Genetic link shown between Indian subcontinent and Mesopotamia

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Genetic studies have shown connections between populations in western (modern) India/Pakistan and Mesopotamia.


Research was also carried out by another team (Sołtysiak et al 2013) examining fifty-nine dental non-metric traits on a sample of teeth from 350 human skeletons excavated at three sites in the lower middle Euphrates valley. This showed a stable population until after the Mongolian invasion which resulted in a large depopulation of northern Mesopotamia in the 13th century CE. The final major change occurred during the 17th century with Bedouin tribes arriving from the Arabian Peninsula.




New study


This may represent either that the individuals are descendants of migrants from much earlier times (Palaeolithic), spreading the clades of the macrohaplogroup M throughout Eurasia and founding regional Mesopotamian groups like that of Terqa, or they are from merchants moving along trade routes passing near or through the region



There are no traces in the modern Syrian population (of theses), which is explainable as the dental study showed, by later depopulation and recolonisation, but opens up the possibilities of further work to examine the routes of both populations and civilisations.


edit on 27/9/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Great thread, further proves we are all more closely related than we thought - regardless of religious beliefs or political ideologies.

I wonder if it stems from the Indus Valley Civilization

Trade map:


Source:
Penn State Link
edit on 27-9-2013 by MysteriousHusky because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Im not sure I understand all of this. I am wondering if these two different peoples just split at one time only to come back together at some later point. Who left who? Or is there some older udiscovered origin point hidden between them?



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Very interesting Hans ,

Maybe this study illustrates how Sumerian came to be a language isolate.

One thing that was not clear is if the remains used had any relation modern people of the northern gulf regions.
Also it could all very well be related to the very ancient sea trade from the indus peoples to the people of the gulf . After all indus script can be found on tombs in Oman.
But it also poses some interesting questions.

There also two fascinating articles linked to on your source page, one about domestication of taurine cattle and the other about separate domestication events within cotton.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


Yes who went where when? Interesting none the less. What I see happening is more of these smaller studies being done then in 3-5 years a meta study being done of the studies to give us a better picture of what was happening.

An interesting aside on the effect of the Mongol invasion. Hulagu was never a man to annoy.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SasquatchHunter
 


The study found a relationship but couldn't determine who went ,where, first or last. They should have been able to determine something like this from the age of the samples but I didn't see this addressed



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Hans,
Just finished reading the first paper,
and I was struck by this statement.


For instance, it is commonly accepted that the founders of Sumerian civilization came from the outside of the region, their exact origin is, however, still a matter of debate. It is suggested that migrants of Iranian, Indian [32], [33] or even Tibetan affinity [34] founded the Sumerian civilization, which suggestion can be supported by comparing the Tibeto-Burman and Sumerian languages [35]. The migrants could have entered Mesopotamia earlier than 45 centuries ago, during the lifetime of the oldest studied individual, as the Tibetan Plateau was peopled more than 20 Kyrs ago [21], [36]. However, one also should consider the possibility that studied individuals belonged to the groups of itinerant merchants moving along a trade route passing near or through the region, since a recent comparative study of strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes content in enamel indicates that people from Indus Valley were present in southern Mesopotamia 3 Kyrs BC [37]


The sumerians could have been Tibetans, that is fascinating.
I think that the haplogroup distribution map shows two things , a) the Tibetan plateau origin of the group and b) the movement of the later Dravidian traders along the Indian ocean



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

punkinworks10
Hans,
Just finished reading the first paper,
and I was struck by this statement.


For instance, it is commonly accepted that the founders of Sumerian civilization came from the outside of the region, their exact origin is, however, still a matter of debate. It is suggested that migrants of Iranian, Indian [32], [33] or even Tibetan affinity [34] founded the Sumerian civilization, which suggestion can be supported by comparing the Tibeto-Burman and Sumerian languages [35]. The migrants could have entered Mesopotamia earlier than 45 centuries ago, during the lifetime of the oldest studied individual, as the Tibetan Plateau was peopled more than 20 Kyrs ago [21], [36]. However, one also should consider the possibility that studied individuals belonged to the groups of itinerant merchants moving along a trade route passing near or through the region, since a recent comparative study of strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes content in enamel indicates that people from Indus Valley were present in southern Mesopotamia 3 Kyrs BC [37]


The sumerians could have been Tibetans, that is fascinating.
I think that the haplogroup distribution map shows two things , a) the Tibetan plateau origin of the group and b) the movement of the later Dravidian traders along the Indian ocean


Well yes that was what I meant by who went, where and when. Of course back then there weren't any Tibetans, it was just a place, rather an unpleasant place however (from a survival point of view). I could see it as a group of people who split, one which went to the plateau and another group who said, the 'hell with the mountains' I want riverfront property and the sun....and there you have it.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Its fascinating to note that the highest similarity of the genetic make up is found in areas around Tibet, the areas that was occupied by the Indus valley civilization and the southern part of India, especially in the region of the present day state of Kerala.

There are ancient records on stone in the Edakkal caves of Kerala, with scripts similar to the Indus valley script.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

coredrill
Its fascinating to note that the highest similarity of the genetic make up is found in areas around Tibet, the areas that was occupied by the Indus valley civilization and the southern part of India, especially in the region of the present day state of Kerala.

There are ancient records on stone in the Edakkal caves of Kerala, with scripts similar to the Indus valley script.



Glad you mentioned that. I had read about that cave a long time ago and checked and there was an update to the scholarly work done there


Historian M.R. Raghava Varier of the Kerala state archaeology department identified a sign “a man with jar cup” that is the most distinct motif of the Indus valley civilization.The finding, made in September 2009, indicates that the Harappan civilization (may have been) active in the region. The “a man with jar cup” symbol from Edakkal seems to be more similar to the Indus motif than those already known from Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Mr. Varier said “The discovery of the symbols are akin to that of the Harappan civilisation having predominantly Dravidian culture and testimony to the fact that cultural diffusion could take place


Newspaper article on the subject



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks10
 


One thing that was not clear is if the remains used had any relation modern people of the northern gulf regions.

I suppose that determination would have to depend on the discovery of suitable human remains in the Gulf. Preservation would be a problem, I think; although the area is desert pretty much down to the shoreline, atmospheric humidity in the Gulf region is very, very high most of the year.

The populations of the Gulf and Western India have been exchanging genes and memes for a very long time; the form of Arabic spoken in the former region is full of Hindi and Urdu loanwords. During British rule in India, the Gulf was a prime source of horses; the trade, which is referred to in Kipling's greatest novel, Kim, was (I believe) managed mainly by Pashtuns and Afghans.

As for the people on the northern shores of the Gulf, Iranians have always seemed to me a kind of (to put it crudely) cultural intermediate between Indians and Levantines. This is simply an observation based on people's names, customs and cuisine, and its antecedents are probably quite recent; I'm not stating it as a scientific theory or anything. But if you've spent time amongst these people, you'll know what I mean.

edit on 28/9/13 by Astyanax because: of Levantine humidity.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MysteriousHusky
 

Add cinnamon to the list of ingredients on that trade map of yours (what date range does it represent, btw?) and you could quite possibly extend the route lines to Egypt, Palestine and ancient Sri Lanka as well. Of course, that trade was quite recent; the evidence is for links in the second millennium BC.

But, as Hans says, it's difficult to say who went where. The traders are thought to have been Mesopotamian, but where, originally, did they come from? East or west? Or north? It's a long walk from Tibet.

edit on 28/9/13 by Astyanax because: it's a long walk from Tibet.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   
There is a linguistic link too, if you remember that in vedic text the battle between the devas and the assur.

Assur is the name of a city, the name of the chief god among the Assuri people of Mesopotamia.

Interesting also that the ancient Egyptians credited the foundation of their civilization to Osiris also known as Asar, Asari, Aser, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, Usir, Usire or Ausare....note Asari denotes him to be one of the Assuri people, probably an ancient king amongst them
edit on 29-9-2013 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


In the Avestan language, Daeva meant "a being of shining Light", which can be equated to "Divine". In the Gathas the Daevas were depcited as gods falling from grace, akin to the fallen angels of Abrahamic Religions. As Zoroastrianism developed, the Daevas were Maligned more. Interesting aspect is the Ahuras of Zoroastrianism - are equal to Asuras.
While in Hinduism, the Daevas were glorified and the Asuras were demonized.
I strongly believe that the Daeva/ Asura were real people who were mythologized.
Or it could be regional - Daevas were from the Indian Sub Continent and Asuras/Ahuras were from Mesopotamia.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 


Might be or it could just be imagination from long ago. As far as we know it could have been the names of two brothers who fell out over a woman or a hunting dispute.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by coredrill
 



One clan of asuras called the danavas are very interesting, there is clear indication that they were invading Europeans, they may be linked to those red haired mummy's in china.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I don't see that as surprising really.

The ancient world got around a lot more than earlier conventional thought conjectured.

Ancient trade routes are found all the time...oddly enough, they seem to be used alot today, too. Of course, you know that as well as I, if not better...


It's fascinating how the "conventional" thoughts are changing, and have changed over the past forty years or so.

edit on 9/30/2013 by seagull because: spelling.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

seagull

It's fascinating how the "conventional" thoughts are changing, and have changed over the past forty years or so.


Yes change has been manifest and is increasing in 'velocity' as we speak, compare what we know or think we know about what man was doing tens of thousands of years ago with what was thought in:

1963 Early man sites in Africa, the Leakeys change everthing
1913 Unknown civilizations found
1863 Some inkling from the near east and elsewhere about unknown languages and cultures
1813 Basically the world was 6,000 years old and if it wasn't mentioned in the Bible well it wasn't important, the evidence of the Americas were ignored

Massive change in perceptive driven by science.



posted on Oct, 1 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The following link will include very recent studies and discoveries about human evolution, from an ancestor we share with modern chimp, around 5 million years ago, to the first archaic hominids, splitting up from a common ancestor we share with early man.
Around a million years ago, these early humans already migrated out of Africa, and will eventually give rise to the first Neanderthal and Denisovan human sub species,and the first modern humans that showed up in Africa, around 200.000 years ago and a second wave of migration, around 130.000 years ago, into the Eurasian continent.
When around 60.000 years ago, the last wave of modern man showed up, migrating out of Africa, into the Eurasian continent.

Which I find the most interesting. You will also find a pretty big list of other studies in numerous other fields, which make it possible to create a better, and more precise picture on the subject of human evolution.

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

Enjoy.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 



Ooops,
This post was meant for the thread on the first Chinese.
But it's still apropos to the discussion, sine they used teeth in the initial study, but instead of studiing the dentition first they ground up the teeth.


Hey there Sinter klaas,
You beat me to it.
That commentary on that study is a good one, and it's very hard to argue with the science.
So I'll add this one ,

A major division in world wide dental patterns, and the progressive decline of shovelling



Although Kashibadze et al.’s (2011) do not deal with Africa and Irish’s Afrodonty does not highlight any dental specificity of South African Khoisan, it is worth pointing out that Khoisan dentition is more mass-additive and shows higher frequencies of shoveling and five-cusp UM than neighboring Bantu speakers (Haeussler, A. M., J. D. Irish, D. H. Morris, and C. G. Turner. 1989. “Morphological and Metrical comparison of San and Central Sotho Dentitions from Southern Africa,”  American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78 (1), 115-122), which likely reflects different evolutionary histories of the two groups, and contributes to other Khoisan-specific phenotypical traits (such as epicanthic fold and lighter skin) linking Khoisan to Eurasia to the exclusion of other Africans.



edit on 2-10-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-10-2013 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join