shiv wrote:RajeshA wrote:
[*] The model ANI-ASI is important in order to show how the Europeans originate in India but DO NOTcarry many markers today present in the Indian population. These would have been the ASI markers. This model in fact provides OIT a chance.
Rajesh there may be no ANI ASI at all. Even the Reich paper does not explain how Dravidian speaking tribals have 40% "ANI" while upper caste Indo European speakng have only a little more at 60%
But my biggest objection to what you write is as follows. Please think about it:
The Reich study was done specifically to prove that ANI/ASI do exist.
North Indian upper caste genes of Indo European speakers were specifically chosen to represent North India.
South Indian tribals who speak Dravidian languages were specifically to represent South Indians.
In other words there was a selection bias from the start to try and prove something. The suggestion was that Northern Upper caste speaking an IE language was of Aryan descent and South tribal speaking Dravidian would represent the two extremes postulated by the Aryan invasion theory.
But what actually happened was that there was not a big difference between the two. The findings do not support the idea that a migrating population of Indo Aryan speakers displaced Dravidian speakers to create the caste system. The highest and lowest castes and the IE and Dravidian speakers all share a broadly similar percentage of genes.
What the authors have done is to call that proportion of genes that are similar to the European CEU as "ANI" and the dissimilar part as ASI. In other words as per the Reich paper if you have a slightly higher proportion of genes smilar to CEU (European), then you are "Ancestral North Indian". In other words North Indian==European similarity. Upper Caste==European. Therefore Aryan invasion may be true. That is what caused all the excitement despite the ambiguous findings.
I would reject the ANI/ASI terminology, I have been unable to find any other papers that use that terminolgy or have markers for ASI or ANI
Shiv saar,
excellent, simply brilliant. You laid it out in simple terms for all and sundry to understand. Generally, these studies are not comprehensible for laymen(like me). The technical jargon and fancy words boggle the mind and one simply has to take the conclusion of the 'researcher' on face value. You have done a great job of deconstructing it, so that it is understandable for all.
---
So, essentially, this study divides Indian genes into two parts, A & B. Gene part A is closer to Europeans compared to Gene part B. Interestingly, the study shows that Indian population has approximately same amount, 50%-50% of A & B.
a) So, the whole of Indian population has same genetic makeup.
b) All of the Indian population is equally closer or farther from the genetic makeup of Europeans.
The motivations of the study are revealed in naming A & B. Gene part A, the gene make-up that is supposedly closer to Europeans, has been named 'Ancient North-Indian'(ANI), while Gene part B, the gene make-up that is supposedly farther to Europeans, has been named 'Ancient South-Indian'(ASI).
The problems with the above method are:
a) The study wants starts with dividing the Indian gene make-up into two parts, those that are closer to europeans and those that are farther. Why this kind of division? Say, why not divide Indian gene make-up into those that are closer to African and those that are farther than African? I mean if someone wants to study the european gene makeup, do they start out by dividing european gene makeup into those that are closer to Indian and those that are farther from Indian? Obviously not. Then why such division in this case? This reveals the inherent bias. This study wants to prove that AIT is a fact. So, they start by assuming that AIT is a fact and dividing Indian genes into two groups based on their relation with european gene makeup. Of course, the samples are selected to suit this criteria. The samples are not random.
b) 'Closer' and 'farther' are relative terms. If I want to prove that one of set of oranges are closer to apples than another set of oranges, then I start by dividing oranges into two categories based on their relation with apple: Ancient Apple Oranges and Ancient Non-Apple Oranges. Very clever idea, isnt it! The division itself is designed to prove that one set of oranges are more similar to apples than another set of oranges. One starts by assuming as fact, what one wants to prove in the end. Of course, the obvious point is why bring apples into a discussion or study of oranges? 'Closer' and 'farther' are relative terms. All oranges are closer to each other than they are to apples. Similarly, all Indians are closer to each other than europeans.
c) The real nature of the division of the Indian gene make-up based on their supposed closeness with europeans is revealed in naming them. Gene part A, which is supposedly closer to the european gene makeup is named as 'Ancient North-Indian'(ANI), while Gene part B, which is supposedly farther from the european gene makeup is named as 'Ancient South-Indian'(ASI). This is the real game. So, the study is trying to prove that ancient north-Indians are closer to the europeans(that is ancient north Indians are genetically related to the europeans). This study is intended to be a rehash of AIT.
AIT has 2 versions. One version is based on regions: North-Indians are supposed to be Aryans while South-Indians are supposed to be Dravidians. Another version of AIT is based on castes: 'upper' castes are supposed to be Aryans and 'lower' castes are supposed to be Dravidians. The study panders to AIT in both its versions. The naming itself is based on the regional version of AIT. But, the study also tries to 'prove' the caste angle of AIT by concluding that 'ANI' proportion is greater in the 'upper' castes compared to 'lower' castes. This conclusion is not supported by data offered by this study.
The data presented by the study itself shows that Indian population has approximately 50% of gene part A(ANI) and 50% gene part B(ASI) across the regions and castes. Essentially, all the Indians from various regions and castes are approximately equally further( or closer) to europeans in genetic makeup. Of course, all Indians are much more closer to each other than they are to europeans in genetic makeup. Moreover, the data from this study itself shows that higher castes need not necessarily have higher percent of ANI. All this data, demolishes the AIT in all its forms and versions. The naming is more controversial because the ANI and ASI are approx 50% in Indians from all regions and castes. So, why is one named ANI and another ASI? One can easily reverse the naming.
Of course, the AIT itself is flawed because it is unable to make up its mind whether the Aryans(and dravidians) are a regional group or caste based group. They cannot be simultaneously both. If they are regional group, then they must be restricted to that region. If they are a caste based group, then they must be restricted to that caste. But, castes are spread in all regions. And all regions have castes. So, if Aryans are a north Indian group, then all the north Indians, regardless of caste, must be Aryans. If Aryans are an upper caste, then all the upper castes regardless of the regions must be Aryans. If Aryans are a north Indian group that migrated/invaded to/the south and became upper castes in south, then there should not be lower castes in north. But, AIT proponents want to have their cake and eat it too. So, Aryans become a regional group and/or caste based group according to their convenience which leads to self-contradiction in their theory. This AIT is a quack theory from start to finish which should never have been taken seriously. This AIT is based on the mentality of colonial europeans and their behaviour with regard to other civilizations like American Indians.
As far as this study is concerned, I am inclined to think that if the samples increase, then the overall gene makeup of India would be much more in conformity than this study already shows.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the samples seem to be woefully small for a country as large as India. The samples are selected carefully to prove the AIT(region based and caste-based). Representatives of North India are mostly samples from UP. There is also a sample of Kashmiri pandit. Representatives of South India are mostly samples from AP. Then, samples from UP are extrapolated on to the entire north-India, while samples from AP are extrapolated on to the entire south-India. Given the small size of the samples, I am not convinced that these samples can be extrapolated even within that particular state leave alone the entire north or south. The same is the case with extrapolating the small samples on to the entire caste/sub-caste.
The highest 'ANI' was found in Kashmiri Pandit(70%) and lowest was found in Mala(38%) from AP. But, is it going to be constant if the samples are increased? For example, if 100 samples of Kashmiri Pandits are taken, then will this high percent of 'ANI' persist or will it climb down towards the 50%? Similarly, if 100 samples of Mala are taken, then will this lower percent of 'ANI' persist or will it climb up towards the 50%? I am inclined to think that if the samples increase, then the overall gene makeup of all Indians would be much more in conformity than this study already shows.
Of course, even with data from this study, the highest and lowest are just 70% and 40%, while the others are all approx 50%. That means there is not much divergence from the mean(50%). So, the data of the study itself shows that there is no major difference in gene makeup of Indians.
But, the study makes a mistake of extrapolating small samples on to the entire region and caste apart from assuming that genetic makeup of the entire region or caste would be uniform. This study starts with the assumption that genetic makeup of the entire region or caste would be uniform and that differences will occur when region or caste changes. It does not consider or test for the possibility of differences within a narrow region or caste. That means, does ANI vary within Kashmiri pandits? If so, what is the highest and lowest percents? Does percent of ANI vary among Indians regionally in a steady manner? Does the percent of ANI increase or decrease as we go south or north? Or is the ANI percent random? The results of the study seem to suggest that ANI percent does not have fixed regional pattern. And it is rather random.
---
RajeshA wrote:
Anantha wrote:
That could also mean upward social mobility (via marriage/courtship) for tribals and lower varnas based on their karmas, the way the varnas were intended.
Do not think that it was a one man-one woman relationship in older times.
I can't understand what karma has to do here! When women marry, they go and live with their husbands, and do not remain in their own family/group/tribe.
It seems to me that the complexity of Social mobility in India is ignored by many and simplistic theories or methods are formulated. The above study does the same.
The present day castes' status in India need not represent the castes' status in history. That means, if a certain group are classified as 'shudras', it is not guaranteed that they were shudras in the past also. Because, the groups can be promoted or demoted based on their behaviour. Demotions seem to be more common than promotions, but promotions cannot be ruled out. So, there is no guarantee that the present day caste status is same as it was in the past. And there is no way of knowing which groups were promoted or demoted unless the history of that particular group is looked into. So, each family has to be studied thoroughly before concluding whether their caste status was constant throughout ages or it changed. One cannot extrapolate present status into the past. This is particularly important if we are dealing with large time periods.
Firstly, the question is how were the Varnas formed and how do they function. According to the ancient Hindu scriptures, all were once Brahmins. Over a period, due to change of circumstances, certain people/groups deviated from the Karmas of Brahmins. These people/groups were assigned newer Varnas. This is the basic formula. Whenever, people of a Varna are not behaving according to that Varna, they are shifted out of that Varna to another Varna which is more suitable to their behaviour. That means, promotion and demotion is inherent in the system. Social mobility is part of the system of Varnas.
As far as I know, there is no ancient Indian scripture that lists out all the the families/clans that belong to various Varnas. This is important point to understand that the system of Varnas are not based ONLY on birth. If birth was the only criteria, then the scriptures would have listed out all the families(sir-names) that belong to different Varnas. The scriptures don't do any such thing. Instead, time and again, the scriptures stress on the qualities/vocations/behaviours of the Varna. In short, if the behaviour does not match the Varna, one is shifted out of that varna. Demotions seem to have occurred more often than promotions which accounts for greater numbers of 'Shudras' compared to Brahmins. So, present day 'Shudras' are not necessarily 'Shudras' in the past and vice versa. Of course, this social mobility seems to have freezed in the recent past(particularly last 1000 years).
There is another point which is pertinent in the discussion of genes based on Varna: It is assumed that Varnas are based on absolute Endogamy. This is not correct. According to the Hindu scriptures, a brahmin can marry women of all Varnas, a Kshatriya can marry women of all Varnas except Brahmins, ...so on and so forth. It seems, there was no limit to number of women per man. Polygamy was a norm while polyandry was an exception. Strictly speaking, a Hinduism allows polygamy even today. Of course, that is barred by IPC for Hindus.
That means, in ancient times, a single person may have had several wives from different Varnas, unless one is a 'Shudra'(in which case one would have had several wives only from that Varna). This means, the social mobility for the women(except Brahmin women) was very high. So, a brahmin woman would have to marry only a brahmin man and a shudra man would have to marry only shudra womEn. On the other hand, a brahmin man can marry any woman and a shudra woman could marry any man. This raises a question: What about children of such marriages? What would be their Varna?
A child inherits varna from mother's side and not father according to the scriptures. So, if a brahmin has 4 wives: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. Then, his children will have different varnas based on their mother's varna. That means he will have children who belong to all the 4 Varnas i.e. his genes have entered all the 4 Varnas.
This means:
a) Shudra varna would have the genes of all the 4 Varnas.
b) Vaishya varna would have the genes of the 3 Varnas.
c) Kshatriya varna would have the genes of the 2 Varnas.
d) Brahmin varna would have the genes of the 1 Varna.
Mahabharata provides examples in this regard. Dhritarashtra had 100 sons from Gandhari. Gandhari was a Kshatriya, so her sons were also Kshatriya. Dhritarashtra had one more wife who was a Vaishya. He had a son from her. This son, named Yuyutsu, was not a Kshatriya but Vaishya owing to the caste of his mother.
Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidhura had been fathered by Vyasa. But, Vidhura was a 'Shudra' as his mother was 'Shudra', while Dhritarashtra and Pandu were Kshatriyas because their mothers were Kshatriya. Interestingly, Vyasa is neither 'Shudra' nor Kshatriya.
So, child's caste is based on mother's caste, at least in theory. This means, that Varna system allowed the mixing of genes. The varnas are not designed to preserve the gene makeup of that particular varna. So, any study that uses genes based on Varna is bound to fail because Varnas are not designed for that.
All this is theory. Practice is far more complicated because practice did not always follow the theory nor did it consistently deviate from theory. Theory was followed sometimes, sometimes it was not, sometimes a compromise(a middle path) was evolved.
Mahabharatha provides examples:
a) In, Vidhura's case, the theory was followed. So, Vidhura inherits the varna from his mother. But, he is not just an ordinary 'Shudra', instead he becomes a minister of the kingdom. But, he does not go to war(a primary job of Kshatriya).
b) In Yuyutsu's case, the theory is followed but there is also a deviation. Yuyutsu, son of Dhirtarashtra, inherits the varna from his mother. But, he fights in the war of Mahabharata. Fighting in a war is quintessential task of Kshatriya. So, in this case, there was a compromise(middle path).
c) In Vyasa' case, the theory is not followed. Vyasa becomes a Rishi like his father Parashara instead of inheriting his mother, Satyavati's caste.
There are other examples in Mahabharatha that show that Varna system was already under stress. Karna's life is best example for this. Karna, who is considered a 'Suta'(possibly belonging to 'Shudra' varna), obtains education in Dronacharya's school. Here, no discrimination is shown. At an exhibition of skills by all students, Karna wants to duel Arjuna. Kripacharya asks Karna about his background and tells him that only a king/prince can challenge another king/prince. This is a clear discrimination. Then, Duryodhana declares that he will crown Karna as the King of Anga. Duryodhana goes ahead and crowns Karna rubbishing the opposition. Later, Karna is accepted as the King of Anga by one and all. This act of Duryodhana is not censured later. It is not mentioned as one of the sins/crimes of Duryodhana even though he supposedly violated the varna system by crowning a 'Suta-putra'. Karna goes to the swayamvara of Draupadi. There is a challenge that needs to be completed. If the challenge was completed successfully, then that person would wed Draupadi. When Karna rises from his seat to try his hand at the challenge, everyone(including the Pandavas) assume that Karna would win the challenge and marry Draupadi. But, Karna is stopped by Draupadi who declares that she would not marry a 'Suta-putra' regardless of whether he completed the challenge or not. Stung by this humiliation, Karna goes back to his seat without trying to complete the challenge. Here, there was clear discrimination. But, there is another angle here. It is to be noted that none of the other Kshatriyas stop Karna from trying his hand at the challenge. Drupada, Draupadi's father, does not stop him. It is only Draupadi that stops him. So, while there is varna based discrimination by Draupadi, there is also absence of it from other parties that are expected to voice such views.Then, Arjuna, who is in a Brahmana's, disguise goes and completes the challenge and promptly Draupadi garlands him acknowledging his victory. This victory of a Brahmin angers the Kshatriyas who attack Arjuna, who is in Brahmin's disguise. Theoretically, a Brahmin is never supposed to be harmed, yet we see an example that is contradictory to this theory.
This indicates the steady disintegration of Varna system during Mahabharatha period. There are other examples which stand testimony to this. Dronacharya, Kripacharya, and Ashvattama fight in the war of Mahabharatha as if they are Kshatriyas. In fact, Bhima chides Dronacharya on this very issue.
At the start of Mahabharatha war, Arjuna does not want to fight the war. Primarily, he gives two reasons for his disinclination to fight:
a) He does not want to kill his own kith and kin.
b) He fears that this war would completely shatter the varna system because all the males would die. And it would lead to unrestrained intermingling of the varnas.
It is of note that Lord Krishna does not refute this fear. He does not say that this fear is unfounded or that it will not happen. So, there is every chance that Arjuna's assessment may have come true, particularly because the entire 18 Akshauhini army is reported as annihilated i.e. the soldiers and warriors on both sides died except a few handful of individuals. And remember that all the Kshatriyas of the world participated in the Mahabharatha war except two: Rukmini's brother(Rukmi) and Arjuna's son(Chirtrangadha).
So, if the Varna system broke down after Mahabharatha, it must have been replaced by the Kula/jaathi system.
The present day castes are based on Kula/Jaathi. Kula/jaathi is equivalent to a clan/tribe. They should not be confused with varna.
It seems to me that Kula/jaathi is strictly birth based. Further, unlike the Varnas, it is difficult to say whether the Kula/jaathi allowed mixed marriages and if it did what the rules were. It seems to me that the rules were arbitrary and changed according to whims and fancies of the people involved. Sometimes, mixed marriages were not allowed and sometimes allowed. Sometimes, the children of these mixed marriages were deemed to belong to mother's Kula/jaathi and sometimes to father's Kula/jaathi. It seems that, of late, increasingly, the child is considered to belong to the Kula/jaathi of the father. The modern Indian law follows this principle. The child's caste is inherited from the caste of the father.
The transformation in Kula/jaathi, in the history, is very difficult to track. Newer Kula/jathi are also born from time to time. The above study breaks up the data in terms of kula/jaathi and yet it talks about 'ancient India'(when supposedly, Varna system was followed). The present day Kula/jaathis are not the same as ancient ones. Many newer Kula/jaathis have sprung up. The relationship between different Kula/jaathi has also been constantly evolving and continues to evolve. Since, the scriptures don't layout any particular rules for interaction between Kula/jaathi, the rules of engagement have been based on convenience, power equations, social status and such arbitrary variables. As the variables vary, the relationships have also varied. Scriptures only layout rules for the interaction of varnas and not Kula/jaathi. Which kula/jaathi belonged to which Varna in which period is not an easy question to answer. One would have to take the claims of that particular kula/jaathi at face value unless they are opposed by the claims of another kula/jaathi(even then there is no sure-shot way to resolve the issue one way or the other). This is particularly important because the scriptures do not enunciate which kula/jaathi belongs to which Varna. History can only tell us whether a particular kula/jaathi belonged to a particular varna in particular period or not. It cannot inform us about the origin of the kula/jaathi unless that Kula/jaathi was born in recent history.
Kula/jaathi have been rigidly endagamous in the past 1000 years. Yet, this has also been the time of explosion in the total number of Kula/jaathi. Many new Kula/jaathi have been born during this period.
The conclusion is that neither Varna nor Kula/jaathi are reliable factors to base genetic study that focuses on ancient India.
---
In the obsession with castes, people overlook another grouping provided by Hinduism which can be helpful in genetic study: Gotra.
Gotra: A term applied to a clan, a group of families, or a lineage - exogamous and patrilineal - whose members trace their descent to a common ancestor, usually a sage of ancient times.
While, varna is inherited by the child from mother(if the theory is strictly followed), Gotra is inherited from father. Gotra is always inherited from father, there is just no exception at all. The same Gotra indicates the same genes from father side.
A gotra is of immense importance to a Hindu for it shores up his identity. In any vedic ritual(including marriage), it is gotra that is paramount. Invariably the gotra of the performer has to be declared during the performance of any vedic ritual. All Hindu ceremonies require a statement of the gotra. A devout Hindu speaks out his gotra and pravara every day in the morning. Gotra also comes of use during the performance of the rites of passage or sanskaras. People of the same gotra (sagotra) are not allowed to marry, to prevent inbreeding. Any such relation is considered incest according to Hinduism. At weddings, the gotra of the bride and the groom are proclaimed aloud to establish that they are not breaking this socially ordained genetic precaution. This is exactly what the KHAPs in Haryana are trying to enforce in their own way. They are trying to stop people of the same Gotra from marrying each other.
In Hinduism,
a) A woman can marry the son of her father's sister or son of mother's brother or even mother's brother.
b) A man can marry the daughter of his father's sister or daughter of his mother's brother.
The above cases are allowed because the bride and groom would have different Gotra. Of course, the general rule is that man's age must be more than the woman's otherwise the man is warned that his lifetime will be shortened. (I guess the choice of lifetime or older wife is upto us.
)
Such rules can affect the genetic study. For example, Islam allows people to marry both paternal and maternal cousins which is not the case in Hinduism. This can be important in choosing the samples for a genetic study.
Gotra is also important in another way. In olden times, every gotra had a definite task to perform. Thus every Veda had priests of specific gotras for their narration and teaching. Certain sacrifices require priests of a specific gotra only. What this means is that gotra of the people can reveal what their origins were(from the father's side) regardless of their present social status(like caste).
So, instead of caste(varna or kula/jaathi) or region, Gotra is a better factor for genetic study. Of course, if it does not suit one's agenda, its different matter.
, ancestral, date(s) of ANI-ASI 'mixture', 'uncertain' about ASI but certain about ANI-ASI? )