I’ve been meaning to link to the recent study in Nature, “Reconstructing Indian Population History” (subscription reqd.) all week, but have been too busy (note: a document full of supplementary information is freely available here, though you need to be able to understand the way they do statistical analysis to make sense of all the charts).
As this is genetics, one would expect some comments from Razib, and indeed, one is not disappointed: here are Razib Khan’s comments on the study (see also this follow up post, where Razib creates his own plots based on the study’s data). The study gives data that relates to quite a number of different things, but the takeaway points seem to be : (1) South Indian and North Indian populations are genetically fairly mixed, and are (1a) more closely related to each other than to any other genetic/ethnic group; (2) the “Ancestral South Indian” genetic type is projected to most closely resemble a nearly extinct tribe in the Andaman Islands, the Onge (which is not to say that the Onge are themselves the “origin” of the South Indian gene pool); and (3) caste groups in the same regions of India show surprisingly high genetic difference in some cases, suggesting that caste endogamy within individual regions is a rather ancient practice.
According to Razib at least, the biggest limitation of this study is the small sample size (in the low hundreds). It seems clear that all of the conclusions being drawn from this study would be on stronger ground if they could go back and multiply the number of samples by 10.
Finally, there is a good, not overly technical synopsis of the Nature study at the Times of India: here. The TOI focuses on point (1) more than the others:
`This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide,” Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study, said at a press conference here on Thursday.
Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India.
It is probably a mistake to read too much into this study, or even to accept the co-author’s bald claim that “there is no North-South divide” (Razib points out that it’s not that there aren’t genetic differences between North and South Indians — there are — but they fall on a gradient, rather than a solid barrier). Still, the study might have implications for South Indian activists who articulate a separatist “Dravidian” agenda, as well as North Indian “Aryan Invasion” proponents, who fantasize that they are really European. The only people who are really genetically “pure” on the Indian subcontinent are, it appears, the Onge.
CORRECTION: I did NOT mean the Pazyryk Culture, but instead, the Andronova Culture. The location (55N, 55E) is correct.
How is it that people like the mainland Chinese aren’t so retarded like the lame “oh I’m not really Indian” Indians? All those European, even Arab, Jew, wanna-bes. How were they able to maintain being proud of being Chinese even though they too had it bad with European colonialism (though not in the same way as Indians)?
Don’t those oh so proud “oh I’m not really Indian” Indians realize what they tend to achieve is contempt in the eyes of Indians who are perfectly happy being just Indian, and non-Indians whom they pathetically try to ingratiate themselves to still don’t see them as really European, Arab or Jewish, or whatever the heck race they in their inferiority complex believe is superior to Indian? At best for those who subscribe to this racial hierarchy and are on top of it, the not-really-Indian Indians are still inferior. There is also something repulsive about a person with an inferiority complex who wants to be desperately in with you.
Agree that colonialism has a major part to play in the depression of self-regard together with the effect of mass media with their recycling of Teutonic templates for quick selling of soaps, liquor and lingerie. I kind of like East Asian advertisements that have begun appearing on Indian TV recently. This fixation with racial superiority seems to be a cyclic thing has becomes a major global problem at the start of every new century. The largest number of Neo-Nazi skinheads are in Slavic Russia. Heinrich Himmler surely wouldn’t believe that the SS succeeded on the Ostfront after all.
What all these Indic people calling themselves SCYTHIAN must realize is the Pashtun racists treat you with just as much scorn as you pass down to the “Madrassis”. And these same Pashtun refugees living in Germany are attacked by NDP (German Neo-Nazi party) activists as “Blacks”. In Russia, the Skinheads attack Caucasians – native to Chechenya and other parts of Central Asia, and these people are WAY more white looking than the most “Aryan” looking Indian ever will be. Sp the trouble with racial differentiation and sneering pride based on it is that it is usually the last resort of people desperate to fit into a narrative that goes like: ‘If I will never become the MAN, atleast I would be the MAN’s MAN’ If you really have any substantial ambition or a sense of manifest destiny like the Han Chinese you will never try to be an ersatz version of something else but would rather fit in with your own lot with pride.
Ah yes, the hierarchical
chocolatechampagne fountain of skin color. But what’s so surprising about it? We’ve known about the supremacy of the albinos for a long time now.There are albinos in every ethnic group. That is different. Here are Indian albinos Albino Indians http://www.galeriehilanehvonkories.de/assets/images/deffner/white-too-white/veroeffentlichungen/large/magazin04.jpg
Did no one else think this was the most interesting and consequential part? Maybe it’s just because I have at least one such condition and blame the moronicism of that endogamy.
Anyway, Kush Tandon, thanks for posting that abstract- it seems to convey the opposite message from Amardeep’s title.
Did they really only use people from within the modern Indian nation-state? I find that somewhat self-defeating, and a bit depressing – it would have made much more sense to have included Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, at minimum, if not people from several other countries as well.
Boston Mahesh (#26)
I think most Kashmiri’s are acutely aware that they are not of European origin. They certainly know they are closer to Iranian/ central asians than Europeans. So, your criticism is slightly misdirected. KPs certainly have a superiority complex, that is largely cultural – as in they consider themselves to be the best kind of Brahmins, blah blah. Also, because of quite different cultural environment there, to this day the older Kashmiri aunties call rest of north India as Hindustan and quite frequently look down upon north Indians as uncultured Hindustanis. Surprisingly though, they have a more equitable perspective towards some South Indians, race be damned, because they are also unadulterated brahmins 🙂
Black Godmen wrote:
I thought the correct solution involved starting a bunch of investment banks…
I am not sure what some of you guys are blaberring about, Indians tracing their origins outside the country. As a Mara Tamizhan, I believe my ancestors have always been in Tamil Nadu and Tamizh originated there even before dirt and stones (kalthondra, manthondra kaalathirkku munbu) came into being. I believe my ancestors are the ancestors of the Ancestral South Indian (who are these people?). So there, top that you other Indians.
What do these Tamizh words mean: “kalthondra, manthondra kaalathirkku munbu” and what is a “mara Tamizh”?
Did they really only use people from within the modern Indian nation-state? I find that somewhat self-defeating, and a bit depressing – it would have made much more sense to have included Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, at minimum, if not people from several other countries as well.
the supplements use the HGDP samples from pakistan. the choice of samples has less to do with the bias of researchers than the fact that of some these nations haven’t allowed samples to get out. that’s why the “south asians” in the HGDP data set were all from pakistan, the indian gov. apparently blocked the project from sampling their populations. but in any case, adding bangladesh, sri lanka, etc. doesn’t add any real information. all data i’ve seen suggests that west bengali and the people of bangladesh are basically indistinguishable genetically.
some koreans think that they are from an indigenous primate species.
I never got the obsession with wanting to be from afganistan or iran or central asia. These places are some of the most messed up backwards places on earth!
“Im so proud that my ancestors are racially so great. we come from a backwards $hith0le”
“huh?”
i mean. the middle east and central asia arent even close to being reasonably well developed. dont people make fun of these reguins for being messed up. movies like borat, etc?
The first means “before the stone age and the mud age”.
The second means “wooden Tamil person”.
one nice way to go when some dude talks about how they are of iranian or central asian or some other stock, to feel superior to other indians is then go off on a rambling diatribe about the deep seeded socio economic problems that “your people” suffer from.
one nice way to go when some dude talks about how they are of iranian or central asian or some other stock, to feel superior to other indians is then go off on a rambling diatribe about the deep seeded socio economic problems that “your people” suffer from.
perhaps one not so nice way to respond is to suggest to those who are a bit too invested in racial/ethnic pride express these ticks because of lack of personal pride & achievement. ie., those who haven’t just try to free ride off purported collective accomplishments or status. (eg, random people you meet who claim some distant descent from royalty are another case in point)
even if you are trying to get some glory from shared ancestry and collective accomplishments… I just dont see how afganistan, the middle east, and central asia will do it for them. Its not like those places are rocking places, where you can take collective glory from. No one looks to iran and afganistan as lands of accomplishment and glory. They are pretty messed up places.
if you take a look at progress made in education and development in india, vs afganistan, it seems like a no brainer to me. It seems much easier ot take pride in teh collective accomplishments of india than afganistan any day of the week.
“Since my ancestors arents really indian, but from afganistan, i clearly have the ability to export heroine better than you…”
Puli wrote:
Uh-oh. Superiority complex alert!
Here’s a listing of countries by HDI:
Kazakhstan: 0.804 Iran: 0.782 Turkmenistan: 0.739 Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan: 0.710 Tajikistan: 0.688 India: 0.612
Puli wrote:
Have you forgotten about Slumdog Millionaire already?
well.. I dont think india is some shining example of development. but neither are these places.
“i live in underdeveloped country A. I am clearly better than the ppl around me because my ancestors are from udnerdeveloped country B”
I personally think ppl are created equal, but when you start playing the game of racial superiority, you end up making statements like the one above…
slumdog millionaire doesnt exactly make fun of poverty as such.
or “Tamil wood”. the ladeez tell me it’s the best they’ve ever had.
tam-brahm, thank you maam!
I don think these guys point to the human development index of kazakhstan as their collective accomlpishments…
I would hope all wannabe SCYTHIANS get this kind of trimming down (In interest of their mental health)
‘Indian Neo-Nazi Skinhead’ Check the labeled picture towards the end”
http://forums.ratedesi.com/showthread.php?t=297386
“No one looks to iran and afganistan as lands of accomplishment and glory. They are pretty messed up places.”
I think you guys are missing on a big point here… someone feeling the need to brag about external ancestry from somewhere else:
a.) obviously wouldn’t be from the MODERN countries there now. (I think Afghanistan had some cool stuff going on at some point in History, no?) b.) probably has a lot to do the modern day Indian preference for lighter skin. (yo,yo,yo, I’m a bit lighter, ain’t that cool?)
KNT that Indian guy is just a little further down the racial nuttiness of all the other inferiority complexed not-Indian Indians. A superiority complex displayed by such people is really a mask for their inferiority complex. Oh please accept me I’m white just like you, really I am! What pathetic drivel. White folk can have those idiots. Hit the road Jack(ass). There are plenty of Indians happy to be Indians.
truth stranger ficton
Hahaha…I saw a pic of that Indian-Nazi-wannabe. He epitomizes the racial inferiority that many of us have. His rhetoric was identical to many Indians. Here are two different Brahmin communities of India, and how they view themselves. In a nutshell, the two communities have written about themselves on Wikipedia, and the two communities that I’ve singled out are Chitpavan Brahmins and the Nagar Brahmins.
The Chitpavan Brahmins’ entry in Wikipedia states that they are “Berber”, “mixed with Greek”, and they settled in Yemen for some time (kind of like Bin Laden’s family). Oh yes: Chitpavan Brahmins have “lighter blond shade” hair – like Pamela Anderson (the object of Borat’s desires).
The Nagar Brahmins migrated from “Greece, Macedonia, Syria”, Southern Europe, or even Central Asia. One “famous historian” claims that they are from “Greece, Macedonia, [or] Syria.”
About Chitpavan Brahmins, they believe “that race of Chitpvans is “Berber†(mixed race of Indian and Greek).Story is,a group of local Brahmins migrated to Egypt from Konkan coast in around 2 nd century AD and intermarried with Greeks, North African black colored people who at that time colonized the Egypt around Nile river, however these people kept knowledge of Sanskrit and Smart Shaiv religion alive for centuries. After conquest of Egypt by Arabs these “Jyiptaan†people moved to “Sokotra†island near Yemen and later moved to Dapoli Tahsil in Konkan in 7th century, Marathi Translation of this book is available at royal Asiatic library Mumbai and Bharat Itihas sanshodhan Manadal Pune (with different name as “Saraswati Mandal”, 1885)”
Appearance of Chitpavan Brahmins In olden days, common description given to chitpavan brahmins was “Chitpavan Brahmin folks are easily recognised by the certain characteristics (they are only indicative and not exclusive). They are mostly fair skinned and may have light coloured eyes (blue,green, grey). Straight sharp nose with distinctive jawline is another feature.Soft, radiant glowing skin. Hair colour can tend towards lighter blonde shade.”
About Nagar Brahmins: “Historians claim the origin of Nagars to be purely Aryan, having come to India from Southern Europe and Central Asia[citation needed]. They migrated through the Hindu Kush to either Trivishtapa or Tibet; later through Kashmir (Kashmir is Central Asia and its original borders are close to Tajikistan) and settled around Kurukshetra. A famous historian from Junagadh and a well known Nagar Shri Shambhuprasad Desai had mentioned in his book about the history of Nagars that Nagars first came from Greece, Macedonia, Syria or regions surrounding these places. There is a Nagar ground near Jordan and Israel. Besides, there is a place called Nagar. Also there is also a Nagar community in Iran. They might have come from there first to Kangda (old NAGARKOT) of Himalayas. “NAG” means a mountain and “NAAG” means persons living in mountain region. “R” is a word of sixth tense. All these three put together becomes ” NAAGARA ” This leads us to believe that Nagars must be living in the beginning in the regions surrounded by mountains. (Nagar – a man protected by NAG-a mountain)”
truth stranger ficton again
According to Wikipedia, the Onge have a population of only 90some people, total. With such a small sample size, I wonder how much can be really determined regarding the closeness of their genetic information to “South India” which is, by definition, a very large and relatively heterogenous mix of culture(s).
, I wonder how much can be really determined regarding the closeness of their genetic information to “South India” which is, by definition, a very large and relatively heterogenous mix of culture(s).
a lot, really. for the narrow questions being asked in these sorts of papers even small sample sizes can give you robust answers. they sampled tribal, low, middle and high caste populations from south india. the representativeness is not ideal, but it isn’t that bad. especially since there are plenty of previous papers which point in the general direction elucidated here.
i’ve uploaded the paper here: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/indiapaper.pdf
so you should really read it so you can make comments informed 😉
So doesn’t this study basically just prove what is pretty obvious to almost everyone? That Indians are primarily a mix of Dravidian and Iranian-type genes, with a bit more Dravidian in the south and a bit more Iranian in the northwest? Doesn’t seem controversial at all.
LOL at the Indian nazi wannabe, to the Stormfront crowd he is always gonna be a “mud”. What a douche, hating his own and desperately seeking the approval of those who would happily knife him.
81 – Eurasian Sensation
Exactly. The whole study is so obvious that its pretty much in the yawn category.
What is much more interesting is the bizarro genealogies of the type boston_mahesh has researched and that one finds in conversation with lots of indian people. Peculiar beliefs that people are “pure aryan” or that they are descended from some very powerful but non-india group. And who can forget the khalistani belief that they were all from somewhere else vs. being black hindu monkeys?
So where do these narratives come from? Are they recent inventions – a response to european racism and brit imperialism – or do they have a longer history? There is also a background issue of the muslim invasions of 1000-1200 wherein racism propagated by an invading group was also an issue (the preferred term for indians was crows amd the writings are full of derisive talk).
I dont recall anything in the puranic or buddhist literature that makes this sort of claim. The Buddha was happily described as a prince from some little indian/nepali kingdom. The pandavas dont claim to be from sweden or anything like that. Sri Rama is perfectly happy to be from Ayodhya, and to this day royal families in Thailand, Cambodia, Korea are happy to advertize their connection to Ayodhya.
Anyone who has actually analyzed this psycho-history and its origins?
82 · Al beruni on October 6, 2009 10:30 AM · Direct link Anyone who has actually analyzed this psycho-history and its origins?
Apparently, a “famous historian from Junagadh” analyzed this data, and ascertained that the Nagars had “light blond hair” and “blue or green eyes.” Oh yes, they were from Central Asia, Southern Europe, Egypt, Berber areas (i.e. Libya, Morocco, Algeria, or Tunisia), or even Macedonia, Syria, Israel, or Jordan.
My point was – when did this nonsense begin – and what was the original motivation? I understand that there are various self-styled jati historians who are propagating this bakwaas.
Who was the first one? And why did he think this was a good idea?
Not sure if there is a single source for these ideas.
On an ancillary note, here’s a court case which actually led to US citizenships being revoked, during a time when you could only be of European / Caucasian descent to become a naturalized citizen – this Punjabi Sikh stated he was technically Caucasian / Aryan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
GurMando: I don’t blame Thind for doing that 100 yrs ago. I doubt he prized the classification due to the same inferiority complex behind the desi skinhead,he was just looking to stay in the US and was exploiting the (incorrect) “science” of the time. It was probably like “you need me to be caucasian to stay? Well, dress me in a sweater vest and call me St.John Clive the 3rd”
I concur – I just posted it as an interesting reference.
Finally, a reason to vote for the Repubs. My vote for Prez in 2012 goes to George Allen. Clearly, he has the best resume to deal with Ahmedinejad, since they clearly seem to be separated at birth.
Who was the first one? And why did he think this was a good idea?
i’m really curious about this too. the muslim period might be a good candidate because this is a group which famously not only did not get absorbed into the indian cultural matrix, but managed to “flip” a substantial number of indians (termed “hindus”) to their own identity. the contrast with china is interesting, because all the barbarian groups were absorbed, and the muslim minority (which is about 90% genetically han chinese now) is very small. the tang dynasty, arguably china’s most glorious indigenous one, was actually of part-barbarian origin. but they tended to deemphasize this by the second 2/3 of their ascendancy, creating a fictitious lineage from lao tzi. in contrast, there are stories of european royal families making up stuff like that they are descended from the house of david or the trojans once they accepted roman christian civilization.
So doesn’t this study basically just prove what is pretty obvious to almost everyone? That Indians are primarily a mix of Dravidian and Iranian-type genes, with a bit more Dravidian in the south and a bit more Iranian in the northwest? Doesn’t seem controversial at all.
it’s a bit more complicated than that. if you read the paper and the press release it seems to be that the authors actually disagree, at least in public, who the “ancestral north indians” were. my own bet is that the dominant component of “ancestral north indians” can not be the indo-aryans, and that they are a later overlay upon an earlier population, which possibly spoke dravidian, which came in from the north. the “ancestral south indians” have a deeper time origin in the indian subcontinent, perhaps from the original colonization “out of african.” like the pygmies in south africa their original languages may have been lost. but i have to do a few “back of the envelopes” before i’m confident, though the crux is that how plausible is that tribal indian groups would be 40% indo-aryan in origin if you believe that the ancestral north indiansare indo-aryan? (e.g., how much gene flow per generation is required, and is this plausible, especially since circumstantial evident suggests that ancestral north indian is more “male mediated” in how it was moved around between indian groups).
i don’t plan to blog about this topic in the near future, but i’ve been asked to talk about this on bloggingheads.tv for the 17th, so if anyone is curious what i think by then tune in (though the first topic is ardipithecus, and there’s a small chance that we won’t get to brown genes, since it is a big story).
One other things, Mutineers, if you watch any cartoons in India today, all or most of the characters (or all the protagonists) are blue-eyed and brown-haired.
1. http://sandra.stahlman.com/ganesha-movie.jpg is a picture of a blue-eyed Republican Indian. 2. http://www.dollsofindia.com/dollsofindiaimages/paintings/yashoda_krishna_PH73_l.jpg is a picture of hazel-eyed Krishan with a MILF. NOTE: Krishna is supposed to mean “dark”, and I suppose that Indians have redefined “dark” to mean “snowflake-colored”.
“NOTE: Krishna is supposed to mean “dark”, and I suppose that Indians have redefined “dark” to mean “snowflake-colored”. “
… but isn’t that also one of the reasons Krishna is often portrayed as blue? Divine blueness= dark, to avoid actually portraying him in dark brown tones?
Krishna is supposed to be dark, but this author meant it to mean “dark white.”
I remember sitting in on a little village school where the kids were learning a nursery rhyme describing what was supposed to be a pretty little girl that had lines like “hair that’s fair,” “eyes are blue,” “rosy cheeks” and eventually finished with “is that you?”
A pattern of that sort of thing can really do a number on a 3 year old’s self-image I imagine. Stupid Victorian era curricula. You also see a lot of the billboard’s for jewelry and saris featuring White (actually White, not just pale by Indian standards) models.
If the tribals in question were from places like Andhra or Orissa it’s not that hard to imagine a fair amount of genetic exchange between populations. If it’s not from legitimate marriages (which is primarily where caste and endogamy norms were applied) there was also prostitution (both of a formalized, accepted kind and more underground, sleazier varieties), lying with servants, concubinage, rape, and so on.
Heh. I know what you mean. It’s like how Salma Hayek and Catherine Zeta-Jones are considered dark by Euro/Western standards, and it turns out that: (a) “dark” here refers to hair and eyes, and not skin; and (b) if they were “dark”, then most desis would have to obey Planck’s Law.
But of course, a Salma Hayek of any skin color would still be as boobylicious.
BTW, tone down all the self-flagellation and pontification about colonialism and history and stuff. Skin color preference for whatever reason goes beyond desis, as seen in this high school film project about African-American kids.
If anything, it appears to be (and I’m willing to be corrected by Razib on this) a human failing, not a culture-specific one. This is not to defend a flaw of course, but to recognize it and overcome it better.
Of course, those African American kids were put upon by a dominant White culture as well. But I think the debate is really between whether you think the preference for fairness is due to a desire to be White or whether it’s more intrinsic.
There is actually a lot of pretty instructive literature on race relations in South America on that. They actually fostered immigration from Europe, particularly Ireland and Germany, in part to up the Whiteness of their populations out of worry that becoming too “negroid” would make their nations less competitive.
It’s bizarre what kinds of odd policies people end up making when they carry sensationalized versions of idle speculation by researchers too far.
I have to wonder about the self-flagellation of some of you guys. Among my closest friends are east Asians and I grew up with a perspective that Indians had a better sense of themselves then most other Asians – just superficial elements such as the uniqueness of Indian clothes, religious practices, language differences and the propensity of most Indians, not to be able to date white guys. One of my best friends is S. Korean and she’s lovely and very smart. She openly told me in college how her mother wanted her to have babies with a white guy, whereas I was confused on how to respond to nonIndians, including white guys asking me out, let alone Indians, b/c I wasn’t allowed to date. I couldn’t bring any guys home, let alone a white guy, even if he was a dr or what not.
I never considered Indians particularly white-pleasing, considering my own experiences and what I take from history. For example, many parts of the world were colonized, or hegemonized (so to speak), and many of these countries have gone thru years and years of puppet rulers, too much influence from the West. India made a lot it’s own decisions and kept the cia out, despite it heterogeneity, size of the country, language differences and ethnic differences in this massive country. Oh and how could I forget religious differences.
Having lived in East Asia I can tell you there is a lot of advertising of white people, and of course nose jobs, eye surgeries, and bleaching are huge. Indians or other South Asians have never in my mind had some sort of exclusivity to some of their individuals being self-hating. Discussion like below have come up a lot among my East Asian friends and also in my travels in East Asia
http://asiammedia.wordpress.com/
Anyways, not saying all East Asians have complexes, or Africans, or blacks, or Middle Easterners, or Jews, etc…I’ve just never viewed Indians in anyway extreme in that direction.
Why is there such bigotry against those who like self flagellation?