Friday, September 29, 2006

Brownwashed - II

This brown farce continues to annoy me. I am not sure if people really know whether this identity can stand on its own and is not hierarchical. I have read/heard persons with brown identity complaining how a fat white lady treated them or a yellow, not even white, lady overlooked them. The fundamental flaw in this identity comes out in the subtle identification with other perceived not-so ideal stereotypes. I mean why do you want an identity which when good people who raise their voice against racism makes them sound not-so analytical.

If any colour that one wants identify it should be either white or black and nothing in-between. In my opinion racism has only two colours, black and white. When one is vicitmized because of his skin colour then he is black. Again, he can be white when he enjoys a movie where mentally disturbed heroine taunts a dark skinned person as "negro" all the time and that viewer thinks that is a great sense of humour. If you feel you can't identify with somebody then you are white. If somebody feels that he can't identify with you then you are black. Anyway, if a person never had any sense of his colour in his multi-colour country; why would he go for an identity based on it in some other country.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

South Dravidian languages - V

Probably, now nobody believes that tribals of South India were the original speakers of Dravidian languages. In fact, Haplogroups H and R2 are too old to be associated with Dravidian languages. I wonder what would be the language spoken by these tribals prior to their Dravidisation. I believe it should be Austro-Asiatic. However, I am not sure if Austro-Asiatic substratum could be observed among Dravidian languages. Or could it be Burushaski languages? I wonder if it is possible to detect the substratum of dead linguistic families. But before that more on movement of South Dravidian languages.

It is very evident that Proto-Kolami Parji all other tribal languages in fact branched main Proto languages for Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and Tulu. In my opinion Proto-Tamil-Kannada should be the sub-branch of Proto-Tulu-Kannada.

The language could become independent in a region owing to;
1. Sound changes due to migrations to different geographic location.
2. Adoption by non-native speakers.
-> There are two cases in this. In the first case, the natives would adopt an alien language. In the second case, migrants would adopt the local language.

Let's see if the above language tree supports the migration theory along river Godavari, then coastal Karnataka and then along river Kaveri.

South Dravidian -II(Central):
If you observed Proto-Telugu-Kui branches before Proto-Kui-Gondi. But Gondis are found in Eastern Maharashtra. SD-II might have branched from SD-1 before that region. I mean close to coastal Maharashtra. This Proto-Telugu then moved to Northern Andhra and then spread to South. If you observe except Telugu all other languages in this family spoken by only tribals. But it should be noted that Proto-Telugu does not exist as a sub-family of any of those tribal languages. In my opinion, if the Central-South Indian tribals spoke Dravidian languages first then linguistic construction must be able to trace non-tribal language to tribal languages. On the contrary here we find Proto-Gondi-Kui traced to Proto-Telugu-Kui.

South-Dravidian -II(Meridional):
Unlike SD-II, SD-I speakers didn't come across many tribals in South India. Probably, when the migration took place South India was sparsely populated. This family has four mainstream languages and few tribal languages. As I discussed above the split from SD-II should have happened somewhere in coastal Maharashtra(until this time SD-I and SD-II called number eight as enuma*).

This group must have moved along Krishna basin and coastal region. The group moved along Krishna basin became Kannadigas. The group moved along coastal region became Tuluvas.

This is the sub-group of Proto-Tulu-Kannada(the split from Proto-Tulu-Kannada could be seen in the word for number eight where it is now called entu*). This group moved along the river Tungabhadra reached the region of Kaveri river in Kodagu.

From the region of Kaveri in South Karnataka, it's the movement of Proto-Tamil people. As they moved most of tribes on trail adopted Dravidian languages which later became independent. The stretch from Kodagu to Nilgiri hills nicely shows origins of Kodava, Toda, Kota along the way. Irula was the last tribe to adopt Dravidian language. In the case, of Malayalees it's the change from one Dravidian language (Proto-Tulu) to another Dravidian language. However, Proto-Tulu was adopted by tribals like Koraga in Northern Malabar districts.

Later Kannada movements:
Kannada could have been mostly spoken in Northern Karnataka and Southern Maharashtra* initially. But later it made inroads into Southern Proto-Tamil regions along Kaveri river but lost its identity in Southern Maharashtra.

Kodava question:
It looks like Kodavas were present in the region before Proto-Tamil speakers migrated there. This is bit difficult believe as Kodavas are supposedly later migrants to that region. If we can show that language became distinct after some of the Dravidian languages in the region next to it then we can say Kodavas are the later migrants. But this tree does not show that. However, one at Encyclopedia Britannica gives a different picture. According to it, Proto-Tamil-Kodagu branches after Proto-Tamil-Toda. This might show later non-native speakers migrating to that place adopting Proto-Tamil.

*In my opinion,archaic forms of a language could be found in a population that is;
- migrant to a different linguistic place
- uninfluenced/isolated native speakers
The Tamil Brahmins in Karnataka who migrated 800 years back from the region of Tamil Nadu supposedly exhibit archaic Tamil forms in their speech.
The Havyaka community in coastal region show archaic Kannada words in its speach. The region they inhabit is originally a Tulu speaking(Uttara Kannada) region. The region where archaic Kannada was spoken could be mainly in Northern Karnataka or Southern Maharashtra or could even be North-Western Andhra Pradesh(Krishna basin).

I felt Kurukh(belonging to North-Dravidian linguistic family) sounded like Havyaka Kannada. The Kurukh people even have a folklore that they migrated from Northern Karnataka. In all probability, Kannada took its form in Northern regions, then influenced southern regions whose proto-language could be close to Proto-Tamil.

Similarly, Telugu took its form in Godavari basin and later influenced Western Krishna basin where the population could have been speaking a language close to Proto-Kannada.

Whereas, Tulu regions were encroached by both Kannada in the North and Tamil in the South in the later period.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Suvarnabhumi - a propaganda

After reading the ongoing controversy about a region called "Suvarnabhumi" , I couldn't resist myself from indulging in some propaganda. The article in Wikipedia speaks in different tones about the region mentioned in Buddhist literature. So, I am not sure if this name is really part of Ashoka's edicts or just an imagination of Sri Lankan Buddhist monks.

Back to Tulu tribes:
The lineages of Tulu tribes (bari/bali/illam) have unknown origins(means I do not have any idea about their meanings). Let's consider that some might denote the region names. And here I find some material for my propaganda.

One of the major lineages(probably the biggest) of Tulu communities is called "Suvarna". And the reason I think it may denote region name is because Malayalam equivalent of this bali is known as "Konkani"(which is the biggest lineage of Malayalee community/ies in Kasaragod/Mangalore). The region Konkana is arbitrarily defined one. I suppose it's generally considered as the region stretching from West coastal Maharashtra to Karnataka. But it looks like one of the Puranas(mythologies) even include Kerala.

It is here that everything becomes mere propaganda. "Suvarna" has a very clear meaning in Sanskrit( gold). But unfortunately only "folk" etymology exists for Konkana(kum = "mother" earth, kana=dust).

There are Tamil communities identified as "Konga"*. Did they migrate from South-West coastal India to Tamil regions? Another, not-so-known, kingdom was called Konkanam supposedly included the regions of Kannur and Kasaragod and believed to be 2000 years old.

Let's consider that Kongas were the migrants to South-Eastern Karnataka and Tamil Nadu at a later time from the region of Konkana(probably, along Kaveri route). That may show that Konkana has to be divided into Konka + ana (aNa) and not kum + kana.

Now, this division gives it Dravidian form. Unfortunately, my limited knowledge in Dravidian vocabulary(and grammar) is the stumbling block here. I could think of only few examples for this case.

Consider four cardinal directions in Kannada; moodu (east), padu(west), tenku(south) and badagu(north). But I am not sure if "ana" means direction or region. Anyway, the words do exist as moodana (moodu + ana), puduvana (padu + ana) etc... in Kannada. Well, if ana means direction then Konkana means "konka" direction. But if it means region then Konkana means "konka region". And later meaning makes sense.

Now, konka. If there is a Prakrit word konka ( an equivalent for Sanskrit word kanaka meaning gold) meaning gold, I can go further.

But why this region was called "land of gold" when you hardly find any gold mines here. Absolutely, no idea. But this is just a propaganda.

*A derogatory term for all Tamils by Mysore region Kannadigas just as "Pandy", derived from Pandya kingdom of Tamil Nadu, is derogatory term for Tamils by Malayalees. Looks like everybody in the South were pissed off by Tamils from time immemorial. Of course, I do not know Tamil derogatory words for Malayalees and Kannadigas.

Monday, September 18, 2006

Origins of Indians : Version 5.0

Indian male lineages:
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no major contribution from Arab lands and from Mediterranean countries(Anatolia, Turkey) to Indian male pre-historic population.

None of the Indian Y-lineages F,H,R(xR1b),G,J2, C(xC3) have exclusive distribution beyond Iran,Afghanistan. Arab lands are characterized by heavy presence J1 and E3b, Mediterranean again E3b and R1b.

Indo-European homeland:
I don't know where it is. But if it's in Russian lands or in Balkans or in Anatolia, then the Indo-Aryans who moved to India were in fact secondary or tertiary IE people.

Russian lands: We should find I, R1b and N3(benchmark is Brahmin population). Status: Till date not observed.
Balkans: Again I. Status: Till date not observed.
Anatolia: R1b, E3b. Status: Till date not observed.

The Indo-Aryan Urheimat:
The region which became linguistically and culturally IE but not much genetically is certainly beyond IVC areas. But not much far away. In my opinion, the pre-historic Indians that came in contact with primary or secondary IE people must be in Afghanistan.

The connection between Chitpavan Brahmins and Burushos:
Almost all the Brahmin communities show in South and East show a greater presence of R1a1. A feature characteristic of present day Pakistan and North-West of India. However, Gaekwad et al. 2005 study had an interesting distribution of Haplogroups among Chitpavans.

While other castes had R1a1 in great number, this particular caste had R1a*. Ibra, a man from Meluhha whose spirit lives in distant Arctic tundra lands, has communicated that lack of funds might have stopped them from testing for marker M17(which identifies R1a1) for those samples. A highly plausible scenario(as rest of the later studies didn't find any R1a* and R1a1 frequency increased dramatically) but I still prefer to think that they in fact couldn't detect M17 in those samples. In my opinion, after M207 they tested for M17 directly as other intermediate Haplogroups are hardly observed. Therefore, I have grouped all those R1a* under R* and compared with them Burushos(From Sengupta et al. 2006 study).

Burusho Chitpavan
R* 20% 31%
L3 15% 17%
R2 15% 11%
H 15% 14%
R1a1 10% 5%
C3 5% 3%
G5 5% 1.5%(F*)
J2 5%(J2b) 12%(J2a)
K2 5% 3%
O3e 5%
P* 3%

There are many theories about Chitpavans' migration to Maharashtra. In my opinion, the one that says they were from Afghanistan(or Northern Pakistan) has a higher weight. The isolated Burushos might have escaped Indo-Europeanization. However, Indo-Europeanization of North India might have helped from Indo-Aryanization of sparsely populated area first and then gradually moving to denser areas.

The indigenous Aryans:
Both Sengupta et al. 2006. and the present Thanseem et al. 2006 studies have observed that Haplogroup H1(M52) though the biggest, has the lowest dieversity of all the major Haplogroups of India. Haplogroup H*(M69) clan is generally considered the earliest settlers(after coastal migration lineages of C and D) of India. However, it looks like this clan was restricted for a long time when R1a1, R2, J2 and L started populating the subcontinent.

However, Haplogroup H1 then suddenly had a greater fecundity success, probably due agriculture and may also be due to tribal kingdoms taking shape all over Central-South India in historical times. This clan though too old to be identifed with either Aryan or Dravidian speaking populations(though could be Austro-Asiatic along with R2 and J2b) but evidently speaking both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan by historical times, most likely killed one expansion of Dravidian languaes to Central and West. It has been observed that the rise of Maratha tribes(whose biggest lineage is H1) halted the spread of Kannada language in Maharashtra during medieval period.

Expansion of various lineages:
C, D(extinct) -> coastal migration -> negligible in India -> language unknown
F*,H,R*, R2 -> Iran/Afghanistan -> Austro-Asiatic, Burushaski
H, R2, R1a1, J2, G, L -> Pakistan, North-East India -> Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, Burushaski
R*, R1a1, R2,H, J2, L -> Pakistan, Northern India -> Indo-Aryan
R2 -> Andhra Pradesh -> Dravidian
H1 -> Maharashtra -> Indo-Aryan

Expansion of various languages:
1. Austro-Asiatic:
South-East Asia-> Ganges-> Indus river
2. Dravidian :
Indus river -> West coastal India -> Krishna, Godavari in Central India(SD-II)
Indus river -> South-West coastal India-> Kaveri(SD-I)
3. Indo-Aryan:
Afghanistan-> Indus river -> Ganges-> Srilanka
Ganges -> West coastal India-> Krishna/Narmada river

Saturday, September 16, 2006

The original Dravidian sound is 'b' and not 'v'

I think sound changes generally follow a fixed pattern as one moves from one geographical location to another. Unless, there is some kind of forced changes thro' literature and cultural influence, sounds are idiosyncratic to that particular region.

The Dravidian urheimat:
At present, Godavari basin is believed to be the place where the proto-Dravidian language speakers had their proto neolithic cultural centre. The present day Dravidian language in that region, Telugu, commonly shows words with 'v'. So, indeed proto-Dravidian sound is 'v'.

However, this region, eventhough became centre of Proto-Dravidian people, is not the place where Proto-Dravidian language was first spoken. That could be mostly in North-West of the subcontinent. That is the movement of Dravidian speakers from West to East. To understand the sound change from West to East we have to observe the population that moved East to West like Kannadigas, Tuluvas and Malayalees*. There you find the words changing to "b". To continue further if you observe West to East (Karnataka to Tamil Nadu) again the sound changes to 'v'.

Now, consider Brahuis who reside in North-West of the sub-continent. And you observe the words again have "b" rather than "v".

eg1. (Courtesy : StarLing database)
Proto-Dravidian : *vā-[r]-
Meaning : to come
Proto-South Dravidian:
Proto-Telugu :
Proto-Kolami-Gadba :
Proto-Gondi-Kui :
Proto-North Dravidian :
Brahui :

Proto-Dravidian : *viḍ[i]-
Meaning :
to leave
Nostratic etymology:

Proto-South Dravidian:
Proto-Telugu :
Proto-Gondi-Kui : *viṛi-
Proto-North Dravidian :
Brahui :

In all probability, the Proto-Dravidian speakers had 'b' sound during their stay in North-West of the subcontinent. And that makes the original sound 'b' and not 'v'.

*It looks like 'v' in Malayalam is a forced change. Culturally isolated Hindu Malayalee communities in Tulu regions and also culturally insulated Malayalee muslims of Malabar had only 'b' sound and not 'v' sound for most of the words. I think this should be the original sound even in Malayala region just like the Western coastal Tulu/Kannada communities. Of course, most of the Malayalees are Proto-Tulu tribes.

However, if Dravidian speakers migrated to North-West of the subcontinent from some other place then I believe there is no way to find the original sound for that letter. But once they set their foot on India it should be 'b'.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Genographic project and Y-Haplogroup R2 -update

Spencer Wells has acknowledged that my ancestors didn't migrate Westwards and hunted Neandertals. In fact, they moved south and became one of the earliest inhabitants of South Asia. However, the ancestor group that he mentioned were descendents of Y-Haplogroup R*(M207) and not R2. For Genographic project Haplogroup R2 is still a mysterious lineage as they don't have many samples. Well, data could be found if more Bengalis, Orissans, Telugus, Srilankans and Tulu tribes(coastal Karnataka and North Malabar region of Kerala) are sampled.

According to Dr. Wells, R* might have originated in southern Central Asia(I think that includes Afghanistan) or in northern India. Hmmm... Where is that? Is it subcontinent India or nation-state India? Is it only Burushos or do we have a surprise with Chitpavans?