What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory -2

[Guest]

http://www.deccan.com/home/homedetails.asp...etically~closer
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lower castes genetically closer


Hyderabad, Jan. 14: People belonging to lower castes are genetically closer to tribal groups than they are to upper castes, a study conducted by the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) has discovered. Experts from the CCMB believe that this finding adds credence to the theory that lower castes emerged from tribal populations. A senior scientist at the centre, Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, said the origin of the caste system in India has been the subject of heated debate among anthropologists and historians.

Many of them had suggested that the caste system began with the  arrival of speakers of Indo-European languages from Central Asia about 3,500 years ago. “However, there has been no consensus on this so far,” he added.

In the latest study, CCMB scientists analysed the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA of three tribal populations of southern India and compared the results with the available data from across the Indian subcontinent. They did not find any significant difference in mitochondrial DNA among Indian tribal and caste populations. On the other hand, the study of the Y-chromosome lineage revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. “The paternal lineage of Indian lower castes shows closer affinity to the tribal populations than to upper castes,” said Dr Thangaraj.

A significant aspect of the study is that its Y-SNP data provides compelling genetic evidence for the tribal origin of the lower caste populations. It gives substance to the theory that lower caste groups may have emerged from hierarchical divisions existing within the tribal groups much before the arrival of the Aryans. Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.

Indian society has been subject to multiple waves of migration in historicand prehistoric times. The first was the ancient Palaeolithic migration by early humans. This was followed by the early Neolithic migration, probably of proto-Dravidian speakers. About 3,500 years ago, the Indo-European speakers arrived. “Indian tribal and caste populations emerge from the genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians,” said Dr Thangaraj. “At the same time, the paternal lineage of Indian castes is more closely related to the Central Asians.”

The results suggest that the Indian subcontinent was settled soon after the famous out-of-Africa expedition, and that there had been no complete extinction or replacement of the initial settlers. Rather, they were supplemented and restructured by later waves of migrations.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

Article pasted in post 307:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It gives substance to the theory that lower caste groups may have emerged from hierarchical divisions existing within the tribal groups much before the arrival of the Aryans. Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Grief, not the Oryans, Dravidoids and what-have-yous again. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> Indian society has been subject to multiple waves of migration in historicand prehistoric times. The first was the ancient Palaeolithic migration by early humans. This was followed by the early Neolithic migration, probably of proto-Dravidian speakers. About 3,500 years ago, the Indo-European speakers arrived.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Wow, Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) better check out the IE Studies' authors whom Rajesh_g mentioned: Lincoln and Arvidsson - as well as Trubetzkoy. All of whom wrote how there is zero - mark this, zero - evidence for Indo-Europoids/Oryans. They exist only in IE <i>theory</i>. But apparently CCMB knows the genetic makeup of the Indo-Europeans better than anyone. That's amazing.

All the so-called indications for the Indo-Europeans arises in the PIE-model of linguistics - nowhere else. PIE itself is one of several possible linguistic explanations, as the above-mentioned researchers and others have written. And even if they were to accept PIE, then still, only one of the possibilities that is tossed up by PIE is that there was a single ethnic population group that spoke it (the IEs).
In short: several linguistic models can equally explain why languages classed as IE have similarities -> one of which is PIE model -> one scenario tossed up by PIE model submits that there were a group of people called IEs/Oryans.

Some simple maths from high school (unfortunately, badly written down making it look unnecessarily complicated):
- <b>Probability, P</b> for any possible version of the tale to be The True Version of Historic Events is <= 1.
- If P(a particular version)=1, then this version alone is true and other possibilities are false (their probabilities are 0).
- But since according to Lincoln, Trubetzkoy and others, other equally applicable and likely possibilities exist, probability for each possible version is 1/n where n is num_possibilities. (And there are who knows how many possibilities that might not have been suggested yet!)
So P(any possible version might be The Only True Version) = 1/n, which of course is <1, since PIE is not the only possibility (n > 1).


- We need to multiply the probabilities to get combination of events.
Let's do this for finding the probability that PIE is true AND that there existed an ethnically homogenous people who spoke it (the Oryans):
P(PIE is true) * P(unattested IE people existed) = P(PIE AND IE both true), which is far, far less than 1 because we are multiplying decimal values which are each less than 1 already.

- Now, P(any of AIT or AMT or Influx into India) is nowadays admitted to be next to nil. Probability, P, of other kind of Aryan Contact scenario/excuse that can sneak in past genetics, archaeology, anthropology data is very, very tiny. Therefore, even if P(PIE AND IE both true) > 0, the P(PIE AND IE AND undetectable Aryan Contact ALL true) is pathetically small.

But Hyderabad-based CCMB goes around pretending as if Aryans and in particular some SIGNIFICANT DETECTABLE form of Aryan Contact (there's reference to Aryan Migration in posted article) into India is established beyond doubt, when even P(minor Aryan Contact scenario) is sooo small.

But I'll play.

<b>Assuming</b> their raw data at least is accurate, reliable and unbiased (although, since they appear to have pre-assumed existence of Oryans, Dravidoids and other unknown species of human, not sure if sampling and analysis was unbiased) -
Can I attempt some example explanations that might account for the data <b>without introducing Oryans et al or any other Deus-Ex-Machinas</b>?
Remember Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation amongst many equally valid explanations tends to (has higher likelihood) be the true one; it is the explanation that requires the least extra elements to be introduced to account for observations. That means inventing unattested population (IE), and fantasising about their (silent) wanderings into other nations is classified as HUGE INTRODUCTION of extra elements <- so this is less likely to be true than a simpler explanation.

Here goes a simple version. Not as polished as the AIT tale - which after all, has had centuries to stew over its version:
- Waves of urbanisation of communities in remote regions slowly joining village and town life. Slow uptake of newcomers in specialised quarters. Latest wave, quite recent (maybe Shaka era, Islamic period) so they're more related to the Hindus outside of urban setting?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Leave out the Deus-ex-machina. Let's apply <b>Occam's Razor:</b> our tribes developed the structure. Our tribes specialised, urbanised and with it their complex class-structure got more complex. Where's the need for Oryans or Dravidoids in this explanation?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> At the same time, the paternal lineage of Indian castes is more closely related to the Central Asians.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Example explanation: Urbanised sons of Indian mothers and fathers left western part of soil of Greater India to go exploring or in search of Water Of Life <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->, immortality or what-not in the great Beyond (who knows their reason). Or maybe, they were like today's civil engineers from the west working in 'reconstructing' Afghanistan and Iraq: they went to spread what they knew, do trade, be footloose, whatever. In any case, they settled outside India. Their Indian genes are now muddled up with any other Central Asian genes there might have been - so those Indian genes are today classed as C-Asian genes.
And so, by a 'coincidence' that the IE Studies' Oryanists and their believers in India's labs can't fathom, those C-Asian genes correlate with the mutations present in urban Indian genes.
This is not my imagination: There are ancient relatives of IVC Indians in Tarim Basin and that's way into C-Asia. So it was not just possible but actual for ancient Indian people to have traveled into C-Asia, though somehow the IE Oryanists and their sycophants seem to think that only the Oryans could travel.

An additional overall pattern in India: tribal population continuously becomes urbanised. Some number of urban population at some point(s) in time exits soil for some reason or other.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>> They did not find any significant difference in mitochondrial DNA among Indian tribal and caste populations. On the other hand, the study of the Y-chromosome lineage revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. “The paternal lineage of Indian lower castes shows closer affinity to the tribal populations than to upper castes,” said Dr Thangaraj.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will now digress and return to make my point. Bear with.

There's a very beautiful narrative in Tamil about Shiva incarnating as a fisherman to win Parvati's hand, who has been born as the supremely beautiful daughter of a chieftain of a fishermen village in coastal Tamil Nadu. (Shiva couldn't bear being separated from his wife in Kailas, and was miserable, because Shiva without Shakthi is ... - well, I don't know what it is. Anyway Nandi had a plan to bring the two back together, and incarnated as a shark or other big scary fish and prevented the fishermen in the village from fishing. The fishermen, after futile attempts at catching Nandi's shark - in spite of the promise of gaining lovely Parvati's hand - all prayed to Shiva, who finally had a valid reason to descend.) As the usual handsome bold young fisherman, this adventurous stranger comes to Parvati's dad's village and tells them he will attempt catching the shark and already wins the heart of the lovely. Of course, catching Nandi is a snap for Shiva. Chieftain is thrilled, welcomes Shiva into his tribe as family, gives Parvati to Shiva <b>to take back to the distant(?) village of fisherman Shiva</b>. (It's another matter that Shiva takes Parvati and Nandi back to Kailas, when they leave her father's place.) For the properly narrated version of this that will do it justice, ask Sunder or someone else.

Now, the point. This is a common occurrence even in the 'secular' stories of Hindu tradition, and also in other countries' traditions. It's the daring male from one village-community that goes out to another community and wins lovely maiden. And the hero generally takes wife back to his community/country/village/town. This is how villages form inter-village bonds. Heck, this is how kingdoms formed inter-kingdom bonds. Everyone knows this. It has nothing to do with patriarchy. In many countries in the past, it was the case that the young men left to get wives from other communities, to prevent inter-marriage within same community. Many similar events in traditional Japanese and African tales too.

Now, let's apply here. A few conglomerated tribes in some part of northern India (one day in the future to develop urban Vedic Hindu society) start wandering around neighbouring tribes and forming inter-tribe relations through marriage bonds. Number of conglomerated tribes expands. Time will make them appear as a 'single community'/single tribe. They keep doing this. In time, they urbanise. Inter-kingdom marriages start. But urban-village and urban-tribal, village-tribal marriages still happen, though maybe less frequently than in earlier times? Hence you have Arjuna marrying Naga princess Uloopi and the myriad of other similar narratives.
Though unlike Uloopi-Arjuna combine, number of children per couple in those days was generally many (even if we don't expect each to have as many kids as Gandhari).

In this way, many Indian populations from remote mountainous or jungle regions of India slowly come into the mix of urbanising communities in India. Imagine several ink-drops on parchment: spreading outward and growing, and then the drops overlap while the outer edges of the ink are initially lighter having less ink. This is the way the communities on the edge slowly enter into mainstream ink/urban population. Each bond between urban and remote Indian population takes decades, centuries or longer to form. After who knows how many thousands of years, entire tribes are mainstream urban - part of ink-blot.

When India was first populated and its population spread S, E, rest of India to W - that's the parchment - the Indian people flung all over the subcontinent. It (the parchment) had taken many thousands of years to happen. Communities in various regions got disconnected and developed into separate tribes - probably only geographic isolation rather than the endogamy of later times.

Then several conglomerate tribes (the inkblots) started, and swallowed up most of the parchment - reconnecting again. This is still going on, in spite of social structure having got rigid in the last millennium-and-half years. (Even before, a period of endogamous groups would have reduced intermarriage in spite of more urbanisation of neighbouring communities taking place. Again, this was/is also the case in Japan and some some African populations.)

I think this also explains data (unless I am missing something) - and using only the basic prehistoric marriage-patterns known to many cultures. See, had no need of breaking Occam's razor and by bringing in Alien Abductions - sorry, not aliens, of course I meant Oryan Incursions.

Anyone else want to have a go at coming up with their own logical, rational version? At least we can keep it simple, even if IE Studies can't.

[Guest]

Witzel's and his Indo-EuroRacists are spending sleepless nights lately, so I've heard.
Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India

[ramana]

Deccan Chronicle, 15 jan., 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lower castes genetically closer
 

Hyderabad, Jan. 14: <b>People belonging to lower castes are genetically closer to tribal groups than they are to upper castes, a study conducted by the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) has discovered. Experts from the CCMB believe that this finding adds credence to the theory that lower castes emerged from tribal populations.</b> A senior scientist at the centre, Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, said the origin of the caste system in India has been the subject of heated debate among anthropologists and historians.

<b>Many of them had suggested that the caste system began with the  arrival of speakers of Indo-European languages from Central Asia about 3,500 years ago. “However, there has been no consensus on this so far,” he added.</b>

In the latest study, CCMB scientists analysed the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA of three tribal populations of southern India and compared the results with the available data from across the Indian subcontinent. <b>They did not find any significant difference in mitochondrial DNA among Indian tribal and caste populations. On the other hand, the study of the Y-chromosome lineage revealed distinct distribution patterns among caste and tribal populations. “The paternal lineage of Indian lower castes shows closer affinity to the tribal populations than to upper castes,”</b> said Dr Thangaraj.

A significant aspect of the study is that its Y-SNP data provides compelling genetic evidence for the tribal origin of the lower caste populations. <b>It gives substance to the theory that lower caste groups may have emerged from hierarchical divisions existing within the tribal groups much before the arrival of the Aryans.</b> Indo-Europeans may have established themselves as upper castes over this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes.

Indian society has been subject to multiple waves of migration in historicand prehistoric times. <b>The first was the ancient Palaeolithic migration by early humans. This was followed by the early Neolithic migration, probably of proto-Dravidian speakers. About 3,500 years ago, the Indo-European speakers arrived. “Indian tribal and caste populations emerge from the genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians,” said Dr Thangaraj. “At the same time, the paternal lineage of Indian castes is more closely related to the Central Asians.”</b>

The results suggest that the Indian subcontinent was settled soon after the famous out-of-Africa expedition, and that there had been no complete extinction or replacement of the initial settlers. Rather, they were supplemented and restructured by later waves of migrations.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Doesnt this lend credence to the fact that castes are an evolving process from existing tribal societies? Why bring in the idea of Indo-European speakers as establishing themsleves as uppercastes? Are there upper and lower castes in Central Europe where these people are supposed to come from?
Is the scientist qualified to make comments on social stratification?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Jan 15 2007, 01:08 PM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Jan 15 2007, 01:08 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India
[right][snapback]63110[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Article here in PDF form:here

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Science 12 January 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5809, pp. 194 - 196  DOI: 10.1126/science.1137564  link

<b>The Missing Years for Modern Humans</b>
Ted Goebel*

Current interpretations of the human fossil record indicate that fully modern humans emerged in sub-Saharan Africa by 195,000 years ago (1). By 35,000 years ago, modern humans thrived at opposite ends of Eurasia, from France to island southeast Asia and even Australia. How they colonized these and other drastically different environments during the intervening 160,000 years is one of the greatest untold stories in the history of humankind. Two reports on pages 226 and 223 of this issue (2, 3) and one in a recent issue of Science (4) interpret some of the chapters of this story.

To understand the dispersal of modern humans, we must know when these populations expanded from Africa into Eurasia. For the past 20 years, many researchers in this field have been under the impression that this event could have occurred as early as 100,000 years ago (5), but new genetic evidence indicates that the spread out of Africa occurred much more recently, closer to 60,000 to 50,000 years ago (6).

However, independent corroborating evidence of this recent-dispersal hypothesis is required. Grine et al. (2) provide a first important test through the analysis of the modern human skull from Hofmeyer, South Africa. This skull was originally discovered in 1952, but it came from an eroded context and not an archaeological excavation and did not yield sufficient collagen for accurate radiocarbon dating. Using a combination of other dating techniques, Grine et al. show that sediment within the skull's endocranial cavity was deposited about 36,000 years ago.

Thus, here is the first skull of an adult modern human from sub-Saharan Africa that dates to the critical period, and one that can speak to the relationship of early moderns from Africa and Europe. The Hofmeyer skull is morphometrically more similar to modern humans of Upper Paleolithic Europe than to recent South Africans or Europeans, and it has little in common with Neandertals. Thus, 35,000 years ago, modern populations of sub-Saharan Africa and Europe shared a very recent common ancestor, one that likely expanded from east Africa 60,000 years ago (7) (see the figure). This population not only spread south into South Africa but also east into Eurasia, navigating across the Bab el-Mandab Strait of the Red Sea from the Horn of Africa to southern Arabia (6).

Archaeological evidence of the hypothesized passage across the Red Sea still eludes us, but the fossil and archaeological records for southeast Asia and Australia indicate that moderns had arrived in these regions by 50,000 years ago (Cool. The road east likely followed the south Asian coastal margin, a route requiring few modifications in adaptation other than those mandated by the initial exodus from Africa.

Figure 1 Human pathways. Reconstructed spread of modern humans during the late Pleistocene, and locations of some key early Upper Paleolithic archaeological sites. Grine et al., Olivieri et al., and Anikovich et al. provide new evidence confirming that early modern humans spread from southwestern Asia into northern Africa, Europe, and Russia about 45,000 to 40,000 years ago.

The spread north, however, required more time for adaptation to cope with colder temperatures, drier climates, and--most challenging of all--Neandertals. Despite these constraints, genetic records suggest that sets of genes, called haplotypes, carried by the first moderns into northern Eurasia existed by 45,000 years ago. Precisely where they evolved remains unknown; possibilities include southern Arabia, India, or other regions of interior western Asia (6, 9). In any case, the outcome was a series of concomitant founding migrations about 40,000 years ago from western Asia to the Mediterranean, temperate Europe, Russia, and central Asia.

The best-known of these migrations is the move northwest into temperate Europe by modern humans (10, 11), which led to Neandertal extinction after a short period of interaction (12-15). The other expansions out of western Asia presumed by the genetic evidence are not well understood. The reports by Olivieri et al. (4) and Anikovich et al. (3) provide important clues about them.

Olivieri et al. focus on mitochondrial DNA as a tool for researching modern human dispersal from western Asia. Their analysis suggests that two genetic lineages, the M1 and U6 haplogroups, originated simultaneously in western Asia between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago and from there spread with modern humans westward into northern Africa. The estimated timing of this event should not come as a surprise to archaeologists who interpret similarities in tool technologies and artifact forms as indicators of prehistoric population relationships. Through this "technocomplex" approach, they for years have theorized a historical link between the first Upper Paleolithic stone blade technologies in the Levant (called "Aurignacian" at sites like Ksar Akil, Lebanon) and similar blade technologies in northern Africa (called "Dabban" at sites like Haua Fteah, Libya) (16). Together the genetic and archaeological records indicate that the modern humans spread from the Levant into Mediterranean Africa by 40,000 years ago (13, 14).

Another intriguing scene in the emerging story of modern humans is being played out at the famous Kostenki sites along the Don River, Russia, about 500 km south of Moscow. There, Anikovich, Sinitsyn, Hoffecker, and colleagues have unearthed archaeological evidence that the Upper Paleolithic--characterized by a series of new technologies and behaviors that are decidedly modern--had begun by 45,000 years ago. Because of perceived problems with the radiocarbon record of this time, they use optically stimulated luminescence techniques and precise chronostratigraphic correlations to define the age of the archaeological assemblages in question. The assemblages contain not just stone blades typical of the early Upper Paleolithic elsewhere in western Eurasia, but also some unique bone and ivory tools, perforated shell beads, and a carved chunk of ivory that may represent the head of an unfinished human figurine.

Although the early Kostenki assemblages are based on blade tools like those in other early Upper Paleolithic technocomplexes in Europe, this is where the similarities end and differences begin. First, the early Kostenki assemblages lack diagnostic artifacts of the Aurignacian, for example, split-based bone points, carinated end scrapers, and strangled blades. Second, they contain tool forms that are rare or absent in the typical Aurignacian, including dihedral burins, bifacial knives, and perforated fossil ornaments. As Anikovich et al. explain, the early Kostenki technocomplex is not Aurignacian; nor is it "transitional," reflecting a local shift from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic. Instead, it is something new and different: a fully developed Upper Paleolithic technocomplex with no European analog and no obvious root in the local Russian Middle Paleolithic. Although only human teeth not identifiable to species have been found associated with these early Kostenki assemblages, Anikovich et al. argue that they represent a pioneering group of moderns. If this is true, then the implications are clear: The first moderns to colonize European Russia may not have spread from the Levant via central Europe, but instead from interior western Asia via the Caucasus Mountains or from further east central Asia. This point of origin is consistent with the prediction by Olivieri et al. that modern Europeans developed out of several "regional enclaves" in greater western Asia.

So what we infer is this: Modern humans spread out of Africa very late in the Pleistocene--as recently as 60,000 to 50,000 years ago. One founding population spread east, reaching Australia by 50,000 to 45,000 years ago. Another remained in southwestern Asia or India, but after ~5000 to 10,000 years, its descendant populations dramatically expanded their range, colonizing lands as far removed from one another as northern Africa, temperate Europe, and the Russian Plain. They also reached southern Siberia by 45,000 years ago (17) and arctic Siberia by 30,000 years ago (18), but the retelling of these and other events in the missing years of modern human evolution must await new fossil and archaeological discoveries as well as continued DNA sampling of the world's living populations.

References

1. I. McDougall et al., Nature 433, 733 (2005).
2. F. E. Grine et al., Science 315, 226 (2007).
3. M. V. Anikovich et al., Science 315, 223 (2007).
4. A. Olivieri et al., Science 314, 1767 (2006).
5. P. Mellars, in The Emergence of Modern Humans: An Archaeological Perspective, P. Mellars, Ed. (Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY, 1990).
6. P. Forster, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 359, 255 (2004).
7. P. Mellars, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 9381 (2006).
8. J. Bowler, Nature 421, 837 (2003).
9. P. Mellars, Science 313, 796 (2006).
10. M. Richards et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67, 1251 (2000).
11. O. Semino et al., Science 290, 1155 (2000).
12. B. Gravina et al., Nature 438, 51 (2005).
13. P. Mellars, Nature 432, 461 (2004).
14. P. Mellars, Evol. Anthropol. 15, 167 (2006).
15. J. Zilhão, Evol. Anthropol. 15, 183 (2006).
16. O. Bar-Yosef, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 31, 363 (2002).
17. T. Goebel, Evol. Anthropol. 8, 208 (1999).
18. V. Pitulko, Science 303, 52 (2004).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

comments on the above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->All the great civilizations were founded around fertile deltas of the great rivers - the Indus/Saraswati, the Nile, the Tigris/Euphrates, etc. In the southern route out-of-Africa, the first major river(s) that early man reached would likely have been the Indus/Saraswati, home of the Indus valley civilization. Thus the expansion of the population required to subsequently populate northern Africa, temperate Europe, China and the Russian Plain possibly occured here rather than the arid Arabian peninsula or glaciated and mountainous Persia or further west to which there was no easy beach or shore route for these migrants. Since the very first civilization would have taken some time to evolve before there could be lateral (and faster) geographical diffusion of the new technologies, the pattern of distribution of the Saraswati-Sindhu/Harappan/Indus valley cities is telling. They followed the course of the great rivers feeding the Western subcontinent. From here it is easy to postulate migration and settlement upon glacial retreat of the other great city civilizations that followed, in Sumer and in Egypt. Even the course of domestication of cattle and fowl and grain appear to diffuse out of greater India by most accounts, which makes eminent sense if Saraswati-Sindhu is hypothesized as the first site of civilization for the fledgling species. With timelines now shrunk to about 50,000 years ago when mankind first made the trek out-of-Africa, there comes a narrowing of the spread between this momentous event and the dates of the Harappan cities and even the presence of the Vedic Mitanni people in West Asia. All indications are for radial (and racial) diffusion out-of-India initially. It was only much later that the direction or migration was reversed and human tribes like the Sakas and Hunas returned to get reabsorbed into their long-forgotten ancestral homeland and civilzation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The concept of a South Asian urmheit (homeland) for non-African human races is now mainstream in anthropology. For the flat-earth indologists who still cling to a reverse invasion/migration of a mythical 'white' Indo-European tribe from a Caspian sea homeland, this real science (as opposed to their pseudo-science of linguistics and conjecture; and in the case of people like Romilla Thapar just shoddy third-hand reinterpretation of the work of others) must be especially galling. What will Farmer and Witzel do when their tenous claim to academics goes the way of physiognomists and other quacks of history?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Much of the genetic mechanism remains to be unraveled but one conclusion is pertinent to this essay. Several independent genes must work in concert to produce the deepest complexion—the extreme of the darkness adaptation. Many things can go wrong and, when they do, the result is a lighter complexion. For instance, deleterious mutations at the five loci above result in various forms of albinism, whether the patient’s heritage is dark or pale. In other words, there are many random ways “accidentally” to evolve a light complexion. <b>But no genetic defect can make the child of light-skinned parents come out dark.</b>

http://www.backintyme.com/essay021215.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Stoneking's conclusions don't make much sense.

Why would the formation of caste groups coincide with "substantial
admixture with tribal groups." Earlier studies correctly predicted
the opposite result should have occured because of the prohibition on
intercaste marriage.

Also, as noted by most other studies, the Y-chromosome relationship
that exists between caste groups is better explained by migration of
the concerned haplotypes out of South Asia into Central Asia, rather
than vice a versa.

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

[Guest]

I'm a big fan of John H. Lienhard from University of Houston and have enjoyed his radio commentaries for many years (available online too).. this week he had one titled 'Big Volcano' - might be of some relevance to this thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The worst volcanic eruption in the past two million years took place in northwest Sumatra, 74,000 years ago. When Mount Toba blew, it spewed out ten billion tons of ash, and left a huge hole in the ground. Today, that hole is Lake Toba -- fifty-five miles long, twenty miles wide, and over 1600 feet deep. At the center is Samosir Island -- a lovely tourist spot and the largest island-within-an-island in the world.

One might think a volcanic eruption, so long ago, was rather like the philosophical tree falling in the philosophical forest. But it was not. The Toba eruption was the worst disaster the human race experienced -- even ahead of the 14th-century Plague.

Genetic anthropologist Stephen Oppenheimer is pretty certain that we modern humans began an emigration from East Central Africa about 85,000 years ago. By the time Mount Toba blew, we were across India, down the Malay Peninsula, into Sumatra and Java, across into Borneo, and up through Indochina into most of the China coast.


Then Mount Toba spewed two-thousand times as much ash as Mount St. Helens did. Ash covered all of India to a depth of at least a half foot, and to a depth over twenty feet in some places. But the entire world was devastated by the atmospheric ash. The result was a six-year "nuclear winter" followed by a thousand-year ice-age. The entire human species was devastated, and it was completely exterminated between Java and the present-day border of Iran.

When human survivors finally recovered, they renewed their migrations. The now-separate Southeast Asian branch of humans spread down into northern Australia, eastward across New Guinea, as well as back toward India once again. The two human branches finally rejoined around India's southern tip.


    These human migrations have been pieced together from limited information. Dating has been difficult, and human remains few, after so long a time. But the volcanic ash below the surface of the Kota Tampan area in central Malaysia has yielded fifty thousand or so stone artifacts made by the people smothered under the ashes.

    Those tools were more primitive than African implements from that time. These people were still making so-called pebble tools, small stones shaped into elementary choppers, scrapers, and hand axes. However, the few survivors on the other side of Malaysia were the adventurers who continued into Australia and China.

    What I take away from all this is a reminder of how vast time and nature are. At the end of February, 2007, the Horizons spacecraft passed Jupiter's moon Io. It sent back a photo of a huge volcano shooting debris two hundred miles above the surface.

    That should be a poignant reminder that the inexorable immensity of nature is a wolf lingering close by our doors today, just as surely as she did 74,000 years ago.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ramana]

Op-Ed in Pioneer, 12 April 2007
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite a monkey chain

Surajit Dasgupta

<b>Who were our ancestors? When and where did they live? What did they look like? Fossils, along with results from new DNA studies, give us tantalising clues. We now know that evolution is not about apes becoming human beings</b>

We did not become human beings from 'monkeys' step by step, as was believed until recently. <b>Rather, many species with part-human-part-ape-like features kept evolving in different geographical conditions, with nature discarding the models that, it thought, wouldn't sustain.</b>

For example, the species Paranthropus robustus, a unit in the chain of human evolution, seems to have died out leaving no descendants. We, the Homo sapiens, have descended from one branch that did not perish. And that branch, too, isn't from a straight chain. The following is a brief account of the complex chain of human evolution that scientists agreed upon last month, cancelling all previous conjectures.

Human beings did not originate in Asia. The 1924 discovery of an ancient African fossil - known as the Taung Child, - annulled that notion.

<b>Sometime around six or seven million years ago, the first members of our human family, Hominidae, evolved in Africa.</b> They spent much of their time in trees like today's chimpanzees and gorillas. But unlike other primates, these early hominids could walk on two feet when on ground.

Between the time of the first hominids and the period when we, <b>Homo sapiens, evolved in Africa more than 150,000 years ago,</b> our planet was home to a wide range of early human beings. Between about 3.5 and 1.5 million years ago, at least 11 hominid species lived in Africa. Many of them were members of the genus Australopithecus. <b>By the time the entire 'australopith' group went extinct about 1.4 million years ago, the earliest members of our genus, Homo, had arrived.</b>

Now most scientists think the first members of our genus, Homo, evolved from Australopithecus anamensis. Some of the oldest evidence we have for this pre-hominid dates back some four million years and was found in Kenya in eastern Africa.

Over the course of human evolution, new hominid species continued to emerge and thrive on the African plains, whose fossils date to between one and two million years ago, found at widely dispersed sites, from Eritrea in the north to Lake Turkana in the east to the cave of Swartkrans in South Africa.

<b>In the myriad branches of evolution that finally led to our creation, one would find Homo habilis. A hominid with a relatively large brain, this species got its name (meaning "handy man") from its association with stone tools.</b> There were also Homo rudolfensis, large-brained hominids, which some researchers do not classify as Homo, placing it instead in the genus Kenyanthropus.

<b>Around 10 million years ago, the climate in Africa began to change with profound consequences for human evolution.</b> As regions that had been home to lush tropical forests dried out, our ancestors had to adapt to woodland environments. <b>They became less dependent on trees for food and shelter and more accustomed to moving about upright on the ground.</b>

<b>Modern human beings were the first hominids to populate the globe, after leaving Africa about 100,000 years ago. But we were not the first hominids to exit Africa. </b>Some of our relatives began leaving that continent at least 1.8 million years ago - long before Homo sapiens evolved.

Who were the first hominids to leave Africa? One leading contender is Homo ergaster. The tall body form of Homo ergaster allowed for tireless walking in the open sun. And a slender build ensured efficient cooling.

<b>Once hominids set out from Africa, they first moved into Asia. One East Asian species, Homo erectus, seems to have enjoyed an extraordinarily long existence, surviving for well over 1.5 million years. This species also had a large range, extending from northern China through Indonesia.</b> Much of our knowledge of Homo erectus in China comes from fragmentary remains found at Zhoukoudian near Beijing. <b>Known as the "Peking Man" fossils, these bones offer a record of up to 40 members of a species that lived in China for at least several hundred thousand years</b>.

But did our species evolve from populations of Homo erectus in many regions of the world between one and two million years ago? Or did we evolve from an African ancestor less than 200,000 years ago, then expanded out of Africa, replacing Homo erectus and other species?

<b>Recent studies of DNA from living humans have helped resolve this debate. The common ancestral population of all humans alive today lived roughly 150,000 years ago, a date that favours the "out of Africa" model.</b>

<b>Homo erectus, was one of the world's most successful hominids, appears to have evolved in eastern Asia and lived there for perhaps as long as 1.5 million years - 10 times longer than modern human beings have been around.</b> Some of the oldest, and youngest, fossils of Homo erectus have been found in the island of Java in Indonesia. This region being far from Africa, suggests that once our ancient relatives moved out of that continent, they spread east. The first early human beings to penetrate the rugged terrain and harsh climates of western Europe arrived, perhaps, well over one million years ago.

Hominids lived near the Mediterranean, so it might seem logical that our ancient relatives crossed the sea from Africa to Europe. But there is no evidence that hominids of this era had the watercraft to make such a voyage. Although the least distance between Europe and Africa is only 13 kilometres, the trip would have required a difficult swim through very strong currents. <b>So hominids must have reached Europe over land through what is now Egypt.</b>

<b>Between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago, long after the first groups of hominids left Africa, a variety of early human species arose and flourished in Europe. </b>Researchers have discovered the remains of one such species at a site in Spain dating back some 400,000 years. The unnamed hominid was probably an early relative of Homo neanderthalensis, or Neanderthals. They were outstanding toolmakers, but apparently not artists, nor did they think symbolically like modern human beings. <b>It is estimated that our last common ancestor lived roughly 500,000 years ago.

When did we, Homo sapiens, evolve? The exact time is still not known, nor are our immediate ancestors.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Another nail in the coffin of AIT.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070423/asp/...ory_7684009.asp

Quote:

Science seal on Muslim history
G.S. MUDUR
New Delhi, April 22: Scientists have confirmed what historians have known.

Genetic studies have suggested that Muslims in northern India are mostly descendants of local people who embraced Islam rather than repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders.

The studies by scientists in India, Spain and the US indicate that while the Shias and the Sunnis in Uttar Pradesh are mostly descendants of converts, the former have some elements of paternal foreign ancestry.

But overall, the Shias and the Sunnis in Uttar Pradesh display higher genetic affinity to northern Indian caste populations than to western or central Asian populations.

The findings, based on the analysis of genetic material from 60 Sunni and 59 Shia volunteers, will appear in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

The researchers say their studies are the first to test two ideas on the ancestry of northern Indian Muslims — they may be descendants of local people who converted to Islam, or they may represent bloodlines of Muslims who arrived in several waves between the 8th and 14th centuries.

“Our results point to conversions in both groups, but greater foreign ancestry in the Shias,” said Suraksha Agrawal, a team member and head of medical genetics at the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.

Agrawal has tried to piece together maternal and paternal lineage of Muslims by analysing genetic material called mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is acquired only from mothers, and Y chromosome, which is passed down only by fathers.

“In the mtDNA, we do not see discrete signals from outside India,” Rene J. Herrera, a biologist at Florida International University in the US and one of the collaborators, said. “Thus, both are, for the most part, descendants from local caste groups,” he told The Telegraph.

However, the Shias do show some signatures of foreign DNA from southwest Asia and North Africa in the Y chromosome, Herrera said.

“Until now, there has been no genetic study to explore the historical extrapolations of Muslim ancestry in India,” Herrera added. “History can get contaminated over time. But DNA does not lie.”
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL THESE STUDIES.

SOMEBODY WANTS TO PREPARE AND INFLUENCE THE HISTORY AND NARRATIVE OF INDIA

[acharya]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re. the idea/statement: "Varna/Jati was fluid but the brits created the caste system in its rigid format".
The population of the Indian sub-continent was (and remains) genetically segregated along the lines of caste/Varna/Jati - whatever the accurate term and concept may be. The word "caste" may not be an accurate translation of varna/jati and British can certainly be accused of using the existing segregation to their extreme advantage but its vacuous to claim that british created the caste system. The divisions within Hindu society that, in its extreme form, were displayed along the lines of of untouchability existed long before the arrival of british. <b>Such divisions invariably led to a society that was quite keen on preserving blood lines - a thesis that is reasonably well-supported by genetic analysis of representative Indian population in India.
</b>

About eye color, the gene OCA2 on chromosome 15 exhibits a high frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) - leading to a spectrum of eye colors. The small Indian population with blue/green eyes, very likely received a genetic input from a population distinct from the early inhabitants of the sub-continent who appeared to have migrated along the coast from Africa. <b>The input may have occured as recently as a few hundred years ago. The simplest possible explanation is presence of british population in the area during that time. </b>One would have to analyze Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA for a more accurate theory to explain the eye color. For the longest time I thought that Aishwariya Rai wore contact lenses - it turns out thats not true.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Can anybody answer this. Thanks in advance

[Guest]

Acharya where is that quote from..BR?

Green/Grey eyes and red/brown hair are part of India's heritage. It is not an input of "few hundred years ago"


Patanjali describes Brahmins as golden- or tawny-haired (piNgala and kapisha). On the other hand, demons or Rakshasas, so often equated with the “dark-skinned aboriginals”, have also been described as red- or tawny-haired.

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch49.htm


This is the same discription as given with 'Indo-European' and 'Proto-European' populations. The former worshipping 'male Gods' and the latter worshipping 'female deities' and following matrilineal system. If one later looks at countries in NorthWest Europe like England, the early celts or the children of the proto-Europids are described as Red haired and green eyed.

And the later invasions of Indo-Europeans into Western Europe has been described as Golden/Brown haired and blue/grey eyed.

This is same as described by Patanjali.


The Basque, Irish, Welsh etc are considered to be proto-Europids and are till today fighting the Indo-European colonizers symbolized by the modern day nomenclature of 'protestants' and 'invading IE celtic tribes' in spain.

This fight is underlined by the primordial chasm between 'deva worshipping' IE's and the Danava types who worship the mother Goddess.

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Apr 27 2007, 02:03 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Apr 27 2007, 02:03 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Re. the idea/statement: "Varna/Jati was fluid but the brits created the caste system in its rigid format".
The population of the Indian sub-continent was (and remains) genetically segregated along the lines of caste/Varna/Jati - whatever the accurate term and concept may be. The word "caste" may not be an accurate translation of varna/jati and British can certainly be accused of using the existing segregation to their extreme advantage but its vacuous to claim that british created the caste system. The divisions within Hindu society that, in its extreme form, were displayed along the lines of of untouchability existed long before the arrival of british. <b>Such divisions invariably led to a society that was quite keen on preserving blood lines - a thesis that is reasonably well-supported by genetic analysis of representative Indian population in India.
</b>

About eye color, the gene OCA2 on chromosome 15 exhibits a high frequency of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) - leading to a spectrum of eye colors. The small Indian population with blue/green eyes, very likely received a genetic input from a population distinct from the early inhabitants of the sub-continent who appeared to have migrated along the coast from Africa. <b>The input may have occured as recently as a few hundred years ago. The simplest possible explanation is presence of british population in the area during that time. </b>One would have to analyze Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA for a more accurate theory to explain the eye color. For the longest time I thought that Aishwariya Rai wore contact lenses - it turns out thats not true.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Can anybody answer this. Thanks in advance
[right][snapback]67901[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Maybe division of humans into chinese and indians is due to the exact implementation of an ideology of extreme segregation. This need to lend intelligibility and agency to natural phenomenon is the british import. this is what we mean when we say that "caste system" is another typical clownish british construct. See the-caste-non-system

[dhu]

See the article below, I don't see any reason to doubt a similar situation in India, Korea, or the "blonde" Australoids. These jokers should rather spend their time worrying about the origins of the mediterranean race in "Europe".

<b>A 122.5-Kilobase Deletion of the P Gene Underlies the High Prevalence of Oculocutaneous Albinism Type 2 in the Navajo Population link</b>

Oculocutaneous albinism (OCA) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder. There are four known types of OCA: OCA1ndashOCA4. The clinical manifestations of all types of OCA include skin and hair hypopigmentation and visual impairment. Although there are a few documented observations of high frequency of albinism among Native Americans, including the Hopi, Zuni, Kuna, Jemez, Laguna, San Juan, and Navajo, no causative molecular defect has been previously reported. In the present study, we show that albinism in one Native American population, the Navajo, is caused by a LINE-mediated 122.5-kilobase deletion of the P gene, thus demonstrating that albinism in this population is OCA2. <b>This deletion appears to be Navajo specific, because this allele was not detected in 34 other individuals with albinism who listed other Native American origins, nor has it been reported in any other ethnic group. </b>The molecular characterization of this deletion allele allowed us to design a three-primer polymerase chain reaction system to estimate the carrier frequency in the Navajo population by screening 134 unrelated normally pigmented Navajos. The carrier frequency was found to be sim4.5%. The estimated prevalence of OCA2 in Navajos is between sim1 per 1,500 and 1 per 2,000. We further estimate that this mutation<b> originated 400ndash1,000 years ago from a single founder.</b>

[Guest]

Concerning eye colours, has it been proven an indisputable fact that it is a wholly European trait? And that there is no possibility that it also occurs among (some) non-European populations, even if in much smaller frequency - without any European input, I mean?
So now Europe's got tabs on blue, green and grey eyes? Do they have tabs on cats and dogs too? Blue-, grey- and green-eyed cats and dogs occur all over the world - such eye colours amongst these species are more common in certain extreme northern regions of course (Alaskan and Siberian Huskies for instance), but even then, light-eyed dogs and cats are also found in India and other places. So why not humans as well.

Stuff Acharya pasted in post 54:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The small Indian population with blue/green eyes, very likely received a genetic input from a population distinct from the early inhabitants of the sub-continent who appeared to have migrated along the coast from Africa. The input may have occured as recently as a few hundred years ago. The simplest possible explanation is presence of british population in the area during that time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Acharya, in bio I learnt that grey and green eyes are accidents - things that went wrong during working out the phenotype of the baby.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For the longest time I thought that Aishwariya Rai wore contact lenses - it turns out thats not true.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Aishwarya's eyes are grey: highly reflective of surrounding colours, which is why they seem green or blue at times. Interesting that that the person who wrote that statement chose to tie her eye-colour in with British 'presence', indirectly making allegations as well as racist assumptions. (Apparently they think Aishwarya Rai's light-eyes and the rest of her appearance can only be explained by assuming some 'British' ancestry. 'Dravidioids' can't have light eyes, complexion and hair otherwise, right? <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> How dare Aish and others throw out the Order of Things by existing.)

Post 55 - Raju:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Patanjali describes Brahmins as golden- or tawny-haired (piNgala and kapisha).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I asked this elsewhere too. Perhaps Patanjali is merely describing old grey-haired Brahmanas whose hair went a yellowy 'golden' colour because of the sun (like my grandfather's hair did when he was very old)? Brahmanas long ago did spend a lot of time outside after all.
Young Indian and Indonesian girls' black hair also goes a brown in the sun. I knew an Indonesian girl whose locks turned a reddish-brown in summer only because of the sun, and went back to natural black every winter.

[Guest]

It is more probable that the 'present India' is merely a subset of Patanjali's narrative. More than brahmins I feel he was making a distinction between deva and danava. Devas had brown & golden hair (a varient of brown hair) and Danava were distinguished by Red hair and a diluted tawny version.

the same descriptions crops up in another part of the world too.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Basque, Irish, Welsh etc are considered to be proto-Europids<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->According to an article by geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer that Viren posted, English too are largely Basque and so are most of the Celts of Britain. Which still has nothing to do with India.

Pingala has other meanings:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=25571
(Post 26 by Sunder)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You are IDA, Pingala, and the Sushumna <b>channels</b>.
Bowings to you Mother, you are the protector of the whole world. Protect us O Mother Durga.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So perhaps pingala, like Go/Gau must not always be taken as having one particular meaning (like Go has frequently been taken to always mean cow even when it didn't mean cow)?

My own post long time back
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=55961
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Red hair is mentioned amongst Japanese - some Samurai were described as being 'red-headed'. I don't know if this was meant symbolically (to designate particular heroic or villainous characters) or meant literally or whether the Japanese found brown hair so strange that they described it as red. This might be like how the Greeks described Alexander as having fair hair and then looking at the famous painting of him, his hair colour is medium-brown. So this is then light enough to be considered 'fair hair' in ancient Greece.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So even descriptions of people as having fair or red hair does not always mean they really had fair or red hair. It could just have meant 'fairer' hair or 'redder' hair than the norm, which in cases such as these merely indicated some shade of brown.

From the link you pasted. Posting the full context:
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch49.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the Vedas, the only ones whom they describe as “golden-haired” are the resplendent lightning gods Indra and Rudra and the sun-god Savitar; not the Aryans or Brahmins.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->(Golden-haired in the same way I would be if I were a solar or lightning deity - that's not the same as blonde, though. Was it Indra who is elsewhere described as being completely golden?)

Even allowing for references to hair colour - the above continues
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->At the same time, several passages explicitly mention black hair when referring to Brahmins.95 <b>These texts are considerably earlier than the enigmatic passage in Patanjali</b> describing Brahmins as golden- or tawny-haired (piNgala and kapisha).96 Already one of Patanjali’s early commentators dismissed this line as absurd.  To the passage from the grammarian Panini which describes Brahmins as “brown-haired”, A.A. Macdonnell notes (apparently against contemporary claims to the contrary): “All we can say is that the above-mentioned expressions do not give evidence of blonde characteristics of the ancient Brahmans.”97 Considering that Patanjali was elaborating upon the work of Panini, could it have anything to do with Panini’s location in the far northwest, where lighter hair must have been fairly common?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->It is possible, as in other cultures, that ancient Indians could have referred to even dark, medium and reddish brown hair with these same descriptions.

Another case:
China traces the history of Taoism back to the "Yellow Emperor" whose exact time is enshrouded in mists.
Most westerners, as is their wont, like to dismiss this person and his age as mythology - then they can date Taoism at the pathetically recent 500 BCE you see. But the Oryanists got very interested in him, only because they like to fantasize that this is some kind of clear admission on the part of the Chinese that the Emperor was some blonde Oryan from Europe/'Eurasia'.
However, there's actually no indication that the yellow in 'Yellow Emperor' is descriptive of his hair (nor of his skin-colour, the Chinese do not refer to themselves as 'the yellow race' which is a western invention because 19th century naturalists of the west considered their own people as the'white race' and no other people were allowed to intrude on that sacred ground).

'Yellow' in Yellow Emperor might have been purely an adjective to describe some character trait of the emperor, as the colour might have (had) special significance or descriptive meaning - perhaps purity or joy, referring to his own personal qualities or that of his reign. (His reign has been described as a Golden age and that is when they say the Tao was first realised by many in China.) Or the use of 'yellow' might have indicated his solar descent - something that is a motif, though in different contexts, in many Asian populations including Indians and Japanese. In any case, the yellow did not signify the emperor was blonde or yellow-haired in reality.


<b>ADDED:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I feel he was making a distinction between deva and danava. Devas had brown & golden hair (a varient of brown hair) and Danava were distinguished by Red hair and a diluted tawny version.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Do you have any indications as to why he would have been referring to Danavas and Devas when he does not say so outright?
Also, Devas and Rakshasas at least have always been considered non-human by Indians, in spite of what the indologicals liked to preoccupy themselves with in order to prove their AIT.
Early Indians did not equate even Rakshasas with humans, as also alluded to in the Talageri link
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ait/ch49.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, demons or Rakshasas, so often equated with the “dark-skinned aboriginals”, have on occasion been described as red- or tawny-haired (also piNgala or kapisha, the same as Patanjali’s Brahmins).98 Deviating from the <b>usual Indian line that all these demon creatures are but supernatural entities</b>,<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And the later invasions of Indo-Europeans into Western Europe has been described as Golden/Brown haired and blue/grey eyed.
This is same as described by Patanjali.

The Basque, Irish, Welsh etc are considered to be proto-Europids and are till today fighting the <b>Indo-European</b> colonizers symbolized by the modern day nomenclature of 'protestants' and 'invading IE celtic tribes' in spain.

This fight is underlined by the primordial chasm between 'deva worshipping' <b>IE's</b> and the Danava types who worship the mother Goddess.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You are speculating on several accounts:
(1) There is no indication of AIT having ever happened.

(2) Celts have by now long been claimed as being IE people for speaking languages of the IE family. (That they are now found to have mostly Basque ancestry, as also most of the English, is another matter.)

(3) It is a very recent suggestion (originally noticed it in New Agey and 'feminist' circles) that there must have been a clash between followers of a Mother Goddess and some patriarchical blue-green-eyed oryans worshipping supposedly all-male Devas. It is unfounded. (More so when even the oryans are as yet unfounded.)

In the Indian situation it has never been <i>either</i> male <i>or</i> female. Most Devas are referred to as having wives. You have shlokas in the Vedas to Usha wife of Surya, for instance. The word Devi is the natural female counterpart of the word Deva.
And we can extend the situation even to neighbouring Iran. Anahita, for instance, is an ancient Persian Goddess of the Iranian Pantheon.

Even <i>were</i> I to consider the IE hypothesis, each 'IE population' has always had female and male deities like every human population except the monotheists:
Germanic people (eg. Freya), Celts (see here for male and female deities), Greeks and Romans (Jupiter, Juno for example). And I am certain the same case can be made for the various Eastern-European peoples and Russians.