4 ms·

Some of this is tricky to untangle, because it's easy to intentionally or unintentionally conflate genetics/race, culture, and language, but at least culturally

Some of this is tricky to untangle, because it's easy to intentionally or unintentionally conflate genetics/race, culture, and language, but at least culturally/linguistically the people of North India are related to the majority of the peoples of Europe. So Sanskrit, Hindi/Urdu, Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Assamese, Nepali etc. are all Indo-European languages, as are Latin, Greek, Russian, Danish, Icelandic, English, Welsh etc. Comparison of early Indo-European texts strongly suggest that the first classness of cows/milk in India is a feature of (early) Indo-European cultures more generally. Indian skin colour shows a great deal of variation, including very pale and very dark and points inbetween. Which presumably correlates in part to the India having experienced a large number of migrations over a fairly long period of time. So India likely has milk-digesting ability at least in part from the same root as the European milk-digesting ability. But the (Indo-)European mutation doesn't seem to have been the only one: https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471 https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-... Also in Western Africa, as well as in the Arabian Peninsula and Eastern Africa there seem to have been independent mutations.

amriksohata 9y ago
Are you referring to the Aryan invasion theory? If so that's been debunked a long time ago
- quotemstr 9y ago
  No it wasn't
  - lallysingh 9y ago
    Alright you two. Time to pull them out and compare. References please.
    - amriksohata 9y ago
      Mostly because there is no evidence it happened infact most evidence refutes it and if anything says it happened the other way round http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/how-europeans-misappropri_b_837376.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/how-europeans-m...
      - HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
        So your source is from tabloid news? I look forward to a rebuttal from the Daily Mail.
        pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        HuffPo might have something itself. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19265947.ece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-th... has this: >"With the information currently available, it is difficult to deduce the direction of haplogroup R1a migration either into India or out of India, although the genetic data certainly show that there was migration between the regions. Currently, CSIR-CCMB and Harvard Medical School are investigating a larger number of samples, which will hopefully throw more light on this debate." //
        thevardanian 9y ago
        What is the proof Aryan Invasion. Note the current research says that ANI (Ancestral North India) and ASI (Ancestral South India) both are ancient genetically divergent (same even older ancestry) that recently went through and admixture a 1400-4000 years ago. That is in that admixture there is no recent central asian genetics other than the one that was already there in India prior, about 12,000 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/
- _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
  The nature of the entry of Indo-Aryan speakers into India has been discussed in more nuanced ways, but the relation of Sanskrit et al. to European languages (and the unrelatedness of Indo-Aryan to Dravidian and Munda and so) is all well established and not under debate. Either Indo-Aryan speakers migrated into India from outside, or all of the other Indo-European groups migrated out of India. The latter, while not completely out of the question, is much less likely than the former.
drb91 9y ago
Just to be clear, the Indo European migration is presumed to be a trade/culture migration—there’s not a lot (any?) evidence that this resulted in much increased genetic transfer. Furthermore, I was under the impression milk consumption generally spread from the middle east with rudimentary cheese production with rennet, reducing the lactase to an easier to digest level. This might have been after the europeans started their genetic movement, but I don’t believe that culturally the practice of milk consumption originated from Europe. Also, milk consumption has never been directly proportional to genetic disposition to it. Even now milk products can be popular in largely lactose intolerant cultures—maybe the ice cream is worth the farting! Of course I’d love to be corrected. But you seem to be conflating two or three separate narratives here—this might be how you end up with stuff like Jared Diamond pseudoscience. In particular, I don’t believe Indo European migration was a physical migration of any particular people—and genes typically take a bit longer to move than evidence points to with the Indo European linguistic/cultural migration. This was at one point particularly key in debunking arguments like, say, “the aryan people taught the indians how to speak”. Now of course we have much richer tools at demonstrating both the diversity of known languages and deep roots connecting them, and better narratives to explain them. But hey, I’ve also made arguments that milk drinking might provide a huge resource advantage in a world where nobody drank it, allowing for economic and reproductive benefit.... maybe the milk drinking did europeans “sprint” east.
- quotemstr 9y ago
  > Just to be clear, the Indo European migration is presumed to be a trade/culture migration Not the case. You're making the "pots, not people" case, which ancient DNA evidence has thoroughly debunked. Changes in material culture usually do indicate large-scale population movements. Yamnaya remains from the Caucuses, for example, are genetically almost identical to the ones buried in the Corded Ware culture that spread through Europe ~5000 years before present. The Yamnaya, a steppe people, completely overran Europe, and today, contribute just over 50% of the ancestry of Western European populations and who spread Indo-European languages there and elsewhere. The idea that prehistory was full of peace, love, and gradual and voluntary cultural change is ridiculous and indefensible, especially in light of modern genetic evidence, but also on the grounds of common sense. Why wouldn't you expect to see large scale folk migrations? We have historical records of large-scale movements (e.g., Germanic tribes from Tacitus), and one would expect similar movements, of even greater scope and intensity, to have occurred in prehistory. This kind of movement was the norm, not the exception, in prehistory. Post-1970s thought in this area seriously annoys me. It presumes a gradual, peaceful transition everywhere at all times despite stark evidence to the contrary. Read Ward-Perkins for a good rant on how fellow historians believe, against all historical and archaeological evidence, that Rome never fell. He's as frustrated and baffled by this thinking as I am.
thevardanian 9y ago
>Which presumably correlates in part to the India having experienced a large number of migrations over a fairly long period of time. This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. Another example is the eponymous R1 signature that people use to construct a particular narrative leave out the fact that R1 originated at the very least in Asia. Where exactly scientist have argued anywhere from Central, to South, to East Asia. A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. That is there is not just a single large number of migration from one area to another, but multiple, and in various directions.
- _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
  > This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. But presumably an ancestor shared by lots of other peoples too - I would guess European, North African, Middle Eastern, perhaps as well. > A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. Yes, and in interesting ways. But speaking a language and borrowing words from a language are two different things. I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets.
  - thevardanian 9y ago
    >I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets. I'm not arguing against the similarities, but arguing against a central singular expansion of some group of peoples that just so coincidently called themselves "Aryan". That is there is no evidence for a singular people/civilization that originated the whole "indo-aryans". The only "Aryans" are the Vedic era nobility that has its roots in India/sanskrit. That is the word "Aryan" is a gross example of extreme racism, prejudice, and cultural appropriate to further a racist model of human history.

amriksohata 9y ago

Are you referring to the Aryan invasion theory? If so that's been debunked a long time ago

quotemstr 9y ago
No it wasn't
- lallysingh 9y ago
  Alright you two. Time to pull them out and compare. References please.
  - amriksohata 9y ago
    Mostly because there is no evidence it happened infact most evidence refutes it and if anything says it happened the other way round http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/how-europeans-misappropri_b_837376.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/how-europeans-m...
    - HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
      So your source is from tabloid news? I look forward to a rebuttal from the Daily Mail.
      - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
        HuffPo might have something itself. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19265947.ece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/too-early-to-settle-th... has this: >"With the information currently available, it is difficult to deduce the direction of haplogroup R1a migration either into India or out of India, although the genetic data certainly show that there was migration between the regions. Currently, CSIR-CCMB and Harvard Medical School are investigating a larger number of samples, which will hopefully throw more light on this debate." //
      - thevardanian 9y ago
        What is the proof Aryan Invasion. Note the current research says that ANI (Ancestral North India) and ASI (Ancestral South India) both are ancient genetically divergent (same even older ancestry) that recently went through and admixture a 1400-4000 years ago. That is in that admixture there is no recent central asian genetics other than the one that was already there in India prior, about 12,000 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/
_emacsomancer_ 9y ago
The nature of the entry of Indo-Aryan speakers into India has been discussed in more nuanced ways, but the relation of Sanskrit et al. to European languages (and the unrelatedness of Indo-Aryan to Dravidian and Munda and so) is all well established and not under debate. Either Indo-Aryan speakers migrated into India from outside, or all of the other Indo-European groups migrated out of India. The latter, while not completely out of the question, is much less likely than the former.

drb91 9y ago

Just to be clear, the Indo European migration is presumed to be a trade/culture migration—there’s not a lot (any?) evidence that this resulted in much increased genetic transfer. Furthermore, I was under the impression milk consumption generally spread from the middle east with rudimentary cheese production with rennet, reducing the lactase to an easier to digest level. This might have been after the europeans started their genetic movement, but I don’t believe that culturally the practice of milk consumption originated from Europe. Also, milk consumption has never been directly proportional to genetic disposition to it. Even now milk products can be popular in largely lactose intolerant cultures—maybe the ice cream is worth the farting! Of course I’d love to be corrected. But you seem to be conflating two or three separate narratives here—this might be how you end up with stuff like Jared Diamond pseudoscience. In particular, I don’t believe Indo European migration was a physical migration of any particular people—and genes typically take a bit longer to move than evidence points to with the Indo European linguistic/cultural migration. This was at one point particularly key in debunking arguments like, say, “the aryan people taught the indians how to speak”. Now of course we have much richer tools at demonstrating both the diversity of known languages and deep roots connecting them, and better narratives to explain them. But hey, I’ve also made arguments that milk drinking might provide a huge resource advantage in a world where nobody drank it, allowing for economic and reproductive benefit.... maybe the milk drinking did europeans “sprint” east.

quotemstr 9y ago
> Just to be clear, the Indo European migration is presumed to be a trade/culture migration Not the case. You're making the "pots, not people" case, which ancient DNA evidence has thoroughly debunked. Changes in material culture usually do indicate large-scale population movements. Yamnaya remains from the Caucuses, for example, are genetically almost identical to the ones buried in the Corded Ware culture that spread through Europe ~5000 years before present. The Yamnaya, a steppe people, completely overran Europe, and today, contribute just over 50% of the ancestry of Western European populations and who spread Indo-European languages there and elsewhere. The idea that prehistory was full of peace, love, and gradual and voluntary cultural change is ridiculous and indefensible, especially in light of modern genetic evidence, but also on the grounds of common sense. Why wouldn't you expect to see large scale folk migrations? We have historical records of large-scale movements (e.g., Germanic tribes from Tacitus), and one would expect similar movements, of even greater scope and intensity, to have occurred in prehistory. This kind of movement was the norm, not the exception, in prehistory. Post-1970s thought in this area seriously annoys me. It presumes a gradual, peaceful transition everywhere at all times despite stark evidence to the contrary. Read Ward-Perkins for a good rant on how fellow historians believe, against all historical and archaeological evidence, that Rome never fell. He's as frustrated and baffled by this thinking as I am.

thevardanian 9y ago

>Which presumably correlates in part to the India having experienced a large number of migrations over a fairly long period of time. This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. Another example is the eponymous R1 signature that people use to construct a particular narrative leave out the fact that R1 originated at the very least in Asia. Where exactly scientist have argued anywhere from Central, to South, to East Asia. A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. That is there is not just a single large number of migration from one area to another, but multiple, and in various directions.

_emacsomancer_ 9y ago
> This meme will end up being the last causality in a long line of poorly written narratives extrapolated from either poor data, or poorly interpreted data. That is we completely ignore a lot of factors. For example both South Indians, and North Indians are from a same divergent ancestor tens of thousands of years ago. But presumably an ancestor shared by lots of other peoples too - I would guess European, North African, Middle Eastern, perhaps as well. > A more sane, and logical argument would be that at different points in time people have immigrated to India, and emigrated out of India. And not just India, through Eurasia people have traded genetics, linguistics, and culture with each other for at least 80,000 years. Yes, and in interesting ways. But speaking a language and borrowing words from a language are two different things. I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets.
- thevardanian 9y ago
  >I don't see how any of this argues against the linguistic and sociocultural similarities between subsets of early Europeans and subsets of early Indians which point towards shared ancestry for these two subsets. I'm not arguing against the similarities, but arguing against a central singular expansion of some group of peoples that just so coincidently called themselves "Aryan". That is there is no evidence for a singular people/civilization that originated the whole "indo-aryans". The only "Aryans" are the Vedic era nobility that has its roots in India/sanskrit. That is the word "Aryan" is a gross example of extreme racism, prejudice, and cultural appropriate to further a racist model of human history.