01-17-2006, 08:17 AM
Ben Ami,<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->so we know which tribe descended from Manu wrote the vedas, which were the iranians etc.
which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the peoples who speak the aggulutinative languages of southindia??
and which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the tribals?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>(1) South Indian languages and speakers</b>
Why assume that the South Indian people descended from Manu? Why not the other way around? After all, according to genetics, India was populated starting from the South (S -> E -> NW -> Afghanistan -> Iran). If in doubt about the S -> N part, see G. Subramaniam's very succinct summary of current genetics research in Post#191 of the What DNA says about AIT thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What DNA shows is that north Indians are descended from south Indians
who were the main migrants into India through the coastal route<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about the language differences between N & S, although there might be some indication to it in the very name of <i>Samskrt</i>: "well created/well designed". It seems to be constructed for a purpose, so for all we know our ancestors could all have been speaking Tamil or its parent-language (if Tamil wasn't the first). Shame I know nothing about the language.
Alternatively, the Dravidian speakers and Manu's ancestors might have split long before already. Many Dravidian speakers might still have remained in Kumari Kandam and South India, with only a few venturing into the North-East. I don't know. Nevertheless, the split has to be recent, because as G. Subramaniam has indicated: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA also shows that most of the Indian population has been present in India for over 20k years<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>(2) Tribals</b>
Dhu had already provided a very clear post on the strong genetic links we share with Indians classed as "tribals" in What DNA says about AIT <b>Post #72</b>. He refers to the paper "The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in indian tribal and caste populations" Kivisild et al (2003) and has already highlighted relevant statements in bold. Read that post of his. I'll paste the stuff he put in bold here for other reasons:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe.</b> ... suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. <b>Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note: <b>Western Asians</b> is mentioned also - i.e. Iranians. The tribals (designated as such by today's colonials, to differentiate them from the rest of us Indians) share the same R1a Haplogroup with not only the rest of India but with Iranians.
The R1a's pervasiveness in India and West Asia is clearly the major reason why other 'scientists' have quickly dissociated themselves from their previous theories about the "R1a is the invasion marker". Doubtless they tried to find some other "invasion gene marker" but have now given up since it's so obvious there's very little of the "Central Asian" in any of us. And most likely the only bit of those tiniest of tiny Central Asian input came to us with the Shaka invasions.
Interestingly Shakas weren't all European either. Western Shakas were Iranian speakers, and so Iranian for all intents and purposes. Eastern Shakas were closely related to Mongolians, which is probably the reason why neo-nazis are still hesitant to connect themselves with the Shaka label. So for neo-nazis, "Arya" is starting to become really distasteful since it means having to be connected to Dravidian and tribal Indians and much of the rest of the world (according to the Indian and Iranian meaning of Arya) and "Shaka" includes a group of East Asians. Perhaps nazis should stick to "Caucasian" as a self-identifying label, except that it implies the Caucasus region where many people still speak Iranian languages: those languages linked to West-Asians who share the R1a with Indian "tribals"....
Going back to Dhu's post, the paper he referred to investigated 2 tribes <b>known</b> to be ancient to India. The paper correctly did not consider some other Indian groups classified as tribals who are actually recent entrants to India and thus far "less indigenous" than any mythical Aryan-invaders from 1500 BCE. (The later paper by Sforza et al comparing Indian tribal and caste populations is seriously suspect. I've outlined some of obvious objections to it in the thread Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates Post #170.)
which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the peoples who speak the aggulutinative languages of southindia??
and which tribe descended from which offspring of manu was the progenitor of the tribals?? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>(1) South Indian languages and speakers</b>
Why assume that the South Indian people descended from Manu? Why not the other way around? After all, according to genetics, India was populated starting from the South (S -> E -> NW -> Afghanistan -> Iran). If in doubt about the S -> N part, see G. Subramaniam's very succinct summary of current genetics research in Post#191 of the What DNA says about AIT thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What DNA shows is that north Indians are descended from south Indians
who were the main migrants into India through the coastal route<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about the language differences between N & S, although there might be some indication to it in the very name of <i>Samskrt</i>: "well created/well designed". It seems to be constructed for a purpose, so for all we know our ancestors could all have been speaking Tamil or its parent-language (if Tamil wasn't the first). Shame I know nothing about the language.
Alternatively, the Dravidian speakers and Manu's ancestors might have split long before already. Many Dravidian speakers might still have remained in Kumari Kandam and South India, with only a few venturing into the North-East. I don't know. Nevertheless, the split has to be recent, because as G. Subramaniam has indicated: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA also shows that most of the Indian population has been present in India for over 20k years<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>(2) Tribals</b>
Dhu had already provided a very clear post on the strong genetic links we share with Indians classed as "tribals" in What DNA says about AIT <b>Post #72</b>. He refers to the paper "The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in indian tribal and caste populations" Kivisild et al (2003) and has already highlighted relevant statements in bold. Read that post of his. I'll paste the stuff he put in bold here for other reasons:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe.</b> ... suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup. <b>Taken together, these results show that Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Note: <b>Western Asians</b> is mentioned also - i.e. Iranians. The tribals (designated as such by today's colonials, to differentiate them from the rest of us Indians) share the same R1a Haplogroup with not only the rest of India but with Iranians.
The R1a's pervasiveness in India and West Asia is clearly the major reason why other 'scientists' have quickly dissociated themselves from their previous theories about the "R1a is the invasion marker". Doubtless they tried to find some other "invasion gene marker" but have now given up since it's so obvious there's very little of the "Central Asian" in any of us. And most likely the only bit of those tiniest of tiny Central Asian input came to us with the Shaka invasions.
Interestingly Shakas weren't all European either. Western Shakas were Iranian speakers, and so Iranian for all intents and purposes. Eastern Shakas were closely related to Mongolians, which is probably the reason why neo-nazis are still hesitant to connect themselves with the Shaka label. So for neo-nazis, "Arya" is starting to become really distasteful since it means having to be connected to Dravidian and tribal Indians and much of the rest of the world (according to the Indian and Iranian meaning of Arya) and "Shaka" includes a group of East Asians. Perhaps nazis should stick to "Caucasian" as a self-identifying label, except that it implies the Caucasus region where many people still speak Iranian languages: those languages linked to West-Asians who share the R1a with Indian "tribals"....
Going back to Dhu's post, the paper he referred to investigated 2 tribes <b>known</b> to be ancient to India. The paper correctly did not consider some other Indian groups classified as tribals who are actually recent entrants to India and thus far "less indigenous" than any mythical Aryan-invaders from 1500 BCE. (The later paper by Sforza et al comparing Indian tribal and caste populations is seriously suspect. I've outlined some of obvious objections to it in the thread Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates Post #170.)