02-23-2009, 12:30 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you explain further,
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure if I am an expert on anything but briefly the chief issues are as follows:
-It has become fashionable amongst the modern Indian elite to deny the importance of social structure in Indian populations. Of course Indians traditionally did not think so.
-While it is known that people could transit from one jAti to another or even from one varNa to another, the general male mobility across lines was limited by the jAti and gotra system (both brahminical and non-brahminical). This was particularly strong in the "service jAti-s" e.g. weaver, tailor, potter, etc where the trades required learning through father-son apprenticeship.
-marriage in several jAti-s was also confined within jAti-s although here there was some directional flexibility i.e. vivAha is allowed but not AvAha.
-A consequence of these practices is that we find an imprint of this on the genetic landscape. Thus if we look at just Y-chromosomal markers we see a strong gradient from 1) brAhmaNa+kShatriya->2)degraded kShatriya+middle jAti-s->3)tribal and lower jAti-s.
For example R1a1 is highest in 1 found in 2 but rare in most of 3; R2 -same; j2A2- same nearly absent in 3; G2- only 1; H1 highest in 2 and 3; J2b2 highest in 2; L1 highest in 2(especially Tamils/Telugus to some degree); F* highest in 3.
This shows that genetics and social structure do have a correlation. Beyond this fine structure correlations simple need a higher resolution marker set.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure if I am an expert on anything but briefly the chief issues are as follows:
-It has become fashionable amongst the modern Indian elite to deny the importance of social structure in Indian populations. Of course Indians traditionally did not think so.
-While it is known that people could transit from one jAti to another or even from one varNa to another, the general male mobility across lines was limited by the jAti and gotra system (both brahminical and non-brahminical). This was particularly strong in the "service jAti-s" e.g. weaver, tailor, potter, etc where the trades required learning through father-son apprenticeship.
-marriage in several jAti-s was also confined within jAti-s although here there was some directional flexibility i.e. vivAha is allowed but not AvAha.
-A consequence of these practices is that we find an imprint of this on the genetic landscape. Thus if we look at just Y-chromosomal markers we see a strong gradient from 1) brAhmaNa+kShatriya->2)degraded kShatriya+middle jAti-s->3)tribal and lower jAti-s.
For example R1a1 is highest in 1 found in 2 but rare in most of 3; R2 -same; j2A2- same nearly absent in 3; G2- only 1; H1 highest in 2 and 3; J2b2 highest in 2; L1 highest in 2(especially Tamils/Telugus to some degree); F* highest in 3.
This shows that genetics and social structure do have a correlation. Beyond this fine structure correlations simple need a higher resolution marker set.