any other Dravidian language. In fact the reverse is the case, they speak one of the newest differentiated languages in SA

    All of this makes it very hard to argue that the Dravidian language family originated with the AASI peoples of southern India

    Not sure about the Kurukh/Malto but we do have a paper for the Gond people who are not too far away.

    All the Gond groups share a common ancestry with a certain degree of isolation and differentiation. Our allele frequency and haplotype-based analyses reveal that the Gond share substantial genetic ancestry with the Indian Austroasiatic (ie, Munda) groups, rather than with the other Dravidian groups to whom they are most closely related linguistically.

    https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...716de339ec069e

    That's why I do not expect many L and Js in the Kurukh or Malto

    So to recap, L and J are:

    -Not tied to the Indo-Aryans as per the latest paper (I personally do expect some J clades to have come via Indo-Aryans)
    -Are extemely low in tribals (AASI and Munda) even lower than R1a
    -Peak in the NW and pockets of coastal Western India. L diversity is highest in the NW (within SA), this probably is also the case with J

    By deduction we have to assign them to Indus periphery where both have been found, there's no other population we've detected to assign them to. The only clue I have apart from the retroflex is clusivity tracing the NW to West coast pattern of haplogroup distribution:

    Dravidian place names along the Arabian Sea coasts and Dravidian grammatical influence such as clusivity in the Indo-Aryan languages, namely Marathi, Konkani, Gujarati, Marwari, and Sindhi, suggest that Dravidian languages were once spoken more widely across the Indian subcontinent.[13][14]

    No F has been found in the Swat samples
    See it appears to me that you misunderstand me many times. I was not suggesting anywhere that Dravidian was the language of one of AASI groups or something- if anything, I'm also personally inclined to believe old Dravidian was associated with L1, J2, etc. more than F, etc. But I am very cautious in general to use Y-haplogroups when discussing languages because 1.) I personally don't know even a bit about them 2.) From whatever I read, it appears that caution is to be indeed exercised when using them for such discussions 3.) The associations are typically extremely messy (apparently R1a-original-Indo-Aryan, arguably one of the least messy type associations as is O and Munda (please don't cringe seeing the bare O without the relevant subclade written), also seems to have become messier lately) especially in the cases where there is reason to believe that there were good enough scale language shifts happening, like Indo-Aryan and Dravidian.

    What I mainly did in the previous post was to emphasise this very point- Kurukh-Malto people now seem to have a lot of Austroasiatic-associated and old Indian-associated Y-DNA haplogroups but at the same time the languages Kurukh-Malto are likely not very ancient in the area because there are not even a lot of Kurukh-Malto place names in those areas (if anything, Korku and Nihali which are located in the Narmada valley area are thought to have some genuinely significant Kurukh influence)! What does this suggest if true? That some sort of Dravidian-indicating genetic features like relevant Y-DNA haplogroups which must have been physically present to cause the original language shift have reduced with time in Kurukh-Malto speakers, and that too quite rapidly. This exact same thing may have happened with Brahui speakers also- some amount of North Dravidianised northern peninsular H may have been there but reduced as time passed. It is immaterial if current Brahui people have a high percentage of L1 which may also be the one of the Y-DNA haplogroups in the original Dravidian speakers. They could very well have been the descendants of the people of the far western Indus area who shifted language to Balochi and Brahui later on. That that language which was their mother tongue before they shifted to Balochi and Brahui could even have been some form of divergent Dravidian, but it need not be and likely not to have been Brahui, is what I'm saying. These are all linguistic problems first and foremost; the position of Brahui within or without the Dravidian language family needs to be figured out using linguistic study alone- the problem of any earlier and different Dravidian in the region of current Brahui being an entirely different linguistic one, and the current hypotheses that propose the Brahui-as-some-kind-of-a-relic-in-its-current-location scenarios are not backed by large amounts of linguistic evidence and face criticism from a lot of linguists who perceive several problematic aspects in these arguments.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to anthroin For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (04-18-2018), heksindhi (04-16-2018), Megalophias (04-16-2018), parasar (04-16-2018), surbakhunWeesste (04-16-2018)

  3. #2302
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,592

    Quote Originally Posted by bmoney View Post
    yep sure thats why the Brahui resemble the Paniya, uncanny resemblance.

    Y-DNA:

    Haplogroup F: Paniya -75%, Brahui - 0%/undetected, Toda - 3.85%

    Haplogroup J: Paniya - 1.39%, Brahui - 28%, Toda - 38%

    Regarding retroflexion being a primordial feature, yes thats possible due to AASI ranging all the way up to Turan

    Is it present in Nihali and Veddah though?
    The phylogeny of H was not fully resolved in Arunkumar's paper, so likely the F number would fall drastically and become H instead. But to your point, even that high an H would set the Paniya apart.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-17-2018), Megalophias (04-16-2018)

  5. #2303
    Registered Users
    Posts
    149
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    The phylogeny of H was not fully resolved in Arunkumar's paper, so likely the F number would fall drastically and become H instead. But to your point, even that high an H would set the Paniya apart.
    I think they have a larger amount of C as well. So they are definitely distinct from surrounding non-tribal populations ( who have J,L, R2,R1a and H in varying proportions)

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vaishvamitra For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-17-2018), parasar (04-16-2018)

  7. #2304
    Registered Users
    Posts
    206

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaishvamitra View Post
    While the simple IVC + Steppe + ASI model works for now, it is probably a simplification of reality. While there is a parallel with pre-historic europe there are also differences. India was probably much more heterogenous with Independant farming traditions in other regions as well. We have no idea about who the neolithic farmers of the godavari basin, those of the ahar-banas culture or the (?wild) rice cultivating neolithic farmers of the Gangetic basin etc. were genetically,. I agree that the people who spread south dravidian genetically had much lower aasi ancestry than most modern populations of the region though but I don't think we can say definitively that proto-dravidian was spoken in the IVC or atleast indus basin yet.
    This. The new scenario with every Iran_N influence dumped into one Indus_Periphery and using that to model all Indian populations- is it a lot better than the earlier ANI-ASI model? I suppose only a bit better because well, first of all, the Indus_Periphery samples are awesome and because three sources is better than two. So needless to say, the current picture which makes populations of the Indus area migrate in large numbers everywhere into India after the collapse of their urban phase and become one of the, if not the most significant, few sources of ancestry for most modern Indians, appears to me as very simplistic.

    That said, going by the stuff that I absorbed from here and elsewhere, over the course of this year that suggested to me that absorption of less populous populations into more populous populations and population replacements are more common than the contrary, is there some reasonableness after all in believing that the likely sparsely populated Southern Neolithic complex, Mesolithic-Neolithic Ganga valley, non-Harappan cultures of Rajasthan, central India, etc. were all overwhelmed by the massive migrations of these post-urban Indus people if they indeed did that? Are there any population estimates of these inner Indian neolithic cultures? But it is to be noted that for most of these above cultures, especially the Southern Neolithic, there is a genuine possibility of earlier pastoralist migrations from the Indus valley and/or the borderlands seeing the ubiquity of the Indus zebu cattle everywhere in 2800 BC in Southern Neolithic for example, as opposed to just the post-urban Indus exodus. Whether these later pastoralists and agriculturalists (if there was the exodus really, at least into all parts of India thoroughly as opposed to just the eastern Indo-Gangetic plain indicated by archaeological evidence) displaced and absorbed the earlier pastoralists at least some of which were very likely to have had some kind of Iran_N ancestry already, is the important question and I don't think it will be answered anytime soon?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to anthroin For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (04-16-2018)

  9. #2305
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,592

    Quote Originally Posted by anthroin View Post
    This. The new scenario with every Iran_N influence dumped into one Indus_Periphery and using that to model all Indian populations- is it a lot better than the earlier ANI-ASI model? I suppose only a bit better because well, first of all, the Indus_Periphery samples are awesome and because three sources is better than two. So needless to say, the current picture which makes populations of the Indus area migrate in large numbers everywhere into India after the collapse of their urban phase and become one of the, if not the most significant, few sources of ancestry for most modern Indians, appears to me as very simplistic.
    ...
    No doubt. We'll take what we get, but overall the Reich group's south asia paper is far short of what I was expecting based on what Shinde's group had said.

    "We have collected several ancient skeletal remains from different time scale of human civilization ranging from early Mesolithic, Neolithic, Harappan (Indus Valley civilization) and Megalithic culture. With the whole/partial genome NGS data, we are reconstructing the prehistoric peopling and migration of modern human in the Indian subcontinent. We are also testing the pervasive founder events and gradient of recessive genes accumulation by comparing the ancient genome with the modern human population of India."
    http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/...7F190AC2F4F%7d

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     anthroin (04-16-2018), bmoney (04-17-2018), redifflal (04-16-2018)

  11. #2306
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,592

    As per a post on Eurogenes blog - no changes in Swat Y dataset.

    Also, R1a-L657 is absent in the upcoming Eurasian paper.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Rik/edit#gid=0

    And, one Hun sample is confirmed L-M27 L-Y31213
    Last edited by parasar; 04-16-2018 at 09:13 PM.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-17-2018), K33 (04-16-2018), khanabadoshi (04-17-2018), Megalophias (04-16-2018), MfA (04-16-2018), MonkeyDLuffy (04-16-2018), redifflal (04-16-2018), Varun R (04-16-2018)

  13. #2307
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,592

    Doesn't qualify for the "into" part of this thread:
    Gupta, IIT Kharagpur:
    "from 2,350 BC (4,350 years ago) till 1,450 BC, the monsoon had a major weakening effect over the zone where the [Indus Valley] civilisation flourished. A drought-like situation developed, forcing residents to abandon their settlements in search of greener pastures"

    "They (the people) might have tried to adapt to the situation but this arid phase continued for more than 900 years. Therefore, in the search of better water availability for their agriculture and animal husbandry, which were the major occupation for people of Indus Valley Civilisation, they had to migrate to south and eastward regions in India, which were under more influence of the Indian summer monsoon"

    Pretty much what VN Misra had noted though he had thought that a tectonic movement was also the cause:
    "abandonment of settlements in the Saraswati valley and migration of population towards the foothill zone of the Siwaliks, the Yamuna-Ganga Doab and Gujarat ... [plus] Almost all the Chalcolithic sites of western and central India were deserted between the middle of the second millennium B.C. and the beginning of the first millennium B.C. This abandonment is believed to have been caused by a drastic decline in rainfall which rendered agriculture unfeasible. Populations dispersed from permanent villages to pursue a nomadic pastoral way of life. These areas were reoccupied by settled farmers only in the middle of the first millennium B.C. Only in the Ganga valley there is a continuity of settlements from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age and historic period."

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-17-2018), redifflal (04-16-2018)

  15. #2308
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,653
    Sex
    Location
    Canada
    Ethnicity
    Punjabi
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA
    R-M417
    mtDNA
    M3a2

    India Canada Azad Baluchistan Sikh Empire India Punjab Nishan Sahib
    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    A per a post on Eurogenes blog - no changes in Swat Y dataset.

    Also, R1a-L657 is absent in the upcoming Eurasian paper.
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Rik/edit#gid=0

    And, one Hun sample is confirmed L-M27 L-Y31213
    So when did R1a came to SA and from where did it came? And had such huge impact that it is even found in tribals?
    Deg Teg Fateh - Victory to Charity and Arms

  16. #2309
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,592

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyDLuffy View Post
    So when did R1a came to SA and from where did it came? And had such huge impact that it is even found in tribals?
    Right!
    Nothing certain.

    The usual suspects were there in early Swat - C1, G2, H1, H2, J1, J2, L1, R2, plus even R1b and Q1 showed up, and even E (and DE - really, is that even possible?)!

    Now supposedly, IE=elite, IE=male, IE=horse riding weapon bearing marauder of darker colored dasas! (i.e., IE would be at the pit of today's politically correct scale.). For Swat I doubt these often bandied equations work.

    So my fallback has the been the Shak, Kushan/Hoon etc. who often have met the aforementioned characteristics (cf. Mihirkul, a dedicated Shaivite, who reportedly pillaged all of India, put an end to the Bauddhs, lead to the demise of many tribes, and was still shown in some good light by Kalhan Pandit.).

    Before the Shak, there is small window where the western India was mostly abandoned "middle of the second millennium B.C. and the beginning of the first millennium B.C." and then "reoccupied by settled farmers only in the middle of the first millennium B.C."
    So perhaps somewhere in that period R1a1 may have entered and expanded rapidly.

    Another problem is that main R1a1 lineage in South Asia is L657, which is not turning up, despite so many samples now, on the steppe. [I'm not yet certain that the Ukraine M417 sample is Y3]

    See also Dienekes' take: R1ans still at large (or, the story of India) http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2018/04...-of-india.html
    "proponents of AIT (who have a non-trivial overlap with R1an enthusiasts) are also scratching their heads because of the 27 ancient South Asian males from South Asia studied in the preprint there is exactly one R1a, who also happened to live after the time of the Buddha and not during the Bronze Age."
    "Or, maybe both sides missed the bigger story which is that the Indo-Aryans (so closely associated with India today) were simply not there as early as people have thought."

    That's the dilemma. I really can't believe that Indo-Aryans are so late that they coincide with the Buddhist period (when we see the first R1a sample), or that our ancestors were the Hoon type, so I'm hoping that Davidski is right that R1a1 will soon show up in upcoming data.
    Last edited by parasar; 04-16-2018 at 09:11 PM.

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Megalophias (04-16-2018), MonkeyDLuffy (04-16-2018), redifflal (04-16-2018), tipirneni (04-17-2018)

  18. #2310
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,653
    Sex
    Location
    Canada
    Ethnicity
    Punjabi
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA
    R-M417
    mtDNA
    M3a2

    India Canada Azad Baluchistan Sikh Empire India Punjab Nishan Sahib
    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    Right!
    Nothing certain.

    The usual suspects were there in early Swat - C1, G2, H1, H2, J1, J2, L1, R2, plus even R1b and Q1 showed up, and even E (and DE - really, is that even possible?)!

    Now supposedly, IE=elite, IE=male, IE=horse riding weapon bearing marauder of darker colored dasas! (i.e., IE would be at the pit of today's politically correct scale.). For Swat I doubt these often bandied equations work.

    So my fallback has the been the Shak, Kushan/Hoon etc. who often have met the aforementioned characteristics (cf. Mihirkul, a dedicated Shaivite, who reportedly pillaged all of India, put an end to the Bauddhs, lead to the demise of many tribes, and was still shown in some good light by Kalhan Pandit.).

    Before the Shak, there is small window where the western India was mostly abandoned "middle of the second millennium B.C. and the beginning of the first millennium B.C." and then "reoccupied by settled farmers only in the middle of the first millennium B.C."
    So perhaps somewhere in that period R1a1 may have entered and expanded rapidly.

    Another problem is that main R1a1 lineage in South Asia is L657, which is not turning up, despite so many samples now, on the steppe. [I'm not yet certain that the Ukraine M417 sample is Y3]

    See also Dienekes' take: R1ans still at large (or, the story of India) http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2018/04...-of-india.html
    "proponents of AIT (who have a non-trivial overlap with R1an enthusiasts) are also scratching their heads because of the 27 ancient South Asian males from South Asia studied in the preprint there is exactly one R1a, who also happened to live after the time of the Buddha and not during the Bronze Age."
    "Or, maybe both sides missed the bigger story which is that the Indo-Aryans (so closely associated with India today) were simply not there as early as people have thought."

    That's the dilemma. I really can't believe that Indo-Aryans are so late that they coincide with the Buddhist period (when we see the first R1a sample), or that our ancestors were the Hoon type, so I'm hoping that Davidski is right that R1a1 will soon show up in upcoming data.
    Yea because with these findings I am becoming more confused about our paternal ancestors.
    Deg Teg Fateh - Victory to Charity and Arms

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MonkeyDLuffy For This Useful Post:

     khanabadoshi (04-17-2018), parasar (04-16-2018), redifflal (04-16-2018), tipirneni (04-17-2018)

Page 231 of 315 FirstFirst ... 131181221229230231232233241281 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. mtDNA C in South Asia
    By soulblighter in forum C
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-15-2018, 01:07 AM
  2. South Asia Y-DNA Distribution
    By Mehrdad in forum Other
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 06:39 AM
  3. South Asia (Punjab) stuff
    By Dr_McNinja in forum General Sociology/Ethnology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-21-2014, 03:48 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-16-2014, 10:21 AM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-26-2013, 08:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •