tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post2783142264852463098..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39423897766234985582015-11-04T02:32:12.062+02:002015-11-04T02:32:12.062+02:00Its wrong to label ASI as "Distant relatives ...Its wrong to label ASI as "Distant relatives of andamanese" the andamanese are the ORIGINAL human settlers who MIXED with migrating ASI poulation.ROCKMAN Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06425722051106792474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60060821169138754392015-10-09T08:02:40.991+03:002015-10-09T08:02:40.991+03:00I forgot to mention. There is a study done by Pich...I forgot to mention. There is a study done by Pichappan et.al about the origins of caste in Tamil Nadu (TN) and they determined the coalescent period was 4000-6000 years ago when the population was transitioning from megalithic culture to farming and then all mixing stopped. This is in sharp contrast to Moorjani study which finds the stratification to start only 1900 years ago. The Pichappan study used a much larger sample from TN and hence statistically more significant. The senior author of the paper has also expressed his healthy skepticism about Moorjani et.al. findings...<br />.Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00699619209092621517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29819556025734927572015-09-29T10:11:38.418+03:002015-09-29T10:11:38.418+03:00Your analysis is most sensible of off all. Your analysis is most sensible of off all. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02546435427528848547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50258001452570149692014-05-31T10:56:25.218+03:002014-05-31T10:56:25.218+03:00Honestly, it does not makes sense for a population...Honestly, it does not makes sense for a population which has coexisted for almost 8000 years to start admixing all of the sudden, given the dynamic cosmopolitan civilizations which existed there. I am very sceptical of Moorjanis paper, it goes very contrary to human history, you made a good case about the Gypsies. I am positive ASI/ANI was happening far before those dates Moorjani has given.Ramihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08212726536809592734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70570721746616111762013-12-10T14:42:10.621+02:002013-12-10T14:42:10.621+02:00Hey this is really nice post. It as lot of informa...Hey this is really nice post. It as lot of information which is really awesome.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17415722733114501182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73175639254008519332013-11-10T13:00:02.447+02:002013-11-10T13:00:02.447+02:00Hello Everybody,
My name is Mrs. Monica Roland. I...Hello Everybody,<br /><br />My name is Mrs. Monica Roland. I live in UK<br />London and i am a happy woman today? and i<br />told my self that any lender that rescue my<br />family from our poor situation, i will refer<br />any person that is looking for loan to him,<br />he gave me happiness to me and my family, i<br />was in need of a loan of $250,000.00 to<br />start my life all over as i am a single<br />mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD<br />fearing man loan lender that help me with a<br />loan of $250,000.00 U.S. Dollar, he is a GOD<br />fearing man, if you are in need of loan and<br />you will pay back the loan please contact<br />him tell him that is Mrs. Monica Roland that<br />refer you to him. contact Mr. Anthony Hampton<br />via email: (easyloans03@gmail.com)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13665358613987021678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80440614621997044532013-11-07T06:51:50.106+02:002013-11-07T06:51:50.106+02:00@Dr. CLyde
I find it ironic how you say science i...@Dr. CLyde<br /><br />I find it ironic how you say science is about confirming/disproving hypotheses, yet you insist that there was some magical African civilization, and that the ancient Celts were African.<br /><br />I cannot laugh at a more ludicrous statement.I. Renardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08425670722601517036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11989149684391532782013-10-16T20:07:12.110+03:002013-10-16T20:07:12.110+03:00@AdygheChabadi
I agree lets end this discourse.
...@AdygheChabadi<br /><br />I agree lets end this discourse. <br /><br />You have nothing to share but your personal opinions. Throughout this discussion you have failed to provide any research articles supporting your contention that Dravidian and Niger-Congo languages are not related.<br /><br />I have explained to you that science is about testing hypotheses. You have not found even one article to support your claims--this makes conversation with you on this matter a waste of time.<br /><br />I hope that in the future you will do a proper review of the literarture before you make all inclusive claims and propositions you can not support with accurate, relevant and reliable data.Granted you don't have to provide citations in a simple discussion--but when one cites literature in support of their arguments you should at least provide citations to falsify the hypothesis: Dravidian languages are related to the Niger-Congo family. Not just make bold claims lacking any scientific (linguistic) support.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65954245320330828292013-10-16T09:13:46.029+03:002013-10-16T09:13:46.029+03:00@Dr. Clyde Winters
Hello!
Honestly, you ask a qu...@Dr. Clyde Winters<br /><br />Hello!<br /><br />Honestly, you ask a question that is similar to, "Why has no one made any serious inquiry into why English and Japanese are not related or Semitic and Nahuatl or Cushitic and Inuit?"<br /><br />You don't see massive amounts of work dedicated to those topics as there is no need to waste the time or effort. It is rather obvious that neither of the pairs are related. <br /><br />Why waste the trees, effort, and time proving what is already obvious from the study of those languages?<br /><br />Georgiy Starostin and Vaclav Blazek have further studied the Dravidian lexicon and neither found any connection to Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan (Mande could belong to either language family or be an isolate), but did find connections to non-Semitic Afroasiatic and Elamite.<br /><br />I saw where you claimed that all languages were derived of Mande.<br /><br />If anyone is interested, an article about "Dr. Clyde Winters":<br /><br />http://www.flavinscorner.com/8-10-01.htm<br /><br />I am not going to engage you any further on this issue as it is as futile as trying to drain an ocean a thimbleful at a time.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48843664518848662792013-10-15T14:19:26.395+03:002013-10-15T14:19:26.395+03:00@Ramesh Mohan
You claim that Krishnamurti, Parpol...@Ramesh Mohan<br /><br />You claim that Krishnamurti, Parpola, Burrows, Emeneau and Zvelebil who are luminaries and legends in Dravidian studies and they have rejected any connections between Dravidian and other languages. Yet these researchers have never presented linguistic data supporting this claim.<br /> Your contentions are ludicris. You argue that the papers I cite are decades old, when you know for a fact that Burrows and Ememeneau’s research dates back to the 1950’s, Parpola and Zvelebil the 1970’s, while my research in Dravidian linguistics , the work of Sergent and Balakrishnan were written within the present decade. <br /> The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.<br /> Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the reality that Dravidian languages are genetically related to the Niger Congo group.<br /> Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, rejects this form of logical validity based solely on inference and conjecture (pp. 33-65). Popper maintains that confirmation in science, is arrived at through falsification. Mr. Mohan your contentions are based on inference and conjecture since there is no reliable and valid research falsifying the Niger-Congo-dravidian relationship.<br /><br /> Therefore to confirm a theory in science one test the theory through regorous attempts at falsification. In falsification the researcher uses cultural, linguistic, anthropological and historical knowledge to invalidate a proposed theory. Beginning with Homburger, linguist have onserved the existence of a genetic linguistic relationship between Dravidian and Niger-Congo languages. This theory has been confirmed by other linguists.<br /> Krishnamurti and Zvelebil state that Dravidian is not related to other groups but they have never published an article falsifying the Dravidian-Niger-Congo hypothesis.<br />If a theory can not be falsified through test of the variables associated with the theory it is confirmed. It can only be disconfirmed when new generalizations associated with the original theory fail to survive attempts at falsification.<br />Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28798736192618990922013-10-14T08:47:12.848+03:002013-10-14T08:47:12.848+03:00Clyde Winters: You are citing papers that are many...Clyde Winters: You are citing papers that are many decades old that appear to have been abandoned by linguists a long time ago. If Krishnamurti, Parpola, Burrows, Emeneau and Zvelebil who are luminaries and legends in Dravidian studies have rejected the African origin hypothesis, I can only draw one conclusion about your claims- you are more interested in spreading your own personal dogma than engaging in a serious dialog in the pursuit of truth, which is the true hallmark of a scientist.Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045982219386172008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15451483110926075412013-10-13T21:27:35.011+03:002013-10-13T21:27:35.011+03:00@AdygheChabadi
Hi
None of the linguist you menti...@AdygheChabadi<br /><br />Hi<br /><br />None of the linguist you mention have ever presented any evidence disputing the research articles I cited above. You talk about science,but you don't really understand science. In science researchers test hypotheses. as a result, you confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis.<br /><br />You talk as if the Mande Dravidian relationship has been disconfirmed. This has not been done.<br /><br />Moreover, there has been only one paper published showing a relationship between Elamite and Dravidian, while tens of articles have been published confirming the relationship between Niger-Congo and Dravidian. The large number of articles supporting a Niger-Congo-Dravidian relationship confirms the genetic relation existing between these languages. Sadly, your comments lack any merit or linguistic support.<br /><br />Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58587560254103348202013-10-13T01:16:58.009+03:002013-10-13T01:16:58.009+03:00@Dr. Clyde Winters
Hello!
With all due respect t...@Dr. Clyde Winters<br /><br />Hello!<br /><br />With all due respect to you, I am not impressed by that list of outdated publications. The work it contains is practically irrelevant and full of bunk. I see a good bit of your list is your own work.<br /><br />No, linguist serious about their work gives any attention to such bunk. With your training, if you are a doctoral recipient, you should know better.<br /><br />There is NO genetic relationship between Mande and Dravidian nor any between Japanese and Dravidian.<br /><br />The Afro-Dravidian hypothesis is based in old European racialist ideas and should be rightfully discarded as such. I informed you before of the opinions of the foremost Dravidianists such Krishnamurti, Burrow and Emeneau, Parpola, Zvelebil among others have rejected most of the proposals concerning Dravidian external relationships. Why can you not understand that science does not support you? Neither linguistic science, genetic science, nor history support you. Please stop misleading people with this falsity you are perpetrating, it reflects very poorly on your scholarship.<br /><br />Again, of all languages on earth, Dravidian is closest to Afroasiatic and Elamite with Elamite being the closest to Afroasiatic. While Elamite and Dravidian do seem to have had goodly contact with each other at some point. They share some lexicon and some morphology. Not sure about a genetic relationship, but goodly areal contact is virtually undeniable.<br /><br /><br /><br />AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43687186831595569872013-10-11T20:20:38.002+03:002013-10-11T20:20:38.002+03:00@Ramesh Mohan
There is an intimate relationship b...@Ramesh Mohan<br /><br />There is an intimate relationship between the Dravidians and Japanese. The linguistic connections have been discussed over the years by Prof. Karashima, Dr. Chandra, Susumu Ohno and myself.<br /><br />Dr. Susumu Ohno has done the most research on the relationship between Dravidian speakers and the Japanese. He maintains that there is a genetic linguistic relationship between Tamil and Japanese.<br /><br />Susumu believes that Dravidian speakers arrived in Japan in late Jomon times. He believe that they played a direct role in the introdution of agriculture in late Yayoi times since most Japanese agricultural terms are Tamil.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14790634857083603582013-10-10T17:15:40.694+03:002013-10-10T17:15:40.694+03:00@AdygheChabadi
You claim that Dravidian is not rel...@AdygheChabadi<br />You claim that Dravidian is not related to the Niger-Congo group. But numerous linguist say the language families are related.<br /><br />Aravanan, K P , "Physical and cultural similarities between <br /> Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies <br /> 10,(1976)pages 23-27. <br /><br />Aravanan, K P. (1979). Dravidians and Africans , Madras. <br /><br />Aravanan,K.P. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India, <br />Journal of Tamil Studies, 1980, pp.20-45.<br /><br />R. Balakrishnan, in 'African Roots of the Dravidian -speaking Tribes,: A Case Study in Onomastics', International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,(2005) 34(1):153-202<br /><br /> Lal, B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian<br />Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963<br /><br />Lahovary, N , Dravidian Origins and the West, Madras: Longman,1963. <br /><br />N'Diaye, C.T. (1978) The relationship between Dravidian languages and Wolof. Annamalai University Ph.D. Thesis.<br /><br />Sergent , Bernard (1992). Genèse de L'Inde. Paris: Payot .<br /><br />Singh, H.N. (1982). History and archaeology of Black-and Red ware. Delhi.<br /><br /><br />Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P., Les liens entre Kerala et l"Afrique tels qu'ils resosortent des survivances culturelles et linguistiques, Bulletin de L'IFAN, <br />no.1, 1979, pp.100-132. <br /><br />Upadhyaya,P & Upadhyaya,S.P. Affinites ethno-linguistiques <br />entre Dravidiens et les Negro-Africain, Bull.de L’IFAN,No.1, 1976,pp.127-157.<br /><br />Weber, S.A.(1998). Out of Africa: The initial impact of millets in South Asia. Current Anthropology, 39(2), 267-274.<br /><br />Wigboldus,J.S. (1996). Early presence of African millets near the Indian Ocean. In J. Reade, The Indian Ocean (pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.<br /><br />Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1980). "The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages",Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.<br /><br />Winters,Clyde Ahmad.(1981a) "The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture", Journal of African Civilization 3, no1 ,page 103.<br /><br />Winters,Clyde Ahmad.(1981b). "Are Dravidians of African Origin", P.Second ISAS,1980,( Hong Kong:Asian Research Service)pages 789- 807.<br /><br />Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1985). The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians, Tamil Civilization 3 (1), 1-9.<br /><br />Winters,Clyde Ahmad.(1986)."The Dravidian Origin of the Mountain and Water Toponyms in central Asia", Journal of Central Asia 9(2): 144-148.<br /><br />Winters, C.A. (1994). The Dravidian and African languages, International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 23 (2), 34-52.<br /><br />Winters, Clyde Ahmad.(1999a). ProtoDravidian terms for cattle. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.<br /><br />Winters, C.A.(1999b). Proto-Dravidian terms for sheep and goats.PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 9 (2), 183-87. <br /><br />Winters, C.A.(2000). Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28. <br /><br />As you can see there is abundant evidence of a Dravidian and Niger-Congo relationship. The Dravidian languages are genetically related to Niger- Congo, in addition to Elamite.<br /><br />Your claims are just your own personal opinion.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16596255724279672962013-10-10T17:00:21.741+03:002013-10-10T17:00:21.741+03:00@Ramesh Mohan
Namaste!
Yes, I think they are fol...@Ramesh Mohan<br /><br />Namaste!<br /><br />Yes, I think they are following Franklin C. Southworth's suggestion. <br /><br /><i>"If it is true, as I have suggested (Southworth in press, ch.8) on linguistic grounds, that Proto-Dravidian was spoken in the lower Godavari basin in the early-to-mid third millennium BCE <b>(though there is as yet no independent confirmation of this)</b>, then Dravidian-speaking groups may also have travelled up the Godavari in to Maharashtra. (The rivers mentioned above with Dravidian names are upper tributaries of the Godavari system.)"</i> ~ F. C. Southworth - <b>Prehistoric Implications of the Dravidian element in the NIA lexicon, with special attention to Marathi</b><br /><br />He bases his theory on as he states, <i>”…the assumption that the region of greatest variability is likely to be the oldest region, it is probable that Proto-Dravidian was spoken in the lower Godavari basin…”</i> ~ F. C. Southworth - <b>Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia</b><br /><br />This is not always the case, Semitic may have originated in Africa, specifically what is now Northern Egypt, but it did not significantly diversify until it was in what is now the Levant/ Near East.<br /><br />Even Southworth admits his proposal is shaky and the archaeology does not quite fit his proposal. <i>”Thus the Southern Neolithic complex is a close, though hardly perfect, fit for the Proto-Dravidian speech community, in terms of specific artifacts, animals, and plant remains. This is not a surprising conclusion, given that Dravidian languages have been dominant in the peninsula since the beginnings of recorded history.”</i> ~ F. C. Southworth - <b>Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia</b><br /><br />All of the linguistic evidence he adduces matches with the IVC better than the Lower Godavari does. I am neutral on the language of the IVC, but again, that is an interesting correspondence. Southworth further admits that the Proto-Dravidian speakers could have come from much further west. The fact that <b>Proto-Dravidian</b> words are found at the proto level of Indo-Iranian (at least before Iranian and Indo-Aryan separated) is, again, extremely interesting. <br /><br />Also, I read the DNA Tribes paper, there are some errors and omissions. It is not thoroughly researched, but it serves their purpose.<br /><br />I doubt that Indo-Iranian is “Mesopotamian”. This may be decided based upon modern speakers of the languages. When they finally are able to do ancestry tests on ancient Indo-Iranians…I suspect that, ancestrally, they might well resemble the populations north of the Caucasus, Caspian, and Black Sea.<br /><br />As far as language is concerned, Dravidian has been compared to Ainu (an isolate language spoken in Northern Japan). No significant correspondences were attained.<br /><br />According to Dienekes’ ‘Globe 13’ admixture analysis, all the populations with ~ 70% or more of the “South Asian” component have less than 3.5% of the “Siberian” and “East Asian” each which, according to ‘Globe 13’, the Japanese are composed entirely of those 2 components. The Bhunjia, Gonds, Nihali, and Chaubey et al. – Paniya are an exception with 21%, 10.5%, 10.4%, and 7% “East Asian” component respectively. They all evidence traces of “Australasian” (less than 5% at the most), “Amerindian”, and “Arctic”.<br />AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55224986080419609682013-10-08T09:28:05.199+03:002013-10-08T09:28:05.199+03:00Adyghe: Shalom! As always, your answers were clear...Adyghe: Shalom! As always, your answers were clear, logical and detailed, backed by dispassionate analysis.Thank you.<br /><br />I went back and read the dnatribes October publication. These seem to strongly hint to a Govarari River (Andhra Pradesh) origin for Proto-Dravidian, but they do concede the possibility of an external origin for Dravidians. <br /><br />The most surprising data in the paper is the presence of large Japanese automsomal STR component among South Indians only smaller than the largest Australian component. The Japanese component is bigger than the Mesopotamian component among South Indians. Who would have guessed the Japanese connection among South Indians? Any linguistic explanation Adyghe or anyone else?<br /><br />As far as autosomal SNPs, the top three components among South Indians is Mesopotamian, Caucasus mountains, South East Asian followed by Oceanian and Tibetian! <br /><br />With regards to IAs, the authors claim a Mesopotamian origin which is contrary to a Central Asian origin view held by many. Perhaps, the genetic experts can weigh in on the dnatribe publication?<br /><br />Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045982219386172008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24645482189490495582013-10-03T13:07:14.700+03:002013-10-03T13:07:14.700+03:00@Ramesh Mohan:
Namaste!
Well, for the first exam...@Ramesh Mohan:<br /><br />Namaste!<br /><br />Well, for the first example you mention. Horses don’t like densely forested areas while there are some subspecies that have lived or do live in heavily forested areas. This is not true of all horses, especially, the “true” horse. Also, “true” horses don’t like very hot and very humid tropical areas as they did not evolve in such regions. They can survive there, but not at all optimally. As to your second question. “Horse culture” involves all the details of breeding, raising, and maintaining/ caring for horses in a culture that has thoroughly integrated them and become dependent on them for their way of life. You can notice the plethora of horse-related vocabulary in the Rgveda and notice the dearth of it in Dravidian. “Horse culture” is often very strongly associated with Indo-Iranian cultures in the greater Middle East. “Horse culture”, was not present in the Near East until the Indo-Iranians introduced it. Note the Botai culture in what is now Kazakhstan…http://horsetalk.co.nz/2011/10/28/evidence-for-horse-domestication-clearer/<br /><br />The Dravidians would have been stuck mostly with the Onager (Equus hemionus). It is nearly untamable by most accounts, so it would have not been much good to them in many ways as a “true” horse would have been. “True” horses as far as is known, were extinct in the Subcontinent, so they had to be imported from Central Asia.<br /><br />I don’t think that you would find specific animals peculiar only to the area of the IVC. The IVC was a massive trade entity so animals from over a wide area were known to them. <i>“Domesticated animals included dogs and cats, humped and shorthorn cattle, domestic fowl, and possibly pigs, camels, and buffalo. The elephant probably was also domesticated, and its ivory tusks were freely used.”</i> ~ Encyclopedia Britannica<br /><br />Just as an example, all of these animals were known in Egypt as well, except the buffalo (though some consider that the Egyptians either had or knew of them and their African buffalo relative). The Egyptians definitely had a relative of the buffalo, called an auroch. The people of the IVC seemed to be typical agro-pastoralists. They were definitely crop-raisers, but also raised livestock.<br /><br />As for Dr. Clyde Winter’s associations of Mande to Dravidian…they are two whole distinct and unrelated languages. Mr. Winter’s is also known for saying Meroitic (the ancient language of Kush, a rival to Egypt situated immediately south of Egypt) is related to “Tocharian” an IE language known to have existed in the Tarim Basin in Northwest China. In my opinion, Meroitic is very strongly lexically Afroasiatic based on the known vocabulary and has significant Egyptian borrowing, but anyway, on both accounts he is EXTRAORDINARILY WRONG. Mande is currently classified as Niger-Congo (the family to which the Bantu languages belong), but maybe Nilo-Saharan and related to Songhay as there are some very striking parallels to Songhay a Nilo-Saharan language of the Western Saharan Branch. Mande may even be an independent isolated language family strongly areally influenced by other languages that surround it. Nilo-Saharan may, itself, be related to Niger-Congo in a Niger-Saharan family. As I said before, Dravidian’s closest relatives are Elamite and Afroasiatic. This is agreed upon by nearly all the experts who have studied the lexicons of these families. No one takes the Afro-Dravidian hypothesis seriously. It is a degraded relic of old European racialist ideas and should have died long ago. As for suspected parallels between Dravidian and Mande, they can be very securely discarded as false or chance occurrences.<br /><br />As far as aDNA is concerned, we can only speculate, but what you say is a safe conjecture.<br /><br />Also, the demise of the IVC seemed to be both climatological and geological. Geological shifts seem to be part of why the Ghaggar-Hakra dried up and the climate changed also which dealt another blow to the civilization. http://www.livescience.com/20614-collapse-mythical-river-civilization.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakra#Ancient_tributariesAdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-25117428785342513722013-10-02T18:36:11.015+03:002013-10-02T18:36:11.015+03:00This article appeared October 1st in DNA tribes.
h...This article appeared October 1st in DNA tribes.<br />http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-10-01.pdf<br /><br />Nothing new in this, but mostly a review of recent developments. Not even sure if everything is accurate!Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045982219386172008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61231101705597185262013-10-01T06:43:48.120+03:002013-10-01T06:43:48.120+03:00It is a mystery to me how the nomadic IA pastorali...<br />It is a mystery to me how the nomadic IA pastoralists had such a disproportionate influence on the linguistic landscape when they first encountered the more civilized and urban population of IV? What was the tipping point? Was the horse the game changer? Or did the idea of a simple agro-pastoral lifestyle of the IAs resonate with the IV folks who were already getting fed up with3 city life? The timing couldn't have been better. IVC was already unraveling. People were returning to the farms <br /><br />Perhaps the IVC elites grew a fascination for Vedic language and over time through the process of elite dominance, people chose IA as the lingua franca and eventually adopting IA as their mother tongue? ( BTW, it was Metspalu who had first made me aware of elite dominance!)Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045982219386172008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-23622605299736551132013-10-01T06:42:32.922+03:002013-10-01T06:42:32.922+03:00bmdriver: I think your insistence on "Dravid...bmdriver: I think your insistence on "Dravidian" being a Christian conspiracy displays insensitivity to other cultures and frankly ignorance of South Indian and Tamil history . The Dravida term appeared in 2 BCE texts in SriLanka, Damila appears in Buddhist, Jain texts referring to Southern people most likely Tamizh. Even Mahabharata refers to people in the South as Dravidas. So, why are you in denial of the rich multi-cultural heritage of India? In all probability most IA speakers were at one time Dravidian speakers and were bi-lingual. Dravidian shows extensive lexical borrowing and very little structural borrowing, whereas the opposite is true with IA languages. This asymmetry can be best explained by the above scenario. Despite different origins, all of the scientific, spiritual and religious thought arose as a result of the confluence of IA, Dravidian, and to a lesser extent Austo-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman, Vedda, Nehali, Brushaski and Masica's X culture etc. Having said that, I agree with you that many 18th, 19th century historians who were white Europeans had a three point agenda - to use history as a colonial and exploitative tool to promote the supremacy of the Western Hellenistic civilization over and two to establish "correctness" of Biblical events, and three to promote Christianity as the only hope for Indians by exposing the many evils that existed in society (and there were many!) but also distorting and misinterpreting many Hindu customs in the worst possible light in order to promote their agenda! However, not all European scholars were racists. There were many great scholars & archeologists. I also think a serious effort should be undertaken by scholars to study the events mentioned in the early Sanskrit texts and Sangam literature. Finally attempting to re-write Indian history as the story of one people, one culture, one language would be tantamount to misrepresenting facts and promoting a revisionist agenda which is no different from what the colonialists tried to do!<br />I believe most readers of this blog accept the premise that there has been no massive influx of Central asian pastoralists which is supported by multiple genetic studies. This does not mean there was no minor inflow whose traces can still be found in upper caste brahmins and other elite groups throughout India! With time, with caste barriers breaking down, even these signals will become weak and eventually disappear. As the authors of the Moorjani paper claim "further sampling and newer methods such relatedness might be detected". In a recent publication titled "Traces of sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern lineages in Indian Muslim..." the authors state "Overall, our results support a model according to which the spread of Islam in India was predominantly cultural conversion associated with minor but still detectable levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia". If only a "minor level" of gene inflow could be detected of muslim invaders, why is it surprising that we cannot detect any strong signal dating back 4000 years? The subcontinent was already teeming with ANIs 4000 years ago and the arrival of a few thousand IAs with a slightly different mix of ANI components is not going to alter the genomic landscape significantly. Anyways, I will let the experts chime in. <br />Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045982219386172008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68048514298650821422013-10-01T06:40:20.866+03:002013-10-01T06:40:20.866+03:00Adyghe: Shalom! VaNakkam Thank you for illuminati...Adyghe: Shalom! VaNakkam Thank you for illuminating me about the saga of the horse or is it the donkey? Looks like the Dravidians got a raw deal- ending up with a donkey instead of the prized horse, haha! In the Southworth list, are there animals only known to the IV area? <br /><br />I think your conclusion about the horse is based on two assumptions- 1) ancient India was not a suitable place for breeding horses and 2) Dravidian does not have the words associated with "horse-culture". What exactly is "horse-culture'? What is the basis of claim 1)? BTW, in TN horses are fed a legume called "horse gram" or "koLLu", which is very nutritious to humans too! Ok enough horsing around....<br /><br />You make a persuasive case for a foreign origin of Dravidians. Now, what about the "cognate" Dravidian terms in Mande, that Dr Clyde Winters points out to? How do the mainstream linguists interpret it?<br /> Dr. Kenoyer's research based on tooth enamel suggest that there were burials of foreign men alongside local women at IV indicative of matrilineal culture. Today such a practice exists among Nairs of Kerala, Bunts of Karnataka, Khasis, Jaintia and Garo of Meghalaya. I am still interested in learning if anyone has undertaken a study in the lines of Reich et.al. of IVC fossils so we can get a good picture of IVC demographics. Since the date of ANI/ASI admixture is post-IVC collapse, I would expect to find mostly ANIs and a few ASIs <br />Ramesh Mohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045982219386172008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71407058949918173102013-10-01T03:10:35.137+03:002013-10-01T03:10:35.137+03:00@bmdriver
Your problem is tht you don't read...@bmdriver<br /><br />Your problem is tht you don't read the supplemental files. It is there that you usually find the breakdown of all the subjects in the study. Also I also quoted Kivisild et all 1999, who also reported 26 High Caste crriers of M1.<br /><br />B.B.Lal is not a fringe archaeologist he is well respected in India. Hindutva like yourself often quote Lal, when he agrees with your theories.<br /><br />It is sad you would rather adhere to a history made up by Hindutva, rather than study the history of India for yourself.Dr. Clyde Wintershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01153945762719431061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10220638835790023392013-09-30T23:45:54.908+03:002013-09-30T23:45:54.908+03:00@Dr. Clyde Winters
When you quote a study like G...@Dr. Clyde Winters <br /><br />When you quote a study like Gonzales, claiming it proves your fringe theory<br /><br />''Gonzalez et al. (2007), Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa, BMC Genomics 2007, 8:223 doi:10.1186/1471-2164-8-223<br /><br /><br />You should really read it carefully.<br /><br />''Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human -backflow- to Africa''<br /><br /><br />You need to understand Dravidians are not a race. Even though you might want to hide your Afro-bibilical hamite claim because it shows your absurdity, you never the less have admitted to it, and even if you dont recognize it right now, it is the underlining of your theory.<br /><br />All evidence PROVES ANI migration into africa, central asia and europe. Let me guess they are not african black enough for you, because in essense that is your whole theory, they look AFRICAN, let me go one step further, they look HUMAN.<br /><br />:)<br /><br />Please carry on with your fringe b b b lal theory, i shall continue to accept modern science. BB Lal wasnt he a student of the Mortimer Wheeler?<br /><br />Let me just let you know for future reference, i deem all pre and post colonial theories such as yours backed up by colonially education hindus as nothing but hogwash.<br /><br />Take Care.<br /><br />'No African components in Dravidian speakers, even in Andhra Pradesh where Y-DNA haplogroup T frequencies are highest.<br />West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool."<br /><br />(Metspalu, Gyaneshwer Chaubey et al, AJHG, Dec. 2011)<br /><br />And if your using dubious people like WITZEL then it goes to show why you think that way. He is PROVEN to be a person who distorts Sanskrit and Indian history, many scholars have pointed this out.<br /><br /><br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1929145/figure/F1/<br /><br />''Genetic data indicated that ranges of musculus, custaneous and domesticus likely correspond to three distinct paths of expansion from the Indian cradle''<br />- Boursot et al, The Evolution of House Mice, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1993, 24: 119-152;<br /><br /><br />ANI migration into Africa. Just accept the data.bmdriverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02175936825472291559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35382541767158579212013-09-28T00:11:18.946+03:002013-09-28T00:11:18.946+03:00@Ramesh Mohan
Namaste!
Again, Ramesh, the horse ...@Ramesh Mohan<br /><br />Namaste!<br /><br />Again, Ramesh, the horse may not have been the “true” horse (Equus ferus caballus), but one of its relatives such as the donkey (Equus asinus) or onager (Equus hemionus). As such it may not have been such a game-changer in those respects. If it were the “true” horse then, yes, it would definitely be a great game-changer, but that does not appear to be the case as horses did not breed well in what is now India. Dravidian does not have the words associated with “horse culture”. If you notice in Indo-Iranian they had words associated with “horse culture”. This means that whatever horse the Dravidian speakers knew, it was not the one that is called the “true” horse or the “game-changer” as you call it, hahaha. They may have known of the “true” horse, but I am not sure. There is a lot to be said on this topic. Too much to try and fit here.<br /><br />As far as the Dravidian repertoire of animals matching animals known to the IVC, Franklin Southworth says, <i>”Among domesticable animals Proto-Dravidian has words for cattle, sheep/goat, cat, and dog (and, less securely, donkey, horse, and pig); wild animals include reptiles (crocodile, lizard, snake), primates (langur/baboon), various birds (crow, crane, dove, imperial pigeon, peacock tail), and –less certainly –deer, elephant, wild canids (wolf/fox/jackal), felids (tiger/ panther/ leopard). Unfortunately, we do not know whether the first group of reconstructed words referred to wild or domesticated species, but in general it is likely that they referred to different species or variants at different times and places. Wild forms of most of these animals (sheep, goat, cattle, chital deer, onager, pig, and probably elephant) have been found in the Indus Valley from the early levels of Mehrgarh in the seventh millennium BCE (Meadow 1986, 1987). Excavations of “late stone age” sites have produced remains of canid, pig, and buffalo (Langhnaj, Gujarat), and dog, Bos indicus, buffalo, sheep, goat, and pig, at Adamgarh on the Narbada (Allchin 1979a). Words for aquatic creatures (especially ‘prawn’ and ‘shellfish’) suggest a possible awareness of maritime products.”</i> Franklin C. Southworth ~ Linguistic Archaeology South Asia.<br /><br />@bmdriver<br /><br />Your comments have no bearing on the Dravidian language. It speaks of the “ASI”-intensive southern populations of India. Also, if the Dravidians were already “ANI” then how, outside of language and culture, would you distinguish them from the rest of the “ANI” in the region? The Dravidian languages cannot be autochthonous. The “ASI”-intensive South Indians, East Indians, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans are descended of the “autochthonous” tribals that had been there for literal thousands, even tens of thousands, of years before Dravidian speakers. Dravidian is, relatively, new to what is now India. Indo-Aryan is, relatively, even newer. The Austro-Asiatic (Munda) speakers have an even older history than Dravidian speakers in what is now India. Even a court in India declared Dravidian to be intrusive.<br /><br />M. Witzel and A. Lubotsky point out that the word for “canal” in the “Indo-Iranian/ BMAC substrate”, <b>Indo-Iranian/ BMAC substrate:</b> *i̯avīi̯ā-, jawījā <i>“canal, irrigation channel”</i> → <b>Sanskrit:</b> yavya- /yaviya/ = yavīyā-; <b>Old Persian:</b> yauwiyā-, <b>Persian:</b> ju(y) <b>< Dravidian: Tamil:</b> iyavai <i>“way, path, by natural extension, channel, course”</i>. There you have another connection to the BMAC/ Oxus civilization. This is just one of many words that clearly indicate Proto-Dravidian (not just merely some type of Dravidian) was spoken outside of what is now India. Language contact is the death of the autochthonous Dravidian speaker theory.AdygheChabadihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02303595735003236434noreply@blogger.com