Off-Topic Chit-Chat

S. A. T. A said:
David Reich's study in population genomics is interesting enough in itself and I can concede, comparative studies of paleogenomics with modern population groups may provide hitherto unknown insight into the origin of modern human social groups.

But the conclusion he has drawn in his paper on Indian social groups, and its impact on history, is quite problematic and times contradictory. To begin with their conclusion is not even original. Studies in linguistics of Indo-European languages have long established that some sort of migration of language has taken place between distant geographies, indirectly implying that people who spoke those languages migrated and intermingled. This is the basic premise of the linguistic model of the dispersal of the Indo-European language. In this model, although there is a broad consensus that migration happened, but there is divergence of opinions among experts on the general direction of the migration and on any starting point of the migration.

Its not just that there are contending models on the dispersal of language groups, thus also its speakers, there are also contending archaeological models on dispersal of the culture that these language groups carried. While we today we have several linguistic and archaeological models that are in variance with competing models within their own discipline, the matter of fact is even these linguistic and archaeological models cannot be reconciled with one another.

So now genetic science, more specifically population genetics, had jumped into the gray and is picking sides. Archaeogenetics cannot reconcile, with any reasonable certainty, the lack of archaeological Data to support the many linguistic theories on the dispersal of the Indo-European languages.

Coming specifically to this paper, David Reich has put us in a bit of a philosophical bind.. One hand he claims that the admixture, of ANI genetics with west eurasian gene sample, only indicates close relationship between these two gene groups and makes no claim on their potential migration from one place to another or one group was the dominant contributor into another. Having set this argument , he unnecessarily delves into the archeological and the linguistic model on dispersal of cultures, whose very premise is Migration. Why this apparent contradiction. If he has decided to pick sides, that Indo-European language migrated into India at the end of the bronze age, let him state it clearly, provide irrefutable proof for this conclusion, as much his field allows, and help reconcile the contradictory archaeological and linguistic evidence. Otherwise he should have just stated the evidence of genetic admixture and left it at that.

The other issue I have with is the apparent dating of admixture of ANI and the ASI groups. The paper says that the admixture happened over a long period of time, between 4000 - 2000 years
ago (meaning 2000 BCE to the beginning of the common era). This is too vast a period and flies against the face of textual evidence, where we have that hereditary caste system coupled with endogamous social interact tions came into existence within few centuries of composing of the early Vedas.

There is also the statement that all social groups in modern India have admixture of West eurasians, steppe pastoralist, ANI and ASI. What this implies is that ANI and the ASI groups lived side by side without co-mingling (perhaps even the west eurasians is and steppe pastoralist loved side by side without any social interaction) for centuries to devolop their distinct genetic marker, then co-mingled so profusely that every succeeding social group carried both the genetic marker and then spread out through the length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent and then mysteriously developed a system of endogamy that created a large number of isolated, but in close cohabitation, social groups that morphed into the modern social Caste groups.

The above pictures is problematic in more than one way. The sample size is too small to draw such sweeping and grand conclusion. What socio-cultural forces shaped such dramatic alternating phases of isolation - admixture - isolation, and in such a short period of time, is still unexplained.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts. Nicely written.

The data does provide genetic evidence of directional drift.

Both towards India and within India.

He does postulate convincing theories for maternal versus paternal DNA.

I do not deny that he has picked a side, or belonged to the side going in.

But the science has been laid out for scrutiny. The inferences for debate.

The ANI and ASI being resident for a long time side by side is more to do with internal sociipolitical narratives than real science. He has said it as much in his piece. It's not even couched or ambiguous.

The early isolation now out of the way, the admixture followed by endogamous isolation is explained clearly by the narrative of the injection of a foreign way of life and theology in a position of social if not militirastic dominance into a long resident native population group and belief and linguistic system.

It's churn.

Then co-existence in an amalgam with a brand new social hierarchical order.

Sanskrit and Tamil.

Vedic Hinduism and resident dieties and belief system.

The eventual peripheralisation of Vedic God's to a minor role.

Fire for Water.

All of this is well discussed. As you have correctly said.

But the genetics now points to the same.

Cheers, Doc

@S. A. T. A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nilgiri and S. A. T. A
vsdoc said:
Thanks for your thoughts. Nicely written.

The data does provide genetic evidence of directional drift.

Both towards India and within India.

He does postulate convincing theories for maternal versus paternal DNA.

I do not deny that he has picked a side, or belonged to the side going in.

But the science has been laid out for scrutiny. The inferences for debate.

The ANI and ASI being resident for a long time side by side is more to do with internal sociipolitical narratives than real science. He has said it as much in his piece. It's not even couched or ambiguous.

The early isolation now out of the way, the admixture followed by endogamous isolation is explained clearly by the narrative of the injection of a foreign way of life and theology in a position of social if not militirastic dominance into a long resident native population group and belief and linguistic system.

It's churn.

Then co-existence in an amalgam with a brand new social hierarchical order.

Sanskrit and Tamil.

Vedic Hinduism and resident dieties and belief system.

The eventual peripheralisation of Vedic God's to a minor role.

Fire for Water.

All of this is well discussed. As you have correctly said.

But the genetics now points to the same.

Cheers, Doc

@S. A. T. A
Click to expand...

No doubt he is picking the side of the migrationist school and no problems with that, but he will have to contend with criticism that would be beyond his field of expertise to answer and would need support from allies whose theories are not fully and satisfactorily substantiated.

David Reich may be aware that part of his model, the cultural part, is traversing grounds well trodden by historians from the days of sir Mortimer Wheeler. Sir Wheeler in his now famous quote laid the blame of destroying the cities of mohenjodaro and Harappa at the feet of the Rgvedic Indra.

We now know that IVC was not destroyed in a single epochal event, but was a gradual decline, played out over a period of time. Dr Reich's hypothesis seems to carry more than a whiff of the old theory of hordes of invading Aryans. Let me state why I find it problematic.

Going by his model, if the ANI and the ASI had to undergo the admixture the only likely setting for this to happen were the sprawling urban centers of the IVC. The IVC at its peak, during the mature phase, probably was the size of the western Europe and had a population close to 5 million. I'm sure this setting gives enough scope for a ANI - ASI admixture,because such a large population could not have been entirely homogeneous.

However we know from the archeological records that IVC first localized in the early phase, then integrated in the mature phase and then deurbanized during the late phase. This indicates that there was no disruption to the civilizational process, both internal and external, because the evolution is gradual and steady.

Now Reich claims, in his explanation to the discrepancy in the distribution pattern of male Y chromosome and female Mtdna in the ANI and ASI group, that most of the genetic input in the ANI group was made by males with predominantly west eurasian affinity. In simple words a west eurasian male predominant group entered the ANI ancestry and started having more offsprings with the majority females of the ASI ancestry. This can only happen if the group with ANI ancestry had supplanted, in a power struggle at IVC, the predominant group with ASI ancestry. The archaeology of IVC simply doesn't bear out any such a power struggle.

The painted grey ware (PGW) culture is generally considered the archeological record in India that is closely related to the Indo-Aryans. The carbon dating of PGW sites do not reveal a date older than 1200 BCE. More interestingly none of the PGW sites are immediately preceded by the Late Harappan Civilization(LHC) levels (except may be in Bhagawanpura). What this indicates, archeologicaly speaking, is that the Indo-Aryan culture could not have entered North India immediately after the end of the late Harappan phase, let alone the end of the mature Harappan phase (around 1900 BCE)

The lack of archaeological evidence, like the one cited above is the reason why the Aryan invasion theory collapsed. This is also the Achilles heel of David reich's hypothesis.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Nilgiri, vsdoc, vstol Jockey and 1 other person
S. A. T. A said:
No doubt he is picking the side of the migrationist school and no problems with that, but he will have to contend with criticism that would be beyond his field of expertise to answer and would need support from allies whose theories are not fully and satisfactorily substantiated.

David Reich may be aware that part of his model, the cultural part, is traversing grounds well trodden by historians from the days of sir Mortimer Wheeler. Sir Wheeler in his now famous quote laid the blame of destroying the cities of mohenjodaro and Harappa at the feet of the Rgvedic Indra.

We now know that IVC was not destroyed in a single epochal event, but was a gradual decline, played out over a period of time. Dr Reich's hypothesis seems to carry more than a whiff of the old theory of hordes of invading Aryans. Let me state why I find it problematic.

Going by his model, if the ANI and the ASI had to undergo the admixture the only likely setting for this to happen were the sprawling urban centers of the IVC. The IVC at its peak, during the mature phase, probably was the size of the western Europe and had a population close to 5 million. I'm sure this setting gives enough scope for a ANI - ASI admixture,because such a large population could not have been entirely homogeneous.

However we know from the archeological records that IVC first localized in the early phase, then integrated in the mature phase and then deurbanized during the late phase. This indicates that there was no disruption to the civilizational process, both internal and external, because the evolution is gradual and steady.

Now Reich claims, in his explanation to the discrepancy in the distribution pattern of male Y chromosome and female Mtdna in the ANI and ASI group, that most of the genetic input in the ANI group was made by males with predominantly west eurasian affinity. In simple words a west eurasian male predominant group entered the ANI ancestry and started having more offsprings with the majority females of the ASI ancestry. This can only happen if the group with ANI ancestry had supplanted, in a power struggle at IVC, the predominant group with ASI ancestry. The archaeology of IVC simply doesn't bear out any such a power struggle.

The painted grey ware (PGW) culture is generally considered the archeological record in India that is closely related to the Indo-Aryans. The carbon dating of PGW sites do not reveal a date older than 1200 BCE. More interestingly none of the PGW sites are immediately preceded by the Late Harappan Civilization(LHC) levels (except may be in Bhagawanpura). What this indicates, archeologicaly speaking, is that the Indo-Aryan culture could not have entered North India immediately after the end of the late Harappan phase, let alone the end of the mature Harappan phase (around 1900 BCE)

The lack of archaeological evidence, like the one cited above is the reason why the Aryan invasion theory collapsed. This is also the Achilles heel of David reich's hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I did mirror some of the points you made as my own personal areas of discomfort with some of his inferences.

The sacking of cities of stone and masonry though, even if burned to the ground, would leave zero archeological evidence thousands of years on (the ash strata mentioned and absent in European cities similarly sacked).

It's also very probable that the hordes/drifters were not an advanced people as the IVC (or post IVC) were, and that they made up in brawn and social dominance what they lacked in brains or technology. So a period of urban decline and tribalistic pastoralism and expansion East into the wooded plains of the Ganga.

What is striking is the aging of the admixture seen in ASI versus ANI. Differing by 1000-2000 years. Understandable when looking at slow spread south across the plateau.

But what happened to the people already on the plateau? I don't find an answer to that. There should ideally be small -ish groups of no ANI or later ANI south then.

Cheers, Doc
 
  • Like
Reactions: S. A. T. A
vsdoc said:
I did mirror some of the points you made as my own personal areas of discomfort with some of his inferences.

The sacking of cities of stone and masonry though, even if burned to the ground, would leave zero archeological evidence thousands of years on (the ash strata mentioned and absent in European cities similarly sacked).

It's also very probable that the hordes/drifters were not an advanced people as the IVC (or post IVC) were, and that they made up in brawn and social dominance what they lacked in brains or technology. So a period of urban decline and tribalistic pastoralism and expansion East into the wooded plains of the Ganga.

What is striking is the aging of the admixture seen in ASI versus ANI. Differing by 1000-2000 years. Understandable when looking at slow spread south across the plateau.

But what happened to the people already on the plateau? I don't find an answer to that. There should ideally be small -ish groups of no ANI or later ANI south then.

Cheers, Doc
Click to expand...

I've already given the geographical spread and the population size of the the mature Harappan phase. There is no way you can supplant any social group or a combination of social groups, which dominated the IVC, without a serious countervailing force in terms of population or significant military advantage.

A large intruding population is absent in the archeological record, in fact even in the skeletal records of the late Harappan Culture, where you would expect to find them. Horse driven chariots is often claimed to have rendered the intruding Indo-Aryans a significant military advantage, which potentially could have made up for lack of numbers. However even the evidence for horse, let alone chariots, is very scanty until we get to the PGW phase. This is too late in day to account for destruction of the IVC by an intruding social group.

The archeological evidence is that after the end of the mature Harappan phase, into the late Harappan phase, the Harappans themselves were moving towards east (UP) and south (as far as Maharashtra). It's quite possible, given IVC's geographical size, that the population of IVC in its mature phase could have been partially composed of ANI and ASI. The ANI segment may have predominantly spoken Dravidian, but also comprised of significant Indo-Aryan speakers (hence the Dravidian substratum in the vedic IA). The ASI segment may have predominantly spoken Dravidian and lived in the southern IVC territory.

In the post mature phase, with the start of the deurbanization, the ANI component may have drifted eastward towards Haryana and UP. Similarly the ASI segment moved through the western coast to the deccan and much later into the interior.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vsdoc
ah the convo has migrated here after the 1st thread got closed @vsdoc .... I will just read for now...this is some good convo I have not much to add yet.

Joe wont drop by here my friend afaik, just so you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vsdoc
Nilgiri said:
ah the convo has migrated here after the 1st thread got closed @vsdoc .... I will just read for now...this is some good convo I have not much to add yet.

Joe wont drop by here my friend afaik, just so you know.
Click to expand...

I have given up asking questions of admin. Any admin. Indian, Pakistani, American, Chinese, Iranian, or even Afghan.

We are drifting predators. Moving from one watering hole to another.

Meeting some we know.

Eating some we know. Or don't know.

Cheers, Doc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milspec and Nilgiri
vsdoc said:
I have given up asking questions of admin. Any admin. Indian, Pakistani, American, Chinese, Iranian, or even Afghan.

We are drifting predators. Moving from one watering hole to another.

Meeting some we know.

Eating some we know. Or don't know.

Cheers, Doc
Click to expand...

images (3).jpeg
 
RATHORE said:
Bullshit, he absolutely called for one; and I will link you the tweet as soon as I'm home. As for credentials and service; I'd be willing to bet my family has far more collective service than Panag's, nobody needs to teach me about respect for Armed Forces. But sometimes, an idiot is just an idiot, even if he happens to be in uniform.

Or should we respect Generals like Thapar and Kaul too?
Click to expand...

Your family. Not you.
Shot firing your gun on someone else’s shoulder
 
S. A. T. A said:
I've already given the geographical spread and the population size of the the mature Harappan phase. There is no way you can supplant any social group or a combination of social groups, which dominated the IVC, without a serious countervailing force in terms of population or significant military advantage.

A large intruding population is absent in the archeological record, in fact even in the skeletal records of the late Harappan Culture, where you would expect to find them. Horse driven chariots is often claimed to have rendered the intruding Indo-Aryans a significant military advantage, which potentially could have made up for lack of numbers. However even the evidence for horse, let alone chariots, is very scanty until we get to the PGW phase. This is too late in day to account for destruction of the IVC by an intruding social group.

The archeological evidence is that after the end of the mature Harappan phase, into the late Harappan phase, the Harappans themselves were moving towards east (UP) and south (as far as Maharashtra). It's quite possible, given IVC's geographical size, that the population of IVC in its mature phase could have been partially composed of ANI and ASI. The ANI segment may have predominantly spoken Dravidian, but also comprised of significant Indo-Aryan speakers (hence the Dravidian substratum in the vedic IA). The ASI segment may have predominantly spoken Dravidian and lived in the southern IVC territory.

In the post mature phase, with the start of the deurbanization, the ANI component may have drifted eastward towards Haryana and UP. Similarly the ASI segment moved through the western coast to the deccan and much later into the interior.
Click to expand...

I am continuing to have trouble reconciling two populations living together side by side for God knows how many centuries, with zero intermixing during that time.

Which is why the more traditional theory of ANI in the north, with an established ASI in the south, with hardly any interaction, makes more sense to me on the basis of geography and land barriers.

Unless there were strict racial ghettos. Segregation. Social.

Or

Did a strict codified caste system already exist on the land pre Vedic Hinduism ... just not by occupation but by race and blood?

Harappan apartheid.

The intermixing starts with the advent of the Aryans (I'm comfortable with that simple word ... we may as well call them early Vedic Hindus) into the area from the west.

But we know that the Iranians too have the exact same 4 social groups as the Hindus do. I'm not very clear about the inter marrying and endogamy laws for laiety in ancient Iran. Need to read further on that. I only know about the priests. Patrilineal ancestry. But both sons as well as daughters marry only into the priestly families.

So was there a pulse (isolated time point admixture over a single or few generations) of admixture or was it for a prolonged period if time.

What suddenly kicked off massive intermarriage where none happened ever for ages.

Did the Aryans come, interbred, and then eventually reorganize the classes on their ancestral lines, over the existing racial ones?

And then the mixing stops somewhere 2000 years ago (start of the Puranic age?) and a strict "new" Hindu caste system is instituted in place of the "old" Harappan one.

Or also

This new one in necessitated by the spread east and south because these ancestral people are now populating a continent ... and coming in contact with hitherto unknown tribes as they begin cutting the forestland for agriculture.

A final thought.

What if the Aryans, Vedic Hindus, never came overland via the Indus basin at all. As everyone is concentrating on.

What if, like us millennia later, they came by sea, and landed on the west coast, much further south.

The konkansta brahmins?

What if the collision that birthed Hinduism started in the south and moved north from there?

@vstol Jockey @Sandeep0159 @_Anonymous_

Cheers, Doc
 
vsdoc said:
I am continuing to have trouble reconciling two populations living together side by side for God knows how many centuries, with zero intermixing during that time.

Which is why the more traditional theory of ANI in the north, with an established ASI in the south, with hardly any interaction, makes more sense to me on the basis of geography and land barriers.

Unless there were strict racial ghettos. Segregation. Social.

Or

Did a strict codified caste system already exist on the land pre Vedic Hinduism ... just not by occupation but by race and blood?

Harappan apartheid.

The intermixing starts with the advent of the Aryans (I'm comfortable with that simple word ... we may as well call them early Vedic Hindus) into the area from the west.

But we know that the Iranians too have the exact same 4 social groups as the Hindus do. I'm not very clear about the inter marrying and endogamy laws for laiety in ancient Iran. Need to read further on that. I only know about the priests. Patrilineal ancestry. But both sons as well as daughters marry only into the priestly families.

So was there a pulse (isolated time point admixture over a single or few generations) of admixture or was it for a prolonged period if time.

What suddenly kicked off massive intermarriage where none happened ever for ages.

Did the Aryans come, interbred, and then eventually reorganize the classes on their ancestral lines, over the existing racial ones?

And then the mixing stops somewhere 2000 years ago (start of the Puranic age?) and a strict "new" Hindu caste system is instituted in place of the "old" Harappan one.

Or also

This new one in necessitated by the spread east and south because these ancestral people are now populating a continent ... and coming in contact with hitherto unknown tribes as they begin cutting the forestland for agriculture.

A final thought.

What if the Aryans, Vedic Hindus, never came overland via the Indus basin at all. As everyone is concentrating on.

What if, like us millennia later, they came by sea, and landed on the west coast, much further south.

The konkansta brahmins?

What if the collision that birthed Hinduism started in the south and moved north from there?

@vstol Jockey @Sandeep0159 @_Anonymous_

Cheers, Doc
Click to expand...
@vsdoc I have taken the liberty to respond to this in the vedic world thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vsdoc
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom