Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indo-European Urheimat Mystery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Naruto
    Guest replied
    I have the sense people are trying to avoid references to R1b in certain literature. You'll have to forgive me for being a bit cynical, but I have been lied to extensively regarding what was known about the ancient East-West connections.
    The problem of the matter is that, R1b is so rare in pakistan(and can't be found at all in rest of india). Even if there is some East-West connection, the lack of strong amount of R1b in north-west india, is a fact that can't be ignored. I know you are looking of some connection between western europeans, and the lengendery indo-aryans who created the vedic culture. but the reality is nobody is trying to cover up any references to R1b, because R1b is so rare, it can be easily ignored (if it was the opposite, nobody could hide the facts or avoid the references).

    the Kalash may represent recent arrivals, or they may represent original Indo-Europeans. Linguistically they are Indo-Aryan. As I understand the evidence their mtDNA is closer to that of Northern Europe than to any other.
    Personally I haven't heard anything about Kalasha mtDNA, but if they were really that closer to Northern Europeans, I am confused why other MtDna in Pakistan isn't that close to Northern Europe. Why ONLY the Kalash???
    Using haplotype prediction, they are about 10% R1b. By the same method it is predicted that about 6% of the whole population shample is R1b.
    I never heard of R1b being that high in the kalasha. because 10% seems quiet high, I think its really half that in reality(5%, or even lower)

    That reinforces the suggestion that R1b was part of the original Indo-Aryan genepool.
    Could be, but its presense is weak nonetheless.
    The presence of an mtDNA genepool which consists exclusively of types found predominantly in Europe at the headwaters of the Indus in an isolated Indo-Aryan-speaking population
    Maybe the kalasha could have a higher amount of Mitochondrial Haplotype H, compairing to the rest of Indo-aryan Populations. But I doubt they could lacking the 2 main Haplogroups of the region, which are W and U7 (both of which are rare in Europe).

    which has a high frequency of R1b1c (predicted), and R1a, suggests strongly that these people represent a population similar to the original Indo-Aryans.
    Actually R1a among the Kalash isn't that high, compairing to their other indo-aryan-speaking neighbors. Y-haplotypes in kalash don't point to Europe(they are very different from western europeans), and is kind of(little-bit) different from other north-west indian populations. They can not repesent any original populations in India, they have to be newcomers.

    The questions to ask is, from where are they from?
    Last edited by ; 22 February 2006, 04:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naruto
    Guest replied
    The problem is that, of the samples anylized, 100% of the MtDNA turned out to be "Western European". What I find interesting about that is the fact that they seem to be a mix from several of the different clades associated with Western Europe.
    I just would like to know where you got this information from? If the female Kalashas are 100% Western european genetically, then they would be the only ones in pakistan. The point is female western Eurasian MtDNA in India is more closely related to those in Iran, Caucasus mountains, and Middle-east. Not Western Europeans, not by a long shot!

    I don't believe these people are Macedonian Greeks, or from Alexander's army, but if they are that different from other north-west indians, then they can't be indo-aryans either. They have to be new-arrivials who isolated themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hetware
    replied
    Originally posted by Paleo_Indian
    As far as, Sengupta et al. sudy is concerned Burushos have R2s and no R1bs (based on SNP tests). Only Hazaras show R1bs.
    You must be looking at something different than I am. The first part appears correct. That is, in the Sengupta study, none of the 20 Burushos tested were R1b. But there are several R1bs other than Hazaras shown in the data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paleo_Indian
    Guest replied
    If I had to guess, that would be it.
    Complete list also includes Semitic, Altaic, Uralic (since South Dravidian languages show some resemblence to these languages). Therefore, the complete list of the languages spoken in IVC;
    1. Dravidian (present in Pakistan)
    2. Burshaski (present in Pakistan)
    3. Semitic (Very close to Pakistan)
    4. Altaic (Dravidian connection)
    5. Uralic (Dravidian connection)
    6. Sino-Tibetan (Present in Pakistan; Balti close to Pakistani population)
    7. Astro-Asiatic (Haplogroup R2 show east-west distribution in the sub
    continent and part of Astro-Asiatic speaking groups)
    8. Indo-Aryan (May be present; but didn't belong to Aryan culture which was brought by Aryans when they invaded/migrated around 1500BC)

    Urban civilizations have always been cosmopolitan(Cosmopolitan theory of IVC) .

    As far as, Sengupta et al. sudy is concerned Burushos have R2s and no R1bs (based on SNP tests). Only Hazaras show R1bs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hetware
    replied
    Originally posted by vraatyah
    That's the same, but I don't know why Muller chose such spelling instead of more correct one. BTW, the root khAnd- does exist and has nothing to do with chandas-, chandayati. I suspect, Muller used "kh" with a diacritic mark (presuming that kh and ch are related, which is not the case)
    I'm not sure if it's just a metter of the (lack) conventions in place 120 years ago. Considering he studied under Franz Bopp, I suspect there was a bit of improvisation going on in establishing the conventions for transliterating Sanskrit from Devanagari(or whatever script he was working from). This is a nice site.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by Hetware
    Khândogya Upanishad, which looks like the same thing your wrote. Müller's translations are not the most poetic, but he covered material not found in other collections.

    That's the same, but I don't know why Muller chose such spelling instead of more correct one. BTW, the root khAnd- does exist and has nothing to do with chandas-, chandayati. I suspect, Muller used "kh" with a diacritic mark (presuming that kh and ch are related, which is not the case)

    Leave a comment:


  • Hetware
    replied
    Originally posted by Paleo_Indian
    Let me put it this way. There were migrations/invasions->there was an Aryan invasion/migration around 3500 BP-> there were migrations/invasions. Only the last one has few historical accounts. Considering the fact that R1bs are found mostly among the recent(the last) migrants/invaders(only Hindu population is considered here) who though dominant in North-West India but not really upper or twice-born, it leaves us only South Indian brahmins for the original composition of the people during Vedic period in North-West India.
    I guess I don't follow. Based on the studies I've seen, (and referenced here) I am of the opinion that the residual R1b1c found in Pakistan and India does not represent the most recent arrivals. That is, Saka, Greek, Muslims, etc. The Burushas are a real puzzle to me. They appear to speak a completely isolated language unrelated to any others known. Nonetheless, they seem to have a relatively high frequency of R1bc. That is based on comparing haplotypes, not on SNP tests.

    For myself, I'm a bit confused. Of all the men who have SNP results and are at all close to my haplotype, the closest, by far, is R1b2. I'm holding off on the SNP testing until I have a better understanding of what it will tell me.

    Originally posted by Paleo_Indian
    Aryan culture, I am afraid we'll never know what percentage of twice-born castes have "Aryan" lineage. I mean you can't say all R1a1 among twice-born castes belong to Aryan migration/invasion and that of other castes and tribals belong to previous migrations. Then you have to account for L, H, R2 among twice born castes. Anyway, I don't subscribe to the theory that only Aryans were responsible for caste system.
    I am of the opinion that twice born is a spiritual matter, not a genetically determined state. But we should not head too far into religion here. I will say you might get some strange responses from Christians when you tell them you are twice born. They believe that only "saved Christians" are twice born.

    Obviously, black & white Aryan-Dravidian theory won't hold good anymore. IVC people could have been speaking Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Burushaski,
    .
    If I had to guess, that would be it.
    Last edited by Hetware; 6 February 2006, 10:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hetware
    replied
    Originally posted by vraatyah
    Where is it from? Reminds me of ChandogyopaniShat, a bit.
    Khândogya Upanishad, which looks like the same thing your wrote. Müller's translations are not the most poetic, but he covered material not found in other collections.

    Leave a comment:


  • vraatyah
    replied
    Originally posted by Hetware
    15:1 Cognisant of the deeper meanings of udgîtha, i. e. Om.
    Where is it from? Reminds me of ChandogyopaniShat, a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paleo_Indian
    Guest replied
    You agree that there were recent arrivals (Aryan invasion and/or migration). Let me ask you this, where do you think the genes of the recent arrivals went? Do you seriously believe that the recent arrivals would have been absorbed across the board and not into some specific castes?
    Let me put it this way. There were migrations/invasions->there was an Aryan invasion/migration around 3500 BP-> there were migrations/invasions. Only the last one has few historical accounts. Considering the fact that R1bs are found mostly among the recent(the last) migrants/invaders(only Hindu population is considered here) who though dominant in North-West India but not really upper or twice-born, it leaves us only South Indian brahmins for the original composition of the people during Vedic period in North-West India.

    However, Sengupta et al. study says, Tamil Brahmins totally lack R1b, E3b and I. And these haplogroups characterize all European population along with R1a1. Now the question is what was Central Asia/Eastern Europe's genetic make up around that time. I really don't know. It looks like it was overwhelmingly R1a1, since it was anyway present in India because of previous migrations that didn't bring Aryan culture, I am afraid we'll never know what percentage of twice-born castes have "Aryan" lineage. I mean you can't say all R1a1 among twice-born castes belong to Aryan migration/invasion and that of other castes and tribals belong to previous migrations. Then you have to account for L, H, R2 among twice born castes. Anyway, I don't subscribe to the theory that only Aryans were responsible for caste system.


    Originally Posted by Hetware
    The Sengupta papare seems to be suggesting that the ancient Indus Valley population was not closely related to the ancient Dravidians.
    Obviously, black & white Aryan-Dravidian theory won't hold good anymore. IVC people could have been speaking Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Burushaski, Astro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan languages. Who knows? It was an urban civilization. I bet people are not able to decipher Harappan script simply because it's a mix of many languages . Who are these ancient Dravidians? As far as I know, all present day Dravidian lineags L1, H, R2, J2b2 and R1a1 are present in present day Pakistan.

    Leave a comment:


  • R1a_M17_India
    replied
    Originally posted by Hetware
    One thing I'm not clear on regarding the caste system is its relationship to the Rig Vedic period. I have not read the entire Rig Veda, but the parts I have read do not indicate to me there was a clearly defined caste system in that milieu.
    Let me revert on this. The best source of information on the caste system though is the Manu Smriti. It does not tell when the caste system came in place, but rather captures rules defining the castes.

    The laws have been called racism by some, and Manu seen in a different light by others. Manu Smriti has some weird rules too (like how many lives will it take for a non-Brahmin to become a Brahmin, drawing on the concepts of re-birth / soul / sins ).
    Last edited by R1a_M17_India; 6 February 2006, 02:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hetware
    replied
    Originally posted by R1a_M17_India
    Interesting, that can be interpreted in many ways, including that Pakistan points the direction from which most ancestors of Indians entered India. Its just a question of when.
    The Sengupta papare seems to be suggesting that the ancient Indus Valley population was not closely related to the ancient Dravidians.

    Originally posted by R1a_M17_India
    You agree that there were recent arrivals (Aryan invasion and/or migration). Let me ask you this, where do you think the genes of the recent arrivals went? Do you seriously believe that the recent arrivals would have been absorbed across the board and not into some specific castes?
    The evidence may indicate that the R1a was present in both invader and invadee. I'm not sure how strong the evidence is for a significant Vedic era invasion. There seems to be some question as to where the center of gravity for the Vedic civilization was. Some people would like to put it close to, or in Gandahar. Others favor the upper Indus Basin. I suspect it might be similar to trying to pin down the center of gravity of Greek civilization. What we typically view as Greek achievements came from many different geographic locations. The same is likely true of Vedic civilization.

    Regarding where new arrivals ended up within the population, there have been several invasions of India. It's hard to say how large the invading populations were in comparison to the existing population. Take, for example, the British. One could argue that the British invaded and conquered India. The impression I have is they screwed a lot of things up while they were running the show, but their lasting genetic impact was rather insignificant.

    I would guess the various Scythian conquests left a more significant genetic legacy. They may have resulted in some level of caste-specific replacement. Conquerors have a tendency to either eradicate the original ruling classes, or to subordinate them and use them as proxies.

    By way of comparison, the genetic impact of the European conquest of the Americas had a profound impact on the genetic makeup of the various populations. In some places there was virtually 100% replacement. In other places the European male contribution was huge in comparison to the European female contribution.

    One ironic observation is that the "racial" constitution of my area has changed dramatically in the past three decades, and continues to change. The frequency of "European" Y-chromosome haplotypes has not changed quite as significantly. This is because many of the new arrivals, be they African-American or Hispanic, are the descendents of European men. This is especially true of the latter.

    Originally posted by R1a_M17_India
    Hmm...good thoughts. I agree on this, and can use it to further my point actually. However, not on this forum.
    FWIW, which may not be much, the craniometric comparisons between various ancient specimens showed the earliest Tarim mummies to be morphologically closer to Harappan specimens from the same period. Both of those groups were more similar to their contemporary "proto-European" specimens than to other populations of the region, past or present. OTOH, the authors reporting these findings suggested it would be overstating things to claim these three populations were morphologically identical.

    Leave a comment:


  • R1a_M17_India
    replied
    Originally posted by Paleo_Indian
    Interestingly, present studies show North Indian Y-Haplogroup diversity is subset of Pakistani(Could be South Iranian too) Y-haplogroup diversity and South Indian diversity is the subset of North Indian/Pakistani Y-Haplogroup diversity.
    Interesting, that can be interpreted in many ways, including that Pakistan points the direction from which most ancestors of Indians entered India. Its just a question of when.

    Originally posted by Paleo_Indian
    Others are not disagreeing because there is a high variation in India. They are disagreeing because that diversity is in certain castes and tribes.

    In my opinion, it doesn't refute Aryan invasion theory. There were migrations and there was an invasion.
    You agree that there were recent arrivals (Aryan invasion and/or migration). Let me ask you this, where do you think the genes of the recent arrivals went? Do you seriously believe that the recent arrivals would have been absorbed across the board and not into some specific castes?

    Originally posted by Paleo_Indian
    Population changes its colour over time; population changes its skull shape over time. Culture and language could be changed in single generation.
    Hmm...good thoughts. I agree on this, and can use it to further my point actually. However, not on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hetware
    replied
    Originally posted by R1a_M17_India
    I am not saying that R1b in that region is from the Greeks. My post was only pointing out, on a different note, that there seems to be some genetic impact on atleast 1 tribe.

    What could be the origins of the Burusho, is a different story.
    I would be truly stunned if it were demnostrated that there is no trace of the Greeks (or perhaps we should say Macedonians) in the populations descended from ancient Gandehar. The Greeks were part of the mix. One problem with trying to sort out the Greek contribution is the potential that the Greeks and Indo-Aryans had some significant amount of shared ancestry in the not-too-distant past.

    Originally posted by R1a_M17_India
    Can you point me to any paper which shows the distribution of R1b in India, especially Andhra Pradesh?
    a) My initial guess would be that this is the Anglo-Indian community (British-Indian population...
    I can't say that either paper specifically discusses the distribution of R1b1c(M269) in India, but both the Kashyap and Sengupta papers describe its presence in India. Kashyap et al did not take any samples from Haryana, Rajastan, Jammu-Kashmir, nor the Punjab. Among the 15 Rajput samples taken from Himachal, one did trun out to be R1b. Since the traditional AIT deals with the Indus Valley, and the aforementioned regions, Kashyap et al really didn't address the matter. I don't know the geographic details of the Sengupta samples.

    One thing I'm not clear on regarding the caste system is its relationship to the Rig Vedic period. I have not read the entire Rig Veda, but the parts I have read do not indicate to me there was a clearly defined caste system in that milieu.

    Leave a comment:


  • R1a_M17_India
    replied
    Originally posted by Hetware
    I will point out that the Burusho are the ones with, the highest freqency of R1b3.
    I am not saying that R1b in that region is from the Greeks. My post was only pointing out, on a different note, that there seems to be some genetic impact on atleast 1 tribe.

    What could be the origins of the Burusho, is a different story.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X