Matrilineal traditions:
My previous post on the same topic, I discussed how matrilineal traditions consider semen as mere nurture but not the essence of life. This is in contrast to patrilineal traditions which consider semen as the essence of life and woman or womb as mere nurture.
One of the examples given was matrilineal Musuo community of China. This community assigned semen the role of rain. I believe matrilineal traditions were strong in northern Indian and Nepali regions close to Sino-Tibetan influence.
During the times of drought it is/was a tradition in Nepala and Uttara Pradesha for women to plough naked in fields to please rain god Indra. We fairly guess how wily wise men of the past synthesized matrilineal traditions with their patriarchal gods. This also gives good clue why Indra upstaged original rain god Varuna.
Seeing thro' patrilineal eyes, matrilineal traditions may look rather strange. This may lead to patrilineal rationalization of those traditions. It doesn't go well with Varuna's character to be enticed by women. But Indra is known for his loose morals.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Origins of Indians : Version 8.2
Coastal Migration Theory and I:
I have been a skeptic of the 'Coastal Migration Theory'. In my previous post on the same topic I found the theory unreliable because of Y-haplogroup distribution pattern in India.
Evidence from mtDNA:
A new study says (Via my discussion forum) not only mtDNA N is older than M but also M in East Asia is older than South Asia. At least one study before this also found that M in East Asia and Oceania is older than South Asia. These facts coupled with our stereotypical knowledge of India at the receiving end of most of the migrations from East or West goes against the legend of the Coastal Migration.
Sanity is restored:
The argument put forth for the Coastal Migration which I found rather bizarre is;
"It is easy to move along the coast and colonize the whole world than it is possible in any other way"
I don't understand why early man should have the explorer's zeal. The coastal areas of India are generally abundant with food supplies. Why would any population leave that region?
Another argument is northern East Asia, an alternative root to colonize SE Asia and Oceania( and has been the stereotypical case in the known past), because of inhospitable mountainous and cold environment early humans might not have moved to those regions.
But I would think man moved when he found imposing mountain but not the other way round. I would propose another hypothesis for the rapid movement of early humans.
Quest for warmth:
Since Homo Sapiens Migrated from hot African regions, they might have always preferred to live in tropical regions than temperate regions. The reason we don't find many older haplogroups in Europe and Central Asia because those were cooler regions unlike Africa. Early humans were in constant motion in search of summers. Most likely the early movement that gave rise to early Australians is;
Europe-> Central Asia->northern East Asia->western East Asia->SE Asia->Australia.
Note it's all thro' inhospitable regions never touching the coastal regions. Some of them(Y-haplogroup C and D) did adjuste to northern East Asia. Some continued south until they reached mostly hotter SE Asia and Oceania.
Another wave that moved South Asia took West Asia (where you find mtDNA M1) route. South Asia gave warmth and hospitable region leading to stagnation.
I have been a skeptic of the 'Coastal Migration Theory'. In my previous post on the same topic I found the theory unreliable because of Y-haplogroup distribution pattern in India.
Evidence from mtDNA:
A new study says (Via my discussion forum) not only mtDNA N is older than M but also M in East Asia is older than South Asia. At least one study before this also found that M in East Asia and Oceania is older than South Asia. These facts coupled with our stereotypical knowledge of India at the receiving end of most of the migrations from East or West goes against the legend of the Coastal Migration.
Sanity is restored:
The argument put forth for the Coastal Migration which I found rather bizarre is;
"It is easy to move along the coast and colonize the whole world than it is possible in any other way"
I don't understand why early man should have the explorer's zeal. The coastal areas of India are generally abundant with food supplies. Why would any population leave that region?
Another argument is northern East Asia, an alternative root to colonize SE Asia and Oceania( and has been the stereotypical case in the known past), because of inhospitable mountainous and cold environment early humans might not have moved to those regions.
But I would think man moved when he found imposing mountain but not the other way round. I would propose another hypothesis for the rapid movement of early humans.
Quest for warmth:
Since Homo Sapiens Migrated from hot African regions, they might have always preferred to live in tropical regions than temperate regions. The reason we don't find many older haplogroups in Europe and Central Asia because those were cooler regions unlike Africa. Early humans were in constant motion in search of summers. Most likely the early movement that gave rise to early Australians is;
Europe-> Central Asia->northern East Asia->western East Asia->SE Asia->Australia.
Note it's all thro' inhospitable regions never touching the coastal regions. Some of them(Y-haplogroup C and D) did adjuste to northern East Asia. Some continued south until they reached mostly hotter SE Asia and Oceania.
Another wave that moved South Asia took West Asia (where you find mtDNA M1) route. South Asia gave warmth and hospitable region leading to stagnation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)