✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Caste and Indian History: How has genetic evidence affected revisionist theories of caste as championed by Nicholas Dirks and Susan Bayly? Is genetics 'exploding' these theories, or do the theories still largely hold even in the face of this new evidence? : r/AskHistorians

reddit.com · 6 words · saved by 1 readers

Both Nicholas Dirks and Susan Bayly have written detailed books that trace much of the important features of caste to the colonial era. While neither deny that ideas of caste, and perhaps some kind of caste structures existed in pre-colonial times, both generally agree that developments during the collapse of the Mughal Empire, its successor states, and the colonial period rigidified and ossified caste today. I find these arguments compelling and detailed, but there's a catch. The recent years have seen a number of claims that genetic evidence confirms the practice of caste endogamy for over 1,900 years in India. I've seen some claim that the genetics debate is flawed for several reasons: The methodologies and assumptions in the studies, the conflation of founders events and endogamy, and the minute sample sizes. What do historians today have to say about the genetics of the caste debate, and should it be taken as evidence against the claims of Dirks, Bayly, and others? Considering end

Reddit - Please wait for verification

Explore this link on the map →

related reading