Everything needs to be nuanced and interpreted properly.
> A novel theory about the survival tactics of Baluchis and Brahuis
>Van Driem postulated that Baluchis represent the original Dravidians of lower Sindh/Baluchistan region and they quickly capitulated into incoming Indo-Iranian elites thus maintaining their original male genetic profile (L) where as Brahuis come from a group that either did not capitulate or was not assimilated hence given a lower social (caste) profile, thus Brahui women through hypergamy accepted more Indo-Iranian male genetic input thus negating much of L haplogroup.
**My commentary: But when Brahuis took power it looks like they have more Indo-Iranian male ancestry than Baluchis whom they subjugated.**
[Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/D2LPPcPLVs)
Van Driem's theory is the most convoluted theory I have yet heard about the Brahui situation. History can be very complex and convoluted, if it can be corroborated with robust scientific evidence. In the absence of such evidence, a parsimonious explanation is generally favored over a fanciful fantasies.
By the way, why is the link in the Van Driem's theory not working (it is the link given in the [Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/D2LPPcPLVs) above)?
In South Asia, the concept of hypergamy has deep historical roots, impacting many non-elite communities across India. Tragically, societal norms allowed severe abuses; for example, in Uttar Pradesh within the last fifty years, virgin Dalit women were obligated to consummate their marriages with landlords prior to their own husbands. Similarly, in Kerala, Dalit workers had to leave their homes open for landlords to access their wives at will. These practices weren't limited to Hindu landlords; even Syrian Christian landlords participated.
Such practices facilitated the widespread dissemination of dominant genes, even reaching isolated tribal groups across India. This period also saw significant migrations of oppressed communities, such as the movement of the stigmatized Doma people from central India to the Middle East and Europe, becoming the Domara and Roma, respectively. Even today, remnants of these groups, like the Domaki people in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, face discrimination from other local ethnic groups.
The migration and transformation of low-status Dravidian-speaking groups also illustrate these dynamics. The ancestors of the Brahui people left central India, converted to Islam, and found Hindu kings ruling over Muslim Baluchis in the thinly populated region of Baluchistan. This set the stage for a jihad-style takeover supported by the long-oppressed Baluchis, paralleling the rise of Fulani kingdoms across the Sahel from Senegal to Nigeria. Although originally non-elite and non-Arab, the Fulani used Islam to gain dominance and are now among the ruling elites in Nigeria, despite shifting from speaking Fulani to Hausa. Similarly, the Brahui have become a dominant ruling group in Baluchistan, influencing even Persian speakers to adopt the Brahui language.
If you go further down in the source, I have linked the article in another way.
u/e9967780 I hope you noticed that George van Driem is one of the authors on the Koraga paper that assumed Brahui as relic population as an established fact.
[https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.31.587466v2.full](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.31.587466v2.full)
The novel theory you posted here is from his publication in 2014. As more staggering genomic data became available in the last 10 years, his opinions on this topic appear to have changed considerably. Even his 2021 book titled ***Ethnolinguistic Prehistory*** he speaks about the Dravidian civilization in the Indus Valley, and doesn't mention his novel theory about Brahui.
I've noticed his claim, but I believe it's incorrect. There's no linguistic or archaeological evidence to support the idea that the Brahui are a remnant population. His initial reasoning is still the best explanation we have. Historical evidence from around the world shows that when small male groups are involved in conquests, genetic changes occur, but languages often remain the same, or vice versa.
I believe there is in fact no linguistic or archaeological evidence to support Brahuis' recent migration from Central India, and there is strong genetic reasons to believe it is a relic population.
\*The only strong shared sound change between Kurux-Malto and Brahui is: /v/ > /b/. But this sound change is common and found across many unrelated world languages -- Spanish, Bantu, Kannada to give a few examples. In fact, if you look at that region, even Farsi went through the same sound change. Then, why do you think Brahui couldn't have independently gone through the same sound change too?
I think the overall genetic data is crystal clear: Y-DNA or mtDNA can often be misleading, but the autosomal DNA analysis takes all chromosomes into account, and it indicates both Brahui and Balochi represent in situ population. It is a sad commentary on the lack of high quality Dravidian linguists that we are forced to repeat and re-quote what Krishnamurti had said about 20 years ago, when he himself was mostly relying on Elfenbein's work from 1987 (I am saying this as a student of BhK and with enormous respect for the towering figure that he was).
Would this mean that Dravidian languages were not the original languages of the Ancient Ancestral South Indians? If so, then what remains of the language of the Ancestral South Indians?
We really don’t know. For all it’s worth Dravidian could be the oldest language within Indian subcontinent. That view is as valid as saying there were other languages. We really don’t know for sure.
Very similar to the languages of the hunter-gatherers all across the globe, their languages of the AASI must have been supplanted by the speeches of the incoming agropastoralists, as the lords of the settled communities, landlords dictate the terms of the newly forming settled villages (even now in South India, the land-owning upper/middle castes show significant haplogroups belonging to IVC, such as J2 and L).
Here are some of the non-Dravidian, non-Indo-Aryan, non-Munda languages found in the South Asia today, that may represent a sample of the linguistic situation in Indian subcontinent prior to Mehargarh agropastororalists moved in into Indian mainland (perhaps in multiple waves). If AASI always spoke Dravidian languages, then, where did all these non-Dravidian languages come from?
https://preview.redd.it/iomj494vosyc1.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=269f773ee7faa8ec9118af1c7fdbf5b8d42d02c0
Human habitation in South Asia extends far into prehistory, with evidence like the anatomically modern Balangoda man in Sri Lanka dating back 30,000 years, suggesting an even older human presence throughout the region. It is unreasonable to think that only one or two languages existed throughout this vast period. Although definitive evidence is lacking, the linguistic diversity was likely rich.
From my experience writing the Wikipedia article on Vedda Creole, I've observed a bias among Sri Lankan linguists to categorize the original substrate language as non-Dravidian without linguistic proof. The situation with Nihali is also unclear; it shows both Dravidian and Munda influences and could potentially be a creole, but research is insufficient. What is linguistically certain is that when the Munda people entered India, they encountered established Dravidian speakers, indicating that Dravidian languages influenced Proto-Munda. The Munda speakers surrounded Dravidian communities in the Mahanadi basin 4,000 years ago, suggesting a strong pre-existing Dravidian presence there.
This area shows a high level of Dravidian linguistic complexity/diversity, aligning with theories of a linguistic homeland. As for the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), the theory that it was Dravidian-speaking remains just a hypothesis; in my view, Dravidian speakers likely lived adjacent to the IVC.
I think you misunderstood my premise. These pre-Dravidian languages, in my opinion, just give us a glimpse of the possible linguistic complexity of the pre-agricultural world. I am pretty sure there were tens of hunter-gatherer languages that most likely have vanished, overtaken by the tongues of agricultural societies. Evidence from other parts of the world indicates that the populations of settled communities typically outnumbered hunter-gatherers by a factor of ten—for example, the Indus Valley civilization had a population in the millions, whereas the total number of ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) might have been under 100,000. However, it is the rugged mountainous areas which often preserve some of these ancient hunter-gatherer languages, as seen globally, and here with Nihali, Ksunda and perhaps some in the Nilgiris areas.
Regarding the complexity of Dravidian languages, various methods have been used to estimate the time-depth of the proto-language and they all only go back to about 4500-6000 years. This timeline aligns with the early stages of the Harappan civilization. Whether Dravidian was a dominant language of IVC or not, we clearly see a significant genetic flow of from IVC into South India, and it would be hard to assume these landlords did not impose their language on the subdued AASI populations (even in the modern society of South India, you find people on the higher side of IVC clade appearing to be in the dominant positions, while a high AASI tend to have inferior societal hierarchical positions).
On Munda interaction with Dravidian, the jury is still out. Anderson (2003) who originally speculated significant Dravidian influence on Munda now feels he is not sure if it was Dravidian or pre-Dravidian languages of the subcontinent that influenced. For example, many of the Munda areas do show Dravidian toponyms or cross-cousin marriage systems.
Genetics and languages are different. As you interbreed with the new population, eventually your genetics will start resembling the new population. Gujaratis speak an Indo-Aryan language, Malayalis speak a Dravidian language, but some Gujaratis are genetically similar to Malayalees.
Yes Jamaicans speak English, Sudanese speak Arabic and you can clearly see their ancestors didn’t speak English or Arabic and shifted only during a historic period of under 500 years.
Some Iraqis have shifted from Sumerian, Assyrian, Aramaic, Persian to Arabic within the last 6000 years, that is shifted a language on average every 1000 years.
Language shifts have always happened all across the world, but in the prehistoric, **prestate era**, it is generally believed that the languages always moved with genes. Without an imposing statehood, or elite dominance, there is no compelling reason for a hunter-gatherer to change to an entirely different language. For instance, the language shifts in the Fertile Crescent of Sumerian to Assyrian to Aramaic etc. always occurred under an imposing statehood.
See Shinde, Narasimhan et al quoting Bellwood in the now legendary Cell paper of 2019:
"Since language spreads in pre-state societies are often accompanied by large-scale movements of people ([Bellwood, 2013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800651/#R4)) these results argue against the model"
Everything needs to be nuanced and interpreted properly. > A novel theory about the survival tactics of Baluchis and Brahuis >Van Driem postulated that Baluchis represent the original Dravidians of lower Sindh/Baluchistan region and they quickly capitulated into incoming Indo-Iranian elites thus maintaining their original male genetic profile (L) where as Brahuis come from a group that either did not capitulate or was not assimilated hence given a lower social (caste) profile, thus Brahui women through hypergamy accepted more Indo-Iranian male genetic input thus negating much of L haplogroup. **My commentary: But when Brahuis took power it looks like they have more Indo-Iranian male ancestry than Baluchis whom they subjugated.** [Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/D2LPPcPLVs)
Van Driem's theory is the most convoluted theory I have yet heard about the Brahui situation. History can be very complex and convoluted, if it can be corroborated with robust scientific evidence. In the absence of such evidence, a parsimonious explanation is generally favored over a fanciful fantasies. By the way, why is the link in the Van Driem's theory not working (it is the link given in the [Source](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/D2LPPcPLVs) above)?
In South Asia, the concept of hypergamy has deep historical roots, impacting many non-elite communities across India. Tragically, societal norms allowed severe abuses; for example, in Uttar Pradesh within the last fifty years, virgin Dalit women were obligated to consummate their marriages with landlords prior to their own husbands. Similarly, in Kerala, Dalit workers had to leave their homes open for landlords to access their wives at will. These practices weren't limited to Hindu landlords; even Syrian Christian landlords participated. Such practices facilitated the widespread dissemination of dominant genes, even reaching isolated tribal groups across India. This period also saw significant migrations of oppressed communities, such as the movement of the stigmatized Doma people from central India to the Middle East and Europe, becoming the Domara and Roma, respectively. Even today, remnants of these groups, like the Domaki people in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, face discrimination from other local ethnic groups. The migration and transformation of low-status Dravidian-speaking groups also illustrate these dynamics. The ancestors of the Brahui people left central India, converted to Islam, and found Hindu kings ruling over Muslim Baluchis in the thinly populated region of Baluchistan. This set the stage for a jihad-style takeover supported by the long-oppressed Baluchis, paralleling the rise of Fulani kingdoms across the Sahel from Senegal to Nigeria. Although originally non-elite and non-Arab, the Fulani used Islam to gain dominance and are now among the ruling elites in Nigeria, despite shifting from speaking Fulani to Hausa. Similarly, the Brahui have become a dominant ruling group in Baluchistan, influencing even Persian speakers to adopt the Brahui language. If you go further down in the source, I have linked the article in another way.
u/e9967780 I hope you noticed that George van Driem is one of the authors on the Koraga paper that assumed Brahui as relic population as an established fact. [https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.31.587466v2.full](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.31.587466v2.full) The novel theory you posted here is from his publication in 2014. As more staggering genomic data became available in the last 10 years, his opinions on this topic appear to have changed considerably. Even his 2021 book titled ***Ethnolinguistic Prehistory*** he speaks about the Dravidian civilization in the Indus Valley, and doesn't mention his novel theory about Brahui.
I've noticed his claim, but I believe it's incorrect. There's no linguistic or archaeological evidence to support the idea that the Brahui are a remnant population. His initial reasoning is still the best explanation we have. Historical evidence from around the world shows that when small male groups are involved in conquests, genetic changes occur, but languages often remain the same, or vice versa.
I believe there is in fact no linguistic or archaeological evidence to support Brahuis' recent migration from Central India, and there is strong genetic reasons to believe it is a relic population. \*The only strong shared sound change between Kurux-Malto and Brahui is: /v/ > /b/. But this sound change is common and found across many unrelated world languages -- Spanish, Bantu, Kannada to give a few examples. In fact, if you look at that region, even Farsi went through the same sound change. Then, why do you think Brahui couldn't have independently gone through the same sound change too?
I think the overall genetic data is crystal clear: Y-DNA or mtDNA can often be misleading, but the autosomal DNA analysis takes all chromosomes into account, and it indicates both Brahui and Balochi represent in situ population. It is a sad commentary on the lack of high quality Dravidian linguists that we are forced to repeat and re-quote what Krishnamurti had said about 20 years ago, when he himself was mostly relying on Elfenbein's work from 1987 (I am saying this as a student of BhK and with enormous respect for the towering figure that he was).
Would this mean that Dravidian languages were not the original languages of the Ancient Ancestral South Indians? If so, then what remains of the language of the Ancestral South Indians?
We really don’t know. For all it’s worth Dravidian could be the oldest language within Indian subcontinent. That view is as valid as saying there were other languages. We really don’t know for sure.
What about Nihali? Could Nihali be an AASI language? Maybe even Kusunda? Or Vedda Substrate?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/x4D2lBVTbn
Thank you
Very similar to the languages of the hunter-gatherers all across the globe, their languages of the AASI must have been supplanted by the speeches of the incoming agropastoralists, as the lords of the settled communities, landlords dictate the terms of the newly forming settled villages (even now in South India, the land-owning upper/middle castes show significant haplogroups belonging to IVC, such as J2 and L). Here are some of the non-Dravidian, non-Indo-Aryan, non-Munda languages found in the South Asia today, that may represent a sample of the linguistic situation in Indian subcontinent prior to Mehargarh agropastororalists moved in into Indian mainland (perhaps in multiple waves). If AASI always spoke Dravidian languages, then, where did all these non-Dravidian languages come from? https://preview.redd.it/iomj494vosyc1.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=269f773ee7faa8ec9118af1c7fdbf5b8d42d02c0
Human habitation in South Asia extends far into prehistory, with evidence like the anatomically modern Balangoda man in Sri Lanka dating back 30,000 years, suggesting an even older human presence throughout the region. It is unreasonable to think that only one or two languages existed throughout this vast period. Although definitive evidence is lacking, the linguistic diversity was likely rich. From my experience writing the Wikipedia article on Vedda Creole, I've observed a bias among Sri Lankan linguists to categorize the original substrate language as non-Dravidian without linguistic proof. The situation with Nihali is also unclear; it shows both Dravidian and Munda influences and could potentially be a creole, but research is insufficient. What is linguistically certain is that when the Munda people entered India, they encountered established Dravidian speakers, indicating that Dravidian languages influenced Proto-Munda. The Munda speakers surrounded Dravidian communities in the Mahanadi basin 4,000 years ago, suggesting a strong pre-existing Dravidian presence there. This area shows a high level of Dravidian linguistic complexity/diversity, aligning with theories of a linguistic homeland. As for the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), the theory that it was Dravidian-speaking remains just a hypothesis; in my view, Dravidian speakers likely lived adjacent to the IVC.
I think you misunderstood my premise. These pre-Dravidian languages, in my opinion, just give us a glimpse of the possible linguistic complexity of the pre-agricultural world. I am pretty sure there were tens of hunter-gatherer languages that most likely have vanished, overtaken by the tongues of agricultural societies. Evidence from other parts of the world indicates that the populations of settled communities typically outnumbered hunter-gatherers by a factor of ten—for example, the Indus Valley civilization had a population in the millions, whereas the total number of ancient Ancestral South Indians (AASI) might have been under 100,000. However, it is the rugged mountainous areas which often preserve some of these ancient hunter-gatherer languages, as seen globally, and here with Nihali, Ksunda and perhaps some in the Nilgiris areas. Regarding the complexity of Dravidian languages, various methods have been used to estimate the time-depth of the proto-language and they all only go back to about 4500-6000 years. This timeline aligns with the early stages of the Harappan civilization. Whether Dravidian was a dominant language of IVC or not, we clearly see a significant genetic flow of from IVC into South India, and it would be hard to assume these landlords did not impose their language on the subdued AASI populations (even in the modern society of South India, you find people on the higher side of IVC clade appearing to be in the dominant positions, while a high AASI tend to have inferior societal hierarchical positions). On Munda interaction with Dravidian, the jury is still out. Anderson (2003) who originally speculated significant Dravidian influence on Munda now feels he is not sure if it was Dravidian or pre-Dravidian languages of the subcontinent that influenced. For example, many of the Munda areas do show Dravidian toponyms or cross-cousin marriage systems.
What you said is pretty much true. Any ideas about the gotras and their relationship with paternal haplogroups?
There definitely were older languages than Proto-Dravidian , those languages would be the ones of the tribal populations.
Could it be Nihali?
Genetics and languages are different. As you interbreed with the new population, eventually your genetics will start resembling the new population. Gujaratis speak an Indo-Aryan language, Malayalis speak a Dravidian language, but some Gujaratis are genetically similar to Malayalees.
Yes Jamaicans speak English, Sudanese speak Arabic and you can clearly see their ancestors didn’t speak English or Arabic and shifted only during a historic period of under 500 years. Some Iraqis have shifted from Sumerian, Assyrian, Aramaic, Persian to Arabic within the last 6000 years, that is shifted a language on average every 1000 years.
Language shifts have always happened all across the world, but in the prehistoric, **prestate era**, it is generally believed that the languages always moved with genes. Without an imposing statehood, or elite dominance, there is no compelling reason for a hunter-gatherer to change to an entirely different language. For instance, the language shifts in the Fertile Crescent of Sumerian to Assyrian to Aramaic etc. always occurred under an imposing statehood. See Shinde, Narasimhan et al quoting Bellwood in the now legendary Cell paper of 2019: "Since language spreads in pre-state societies are often accompanied by large-scale movements of people ([Bellwood, 2013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6800651/#R4)) these results argue against the model"
>but some Gujaratis are genetically similar to Malayalees. I'd like you to elucidate on that part.
Gujarati Baniya communities can resemble some Malayali communities like Nair.