QuoteReplyTopic: What are Indians classified as? Posted: 27-Oct-2005 at 09:23
Genetic studies don't support much Indians (or other dark peoples of
Eurasia, like Papuans or Melanesians) being more Africans than the rest
of peoples of Eurasia, Oceania or America.
It seems pretty clear that (follow the tree I posted before for
references) Humankind can be divided in African (or more precisely
sud-Saharan African) and the rest (that I will call Asian to simplify).
Some maybe 100 thousand years ago some people came out of sud-Saharan
Africa either via the Nile or crossing Bar el Mandeb or both and from
there started slowly but steadily to expand into Asia.
If you follow the Cavalli-Sfroza tree, you can see that there are two
main Asian branches (marked blue and green): one possibly followed that
coastal route to India, SE Asia and Oceania; the other followed
probably a continental route to the NE. To simplify, I'll call these
two branches South Asian and North Asian respectively.
Caucasoids (pink branch) belong to the North Asian branch but other
parallel studies seem to point to the following process: they remained
behind, probably in the Near East region, where they got mixed with a
significant ammount of African blood (about 1/3), prior to their
expansion into Europeand other regions. This may have happened c.
60-40,000 years ago.
So, in this sense, not just Indians but all Caucasoids do have a
stronger African connection than the rest of "Asians". This can't be
said of South Asians, including Australoids and others, at least as far
as I know.
While Australoids were in India before Caucasoids (Dravidians and
others) arrived massively, maybe in Paleolithic times or maybe in the
Neolithic period, it wouldn't seem as their apportantion to modern
Dravidian blood is so strong. In any case I wouldn't say that dark skin
trait is original from them but rather part of the natural variation
among Caucasoids. We are badly accustomed to think of Caucasoids as
Nordic type or other light skinned types, profuse of blondisms, but
nothing could be farther from reality: if a median type should be
selected to represent the actual variability of Caucasoids, Near
Eastern or Mediterranean populations are probably much more
representative.
yes, people of India are caucasian.
They can even be considered to have their own sub-race and are very
diverse within themselves. North-Indid/Penisular.
Uhmm how are indians Caucasian? Please explain this.
Did you see the genetic tree I posted: Indians (both types) are clearly inside the pink branch of Caucasoids.
Well, I am Dravidian so according to certain
sources I found on the internet, Dravidians are a combination of
Caucasian and Australasian. So basically we are a hybrid race. I'm not
sure about how it works for Northindians though.
Interesting, that is the first I have heard of a Caucasian connection
to the Dravidians. I've always understood that the Dravidians
were related to he ancient Elamites.
Linguistically and from what I understood racially as well, India can
be basically divided in 2. The Indo-Aryan (hence Indo-European)
North and the Dravidian South (I'm being somewhat simplistic here, as
Cywr mentioned, there are Mongoloids in the extreme east (Assam,
Manipur etc).
Both of these 2 halves are themselves divided into states along
linguistic lines. In the North you have the Indo-European
languages of:
Punjabi (in the state of Punjab),
Gujrati (in Gujrat),
Rajasthani (in Rajasthan),
Bihari (in Bihar),
Bengali (in West Bengal and Bangladesh),
Hindi (Uttar Pradesh),
Marathi (in Maharashtra) etc,
All of these languages are related to each other.
In the South, there are the Dravidian languages of:
Tamil (in the state of Tamil Nadu)
Malayalam (in Kerala)
Telugu (in Andhra Pradesh), and
Kannada (in Karnatika)
Again, all of these languages are related to each other.
Here is a current policial map of India:
It is interesting to note that if you applied European political
nationalism to India, instead of one country, you would have at least
20 countries. Take Europe, you have the Slavic language family
tree, (eg, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Russian, Serb, Croat, Bosnian etc
etc) and each language boundary was the basis to derive the national
state. In India, these language boundaries was used to derive
provincial states within a bigger federation of India.
I agree with Jazz in this, due to current arcaheological research there was a shift via coastal first, I never said one was more african then another. I personally do not believe in the African theory or hypothesis. This is a theory with not enough supporting evidence.
Another factor that disaproves africa is The bones found of a hominod species dating at 8 million years 1 million more then the Leaky's finding of their bones, this was discovered in November last year and I look foward hungrily at their results and research.
But I have loved this topic alot and found it very interesting
Never under estimate the predictablity of stupidity! - Bullet Tooth Tony
yes, people of India are caucasian.
They can even be considered to have their own sub-race and are very
diverse within themselves. North-Indid/Penisular.
Uhmm how are indians Caucasian? Please explain this.
Not all Indians. For the most part, it will be the northern
(Indo-Aryan) group. The Caucasian link derives from the Aryan
Migration Theory (all Indo-Europeans are Caucasian, or Caucasoid) into
North India.
The Dravidian south is excluded from this.
Originally posted by Rakhsh
...New Evidence suggests they might have taken a more southerly route, along the Arabian penisula into India, Indonesia and Australia....
I have heard of this theory as well. It will be hard to find
evidence for this (either for or against) simply because it hypotheses
populations migrating along the coast. With sea levels rising and
falling over the years (due to ice-age advances and recessions), and
good old wave action, there is a chance that much of the evidence
needed (in archeological terms) might be submerged underneath what is
the current Indian coastline.
Well, I am Dravidian so according to certain sources I found on the internet, Dravidians are a combination of Caucasian and Australasian. So basically we are a hybrid race. I'm not sure about how it works for Northindians though.
Interesting, that is the first I have heard of a Caucasian connection to the Dravidians. I've always understood that the Dravidians were related to he ancient Elamites.
Linguistically and from what I understood racially as well, India can be basically divided in 2. The Indo-Aryan (hence Indo-European) North and the Dravidian South (I'm being somewhat simplistic here, as Cywr mentioned, there are Mongoloids in the extreme east (Assam, Manipur etc).
Both of these 2 halves are themselves divided into states along linguistic lines. In the North you have the Indo-European languages of:
Punjabi (in the state of Punjab),
Gujrati (in Gujrat),
Rajasthani (in Rajasthan),
Bihari (in Bihar),
Bengali (in West Bengal and Bangladesh),
Hindi (Uttar Pradesh),
Marathi (in Maharashtra) etc,
All of these languages are related to each other.
In the South, there are the Dravidian languages of:
Tamil (in the state of Tamil Nadu)
Malayalam (in Kerala)
Telugu (in Andhra Pradesh), and
Kannada (in Karnatika)
Again, all of these languages are related to each other.
Here is a current policial map of India:
It is interesting to note that if you applied European political nationalism to India, instead of one country, you would have at least 20 countries. Take Europe, you have the Slavic language family tree, (eg, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Russian, Serb, Croat, Bosnian etc etc) and each language boundary was the basis to derive the national state. In India, these language boundaries was used to derive provincial states within a bigger federation of India.
Hi Jazz sorry to interrupt.This is not the current political map of India.About 5 years ago 3 new states were formed.Uttaranchal{carved out of Uttar Pradesh},Chattisgarh{Madhya Pradesh} n Jharkhand{Bihar}.
Another factor that disaproves africa is The bones found of a
hominod species dating at 8 million years 1 million more then the
Leaky's finding of their bones, this was discovered in November last
year and I look foward hungrily at their results and research.
Hominids or even extint species of Homo are not proof of anything regarding us. It is pretty clear that all modern humans are exclussively descendants of a single group of Homo sapiens
that appeared in Africa at some time between 200,000 and 150,000 years
ago. MtDNA tracking has shown that there was a single group of females
at the origin of our species and that group existed some 150,000 years
ago. Every single living human is descendant from that unique core.
There's no serious discussion on that.
In the case of extint species of humans, like Neanderthal,
interbreeding or separate evolution is totally discarded. They just
went extint, either because our pressure or because natural disasters
such as the supervolcano of Toba (Sumatra), which exploded c. 70,000
years ago, breaking havoc in most of Asia.
I never said anything about neanderthals at all, Fact is modern humans came from Homo Erectus and there is mutliple theories as to how we appeared, oldest dated Human is at 195,000 years ago, fact is only the female Gene is said to come from africa, again that is not enough evidence to state we all come from africa, for all we know they could have migrated there and since the oldest bones found is there we are under the assumption we originated there.
The fact is archaeologists have fallen into a trap, they search in Africa, why? because some of the first bones are found there, but also hominod species have been found outside of africa which evolved differently, this shows that there is a strong possibility early human species evolved outside of africa.
Again as you noted a single group of Homo-Sapien sapiens, this does not actually contend that all homo-Sapien sapiens came from africa, only a single group, until more archaeology is done, and a result of the 8 million year old bones in Russia are released we will not truely know.
If this is the case then it shows hominod species evolving out of Africa, the evolutionary theory again I will state is just that a thoery, with not enough solid evidence to support it. The problem with DNA and genetic testing is, you have to test every person in the world and every country in the world.
You said case of different species mixing is totally disregarded, this my friend is not true, we know that several human species mixed, the fact that Homo-Erectus is our ancestor showed he contributed to Homo-Sapiens sapien.
there are 3 major theories of human evolution, adaptive raditation, recobination of genes (interbreeding/mixing) and the last I always forget
Edited by Rakhsh
Never under estimate the predictablity of stupidity! - Bullet Tooth Tony
yes, people of India are caucasian. They can even be considered to have their own sub-race and are very diverse within themselves. North-Indid/Penisular.
Uhmm how are indians Caucasian? Please explain this.
Not all Indians. For the most part, it will be the northern (Indo-Aryan) group. The Caucasian link derives from the Aryan Migration Theory (all Indo-Europeans are Caucasian, or Caucasoid) into North India. The Dravidian south is excluded from this.
this is a misnomer. one would be hard-pressed to find any indian, north or south, who is of pure "dravidian" blood. for the most part, while the northern indians seems to have more caucasiodal characteristics, years of in-nation breeding has yielded an india more or less the same in genetic make-up.
plus, there exist no "dravidian" south today. once again, it would be pretty hard to prove otherwise. the only way really to differentiate a dravidian south from a caucasian north is by language. and even that, due to religion mainly (word usage and such), is becoming a finer and finer line. so many words are shared between dravidian languages and the northern IE languages, indians for the most part don't care to differentiate them.
if you are asking for the genetic make-up of indians, say, 6000 years ago, i would agree. there probably were differences. but today, save skin color, those same differences don't exist.
Hi Jazz sorry to
interrupt.This is not the current political map of India.About 5 years
ago 3 new states were formed.Uttaranchal{carved out of Uttar
Pradesh},Chattisgarh{Madhya Pradesh} n Jharkhand{Bihar}.
You are absolutely correct!
Funny thing is I have a current map of India hanging on my office wall,
but am so used to seeing the older boundaries, I didn't even think of
it when I linked the above map.....
Here is a current map:
The northern borders of the states of Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh
forms the linguistic boundaries of the Indo-Aryan northern group, and
the Dravidian southern group, both completely unrelated.
I never said anything about neanderthals at all,
Fact is modern humans came from Homo Erectus and there is mutliple
theories as to how we appeared, oldest dated Human is at 195,000 years
ago, fact is only the female Gene is said to come from africa, again
that is not enough evidence to state we all come from africa, for all
we know they could have migrated there and since the oldest bones found
is there we are under the assumption we originated there.
The fact is archaeologists have fallen into a trap, they search in
Africa, why? because some of the first bones are found there, but also
hominod species have been found outside of africa which evolved
differently, this shows that there is a strong possibility early human
species evolved outside of africa.
Again as you noted a single group of Homo-Sapien sapiens, this does
not actually contend that all homo-Sapien sapiens came from africa,
only a single group, until more archaeology is done, and a result of
the 8 million year old bones in Russia are released we will not truely
know.
If this is the case then it shows hominod species evolving out of
Africa, the evolutionary theory again I will state is just that a
thoery, with not enough solid evidence to support it. The problem with
DNA and genetic testing is, you have to test every person in the world
and every country in the world.
You said case of different species mixing is totally disregarded,
this my friend is not true, we know that several human species mixed,
the fact that Homo-Erectus is our ancestor showed he contributed to
Homo-Sapiens sapien.
there are 3 major theories of human evolution, adaptive raditation,
recobination of genes (interbreeding/mixing) and the last I always
forget
DNA studies do not need to sample every single human being: they have
enough using statiscally significative samples. If out of 1000 people
(of the same region/ethnicity) you get that 812 have X type, 175 have Y
type and the rest have Z and W types, you can well say that these
proportions apply to all the region or ethnicity being studied. It may
be an error but this is in any case minimal and not significative.
Obviously further independent studies of the same sort would help to
narrow the error margin even more.
Of all sampled DNA of the World not a single one has been fond that
doesn't fit the fact of being descendant of the pseudo-Eve and
the pseudo-Adam. Both archaeological and genetic dispersion studies are
totally coincident with the out-of-Africa theory. And, if you would
like to prove that it is wrong, nowadays it is relatively easy: drill
the teeth of those Asian erectus and compare its MtDNA with modern
human one. This has been done with Neanderthals and gave clearly
negative results. It can be done with other human species as well.
The more we know the more that the out-of-Africa theory is confirmed.
While we are still waiting to some of those pedantic pseudo-scientists
that defend other hypothesis to prove anything of them or demonstrate
that the out-of-Africa paradigm is false.
Show me evidence, or at least strong indications, else keep silent and get to work until you find them.
I never said anything about neanderthals at all, Fact is modern humans came from Homo Erectus and there is mutliple theories as to how we appeared, oldest dated Human is at 195,000 years ago, fact is only the female Gene is said to come from africa, again that is not enough evidence to state we all come from africa, for all we know they could have migrated there and since the oldest bones found is there we are under the assumption we originated there.
The fact is archaeologists have fallen into a trap, they search in Africa, why? because some of the first bones are found there, but also hominod species have been found outside of africa which evolved differently, this shows that there is a strong possibility early human species evolved outside of africa.
Again as you noted a single group of Homo-Sapien sapiens, this does not actually contend that all homo-Sapien sapiens came from africa, only a single group, until more archaeology is done, and a result of the 8 million year old bones in Russia are released we will not truely know.
If this is the case then it shows hominod species evolving out of Africa, the evolutionary theory again I will state is just that a thoery, with not enough solid evidence to support it. The problem with DNA and genetic testing is, you have to test every person in the world and every country in the world.
You said case of different species mixing is totally disregarded, this my friend is not true, we know that several human species mixed, the fact that Homo-Erectus is our ancestor showed he contributed to Homo-Sapiens sapien.
there are 3 major theories of human evolution, adaptive raditation, recobination of genes (interbreeding/mixing) and the last I always forget
DNA studies do not need to sample every single human being: they have enough using statiscally significative samples. If out of 1000 people (of the same region/ethnicity) you get that 812 have X type, 175 have Y type and the rest have Z and W types, you can well say that these proportions apply to all the region or ethnicity being studied. It may be an error but this is in any case minimal and not significative. Obviously further independent studies of the same sort would help to narrow the error margin even more.
Of all sampled DNA of the World not a single one has been fond that doesn't fit the fact of being descendant of the pseudo-Eve and the pseudo-Adam. Both archaeological and genetic dispersion studies are totally coincident with the out-of-Africa theory. And, if you would like to prove that it is wrong, nowadays it is relatively easy: drill the teeth of those Asian erectus and compare its MtDNA with modern human one. This has been done with Neanderthals and gave clearly negative results. It can be done with other human species as well.
The more we know the more that the out-of-Africa theory is confirmed. While we are still waiting to some of those pedantic pseudo-scientists that defend other hypothesis to prove anything of them or demonstrate that the out-of-Africa paradigm is false.
Show me evidence, or at least strong indications, else keep silent and get to work until you find them.
Again I state it is a theory, even archaeologists expect to find Adam in Asia, if your a scientist or of sound mind then you should know stats is false, and with globalisation, peoples in an area are from different backgrounds and ethnicity. Iran and Arabia can fall into this same area ideal but both are different ethnicites and races even on the genetic level.
(Of all sampled DNA of the World not a single one has been fond that doesn't fit the fact of being descendant of the pseudo-Eve and the pseudo-Adam. Both archaeological and genetic dispersion studies are totally coincident with the out-of-Africa theory.) Uhmm who research are you basing this on? No not all archeologisits agree with the out of africa theory and all are open to new work and additon, central asia and the middle east have not had much research done due to the Cold war, War, governments etc etc
So this whole put up or shut up response of your sorry I think you should look into it, your obviously a drone and not open to new ideas, no no I mean that the fact that even archaeologisit agere there is not enough evidence you still contend we all agree... I am an archaeologist like my Friend Aryan Khadem and he and I both share similar ideas and theories.
So my response to you is, no there is not enough evidence to support the out of Africa, yes there is strong factors to maybe but not solid and conclusive at all.
And yes you do need to test every Human stats does not work and can be manipulated to suit the agenda......
Never under estimate the predictablity of stupidity! - Bullet Tooth Tony
here is an example of this kind of stats, say you did it in eastern part of Iraq or Northern and the tests shows strong Iranian genes in the local populations hence then they must all be Iranians, but the fact is Arabs and those arabs who married Iranians all live in the same village does not indicate all of them are from iran.....hence the out of africa based on stats is fallacious and ambigious
Never under estimate the predictablity of stupidity! - Bullet Tooth Tony
How can you diferentiate genetically an Iranian from an Arab? Genetic
diferentiation happened mostly in Prehistory and both Arabs and
Iranians had the genes that have now (more or less) before they were
assimlated into either ethnicity.
Are we talking of Prehistory (out-of-Africa, most of gene distribution)
or are we talking of recent history (assimilation into this or that
ethnicity). I think that you are considered Arab or Iranian because of
the language you speak or the affinity you feel, not because you have
this or that gene - as the vast majority of people hasn't attempted to
trace their genetic genealogical tree.
I know I'm Basque (with this or that mixture) but I've never tried to
justify that using genetics. It's a question of where you live, what
language you speak, how you feel integrated, where are your roots. I
feel 100% Basque and my brother feels Spaniard instead. National or
ethnic adscription is mostly a mental state.
That is true to a point, yes, we are all human beings but I am trying to state that the out of africa is a theory.... For all we know we could have originated in the Middle east and moved south, north, east and west etc there is not enough evidence to support africa.... Also one reason is there is no conclusive evidence as we are always finding out new things.
Never under estimate the predictablity of stupidity! - Bullet Tooth Tony
But of what evidence is so far available, majority of it points to an
out of Africa origin, hence the reason it is by far the most widely
accepted theory.
You know how Pakistani school-boys desperately try to emulate stereotypical African-American culture, so they would immediately worship Indians since Indians would be considered black and Pakistanis would still be looked at as curry munchers that own 7'11's.
I have heard that the latest theory is that Indians were the first mass migration out of africa. This tribe went over the Arabian Peninsula and then down to the subcontinent where it multiplied massively and established deep roots. Now from this point on the migratory stream continued from India into south and north -east asia. The northerners met up and joined with another migration going further north now known as mongoloids and also crossed into Norther America over the Aleutian islands which were walkable back then 15,000 years ago. The southerners became the southeast asians, polynesians malays and austroloids.
There were a couple of other migrations out of africa too, one of them mixed with the remnants of the "desi" migrations in the Iranian Plateu and formed the begining of the Caucasus Asian aka Cauc-asian aka europids. The Europids moved northwest into Europe.
Now there were also obviously tribes that moved BACK further into africa. These would be the Africans.
According to this figure southern indians are austroloids, or polynesian types perhaps. I wonder what DNA testing would produce. Really extensive testing that is, not the handfuls of samples they have taken so far.
Note also that these arrows represent migratory journeys, between these paths obviously interbreeding and hybredization has also taken place. And I believe there should also be some reverse arrows representing back migration too which appear to be missing.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum