South Koreans may have Indian genes
SHANTANU NANDAN SHARMA
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, AUGUST 21, 2004 11:51:58 PM]
Sign into earnIndiatimes points
SEOUL: A genetic discovery in South Korea has claimed that Koreans could have an Indian ancestor 2000 years ago.
As was reported by leading South Korean newspaper Joong Ang Daily on Friday, researchers in an archaeological survey at ancient royal tomb of Gimhae in South Gyeongsang province, found some evidence to support claims that Koreans have DNA traceable to South or South East Asian ethnic groups like Indian, Malaysian or Thai.
Dr Seo Jeong-sun of Seoul National University and Kim Jong-il of Hallym University conducted the research and decoded the entire genetic code of ancient Korean remains. They have recently presented their findings at a meeting of the Korea Genome Organisation in Chuncheon, Gangwong province.
The findings have gained interests in the backdrop of the popular romantic legend of an Indian princess married to a Korean king of the Great Gaya dynasty. According to the legend, the Korean king from Southeast Korea, Kim Su-ro, married an Indian princess, Heo Hwang-ok, from the ancient Indian kingdom of Ayodhya.
The stories say that Heo travelled by ship to Korea. The Great Gaya dynasty ruled Southeast Korea till 562 AD. In fact, Heo is still a common family name in Korea.
The researchers now say that the myth could turn out to be true, according to the daily. More studies are in the offing. The genetic study at Gimhae tomb focused on the mitochondrial DNA in the human remains.
Mitochondria are cellular components that are the source of power for animal and human cells and have DNA which is passed to succeeding generations through the material line. This transmission makes such DNA valuable in studying family evolution.
In fact, it has always been assumed that Koreans are an ethnically homogeneous group that originated in Mongolia. The daily quoted Dr Kim as saying, âMore studies need to be done. But this discovery could be the beginning of identifying the Korean race.â
05-07-2005, 08:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-07-2005, 04:52 PM by dhu.)
You are right about India's size; we can certainly conclude multiple cultural trajectories, all indigineous, arising within India and projecting out. In Eden in the East, Oppenheimer points out that SEAsia was origin point for 1) Austronesian, 2) Austro-Asiatic, 3) Sino-Tibetan-Burman, and 4) Tai-Kadai. Austronesian spread East into the Pacific and Sino-Tibetan spread northwards into China. No one gets into histrionics over this much smaller property being the origin point of total 4 groups. Yet within India, Dravidian and Sanskrit are always too close for comfort, for these perennial racists. Actually the suRprising thing is not that Sankrit spread outwards but that there are only two language groups indigineous to bharatvarsh and one of those is the originator of the other.
The fact remains that not one foreign group has been able to change any fundamental aspect of India over the past ten thousand years and beyond.
Even after a thousand years of mania, mongols could hardly establish a permanent fruit stand in India, yet we see a permanent mongol-speaking mongol hungarian state right in the heart of the albino citadel europe, with Turkey whipping Greece and Armenia at regular intervals.
In the so-called europe itself, we have Basque, Pelasgian, Etruscan, Nordwestblock, Mongol-turkish-hungarian, and Uralic-Finnish-Estonian. Wave after wave of Asian horde has invaded this accursed culdesac.
Continuity of India is unbreachable and unassailable. If even the muslims could not change the language of India, what to say of some illiterate goat herding tundra albinos.
The opposition to the Saraswati evidence is typical of the the romila witzel type racist mindset. ?the contortions that they must undergo to place Saraswati in Afghanistan, Central Asia, and/or Russia are TOO PATHETIC TO MERIT OUR cONSIDERATION. Just ask them to do the same for Sindhu, Yamuna, Sutudri, etc. But the screwups will just ignore you and continue on as if nothing has happened.
As for Romila and company, never underestimate their powers of self-delusion. Actually, I do not think the picture will ever get corrected. AIT is here to stay. After all, just look at the typical Indian, he looks more or less like a wigger (white nigger) to the racist euro eyes. This mindset has now become deeply ingrained, even within India.
Oppenheimer's South-to-North dynamic operated even within Europe itself. It is becoming clearer that Europe was populated through the south via Indic population types moving thru the ME. The last of these settler groups were the gypsies.
European Journal of Human Genetics, May 2003, Volume 11, Number 5
<b>Spatial patterns of cystic fibrosis mutation spectra in European populations</b>
Oscar Lao, et al.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the most frequent severe recessive disorder in European populations. We have analyzed its mutation frequency spectrum in 94 European, North African and SW Asian populations taken from the literature. Most major mutations as well as the incidence of CF mutations showed clinals patterns as demonstrated by autocorrelogram analysis. More importantly, measures of mutation diversity did also show clinal patterns, with mutation spectra being more diverse in southern than in northern Europe. <b>This increased diversity would imply roughly a three-fold long-term effective population size in southern than in northern Europe.</b> Distances were computed among populations based on their CF mutation frequencies and compared with distances based on other genic regions. CF-based distances correlated with mtDNA but not with Y-chromosome-based distances, which may be a consequence of the relatively homogeneous CF mutation frequencies in European populations.
05-09-2005, 07:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-09-2005, 08:38 AM by dhu.)
11% of romanian population are horse-trading gypsies. That's a phenomenal identifiably indian presence right in the heart of europe (balkan area). The Jewish Population of Romania is only 5%, even though Jewish settlement precedes that of the gypsies by half a millenium (arguably). I think this strongly indicates that indian settlers were enterprising enough in whichever domain happened to fall upon them.
There are records for a group called SINDOI centered around the Black Sea and decribed explicitly as an "Indian people" by the greek historians (the so-called "Pontic Indo-Aryans"). Amazingly, one of the dominant gypsy tribes is named SINTI. Both came from Sindh/Sindhu area, their migrations forming a veritable continuum across millenia.
The Gypsies are genetically identical to Indians. Except they lack M17 (R1a1):
Studies of Bulgarian, Baltic and Vlax Roma genetics suggest that about 50% of observed Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA belong to haplogroup H and female haplogroup M, respectively; both of which are widespread across South and Central Asia. <b>The male haplogroup R1a1 is rare amongst the Roma but accounts for 50% of male Y chromosome in NW India and Pakistan.</b> The remaining genes of the Roma studied originate from Middle East or Europe. (Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:1314â1331, 2001; "Origins and Divergence of the Roma (Gypsies)" and European Journal of Human Genetics (2001) 9, 97 - 104; "Patterns of inter- and intra-group genetic diversity in the Vlax Roma as revealed by Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages".)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would suggest that R1a1 was selected out by genetic drift. for genetic drift to operate, the founder population must have been small enough and tight-knit enough. This founder group, small and inconsequential by indian standards, was indeed a phenomenal event for the indegene euros; gypsies now form 11% of the population right in the balkan heartland!!! And the jews who had arrived earlier, from closerby, and in greater numbers form only 5%.
Actually, this major european lineage (50% local admixture) was descended from an identifiable small caste in India:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:1314â1331, 2001
Origins and Divergence of the Roma (Gypsies)
...In this study, we examine the genetic structure of 14 well-defined Romani populations. Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers of different mutability were analyzed in a total of 275 individuals. ...Asian Y-chromosome haplogroup VI-68, defined by a mutation at the M82 locus, was present in all 14 populations and accounted for 44.8% of Romani Y chromosomes. Asian mtDNA-haplogroup M was also identified in all Romani populations and accounted for 26.5% of female lineages in the sample. <b>Limited diversity within these two haplogroups,</b> measured by the variation at eight short-tandem-repeat loci for the Y chromosome, and sequencing of the HVS1 for the mtDNA <b>are consistent with a small group of founders splitting from a single ethnic population in the Indian subcontinent.</b> Principal-components analysis and analysis of molecular variance indicate that genetic structure in extant endogamous Romani populations has been shaped by genetic drift and differential admixture and correlates with the migrational history of the Roma in Europe. By contrast, social organization and professional group divisions appear to be the product of a more recent restitution of the caste system of India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the gypsy thing is an interesting analogy.
AIT is as truthful as saying that the gypsies invaded and conquered india because gypsy language is similar to sanskrit and there is genetic linkages between gypsies and indians.
come to think of it.. i am sure that if we were sleeping, the eurocentric "scholars" would foist that idea too on the naive indians. <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hesychius: Sindoi ethnos Indikon.
what was that?
also, what is the latest on the script of IVC. are we any closer to deciphering it?
Report in Indian express: Out of Africa, India first stop.
Surprising DDM has caught on to it. However as is to be expected it doesn't say too much about India itself focusing on "Onge and Great Andamanese tribes of Andamans".
05-16-2005, 06:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2005, 07:39 AM by dhu.)
<img src='http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/ukraine4.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Sindoi ethnos Indikon was a phrase discovered in ancient greek writings that described the sindoi/maeotae tribes dominating the area north of the black sea(aka temarunda from tamas). The unbiased translaton is 'Sindoi, an Indian tribe'. Of course, the euros have gone through umpteen linguischtick contortions to turn these indian settlers in the heart of europe into aboriginal albino sanskritists poised to invade india, just as you anticipate that they will do for the gypsies.
Here's a taste of the linguistic joker Cyril Babaev's rant:
Another interesting gloss is the Hesychius's dictionary which gives the following: Sindoi ethnos Indikon. There were many versions of interpreting this: "Sindes - a Sindic tribe", which is a nonsense, or "Sindes - a Scythian tribe" which is too far from the text and therefore doubtful. The most natural will be the translation "Sindes - an Indic tribe" which can be true....So the varying name of the tribe around the Black Sea Sindoi - Indoi, Sindikes - Indikes should not be a stumbling point for linguists - that is just an evidence of Iranian contacts with a nation called that way.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some more rant from joker babaev:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Archaeological research of the Pontic region around the Don river and some more historical evidence allow us to state that Sindes were involved in agriculture and that's why were not nomadic, as Scythians. Remains of ancient channels they built to irrigate their fields can still be seen there, and these irrigations were meant already by Roman travelers. This fact is just another proof of deep differences between Sindo-Maeotes and Scythian nomads.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Irrigation channels just happen to be the mainstay of SSVC. All the puzzle pieces fit together beautifully as soon as we admit an emigration out of India north to the Black sea. Also, we can notice the interplay betwen settled economic power and transient nomadic offshoots. The case between Indic/irano-scythian is replicated again in Sino/Tibetan. There is also the irrefutable evidence of the Kassite use of the peacock motif in the ME.
Babaev is a superstar in linguistc circles. But any average Indian can easily tear apart his pseudoarguments.
Some more evidence that caste indians are derivatives of the so-called aboriginals...
Science, Vol 308, Issue 5724, 996 , 13 May 2005
<b>Reconstructing the Origin of Andaman Islanders</b>
Kumarasamy Thangaraj,1 Gyaneshwer Chaubey,1 Toomas Kivisild,2 Alla G. Reddy,1 Vijay Kumar Singh,1 Avinash A. Rasalkar,1 Lalji Singh1*
The origin of the Andaman "Negrito" and Nicobar "Mongoloid" populations has been ambiguous. Our analyses of complete mitochondrial DNA sequences from Onges and Great Andaman populations revealed two deeply branching clades that share their most recent common ancestor in founder haplogroup M, with lineages spread among India, Africa, East Asia, New Guinea, and Australia. This distribution suggests that these two clades have likely survived in genetic isolation since the initial settlement of the islands during an out-of-Africa migration by anatomically modern humans. In contrast, Nicobarese sequences illustrate a close genetic relationship with populations from Southeast Asia.
05-20-2005, 07:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2005, 08:07 AM by dhu.)
Science, Vol 308, Issue 5724, 1034-1036 , 13 May 2005
<b>Single, Rapid Coastal Settlement of Asia Revealed by Analysis of
Complete Mitochondrial Genomes</b>
Vincent Macaulay, Stephen Oppenheimer, Martin Richards, et al
A recent dispersal of modern humans out of Africa is now widely accepted, but the routes taken across Eurasia are still disputed. We show that mitochondrial DNA variation in isolated "relict" populations in southeast Asia supports the view that there was only a single dispersal from Africa, most likely via a southern coastal route, through India and onward into southeast Asia and Australasia. There was an early offshoot, leading ultimately to the settlement of the Near East and Europe, but the main dispersal from India to Australia 65,000 years ago was rapid, most likely taking only a few thousand years.
05-20-2005, 07:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2005, 07:51 AM by dhu.)
<b>Out of Africa and straight to the beach</b>
Modern humans emerged just once out of Africa - and headed straight for the beach - new genetic research suggests.
Most scientists agree that modern humans left Africa relatively recently, and it was traditionally thought that the route taken was northwards, overland into the Middle East and beyond.
But by measuring genetic variation in an isolated population in southeast Asia, Vincent Macaulay at the University of Glasgow, UK, and a team of international colleagues, conclude that the dispersal actually took a southern coastal route.
âIt looks likely that a founder population crossed the Red Sea, and spread to Australia via India and southeast Asia, taking a southern route along the coast,â says Macaulay.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) accumulates mutations over generations, so measuring differences between different human populations can estimate the time since they diverged from one another. The team analysed the mtDNA of 260 members of an isolated population living in Malaysia, called the Orang Asil. The ancestors of these people were the original inhabitants of the Malay Peninsula.
Comparisons of mtDNA between the Orang Asil and other sources from Eurasia and Australasia allowed Macaulayâs team to calculate that the first humans arrived in Malaysia around 65,000 years ago. At this time, the northern route out of Africa from the Sinai Peninsula across northern Arabia to the Indian Ocean was blocked by a desert, which early humans would have found almost impossible to cross.
âThe southern route has been seen as just another route taken by anatomically modern humans out of Africa,â says Macaulay. âBut we are proposing that it is the only route required to explain the mtDNA evidence.â
<b>After reaching Malaysia, a group that would eventually settle Europe branched away,</b> but the main dispersal group made a speedy onward journey to Australia, reaching it only a few thousand years later.
The work clears up a question that has long troubled anthropologists: how did modern humans from Africa populate distant Australia long before nearby Europe? The oldest human remains in Australia date from 46,000 to 50,000 years ago, fitting neatly with the new genetics data.
The oldest European human remains, however, consist of an adult maleâs jawbone, discovered in Romania and dated to between 34,000 and 36,000 years old.
âIf the migrants had taken the northern route by looping northwards to Turkey to avoid the desert, then the question arises why they did not continue to Europe as well and leave ancient finds there,â says Peter Forster of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge, UK. âBy default, the southern route makes more ecological sense.â
The southern coastal route might have made more culinary sense, too. âThe change to the incorporation of shellfish in the human diet [suggested by earlier research] may have made the coastal route attractive,â says Macaulay. âItâs even possible that the motivation for expanding eastwards was declining fish stocks in the Red Sea at the time of the glacial maximum, around 70,000 years ago.â
Journal source: Science (vol 308, p 1034)
<b>Early African migrants made eastward exit</b>
by Michael Hopkin
Travellers hugged the coast as they wandered the world.
DNA from the Orang Asli people suggests they reached Malaysia by a coastal route.
The first modern humans to emigrate from Africa may have done so by sticking to the coast.
Analysis of surviving aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia suggest that they arose from a single wave of migrants who left the Horn of Africa more than 65,000 years ago. By following the coasts, say the authors of the new analyses, early humans may have been able to colonize the globe with remarkable speed - reaching far-flung lands such as Australia within just a few thousand years.
Most experts agree that modern humans arose in Africa before spreading throughout the world. But while archaeological evidence suggests that humans moved north into Egypt and the Middle East, climate records show that this region was an inhospitable desert until 50,000 years ago, making this an unlikely choice of route.
Journeying east around the coastlines of Somalia and eventually India would have been one alternative, says Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow, UK. "It wouldn't have been difficult to live on the coast," he says. "In fact, it would have been quite appealing."
Macaulay and his colleagues tested this idea by studying DNA from the Orang Asli people in Malaysia, who are not thought to have interbred with other groups. "We're interested in working out who the first people to move out of Africa were, so the obvious people to sample are indigenous ones," he explains.
The researchers collected cheek-swab samples from 260 Orang Asli tribespeople, and analysed their mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down unaltered from mother to child. They then compared this with mitochondrial DNA from other populations - the difference between them reflects the time since the groups diverged.
I'm not yet convinced that there was one small rapid exit.
Another research group, led by Lalji Singh of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, India, carried out similar tests on indigenous people living on the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean.
<b>By comparing these with data on mitochondrial DNA from other populations in the region, the researchers conclude that the two populations are descended from a single group of people, containing perhaps 600 females of reproductive age, who lived in India around 65,000 years ago.</b> The studies are reported in this week's issue of Science1,2.
The authors suggest that if the Andaman and Orang Asli people travelled by a circuitous inland route, they could not have stayed so closely related to the original Indian population.
If humans tended to migrate along coasts, it might explain how they moved so quickly, Macaulay suggests. The earliest human remains found in Australasia are some 60,000 years old, which means the early pioneers must have averaged several kilometres a year.
Being confined to coastlines, where there is limited space to expand, might have meant that settlers used up their resources more quickly and were then forced to move on, Macaulay says. What's more, if sea levels have risen since then, many archaeological remains may now be under the sea floor, which could why most remains have been found inland.
The fact that these tribes are related to a single small population suggests that humans emigrated from Africa only once, adds Philip Endicott, who studies human migrations at the University of Oxford, UK. But he cautions that mitochondrial DNA does not provide very accurate timing, because it is smaller than the overall human genome and so is more susceptible to mutational quirks.
"I'm not yet convinced that there was one small, rapid exit - I'm not sure that's the whole story," adds Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London. "But the coastal route is plausible."
Macaulay and his team now plan to sample more populations from India and Arabia, and to look at other genetic markers besides mitochondrial DNA, to add more weight to the theory.
.. the various peoples and colonies thought to be left over from that first great trek along the coastline of the Indian Ocean.Â As always, what is most important to bear in mind is that the genetic tree tells us this was not an earlier out-of-Africa venture, as has been thought by some archaeologists and paleontologists.Â It was the vanguard of colonization of the Old World. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there any info regarding Tribes from Bastar and central India? Are they part of direct linage from Africa or came into existence after great winter.
05-22-2005, 07:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2005, 07:11 AM by dhu.)
No, there is no mention of chattisgarh area tribes or the Kols and Bhils in MP/Guj. I would think Oppenheimer would class them as recent immigrants from the East and not as relict populations.
The populations in India and SriLanka considered as beachcomber relicts (proto-australoid) are te Korava, Yanadi, Irula, Gadaba, Chenchu, and Vedda. Also mentioned are the Makrani Negroid group at the mouth of the Indus (with recent african slave-trade admixture) and the Negroid Kadar and Paniyan (recent African admixture is less likely??). Also the Jarawa and Onge andthe greater Andamanese are a relict population. (p 159)
The Semang are a relict population in Malay peninsula. (p 159) And the Nicobarese are a relict population who emigrated from the Malay area 18,000 years ago (from memory)
The great winter was not only for India but also for Northern Asia, where an Ice Age was precipitated.
Obviously, it was not a complete extinction as we have the genetic evidence of the surviving proto-autraloids amongst us. We are the descendants of these surviving groups. and rest of asia ( except SE and East Asia ) are descendants from us.
Oppenheimer's resolution goes down to 10,000 BC as the last indian settlers trekking north and west.
There was one vanguard group into India and multiple waves out of India.
I am waiting for some indologist or IE studies joker to come here and debate me.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am waiting for some indologist or IE studies joker to come here and debate me. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that would be the day..when AIT proponent can actually debate based on evidences.
the witzel crowd is strangely silent.
i was half-expecting an attack on oppenheimer like the rajaram_is_a_fraud attack.
05-22-2005, 08:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2005, 08:33 AM by dhu.)
The Ist part of Oppenheimer's story which has not received as much attention:
<img src='http://www.exoticindiaart.com/artimages/ll19.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
This is a tibetan buddhist thousand knot motif. Oppenheimer traces its ultimate origins to SE Asia. Oppenheimer basically proves that the similar celtic motifs must have come originally from a SEAsian source settling in coastal europe.
<img src='http://www.nationalgeographic.com/tattoos/popups/maori_cross.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://gaytravelhawaii.com/oahu/maori_face_tattoo.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
05-22-2005, 08:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2005, 09:05 AM by dhu.)
<img src='http://www.pienternet.be/archief/nieuwsbrief/images/december2002_16.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.tanahaka.de/pics/moko.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~tonyf/explore/maori.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
the entire celtic cultural complex can be traced to SE Asia:
05-22-2005, 08:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-22-2005, 08:55 AM by dhu.)
neck ring from austronesia -
<img src='http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/torc.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
neck ring from gundestrop cauldron -
<img src='http://asiapacificuniverse.com/a2/cerrunos.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
can u throw some light on the connection between druids and the vedics? what is the time period and is there any other cultures other than the celts and gauls who were influenced by the druids?
are there any druid descendants today? why did they disappear? purges by christian churches?