Article pasted in post 307:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It gives substance to the theory that lower caste groups may have emerged from hierarchical divisions existing within the tribal groups much before the arrival of the Aryans. Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Grief, not the Oryans, Dravidoids and what-have-yous again. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> Indian society has been subject to multiple waves of migration in historicand prehistoric times. The first was the ancient Palaeolithic migration by early humans. This was followed by the early Neolithic migration, probably of proto-Dravidian speakers. About 3,500 years ago, the Indo-European speakers arrived.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow, Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) better check out the IE Studies' authors whom Rajesh_g mentioned: Lincoln and Arvidsson - as well as Trubetzkoy. All of whom wrote how there is zero - mark this, zero - evidence for Indo-Europoids/Oryans. They exist only in IE <i>theory</i>. But apparently CCMB knows the genetic makeup of the Indo-Europeans better than anyone. That's amazing.
All the so-called indications for the Indo-Europeans arises in the PIE-model of linguistics - nowhere else. PIE itself is one of several possible linguistic explanations, as the above-mentioned researchers and others have written. And even if they were to accept PIE, then still, only one of the possibilities that is tossed up by PIE is that there was a single ethnic population group that spoke it (the IEs).
In short: several linguistic models can equally explain why languages classed as IE have similarities -> one of which is PIE model -> one scenario tossed up by PIE model submits that there were a group of people called IEs/Oryans.
Some simple maths from high school (unfortunately, badly written down making it look unnecessarily complicated):
- <b>Probability, P</b> for any possible version of the tale to be The True Version of Historic Events is <= 1.
- If P(a particular version)=1, then this version alone is true and other possibilities are false (their probabilities are 0).
- But since according to Lincoln, Trubetzkoy and others, other equally applicable and likely possibilities exist, probability for each possible version is 1/n where n is num_possibilities. (And there are who knows how many possibilities that might not have been suggested yet!)
So P(any possible version might be The Only True Version) = 1/n, which of course is <1, since PIE is not the only possibility (n > 1).
- We need to multiply the probabilities to get combination of events.
Let's do this for finding the probability that PIE is true AND that there existed an ethnically homogenous people who spoke it (the Oryans):
P(PIE is true) * P(unattested IE people existed) = P(PIE AND IE both true), which is far, far less than 1 because we are multiplying decimal values which are each less than 1 already.
- Now, P(any of AIT or AMT or Influx into India) is nowadays admitted to be next to nil. Probability, P, of other kind of Aryan Contact scenario/excuse that can sneak in past genetics, archaeology, anthropology data is very, very tiny. Therefore, even if P(PIE AND IE both true) > 0, the P(PIE AND IE AND undetectable Aryan Contact ALL true) is pathetically small.
But Hyderabad-based CCMB goes around pretending as if Aryans and in particular some SIGNIFICANT DETECTABLE form of Aryan Contact (there's reference to Aryan Migration in posted article) into India is established beyond doubt, when even P(minor Aryan Contact scenario) is sooo small.
But I'll play.
<b>Assuming</b> their raw data at least is accurate, reliable and unbiased (although, since they appear to have pre-assumed existence of Oryans, Dravidoids and other unknown species of human, not sure if sampling and analysis was unbiased) -
Can I attempt some example explanations that might account for the data <b>without introducing Oryans et al or any other Deus-Ex-Machinas</b>?
Remember Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation amongst many equally valid explanations tends to (has higher likelihood) be the true one; it is the explanation that requires the least extra elements to be introduced to account for observations. That means inventing unattested population (IE), and fantasising about their (silent) wanderings into other nations is classified as HUGE INTRODUCTION of extra elements <- so this is less likely to be true than a simpler explanation.
Here goes a simple version. Not as polished as the AIT tale - which after all, has had centuries to stew over its version:
- Waves of urbanisation of communities in remote regions slowly joining village and town life. Slow uptake of newcomers in specialised quarters. Latest wave, quite recent (maybe Shaka era, Islamic period) so they're more related to the Hindus outside of urban setting?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Leave out the Deus-ex-machina. Let's apply <b>Occam's Razor:</b> our tribes developed the structure. Our tribes specialised, urbanised and with it their complex class-structure got more complex. Where's the need for Oryans or Dravidoids in this explanation?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> At the same time, the paternal lineage of Indian castes is more closely related to the Central Asians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Example explanation: Urbanised sons of Indian mothers and fathers left western part of soil of Greater India to go exploring or in search of Water Of Life <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->, immortality or what-not in the great Beyond (who knows their reason). Or maybe, they were like today's civil engineers from the west working in 'reconstructing' Afghanistan and Iraq: they went to spread what they knew, do trade, be footloose, whatever. In any case, they settled outside India. Their Indian genes are now muddled up with any other Central Asian genes there might have been - so those Indian genes are today classed as C-Asian genes.
And so, by a 'coincidence' that the IE Studies' Oryanists and their believers in India's labs can't fathom, those C-Asian genes correlate with the mutations present in urban Indian genes.
This is not my imagination: There are ancient relatives of IVC Indians in Tarim Basin and that's way into C-Asia. So it was not just possible but actual for ancient Indian people to have traveled into C-Asia, though somehow the IE Oryanists and their sycophants seem to think that only the Oryans could travel.
An additional overall pattern in India: tribal population continuously becomes urbanised. Some number of urban population at some point(s) in time exits soil for some reason or other.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> They did not find any significant difference in mitochondrial DNA among Indian tribal and caste populations. On the other hand, the study of the Y-chromosome lineage revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. âThe paternal lineage of Indian lower castes shows closer affinity to the tribal populations than to upper castes,â said Dr Thangaraj.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will now digress and return to make my point. Bear with.
There's a very beautiful narrative in Tamil about Shiva incarnating as a fisherman to win Parvati's hand, who has been born as the supremely beautiful daughter of a chieftain of a fishermen village in coastal Tamil Nadu. (Shiva couldn't bear being separated from his wife in Kailas, and was miserable, because Shiva without Shakthi is ... - well, I don't know what it is. Anyway Nandi had a plan to bring the two back together, and incarnated as a shark or other big scary fish and prevented the fishermen in the village from fishing. The fishermen, after futile attempts at catching Nandi's shark - in spite of the promise of gaining lovely Parvati's hand - all prayed to Shiva, who finally had a valid reason to descend.) As the usual handsome bold young fisherman, this adventurous stranger comes to Parvati's dad's village and tells them he will attempt catching the shark and already wins the heart of the lovely. Of course, catching Nandi is a snap for Shiva. Chieftain is thrilled, welcomes Shiva into his tribe as family, gives Parvati to Shiva <b>to take back to the distant(?) village of fisherman Shiva</b>. (It's another matter that Shiva takes Parvati and Nandi back to Kailas, when they leave her father's place.) For the properly narrated version of this that will do it justice, ask Sunder or someone else.
Now, the point. This is a common occurrence even in the 'secular' stories of Hindu tradition, and also in other countries' traditions. It's the daring male from one village-community that goes out to another community and wins lovely maiden. And the hero generally takes wife back to his community/country/village/town. This is how villages form inter-village bonds. Heck, this is how kingdoms formed inter-kingdom bonds. Everyone knows this. It has nothing to do with patriarchy. In many countries in the past, it was the case that the young men left to get wives from other communities, to prevent inter-marriage within same community. Many similar events in traditional Japanese and African tales too.
Now, let's apply here. A few conglomerated tribes in some part of northern India (one day in the future to develop urban Vedic Hindu society) start wandering around neighbouring tribes and forming inter-tribe relations through marriage bonds. Number of conglomerated tribes expands. Time will make them appear as a 'single community'/single tribe. They keep doing this. In time, they urbanise. Inter-kingdom marriages start. But urban-village and urban-tribal, village-tribal marriages still happen, though maybe less frequently than in earlier times? Hence you have Arjuna marrying Naga princess Uloopi and the myriad of other similar narratives.
Though unlike Uloopi-Arjuna combine, number of children per couple in those days was generally many (even if we don't expect each to have as many kids as Gandhari).
In this way, many Indian populations from remote mountainous or jungle regions of India slowly come into the mix of urbanising communities in India. Imagine several ink-drops on parchment: spreading outward and growing, and then the drops overlap while the outer edges of the ink are initially lighter having less ink. This is the way the communities on the edge slowly enter into mainstream ink/urban population. Each bond between urban and remote Indian population takes decades, centuries or longer to form. After who knows how many thousands of years, entire tribes are mainstream urban - part of ink-blot.
When India was first populated and its population spread S, E, rest of India to W - that's the parchment - the Indian people flung all over the subcontinent. It (the parchment) had taken many thousands of years to happen. Communities in various regions got disconnected and developed into separate tribes - probably only geographic isolation rather than the endogamy of later times.
Then several conglomerate tribes (the inkblots) started, and swallowed up most of the parchment - reconnecting again. This is still going on, in spite of social structure having got rigid in the last millennium-and-half years. (Even before, a period of endogamous groups would have reduced intermarriage in spite of more urbanisation of neighbouring communities taking place. Again, this was/is also the case in Japan and some some African populations.)
I think this also explains data (unless I am missing something) - and using only the basic prehistoric marriage-patterns known to many cultures. See, had no need of breaking Occam's razor and by bringing in Alien Abductions - sorry, not aliens, of course I meant Oryan Incursions.
Anyone else want to have a go at coming up with their own logical, rational version? At least we can keep it simple, even if IE Studies can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It gives substance to the theory that lower caste groups may have emerged from hierarchical divisions existing within the tribal groups much before the arrival of the Aryans. Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Grief, not the Oryans, Dravidoids and what-have-yous again. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> Indian society has been subject to multiple waves of migration in historicand prehistoric times. The first was the ancient Palaeolithic migration by early humans. This was followed by the early Neolithic migration, probably of proto-Dravidian speakers. About 3,500 years ago, the Indo-European speakers arrived.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow, Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) better check out the IE Studies' authors whom Rajesh_g mentioned: Lincoln and Arvidsson - as well as Trubetzkoy. All of whom wrote how there is zero - mark this, zero - evidence for Indo-Europoids/Oryans. They exist only in IE <i>theory</i>. But apparently CCMB knows the genetic makeup of the Indo-Europeans better than anyone. That's amazing.
All the so-called indications for the Indo-Europeans arises in the PIE-model of linguistics - nowhere else. PIE itself is one of several possible linguistic explanations, as the above-mentioned researchers and others have written. And even if they were to accept PIE, then still, only one of the possibilities that is tossed up by PIE is that there was a single ethnic population group that spoke it (the IEs).
In short: several linguistic models can equally explain why languages classed as IE have similarities -> one of which is PIE model -> one scenario tossed up by PIE model submits that there were a group of people called IEs/Oryans.
Some simple maths from high school (unfortunately, badly written down making it look unnecessarily complicated):
- <b>Probability, P</b> for any possible version of the tale to be The True Version of Historic Events is <= 1.
- If P(a particular version)=1, then this version alone is true and other possibilities are false (their probabilities are 0).
- But since according to Lincoln, Trubetzkoy and others, other equally applicable and likely possibilities exist, probability for each possible version is 1/n where n is num_possibilities. (And there are who knows how many possibilities that might not have been suggested yet!)
So P(any possible version might be The Only True Version) = 1/n, which of course is <1, since PIE is not the only possibility (n > 1).
- We need to multiply the probabilities to get combination of events.
Let's do this for finding the probability that PIE is true AND that there existed an ethnically homogenous people who spoke it (the Oryans):
P(PIE is true) * P(unattested IE people existed) = P(PIE AND IE both true), which is far, far less than 1 because we are multiplying decimal values which are each less than 1 already.
- Now, P(any of AIT or AMT or Influx into India) is nowadays admitted to be next to nil. Probability, P, of other kind of Aryan Contact scenario/excuse that can sneak in past genetics, archaeology, anthropology data is very, very tiny. Therefore, even if P(PIE AND IE both true) > 0, the P(PIE AND IE AND undetectable Aryan Contact ALL true) is pathetically small.
But Hyderabad-based CCMB goes around pretending as if Aryans and in particular some SIGNIFICANT DETECTABLE form of Aryan Contact (there's reference to Aryan Migration in posted article) into India is established beyond doubt, when even P(minor Aryan Contact scenario) is sooo small.
But I'll play.
<b>Assuming</b> their raw data at least is accurate, reliable and unbiased (although, since they appear to have pre-assumed existence of Oryans, Dravidoids and other unknown species of human, not sure if sampling and analysis was unbiased) -
Can I attempt some example explanations that might account for the data <b>without introducing Oryans et al or any other Deus-Ex-Machinas</b>?
Remember Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation amongst many equally valid explanations tends to (has higher likelihood) be the true one; it is the explanation that requires the least extra elements to be introduced to account for observations. That means inventing unattested population (IE), and fantasising about their (silent) wanderings into other nations is classified as HUGE INTRODUCTION of extra elements <- so this is less likely to be true than a simpler explanation.
Here goes a simple version. Not as polished as the AIT tale - which after all, has had centuries to stew over its version:
- Waves of urbanisation of communities in remote regions slowly joining village and town life. Slow uptake of newcomers in specialised quarters. Latest wave, quite recent (maybe Shaka era, Islamic period) so they're more related to the Hindus outside of urban setting?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Leave out the Deus-ex-machina. Let's apply <b>Occam's Razor:</b> our tribes developed the structure. Our tribes specialised, urbanised and with it their complex class-structure got more complex. Where's the need for Oryans or Dravidoids in this explanation?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> At the same time, the paternal lineage of Indian castes is more closely related to the Central Asians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Example explanation: Urbanised sons of Indian mothers and fathers left western part of soil of Greater India to go exploring or in search of Water Of Life <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->, immortality or what-not in the great Beyond (who knows their reason). Or maybe, they were like today's civil engineers from the west working in 'reconstructing' Afghanistan and Iraq: they went to spread what they knew, do trade, be footloose, whatever. In any case, they settled outside India. Their Indian genes are now muddled up with any other Central Asian genes there might have been - so those Indian genes are today classed as C-Asian genes. And so, by a 'coincidence' that the IE Studies' Oryanists and their believers in India's labs can't fathom, those C-Asian genes correlate with the mutations present in urban Indian genes.
This is not my imagination: There are ancient relatives of IVC Indians in Tarim Basin and that's way into C-Asia. So it was not just possible but actual for ancient Indian people to have traveled into C-Asia, though somehow the IE Oryanists and their sycophants seem to think that only the Oryans could travel.
An additional overall pattern in India: tribal population continuously becomes urbanised. Some number of urban population at some point(s) in time exits soil for some reason or other.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> They did not find any significant difference in mitochondrial DNA among Indian tribal and caste populations. On the other hand, the study of the Y-chromosome lineage revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. âThe paternal lineage of Indian lower castes shows closer affinity to the tribal populations than to upper castes,â said Dr Thangaraj.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will now digress and return to make my point. Bear with.
There's a very beautiful narrative in Tamil about Shiva incarnating as a fisherman to win Parvati's hand, who has been born as the supremely beautiful daughter of a chieftain of a fishermen village in coastal Tamil Nadu. (Shiva couldn't bear being separated from his wife in Kailas, and was miserable, because Shiva without Shakthi is ... - well, I don't know what it is. Anyway Nandi had a plan to bring the two back together, and incarnated as a shark or other big scary fish and prevented the fishermen in the village from fishing. The fishermen, after futile attempts at catching Nandi's shark - in spite of the promise of gaining lovely Parvati's hand - all prayed to Shiva, who finally had a valid reason to descend.) As the usual handsome bold young fisherman, this adventurous stranger comes to Parvati's dad's village and tells them he will attempt catching the shark and already wins the heart of the lovely. Of course, catching Nandi is a snap for Shiva. Chieftain is thrilled, welcomes Shiva into his tribe as family, gives Parvati to Shiva <b>to take back to the distant(?) village of fisherman Shiva</b>. (It's another matter that Shiva takes Parvati and Nandi back to Kailas, when they leave her father's place.) For the properly narrated version of this that will do it justice, ask Sunder or someone else.
Now, the point. This is a common occurrence even in the 'secular' stories of Hindu tradition, and also in other countries' traditions. It's the daring male from one village-community that goes out to another community and wins lovely maiden. And the hero generally takes wife back to his community/country/village/town. This is how villages form inter-village bonds. Heck, this is how kingdoms formed inter-kingdom bonds. Everyone knows this. It has nothing to do with patriarchy. In many countries in the past, it was the case that the young men left to get wives from other communities, to prevent inter-marriage within same community. Many similar events in traditional Japanese and African tales too.
Now, let's apply here. A few conglomerated tribes in some part of northern India (one day in the future to develop urban Vedic Hindu society) start wandering around neighbouring tribes and forming inter-tribe relations through marriage bonds. Number of conglomerated tribes expands. Time will make them appear as a 'single community'/single tribe. They keep doing this. In time, they urbanise. Inter-kingdom marriages start. But urban-village and urban-tribal, village-tribal marriages still happen, though maybe less frequently than in earlier times? Hence you have Arjuna marrying Naga princess Uloopi and the myriad of other similar narratives.
Though unlike Uloopi-Arjuna combine, number of children per couple in those days was generally many (even if we don't expect each to have as many kids as Gandhari).
In this way, many Indian populations from remote mountainous or jungle regions of India slowly come into the mix of urbanising communities in India. Imagine several ink-drops on parchment: spreading outward and growing, and then the drops overlap while the outer edges of the ink are initially lighter having less ink. This is the way the communities on the edge slowly enter into mainstream ink/urban population. Each bond between urban and remote Indian population takes decades, centuries or longer to form. After who knows how many thousands of years, entire tribes are mainstream urban - part of ink-blot.
When India was first populated and its population spread S, E, rest of India to W - that's the parchment - the Indian people flung all over the subcontinent. It (the parchment) had taken many thousands of years to happen. Communities in various regions got disconnected and developed into separate tribes - probably only geographic isolation rather than the endogamy of later times.
Then several conglomerate tribes (the inkblots) started, and swallowed up most of the parchment - reconnecting again. This is still going on, in spite of social structure having got rigid in the last millennium-and-half years. (Even before, a period of endogamous groups would have reduced intermarriage in spite of more urbanisation of neighbouring communities taking place. Again, this was/is also the case in Japan and some some African populations.)
I think this also explains data (unless I am missing something) - and using only the basic prehistoric marriage-patterns known to many cultures. See, had no need of breaking Occam's razor and by bringing in Alien Abductions - sorry, not aliens, of course I meant Oryan Incursions.
Anyone else want to have a go at coming up with their own logical, rational version? At least we can keep it simple, even if IE Studies can't.