Friday, November 4, 2016
Caste is in the genes
I've built up a pretty good record over the past couple of years of pre-empting results that eventually show up in high end scientific journals.
Here's another major finding that you'll see at some point in Nature or Science: in present-day India upper caste membership is strongly associated with Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe-related ancestry, while low caste membership and Dravidian languages are strongly associated with indigenous South Asian and Zagros Neolithic-related ancestry.
As far as I can see, with my somewhat limited dataset, the best way to show this is by plotting D-stats of the form D(Outgroup;Samara_Eneolithic)(Onge;X) versus D(Outgroup;Iran_Neolithic)(Onge;X). The relevant datasheet is available here.
Like I say, my dataset is still not great for this type of analysis, but the results are very striking and I have no doubt that they will be confirmed with more comprehensive sampling of Indian populations.
If they are confirmed, this will probably mean three things: 1) the caste system was introduced into the Indian subcontinent from the Eurasian steppe after the demise of the Chalcolithic Harappan civilization, 2) Zagros Neolithic farmers and closely related Neolithic/Chalcolithic populations of South Asia were not Indo-European-speaking, 3) like the caste system, Indo-Aryan (and thus Indo-European) languages were introduced into the Indian subcontinent from the Eurasian steppe after the Chalcolithic.
See also...
On the doorstep of India
Indian confirmation bias
The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
It does not follow that the caste system was introduced from the Eurasian steppe. Indeed, that is very unlikely as there is no equivalent anywhere else.
It does imply that the caste system originated in a population unusually highly penetrated by folk descended from Eurasian steppes.
This post links to an economic paper which, though it gets some background of the history wrong (fortunately irrelevantly to its main analysis) provides a very plausible mechanism for this.
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/the-economics-of-caste-formation-and.html
It does not follow that the caste system was introduced from the Eurasian steppe. Indeed, that is very unlikely as there is no equivalent anywhere else.
It does imply that the caste system originated in a population unusually highly penetrated by folk descended from Eurasian steppes.
Yeah, I probably should have worded it like your second sentence.
So why was 'caste' introduced in the first place?
Was it an ancient recognition of genetics and the perceived need to 'segregate' genetics within distinct groups?
Anyhow, 'caste' was given a religious justification and sanction way back in those ancient times. The moral is that if you want a custom, any custom, to persist through thousands and thousands of years of history, right up to present day, the way to do it is to give it a religious sanction.
No other means of prolonging persistence ever works.
I do believe the ancient iranians had hierarchy cognate to the Vedic hierarchy represented by a caste of priests, warriors and a laity
OK, I changed some of the labels.
The spreadsheet I had that accompanied the samples wrongly listed the Velamas as Scheduled caste.
@Jijnasu
Whoops, I deleted your comment by mistake. Was meant to delete mine.
But you're right, it's a complex linguistic/caste divide, with the Indo-Europeans and/or upper castes showing more West Eurasian ancestry, and especially in the case of the former, more steppe ancestry.
Doesn't the length of 'ASI' and 'ANI' segments imply that there was quite heavy admixture between populations up until as recently as ~2,000 years ago?
This would have been when any type of 'caste system' really started to follow strict endogamous marriage rules.
This definitely didn't come from the steppe, or we wouldn't see admixture in every segment of the population.
Well, there's always going to be some social downward mobility by males, no matter how strict the rules.
I can think of two sorts who contributed steppe ancestry, in particular R1a-Z93, to Dravidians and tribals; pioneers moving into South Asia without any women and, later on, outcasts from the upper castes.
Hi,
How do these populations map into this graphic which you linked to in the "Dead cat bounce" post?
https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/_/rsrc/1299257215397/thearyantrail/peoples-1000bc.gif
My interest is further east, but Indian populations must have played a major part in SE Asia. The question is when.
Garvan
@Garvan
One day I'll try and make a graph to fit with that map. Right now I don't have enough Indian samples, but I'm seeing some pretty good correlations already.
- Yellow colored 1st wave of Indo-Aryans hug the line of best fit or plot below it, because they have excess Iran_Neolithic-related ancestry, probably both from admixture with BMAC and Dravidian peoples
- Salmon colored 2nd wave of Indo-Aryans include Brahmin_UP and Kshatriya and they're way above the line due to excess steppe-related ancestry
- Light blue and pink other Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian groups like the Kalash and Pathans are also above the line and at the top of the graph due to excess steppe-related ancestry and only low level indigenous South Asian ancestry
@Davidski
"I can think of two sorts who contributed steppe ancestry, in particular R1a-Z93, to Dravidians and tribals; pioneers moving into South Asia without any women and, later on, outcasts from the upper castes."
Sure. But inter-caste mobility began to be very limited around 2,000 years ago.
Are there any genetic studies of untouchables? That could be interesting.
I'm a bit confused by the caste concept. I thought low or scheduled castes were untouchables? But maybe not, or not all of them?
There was a short preprint at bioRxiv not long ago from the Reich Lab with lots of Indian groups from all sorts of castes. Hopefully that dataset is released soon with very detailed and accurate labels, so I can re-run the graph above.
For what it’s worth, there is the notion (articulated in its most clear form by Dumézil) that the Proto-Indo-Europeans conceived human relations/social telos as being within the confines of three primary realms, the sacred, the martial, and the productive/economic (the oft-repeated “priest/warrior/commoner” triad).
In much of the anthropological speculation I’ve read concerning Eurasian prehistory, this theory is a very common motif.
Personally, looking at the more “primeval” threads within ancient Greek literature (I’m referring to that body of it which possesses very deep roots in prehistory), examining Norse mythology, and taking into consideration the evidence found in the Rig Veda, the notion naturally impresses itself on any mind. It seems a very convincing hypothesis.
In addition, as someone who has extensively studied the anthropology of the peoples of the Hindu Kush valleys, and has traveled in that very region, I should note that there are still Indo-Iranian peoples who construe social structure as involving three tiers.
It is far from anything like the exceedingly complex, highly endogamous, and deeply hierarchical Indian caste system, but within it may be seen the “germ”, or rather, the very broad frame from which something like the Indian caste system emerged.
Basically, traditionally speaking, the Dardic and Nuristani peoples (we’re dealing with some very serious diversity, so I’m simplifying to the extreme) are organized into a loose tribal system which involves, at the level of the village unit, the same three broad levels mentioned in connection with Proto-Indo-European societal self-conception.
Again, it is a system very foreign to what it seen in greater India. These people have no familiarity with the Indian idea of “untouchability”, and marriage between these three broad classes is absolutely permissible. In fact, touching on the latter dynamic, men of “higher status” often wed women of “lower status”. Nor do the other two classes possess power of life and death over the “commoners”, as was once the case in India (and in some places within that nation, still is the case).
Be that as it may, an echo of the Indian caste system is definitely felt within this sort of “Hindu Kush valley culture complex”.
@Davidski
Yes. Scheduled caste, or Dalits is how they are usually referred to now.
What I meant, though, is that I wonder if there is horizontal mobility in this group, or does each local group have independent genetics.
I guess that would take a lot of research to determine.
I can give a more detailed explication. Looking at Pashtuns (an Iranian people), we see much of interest with regard to this issue.
In the tribal heartland, among the most isolated/“wild” Pashtun tribesmen, people are (again) construed as falling into three categories. There are Pashtuns/Pakhtuns proper (in the region I’m referring to, the pronunciation is Pakhtun rather than Pashtun), who refer to themselves in those parts as “da topak khalaq” (“people of the gun”). Then there is the Mullah, almost an archetypal figure in those parts, a man of religious study and instruction, and a figure who possesses neutrality with regard to all tribal affairs. In addition to these two classes of people, there are the “qasibghar”. The people who fall into this category are engaged in physical labor/peasants, not to mention people who do tasks which Pashtuns proper are unwilling to perform (like cutting hair/trimming beards/performing circumcises, catering at weddings, building houses, selling fruit/vegetables, etc).
In this setup, Pashtuns are supposed to be occupied with violence, so they have a self-conception of themselves as a “warrior people”. The organizational principle for them is “nang” (honor), and with it “Pashtunwali” (tribal code of personal conduct + primitive legal code). Nang/honor is maintained by killing one’s enemies, by displays of animosity towards paternally-related cousins, by keeping the females of one’s family in stern check, by being economically independent, and preserving/protecting ancestral land holdings. Displays of weakness in front of enemies, relenting in front of paternally-related cousins, allowing any female family members any sort of sexual self-expression/freedom, relying on another man for economic assistance, and losing land inherited from paternal ancestors, all of these possibilities involve severe “dishonor”, and lead to public ridicule + serious disrespect for the adult male in question (and when “tor” is involved, they led to the death of the adult male in question).
On the other hand, none of this concerns Mullahs (to simplify, it gets complicated), for whom Islam/religion is their organizational principle, with all which that entails. They teach religion to children, preach, and act as neutral parties during tribal conflicts. In many cases, they are quite physically distinct from Pashtuns, being noticeably darker, and having “softer” facial features. Many of these families have roots in greater India, often the Punjab region, but adopted Pashto many generations ago.
By contrast, the Qasibghar have a client-patron relationship with Pashtuns. Pashtuns provide land, work, and often wed their women. This is a huge category; it includes people as disparate as weavers, barbers, musicians, tenant farmers, fruit/vegetable sellers, etc. In this area, Pashtuns supposedly immigrated from further west around 600-500 years in the past, and the Qasibghar are supposedly descended from the previous locals. Not sure if that’s true, but it makes sense.
At the end of the day, I think the foundations of the Indian caste dynamic lie in something quite similar to this. In addition, this system seems to have deep roots in many Indo-European cultures.
In greater India, this system evolved into something far more complex, and probably fused with indigenous South Asia norms/traditions.
But it’s all speculation. I wouldn’t bet anything on this. Rather, I just consider it convincing.
Amusing how it was British Europeans who caste South Indians as low caste, but not Indians themselves, simple because the European Christian world caste everyone as dark skinned as a slave lineage of Canaan,
The Indian texts themselves mention no where that caste was based in geographical location.
Seems modern Christian crusaders are still informing "natives" there version of history,
Africans are savages, native Americans where once Europeans. And white or light skinned people came from japeth and Shem lineages thus high caste, as per Noah's caste system.
All you show is genetic deviation based on geographical location nothing else.
''Mountstuart Grant-Duff, the British Governer of Madras in his address to the students of the madras university in 1886 told the students "You are of pure Dravidian race" and he preceded to say they have been cheated by the Brahmins. This is the first time in history a group of human beings have been addressed as Dravidian Race''
It was the hunter commission under British rule that labelled the caste classifications if today based on color, the ancient varna system was a four fold system in which so called low varna represented 90% of the population. The Indus Valley civilisation the farming societies expanded out into Central and South India, and urban societies started to have planned organisation, guilds the same in Europe. But it's the white aryan Europeans during Indian occupation classed dark skinned as low caste and light skinned as high caste, shame people who do science to support racial point of view their own European heritage created.
According to European Christian world Africans are low caste and Europeans are high caste and today wannabe geneticist try to use modern science to overlay onto colonial prejudice implemented into Indian society.
..........white mans burden in proving they created world civilisation is still rampant.
All you show is genetic deviation based on geographical location nothing else.
I guess you missed the big one that Brahmin_TN are from Tamil Nadu in South India but plot near North Indians.
And there are other details there that you're missing, like the fact that compared to Indo-Aryans most Dravidian speakers have much more Iran_Neolithic ancestry than steppe ancestry, irrespective of where they're from.
If the four varna classification was developed in the indus then migrating Brahmins to South India would obviously indicate this. And generic studies also indicate every population of India share both so called ani and asi.
Are you denying that your so logic on India is not based on racial classifcations, eugenics developed under the European occupation of India that implicitly state light sinned from Caucasian stock hence high caste and dark skinned from African stock hence low caste?
Even your commenters post statements such as softer facial tones, aka Christian eugenics developed during the highly racist times of European imperialism. If one where to search for Shem, japeth, ham in google image that religious belief is what your proposing.
Can you give an Indian text that states varna or caste was based on race?....or give a Vedic text they came from steppes or Tamils where invaded by Aryan's?
Are you saying that that Brahmins from South India ate white in color? Lol
Are you saying law varna or caste people in North India are black in color?.......have you been to India?
All your doing is supporting this white man racial segregation in which Africans and dark skinned people are low caste, and as such you try to overlay your racial prejudice onto India because India is they key.
"We need to teach false history because they follow a false religion"
-Thomas macauley.
No one said anything about skin color here except you.
Apart from you, everyone else is discussing genetics and the caste system.
And what you're still not getting is that ANI is not a monolith; it's a composite made up of at least two West Eurasian types of ancestry, one native to the Eastern European steppe and the other to Iran.
India is certainly the key, and everything we see from India backs up the Kurgan Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland hypothesis.
@Davidski
3) like the caste system, Indo-Aryan (and thus Indo-European) languages were introduced into the Indian subcontinent from the Eurasian steppe after the Chalcolithic.
Indo-Arians did not invade India directly from Eurasian steppe. Ethnogenesis of Indo-Arians took place somewhere between the South Caucasus and Northern Iran so it would be more correctly to say that Indo-Arians came to India not from steppe but from Iran. Surely subclade R1a-Z93 at the first place appeared somewhere in the Pontic-Caspean steppe (probably the North Caucasus) and then ancestors of Indo-Arians (R1a-Z93>Z94) migrated from steppe to the south (South Caucasus-Northern Iran).
http://s019.radikal.ru/i630/1611/59/e98b8633b423.jpg
Are really saying your not overlaying color and facial features onto your genetic understanding?
By your logic every Brahmin in South India should be white skinned. And ever low varna caste in North India should be black, which the bedrock of the Christian aryan theory.
Recent gene studies as the Simons projects indicate one migration from Africa, and the first place successfully populated in which lineages still exist in modern mms is South Asia. And other studies indicate apart from Africa the longest area where humans lived was South Asia.
Your taking a natural development of mankind and overlaying a long history of white high caste ideology of Europeans onto ancient history. Indus Valley a farming society was based in the North for very simple reasons, the flat planes of North India irrigated by the river deltas emanating from the foothills of Himalayas are ideal for farming. Farming leads organisation of society leads to urban planning, leads to other industry and skills, South India more mountainous hence not capable of sustaining wide scale farming as on the northern flat plaines. As indus become more wide spread the people migrated, into other parts of India. As studies there was extensive admixture, when urban planning took hold people settled towns and cities and moved less, guilds developed and communities started to monopolise certain trade. There is no racial classification. It's based on farming and hunter gatherer groups, not race, color or how big your nose is.
The American Journal of Human Genetics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.010 Aryan Migration Theory--South Indians migrated to north India and South Asians migrated into Eurasia. The study is comprehensive, unlike previous studies of human genome and is unique, because it focuses on large number of populations in South Asia, and India, a region which harbours one of the highest levels of genetic diversity in Eurasia and currently accounts for one sixth of human population in the world.• South Asian genetic diversity is 2nd in the world, next only to Africa, mainly due to long periods of indigenous development of lineages and with complex population structure. Two genetic components among Indians are observed: one is restricted to India and explains 50% genetic ancestry of Indian populations , while, the second which spread to West Asia and Caucasus region. Technically called “haplotype diversity”, it is a measure of the origin of the genetic component. The component which spread beyond India has significantly higher haplotype diversity in India than in any other part of world. This is clear proof that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus.
The caste systen in his current strict form is very complex and rather post-proto-aryan. Some already mentioned here that "Aryan" admixture is present in basically all Indian populations even among tribals and low caste Indians.The major admixture event between Aryans and locals happened probably before the caste system was fully established. Jatts for example have an unclear caste status and some even classify them as low castes but they are one of the Indo-Aryan groups with highest steppe admixture in many cases even more than Brahmins and Pashtuns. The first Aryans in India had definetly some kind of (primitive) social hierachy but i dont think it was a caste system in the strict sense. All more or less complex non-HG societies had some kind of sociel hierachy. Indo-Europeans did not invent this and pre-Indo-Europeans were not simply egalitarian farmers. In many cases nomadic or steppe cultures were more "egalitarian" than agricultural societies which could feed an "unproductive" urban elite, which controlled religious and political life.
@Azarov Dmitry
The Indo-Aryans arrived in India via BMAC in South Central Asia and it seems that this local Neolithic culture had a big impact on the ethnogenesis of most Indo-Iranians. Earlier Iranians populated the Andronovo culture but untill yet it is very hard to detect direct Andronovo influences south of BMAC. Either Indo-Iranian material culture changed dramatically after Indo-Iranians settled in BMAC or Proto-Indo-Iranians who had no permament settlements simply left not enough archaelogical artifacts what is not so suprising because they were nomads/pastoralists and had a rather "primitive" material culture like later Huns for example which also hard left any archaeological traces in Europe and Asia
Is this incorrect?
The American Journal of Human Genetics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.010 Aryan Migration Theory--South Indians migrated to north India and South Asians migrated into Eurasia. The study is comprehensive, unlike previous studies of human genome and is unique, because it focuses on large number of populations in South Asia, and India, a region which harbours one of the highest levels of genetic diversity in Eurasia and currently accounts for one sixth of human population in the world.• South Asian genetic diversity is 2nd in the world, next only to Africa, mainly due to long periods of indigenous development of lineages and with complex population structure. Two genetic components among Indians are observed: one is restricted to India and explains 50% genetic ancestry of Indian populations , while, the second which spread to West Asia and Caucasus region. Technically called “haplotype diversity”, it is a measure of the origin of the genetic component.
The component which spread beyond India has significantly higher haplotype diversity in India than in any other part of world. This is clear proof that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus.
The genetic studies of mice migration is extensively linked to migration of farming.
“Genetic data indicated that ranges of musculus, custaneous and domesticus likely correspond to three distinct paths of expansion from the Indian cradle.
-Boursot et al, The Evolution of House Mice, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1993, 24: 119-152
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1929145/figure/F1/
No, it's not correct.
Most studies on South Asia are outdated and wrong.
Most studies on South Asia incorrect?........that's quite a blanket statement to make
Is the migration of mice also incorrect?
It's very clear now that there was a migration from the steppe to India during the Bronze Age, which means that any study on Indian genetics that failed to catch this is wrong.
Forget the mice, they're irrelevant.
So mice migration linked to farming is meaningless.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1929145/figure/F1/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ibm_media/6305352833
Is it not amazing how migration of man according to ibn genographic project and migration of mice is almost exactly the same.(above links)
'Outside Africa, the earliest and fastest growth is inferred in Southern Asia India -52 kya. Comparisons of relative regional population sizes through time suggest that between approximately 45,000 years and 20,000 years most of humanity lived in Southern Asia India.
-mtDNA Variation Predicts Population Size in Humans and Reveals a Major Southern Asian Chapter in Human Prehistory.......
Coalescent time estimates for R-M17(xM458) STR from (Underhill 2009)
Location TD
W. India 15,800
Pakistan 15,000
Nepal 14,200
India 14,000
Oman 12,500
N. India 12,400
S. India 12,400
Caucasus 12,200
E. India 11,800
Poland 11,300
Slovakia 11,200
Crete 11,200
Germany 9,900
Denmark 9,700
.........if one looked at the bigger picture, any migration from steppes, if at all, would have been South Asian tribes migrating back to South Asia itself.
This graph seems to lead us to some pretty interesting conclusions. Their seems to be a decrease in West Eurasian ancestry along the caste hierarchy with tribal groups having the lowest amounts. The west eurasian ancestry in IA speakers seems to be steppe like while that in Dr speakers seems to mainly originate from the iranian neolithic (Tamil Brahmins being more simillar to Indo-European groups in this regard is on expected lines as their largest subcastes are fairly late immigrants from central India having migrated 500 - 1500 ybp). The affinities of the upper caste Dravidian speakers seem to suggest a dravidian expansion from western India (Interestingly L and R2 are very common amongst Dr middle and upper castes). However there is some conflict with linguistic evidence regarding whether it was the language of the IVC & whether the Brahui are native to Balochistan.
It is also important to emphasize what our study has not shown. Although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India during this time.
On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years
-Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)
Surely the bigger picture reveals migration out of India, hence the origins of the Caucasian type itself is of South Asian origin (eugenics as you call it)
Another interesting thing is that a hierarchy seems to have developed independently amongst Dravidian speakers. Caste in its modern form aren't just professional groups but ethnic divisions often distinct in religious & cultural traditions, food and sometimes even in dress and clothing. Caste groups often lived together and there existed strong interdining taboos even amongst the various untouchable castes. There is very little evidence of this system predating the first millenium AD and this seems to be supported by genetic evidence. The Hindu law codes & the Hindu and Buddhist narrative traditions know of merely a handful of castes with no interdining taboos or strict endogamy. Hypergamy was accepted widely and untouchability (the stigmatiation of 'unclean' occupations such as leather workers, butchers, undertakers etc) seems to have been in its infancy. Caste however to have developed from a pre-existing hierarchy. The preservation of the hierarchy in earlier periods was probably due to general lack of social mobility and the absence of major social upheavals rather than a strict taboo on endogamy. The 'caste system' of early aryans & dravidians was probably more simillar to the class divisions in contemporary societies rather than what is currently prevalent in India
Agathiar is one of the ancient saptarshis, a revered Vedic sage, and the earliest Siddhar.
The Saptarishi (from saptarṣi, a Sanskrit dvigu meaning "seven sages") are the seven rishis who are extolled at many places in the Vedas and Hindu literature. The Vedic Samhitas never enumerate these rishis by name, though later Vedic texts such as the Brahmanas and Upanisads do so. They are regarded in the Vedas as the patriarchs of the Vedic religion
He is considered as the Father of Tamil literature and compiled the first Tamil grammar called Agathiyam. Adhithya Hrudhayam was revealed by Agathiar
--------
PLoS ONE 8(9): e73682. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073682 2013
mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization. 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
-------
-Nature’s Scientific Reports journal, 2016
Indus Valley civilisation may pre-date Egypt's pharoahs: Ancient society is 2,500 years older than thought.
A team of researchers from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Institute of Archaeology, Deccan College Pune, and IIT Kharagpur, have analysed pottery fragments and animal bones from the Bhirrana in the north of the country using carbon dating methods.
‘Based on radiocarbon ages from different trenches and levels the settlement at Bhirrana has been inferred to be the oldest (>9 ka BP) in the Indian sub-continent,’
-----
-New Scientist, 2016
The forgotten utopia: The Indus people may have lived for 700 years without war, weapons or inequality
The Indus civilisation lived across South Asia from 2600-1900 BC
Artefacts, such as jewellery, have been found, but not a single weapon
There is little evidence of a government, royalty or any other leader
More than a thousand Indus settlements covered at least 800,000 square kilometres (309,000 square miles) of what is now Pakistan and northwestern India. It was the most extensive urban culture of its period, with an estimated population of one million and a vigorous maritime export trade. Like their contemporaries, the Indus - who may have made up 10 per cent of the world's population - lived next to rivers, owing their livelihoods to the fertility of annually. Robinson points out that archaeologists have uncovered just one depiction of humans fighting, and it is a partly mythical scene showing a female goddess with the horns of a goat and the body of a tiger.
The discovery, published in the prestigious 'Nature' journal on May 25.
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) have uncovered evidence that the Indus Valley Civilization is at least 8,000 years old, and not 5,500 years old, taking root well before the Egyptian (7000BC to 3000BC) and Mesopotamian (6500BC to 3100BC) civilizations. What's more, the researchers have found evidence of a pre-Harappan civilization that existed for at least 1,000 years before this.
"We have recovered perhaps the oldest pottery from the civilization. We used a technique called 'optically stimulated luminescence' to date pottery shards of the Early Mature Harappan time to nearly 6,000 years ago and the cultural levels of pre-Harappan Hakra phase as far back as 8,000 years," said Anindya Sarkar, head of the department of geology and geophysics at IIT-Kgp.
The team had actually set out to prove that the civilization proliferated to other Indian sites like Bhirrana and Rakhigarrhi in Haryana, apart from the known locations of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in Pakistan and Lothal, Dholavira and Kalibangan in India.
"At the excavation sites, we saw preservation of all cultural levels right from the pre-Indus Valley Civilization phase (9000-8000 BC) through what we have categorised as Early Harappan (8000-7000BC) to the Mature Harappan times," said Sarkar.
India was the perfect place for rapid human progression, monsoon, tropical, rich in resources, and one the largest human populations out side of Africa post migration. As I indicated before, the bigger is, Indian tribes migrated out, Indian farmers migrated out, mice migration is almost an exact mirror of human migration from India. And varna was a fluid system with extensive Endogamy, as the civilisation dispersed due to slow collapse of indus, marriage become based not on color or race but traders, guilds, which over many years became more complex, and slowly less fluid with endogamy within trading communities but not within related family groups. The varna or caste accounted for 90% of Indian populace! with tribals outside of the Vedic system! who under European occupation where classed as Dalits in a Scottish missions church during 18th century. Then with Islamic invasion the Muslim ashraf/Ajlaf system of skin racial classification caste became more prevalent finally ending with European occupation who enforced a strict rigid system, through hunter commission, based on Christian aryan Dravidian theory of white High castes from outside of India, Middle East west Asia steppes Anatolia, take your pick. Then with massive plunder of Indian wealth, according to some studies Indian gdp fell from 24% in 1700 to less than 3% in 1950, total destruction of society by European imperialist a new distorted corrupted history was told, based on racial classification and eugenics developed by European Christians obsessed with race, leading to the low caste Africans being enslaved and separated in the new world, and the persecution of Jews classed as sub race, and Indians being classified as Aryan's and Dravidians.
Fatawa-i Jahandari, Arab Islamic law regarded
Ashraf Muslims (light skinned Arabs) as racially superior superior status than The non-Ashrafs Muslims (Indian converts, non Arab Muslims) all high positions and privileges were to be a monopoly of the high born Arabs (Ashraf), not the Indian Muslims converts (Ajlaf). "Teachers of every kind are to be sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones down the throats of dogs (Indian converts) or to put collars of gold round the necks of pigs and bears-that is, to the mean, the ignoble and the worthless, to shopkeepers and to the low-born they are to teach nothing more than the rules about prayer, fasting, religious charity and the haj pilgrimage, along with some chapters of the Qur'an and some doctrines of the faith, without which their religion cannot be correct and valid prayers are not possible. But they are to be taught nothing else, lest it bring honour to their mean souls. The low born are capable of only vices."
Mawali (Arabic: ) is a term in Classical Arabic used to address non-Arab Muslims. The term gained prominence in the centuries following the early Arab Muslim conquests in the 7th century, as many non-Arabs where converted to Islam. Converts were treated as second class citizens by the ruling Arab elite - they continued to pay the tax required of nonbelievers and were excluded from government and the military.
India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, to as low as 3.8% in 1952.
-Thomas Maddison, world economy: millennium perspective.
@bmdriver
Surely the bigger picture reveals migration out of India, hence the origins of the Caucasian type itself is of South Asian origin (eugenics as you call it).
You're living in la la land.
No point quoting old, outdated, wrong studies. Try and understand the new data that is coming out, instead of looking to biased, incompetent academics to show you the way.
Btw, I never mentioned eugenics.
So why was 'caste' introduced in the first place?
This is social, economical, trade based classification introduced to the society.
If it is introduced by Manu, Is it Genetic classification and does it give an opportunity to chest thumping for some at this point?. Does it prove Aryan Invasion Theory?.
We have 2 different genetic sets. ASI and ANI here.
Comparing casts from South with north is not correct.
You can get some or partial answer by comparing
Dark skinned upper casts from South with lower casts from south.
Ex: Mala vs Dark skinned Vysya. Data set is important.
or
Fair skin Northern lower casts and upper casts/middle casts..
Ex: Chamar or other vs Jhat/Yadav.
We have 2 different genetic sets. ASI and ANI here.
The ASI/ANI model is outdated.
ANI can be divided into at least two distinct components: Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe and Neolithic Iranian.
Thank you for this. I agree with you that ANI consists of two different components, a CHG-like component and an ANE like component. We already knew that generally higher castes have higher ANI. But the ANI is indeed in different proportions in different castes. For example the Velamas, a high-caste south Indian community actually have higher affinity to Iran_Neolithic than do Brahmin_TN. Brahmin_TN have higher affinity to Samara_Eneolithic than do Velamas.
But I disagree with Davidski about where these different components originated. I believe both the CHG-like and the ANE-like components originated in the Indian Subcontinent in different geographical areas. Iran_Neolithic and Samara_Eneolithic are both ultimately the result of Out of India migrations. In this I agree with bmdirver.
More results, especially from Rakhigarhi will be coming soon and some of these speculations will be put to rest. Either I or Davidski will then have to eat humble pie.
@Nathan Paul
While its very hard to say what really lead to the formation of castes. I doubt the author of the Manu smriti was in any way its creator. It is neither the most influential nor the oldest work of its genre. A four fold hierarchy was already known in the latest books of the rig veda. Also the Manu smriti probably compiled between the 2nd century BCE and the 2nd century CE actually permits hypergamous intermarriages
@Balaji
But Samara_Eneolithic is most certainly a mixture of EHG, CHG and a bit of Anatolian Neolithic.
EHG has been present in Europe as far back as the Mesolithic, at least, and CHG has been in the Caucasus since the Upper Paleolithic.
EHG cannot be from India, as it is a mixture of European WHG and Siberian ANE. CHG's presence in the Caucasus is too ancient, and its relationship to Anatolia Neolithic, which has nothing to do with South Asia, too close to speculate that it came from South Asia.
So at the very best, a part of CHG might be from South Asia or near South Asia, but if so, it has been sitting on the border of Europe since the Upper Paleolithic.
How can this explain the close relationship between Indo-European speaking and high caste Indians with Samara_Eneolithic?
It can't.
Samara_Eneolithic was native to Eastern Europe. Hence, Indo-European speaking and high caste Indians must drive a significant part of their ancestry from Eastern Europe.
There is no logic to claiming that what we're seeing here is the result of migrations out of India. Ancient DNA won't confirm what is impossible.
@bmdriver,
"Are you saying that that Brahmins from South India ate white in color?"
South Asians having dark brown skin isn't good evidence against them having 20% European ancestry. Mexicans for example are on average 40-60% Spanish yet the vast vast majority of them have Dark Brown Native American skin. Besides we don't know if South Asian's European ancestors had white skin like Andronovo did, they may have been darkish skinned like Yamnaya did.
The DNA evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that South Asians have European ancestry(Their European ancestors weren't exactly the same as any modern Europeans, but they were very very similar). There's no room for debate anymore. European ancestry in South Asia peaks in Tajicks, who maybe 40-50% yet are dark skinned. One way or another South Asian phenotype will be consistent with having European ancestry.
Lastly, no one here is using the existence of European ancestry in South Asia to support any forms of white racism. All we're doing is acknowledging evidence from DNA. I do think David puts too much emphasis on macho-Steppe men but it isn't a white-thing it's a Steppe-thing I guess even though they don't exist anymore.
@Nathan Paul
Also bringing pigmentation into this isn't very meaningful, except for non brahmin Tamils among whom fair skin is rare and kashmiris and to an extent punjabis where being dark is rare, most Indian regions show the same range of pigmentations. It is not unusual to find very dark and very light skinned individuals within the same family. Further since the gene for pigmentation seems to have undergone positive selection in several Indian groups it is not too relevant to this discussion.
Sammy Andrews states that the evidence clearly states that south Asians clearly have European ancestry.
I have no reason to doubt Sammy Andrews.
But, when we consider that , today, there are well over one and a half billion sub-continental Indians alive today, and that the number of 'Steppe people' - never mind there 'European' component at the Sintashta times - must have been very small in both absolute and proportionate terms, whether by ancient or modern standards, then this phenomenon only lends weight to the 'elite reproductive dominance' hypothesis discussed in another thread.
Also, considering that the population of the subcontinent is much greater than the totality of ethnically European people alive today, we have the curious fact that 'European genetics' have thrived in a far greater number of non-European individuals than they have done in ethnic Europeans.
@bmdriver
I saved (and printed) your posts and labelled them "Indian nationalism".
"Coalescent time estimates for R-M17(xM458) STR from (Underhill 2009)
Location TD
W. India 15,800
Pakistan 15,000
Nepal 14,200
India 14,000
Oman 12,500
N. India 12,400
S. India 12,400
Caucasus 12,200
E. India 11,800
Poland 11,300
Slovakia 11,200
Crete 11,200
Germany 9,900
Denmark 9,700"
Underhill is a notorious levantinists who found many R1a (M420 types) in Iran and didn't publish the one found in Italy. I put him with the Jewish PhD of Stanford and Harvard.
India about hg. R1a has above all those downstream Z94, neither Z93 present massively in Europe where it is born.
These are the dates of YFull (I believe underestimated, but only for an 1.17 factor):
R-Z94 Z95/F3568 * Z94/F3105/S340 formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
@ Balaji
"But I disagree with Davidski about where these different components originated. I believe both the CHG-like and the ANE-like components originated in the Indian Subcontinent in different geographical areas. Iran_Neolithic and Samara_Eneolithic are both ultimately the result of Out of India migrations. In this I agree with bmdirver.
More results, especially from Rakhigarhi will be coming soon and some of these speculations will be put to rest. Either I or Davidski will then have to eat humble pie".
Right. Let's wait for that.
@ Davidski
"Ancient DNA won't confirm what is impossible".
I believe west Asians are a migratory group from ani South Asia.
On the contrary, a recent study that searched for West Eurasian groups most closely related to the ANI ancestors of Indians failed to find any evidence for shared ancestry between the ANI and groups in West Eurasia within the past 12,500 years
-Major admixture in India took place ~4.2-1.9 thousand years ago (Moorjani et al. 2013)
PLoS ONE 8(9): e73682. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073682 2013
mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization. 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
Two genetic components among Indians are observed: one is restricted to India and explains 50% genetic ancestry of Indian populations , while, the second which spread to West Asia and Caucasus region. Technically called “haplotype diversity”, it is a measure of the origin of the genetic component. The component which spread beyond India has significantly higher haplotype diversity in India than in any other part of world. This is clear proof that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus.
-The American Journal of Human Genetics (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.010
Gioiello i guess you reflect almost two thousands years of white superiority complex that manifested into colonialism, imperialism and slavery of the known world. Let me stick to my Indian nationalism is grounded more in morality, logic and unbiased reasoning than an expansionist attitude with a religious Christian theology underpinning it. I could repost historical account of European Christian imperialist attitudes that make hitler seen liberal but since you know very little of Indian history other the colonial interpretations you found your common sense in, it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Its clear that west Asian diversity is from the more diverse South Asian gene pool. I'm sure as more studies are released it will be proven so. Like I said the bigger picture is South Asia is gene pool for west Asia and beyond. Even with published peer reviewed studies confirming this you don't accept it, but rely on less professional genetics. As would be the case when trying to prove an aryan theory laced with racism.
And now the data sets for r m17 are dubious because the author is from as you put, from the "Jewish" stock. Which kind of underpins my white Christian imperialist derogatory attitude, it's a shame.One way or another European phenotype will be consistent with having South Asian ani ancestry.
Your ACTUAL knowledge on Indian history is evidently sparse. Archeology and dating on the Indus site suggest a much older origin possible predating Mesopotamia and Egypt, the biblical homeland of civilisation, but I'm sure you put that down to nationalism. And the ibn genographic project and migration of mice linked to farming mirror the exact same direction of migration is again, revealing, again probably down to Indian nationalism, as I've always said Indian mice are just better.
The realty is your lack of colonial history or understanding of it paints the picture in your mind of empire building that was a just democratic cause, with no bias, religious Christian dogma, or prejudice attached to it during the 16-19th century, as we know they far more moral during the days of colonial rule then than today, with all their human rights, respect for other races, culture, and authority I mean the European conquest of the world was simply a mere footnote in your recollection of history, especially when you go even further back to ancient history. It seems the imperialist history of the last four hundred years is less clear than the ancient history of the Egyptians going back 2-3000years. Then again it just could just be personal bias labelled as neutrality, then comparing ancient Indian with how Mexicans look to justify your point is even more remarkable, since the colonial invasion of Mexican Central America is well known. And for caste I doubt your aware that 90% of Indian belong to the varna or caste system and untouchables or Christian coined Dalits where those outside of it, I got the opinion you classed all non Brahmins as untouchable, savages, kafir, heathen Dalits. I'm sure your not aware of the Arab ashraf light skinned caste system imposed on non Arab mawali, or the Christian hunter commision that created the modern classifications of varna or caste based on the aryan theory. Lol. It's like going round in circles. But I'm beginning to see whether the posters have a good knowledge of history as they do with genetics, in an extreme way, you could class some comments on here from members who also post on stormfront forums...........but the most prominent thought I take, is the dismissal and dilution of European colonialism, imperialism, plunder, and conquer of Africa, Americas, Australia and most importantly for you, India. It's as if it didn't even happen, or such long standing views of euro centric bias doesn't exist.
Anyway I'm sure the future will put answer to questions asked. But I doubt even then people are unwilling to let go of long standing racial bias developed European colonial rule and slavery. Like trump says let's make America great again.
'The best laid plans of mice and men come to naught'.
@bmdriver
You seem to be going overboard ascribing any theory suggesting immigration into the Indian subcontinent. A lot of theories on race from the 19th century are ridiculous but they have little to do with any of this. Much of what you're quoting is outdated. ANI wasn't even a single group. Time for all nationalists indian, italian or otherwise to realise that aknowledging immigrations in pre-historic times in no way demeans their national identity. Huge population changes have occurred world over since the neolithic
Jijnasu unfortunately the aryan theory is still quite prominent, in western intellectual circles, and often is cited and overlayed onto history, it does reek of semi religious political bias. And western history was laced with such prejudice and remains especially when re telling history.
As for those who keep saying high caste have more west Asian (white) stock in my opinion are are wrong. If Indus Valley and the farming culture spread into Central and South India, incorporating Indian hunter gatherer society into its fold, and with it also migrating into Central Asia, it seems more likely west Asian stock comes from the high varna or caste of South Asian ANI. Not high Caste have more west Asian stock but vice versa. And it was a colonial perspective that Hindu priesthood and Vedic culture came from the white "aryan" races of Caucasian stock, a religious Abrahamic belief that stems from Noah's three son lineage where Shem and japeth light skinned nations in the Middle East chosen by god to subdue the dark skinned races of Canaan marked with dark skin, a point of view prevalent during imperialism, especially dealing with Africans, native Americans, Indians, as being somewhat backward, such points of view are numerous throughout colonialism. America was segregated along such racial biblical interpretations.
Anyway future studies will give more light on the actual migration of man. But the migration of mice linked with migration of farming, and the two maps I posted with links, is almost an exact match. How could this be unless they are both related?
If you google image, Shem, japeth and ham, though not by any means a comprehensive study, but it goes to highlight how aryan Dravidian theory is an exact replica of such religious beliefs, that Abrahamic god chose light skinned tribes to enslave the dark skinned races with the mark of Cain.
Japeth (European Caucasians) shall dwell in the tents of Shem ( Arab middle Eastern west Asian Caucasians) and Canaan (Africans dark skinned races) shall be his slave
-bible.
Castes, outcastes, casteism, outcasteism have existed in Europe. Not taking this into account renders the discussions here so far as speculative.
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521027217
Defiled Trades and Social Outcasts
Honor and Ritual Pollution in Early Modern Germany
Series: Cambridge Studies in Early Modern History
Kathy Stuart
University of California, Davis
(ISBN-13: 9780521027212 | ISBN-10: 0521027217)
This book presents a social and cultural history of 'dishonourable people' (unehrliche Leute), an outcast group in early modern Germany. Executioners, skinners, grave-diggers, shepherds, barber-surgeons, millers, linen-weavers, sow-gelders, latrine-cleaners, and bailiffs were among the 'dishonourable' by virtue of their trades. This dishonour was either hereditary, often through several generations, or it arose from ritual pollution whereby honourable citizens could become dishonourable by coming into casual contact with members of the outcast group. The dishonourable milieu of the city of Augsburg from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries is reconstructed to show the extent to which dishonour determined the life-chances and self-identity of dishonourable people. The book then investigates how honourable estates interacted with dishonourable people, and how the pollution anxieties of early modern Germans structured social and political relations within honourable society.
There are a couple of interesting questions.
Is this a product of divergent or convergent evolution? If divergent evolution, then casteism would be another key Proto-Indo-European feature and should have existed among the Yamna population. In which case, the massive migration from the steppes introduced outcasteism into Europe.
Did Anthony find casteism in the steppes? To conclude divergent evidence, it's also necessary to have evidence of equivalents in all other parts of Europe for castes and outcastes, not just Germany. Within Germany, there must also be no evidence of pre-Christian Germans having castes and outcastes. For now, we only know it as a feature of Christian German society that existed until relatively recently.
However, independent or convergent evolution can't be ruled out, as it is known that castes existed in Japanese society before any Indian contact, and outcastes existed in recent African societies.
The second question is more directly connected to the discussion here, since European castes and outcastes would also be differentially related to the steppes. It is likewise to be expected that historical European lower castes and outcastes would be more representative of the more original, native Europeans. In contrast, foreign, invading Indo-European tribes would have set themselves up as the elites here too, and admixed differentially with the native population, while retaining a closer genetic connection to the steppes. Aristocrats would be expected to have more steppe (and be more Indo-European), and the lower and outcastes would be more representative of the earlier Europeans.
Neither guilds nor aristocracy are recent, as they already existed in pre-Christian Rome. That could mean that surnames of European labour classes and former serf classes and peasantry versus aristocracy may have preserved some of this genetic differentiation, since open panmixia is a more recent phenomenon in Europe, while endogamy by means of marrying equal rank (or caste) was more common earlier.
Investigation into the genetics of casteism and outcasteism in Europe, especially as it relates to levels of Indo-European admixture, would be a novel addition, because research into this on South Asia has been frequently covered.
There's a third possibility. Besides the possibility that casteism is a feature of the Proto-Indo-European homeland culture, with outcasteism as a product of the Indo-European migrations into Europe and Asia, and the second possibility that they are independently evolved stratification schemes based on local context and history, a third alternative is that these things could be a post-Indo-European import.
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/zoroastrians_iran_islamic_era.htm
Islamic era histroy of Zoroastrians of Iran through political analysis and historical letters
The Arab invasion of Iran in 630 A.D. and its consequences have never been researched impartially, because they always carry religious sentiments. It is taught and popularized that the Arabs brought Islam to Iran, and the Iranians being frustrated by their government, the strict religious code interfering with their daily life and the established Sasanian's caste system embraced Islam's message of equality and brotherhood. This view however is not only far from the historical evidences but contradicts the basic human instincts. The fact is that people on the whole do not give up their original tenets and traditions easily to adhere to the new one. Even the primitive Arabs did not abandon their old religion that simple, as there were several religious wars (Ghazvah) in which many of the nonbelievers were massacred. The Arab conquest not only did not eliminate the caste system, but soon Iranians found themselves part of the two new castes, slaves and Mavali. The mass of Iranian women, children and captured men were sold in the Arabian markets and even those who converted to Islam did not receive freedom. They were called Mavali or the liberated slaves, who were mostly deprived of basic rights, could not ride horses or carry weapons and at times being part of the asset were given away as gifts. The mass enslavement of Iranians was so rampant that in a story that Shiites made to relate the family of Imam Ali to the Sasanians, even the daughter of Yazdgard, Shahrbanou was sold as slave in Medina market to Imam Ali who gave her to his son, Imam Hussain to marry. By this narrative the Shiites believe that Imam Hussein's descendants are blood related to the Sasanians.
Ancient Iran had equivalent castes to India; a caste system, as the above extract describes it. Therefore, if it was an import to Europe, it may be that the Iranian-speaking Scythians of the steppes or Sarmatians introduced the system among the Germans. (If the Scythians, it would probably still have to be tracked back as a feature of the steppes originally, and casteism and outcasteism should then be present in other historical Indo-European cultures of Europe in some recognisable form.) If the Sarmatians had brought it among Germans, it would be from Iran and not the steppes, and its spread in Europe could then be more circumscribed.
However, if either is the case, other European populations who were significantly influenced by Scythians or Sarmatians would be expected to exhibit the same phenomenon, to the exclusion of those were weren't influenced to the same degree.
To what extent did the elite lineages of Scythians or Sarmatians, whichever of the two introduced it, permeate affected modern European populations? And are their paternal lineages common among these European populations today, in proportion to the historic presence of Scythians or Sarmatians among them? (As would be expected if elites more successfully reproduced than non-elites, as was argued in the comments of another recent entry at eurogenes.)
@bmdriver
I don't know anything about mouse migrations but I think we can sat without any doubt that a portion of modern Indian ancestry did originate from outside the subcontinent. What your failing to note is that while certain traditional ideas have been supported several others have been dispelled by evidence particularly from ancient dna. For example no more is the idea of a primeval race of nordic looking supermen current, and european pigmentation seems to have reached current levels fairly recent. Likewise there is no simple Aryan Dravidian theory anymore. Genetically ANI isn't even a homogenous group but a combination of two different W Eurasian populations. Likewise linguistically the situation was probably much more complex with several indigenous S Asian language famillies getting wiped not just by IA but also by the Dravidian expansion. Many of the studies from the previous decade are outdated. MtDNA is largely irrelevant. While much of Indian Y DNA is definitely a recent import. The underhill paper for example is based outdated methofs the clear division between Eurasian & Asian R1a suggests an origin to the west of S Asia. Likewise you've ignored the fact that r1a has been found in several of the steppe sites. Racism must be combatted but that shouldn't make us create historical counter narratives out of sync with available data.
@ak2014b
There are probably both convergent and divergent processes involved. There is nothing unusual about social hierarchies and hierarchies with limited social mobility likely existed amongst all societies. A three fold division likely existed amongst proto-indo-iranians possibly proto-IE with warriors, priests and common folk. I am less sure about the creation of class of outcastes as they appear relatively later in the Indian historical record. But the taboos that lead to it creation may have been common in several ancient societies.
@ bmdriver
Also a scientist does get his own preferences, even prejudices, but, if he were driven from them, he would be a bad scientist. I spoke for ten years about an Italian Refugium of hg. R1b1 and subclades against all, and this year has been found Villabruna. I have said much more and am waiting that other findings prove or disprove my theories.
You link me with religion and the Bible, not knowing that I am an atheist and have nothing to do with them. For judging what I said about the PhD of Stanford and Harvard and many others like Underhill you should know all what I know, but you don't.
@Davidski
I am very interested in the Brahmin_TN. It looks like he groups with Indo-Aryan speakers. Is it possible to see where in the subcontinent and when they arose? I wonder if they were a part of the original steppe migration that later "went native", and did on take on subsequent pulses of steppe admixture as northerners did, or if they were a northern Brahmin group that migrated south later, and took on local admixture.
It would certainly help model a lot of India's history, since they are outliers to North Indian Brahmins, and South Indian Higher Castes.
Correction:
I am very interested in the Brahmin_TN. It looks like he groups with Indo-Aryan speakers. Is it possible to see where in the subcontinent and when they arose? I wonder if they were a part of the original steppe migration, that penetrated the south, and later "went native", and did not take on subsequent pulses of steppe admixture as northerners did, or if they were a northern Brahmin group that migrated south later, and then took on local admixture.
@aniasi
The problem is very complex and hard to solve. Tamil Brahmins do not constitute a single endogamous group but are constituted into several caste groups with distinct origins. Broadly based on literary & cultural evidence they may be classified into a numerically small group that migrated around 2.5-2 kya during initial south indian urbanization, groups that migrated in the latter half of the 1st millenium and groups that migrated in the mid second millenium. A Y-DNA study including the latter 2 groups suggests that differences in may be genetic with the later migrants retaining greater northern ancestry (r1a -49% as compared to - 33% in older migrants). Further complicating this issue is that northern brahmins are very diverse internally themselves and central western india are relatively less sampled. The problems of Indian ethnogenesis may never be solved given its complexity and the fact that many of these groups are disappearing
Which two west Asian proponents are you talking about?
@ak2014b
That article is highly inaccurate. Seems like it was written by a hardcore Iranian/Zoroastrian nationalist. The Iranians were mostly deprived of basic rights, could not ride horses or carry weapons part is the most hilarious. The Asawira (Persian cavalry) were prominent in the armies of the of the new Islamic caliphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siyah_al-Uswari
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badhan_(Persian_governor) First Muslim governor of Yemen was a Persian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_the_Persian First governor of post-Sassanid Iraq was also a Persian.
Class in Iran reflected socioeconomic statuses, there was no " untouchable " caste or a holy " brahmin " caste.
Parthian era:
" Western scholars who refer to Iranian “feudalism” have apparently been misled by the main feature that ancient Iranian and medieval European societies to some extent had in common: the relationship between lord and vassal. In contrast to European feudal states, however, Iranian societies had long been characterized by slavery and tribalism; Parthian society was thus divided between the aristocracy, on one hand, and peasants, tribesmen, and slaves, on the other. "
Sassanid Era:
"
Social groupings. Under the Sasanians, who were themselves descended from one of the seven great Persian aristocratic families of the Parthian period (Lukonin, pp. 703-05), the social system inherited from their predecessor was further elaborated into a specifically Sasanian social, political, and cultural superstructure (Pigulevskaya, p. 101). The power of the nobility continued to increase until the mid-5th century C.E. Administrative centralization, coupled with state sanction of religious orthodoxy and the concentration of political, social, and economic affairs in the hands of the landed nobility, created an insuperable barrier between the aristocracy and higher ecclesiastics, on one hand, and wage earners, including peasants, artisans, and traders, on the other "
" The severity of this prescription was tempered to a degree by exceptions for men of singular worth and moral excellence. For example, Wahrām (Bahrām) II (274-93) conferred the rank of “grandee” (wuzurg) on his chief priest, Kardēr (KKZ 8; Back, p. 408) and Bahrām V that of nobility on his musicians ([Pseudo-]Jāḥeẓ, p. 28); according to the Dēnkard, the high priest (mowbedān mowbed) offered the “fillet of nobility” (wandag ī āzādīh “diadem”) to two pious and sagacious priests (hērbeds) whom he had taken for menials but who were in fact worthy of a higher social standing (ed. Madan, II, pp. 569-72, see above; Shaki, forthcoming). Finally, in the words of the Tansar-nāma, “if outstanding worthiness is observed in the natural disposition of a person, after due examination by the high priests (mowbeds and hērbeds), he shall be promoted to a higher scale, subject to the approval of the King of kings” (tr. Boyce, pp. 38-39). "
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/class-system-iii
History is interpreted by people's own bias, predujice, agenda and understanding. One commenters makes a statement about Persians caste, another refutes it as Zoroastrian pagan nationalism, when time estimates are given for r m17 accusations of Jewish Zionist nationalism, when I refute aryan Dravidian theory as Christian colonial distortions with historical European accounts, I'm classed as an Indian nationalist. People who adhere to aryan theory may not even be aware of its Abrahamic religious origins, often presented today minus the biblical interpretations.
West Asian diversity itself is from a South Asian gene pool, and any west Asian markers in India would have benn introduced by returning South Asian tribes to India, Indian varna was relatively fluid until medieval era when it became more caste,
"there is no evidence in the Rigveda for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system", and "the varna system seems to be embryonic in the Rigveda and, both then and later, a social ideal rather than a social reality"
- Jamison, Stephanie; et al. (2014). The Rigveda : the earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–58. ISBN 978-0-19-937018-4.
Birth is not the cause, my friend; it is virtues which are the cause of auspiciousness. Even a candala observing the vow is considered a brahmana by the gods.- RIgveda
Brahmin - priestly class
Kshatriya - administrative/warrior class
Vaisya - merchants/farmers
Shudra - working class
(The above classifcations represent 90% of Indian population)
Chandala - criminal class (considered untouchable or beyond the Vedic varna
Adivasi - tribal class hunter gatherer, outside of Vedic varna four fold
Ved vyas compiler of the Vedas born from Brahmin father, Shudra mother.
Valmiki compiler of Ramayana born from tribal advisability Shudra lineage.
Nikāya texts period of Buddhism (3rd century BC to 5th century AD), Varna as a class system is attested, but the described Varna was not a caste system. The Pali texts enumerate the four Varnas Brahmin, "Kshatriya",Vessa (Vaishya) and Sudda (Shudra), people in any Varna could in principle perform any profession. The early Buddhist texts, for instance, identify some Brahmins to be farmers and in other professions. The text state that anyone, of any birth, could perform the priestly function, and that the Brahmin took food from anyone, suggesting that strictures of commensality were as yet unknown. The Nikaya texts also imply that endogamy was not mandated in ancient India.
-Masefield, Peter (2008). Divine revelation in Pali Buddhism. Routledge. pp. 146–154. ISBN 978-041-5461-64-1.
Varan is described as a class system in 18th- to 20th-century Sikh literature, while Zat developed into caste system particularly during the British colonial era. Nesbitt quotes the Sikh dictum to be, "Sikh should be a Brahmin in piety, a Kshatriya in defense of truth and the oppressed, a Vaishya in business acumen and hard work, and a Shudra in serving humanity. A Sikh should be all castes in one person, who should be above caste"
-Nesbitt, Eleanor (2005). Sikhism a very short introduction. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 116–120. ISBN 978-0-19-280601-7.
aspects of dharma not taught in Dharmasastras can be learned from women and people of all classes
- Patrick Olivelle, Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra
@aniasi
I wonder if they were a part of the original steppe migration, that penetrated the south, and later "went native", and did not take on subsequent pulses of steppe admixture as northerners did, or if they were a northern Brahmin group that migrated south later, and then took on local admixture.
Probably the latter, or a bit of both, but I don't know how to test this reliably with the tools that I have.
@Davidski
Isn't there an analysis on when admixture occurred between two or three populations? Also, you have more genetic data with both Iranian Neolithic and more steppe samples. Would it be possible to use these three to see what admixtures made South Indian Brahmins? I was thinking of the treemix analysesm roll-off, and other tools that have been used: one pulse of Iranian + ASI followed by one more pulse + Steppe establishes a rapid penetration into the South, followed by Dravidian acculturation. One pulse of Iranian + ASI followed by two more pulses + Steppe or another pulse + ASI would establish a later migration south.
Either way, both help establish the Steppe contribution very conclusively to South Asian populations.
@aniasi
Sounds very complicated. I've seen lots of attempts in scientific literature at things like that, and the results, sadly, were more often than not rather dubious.
Usually what happens is scientists use programs like Rolloff to get a whole bunch of admixture signals and dates, and then they partake in mental gymnastics to make the results seem plausible. I don't want to do that considering the time and effort it would take.
But you might find these D-stats useful.
As far as I can see, the best single reference for steppe ancestry in South Asians is late Yamnaya/early Catacomb Ulan IV RISE552. Interestingly, with Onge as the outgroup, Brahmin_TN and Brahmin_UP practically don't show any difference in affinity to this sample versus Iran_Neolithic, but they do a little bit in their affinity to Andronovo versus Iran_Neolithic.
Onge Andronovo Iran_Neolithic Brahmin_TN -0.0351 -9.305
Onge Andronovo Iran_Neolithic Brahmin_UP -0.0266 -7.91
Onge Catacomb_Ulan_IV Iran_Neolithic Brahmin_TN -0.0387 -8.258
Onge Catacomb_Ulan_IV Iran_Neolithic Brahmin_UP -0.0356 -8.391
Not really sure about this, but I think it might suggest that Brahmin_UP harbors minor Andronovo-like ancestry that Brahmin_TN lacks, or has less of. If so, this might mean that the ancestors of Brahmin_TN moved into South India before Brahmin_UP acquired another layer of somewhat different steppe ancestry.
@Davidski
Can you do D-stats for:
Mbuti Brahmin_TN Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV
Mbuti Brahmin_UP Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV
Onge Brahmin_TN Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV
Onge Brahmin_UP Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV
Mbuti Brahmin_TN Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV -0.0017 -0.468
Mbuti Brahmin_UP Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV -0.0075 -2.627
Onge Brahmin_TN Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV 0.0084 2.289
Onge Brahmin_UP Andronovo Catacomb_Ulan_IV 0.0021 0.682
@Davidski
Thanks. Onge are not a true outgroup to Brahmin_TN and Brahmin_UP as they both harbor varying levels of Onge-like ancestry on their ASI side. When we take Mbuti, a true outgroup to them, as the outgroup it is revealed that Brahmin_TN are equally related to Andronovo and Catacomb_Ulan_IV and Brahmin_UP are slightly more related to Andronovo than to Catacomb_Ulan_IV. So it is likely that Brahmin_UP acquired their higher Andronovo relatedness after the migration of the Aryan ancestors of Brahmin_TN to South India.
@bmdriver,
Are you white, brown, black?
Whatever, does it make a difference in what you are saying? Davidski is not making up data. Please feel free to analyze the data yourself.
I'm not sure if you realize that while we all may be racists internally you are the one that is coming across as one in your diatribes.
The issue is whether or not there was a steppe influx into India. While both you and Balaji may be correct about the ultimate origin of both the Iran/CHG and ANE components in India, it does not in any way contribute to the discussion as to what happened about 5000ybp.
That there was an influx from inner Eurasia (Europe vs Asia is immaterial to this IMO) to southern Asia is almost certain. There is no other way to explain 4700ybp Z94 on the Samara bend and Z93's distribution overall. That is exactly what Davidski's autosomal analysis is also showing. There is ~7500ybp R1a in Karelia as well on the Baikal (Shamanka II) so we can expect widespread R1a types over that region for a few thousand years before the birth of Z94.
So please stick to facts and don't ascribe racist impulses to folk you don't know just because they may happen to be white.
Hi Everyone,
Regarding Davidski's Salmon (Ganges valley) vs Yellow (surrounding) waves: I think I've mentioned it before on this blog, but I've seen evidence that deforestation and intensive agriculture came to that area extremely late (post-IVC). I've seen scholars attribute that to iron, but I'm skeptical as there are other methods (fire, girdling, stone tools) and I know neolithic Europeans had no issue deforesting. Instead I've always wondered if it was more a matter of adapting the agricultural package to the new climate. A late, rapid settling of the area by intensive-agriculturalists might have something to do with its genetic and historical distinctiveness. This is not an area of expertise for me, so I'm curious if anyone else here might shed some light.
Thanks!
Jijnasu,
The topic is about casts and genetic profiling. Whether in Somalia, Polynesia or South India you have to identify groups that represent similar in profile. I just pointed one criteria for identifying closer genetic groups which is skin color/native casts.
For south India Mala and Vysya are good use cases to compare. Both are local communities with significant population and non tribal with out heavy Pania . Here also Vysya is more admixed .
Even though there is positive selection, Whether it is in Polynesia where East Asians females are slowly taking over the maternal genetic pool or South India proper classification and identifying the cast/tribal groups will establish long standing genetic continuity or differences.
Post a Comment