What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003"
...> wrote:
>
> <http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/iceage.pdf#search=%22forster%
> 20toth%22>
>

<b>A number of things don't look right in the study's maps. </b>For example,
the maps seem to show East Asian M originating from West Asia and
moving across Central Asia rather than the more likely origin in South
Asia moving east into Southeast Asia. They also seem to show R
originating in West Asia, when it should rather be further East again
possibly in South Asia.

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
http://www.lulu.com/content/448793<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes, I am sure these are all innocent mistakes. While taking Oppenheimer into false confidence, the purpose of this paper seems to be to inconspicuously shift JT as far northwest-ward as possible. in fact all the lines have been shifted westwards and northwards. even so, they can only take JT as far as the caspian region. The branching point of JT is the Persian interior around zagros/baluchistan and the origin is Indus vallley.

THe other problem is that geneticists consistetly seem to take emigrant haplos from India which establish themselves in the "West Eurasia" to be indigeneous West eurasian, and then they wonder why M is restricted to South asia. as noted before, N haplos dominate "West Eurasia" only b/c of their late entry into the region. even so, R daughters in West Asia are india's N contribution to West asia.


Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India, Based on Complete Sequencing: Implications for the Peopling of South Asia link
see the image:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender...Gv75p966fg2.jpg

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Aryan invasion: research will prove wrong  </b>
Posted on 16 October, 2006
'Daily Sanatan Prabhat'

Mumbai: At Sinoli in Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), a place known for its association with the period of Mahabharat, <b>117 human skeletons belonging to the Bronze Age have been found during excavation. On further deep excavation, even gold was found. Therefore, if research is carried out, it is possible to unearth things that would take us to the Vaidik period. Also the view that Aryans did not belong here, they came from outside India, will be proved wrong. </b>The above thoughts were expressed by Kokab Hamid, the Minister of Tourism, U.P while addressing a press conference.

The Central Government has allocated funds of Rs. 800 Crores for undertaking historical research work at places like Hastinapur, Bagapat, Sinoli etc. which were known during Mahabharat period. From the viewpoint of increasing tourism activities in the State, Hamid has appealed to tourists and devotees to visit U.P. and attend programs like Taj Festival, Lucknow Festival, Gautam Buddha’s Death Anniversary, Shahid Smarak (Martyrs’ Memorial) Festival, the forthcoming Kumbh Mela etc. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

Nichols, as cited by Oppenhemier, states that South asia contains a greater number of languages than new guinea and is second only to sub saharan africa in this regard. basically there is a positive correlation between total thousands of years of occupaion and language number. what happens when we assume a wholescale recent replacement as presupposed by the standard IE paradigm? India simply falls off simply the curve!!!!!

[dhu]

more lies from our euro friends

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather than exploring this wealth of archaeological evidence and
all of the questions it raises, the documentary recounts what
appears to be a completed story.  It begins in 1987, when Mair
"stumbled" across the mummies in a museum in northwest China. It
ends in a dramatic denouement at a Buddhist temple complex where
the researchers "discover" a painting of a red-haired and
red-bearded figure. Although this image has long been known to
scholars and dates from only the seventh century A.D., the
filmmakers present it as a new discovery proving that the mummies
who predate the painting by more than a thousand years were
Tokharians with European features.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Possibly *one* of the earliest locations where horses were domesticated, among a number of other places.

The first researchers who attempted to discern the ancestors of domesticated horses using archaeological data were J.C. Ewart and R. Lydekker.

Ewart in 1909 suggested that domestic horses came from three different ancestors:

* The barb, slender-limbed ponies, Arabian, etc. were said to descend from E. sivalensis.

* The "Forest" and heavy draught horses from E. robustus.

* The Steppe type from E. przewalskii (which is closest to E. yunnanensis among fossil horses).

Lydekker classified horses with long-pillared molars as descending from E. stenosis, while short-pillared molar horses like the Barb and Arab came from E. sivalensis.

The idea of E. sivalensis as an ancestor of modern domesticated horses seems to have been reputable at least up to World War II.

Not sure exactly who refutes the idea, but apparently there gradually was a shift suggesting a single domestication of horses from a single ancestor, something not supported by modern mtDNA research, but still forming the bedrock of Indo-european studies.

J. C. Ewart. "The Possible Ancestors of the Horses Living Under Domestication," _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character, Vol. 81, No. 549 (Oct. 9, 1909), pp. 392-397

Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
http://sambali.blogspot.com/<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Latest news On horse domestication..

<b>Horses First Domesticated in Kazakhstan?</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Oct. 20, 2006 —<b>New evidence from soil inside the remains of a 5,600-year-old corral indicates that the ancient Botai people of Kazakhstan were among the earliest to domesticate horses. But equine romantics might be disappointed to learn that the Botai probably ate and milked their horses as often as they rode them. </b>

The corrals are part of an archeological site in northern Kazakhstan known as Krasnyi Yar, once a large village occupied by the Copper-Age Botai, said Sandra Olsen, curator at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Penn.

Olsen leads a team that has been investigating horse domestication for several years. One of her colleagues, Rosemary Capo, will present a poster with some of chemical soil evidence for horses on Oct. 23 at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Philadelphia.

"We really don't understand any major signs of changes in horses with domestication," said Melinda Zeder, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution who specializes in the origins of animal and plant domestication.

Zeder was referring to physical changes in horse bones from ancient middens. Nor, so far, is there a direct way to determine what people were doing with their horses that early on, she said. For these reasons she and her colleagues have been building their case with less direct evidence.

"Here's an approach to documenting horse domestication that's extremely new," said Zeder. "Sort of like Perry Mason, they're building circumstantial evidence."

That evidence comes from circular arrangements of posts and the soil differences found inside and outside the corral. Inside the corral, the soil contained up to ten times the phosphorus as outside soils, but lower concentrations of nitrogen. That's what you'd expect if the soil there was enriched with horse manure.

Modern horse manure, for comparison, is loaded with phosphorous, potassium and nitrogen. The nitrogen is the easiest to lose to groundwater or the air.

Phosphorus, on the other hand, can be held in place by calcium and iron, says Capo, a geologist who did the soil analyses with Michael Rosenmeier and undergraduates Andy Stiff and James Gardiner of the University of Pittsburgh.

"High phosphorous could also indicate human occupation," said Capo, "but that's usually accompanied by other geochemical signatures, which we didn't find in the corral samples."

There was also high sodium concentration in the corral samples, which could be from urine, suggested Olsen.

<b>The real smoking gun, said Olsen, will be if they can detect long-lived molecules of lipids, or fat, in these samples that can be attributed specifically to horses. That analysis is now being arranged.</b>

So what were the Botai doing with those horses? They probably ate them and used them as pack animals, and they may have milked the mares to create a vitamin-rich, mildly alcoholic beverage that's still consumed today in Kazakhstan, said Olsen. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India a nearly allied species (E. sivalensis), occurs in the Lower Pliocene, and may have been the ancestor of the Arab stock, which shows traces of the depression in front of the orbit characteristic of the earlier forms. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Equation_of_time
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Recently Mr. Lydekker has pointed out that some Arabs have the face bent downwards on the cranium, the premaxillae long, the first premolars large, and the anterior pillar of the upper molars unusually short.

"In other words, Lydekker now realises that all the modern breeds are not characterised by longpillared molars, and says that there is a probability that Barbs, Arabs, and Thoroughbreds are descended from Equus sivalensis. http://www.curlesnewstead.org.uk/pdfs/cu...ndices.pdf
http://sambali.blogspot.com/2005_10_19_s...chive.html
http://sambali.blogspot.com/2006_03_07_s...chive.html<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There's a good probability to relate these facts to a mittani expedition from India; the arab breeds are definitely derived form elsewhere. we need to sift through these materials.

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Oct 23 2006, 04:28 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Oct 23 2006, 04:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->more lies from our euro friends

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather than exploring this wealth of archaeological evidence and
all of the questions it raises, the documentary recounts what
appears to be a completed story.  It begins in 1987, when Mair
"stumbled" across the mummies in a museum in northwest China. It
ends in a dramatic denouement at a Buddhist temple complex where
the researchers "discover" a painting of a red-haired and
red-bearded figure. Although this image has long been known to
scholars and dates from only the seventh century A.D., the
filmmakers present it as a new discovery proving that the mummies
who predate the painting by more than a thousand years were
Tokharians with European features.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]59568[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I saw this documentary talking about the red head person worshipping the Buddha.
Monastries were all along the silk route and the caves and carvings and paintings
showed red head person bowing to Buddha.
ALso there were inscriptions of sanskrit on the cave walls and the expert looked at it and said it was <b>an EUROPEAN language</b>!
It was to claim the heritage of that place.

[acharya]

Germans tell of secret Nazi program

By MELISSA EDDY, Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 4, 10:03 PM ET

WERNIGERODE, Germany - Folker Heinicke always had the feeling that something about his upbringing just wasn't right.
ADVERTISEMENT

Being raised in a German home full of wealth and privilege did not dull his notions that something was missing, but it would be decades before he would learn the full truth: he was the child of a Nazi program to strengthen the German race with Aryan blood.

He and other children — known as "Lebensborn Kinder" or "source of life" kids — were the product of parents chosen for their traits to breed Hitler's idealized blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryan race.

For the last four years, Heinicke and about 40 other children raised in the Nazi program have met to support each other. On Saturday for the first time, they told their stories in public, swapping tales of aunts who turned out to be mothers, ice-cold adoptive parents who slid into alcoholism and the joy at finding a blood relative who embraced them as a member of their family.

"There was always the feeling that something wasn't quite right," said Heinicke, who was stolen from present-day Ukraine by the Nazis. "It happens when you have no mother, no father, no roots."

Heinicke's parents told him when he was a teenager that he was adopted but did not reveal the full truth about his background. Later in life, he started exploring irregularities in his birth certificate that led him to other questions, eventually uncovering that he had passed through a Lebensborn home. He discovered his true identity but has yet to find any of his relatives.

Others like Heinicke were born outside the program and taken as toddlers from parents in lands the Germans overran during World War II, then given to a German family to raise.

The Lebensborn program was the mirror opposite of the Nazi's other, more hideous racial experiments.

While millions of Jews and others deemed "undesirable," were slaughtered, these children were carefully selected for their Aryan qualities and brought into the world in comfortable surroundings, well away from the Allied bombing raids.

Of the estimated 5,000 to 8,000 born into Lebensborn homes in Germany, some were raised by their birth mothers, but many were given over to families of high-ranking SS officers to be raised according to Nazi doctrine.

The group is seeking to correct what they say are historical misconceptions that the Lebensborn program was nothing more than a high-class bordello offering up blue-eyed blondes to SS officers as a means to breed a "perfect" race.

"We need to find the courage to speak out in public, to tell our stories as long, as long as we are still alive," urged Violette Wallenborn, whose mother was a Norwegian singer and father a Nazi choir director.

Previous meetings have focused on support and swapping tips on how to track down still-living relatives. But telling their stories is increasingly becoming an aim of members of the association called Lebenssupren, or "Tracing Life."

Because 60 percent of the women who gave birth in Lebensborn homes were not married — a stigma in those conservative times — the births were kept secret. In the final days of the war, the Nazis destroyed many documents detailing the births in hopes of covering their tracks.

In many cases, the kids in the program were housed outside of Germany.

After the Nazis overran Germany's neighbor states in 1940, German occupation soldiers were encouraged to find suitable local mates. Ten Lebensborn homes were set up in foreign lands, where some 8,000 children were eventually born.

Two years later, the Nazis began seeking out blue-eyed, blonde-haired children in neighboring, mostly Slavic, countries and sending them back home to be "Germanized" as Heinicke was.

Hans-Ullrich Wesch, 64, was born in a Lebensborn home in a leafy residential area of Wernigerode in former East Germany.

He always knew he was adopted and when he was a teenager, he began to question who he really was. As a young teen, he went to city officials to obtain his birth certificate for his personal ID card and was told that it did not exist because he was born in a Lebensborn home.

At the time, there was no public information about the program and he did not think much of it.

Later in life though, Wesch's wife suggested his birth parents could still be alive, prompting his first attempt at finding them. But the East German secret police halted his inquiry, insisting that even if his parents were alive, they would have remarried and would want nothing to do with him.

"That was it for me, until the Berlin Wall fell," Wesch said. "Then I thought, 'now you start searching again,'" he said.

His search eventually bore fruit when he was reunited with his mother in the years after the wall fell.

"I am one heart and one soul with my mother," said Wesch, who found her several years ago. "She was very, very pleased when she found me. She suffered a lot as well."

[dhu]

R2 is only found in Asia. this firmly anchors the entire R clan in Asia (aka India). J is from Baluchistan, glossed over as Eastern Iran (Quintana-Murci). J2 skirted the hittite, kurdish hinterlands, while J1 proceeded into the arabian and levantian interior. the hg3 and hg 9 statement :
<i>
“If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplography 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, (Table 17.3), the straightforward suggestion would be that both (Neolithic) agricultural and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe (emphasis in the original)”.</i>

There is no derivative V from HV in india. oppenheimer uses this fact (among others) to locate the HV locus in kashmir. it is becoming clearer that paleo euros (U6) were largely replaced by neolithics originating from pretty much the same locations as the original euro paleo settlers. indian populationss by contrast display a unique continuity since the initial southern route seedings. the first migrtions into europe were much more intrusive and foundational since they were into virgin territory. impacts of later migrations were blunted by what was already there. the last migrant gypsies could not convert the entire euro populations due to entrenched settlement patterns. we are taking of a migration of only a few thousand in these settling gypsy clans.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Dec 19 2006, 09:30 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Dec 19 2006, 09:30 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->R2 is only found in Asia. this firmly anchors the entire R clan in Asia (aka India).  J is from Baluchistan, glossed over as Eastern Iran (Quintana-Murci). J2 skirted the hittite, kurdish hinterlands, while J1 proceeded into the arabian and levantian interior. the hg3 and hg 9 statement :
<i>
“If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplography 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, (Table 17.3), the straightforward suggestion would be that both (Neolithic) agricultural and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe (emphasis in the original)”.</i>

There is no derivative V from HV in india.  oppenheimer uses this fact (among others) to locate the HV locus in kashmir.  it is becoming clearer that paleo euros (U6) were largely replaced by neolithics originating from pretty much the same locations as the original euro paleo settlers.  indian populationss by contrast display a unique continuity since the initial southern route seedings.  the first migrtions into europe were much more intrusive and foundational since they were into virgin territory.  impacts of later migrations were blunted by what was already there.  the last migrant gypsies could not convert the entire euro populations due to entrenched settlement patterns.  we are taking of a migration of only a few thousand in these settling gypsy clans.

[right][snapback]62270[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should find the site who show that europeans are more similar whit arabs,not whit indians.This gona be the main proove that was no aryan invasion.

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You should find the site who show that europeans are more similar whit arabs,not whit indians.This gona be the main proove that was no aryan invasion.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

honsol, there is no need for this. euros are quiet enthusiastically and voluntarily blazing a new kinship with semites to stave off unnecessary association withe indians, and where the indian connection is too obvious, an iranian connection will be substituted. for example y haplo J, which is renfrew's "anatolian" marker, has been brought into a complex with haplo I, resulting in the new marker "IJ", although neither is a derivative of the other. basically, this hijacks the neolithic marker J to the euro side. in addition we have their hairspitting smokescreen about J1 and J2 subclades, necessary to avert an iranian, south caspian, zagros origin for J (dubbed Jahangir by Oppenheimer), ultimately it is from baluchistan (mehrgarh).... (this is an oppenheimer footnote. i will post it below)

E3b the neolithic horn of africa marker does not intrude into india. and the standard ME neolithic package of J2 and E3b is lacking the E3b component in india. i think this would indicate joining together of baluchi and African-semitic neolithic streams in the ME, which is perfectly sensible.

anatolia is quite brimming with non-ie hurrian and other caucasian-chechen, etc languages. this does not stop the euros from imagining a neolithic IE euro origin in anatolia (now glossed as EUROPE). this obtusity is the only option left after R has been unequivocally shown to originate in S asia, with Kurds carrying even R2 from bengal.

lies of these albinos are unsurpassed.

Semitic is regularly associated with post ice age colonization of upper tracts of the ME from africa. postualting a parallel situation for indic out of S asia is taboo however. we can repeat instances for ice age dispersal effects on austronesian (sunda) and north american languages. postulate the same for indic out of india and all hell breaks lose.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Dec 22 2006, 09:30 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Dec 22 2006, 09:30 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->.

honsol, there is no need for this.  euros are quiet enthusiastically and voluntarily blazing a new kinship with semites to stave off unnecessary association withe indians,
Semitic is regularly associated with post ice age colonization of upper tracts of the ME from africa. postualting a parallel situation for indic out of S asia is taboo however.  we can repeat instances for ice age dispersal effects on austronesian (sunda) and north american languages.  postulate the same for indic out of india and all hell breaks lose.
[right][snapback]62334[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the reason that euros try to make kinship whit semites more then whit indians?.What is their wining in all this?
I read a site were islam was presented as the new religion of Europe.Replacing the obsolite euros christianism, whit his more simple dogmas/rituals and more macho aproach to life.islam was show as the force that gona bring europe again to main position of 18-19 century. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
why in Russia and Italy ,islam ,buddhism,christianity are legal,but hinduism is not tolerate?
Pretending that Anatolia was european only because greeks use to live there before the turks.and conected that way whit aryan theory as they didnt find any cradle of aryans in europe it self.
From all euros pre-christian religions,celtic one seem to be the most similar whit indian one,while greek religion was similar whit semitic non-abrahamic ones,and thracian-ilyrians whit hittite and egiptian ones.
A new theory show that celts came from the sea and then spread throw europe.We just ask from were they came?

[Guest]

http://img185.imageshack.us/my.php?image...ag1xh5.gif

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pretending that Anatolia was european only because greeks use to live there before the turks.and conected that way whit aryan theory as they didnt find any cradle of aryans in europe it self.
From all euros pre-christian religions,celtic one seem to be the most similar whit indian one,while greek religion was similar whit semitic non-abrahamic ones,and thracian-ilyrians whit hittite and egiptian ones.
A new theory show that celts came from the sea and then spread throw europe.We just ask from were they came?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Romans also had interests in anatolia. this does not negate the fact that their predecessors along with celts pushed through anatolia (from the sea) to fuse with etruscans and basques respectively. same is also true with greeks and balkans. An IE anatolia is the last hope for keeping the Asiatic IE family within the confines of "europe". But anatolia is simply brimming with hurrian, semitic, chechen, etc. further east is the only solution

[Guest]

Somebody please translate this for aam-aadmi.

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...n-0020215-st002

[Hauma Hamiddha]

Rajesh-below is something I wrote about this paper. It might clarify matters a little:

...................
Americans are particularly interested in knowing about a person's race, just as we might be curious about a person's varNa or jAti. In any paper-work, be it of small or big importance, the American officialdom demands to known your race. Indians living in the mlechCha-desha often have a profound difficulty with this matter because despite comprising a 1/6 th of humanity they do not have a race to describe them. The common categories imposed by the Americans are white, black, Native American, Asian, and "Pacific Islanders". Of these the first 4 can be called valid races, whereas the 5th is too vague and would qualify as a race if they had monophyletic Melanasians and Papuans and their closest sister groups as the only valid members of that category. It is often frustrating that an Indian just does not have a choice. Today a paper was published by Rosenberg et al in the free wannabe tabloid studying the Indian populations using a sample of Indians living in the US. The conclusions are not unexpected but worth reiterating nevertheless:
1) Indians are distinct world population. When you do K-means type clustering with K=7 using a panel of autosomal genetic variation at 729 microsatellite and 471 insertion/deletion polymorphisms we see the following populations of the world fall out as clusters:
1) "Blacks/Africans": Bantus, Bushmen, Pygmies included
2) Whites: Europeans and Middle Easterners included.
3) Indians: from Kashmir to Tamil Nad, Gujarat to Bengal all major varNa populations included. 4) Mongoloids (Asians): Chinese Han, Japanese, Mongols, Koreans, Indo-Chinese and Yakuts included.
5) Papuans and Melanasians.
6) Native Americans from North and South America.
7) The Kalash.
Baring the Kalash who are a uniquely isolated population, the remain categories are pretty reasonable racial categories which correspond to what American have on their forms. So the point is clear we need a race for ourselves.

Of course TSPians, Nepalese, Lankans and Afghans might vehemently object to this race being called Indian because it might shake their very claims to distinctness. But it is better they accept the truth staring on them that they are just fragments of the whole and move on with it. Many TSPians, like Sindhis, Baloch and Pathans are bit of neither here nor there, with some Western admixture.

Another result strengthened from this study is that Indians are definitely closer to Europeans and Middle Easterners than to Mongoloids. Thus, all those Indians being forced to describe themselves as Asians on American forms are being made to mis-report their genetic affinities by wrongly grouping them with a more divergent group. On the whole this supports the well known idea of a Caucasian higher-order cluster which is divided into two main branches: Western Caucasoids a.k.a Whites and Eastern Caucasoids, who should be called Indians.

However, the most important find is that Indians from the length and breadth of India are closer to each other than Europeans or Mongoloids are amongst themselves. There, is very little correlation between geography and allele distribution in Indian varNa population, because of they pretty closely related to each other throughout the country. This means we have every reason to remain one country, united by our genes and original dharma. If anything, the only thing that can fragment Indians is not their genetic divergence but Abrahamistic memetic infections like Islam and Christianity.

Note that there are some populations that are genuinely weird. The Hazaras represent a Mongol population that came with Chingiz Kha'Khans conquering army and got isolated in Afghanistan to this date. Now they have lost their power and status and are being mercilessly hunted by the Pathans there. That apart, both around 700 years of isolation from the larger Mongol population and admixture with local groups has resulted in them occupying a position sort of in the "middle of nowhere". A similar position is seen is seen for the Uighur Turks- they are overall slightly closer to Caucasoids than Mongoloids. But end up largely in the "Middle of Nowhere" due pull from both sides. This shows that they are a product of the ancient Caucasoid substratum (Tocharian speakers?) being subsumed under the Turko-Mongol expansion. In this context it is interesting to note the politically incorrect point that the Uighurs showed the highest cultural development and complexity amongst the early Turkic expansions.

The Kalash are group of Indo-Iranians, most probably occupying a intermediate position between the Indo-Aryans and Iranians who got isolated for perhaps several millenniums in the highlands of Afghanistan. The Burusho is another isolated Afghan population like the Kalash but speak an isolate language. These two groups generally group with the Caucasoids, but their isolation has diverged them from any specific group of Caucasoids and they just hang close to the base. The Parsis are a relatively recent immigrant group showing a similar phenomenon. But their grouping with Indians with at least 75% bootstrap support suggest that even they have mixed with local Indian populations after arriving. The "Western Indians" or groups from modern TSP exhibit the typical properties of boundary-zone populations- that is admixture with the adjacent group. In this case it is the Western Caucasoids or the "Whites". Thus they lie apart as a group away from core Indians.


The picture emerging from Rosenberg et al's work. If the picture does not work see it here race.

[dhu]

rajesh, these kind of race category studies have been thankfully put to rest by concentrating on individual genetic lines.

"Ethics by definition" is a normative trait and the act of confirming our indian nationhood or even dharma by such means (ie by the results of a "scientific" paper) is demon best left to westerners. but even so, if we go by the categories they use, central asia is not a transition zone between the east and europe.. it is rather a staging point for the entry of indian and mongolid genetic lines into the european cul de sac.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Dec 24 2006, 09:49 PM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Dec 24 2006, 09:49 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Americans are particularly interested in knowing about a person's race, just as we might be curious about a person's varNa or jAti. In any paper-work, be it of small or big importance, the American officialdom demands to known your race. Indians living in the mlechCha-desha often have a profound difficulty with this matter because despite comprising a 1/6 th of humanity they do not have a race to describe them. The common categories imposed by the Americans are white, black, Native American, Asian, and "Pacific Islanders".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This came from an euro-centric view of Asia.The missumption that asian is a single culture.Such diferent cultures like semitic, indic (indian) and sinic (chinese) are put in the same bowl.Pure ignorance.

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Dec 23 2006, 06:02 PM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 23 2006, 06:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Somebody please translate this for aam-aadmi.

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/...n-0020215-st002
[right][snapback]62384[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ANALYSIS?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Excellent article.

Add this ARTICLE to the list as well for a better grasp of the subject.

The key points of interest:

1) Consistent with geography and with the analysis in Figure 2A, among the Indian populations, populations from the northwest part of India, including the Kashmiri and Punjabi groups, had the greatest similarity to the populations from Europe and the Middle East. Populations from eastern India, including the Assamese and Bengalis, had the greatest similarity to the populations from East Asia. The only population whose Fst values within India substantially overlapped those of either Europe/Middle East or East Asia was the Parsi population.

2) Although different studies have sometimes reached divergent conclusions about the magnitude of Indian differentiation and its determinants [15–17,30–38], it is possible that in India, differentiation across groups is larger than was seen here, but is based not on language, but on other variables, such as geography or caste [15,16,27,39].

3) For example, a recent study of 15 microsatellite loci in 54 groups [17], including tribal populations, identified population subclusters within India and obtained Fst = 0.018, considerably greater than the value seen here.

4) By necessity, however, our study required sampling in the United States in order to allow high-throughput genotyping of the large number of markers that we investigated, and it was not possible to include groups without an appreciable presence in the United States. Although our sample is likely to be reasonably representative of first-generation individuals of Indian descent currently located in the United States, such individuals likely do not provide a random sample of the source populations in India, as urban and relatively mobile populations and populations of higher caste and socioeconomic status are overrepresented among immigrants.

5) Thus, if variables such as caste and socioeconomic status do play important roles in producing genetic structure, more genetic differentiation would certainly be expected for a sample of the same linguistic groups in India compared to what we have seen in the United States.

Please note that this study was only done with Indian immigrants to the US, and hence does not constitute a true random sample of Indian population.