tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post1043386902260295644..comments2024-03-27T22:28:06.861-06:00Comments on Dispatches From Turtle Island: Munda As Intrusive To IndiaAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-28877125648022622212019-09-07T02:57:38.227-06:002019-09-07T02:57:38.227-06:00The Dravidian languages are concentrated in Southe...The Dravidian languages are concentrated in Southern India only. The small isolated north Dravidian populations like Malto, Kurukh, etc in central and eastern Indian subcontinent are a fractional percentage of the population of the respective regions, comparable to the percentage of Brahuis in Pakistan. They number much less than the AA speakers in the east-central India. Only in some parts of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, they are dominant tribes, e.g the Gonds.Bhatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15826428604582794707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-20335128593731879882013-01-31T17:05:38.230-07:002013-01-31T17:05:38.230-07:00"Terry should know by now which is it" ..."Terry should know by now which is it" <br /><br />Yes. It placed D's origin somewhere around the border region between Tibet and China. Maju chose to see it as being SE Asia but as he has recently shown his knowledge of the geography of the region is sketchy at best, so we can safely ignore his belief in a SE Asian origin. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-64074554179580989232013-01-31T15:48:17.911-07:002013-01-31T15:48:17.911-07:00There's a key study on the haplotype structure...There's a key study on the haplotype structure of D that finds quite good support for SE Asian origin of D. I'm now at the tablet so I don't have my bookmarks at hand but Terry should know by now which is it, yet he insists on speculating for his pet hypothesis without basis...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-55575875061103771152013-01-31T15:38:39.460-07:002013-01-31T15:38:39.460-07:00"relatively distinct from those in Japan"..."relatively distinct from those in Japan" <br /><br />Yes. D in Japan is quite distinct (D2). D1 is Tibetan. D3 is Central Asian but is present in Tibet, Tajikistan and the Pamirs. The Andamans may be yet a third haplogroup (D*) as may be the D* in Central Asia. The D in India is quite probably the same haplogroup as in The Andaman Islands, D*. <br /> <br />"But, the directionality of the gene migration is not at all obvious". <br /><br />From the distribution of the variuos D haplogroups I'd say somewhere near Tibet was the obvious source. From Wikipedia to remind you: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_D-M174_(Y-DNA)<br /><br />"This paragroup is found with high frequency among Andaman Islanders and 0%-65% in Northeast India in adivasi tribes" <br /><br />'Adavasi' is a general term but most in Northeast India, where Indian D is concentrated, speak Tibeto-Burman and Austro-Asiatic languages. As far as I'm aware D has not been found in Austro-Asiatic-speaking people. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-32465466661634253832013-01-31T12:38:16.302-07:002013-01-31T12:38:16.302-07:00"But I think the evidence is pretty convincin..."But I think the evidence is pretty convincing that D's spread into Northeast India was associated with the Tibeto-Burman expansion."<br /><br />In my view the evidence is ambivalent on the point. The Y-DNA subhaplogroups of D in Tibet and those in India and the Andamans are all of a piece phylogenetically and relatively distinct from those in Japan, in contrast. But, the directionality of the gene migration is not at all obvious.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-52828259361495339282013-01-30T15:36:58.328-07:002013-01-30T15:36:58.328-07:00"D would have been long predated the existenc..."D would have been long predated the existence of Tibeto-Burman but would indeed have possibly been in the mix of peoples expanding with that language". <br /><br />Exactly. It is certainly not associated with Tibeto-Burman in the Andamans for example. But I think the evidence is pretty convincing that D's spread into Northeast India was associated with the Tibeto-Burman expansion. <br /><br />"the near total absence of D in the Han Chinese argues strongly from a lowland rather than highland urheimat for the Broader Sino-Tibeto-Burman language family, with the highlands as a receiving refugia and point of dispersal rather than an origin for the family" <br /><br />I'm very sure you are correct, and it has been a source of constant disagreement between Maju and myself. I'm sure that Tibeto-Burman's spread is associated with the expansion of the Chinese Neolithic. In fact the whole Y-DNA O expansion is associated with the Chinese Neolithic. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-70034364812274637052013-01-30T14:00:14.637-07:002013-01-30T14:00:14.637-07:00"But you know as well as the rest of us that ..."But you know as well as the rest of us that languages are more mobile than are haplogroups."<br /><br />I've been brewing in my head the outlines of a post on just that issue, i.e. the relative mallability of different cultural and genetic indicators in relation to time depth.<br /><br />"Tibeto-Burman in India looks most likely associated with Y-DNAs O3 and D."<br /><br />If I had more time, I would have tracked down the reference to the relevant published papers. D would have been long predated the existence of Tibeto-Burman but would indeed have possibly been in the mix of peoples expanding with that language. Indeed, the near total absence of D in the Han Chinese argues strongly from a lowland rather than highland urheimat for the Broader Sino-Tibeto-Burman language family, with the highlands as a receiving refugia and point of dispersal rather than an origin for the family (with the high diversity there explained by the tendency of mountain populations to balkanize and form insular microenvironments).andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-69998689183905005172013-01-30T02:42:25.102-07:002013-01-30T02:42:25.102-07:00"the Austro-Asiatic language subfamily of Sou..."the Austro-Asiatic language subfamily of South Asia, called the Munda languages, now spoken by about 9 million people in the Northeastern part of South Asia were intrusive to South Asia from Southeast Asia, rather than the other way around". <br /><br />Great to have that 'proved'. The Y-DNA involved is obvioulsy O2 but interestingly the mt-DNA R-derived haplogroups R7 and R8 are both said to be especially associated with Munda-speaking populations. <br /><br />"most of their genetics should be native and not imported". <br /><br />But you know as well as the rest of us that languages are more mobile than are haplogroups. <br /><br />"The Austro-Asiatic languages are believed to have expanded with agriculture and in particular with early rice farming agriculture, so its likely time of arrival can be associated with the earliest evidence for rice farming in South Asia". <br /><br />As can the whole Y-DNA O expansion. <br /><br />"Genetic evidence, cultural evidence and historical evidence likewise point to the Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in South Asia's Northern and Eastern borders as intrusive more recently than either the Austro-Asiatic languages or the Indo-European languages. And, thes languages are spoken only on the very fringe of South Asia, rather than penetrating deeply into it" <br /><br />Tibeto-Burman in India looks most likely associated with Y-DNAs O3 and D. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-29064947072937789542013-01-29T17:53:46.017-07:002013-01-29T17:53:46.017-07:00Point well taken. While the charts in Razib's...Point well taken. While the charts in Razib's chart don't really allow for a direct comparison, it visually conveys the impression that the Munda superstrate was a lot thinner than the Indo-Aryan superstrate.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7315236707728759521.post-38130743403560839112013-01-29T12:01:12.263-07:002013-01-29T12:01:12.263-07:00What most called my attention is that (always in t...What most called my attention is that (always in the context of an algorithm of dubious usefulness) the Munda's main stem hangs from the main South Asian trunk, what implies that most of their genetics should be native and not imported.<br /><br />Otherwise I agree that AA languages and culture, and some genetics but not all, especially not most of the mtDNA, is immigrant from the Neolithic period. Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com