Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
South Asian Indians are a mixture of Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Australoids
Topic Started: Dec 10 2009, 11:37 PM (16,339 Views)
Racial Awareness
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *  *
The Population Genetic Structure of India: What race are the people of India?

According to the traditional physical anthropological point of view, the Indo-Aryan people of northern India were considered to be members of the Caucasoid race, albeit on its outermost peripheries; on the other hand, the peoples of southern India were seen as belonging to both an indigenous and biologically distinct Indo-Dravidian race, also variously known by anthropologists as Veddoid, Australoid, or Palaeo-Indid. Although there existed visible Australoid influence in terms of dark pigmentation and hair coloration amongst northern Indians due to a subcontinental gradient of miscegenation, it was argued that in terms of cranio-facial structure and limb proportions, they were metrically Caucasoid and of Indo-European origin (based on the available linguistic/philological evidence). In the same manner, it was also argued by a number of late nineteenth and twentieth century anthropologists, that the peoples of the Horn of Africa, such as Somalis and Ethiopians, were substantially Caucasoid in terms of racial stock; for example, the great American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon argued that North eastern Africans were only partially of Mediterranean origin, with some individuals being of full Caucasoid race. However, despite Negroid influence in terms of skin pigmentation and hair texture, these North eastern African tribes also possessed cranio-facial features and body limb proportions similar to those of other Indo-European and Semitic peoples, meaning that many of these people could be classified as members of the Mediterranean sub-race. In The Races of Europe (1939), Coon writes, in a section entitled “The Mediterranean Race in East Africa”:

It may be well to state that all of the peoples of this “Hamitic” area, whether Hamitic or Semitic in speech, represent a blend in varying proportions between Mediterraneans of several varieties, especially of the tall, Atlanto-Mediterranean group, and negroes. Other elements include, of course, the Veddoid brought in solution from southern Arabia; there is also a possibility of traces of dilute pygmy and Bushman blood in southwestern Ethiopia and Somaliland, although neither of these has been proved. Needless to say, the Gallas and Amharas have mixed with each other greatly in the regions in which they have been in contact; both the Amharas and Gallas have absorbed the earlier Cushitic agricultural peoples in great numbers. The most important single influence has been the infiltration of negroes, through the slave trade, into the entire Ethiopian plateau region. So extensive has this infiltration been that it is unlikely that a single genetic line in the entire Horn of Africa is completely free from negroid admixture; but individuals may be found among the Amharas, Gallas, and Somalis who show no visible signs of negro blood. These individuals are extremely rare. On the whole the negroid element in the Hamitic cannot be much more than one-fourth of the whole, but it has penetrated every ethnic group and every social level. Just when this penetration had become complete we do not know, but one suspects that it had already occurred by the sixth century A.D., when the Ethiopians ruled the Yemen. The Gallas, despite their tradition of descent from white men, were already partly negroid at the time of their arrival in Ethiopia.


Coon also argued that northern Indians were also partially of Mediterranean Caucasoid race, with strong Veddoid or Australoid affinities. In 1958, Coon wrote:

Our area, from Morocco to Afghanistan, is the homeland and cradle of the Mediterranean race. Mediterraneans are found also in Spain, Portugal, most of Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean islands, and in all these places, as in the Middle East, they form the major genetic element in the local populations. In a dark-skinned and finer-boned form they are also found as the major population element in Pakistan and northern India.

As to the specific racial affiliation of South Asian populations, Coon remained uncertain, as this 1962 passage from his writings demonstrates:

[T]he racial history of southern Asia has not yet been thoroughly worked out, and it is too early to postulate what these relationships may be... shall leave the problems of Indian physical anthropology in the competent hands of Guha and of Bowles.

Nevertheless, the latest evidence of modern genetic research indicates that the peoples of both north and south India are of mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid racial ancestry, consisting of an autochthonous sub-Gangetic base which has been gradually combined, through a series of population expansions and the historical migrations of various immigrants, with west Eurasian and East Asian elements.

In the The history and geography of human genes (1994), Cavalli-Sforza et. al. argued that the peoples of the Indian subcontinent were genetically Caucasian, with some Australoid-Negrito admixture; he determined that they were about three times closer to western Europeans than to east Asians. This was directly challenged by Kivisild et. al. (2000), who argued that although the admixture studies and genetic distance trees based on classical genetic markers of Cavalli-Sforza et. al. had previously ascertained the underlying Caucasoid genetic structure of the peoples of the Indian sub-continent, the complete absence of mtDNA macrohaplogroup M amongst Europeans, a series of lineages which comprise over 60% of Indian mtDNA (Thangaraj et. al., 2006), contradict the notion that Indians should be classified as members of the Caucasoid race. However, it must be noted that Indians do share mtDNA U and R1a1 in common with Western European populations; another lineage, Y-DNA haplogroup L, is shared by Indians with other Central Asian populations, but is found in very low frequencies amongst European Mediterranean populations. According to Kivisild et. al. (An Indian Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond, 2000):

The absence of haplogroup M in Europeans, compared to its equally high frequency among Indians,eastern Asians and in some Central Asian populations is inconsistent with the 'general Caucasoidness' of Indians. Any relationship between Indians and 'Caucasoids' must therefore be based on qualitative and quantitative data on genetic markers common to Europeans and Indians.

Bamshad et. al. (2002), in Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership, indicated that after genotyping at least 100 Alu polymorphisms in southern Indian caste populations, the vast majority of Indians were found to be more related to East Asians and only a small minority to Europeans in terms of underlying genetic structure. The authors of the study write:

To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.

In a 2003 study by Watkins et. al., Genetic Variation Among World Populations: Inferences From 100 Alu Insertion Polymorphisms, 100 Alu polymorphisms from 30 populations located in Africa, East Asia, Europe, and India were examined. It was determined by the authors of the study that Indians were a genetically intermediate population located between Europeans and East Asians:

A two-dimensional principal components plot of the 31 populations (Fig. 4A) demonstrates clustering of the African, E. Asian, and European populations, with the Indian caste populations located between the E. Asian and European populations (as in the network in Fig. 3).

Cordaux et. al. (2004), in a paper entitled Independent Origins of Indian Caste and Tribal Paternal Lineages, examined both Y-chromosomal variation in both Indian castes and tribal populations. They found that upper caste Indians are similar genetically to west Eurasians, but that lower caste Indians have more in common with (central and east) Asians:

The evidence shows that Y chromosome admixture was limited in north Indian caste groups and more pronounced in south caste groups. A possible explanation for nous this geographic discrepancy is that the caste system comprised four classes in north India, whereas a fifth class was introduced in south India to integrate local people (those formerly called “untouchables”) in the caste system. This view finds support in that in south India, lower caste groups are more similar to Asians, whereas higher caste groups are more similar to west Eurasians.

This has also been confirmed by the recent Watkins et. al. (2008) study , Genetic variation in South Indian castes: evidence from Y-chromosome, mitochondrial, and autosomal polymorphisms, which examined Y-chromosomal SNPs, mtDNA, and autosomal STRs in Tamil caste populations. In terms of autosomal STRs, higher Tamil castes showed greater genetic affinity to Europeans than lower Tamil castes. The study also affirmed that in terms of Y-DNA, the southern Indians were more similar to Europeans than East Asians, whereas in terms of mtDNA, they were more similar to East Asians than Europeans:

For 32 lineage-defining Y-chromosome SNPs, Tamil castes show higher affinity to Europeans than to eastern Asians, and genetic distance estimates to the Europeans are ordered by caste rank. For 32 lineage-defining mitochondrial SNPs and hypervariable sequence (HVS) 1, Tamil castes have higher affinity to eastern Asians than to Europeans. For 45 autosomal STRs, upper and middle rank castes show higher affinity to Europeans than do lower rank castes from either Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh.

In a study conducted by Yang et. al. (Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers, 2005), it was argued on the basis of a few hundred ancestry informative markers (AIMS) that had been analyzed using a Bayesian clustering algorithm (STRUCTURE), that South Asians (people from the Indian sub-continent) are a racially admixed population who are much closer genetically to Europeans than Asians:

At k = 4, the South Asian subjects appear to be an admixed population with the major contribution from cluster 1 (predominant in European Americans) and a minor contribution from cluster 4 (predominant in East Asians).

Another 2005 study, Large-scale SNP analysis reveals clustered and continuous patterns of human genetic variation, conducted by Shriver et. al., examined over 11, 000 single nucleotide polymorphisms in 12 different human populations. They determined that there had been continuous gene flow between both South Asians and Altaians, a Siberian Mongoloid people, however upper caste Indians were determined as being much closer genetically to Spaniards than Indians of lower caste:

In addition to the Burunge, the South Asian Indians and the Altaians have relatively short population-specific branches, consistent with gene flow between these groups and other populations. ... Notable are the near separation of the Indian sample into lower and upper caste, with the upper caste individuals positioned closer to the Spanish.

In a 2006 study conducted by Rosenberg et. al., Low Levels of Genetic Divergence across Geographically and Linguistically Diverse Populations from India, over 1,200 genome-wide polymorphisms amongst Indian immigrants living in the USA. In this study, Indians were much closer to Europeans than East Asians:

Comparing allele frequencies in the groups from India to those in other geographic regions, allele frequency correlation coefficients are highest for the populations previously studied in Central/South Asia, followed by those of Europe and the Middle East and of East Asia. This similarity with Europe and East Asia has been seen in smaller-scale autosomal studies that have incorporated India; however, these studies, along with one study of more markers but a smaller number of populations, have disagreed somewhat about whether the similarity of India is greater with East Asian populations, greater with European populations , or about equal between these alternatives. We found that allele frequencies in India showed detectably greater similarity to populations in Europe and the Middle East than to those in East Asia.

However, Rosenberg et. al. cautioned that their research maybe methodologically flawed and characterized by certain structural limitations:

Although our sample is likely to be reasonably representative of first-generation individuals of Indian descent currently located in the United States, such individuals likely do not provide a random sample of the source populations in India, as urban and relatively mobile populations and populations of higher caste and socioeconomic status are overrepresented among immigrants. Thus, if variables such as caste and socioeconomic status do play important roles in producing genetic structure, more genetic differentiation would certainly be expected for a sample of the same linguistic groups in India compared to what we have seen in the United States. Additionally, if higher caste is correlated with a European or western Asian component of ancestry, a sample in the United States may be biased towards finding a greater similarity of populations from India to those of the Europe/Middle East rather than to those of East Asia.

Kashyap et. al. (2006), in a paper entitled Genetic structure of Indian populations based on fifteen autosomal microsatellite loci, analyzed the microsatellite markers from 54 diverse Indian populations and noted that whereas most regions of India were homogeneous in terms of allele frequencies, being characterized by extensive racial admixture, with each population exhibiting membership in multiple clusters, considerable genetic substructuring and differentiation was detected amongst the inhabitants of north eastern and southern India. The authors of the study write:

The distribution of the most frequent allele was uniform across populations, revealing an underlying genetic similarity. Patterns of allele distribution suggestive of ethnic or geographic propinquity were discernible only in a few of the populations and was not applicable to the entire dataset while a number of the populations exhibited distinct identities evident from the occurrence of unique alleles in them. Genetic substructuring was detected among populations originating from northeastern and southern India reflective of their migrational histories and genetic isolation respectively.

The authors also affirm that traditionally, the population of India can be divided into four major ethnicities or races:

Anthropologically, the populations are grouped into four major ethnic categories, which include the Australoid, Indo-Caucasoid, Indo-Mongoloid and Negrito populations and linguistically broadly classified as Indo-European, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan speakers. The complex structure of the Indian population is attributed to incessant, historical waves of migrations into India, the earliest, by the Austric speakers around 70,000 years ago, followed by the Dravidian speakers from middle-east Asia and the Sino-Tibetan speakers from China and southeast Asia around 8000 to 10,000 years ago. The last major migration is believed to have occurred around 4000 years ago by several waves of Indo-European speakers.

That India can be divided into a number of races/ethnicities has also been confirmed by Bhasin (2006), in the study Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India: Indian Population Milieu:

India has been peopled by human groups carrying a diversity of genes and cultural traits. We have almost all the primary ethnic strains Proto-Australoid, Mediterranean, Mongoloid, Negrito and a number of composite strains. It is homeland of over 4000 Mendelian populations, of which 3700 endogamous groups are structured in the Hindu caste system as ‘jatis’.

In short, the older view that north Indians are mainly Caucasoid whereas southern Indians are mainly Australoid is incorrect. Indians, both from the north and the south, seem to be a racially admixed population with each individual genotype exhibiting membership in multiple gene clusters, albeit in varying degrees in terms of Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid admixture ratios. South Asian populations consist of an indigenous Australoid base combined with both Caucasoid and Mongoloid racial elements; Indo-Caucasoid (Indo-Aryan speakers and Coon’s hybrid Mediterranean strain) peoples tend to be concentrated in the east and west of India, Indo-Mongoloid (Tibeto-Burman speakers) seem to be concentrated in the north eastern region of the country, and Proto-Australoid/Indo-Dravidian peoples (Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian language speakers) are mostly found in the south, with peoples of full Australoid or “Negrito” origin located on the archipelagos (e.g. the Great Andamanese and Jarawa) surrounding the southern tip of the subcontinent.

To repeat, most of the major Indian populations are so racially admixed that they exhibit membership in multiple gene clusters and are therefore homogeneous genetically on a subcontinental level. Moreover, higher castes tend to be more related genetically to Europeans than lower castes, who are more related to Central and East Asians.
Edited by Racial Awareness, Dec 10 2009, 11:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mesopot
Member Avatar
Mesopot
 *  *  *
According to what I've seen on 23andme from different user profiles and their genetic makeup, this actually does seem to be true. However, I never could see the link between most Indians and East Asians or Siberians especially in appearance.
Posted Image
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.
-Rumi
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nam
Member Avatar
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Aryans were nomadic tribes, mongoloid and australoid(proto-mongoloid) dominated India and Indus Valley where they built their own civilization, and more advanced in terms of technology and culture than the aryans. For some reason their civilization weakened and aryans invaded. However, they mixed up the local before establishing caste system. The Mongols did the same on chinese people, mongols casted chinese and other mongoloid people as third class citizen, I am sure those aryans were as uncultured as mongols(surprise? huns and mongols were also aryan :lol: I have proven this). Aryans never subjagted pure mongoloids, the pure mongoloid population in northest India had never been subjected to Caste system, and Nepal had a caste system which is dominated by their own people. In India, european admixture exists over all castes, more or less similiarity does not count, they are no east asians but raped products.

I support the mongoloid indian native theory, by this theory your claim is right, however, why western caucasians dominated upper caste can be explained by multiple waves of caucasian invasion(including the mughals, which were also caucasian) while the natives had lost their population reserve since the first conquest. I do not think upper caste in India is that big deal at all, but a savage system established by predatory nomadic tribes which had inferior culture to the original natives.
If to interprete India phenomenon by my perspective: Aryan nomads against Culture natives, people would be hurrying to disprove, it is how clownish to see some western people are wavering without regard to truth just to pursue their own pride, it is disgusting, like those fat, hypocritical, parasitic indian brahmins.. :err:

Edited by Nam, Jul 27 2011, 03:09 AM.
FucЖeveriwon
Posted Image
..maybe like sun too, as if these tiny beings loved sunlight so much, they imitated the radiating sun, created their own architecture of sun worship.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nam
Member Avatar
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Uncultured nomads had nothing to claim souvereignty so they had to impose a caste system by force in order to maintain control, so the imposition of caste system by aryans proves the cultural inferiority of the invading aryan in comparison to the natives. This case can be inferred from Mongol invasion into China, where 2 races met and each based on 2 vastly differing cultures, one nomadic and other settled and advanced, yet the mongols imposed a caste system where chinese and mongoloid people were categorized as third and fourth(the lowest), but muslims, blonds, redheads, mongols(caucasian themself) were first and second.

The roles of the culturally superior and inferior are rendered reversed by Hitlers misconception:

The invading force is not like what eurocentrists advocate as the superior, but always had been a culturally inferior force, and their rule was not collapsed throught race-mixing, but their rule was enforced by race-mixing. The false image of superior aryan culture has always been maintained by nomadism/colonialism and race-mixing, cultural breakdown, genetic infiltration, the result is ruling over a dumbed down, spiritually and culturally dismembered hordes.

It is possibly the sanskrit was based on mongoloid heritage, and 70% of hindu mythology was originally from mongoloid natives. Aryans nomads based their cultural root on victimizing a culturally advanced race in ancient India, it maybe ironic for modern western civilization that their oldest linguistic heritage was once a mongoloid land, but plundered by their nomadic ancestors.
Quote:
 
The Nagas belong to the Indo-Mongoloid family. The fourteen major Naga tribes are the Angami Naga, Ao, Chakhesang, Chang, Khiamniungan, Konyak, Lotha, Phom, Pochury, Rengma, Sangtam, Sema, Yimchunger and Zeliang. The Chakhesangs were earlier known as Eastern Angamis and are a combination of the Chakri, Khezha and Sangtam sub-tribes. Each tribe has its own specific language and culture. There is no caste system among the Nagas or anyone of the non-Naga tribes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maram_Naga


Un-mixed indo-mongoloid people are not affected by hindu caste system, this is an important historical fact that to be taken account.


Nationalist struggle against India by mongoloid nagas, unity and honor are still upheld by pure breed natives:

http://nagalim.nl/naga/history/chronology.html

Quote:
 
1958
Indian Parliament passes the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 – a re-incarnation of the much dreaded Armed Force Special Powers Ordinance 1942 of the British era. The Act provides the Indian Armed forces legal immunity to "shoot to Kill" on mere suspicion, to enter, search, arrest and detain without. Having destroyed most of the Naga villages and killed close to one hundred thousand Nagas, and rounded up thousands in 59 concentration camps built across the Naga Hills, India announced "amnesty" and asked NNC to accept "administrative autonomy". Though reeling from the impact of massive destruction of life and means of subsistence, Nagas rejected it
.


And the nagas are still fighting for racial separation:

Quote:
 
Raising a new National Resistance Organization. After the failure of the leadership of the NNC to carry on the Naga peoples struggle for self-determination, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) was formed. Under the leadership of Isak Chishi Swu, Khaplang and Th.Muivah, respectively as Chairman, Vice Chairman and General Secretary of the NSCN. They

formed a new Government, the Government of the Peoples Republic of Nagalim, GPRN.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1988
Division in NSCN: With NSCN at the leadership, National Movement once again regained respect and support of the people. But NSCN Vice President, SS. Khaplang came in for grave charges relating to his financial handling and moral behaviour. As news of his staying away from NSCN Council meetings became known, Choumai, Commander of the Kachin Army, encouraged Khaplang to take over NSCN. With large quantity of arms from India supplied through Choumai, Khaplang attacked the NSCN Council Headquarters on 30 April and killed more than sixty on the spot. He appointed himself the Chairman of NSCN. In the weeks that followed, Khaplang's followers in coordination with the Indian Army and the Burmese Army killed more than one hundred members of the national movement.

Following this abortive coup, Khaplang's group has been armed, financed and sheltered by the Indian agents and the Nagaland State Government under its Chief Minister, S.C.Jamir.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995
Meeting between the Naga representatives Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah and the Prime Minister of India, Narasimha Rao at Paris in June. Preliminary talks on a prospective peace process. India's Prime Minister's met again with Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah in September in New York, USA



Our own nationalism and racial separation are to be won by struggle.
Quote:
 

For 32 lineage-defining Y-chromosome SNPs, Tamil castes show higher affinity to Europeans than to eastern Asians, and genetic distance estimates to the Europeans are ordered by caste rank. For 32 lineage-defining mitochondrial SNPs and hypervariable sequence (HVS) 1, Tamil castes have higher affinity to eastern Asians than to Europeans. For 45 autosomal STRs, upper and middle rank castes show higher affinity to Europeans than do lower rank castes from either Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh.

In a study conducted by Yang et. al. (Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers, 2005), it was argued on the basis of a few hundred ancestry informative markers (AIMS) that had been analyzed using a Bayesian clustering algorithm (STRUCTURE), that South Asians (people from the Indian sub-continent) are a racially admixed population who are much closer genetically to Europeans than Asians
:


Usual clever propaganda by the western media, when they claim there is affinity to east asian in lower caste indians and then they claim indians are closer to europeans than east asians? As if totally disregarded the origin of the east asian affinity, and then imposing a western dominance of indian identity. More or less affinity to east asians can be explained by continued invasion from the western caucasian people, and exhaustion of native people, those who are supported by continued migration of course would gain upper hand in controlling. :rolleyes:

Ok, do not dismiss the east asian affinity never again. ;)

Quote:
 

The absence of haplogroup M in Europeans, compared to its equally high frequency among Indians,eastern Asians and in some Central Asian populations is inconsistent with the 'general Caucasoidness' of Indians. Any relationship between Indians and 'Caucasoids' must therefore be based on qualitative and quantitative data on genetic markers common to Europeans and Indians.

Bamshad et. al. (2002), in Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership, indicated that after genotyping at least 100 Alu polymorphisms in southern Indian caste populations, the vast majority of Indians were found to be more related to East Asians and only a small minority to Europeans in terms of underlying genetic structure. The authors of the study write:


To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.


It shows India was once a homeland to mongoloid people, like the Americas. :)Nice information :love: We would welcome indians to reclaim their east asian heritage.

Quote:
 
Nevertheless, the latest evidence of modern genetic research indicates that the peoples of both north and south India are of mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid racial ancestry, consisting of an autochthonous sub-Gangetic base which has been gradually combined, through a series of population expansions and the historical migrations of various immigrants, with west Eurasian and East Asian elements.


Again, clever propaganda, australoid never existed, they were proto-mongoloid, therefore we have only 2 races involved:

Western Caucasians VS East Asians

Australoid is a term coined under the biased reading by early anthropologists without refering to the genetics, in modern genetics, ancient australoids are much far closer to mongoloid than europeans.
Edited by Nam, Jul 27 2011, 06:02 AM.
FucЖeveriwon
Posted Image
..maybe like sun too, as if these tiny beings loved sunlight so much, they imitated the radiating sun, created their own architecture of sun worship.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pioneer
Full Member
 *  *  *  *
I think Australoids (Australian Aborignies, Papua New Guineans and Melanesians) are closer to Europeans than they are to Mongoloids. South Asians are genetically related to Australoids, and some Indians even look quite Australoid like Australian Aboriginies. India is the place of origin of Indo-Europeans and Australoids, so the two may be genetically most related.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inquiring Mind
Member Avatar
Dragon from the East
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
there are tribes who are caucasoid, there are tribes who are mongoloid and some are australoid......in a genetic study 24 tribes were designated as caucasoid, 23 as australoid and forgot how many as mongoloid.....you can look it up in wikipedia under australoid race
One Nation under God
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
topos
Member Avatar
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Just some remarks...

Phenotypically there are quite some Indians, especially from Southern India, who look similar to people from Thailand or Myanmar.

There are also those who look Australoid. And those who look Caucasoid.

The problem is that the population of Southern India is ancient and it is difficult to say whether it's mixture or the opposite, that is speciation. For instance, mtDNA HG M is extremely old, much older than both Mongoloid and Caucasoid. Today it is mostly dominant in Mongoloid people. But what does that say about India?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Javen
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
topos
Dec 29 2011, 07:00 PM
Just some remarks...

Phenotypically there are quite some Indians, especially from Southern India, who look similar to people from Thailand or Myanmar.

There are also those who look Australoid. And those who look Caucasoid.

The problem is that the population of Southern India is ancient and it is difficult to say whether it's mixture or the opposite, that is speciation. For instance, mtDNA HG M is extremely old, much older than both Mongoloid and Caucasoid. Today it is mostly dominant in Mongoloid people. But what does that say about India?
LOL its very easy to tell a southern indian from a mongoloid...u probably meant eastern indians
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Imperator_Cellus
Member Avatar
Junior Member
 *  *
Nam
Jul 27 2011, 04:18 AM
Uncultured nomads had nothing to claim souvereignty so they had to impose a caste system by force in order to maintain control, so the imposition of caste system by aryans proves the cultural inferiority of the invading aryan in comparison to the natives. This case can be inferred from Mongol invasion into China, where 2 races met and each based on 2 vastly differing cultures, one nomadic and other settled and advanced, yet the mongols imposed a caste system where chinese and mongoloid people were categorized as third and fourth(the lowest), but muslims, blonds, redheads, mongols(caucasian themself) were first and second.

The roles of the culturally superior and inferior are rendered reversed by Hitlers misconception:

The invading force is not like what eurocentrists advocate as the superior, but always had been a culturally inferior force, and their rule was not collapsed throught race-mixing, but their rule was enforced by race-mixing. The false image of superior aryan culture has always been maintained by nomadism/colonialism and race-mixing, cultural breakdown, genetic infiltration, the result is ruling over a dumbed down, spiritually and culturally dismembered hordes.

It is possibly the sanskrit was based on mongoloid heritage, and 70% of hindu mythology was originally from mongoloid natives. Aryans nomads based their cultural root on victimizing a culturally advanced race in ancient India, it maybe ironic for modern western civilization that their oldest linguistic heritage was once a mongoloid land, but plundered by their nomadic ancestors.
Quote:
 
The Nagas belong to the Indo-Mongoloid family. The fourteen major Naga tribes are the Angami Naga, Ao, Chakhesang, Chang, Khiamniungan, Konyak, Lotha, Phom, Pochury, Rengma, Sangtam, Sema, Yimchunger and Zeliang. The Chakhesangs were earlier known as Eastern Angamis and are a combination of the Chakri, Khezha and Sangtam sub-tribes. Each tribe has its own specific language and culture. There is no caste system among the Nagas or anyone of the non-Naga tribes


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maram_Naga


Un-mixed indo-mongoloid people are not affected by hindu caste system, this is an important historical fact that to be taken account.


Nationalist struggle against India by mongoloid nagas, unity and honor are still upheld by pure breed natives:

http://nagalim.nl/naga/history/chronology.html

Quote:
 
1958
Indian Parliament passes the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 – a re-incarnation of the much dreaded Armed Force Special Powers Ordinance 1942 of the British era. The Act provides the Indian Armed forces legal immunity to "shoot to Kill" on mere suspicion, to enter, search, arrest and detain without. Having destroyed most of the Naga villages and killed close to one hundred thousand Nagas, and rounded up thousands in 59 concentration camps built across the Naga Hills, India announced "amnesty" and asked NNC to accept "administrative autonomy". Though reeling from the impact of massive destruction of life and means of subsistence, Nagas rejected it
.


And the nagas are still fighting for racial separation:

Quote:
 
Raising a new National Resistance Organization. After the failure of the leadership of the NNC to carry on the Naga peoples struggle for self-determination, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN) was formed. Under the leadership of Isak Chishi Swu, Khaplang and Th.Muivah, respectively as Chairman, Vice Chairman and General Secretary of the NSCN. They

formed a new Government, the Government of the Peoples Republic of Nagalim, GPRN.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1988
Division in NSCN: With NSCN at the leadership, National Movement once again regained respect and support of the people. But NSCN Vice President, SS. Khaplang came in for grave charges relating to his financial handling and moral behaviour. As news of his staying away from NSCN Council meetings became known, Choumai, Commander of the Kachin Army, encouraged Khaplang to take over NSCN. With large quantity of arms from India supplied through Choumai, Khaplang attacked the NSCN Council Headquarters on 30 April and killed more than sixty on the spot. He appointed himself the Chairman of NSCN. In the weeks that followed, Khaplang's followers in coordination with the Indian Army and the Burmese Army killed more than one hundred members of the national movement.

Following this abortive coup, Khaplang's group has been armed, financed and sheltered by the Indian agents and the Nagaland State Government under its Chief Minister, S.C.Jamir.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1995
Meeting between the Naga representatives Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah and the Prime Minister of India, Narasimha Rao at Paris in June. Preliminary talks on a prospective peace process. India's Prime Minister's met again with Isak Chishi Swu and Th. Muivah in September in New York, USA



Our own nationalism and racial separation are to be won by struggle.
Quote:
 

For 32 lineage-defining Y-chromosome SNPs, Tamil castes show higher affinity to Europeans than to eastern Asians, and genetic distance estimates to the Europeans are ordered by caste rank. For 32 lineage-defining mitochondrial SNPs and hypervariable sequence (HVS) 1, Tamil castes have higher affinity to eastern Asians than to Europeans. For 45 autosomal STRs, upper and middle rank castes show higher affinity to Europeans than do lower rank castes from either Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh.

In a study conducted by Yang et. al. (Examination of ancestry and ethnic affiliation using highly informative diallelic DNA markers, 2005), it was argued on the basis of a few hundred ancestry informative markers (AIMS) that had been analyzed using a Bayesian clustering algorithm (STRUCTURE), that South Asians (people from the Indian sub-continent) are a racially admixed population who are much closer genetically to Europeans than Asians
:


Usual clever propaganda by the western media, when they claim there is affinity to east asian in lower caste indians and then they claim indians are closer to europeans than east asians? As if totally disregarded the origin of the east asian affinity, and then imposing a western dominance of indian identity. More or less affinity to east asians can be explained by continued invasion from the western caucasian people, and exhaustion of native people, those who are supported by continued migration of course would gain upper hand in controlling. :rolleyes:

Ok, do not dismiss the east asian affinity never again. ;)

Quote:
 

The absence of haplogroup M in Europeans, compared to its equally high frequency among Indians,eastern Asians and in some Central Asian populations is inconsistent with the 'general Caucasoidness' of Indians. Any relationship between Indians and 'Caucasoids' must therefore be based on qualitative and quantitative data on genetic markers common to Europeans and Indians.

Bamshad et. al. (2002), in Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership, indicated that after genotyping at least 100 Alu polymorphisms in southern Indian caste populations, the vast majority of Indians were found to be more related to East Asians and only a small minority to Europeans in terms of underlying genetic structure. The authors of the study write:


To test whether samples from India could be distinguished in an analysis of samples from all three continents, we added samples from Africa and reanalyzed the data. This time, the best estimate of K was 3, and the assignment to the correct population was >98% for samples from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, and Europe. The samples from southern India were assigned predominantly to the cluster of East Asians (84%), though some of them (16%) were assigned to the cluster containing Europeans.


It shows India was once a homeland to mongoloid people, like the Americas. :)Nice information :love: We would welcome indians to reclaim their east asian heritage.

Quote:
 
Nevertheless, the latest evidence of modern genetic research indicates that the peoples of both north and south India are of mixed Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid racial ancestry, consisting of an autochthonous sub-Gangetic base which has been gradually combined, through a series of population expansions and the historical migrations of various immigrants, with west Eurasian and East Asian elements.


Again, clever propaganda, australoid never existed, they were proto-mongoloid, therefore we have only 2 races involved:

Western Caucasians VS East Asians

Australoid is a term coined under the biased reading by early anthropologists without refering to the genetics, in modern genetics, ancient australoids are much far closer to mongoloid than europeans.
Thanks for clearing my percieved Eurocentric view but I advise you to read my threat on the Physical Anthropology page I will make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nomar34
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *  *  *  *
How much Mongoloid do Northern Indians who are mostly Caucasian average? How about the Dravadians,how much mongoloid do they average?
Javen is on my ignore list.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
A modern craniometric study finds that South Asians, including people from the Northern Gulf (Afghanistan and Iran) and Himalayas (Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet) are homogenous with the exception of the Sinhalese, a conservative group with similarities to Mesolithic populations from the Ganga valley as well as with Neolithic and Chalcolithic South Asians. The Veddas and Andamanese are within the South Asian cluster.

http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Stock/Pubs/StockLahrKulatilake(2007)SouthAsianCranialDiversity.pdf

"The above analysis points towards a general level of homogeneity among the South Asian samples, but do these cranial series show any greater affinity to other human populations, whether by common ancestry or adaptive convergence? An analysis of South Asian cranial morphology in the context of the global pattern of human variation suggests that populations of the Indian subcontinent have a relatively unique and homogenous pattern of cranial morphology (Figure 4). In this analysis (Table 7), factor one contrasts two morphologies – broad crania, with non-prognathic faces, narrow noses and relative low total height (characterizing Europeans, NE and Western Asians) with those of opposite shape (characterizing Australians and Melanesians). It is interesting to note the relative proximity of sample centroids on this axis, which demonstrates that while reasonable discrimination is observed, there is considerable overlap in sample distributions. In the distribution of regional variation on this axis, Europeans are morphologically distinct from Austalo-Melanesian groups, while cranial diversity within Africa falls intermediate between these morphological extremes (Figure 5). On the second factor, the majority of South Asian cranial series are clearly discriminated, with the exception of the small Sri Lankan Sinhalese sample, primarily on the basis of relative differences in zygomatic breadth and biasterionic breadth."


"Discriminant analyses of size standardized craniometric data from Mesolithic crania suggest that they share characteristics of morphological shape with the recent Vedda and Sinhalese groups (Figure 6). While one Mesolithic cranium is quite similar in metric dimensions to contemporary crania from the Indus and Ganga Valleys, the rest show morphological similarity to the Vedda series on the basis of greater cranial lengths and smaller orbital and maximum cranial breadths. A similar pattern of classification is found among the later Neolithic and Chalcolithic crania dating to between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago. In this case (Figure 7), the majority of crania cluster with either the Vedda or Sri Lankan series. In contrast, the Andamanese crania, while falling within the general pattern of South Asian cranial morphology, appear distinct in discriminant analyses. This could relate to a shared common ancestry followed by a founder effect and subsequent isolation among the Andamanese. Overall, these results suggest that while south Asian morphological diversity may be relatively limited today, the greater diversity observed in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic may be indicative of a process of homogenization of cranial shapes in the mainland Indian subcontinent over the last few millennia."


"Third, the population history of the subcontinent extends to the North, as Himalayan populations clearly fit within the range of morphological diversity found within South Asia, but not to the South. There appears to be greater diversity between Sri Lankan populations and the continental groups within the geographic range of current-day India, than between Indian and Himalayan populations."


"The morphological similarities among crania from the Indus and Ganga Valleys, Southern India, the Northeast Tribal populations and the Himalayas could be a reflection of the relative isolation of populations in the Indian Subcontinent subsequent to the earliest human occupation, as is suggested by genetic evidence (Kivisild et al., 2003; Metspalu et al., 2004). Alternatively, these similarities could be due to a combination of convergent evolution on the basis of similar environmental stressors and/or genetic admixture in the relatively recent past."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nam
Member Avatar
Senior Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Pioneer
Aug 6 2011, 06:26 AM
I think Australoids (Australian Aborignies, Papua New Guineans and Melanesians) are closer to Europeans than they are to Mongoloids. South Asians are genetically related to Australoids, and some Indians even look quite Australoid like Australian Aboriginies. India is the place of origin of Indo-Europeans and Australoids, so the two may be genetically most related.
Australoids form their own cluster, so do melanesians. They are a very distinct race.
FucЖeveriwon
Posted Image
..maybe like sun too, as if these tiny beings loved sunlight so much, they imitated the radiating sun, created their own architecture of sun worship.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inquiring Mind
Member Avatar
Dragon from the East
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Jan 3 2012, 10:00 AM
A modern craniometric study finds that South Asians, including people from the Northern Gulf (Afghanistan and Iran) and Himalayas (Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet) are homogenous with the exception of the Sinhalese, a conservative group with similarities to Mesolithic populations from the Ganga valley as well as with Neolithic and Chalcolithic South Asians. The Veddas and Andamanese are within the South Asian cluster.

http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Stock/Pubs/StockLahrKulatilake(2007)SouthAsianCranialDiversity.pdf

"The above analysis points towards a general level of homogeneity among the South Asian samples, but do these cranial series show any greater affinity to other human populations, whether by common ancestry or adaptive convergence? An analysis of South Asian cranial morphology in the context of the global pattern of human variation suggests that populations of the Indian subcontinent have a relatively unique and homogenous pattern of cranial morphology (Figure 4). In this analysis (Table 7), factor one contrasts two morphologies – broad crania, with non-prognathic faces, narrow noses and relative low total height (characterizing Europeans, NE and Western Asians) with those of opposite shape (characterizing Australians and Melanesians). It is interesting to note the relative proximity of sample centroids on this axis, which demonstrates that while reasonable discrimination is observed, there is considerable overlap in sample distributions. In the distribution of regional variation on this axis, Europeans are morphologically distinct from Austalo-Melanesian groups, while cranial diversity within Africa falls intermediate between these morphological extremes (Figure 5). On the second factor, the majority of South Asian cranial series are clearly discriminated, with the exception of the small Sri Lankan Sinhalese sample, primarily on the basis of relative differences in zygomatic breadth and biasterionic breadth."


"Discriminant analyses of size standardized craniometric data from Mesolithic crania suggest that they share characteristics of morphological shape with the recent Vedda and Sinhalese groups (Figure 6). While one Mesolithic cranium is quite similar in metric dimensions to contemporary crania from the Indus and Ganga Valleys, the rest show morphological similarity to the Vedda series on the basis of greater cranial lengths and smaller orbital and maximum cranial breadths. A similar pattern of classification is found among the later Neolithic and Chalcolithic crania dating to between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago. In this case (Figure 7), the majority of crania cluster with either the Vedda or Sri Lankan series. In contrast, the Andamanese crania, while falling within the general pattern of South Asian cranial morphology, appear distinct in discriminant analyses. This could relate to a shared common ancestry followed by a founder effect and subsequent isolation among the Andamanese. Overall, these results suggest that while south Asian morphological diversity may be relatively limited today, the greater diversity observed in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic may be indicative of a process of homogenization of cranial shapes in the mainland Indian subcontinent over the last few millennia."


"Third, the population history of the subcontinent extends to the North, as Himalayan populations clearly fit within the range of morphological diversity found within South Asia, but not to the South. There appears to be greater diversity between Sri Lankan populations and the continental groups within the geographic range of current-day India, than between Indian and Himalayan populations."


"The morphological similarities among crania from the Indus and Ganga Valleys, Southern India, the Northeast Tribal populations and the Himalayas could be a reflection of the relative isolation of populations in the Indian Subcontinent subsequent to the earliest human occupation, as is suggested by genetic evidence (Kivisild et al., 2003; Metspalu et al., 2004). Alternatively, these similarities could be due to a combination of convergent evolution on the basis of similar environmental stressors and/or genetic admixture in the relatively recent past."
This maybe politically good to unite all southasians, but obvisouly people from northern gulf look very different than people from himalayays for example. if you dont want to believe that all indians arent australoid you will at least see the difference between an "paki" and dalai lama?
One Nation under God
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
treopod
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Jan 3 2012, 10:00 AM
A modern craniometric study finds that South Asians, including people from the Northern Gulf (Afghanistan and Iran) and Himalayas (Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet) are homogenous with the exception of the Sinhalese, a conservative group with similarities to Mesolithic populations from the Ganga valley as well as with Neolithic and Chalcolithic South Asians. The Veddas and Andamanese are within the South Asian cluster.

http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/Members/Stock/Pubs/StockLahrKulatilake(2007)SouthAsianCranialDiversity.pdf

"The above analysis points towards a general level of homogeneity among the South Asian samples, but do these cranial series show any greater affinity to other human populations, whether by common ancestry or adaptive convergence? An analysis of South Asian cranial morphology in the context of the global pattern of human variation suggests that populations of the Indian subcontinent have a relatively unique and homogenous pattern of cranial morphology (Figure 4). In this analysis (Table 7), factor one contrasts two morphologies – broad crania, with non-prognathic faces, narrow noses and relative low total height (characterizing Europeans, NE and Western Asians) with those of opposite shape (characterizing Australians and Melanesians). It is interesting to note the relative proximity of sample centroids on this axis, which demonstrates that while reasonable discrimination is observed, there is considerable overlap in sample distributions. In the distribution of regional variation on this axis, Europeans are morphologically distinct from Austalo-Melanesian groups, while cranial diversity within Africa falls intermediate between these morphological extremes (Figure 5). On the second factor, the majority of South Asian cranial series are clearly discriminated, with the exception of the small Sri Lankan Sinhalese sample, primarily on the basis of relative differences in zygomatic breadth and biasterionic breadth."


"Discriminant analyses of size standardized craniometric data from Mesolithic crania suggest that they share characteristics of morphological shape with the recent Vedda and Sinhalese groups (Figure 6). While one Mesolithic cranium is quite similar in metric dimensions to contemporary crania from the Indus and Ganga Valleys, the rest show morphological similarity to the Vedda series on the basis of greater cranial lengths and smaller orbital and maximum cranial breadths. A similar pattern of classification is found among the later Neolithic and Chalcolithic crania dating to between 5,000 and 3,000 years ago. In this case (Figure 7), the majority of crania cluster with either the Vedda or Sri Lankan series. In contrast, the Andamanese crania, while falling within the general pattern of South Asian cranial morphology, appear distinct in discriminant analyses. This could relate to a shared common ancestry followed by a founder effect and subsequent isolation among the Andamanese. Overall, these results suggest that while south Asian morphological diversity may be relatively limited today, the greater diversity observed in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic may be indicative of a process of homogenization of cranial shapes in the mainland Indian subcontinent over the last few millennia."


"Third, the population history of the subcontinent extends to the North, as Himalayan populations clearly fit within the range of morphological diversity found within South Asia, but not to the South. There appears to be greater diversity between Sri Lankan populations and the continental groups within the geographic range of current-day India, than between Indian and Himalayan populations."


"The morphological similarities among crania from the Indus and Ganga Valleys, Southern India, the Northeast Tribal populations and the Himalayas could be a reflection of the relative isolation of populations in the Indian Subcontinent subsequent to the earliest human occupation, as is suggested by genetic evidence (Kivisild et al., 2003; Metspalu et al., 2004). Alternatively, these similarities could be due to a combination of convergent evolution on the basis of similar environmental stressors and/or genetic admixture in the relatively recent past."
there is no way that modern andamanese crania clusters with sinhalese crania, they are so different that you can easily tell that they are not related to each other at all by just looking at them, but genetics prove that they are not related as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
treopod
Jan 3 2012, 01:13 PM
there is no way that modern andamanese crania clusters with sinhalese crania, they are so different that you can easily tell that they are not related to each other at all by just looking at them, but genetics prove that they are not related as well.
If you read the text I quoted from the paper, the Sinhalese are outliers from the main South Asian cluster. Although they're nowhere near as distant from other South Asians, the Veddas, Andamanese and Northern Gulf peoples are also outliers. But only the Sinhalese are outside the cluster.

And of course people from the areas of the Northern Gulf and Himalayan sample look different because of racial clines, no ones suggesting that the South Asian group has been genetically isolated nor that all South Asians are identical, just that they're homogenous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inquiring Mind
Member Avatar
Dragon from the East
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Jan 3 2012, 05:48 PM
treopod
Jan 3 2012, 01:13 PM
there is no way that modern andamanese crania clusters with sinhalese crania, they are so different that you can easily tell that they are not related to each other at all by just looking at them, but genetics prove that they are not related as well.
If you read the text I quoted from the paper, the Sinhalese are outliers from the main South Asian cluster. Although they're nowhere near as distant from other South Asians, the Veddas, Andamanese and Northern Gulf peoples are also outliers. But only the Sinhalese are outside the cluster.

And of course people from the areas of the Northern Gulf and Himalayan sample look different because of racial clines, no ones suggesting that the South Asian group has been genetically isolated nor that all South Asians are identical, just that they're homogenous.
what does that mean "they are homogenous", they are all mixed breeds? explain yourself.
One Nation under God
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
treopod
Member Avatar
Banned
 *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Jan 3 2012, 05:48 PM
treopod
Jan 3 2012, 01:13 PM
there is no way that modern andamanese crania clusters with sinhalese crania, they are so different that you can easily tell that they are not related to each other at all by just looking at them, but genetics prove that they are not related as well.
If you read the text I quoted from the paper, the Sinhalese are outliers from the main South Asian cluster. Although they're nowhere near as distant from other South Asians, the Veddas, Andamanese and Northern Gulf peoples are also outliers. But only the Sinhalese are outside the cluster.

And of course people from the areas of the Northern Gulf and Himalayan sample look different because of racial clines, no ones suggesting that the South Asian group has been genetically isolated nor that all South Asians are identical, just that they're homogenous.
wtf? can you be more clear? are you saying sinhalese are more distant from mainland south asians based on craniometry, than andamanese and vedda are?

thats impossible, cause sinhalese have ancestry predominantly from north india, ie mostly Bengali and punjabi ancestry, mixed with tamil. only a very small minority has vedda admixture.

and andamanese people are not related at all to south asians genetically so this article doesnt make any sense if it is actually implying what you seem to say it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
newtoanthropology
Full Member
 *  *  *
What the hell does the IVC have to do with Mongoloids? Mongoloids didn't create it. The Mongoloids in India are Sino-Tibetans who migrated from China or Tibet.

The IVC is a West Asian creation. The invading Indo-Iranians were a Northern European/West Asian mixed population.

Stop spreading your propganda.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
faintsmile1992
Pro Member
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
what does that mean "they are homogenous", they are all mixed breeds? explain yourself.[/quote]

Well there was interbreeding which created a distinct South Asian cluster, so yes.

treopod
Jan 3 2012, 08:36 PM
faintsmile1992
Jan 3 2012, 05:48 PM
treopod
Jan 3 2012, 01:13 PM
there is no way that modern andamanese crania clusters with sinhalese crania, they are so different that you can easily tell that they are not related to each other at all by just looking at them, but genetics prove that they are not related as well.
If you read the text I quoted from the paper, the Sinhalese are outliers from the main South Asian cluster. Although they're nowhere near as distant from other South Asians, the Veddas, Andamanese and Northern Gulf peoples are also outliers. But only the Sinhalese are outside the cluster.

And of course people from the areas of the Northern Gulf and Himalayan sample look different because of racial clines, no ones suggesting that the South Asian group has been genetically isolated nor that all South Asians are identical, just that they're homogenous.
wtf? can you be more clear? are you saying sinhalese are more distant from mainland south asians based on craniometry, than andamanese and vedda are?


Yes, on the second factor which separates South Asians from other populations in one analysis, the Sinhalese come closest to West Asian Caucasians represented by crania from Turkey, Arabia, Israel and Iraq.

The study included a 'South India/Deccan' sample, but the only sample from Sri Lanka represents the Sinhalese and not the Tamils nor the Sri Lankan Moors.

"On the second factor, the majority of South Asian cranial series are clearly discriminated, with the exception of the small Sri Lankan Sinhalese sample, primarily on the basis of relative differences in zygomatic breadth and biasterionic breadth."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inquiring Mind
Member Avatar
Dragon from the East
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
faintsmile1992
Jan 4 2012, 11:26 AM


Well there was interbreeding which created a distinct South Asian cluster, so yes.

It contradicts most other and former craniometric studies.
about races in india http://www.athelstane.co.uk/tchodson/ind_ethn/ind_ethn.htm#q020
Edited by Inquiring Mind, Jan 4 2012, 12:02 PM.
One Nation under God
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Population Genetics · Next Topic »
Add Reply