The “Ariyar” in the Sangam literature and the Dravidian problem – a relook into the old issues (3)

Maxmuller who created “Aryan” and Robert Caldwell who manufactured “Dravidian” out of linguistics!

The Dravidian problem: . But, surprisingly, none of these words – Dravid, viz., Dravida, Dravidi, Dravidam, Damila, Dramila, Dravida, dravida and their derivatives – is found in the ‘sangam literature’, generally represented by Pattuppattu, ettuttogai and Padinkizhkanakku.

Even in Tevaram[1], only ‘Tamizhan’ was used in the expression, “Seen Aryan, seen Tamizhan”. Only Tayumanavar of 18th century uses the word “Dravidam”, that too, to denote the Tamil language[2].

 “Nama thipa nikhandu”[3], a Tamil lexicon assigned to 7, 8 or 11^th century mentions ‘dravidam’ as one of the words used for Tamil.

“Senthan Divakaram”, another Tamil lexicon of 9^th century mentions that ‘Dravidam’ as one of the eighteen languages spoken.

A later work “Kanthanthu Upadesa Kandam” mentions that Lord Shiva revealed to Agastya the grammar of proud language ‘Dravidam’. The authors of “Prayoga Vivegam”  explain that the Sanskrit word “Tramilam” had been changed to “Tamil”, but the modern (Dravidian) scholars refute this strongly and assert that only the word ‘Tamil’ had been pronounced and used as ‘Dravida’ by the Sanskrit scholars.

Sivagnana Yogi also mentions that Sanskrit scholars used the word “Dravidam” symbolically to denote “Ten mozhi” (the language of south), that is Tamil[4]. Therefore, it is evident that the forms of ‘dravid’ and their usage by Tamils and Tamil poets were not in vogue upto 18^th century. Thus, it is very clear that Tamils were not only unfamiliar with the usage of the word ‘Dravida’, but also started to denote it for their language only in the modern period, particularly about the advent of the European scholars in south India.

Anthropometry of ‘Dravidians’: Huxley (1871), Haeckal, Turner (1900), G. Oppoert, Risely (1908), E. Thruston (1909), Seligman, Sclater and others have given different and varying anthropometric data and descriptions about ‘Dravidian race’ (Table-B). They have tried to compare them with the Mediterranean, Negrito and Australoid races with the above racial parameters. Their stature / height varies from short to medium, skin / complexion from yellow brown / brown to black; head from mesocephalic to dolicocephalic; nore from broad to narrow and flat to narrow; eye colour from brown to black; hair from straight or wavy to curly but not woolly or frizzy; lips from thick to protruding and so on. If this is the racial picture of ‘Dravidians’, the picture given by the Tamil poets about the ancient Tamils is entirely different.

“Anthropometry” of the ancient Tamils: The Tamil poets have too meticulously described about head, eyes, hair, lips, ears, eyelids, hands, legs and body structure of the ancient Tamils at many places, but they never painted them with ‘black’ as has been done by the above ‘racist’ scholars. Indeed they have used different terminology for each characteristic e.g, uchi, talai, siram for head; kudimi, mayir, kundal, mudi, ori, alagam, ulai for hair; adi, siradi, sivanta adi, kal for feet; meni, uruvam, udal, agam, sariram, uru for body; euiru, muruval, pal for teeth; nodal, netri for forehead; kavul, tadai, movai for jaw; kannidazh, imai for eyelids; idazh, adaram, udadu for lips, these words are used with suitable adjectives to specify the physical characteristics of men and women. Each word is used appropriately to describe a morphological trait. Indeed, many poets, scholars and other personalities were named after a specific characteristic possessed by them,        e.g,

• Asiriyar Perungannan (the teacher with big eyes),
• Perungannan (a man with bigger eyes),
• Ilangannan (a man with youthful eyes),
• Sengannan (a man with reddish eyes),
• Nettimaiyar (a man with lengthy eye brows),
• Naraimudi nettiyar (a man with white hair and high stature),
• Irumbidattalaiyar (black colour haired headed man or a man with a strong head like a iron),
• Sittalai sattanar ( Sattanar with puss-head),
• Peruntalaiyar (a man with bigger head),

Pullatru eyitranar), Kazharkkiran eyitranar (men with characteristic teeth).

The ancient Tamil literature clearly mentions that the skin colour of the ancient Tamils were that of the ‘tender mango leaves’ (mamai). The kings had the colour that of Sun. The heroines have been described that they had bright colours body like ‘unsheathed sword’ with reddish hand and feet9. Interestingly, Kalittogai stresses that women should have big mons venris, shoulders and eyes and small forehead waist and feet, as such parameters were considered as good characteristics i.e, morphology.

Divergent theories about the origin of Dravidians: About the origins of ‘Dravidians’, Keans, Morries, Sclater, Turner, Ragozin, Caldwell, Perry, Smith, Hornell and Indian scholars including Kanakasabhai have propounded many interesting, but divergent hypotheses and theories based on mythology, philology, anthropometry, and other factors¹⁰. They can be broadly grouped and explained as follows:

1. Central Asian Origins: From the comparisons of morphological and some linguistic similarities, some scholars considered that Dravidians cam from Central Asia. Caldwell delved much on the ‘Scythian’ origins. Here, they coolly forgot the other famous hypotheses / theories that ‘Aryans’ also came from Central Asia. It is really surprising the if both “Aryans’ and ‘Dravidians’ come from ‘Central Asia’, then why they should have been pitted against each other for all Indian historical processes?

1. West Asian Origins: As the west Asia had several ancient civilizations, it was argued that ‘Dravidians’ must have been originated from one of such civilizations by intermixing or interbreeding.
2. Diffusion theory: Tracing all civilizations to an Egyptian and Mediterranean source, it was argued that ‘Dravidians’ were a branch of Mediterranean race evolved consequent to miscegenation of Mediterranean and West Asian elements.
3. North-Indian and Trans-Himalayan Origins: Before, the advent of ‘Aryans’, ‘Dravidians’ were living in the north including north-eastern ad western parts of India. When the ‘Aryans’ started occupying, the Dravidians had to spread towards south. The Trans-Himalyan origins locate ‘Dravidians’ beyond Himayalas like Tbert, from where they entered India from the north east. Here, how the ‘Aryan’ factor has also been taken into consideration to explain the advent of ‘Dravidians’ in India, can easily be noticed. Interestingly, however, no scholar has ever propounded the ‘Dravidian invasion’ hypothesis or theory so far.
4. Lemurian or Kumari continent Origins: To counter the above ‘out of India’ or ‘foreign’ origins, it was argued that ‘Dravidians’ came from the submerged ‘Kumari’ or ‘Lemuria’ continent.

Conclusion: The present scientific genetic study of race or human origin tracing it to Africa, non-Africa, European-Neandarthal etc., has also been briefly explained. Skin colour, cephalometry (measurement of skull), craniometry, craniology (dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, brachycephalic), phrenology, hair colour, teeth measurement, lips, eyes colour, nasal index, blood and other factors were taken, studied in the laboratories and created race. In the same way, now cell, genes, chromosomes, mitochondria and other microbiological organisms is taken and studied to find out the human origin with purity or without any miscegenation. However, both scientific studies and methodologies applied appear to go back to same race, and racial superiority and thus, trying to differentiate and discriminate against humanity. Therefore, such studies can be avoided for the welfare of humanity.

In the study of ancient Tamil literature, with a view to find out the meaning and position of ‘Ariyar’ as mentioned in their context, it has been pointed out that ‘Ariyar’ were the people or kings of north of Tamizhagam and also of Tamizghagam considering the various descriptions of them. Literary evidences of ancient Tamizhagam with other epigraphic, numismatic and literary evidences of contemporary kings of Maurya, Kalinga and Satavahana show that the exploits of Tamil kings were perhaps restricted to the boundaries of the ancient Tamizhagam and the defeat of ‘Ariya’ or northern king or kings refers to the defeat of Andhra king or kings. The word ‘Ariya’ was also used as an honorific title to certain professionals, besides the generic usage to denote the people of the land with the boundaries of the Himalayas. As the names Kosar, Nandar, Moriar, Tondaiyar and Vadugar have been used to indicate individual groups of the north, and the name ‘Ariya’ is used to denote the people or kings who were living or ruling immediately in the north of Tamizhagam, it is very evident that no racial connotation was given to ‘ariyar’ by the ancient Tamils.

Many European scientists took much interest in Indian chronology, history, social institutions etc., the examples of Sir Isaac Newton and Joseph Priestley are given above.

In the case of ‘Aryan race’, Max Mueller confessed,

“I have declared again and again that if I say Aryan, I mean neither blood nor bones,, nor hair, nor skull, I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language……………To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, as great sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolicocephalic dictionary or brachycephalic grammar”.

This type of ideological studies also do not bring any peace or harmony, but pit two groups of people against each and thus the dominant group would be threatening and exploiting the other one. Thus, all these studies have not been uniting people and humanity.

Note: There was a discussion for about 40 minutes, many questions asked and clarification given. For convenience and brevity, they have been included in the above write-up at the appropriate places and context. those who attended the lecture could find the difference and others read conveniently.

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

12-06-2024

---

[1] Tevaram of Tirugnana Sambandar, 6^th Tirumarai, 23^rd Padigam, Tirumaraikkadu-6479.

In another place, he says, “Aryan with chaste Tamil” – 46^th Padigam, Tirumarakkadu-6710.

Here, both ‘Aryan’ and ‘Tamizhan’ refer to God Shiva.

[2] சித்தர்கணம்.10:9.

[3] Sivasubramanya Kavirayar, NamaThipa Nikandu, Thanjavur University, 1985.

[4] Sabapathy Navalar, Dravida Prakasikai, Madras, 1899, p.7.

The “Ariyar” in the Sangam literature and the Dravidian problem – a relook into the old issues (2)

The  “Ariyar” in the Sangam literature and the Dravidian problem  – a relook into the old issues (2)

Paditruppattu (the Ten tens): It gives more information about ‘Ariyar’ in a historical setting. The entire extant collection of poems with the deeds and exploits of the Chera Kings. The first and tenth Tens are not available. In the Second Ten, the Patigam (Preface) describes how Imayavaramban Nedunjeraladhan engraved his royal sign ‘bow’, which figures on his flag, on the top of the Himalayas (lines 4-7). Having roaring oceans has his boundaries (imizh kadal velittamizhagam), he ruled Tamizhagam (the Tamil country) in such a way to excel the other nadus (countries). He made ‘Ariyar’ bow before him, who were having very great name (fame and heritage).

In the Second Ten, the 11^th verse details as to how the very famous Himalayas abound with “Ariyas”. Hence, scholars give two different meanings for the ‘Ariyar’:

1. ‘Ariyar” = Munivar (rishis) and
2. “Ariyar’ = ‘Ariya mannar’ ( Aryan kings) .

The hillside was resplendent with densely and well grown trees of erthrina indica (mullu murukka), a kind of citrus and the yak sleeping there would dream of waterfalls and sweet smelling grass. The Himalayas with such fertility was filled with many rishis. In between the Himalayas (in the north) and Kumari in the South, there were Kings who boasted their valour but they were conquered by Nedunjeraladhan. The meaning is thus rendered, “You quelled the valour of those who called themselves monarchs of the land between Camorin in the South and the famous Himalayas, where the Ariyas² abound and yak sleeps on the hills covered thick with the Oleander and dreams of the broad mountain stream and the narandam (lemon-grass?)”

In fifth Ten, the patigam mentions ‘vadavar’, i,e, the people of north and ‘Ariya Annal’ i.e, head of Ariya Kings. It describes how the kings of the north were afraid of Kadal Prakkottiya Senguttuvan [Senguttuvan, a Chera King who had a navy that sailed on the ocean]. He marched with his army to bring a good stone for chiseling an image of the goddess of chastity. He came across a head or chief of Ariya Kings, while passing through forests, and defeated him. Then, he brought a stone and washed it in waters of the Ganges. While coming back, he stayed at Irumbil, destroyed Viyaur and Kodungur. He also killed a king named Pazhaiyon.

In the same fifth Ten, the 43^rd verse mentions the defeat of kings who were ruling between the Himalayas in the north and Kumari in the south as boundaries. However, the names of the kings or the countries thus defeated are not given in the poem. In the padigam, the kings are mentioned as the ‘vadavar’ (the Kings of north), the Chiefs of ‘Ariyar’ are called ‘Ariya Annal’, but here they are generally mentioned as ‘Ariya arasar’, i.e, the Kings between the Himalayas and Kumari.

Seventh Ten, the 68^th poem narrates how the people who were living in the north or northern direction, were leading a fearless, peaceful and happy life. The expression used to denote them is ‘vadapula vazhnar’.

So from the description of Paditruppattu, we can see that ‘Ariyar’ are –

• ‘the Kings of the North’,
• ‘Rishis of the Himalayas’,
• ‘the Kings between the boundaries of Himalayas and Kumari’ and
• ‘the people of the north or northern direction of Tamilagam’.

Agananuru (or Neduntogai): It also gives more details about ‘Ariyar’. ‘Ariyars’ capture elephants by the use of trained female elephants. A public woman takes a vow that she would chain her hero with her hair just as the ‘Ariyar’ make the wild elephant domesticated with the she-elephant. Mullaippattu throws light on their employment by the kings of Tamilagam to train elephants.

In another poem, a harlot wishes her bangles may be broken just like the army of ‘Ariyars’, which was defeated by the Kurumba bowmen who fought under the Cholas, with their shower of arrows, victorious spears and the black buckler. Here, also the names of the defeated ‘Ariyars’ are not given, but it is mentioned that they were defeated at Vallam (Tanjore).

Paranar3 in his poem eulogises Senguttuvan that he attacked the Aryar so as to make them scream, carved his emblem bow on the very famous mountain and chained the ferocious Kings. Here one can notice that the name of the mountain is not specified and it is mentioned in singular. As the Himalayas are always mentioned in the plural to denote a chain of mountains, a doubt arises as to whether the poet actually alludes to the Himalayas or to a certain ‘very famous, ancient and well grown’ mountain situated north of Tamizhagam in those days.

Agam.386 narrates how an Ariya wrestler was defeated by one Panan. The Ariya wrestler was known as ‘Ariya Porunan’ and Panan was another wrestler, whose state was in the north of Tamizhagam (Agam.325). Panan wrestled with Ariya Porunan and crushed his shoulders and arms, the sight of which made Kanaiyan, the commander of Chera army, feel ashamed.

Agam 398 accounts how rain protects and causes to flourish the region of the tall mountain of Ariyar, where gold is found. In the poem, the heroine’s native place, full of flower groves is compared to the above region of the mountain. Here, also the name of the mountain is not mentioned.

So, according to Agananuru, ‘Ariyar’ were –

• the people who captured and trained elephants,
• who got defeated by the Cholas at Vallam,
• who were the Kings of the north, conquered and chained by Senguttuvan and
• who were in possession of a mountain where gold was available.

As there was a wrestler known as ‘Ariya Porunan’, the name should imply either that he was an Ariya or he came from the north. But, it should be noted that Panan, who defeated Ariya Porunan and came from a state situated north of Tamizhagam, was not given the prefix of ‘Ariya’. Therefore, it is evident that there were Ariya wrestlers, just like Ariya jugglers, tumblers or rope dancers, elephant trainers and trainers in Tamizhagam.

Purananuru: In one poem4, Kovur Kizhar, a Tamil poet, describes how the kings of the north were afraid of Cholan Naklankilli that they were spending their nights without sleep. Marudanila Naganar, another poet5 describes how Pandiyan Kudakartattutunjiya Maran Vazhudi was having a chariot to wage a fierce war to kill the kings of the north (vadapula mannar). Actually, the poet eulogises Maran Vazhudi who is said to have caused ‘northern kings to fade’. But, particulars given about the names of such northern kings or countries and the place or places where he defeated them in the battles are not at all given. There is a mention⁶ of a type of a sandal paste of ‘northern mountain’ (vadakundrattuchandanam), Agananuru also refers to this⁷. But here also, the name of the northern mountain is not mentioned. Thre important point to be noted is, though the expressions ‘vadapulattarasar’, ‘vadapulamannar’ and ‘vadakundram’ are used to denote the kings of the north and northern mountain, the prefix ‘Ariyar’ is conspicuously missing. Therefore, it is very evident that there were northern kings and northern mountains other than Ariya kings of north and northern mountain of ‘Ariyar’.

‘Ariyar’ denotes what? From  the foregoing discussion about the word ‘Ariyar’ and its forms mentioned in the ancient Tamil literature, it is evident that they would come under the following categories:

‘Ariyar’ are –

1. the people who were living immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
2. the kings who were ruling immediately north of Tamizhagam or Vengadam.
3. the jugglers, tumblers, rope-dancers or acrobats of Tamizhagam.
4. the Rishis or saints of the northern mountain of Tamizhagam or Himalayas.
5. the elephant captors and / or trainers.
6. the groups or kings who waged wars against Tamil kings or chiefs coming from north.
7. the honorific title ‘Ariya’ was used to respect certain professionals like wresrtlers, poets or king-cum-poets of Tamizhagam.

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

12-06-2024

The “Ariyar” in the Sangam literature and the Dravidian problem – a relook into the old issues (1)

The  “Ariyar” in the Sangam literature and the Dravidian problem  – a relook into the old issues (1)

A talk on Aryans and Dravidians: As a part of the lecture series of the Indological Research Institute (IRI), on 08-06-2024, Dr K. V. Ramakrishna Rao IRS (Retd.,) spoke about the  “Ariyar” in the Sangam literature and the Dravidian problem. The lecture has been summarized and added with the points discussed after the lecture. Though, leading historians have also accepted the myth of racial Aryans, now the genetic experts, heritadary researchers and inherited pundits have revived the same pseudo-scientific race concepts in different forms. In 1989, Romila Thapar[1] also pointed out the fallacy of carrying over of these myths by Indian scholars and Educational curricula:

“The theory of Aryan race arose out of European preoccupations and preconceptions and was applied to the early Indian past during the period of the colonial interpretation of Indian history. It does not have its roots in Indian view of the past. Nevertheless, it has been accepted and has become an axiom of Indian historical interpretation. Whereas scholars working on the European past have questioned this theory, we in India hold fast onto it and those who attempt alternate interpretations of the sources are few and far between”.

However, later, she has been equivocal[2]. Earlier, during the 19^th and 20^th centuries, in spite of the fact that race and language were two separate entities, the race experts, racist historians and racialist scientists propounded about many races. Now in 21^st century also similar hypotheses are floated based on the DNA studies.

A brief on modern theory – Aryans and Dravidians discussed on the genetic studies: According to the “out of Africa” hypothesis, the human species, having evolved to its modern form in East Africa some 150,000 years ago, thereafter embarked on populating the entire globe in a stepwise migration process beginning about 70,000–90,000 BP.  However, the dates change depending upon the number of samples, such species found at different places in Africa, all humans share a relatively recent common ancestry, but the story in the deeper past is more complicated than our species evolving in just a single location or in isolation[3], the tools used etc. As the researchers have not been agreeing with each other, the debate continues generally focused on two models—recent African origin (Stringer and Andrews 1988[4]) and multiregional evolution (Wolpoff, Wu, and Thorne 1984[5]). A morphological advantage of the modern phenotype— possibly reducing childbirth mortality—is proposed as the cause of the transition[6].  The miscegenation always poses a challenge and they could not fix it, where it happened first and ten continued for the millions of years to settle down with some definite anatomy, morphology or any other anthropological factor. The debate of miscegenation continues with diffusion and migration leading to admixture and interbreeding.

Neandarthal versus “out of Africa” (OOA)?: Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) are archaic hominids, supposed to be most similar to modern humans. These hominids, extinct members of the Homo genus, populated Europe and parts of western and central Asia before their disappearance 25,000 years ago (Tattersall, 1995). Fossil evidence suggests that Neanderthals probably coexisted with anatomically modern humans (i.e. Cro-Magnon) for 20,000 years (Finlayson et al., 2006).

• Neanderthals have been shown to share more genetic variants with present-day non-Africans than Africans. Recent admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans outside of Africa was proposed as the most parsimonious explanation for this observation[7].
• Recent studies have found evidence of introgression from Neanderthals into modern humans outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Given the geographic range of Neanderthals, the findings have been interpreted as evidence of gene exchange between Neanderthals and modern humans descended from the Out-of-Africa (OOA) migration. 
• Further analyses suggest that these differences are likely due to recent non-African admixture in these populations. After accounting for recent non-African admixture, the results do not support the alternative model of older (e.g., >100 kya) admixture between modern humans and Neanderthal-like hominids within Africa[8].
• The claim of Neandarthal is revealed in other scientific interpretations also. Detecting archaic introgression in modern humans without using an unadmixed reference panel reveals higher Neanderthal ancestry in African individuals than previously seen and suggests that back-to-Africa migrations contributed to this signal.[9]

Genetic interpretation of race: The conception of “race” here proposed is based upon the following fundamental postulates:

(1) that the original ancestral species population was genetically relatively heterogeneous;

(2) that by migration away from this original ancestral group, individual families became dispersed over the earth;

(3) that some of the groups thus dispersed became geographically isolated from one another and remained so isolated for more or less considerable periods of time;

(4) that upon all these isolated groups several of the following factors came into play as conditions leading to evolutionary change:

(a) the genetic drift or inherent variability of the genotypic, materials composing each individual member of the group;

(b) physical change in the action of a gene associated, in a partial manner, with a particular character, that is, gene mutation.

Going back to old theories: Ever since the advent of “Ariyar” in Indian history, the word “Aryan” has assumed significance and far-fetching linguistic and racial connotations. Then came, the advent of “Dravidians”. Caldwell’s linguistic invention was given a racial twist by the Westerners and Indian scholars, though the concept of race and language are two separate entities. Leaving these hypotheses and theories aside, an attempt is made in this paper to study the word “Ariyar” as found in the ancient Tamil literature, popularly known as Tamil Sangam literature. In the ancient Tamil literature, the word “Ariyar”, “Ariyan”, “Ariya” etc., are found in various places with their other forms and have been used both as nouns and adjectives.

Natrinai: It is the heading the list of Ettuttogai and its general theme is love. The word “Ariyar” appears in the 170^th poem, sung by an unknown poet. The companion of the heroin of the poem wants that the hero might be seduced by the beautiful lonely dancing girl. She compares the victory of the Virali (the dancer), who came to a festival clad in a leaf-garment, over her group to the fact that the famous town of Mullur, the “Ariya” soldiers swarmed, but ran away before the lance-battalion of Malayan (a Cheran), who unsheathed a shining sword and attacked with his large army. From this, we can see that the people who came from the north to attack Cheras were known as “Ariyar”.

Kuruntogai: Literally meaning ‘a collection of short poems’, it comes next and its theme is also love. The word “Ariyar” appears in the verse 7, line 3. Here, it is described how “Ariyars” dance on a tied rope according to the beatings of a drum. “The forest full of bamboos were rattled the white ripe seeds of shivering vakai tree (Sirisa tree) tossed by the wind like the drumming of the “Ariyar” dancing on the rope”. Therefore, here it is evident that “Ariyar” refers to a group of jugglers or tumblers, who performed acrobatics.

© K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

12-06-2024

---

[1] Romila Thapar, Which of us are Aryans?, Seminar – 364, December, 1989, Nrew Delhi, pp.14-18.

[2] Thapar, Romila. “Can genetics help us understand Indian social history?.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 6.11 (2014): a008599.

[3] Aaron Ragsdale, a population geneticist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, says to Reuters’ Will Dunham. Reported on May 25, 2023.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-suggests-modern-humans-emerged-from-several-groups-in-africa-not-one-180982242/

[4] stringer, c. b., and p. andrews. 1988. Genetic and fossil evidence for the origin of modern humans. Science 239: 1263–68.

[5] wolpoff, m. h., x. wu, and a. g. thorne, 1984. “Modern Homo sapiens origins: A general theory of human evolution involving the fossil evidence of East Asia,” in The origins of modern humans. Edited by F. H. Smith and F. Spencer, pp. 411–83. New York: Alan Liss.

[6] Eswaran, Vinayak. “A diffusion wave out of Africa: The mechanism of the modern human revolution?.” Current Anthropology 43.5 (2002): 749-774.

[7] Yang, Melinda A., et al. “Ancient structure in Africa unlikely to explain Neanderthal and non-African genetic similarity.” Molecular biology and evolution 29.10 (2012): 2987-2995.

[8] Wang, Shuoguo, et al. “Apparent variation in Neanderthal admixture among African populations is consistent with gene flow from non-African populations.” Genome biology and evolution 5.11 (2013): 2075-2081.

[9] Chen, Lu, et al. “Identifying and interpreting apparent Neanderthal ancestry in African individuals.” Cell 180.4 (2020): 677-687.