4 ms·

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

by 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.
- _emacsomancer_ 9y ago
  Though, at the same time, some of the overly racialised interpretations of the 19th-century have been shown to be rather off track. There was a picture painted of pale-skinned Sanskrit speakers sweeping into India on chariots and dominating and slaughtering dark-skinned Dravidians (and others). That does not seem well supported. The Indo-Aryan speakers certainly were warlike, but the battles narrated in the Rgveda involved Indo-Aryans on both sides, allied with non-Indo-Aryan speakers on both sides; as well as people with overtly non-Indo-Aryan names sponsoring rituals in the Rgveda. (None of this goes against your primary point. And certainly we know of plenty of militaristic invasions of India in more recent times, including the Mughals.)
- telotortium 9y ago
  An interview of Ward-Perkins, to get a flavor of his critique: http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/perkins.pdf http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/perkins.pdf
- drb91 9y ago
  > Changes in material culture usually do indicate large-scale population movements. I wasn’t trying to contradict this, rather that the any genetic migration correlated with a culture/language migration would have likely trailed significantly speed wise and should be demonstrated, not assumed. I am certainly not arguing for a lack of conflict :)
_emacsomancer_ 9y ago
We know of quite a number of large scale migrations into India, I don't know why we should doubt that the Indo-European entry into India contributed significant genetic material. I know there are some fairly recent studies on the actual genetic DNA material linking Indians with Europeans, but I'll have to dig these up (the language side is my area; not the genetic side). The place of milk in especially early north Indian culture (but continuing into today, esp. say in the Punjab) is not like ice cream parlours in China or whatever. It is quite clear that a large percentage of caloric intake would have been from milk products, and seemingly not primarily cheese, but milk/cream and butter/ghee. The prominence of milk products in India for the last few thousand years is not at all in doubt (and, again, not in the sense of eating the occasional ice cream and farting). No-one is saying that Indo-Aryan was the first language in India, so I don't know where you're bringing that in from. The Dravidian speakers emigrated into India either around the same time or before the Indo-Aryans, and the Munda speakers seem to have been there earlier than either, and it is quite clear that there was at least one other language family well established in India before the Munda speakers entered (quite possible multiple language families) as attested by the large percentage of words of completely unknown origin in languages like Hindi for agriculture/crops, as well as the languages of the Andaman islands.
taysic 9y ago
The R1a haplogroup is found throughout India, primarily in the North. It is also found primarily in Eastern Europe. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6YlXJXhMvk/UJDwo_oAemI/AAAAAAAABRQ/fXpVQEDKw60/s1600/Underhill2010-R1a1.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6YlXJXhMvk/UJDwo_oAemI/AAAAAAAABR... So there is some type of link but most likely both came from the Eurasian steppe and have an ancestral link.

by drb91 9y ago

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.

_emacsomancer_ 9y ago
Though, at the same time, some of the overly racialised interpretations of the 19th-century have been shown to be rather off track. There was a picture painted of pale-skinned Sanskrit speakers sweeping into India on chariots and dominating and slaughtering dark-skinned Dravidians (and others). That does not seem well supported. The Indo-Aryan speakers certainly were warlike, but the battles narrated in the Rgveda involved Indo-Aryans on both sides, allied with non-Indo-Aryan speakers on both sides; as well as people with overtly non-Indo-Aryan names sponsoring rituals in the Rgveda. (None of this goes against your primary point. And certainly we know of plenty of militaristic invasions of India in more recent times, including the Mughals.)
telotortium 9y ago
An interview of Ward-Perkins, to get a flavor of his critique: http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/perkins.pdf http://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/perkins.pdf
drb91 9y ago
> Changes in material culture usually do indicate large-scale population movements. I wasn’t trying to contradict this, rather that the any genetic migration correlated with a culture/language migration would have likely trailed significantly speed wise and should be demonstrated, not assumed. I am certainly not arguing for a lack of conflict :)

_emacsomancer_ 9y ago

We know of quite a number of large scale migrations into India, I don't know why we should doubt that the Indo-European entry into India contributed significant genetic material. I know there are some fairly recent studies on the actual genetic DNA material linking Indians with Europeans, but I'll have to dig these up (the language side is my area; not the genetic side). The place of milk in especially early north Indian culture (but continuing into today, esp. say in the Punjab) is not like ice cream parlours in China or whatever. It is quite clear that a large percentage of caloric intake would have been from milk products, and seemingly not primarily cheese, but milk/cream and butter/ghee. The prominence of milk products in India for the last few thousand years is not at all in doubt (and, again, not in the sense of eating the occasional ice cream and farting). No-one is saying that Indo-Aryan was the first language in India, so I don't know where you're bringing that in from. The Dravidian speakers emigrated into India either around the same time or before the Indo-Aryans, and the Munda speakers seem to have been there earlier than either, and it is quite clear that there was at least one other language family well established in India before the Munda speakers entered (quite possible multiple language families) as attested by the large percentage of words of completely unknown origin in languages like Hindi for agriculture/crops, as well as the languages of the Andaman islands.

taysic 9y ago

The R1a haplogroup is found throughout India, primarily in the North. It is also found primarily in Eastern Europe. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6YlXJXhMvk/UJDwo_oAemI/AAAAAAAABRQ/fXpVQEDKw60/s1600/Underhill2010-R1a1.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v6YlXJXhMvk/UJDwo_oAemI/AAAAAAAABR... So there is some type of link but most likely both came from the Eurasian steppe and have an ancestral link.