Indian Jatts North European DNA? [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

XenophobicPrussian

12-18-2014, 11:07 PM

British n Indians didn't intermarry much. In north India.
Yup, it's from the people who migrated from the north and civilized India. India was inhabited by proto-Australian Aboriginals(sub-Saharan Africans mixed with Denisovan non-homo sapiens) before the Aryans(the Andronovo site in southern Russia is an example of the first Aryans and DNA testing showed the majority of people from that site had light eyes and light hair, according to Dienekes' blog, he sourced it too) migrated there, started civilizations and mixed with the natives.

The modern Indian is simply a result of Europeans and Indian Aboriginals(similar to Australian Aboriginals) mixing, with northern Indians have more European DNA, southern Indians having more native DNA, get over it.

Here's some examples of mixed white Australians(who are mostly northern Euro) and Australian Aboriginals, look surprisingly similar to modern Indians:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12003940/2/istockphoto_12003940-aboriginal-australian-man-of-thirty-seven.jpg

53276

53277

53278

http://images.theage.com.au/2010/07/13/1691225/samantha_harris_420-420x0.jpg

http://nacchocommunique.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/johnathan-thurston1.jpg

Anglojew

12-19-2014, 01:35 AM

I was looking at the K12b spreadsheet and they have 14% North European, more than Sicilians even.

Anyone know why? Are they mixed with the English maybe?

Yes, they're descended from Scythians (like me).

jatt

12-19-2014, 02:09 AM

Yup, it's from the people who migrated from the north and civilized India. India was inhabited by proto-Australian Aboriginals(sub-Saharan Africans mixed with Denisovan non-homo sapiens) before the Aryans(the Andronovo site in southern Russia is an example of the first Aryans and DNA testing showed the majority of people from that site had light eyes and light hair, according to Dienekes' blog, he sourced it too) migrated there, started civilizations and mixed with the natives.

The modern Indian is simply a result of Europeans and Indian Aboriginals(similar to Australian Aboriginals) mixing, with northern Indians have more European DNA, southern Indians having more native DNA, get over it.

Here's some examples of mixed white Australians(who are mostly northern Euro) and Australian Aboriginals, look surprisingly similar to modern Indians:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12003940/2/istockphoto_12003940-aboriginal-australian-man-of-thirty-seven.jpg

53276

53277

53278

http://images.theage.com.au/2010/07/13/1691225/samantha_harris_420-420x0.jpg

http://nacchocommunique.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/johnathan-thurston1.jpg
I find this narrative very offensive. Lol at Europeans civilizing us. When ur ancestors were shiting in garden my ancestors were building one of the first civilizations. N those pictures of Indians u posted look as indian as a albino indian look North European Next time watch what shit comes from Ur mouth.

Anglojew

12-19-2014, 02:12 AM

http://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/311.jpg

jatt

12-19-2014, 02:13 AM

Yes, they're descended from Scythians (like me).Yep
We are
Decended from scythians. Or maybe we are Aryans N tHose who migrated to Europe got depigmitised as in Northern Europe nights are longer the melanin ist needed as much. Or maybe becUse of mutation in genes some Aryana got de pigmented n gave rise to today's white race

Anglojew

12-19-2014, 02:18 AM

jatt

12-19-2014, 02:31 AM

Mortimer

12-19-2014, 02:41 AM

Haha impossible This is y I always tAke these genetics theories with a pinch of salt

i agree. this is impossible and on other runs they score much lower like 3% or not at all.
also europeans often offend indians, i find them very obnoxious

Arhat

12-19-2014, 09:00 AM

Jatts are admixed with Indids and others by now. Scythians were already white and never lived in Europe proper. Scythians are native to Central Asia before being driven out by Turkic invasions and/or intermingling with Turks and others to form new groups like Khazars.

i personally dont think so.The original indo-aryans who migrated to india 3500 years ago were genetically very similar or even identical to scythians and had high percentages of northeastern european dna. It is most likely that indians got their northeastern european dna from them and not so much from the scythians

Scythians migrated quite late in small numbers to india and during this time india was quite densely populated so there genetic impact was probably very low there .But when the first indo-aryans entered india, india had a much lower population and the indo-aryan invaders established the caste system so they could preserve a bit of their original dna

Anglojew

12-19-2014, 08:08 PM

i personally dont think so.The original indo-aryans who migrated to india 3500 years ago were genetically very similar or even identical to scythians and had high percentages of northeastern european dna. It is most likely that indians got their northeastern european dna from them and not so much from the scythians

Scythians migrated quite late in small numbers to india and during this time india was quite densely populated so there genetic impact was probably very low there .But when the first indo-aryans entered india, india had a much lower population and the indo-aryan invaders established the caste system so they could preserve a bit of their original dna

You're probably right. Probably a combination various IE migrations.

XenophobicPrussian

12-19-2014, 08:54 PM

I find this narrative very offensive. Lol at Europeans civilizing us. When ur ancestors were shiting in garden my ancestors were building one of the first civilizations. N those pictures of Indians u posted look as indian as a albino indian look North European Next time watch what shit comes from Ur mouth.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21607837-fixing-dreadful-sanitation-india-requires-not-just-building-lavatories-also-changing

"Ending open defecation would bring immense benefits. Some 130m households lack toilets. More than 72% of rural people relieve themselves behind bushes, in fields or by roadsides. The share is barely shrinking. Of the 1 billion people in the world who have no toilet, India accounts for nearly 600m. The costs are high. Public safety is one underappreciated problem, as young women have to leave their rural homes after dark. In May two teenage girls in Uttar Pradesh visiting a field used as a communal toilet were raped, murdered and strung up from a tree. That case won notoriety for its extreme barbarity, but similar attacks are distressingly common."

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59083000/jpg/_59083248_59083247.jpg

:/

Demhat

12-20-2014, 07:14 AM

Burushos are a muslim ethnic group in the Nothern most part of Pakistan. They don't speak an Indo European language interestingly and it's an isolate. Pathans are Pakistani Pashtuns.

Nope they do speak Indo European language. Recent analyses have proven.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/linguistics/article00403.html

Demhat

12-20-2014, 07:25 AM

About the Scythians, we know from ancient Iron Age Hungarianj samples (IR1 who came most likely from the Steppes and was Indo European) and from modern descend of Indo_Iranians and from Ancestral North Eurasians and from Thracian samples from Balkans. That the Proto Indo Europeans were a mix of North European, West Asian and Mediterranean genes.

The Thracian individual was like 45% North European, 35% Caucasus_Gedrosia and 20% Southern. Iron Age Hungarian IR1 was very similar and clustered somwhere between North Caucasians and modern Ukrainians.

The Indo_Iranians and Indo Europeans in general were a mix of North Euro and West Asian like populations.

There was a post by Dienekes about an upcoming study according to which Yamnya People were like half Northeast Europeans and half West Asians.

Arhat

12-20-2014, 09:14 AM

Nope they do speak Indo European language. Recent analyses have proven.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/linguistics/article00403.html

maybe the burusho speak a language remotely related to indoeuropean but phyrgian sounds for me very very unlikely.I am not a linguist but this analys by a macedonian linguists didnt convinced me and sounds for me too much biased by nationalism. Phyrgians were never anywhere near the burusho and the great majority of linguists consider burusho as language isolate but heavily influenced by nearby dardic,eastern iranic and tibeto-burman languages.

The burusho are genetically very close to their indoeuropean neighbours and have really much ANE and r1a. Either this is a result of mixture between indoeuropean and burusho in the past or burusho were orginally a population similar to indoeuropeans but speaking a different language,

Demhat

12-20-2014, 10:19 AM

The iron age thracian was overwhelmingly southern and west asian though-it had less northern_euro scores than southern balkanites. So there was quite a bit of mixing taking place-but their amount of Gedrosia was still iranian-levels high and not approached by any euro population.

Thats the point. The People nowadays so "anti West Asian" will in near future kill each other to claim the most Caucasus_Gedrosia ancestry when they find out that it was part of the major Indo European expansion.

Allot of the modern additional North European admixture to Balkans might have even reached far later with the Slavic expansion.

The very high Gedrosia levels of Thracians can be explained with the hypothesis I had for long, simply that Thracians are the closest outside Indo European group to Indo_Iranians, probably even stemming from Proto Indo_Iranians.

jatt

12-20-2014, 12:22 PM

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21607837-fixing-dreadful-sanitation-india-requires-not-just-building-lavatories-also-changing

"Ending open defecation would bring immense benefits. Some 130m households lack toilets. More than 72% of rural people relieve themselves behind bushes, in fields or by roadsides. The share is barely shrinking. Of the 1 billion people in the world who have no toilet, India accounts for nearly 600m. The costs are high. Public safety is one underappreciated problem, as young women have to leave their rural homes after dark. In May two teenage girls in Uttar Pradesh visiting a field used as a communal toilet were raped, murdered and strung up from a tree. That case won notoriety for its extreme barbarity, but similar attacks are distressingly common."

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59083000/jpg/_59083248_59083247.jpg

:/

dude I knew you were going to make this sort of post. your very first introduction post in this forum was ful of hate towards non whites and u are regretfull Canadians are less racists. wish we could take out that north euro component from our genes and give it to uso that u can shove it where the sun doest shine... way way before times before times ( Bronze Age 3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) lol when your ancestors were living in trees in jungles Indians were building this harrapa and mohenjedaro civilization also called indus valley civilization with over 1000 cities and millions of inhabitants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Mohenjodaro_Sindh.jpeghttp://www.india-in-your-home.com/images/indusvalley.jpghttp://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2012/05/image_350.jpg
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5797696_f496.jpg

so you can see way before Aryans invasion or Scythian invasion Indians were living in advanced cities. as regarding poverty in india now a days .. british screw it over.. upto 18th century india was either the worlds largest economy or 2nd largest behind china. in mugal period india produced 33% of worlds GDP compare that to todays America which produces about 25 %

XenophobicPrussian

12-20-2014, 05:25 PM

dude I knew you were going to make this sort of post. your very first introduction post in this forum was ful of hate towards non whites and u are regretfull Canadians are less racists. wish we could take out that north euro component from our genes and give it to uso that u can shove it where the sun doest shine... way way before times before times ( Bronze Age 3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) lol when your ancestors were living in trees in jungles Indians were building this harrapa and mohenjedaro civilization also called indus valley civilization with over 1000 cities and millions of inhabitants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Mohenjodaro_Sindh.jpeghttp://www.india-in-your-home.com/images/indusvalley.jpghttp://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2012/05/image_350.jpg
http://s1.hubimg.com/u/5797696_f496.jpg

so you can see way before Aryans invasion or Scythian invasion Indians were living in advanced cities. as regarding poverty in india now a days .. british screw it over.. upto 18th century india was either the worlds largest economy or 2nd largest behind china. in mugal period india produced 33% of worlds GDP compare that to todays America which produces about 25 %
Jungles? Really? -_-

Proto-Indo-Europeans/Aryans date back to 5500 to 4000 BCE, and R1a could date back even earlier than that. There were likely earlier waves of migration, all migrations aren't documented, just like there were likely earlier Mongoloid/Turkic(not counting Lapps) migrations into Europe, before the Avars or Huns. Alternatively, Indus Valley could've been an offshoot of Sumeria, which could've been started by R1b people(given R1b was present more west in Egypt in people like Tut and a tiny amount of Egyptians today). The blue eyed statues of Sumeria are something to definitely consider. They could've used red, green gems, etc, but they used that colour. Could've been from slaves or simple contact with other people from the north, but you usually don't pay tribute to a slave or a barbarian.

I'm not even saying a blue eyed, blonde haired person was the one who said "build this city", I'm saying our genetics were required to make the modern Indian, there's nothing about the Indian sub-continent that would create a Caucasoid from the climate, it's practically the same climate as west Africa. By the time Mohenjo-Daro was built the people could've looked like modern Indians by then, but before Europeans migrated there were no people in the Indian sub-continent capable of creating a civilization, they were earlier fully tropical homo-sapiens similar to Australian Aboriginals.

India was as impoverished then as it is now. Firstly, the majority of that wealth came from the Bengal, which is looked down at today by northern Indians. The Bengal was rich because of resources, nothing else. Textiles happened to be one of the things most in demand in the world. Good job, they weren't too tribal so they actually made use of the resource and traded it. The wealth stayed in the nobility and ruling class, who probably looked like the racist mofos you see in Bollywood movies and Indian soap operas today. Total GDP is meaningless. China surpassed the US in total GDP recently, but China's GDP per capita is still around 5k per person while the US' is 46k. The wealth wasn't shared, and by sharing I don't mean giving out, I mean the average Bengali wasn't smart enough to make more of himself. Of course, the entire world has peasantry and middle/high classes, I'm just saying Europe had less peasantry and more of the latter per capita.

British rule has been over for awhile now, and India isn't the only place to have been screwed. Many previously oppressed places have flourished in the north.

Here's a portrait of average Bengalis, before or shortly after Britain ruled them(it's from the 18th century, British rule started in the mid-later 18th century so even if it was after there wouldn't be a lot of time to start oppressive policies)
http://bhakticollective.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/sankirtan-detail.jpg

Also, do you also use such bad grammar when you write in Hindi or whatever your native language is? It doesn't take much effort to communicate in a visually appealing way.

asingh

12-20-2014, 05:36 PM

Here's some examples of mixed white Australians(who are mostly northern Euro) and Australian Aboriginals, look surprisingly similar to modern Indians:

Not really.

Demhat

12-21-2014, 01:29 AM

Perhaps you are right. Fits with the late bronze intrustion from the near east into the balkans.

The Getae /ˈdʒiːtiː/ or /ˈɡiːtiː/ or Gets (Ancient Greek: Γέται, singular Γέτης; Bulgarian: Гети; Romanian: Geţi) are names given to several Thracian tribes inhabiting the regions to either side of the Lower Danube, in what is today northern Bulgaria and southern Romania. Both the singular form Get and Getae may be derived from a Greek exonym: the area was the hinterland of Greek colonies on the Black Sea coast, bringing the Getae into contact with the Ancient Greeks from an early date.

Several scholars like Tadeusz Sulimirski,[32] Weer Rajendra Rishi,[33] and Chandra Chakraberty[34][35] have identified the Asian Jats directly with Getae and Massagetae.

About the origin of the name Massagetae, scholars have emphasized that:

"The classical and modern authorities say that the word "Massagetae" means "great" Getae.

Weer Rajendra Rishi wrote, "In Pahlavi language the word massa means great. In Avesta massa is also used in the sense of greatness."[10]

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

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

Arhat

12-21-2014, 10:37 AM

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

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

The Getae were never in central asia or even near to central asia and were thracian tribes,who had no connection with the central asian nomadic Massagetae. Sorry bro,but it makes no sense that they migrated to india. Also we should be very careful about this ethnonyms which were maybe only used by foreigners and not by the real Massagetae themself. Also thracians were never nomads like scythians and it is just impossible that they lived as nomads somewhere in the eurasian steppe. But the name Massagetae could also mean fish-eaters and the sources mention that Massagetae ate much fish

avesta=masyo (fish)

Jatts are basically outcasts of punjab like gypsy who played before the 17century no militariy role.They have no linguistic,cultural,genetic or phenotypical relationship to scythians/massagetae.

Isleño

12-21-2014, 11:03 AM

Yep
We are
Decended from scythians. Or maybe we are Aryans N tHose who migrated to Europe got depigmitised as in Northern Europe nights are longer the melanin ist needed as much. Or maybe becUse of mutation in genes some Aryana got de pigmented n gave rise to today's white race

Actually, it's the other way around. Europeans are the purest Caucasoid peoples on the earth. South Asians are significantly mixed race. Actually South Asians are significantly mixed with Mongoloid and Australoid races, but with a Caucasoid base. You can see it from a thread I made a while back on the K=6 admixture runs based on the latest study from Lazaridis et al. This is from my thread on the matter (the South Asians are in the bottom right section):

The following is a color coded K=6 ADMIXTURE run for Caucasoid (blue), Mongoloid (yellow), Negroid (orange), Australoid (purple), Capoid (red) and Americoid (green).

Caucasoid
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICOU272pPek/UsKA4CfOvrI/AAAAAAAAAVI/wUgAxJIDbPM/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_caucasoid.png

Negroid
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AkWc4Ocdaw0/UsKA6WExrQI/AAAAAAAAAVY/4ziERslXYrE/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_negroid.png

Mongoloid
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OphZC7-_rXc/UsKA5P3CInI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/hUOO2LVzW8g/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_mongoloid.png

Australoid
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lP3x8nHOXaY/UsKA3aMbi-I/AAAAAAAAAVA/6Rf7VXmO1ko/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_australoid.png

Capoid
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ec41Dj_sMWw/UsKA27Mw0RI/AAAAAAAAAU4/57C9SHZpkMY/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_capoid.png

Americoid
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-voojA_WKyW8/UsKA18DZ37I/AAAAAAAAAUw/3UMRvoXV7D8/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_americoid.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s669/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png

This K=6 is based on the large global admixture analysis in the most recent study by Lazaridis et al. (2013/2014 update)

jatt

12-23-2014, 01:28 PM

Actually, it's the other way around. Europeans are the purest Caucasoid peoples on the earth. South Asians are significantly mixed race. Actually South Asians are significantly mixed with Mongoloid and Australoid races, but with a Caucasoid base. You can see it from a thread I made a while back on the K=6 admixture runs based on the latest study from Lazaridis et al. This is from my thread on the matter (the South Asians are in the bottom right section):

The following is a color coded K=6 ADMIXTURE run for Caucasoid (blue), Mongoloid (yellow), Negroid (orange), Australoid (purple), Capoid (red) and Americoid (green).

Caucasoid
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ICOU272pPek/UsKA4CfOvrI/AAAAAAAAAVI/wUgAxJIDbPM/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_caucasoid.png

Negroid
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AkWc4Ocdaw0/UsKA6WExrQI/AAAAAAAAAVY/4ziERslXYrE/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_negroid.png

Mongoloid
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OphZC7-_rXc/UsKA5P3CInI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/hUOO2LVzW8g/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_mongoloid.png

Australoid
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lP3x8nHOXaY/UsKA3aMbi-I/AAAAAAAAAVA/6Rf7VXmO1ko/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_australoid.png

Capoid
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ec41Dj_sMWw/UsKA27Mw0RI/AAAAAAAAAU4/57C9SHZpkMY/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_capoid.png

Americoid
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-voojA_WKyW8/UsKA18DZ37I/AAAAAAAAAUw/3UMRvoXV7D8/s1600/Lazaridis2014_example_americoid.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s669/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png

This K=6 is based on the large global admixture analysis in the most recent study by Lazaridis et al. (2013/2014 update)

kind of hard to believe when I see alomost 10% of white people marrying blacks and east Asians. lol Indians are very endogamous. propaganda can fool some not others

Isleño

12-23-2014, 01:35 PM

kind of hard to believe when I see alomost 10% of white people marrying blacks and east Asians. lol Indians are very endogamous. propaganda can fool some not others

Most whites are marrying other whites. But still in all, as you can see on that post, Europeans are the purest Caucasoid peoples there are. Indians are significantly admixed with Mongoloid and Australoid (lol you guys already went through your mixing with blacks and East Asians, j/k :)

jatt

12-23-2014, 01:49 PM

Most whites are marrying other whites. But still in all, as you can see on that post, Europeans are the purest Caucasoid peoples there are. Indians are significantly admixed with Mongoloid and Australoid (lol you guys already went through your mixing with blacks and East Asians, j/k :)

that's an outsider point of view who don't know us..we don't even marry other Indians who aint our cast. uptill recenty our elders will kill those who married outside.

Isleño

12-23-2014, 01:55 PM

that's an outsider point of view who don't know us..we don't even marry other Indians who aint our cast. uptill recenty our elders will kill those who married outside.

Well I know enough to see that at some point in your history you mixed enough for you to be significantly Mongoloid and Australoid admixed. You can't get that way without mixing. So you guys already went through your interracial mixing.

jatt

12-23-2014, 02:10 PM

Well I know enough to see that at some point in your history you mixed enough for you to be significantly Mongoloid and Australoid admixed. You can't get that way without mixing. So you guys already went through your interracial mixing.

i believe what I see with eyes in real world.. genetics is in its infancy yet and much need to be done.. many non related people are shown to cluster with one another when in real world they look entirely different.. for example north Caucasians and Iranians.. lol many many Europeans look mongoloid from eyes but they are purest lol.. thing is many Europeans think having whites skin means they are pure and brown means mixed. human skin colour and features are evolved according to their habitats and environments they live.. cold and windy biggr eyes are not helpful...extreme cold and longer nights means low requirement of melanin and so white skin is better suited.. warmer and favorable climate normal skin and normal features like indian of north west...

jatt

12-23-2014, 04:07 PM

The Getae were never in central asia or even near to central asia and were thracian tribes,who had no connection with the central asian nomadic Massagetae. Sorry bro,but it makes no sense that they migrated to india. Also we should be very careful about this ethnonyms which were maybe only used by foreigners and not by the real Massagetae themself. Also thracians were never nomads like scythians and it is just impossible that they lived as nomads somewhere in the eurasian steppe. But the name Massagetae could also mean fish-eaters and the sources mention that Massagetae ate much fish

avesta=masyo (fish)

Jatts are basically outcasts of punjab like gypsy who played before the 17century no militariy role.They have no linguistic,cultural,genetic or phenotypical relationship to scythians/massagetae.

have some shame before spreading lies ... hey puktoon.. jatts are the highest cast and known as warriors...british admired jatts...even hitler admired Sikh jatts

http://www.sikhfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/loyal_india_part2/A_Sikh_soldier.jpg

german POWs walking behind jatt

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/SikhsInFrancePostcard.jpg

jatts marching in gemany

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lymdm6ydHV1qd0183.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c2/3d/8c/c23d8c391b68430371d4545c5351ef51.jpg

german painting depicting jatts

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln4cj46UwA1qlcc4to1_500.jpg

jatt soldiers attacking german trenches world war 2

Smeagol

12-23-2014, 09:04 PM

According to Carleton Coon the skeletal remains from the Indus Valley civilization were a mix of Caucasoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid, but Caucasoid seems to have been dominant.

jatt

12-23-2014, 10:15 PM

According to Carleton Coon the skeletal remains from the Indus Valley civilization were a mix of Caucasoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid, but Caucasoid seems to have been dominant.
https://bowersarthistory.wikispaces.com/file/view/India3.jpg/185102067/299x426/India3.jpghttp://www.harappa.com/indus/gif2/Indusburial.jpg

they looked just like this preist king of indus valley civilization..like todays punjabis

Isleño

12-24-2014, 06:11 AM

According to Carleton Coon the skeletal remains from the Indus Valley civilization were a mix of Caucasoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid, but Caucasoid seems to have been dominant.
And that matches the K=6 I posted that were based on Lazaridis et al. 2013/2014 update.

Blue=Caucasoid, yellow=Mongoloid, Australoid=purple (look toward the bottom right)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s669/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png

Isleño

12-24-2014, 06:28 AM

i believe what I see with eyes in real world.. genetics is in its infancy yet and much need to be done.. many non related people are shown to cluster with one another when in real world they look entirely different.. for example north Caucasians and Iranians.. lol many many Europeans look mongoloid from eyes but they are purest lol.. thing is many Europeans think having whites skin means they are pure and brown means mixed. human skin colour and features are evolved according to their habitats and environments they live.. cold and windy biggr eyes are not helpful...extreme cold and longer nights means low requirement of melanin and so white skin is better suited.. warmer and favorable climate normal skin and normal features like indian of north west...

Being "purer" Caucasoid has nothing to do with the idea of white skin. I'm talking about genetics and you are bringing up phenotypes, but genotype does not equal phenotype (exacting), I thought I mentioned that to you. I understand you are trying to protect the "pureness" of your people, but the fact is, most people in the world have admixture, some more than others and some less than others. Europeans have admixture from Siberian admixture in the north and that is Mongoloid, but it's tiny in most Europeans. There is North African and SW Asian admixtures in the south, but SW Asian is almost completely Caucasoid like Europe and North African is predominantly Caucasoid, and both of those components are also small in Europe. So any admixture from other races is tiny among Europeans.

So that leaves Europeans as the most Caucasoid people in the world. Indians are least Caucasoid out of all the Caucasoid peoples stretching from Europe/North Africa to India. This is not an insult or an attack on your people, but rather a fact I'm stating based on genetic testing of the Human race. Genetics are at a good enough level to show us percentages of scientific races like Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid/Negroid among populations and to give us an idea of proportions. You can choose to rely on your eyes, but to me misleading and no where near as precise as genetic testing. On most every admixture run on Indians and studies on Indians, there are significant Mongoloid and Australoid genetic percentages in the Indian gene pool. It is what it is. Embrace this, it's what you are.

Isleño

12-24-2014, 06:33 AM

https://bowersarthistory.wikispaces.com/file/view/India3.jpg/185102067/299x426/India3.jpghttp://www.harappa.com/indus/gif2/Indusburial.jpg

they looked just like this preist king of indus valley civilization..like todays punjabis

Look at the admixture run I posted. Look toward the bottom right, Punjabis are just over half Caucasoid and the rest is a mix of Australoid and Mongoloid. Australoid is the larger percentage of those two minority genetic components. This goes hand-in-hand with the observation by Coon that Deidara posted.

jatt

12-24-2014, 12:13 PM

Look at the admixture run I posted. Look toward the bottom right, Punjabis are just over half Caucasoid and the rest is a mix of Australoid and Mongoloid. Australoid is the larger percentage of those two minority genetic components. This goes hand-in-hand with the observation by Coon that Deidara posted.

hahahah my friend...heres I am gonna debunk these graphs...dear its impossible for us to have that much mongoloid admixture because of our geographical distance from them.. we could be 100% australoid.. yep it could be possible.. australoids are subrace of Caucasoid anyways. other than huge nostrils and big lips which we never really have not even south Indians... now this graph shows makrani as about 75 percent Caucasoid... ever seen a makrani in life... heres how they look

https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnh7w9oaYI1qipus9o4_500.jpghttp://www.pcboard.com.pk/pictures/1/1960.jpghttp://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/6040802985_de650c2dd8_m.jpg

Punjabis are very diverse looking people anyways...Punjabi is just a language with many dialects.. the Punjabis of mountains are different with Punjabis of plains who are different with southern Punjabis... see the fallacy of these results... heres australoid and mongoloid Punjabis .. lol

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/14116715.JPG

http://www.matchcollegiate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/punjabi-mela.jpg

Punjabi women with European and east Asians women .. notice the similarities of east Asian and euro eyes and difference with Punjabi eyes

Mortimer

12-25-2014, 02:01 AM

Being "purer" Caucasoid has nothing to do with the idea of white skin. I'm talking about genetics and you are bringing up phenotypes, but genotype does not equal phenotype (exacting), I thought I mentioned that to you. I understand you are trying to protect the "pureness" of your people, but the fact is, most people in the world have admixture, some more than others and some less than others. Europeans have admixture from Siberian admixture in the north and that is Mongoloid, but it's tiny in most Europeans. There is North African and SW Asian admixtures in the south, but SW Asian is almost completely Caucasoid like Europe and North African is predominantly Caucasoid, and both of those components are also small in Europe. So any admixture from other races is tiny among Europeans.

So that leaves Europeans as the most Caucasoid people in the world. Indians are least Caucasoid out of all the Caucasoid peoples stretching from Europe/North Africa to India. This is not an insult or an attack on your people, but rather a fact I'm stating based on genetic testing of the Human race. Genetics are at a good enough level to show us percentages of scientific races like Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Australoid/Negroid among populations and to give us an idea of proportions. You can choose to rely on your eyes, but to me misleading and no where near as precise as genetic testing. On most every admixture run on Indians and studies on Indians, there are significant Mongoloid and Australoid genetic percentages in the Indian gene pool. It is what it is. Embrace this, it's what you are.

different genetic studies show very different results, also who they used as reference for caucasoid? probably a european ethnicity, thats why europeans come out as most pure, but they have 20% ANE (mongoloid in ancient genome). Southasians are for example 100% Southasian on 23andme or 98% and 2% Mideastern or East Asian etc. But if you use Europe as reference of course Europeans will be pure and Southasians not, they are different genetically. If you use Southasians as Reference then Europeans are 80% Southasian on K 3 and 20% something else. Also I agree with Jatt, and who they used as Reference for Australoid because on 23andme i didnt saw any Indian score so high Oceanian (Native Australian Papuan etc.) they score maybe less then a percent or zero in the noise range or zero

jatt

12-25-2014, 11:58 AM

Arhat

12-25-2014, 01:52 PM

Demhat

12-25-2014, 02:07 PM

Some Guys should stop handling with terms like ANE/WHG etc if they have no clue what that is and where it peaks.

Using ANE as argument for non Caucasian admixture in Europe is the dumbest thing an individual could do, when this component is relatively strongest in the North Caucasus, South_Central Asia and has similar distribution in Western Asia and Europe.

jatt

12-25-2014, 02:25 PM

the chart also show nogai turks as more causasoid but then heres how they look

http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/af18/oditous2/Europe/3479385035_a7e3e41c20_zNogaischoolfoto.jpg

Turkmen more Caucasoid than us.. this is how they look

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/15/world/15turkmen600.2.jpg

now whats a Caucasoid ...

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4140/4933641098_3945509cab_z.jpg

Demhat

12-25-2014, 02:43 PM

Physical traits do not always match with genetic ancestry. You can genetically be 70% but still look 100% Caucasian.

jatt

12-25-2014, 02:48 PM

Physical traits do not always match with genetic ancestry. You can genetically be 70% but still look 100% Caucasian.

then whats the point .. lol...if a man is physically African looking but is genetically 90 mogoloid whats the point.. lol or explanation could be there is something yet to discovered that caused it...or data is redundant

Demhat

12-25-2014, 02:51 PM

then whats the point .. lol...if a man is physically African looking but is genetically 90 mogoloid whats the point.. lol or explanation could be there is something yet to discovered that caused it...or data is redundant

How is being genetically 70% West Eurasian and looking fully Caucasian, comparable to " being physically African and genetically 90% mongoloid"? Nevermind, I don't want to become part of this discussion.

King Claus

12-25-2014, 02:51 PM

Yup, it's from the people who migrated from the north and civilized India. India was inhabited by proto-Australian Aboriginals(sub-Saharan Africans mixed with Denisovan non-homo sapiens) before the Aryans(the Andronovo site in southern Russia is an example of the first Aryans and DNA testing showed the majority of people from that site had light eyes and light hair, according to Dienekes' blog, he sourced it too) migrated there, started civilizations and mixed with the natives.

The modern Indian is simply a result of Europeans and Indian Aboriginals(similar to Australian Aboriginals) mixing, with northern Indians have more European DNA, southern Indians having more native DNA, get over it.

Here's some examples of mixed white Australians(who are mostly northern Euro) and Australian Aboriginals, look surprisingly similar to modern Indians:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12003940/2/istockphoto_12003940-aboriginal-australian-man-of-thirty-seven.jpg

53276

53277

53278

http://images.theage.com.au/2010/07/13/1691225/samantha_harris_420-420x0.jpg

http://nacchocommunique.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/johnathan-thurston1.jpgThat's what's happens when beast and man come together.

Isleño

12-26-2014, 02:29 AM

different genetic studies show very different results, also who they used as reference for caucasoid? probably a european ethnicity, thats why europeans come out as most pure, but they have 20% ANE (mongoloid in ancient genome). Southasians are for example 100% Southasian on 23andme or 98% and 2% Mideastern or East Asian etc. But if you use Europe as reference of course Europeans will be pure and Southasians not, they are different genetically. If you use Southasians as Reference then Europeans are 80% Southasian on K 3 and 20% something else. Also I agree with Jatt, and who they used as Reference for Australoid because on 23andme i didnt saw any Indian score so high Oceanian (Native Australian Papuan etc.) they score maybe less then a percent or zero in the noise range or zero
I would have to disagree. ANE is not equaled to Mongoloid and should not be used to reference a population in relation to the component (which Mongoloid would be more representative of ENA type in genetic structure and not to ANE type). So bringing up ANE is irrelevant for this particular situation and I would have to agree with Vir9 and Demhat regarding this component.

As for reference populations, the population with the largest percentage of the component would normally be used as the reference component in genetic studies. True, studies do vary, but usually are not far from each other in findings. The K=6 I posted comes from a most recent genetic study on world populations from 2013 with a 2014 update. If we are to look at genetic testing and use reference population selection as a reason for possible invalidation for a particular world population common genome, then genetic testing as a whole would be pointless since one could make the same argument for every population except the reference population. But to safeguard against that, usually the population with the highest percentage of the component is usually used for references in genetic studies.

23andme is something I would reference when in regards to peer-reviewed work. 23andme is a commercial-for-profit organization and is not the same as a peer-reviewed study. They may be the one of the best commercial-for-profit genetic testing company available to the public, but even they have problems with components (such as the known North African reduction when Northern European is an included component in a sample) and even they have problems with some reference population selection (Palestinians have been used along with Mozabites for a North African combined component reference population), so they are not perfect for sure and certainly not the same as a peer-reviewed genetic study.

Mortimer

12-26-2014, 03:24 AM

I would have to disagree. ANE is not equaled to Mongoloid and should not be used to reference a population in relation to the component (which Mongoloid would be more representative of ENA type in genetic structure and not to ANE type). So bringing up ANE is irrelevant for this particular situation and I would have to agree with Vir9 and Demhat regarding this component.

As for reference populations, the population with the largest percentage of the component would normally be used as the reference component in genetic studies. True, studies do vary, but usually are not far from each other in findings. The K=6 I posted comes from a most recent genetic study on world populations from 2013 with a 2014 update. If we are to look at genetic testing and use reference population selection as a reason for possible invalidation for a particular world population common genome, then genetic testing as a whole would be pointless since one could make the same argument for every population except the reference population. But to safeguard against that, usually the population with the highest percentage of the component is usually used for references in genetic studies.

23andme is something I would reference when in regards to peer-reviewed work. 23andme is a commercial-for-profit organization and is not the same as a peer-reviewed study. They may be the one of the best commercial-for-profit genetic testing company available to the public, but even they have problems with components (such as the known North African reduction when Northern European is an included component in a sample) and even they have problems with some reference population selection (Palestinians have been used along with Mozabites for a North African combined component reference population), so they are not perfect for sure and certainly not the same as a peer-reviewed genetic study.

maybe it is just me but of course europeans will have the highest percent of european, so whats the point? "the largest percent of the component" if you use europeans they will have the largest percent of cozurse and who was used as australoid reference? indians are not more then 1% australoid on gedmatch (oceanian) mcdonald etc.

Isleño

12-26-2014, 03:30 AM

hahahah my friend...heres I am gonna debunk these graphs...dear its impossible for us to have that much mongoloid admixture because of our geographical distance from them.. we could be 100% australoid.. yep it could be possible.. australoids are subrace of Caucasoid anyways. other than huge nostrils and big lips which we never really have not even south Indians... now this graph shows makrani as about 75 percent Caucasoid... ever seen a makrani in life... heres how they look

https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnh7w9oaYI1qipus9o4_500.jpghttp://www.pcboard.com.pk/pictures/1/1960.jpghttp://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/6040802985_de650c2dd8_m.jpg

Punjabis are very diverse looking people anyways...Punjabi is just a language with many dialects.. the Punjabis of mountains are different with Punjabis of plains who are different with southern Punjabis... see the fallacy of these results... heres australoid and mongoloid Punjabis .. lol

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/14116715.JPG

http://www.matchcollegiate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/punjabi-mela.jpg

Punjabi women with European and east Asians women .. notice the similarities of east Asian and euro eyes and difference with Punjabi eyes

I don't think you fully understand the correlation between genotype and phenotype. They are not equal and certainly do not mean a percentage proportion will guarantee a select phenotype. Also, understand these admixture runs are mean averages, so there will be people that you can point to that may have more of the minority component or the majority component. But that's the point of a mean average is to show an average across the board. And this is the point of showing admixture runs, to get an idea of the mean average. So when you post a picture of Makranis that look very dark, those types may be in a greater percentile for Australoid admixture within the genetic spectrum for the Makrani people as a whole (not to mention if you post some that have African features, they are probably Sheedi living in the Makran coast and not actual Makranis. Sheedis are descended from Africans that arrived on the Makran coast.) Just as you can find dark ones, one can find light ones with more Caucasoid features than Australoid features. But if you take into consideration what pure Australoid peoples look like, you can even understand that people that could be between 1/3-1/4 could have such a range of phenotypes.

When talking about the Makrani, this is one of the more tricky world populations. Many of them are dark in complexion like this guy:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmKTQn49Et8AHWIhRNwkKaGax_J4bkf tAdpagYtu9BKspAHZLF

But if you understand the history of the Makrani people and another fact that there were also some Sub-Saharan Africans taken to the area as slaves and their descendants are called the "Sheedi" (which looks more like the guys you posted) not to mention that the Makrani partially descend from East African soldiers that arrived in the area with the spread of Islam. So if you factor in the SSA and look at East African genetics, which are largely Caucasoid themselves, then figure in the Australoid component you could see how these factors could translate to their phenotype. But they do seem to have the majority of their DNA being of the Caucasoid West Asian component. As you know, genotype does not equal phenotype and phenotypical traits from their minority ancestry could have bottlenecked into a descendant population with majority Caucasoid ancestry, significant Australoid/African ancestry while maintaining a strong Australoid/Negroid phenotypical influence. This can actually happen when you consider the unpredictability of genetics and it's many possibilities.

These are the K=12 admixture figures for the Makrani people in the Harappa Ancestry Project:

Baloch/Caucasus (West-Asian) - 58%
South-Asian - 24%
SW Asian - 7%
Kalash - 3%
East Bantu - 3%
West African - 3%
East African - 1%
European - 1%

As you can clearly see, in most any genetic calculation you find on Makranis, they will be majority Caucasoid, just as the K=6 admixture run I initially posted suggests. It's also the same story with Punjabis. I would recommend not to and try and predict the genetics of a population solely based on phenotypic appearance, that would be incredibly misleading.

Mortimer

12-26-2014, 03:55 AM

I don't think you fully understand the correlation between genotype and phenotype. They are not equal and certainly do not mean a percentage proportion will guarantee a select phenotype. Also, understand these admixture runs are mean averages, so there will be people that you can point to that may have more of the minority component or the majority component. But that's the point of a mean average is to show an average across the board. And this is the point of showing admixture runs, to get an idea of the mean average. So when you post a picture of Makranis that look very dark, those types may be in a greater percentile for Australoid admixture within the genetic spectrum for the Makrani people as a whole (not to mention if you post some that have African features, they are probably Sheedi living in the Makran coast and not actual Makranis. Sheedis are descended from Africans that arrived on the Makran coast.) Just as you can find dark ones, one can find light ones with more Caucasoid features than Australoid features. But if you take into consideration what pure Australoid peoples look like, you can even understand that people that could be between 1/3-1/4 could have such a range of phenotypes.

When talking about the Makrani, this is one of the more tricky world populations. Many of them are dark in complexion like this guy:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmKTQn49Et8AHWIhRNwkKaGax_J4bkf tAdpagYtu9BKspAHZLF

But if you understand the history of the Makrani people and another fact that there were also some Sub-Saharan Africans taken to the area as slaves and their descendants are called the "Sheedi" (which looks more like the guys you posted) not to mention that the Makrani partially descend from East African soldiers that arrived in the area with the spread of Islam. So if you factor in the SSA and look at East African genetics, which are largely Caucasoid themselves, then figure in the Australoid component you could see how these factors could translate to their phenotype. But they do seem to have the majority of their DNA being of the Caucasoid West Asian component. As you know, genotype does not equal phenotype and phenotypical traits from their minority ancestry could have bottlenecked into a descendant population with majority Caucasoid ancestry, significant Australoid/African ancestry while maintaining a strong Australoid/Negroid phenotypical influence. This can actually happen when you consider the unpredictability of genetics and it's many possibilities.

These are the K=12 admixture figures for the Makrani people in the Harappa Ancestry Project:

Baloch/Caucasus (West-Asian) - 58%
South-Asian - 24%
SW Asian - 7%
Kalash - 3%
East Bantu - 3%
West African - 3%
East African - 1%
European - 1%

As you can clearly see, in most any genetic calculation you find on Makranis, they will be majority Caucasoid, just as the K=6 admixture run I initially posted suggests. It's also the same story with Punjabis. I would recommend not to and try and predict the genetics of a population solely based on phenotypic appearance, that would be incredibly misleading.

this guy doesnt look australoid except that he looks dark skinned, but his features and skull are not australoid.
also im sure that indians are not that much mongoloid or real mongoloid like from where should they get that? you think chinese crossed the border and mixed with indians and if so both are neighbours why chinese are not mixed with indians? just indians with chinese? there are very few mongoloid people in india like 3% and they could be half australoid or full australoid i dont know about australoid. but probably their genetics has just much more diversity like pygmies have great diversity in genetics, they stand between east and west euroasian i doubt it is "real" admixture especially for mongoloid i dont know about australoid.

Mortimer

12-26-2014, 03:58 AM

i think there is a ancient southasian component which has high diversity between west and east euroasia and that most indians are close to hundred percent of the southasian component, oceanian and east asian is small 1-2% or less. if you use a european population or middle eastern as reference to describe them they turn out half of that component because of their genetic diversity but that doesnt mean they are half european third chinese third aboriginal.

Mortimer

12-26-2014, 04:03 AM

Physical traits do not always match with genetic ancestry. You can genetically be 70% but still look 100% Caucasian.

caucasian is tricky as it is no real phenotype but a umbrella term for many phenotypes and you cant say just who looks "caucasian" like you can say who looks european or british etc. it is much more tricky and i doubt you can be 70% one thing and 30% another and still look hundred percent, it is possible but thats only in unique cases and maybe one guy out of hundred thousand, can you imagine someone being 70% european and 30% african and looking fully european? maybe one unique guy out of hundred thousand. but you cant say who looks really fully "caucasian" and not in a ancient population like indians who predate european civilisation. was there ever a proto-caucasian phenotype? i mean if there is a caucasoid was there ever a proto-caucasoid and how he looked like? like sardinians? (they are used as reference)

Isleño

12-26-2014, 04:04 AM

maybe it is just me but of course europeans will have the highest percent of european, so whats the point? "the largest percent of the component" if you use europeans they will have the largest percent of cozurse and who was used as australoid reference? indians are not more then 1% australoid on gedmatch (oceanian) mcdonald etc.

Well the highest Caucasoid component and the highest European component is not the same thing. It's just Europeans have the highest Caucasoid component, so naturally they will be used for the reference population. Professionals look for the highest percentage of a component among world populations to determine which population reference to use. So if they used a European reference population, it would be because the Caucasoid component was strongest in that population. Also understand that if they did use a European population, only that European population would appear to be "purest" among the other European populations. But if other European populations are getting almost as pure Caucasoid as the reference population, that means they have a high percentage of the Caucasoid component. Take for instance Levantine Druze are more Caucasoid than Russians, Finns, and Mordovians in the same K=6 run. Don't forget, Indians have their ancient Aryan ancestry which is Caucasoid in component. This can be identified under the Ancient North Indian (ANI) component found in Indians.

Actually there is a blog that Razib did about Indians as hybrid people. It goes in greater detail and starts off with the study from Reich et al. 2009:

"We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers."

However, the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component is significantly loaded with Australoid ancestry.

This is from Reich et al. 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html

And this is the source for the Razib blog that goes into greater depth and includes much information on the matter:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/09/24/south-asians-as-a-hybrid-popul/

Shah-Jehan

12-26-2014, 04:10 AM

I don't think you fully understand the correlation between genotype and phenotype. They are not equal and certainly do not mean a percentage proportion will guarantee a select phenotype. Also, understand these admixture runs are mean averages, so there will be people that you can point to that may have more of the minority component or the majority component. But that's the point of a mean average is to show an average across the board. And this is the point of showing admixture runs, to get an idea of the mean average. So when you post a picture of Makranis that look very dark, those types may be in a greater percentile for Australoid admixture within the genetic spectrum for the Makrani people as a whole (not to mention if you post some that have African features, they are probably Sheedi living in the Makran coast and not actual Makranis. Sheedis are descended from Africans that arrived on the Makran coast.) Just as you can find dark ones, one can find light ones with more Caucasoid features than Australoid features. But if you take into consideration what pure Australoid peoples look like, you can even understand that people that could be between 1/3-1/4 could have such a range of phenotypes.

When talking about the Makrani, this is one of the more tricky world populations. Many of them are dark in complexion like this guy:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmKTQn49Et8AHWIhRNwkKaGax_J4bkf tAdpagYtu9BKspAHZLF

But if you understand the history of the Makrani people and another fact that there were also some Sub-Saharan Africans taken to the area as slaves and their descendants are called the "Sheedi" (which looks more like the guys you posted) not to mention that the Makrani partially descend from East African soldiers that arrived in the area with the spread of Islam. So if you factor in the SSA and look at East African genetics, which are largely Caucasoid themselves, then figure in the Australoid component you could see how these factors could translate to their phenotype. But they do seem to have the majority of their DNA being of the Caucasoid West Asian component. As you know, genotype does not equal phenotype and phenotypical traits from their minority ancestry could have bottlenecked into a descendant population with majority Caucasoid ancestry, significant Australoid/African ancestry while maintaining a strong Australoid/Negroid phenotypical influence. This can actually happen when you consider the unpredictability of genetics and it's many possibilities.

These are the K=12 admixture figures for the Makrani people in the Harappa Ancestry Project:

Baloch/Caucasus (West-Asian) - 58%
South-Asian - 24%
SW Asian - 7%
Kalash - 3%
East Bantu - 3%
West African - 3%
East African - 1%
European - 1%

As you can clearly see, in most any genetic calculation you find on Makranis, they will be majority Caucasoid, just as the K=6 admixture run I initially posted suggests. It's also the same story with Punjabis. I would recommend not to and try and predict the genetics of a population solely based on phenotypic appearance, that would be incredibly misleading.

The Sheedis came from Southeast Africa specifically Zanzibar and were captured Bantu slaves, they were never Caucasoid or had any Caucasoid element while the man, Makrani you posted are Sheedis that intermixed with the Baloch in Makran region of Balochestan and therefore they have mixed Caucasoid-negroid features.

Mortimer

12-26-2014, 04:13 AM

Well the highest Caucasoid component and the highest European component is not the same thing. It's just Europeans have the highest Caucasoid component, so naturally they will be used for the reference population. Professionals look for the highest percentage of a component among world populations to determine which population reference to use. So if they used a European reference population, it would be because the Caucasoid component was strongest in that population. Also understand that if they did use a European population, only that European population would appear to be "purest" among the other European populations. But if other European populations are getting almost as pure Caucasoid as the reference population, that means they have a high percentage of the Caucasoid component. Take for instance Levantine Druze are more Caucasoid than Russians, Finns, and Mordovians in the same K=6 run. Don't forget, Indians have their ancient Aryan ancestry which is Caucasoid in component. This can be identified under the Ancient North Indian (ANI) component found in Indians.

Actually there is a blog that Razib did about Indians as hybrid people. It goes in greater detail and starts off with the study from Reich et al. 2009:

"We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers."

However, the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component is significantly loaded with Australoid ancestry.

This is from Reich et al. 2009: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html

And this is the source for the Razib blog that goes into greater depth and includes much information on the matter:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/09/24/south-asians-as-a-hybrid-popul/

i understand what you mean they looked for common genetic components in world populations and determined sardinians to have the most of the caucasoid component or westeuroasian and then used them for reference, looks as much work. and interesting im no expert though and cant doubt the study.

Isleño

12-26-2014, 04:19 AM

this guy doesnt look australoid except that he looks dark skinned, but his features and skull are not australoid.
also im sure that indians are not that much mongoloid or real mongoloid like from where should they get that? you think chinese crossed the border and mixed with indians and if so both are neighbours why chinese are not mixed with indians? just indians with chinese? there are very few mongoloid people in india like 3% and they could be half australoid or full australoid i dont know about australoid. but probably their genetics has just much more diversity like pygmies have great diversity in genetics, they stand between east and west euroasian i doubt it is "real" admixture especially for mongoloid i dont know about australoid.

Well you are welcome to your opinions, that I can not take from you. But if you understand genetics usually tie in with history, and in many times prehistoric history, much of which happened before such things were even recorded. But if you look at the DNA of Indians in many genetics studies, there is a mention of a mongoloid component. Not trying to say everything you are saying is wrong, you have a right to your belief, but understand that these studies and genetic results are calculated by professionals that far exceed our knowledge on the topic.

As for the guy in the pic, since you appear scholarly, I would expect you to know better than to judge his genetics by his phenotype. Partial prehistoric Australoid ancestry found in the ASI (Ancient South Indian) component of Indians would not necessarlly produce an Australoid appearance. You mentioned Pygmies and African, but if you look at admixture runs on the African continent, you can see there is admixture in some (East African, Maasai, Fulani, etc) and not so much admixture in others (Yoruba or Mandinka for example). There's genetic diversity in India, like other places, but significant Australoid and Mongoloid genetic frequencies are detected in most peer-reviewed studies on them. Much of which I believe is prehistoric. If you understand genetics, you know it may or may not. Genetics are unpredictable.

Isleño

12-26-2014, 04:27 AM

Isleño

12-26-2014, 04:30 AM

i understand what you mean they looked for common genetic components in world populations and determined sardinians to have the most of the caucasoid component or westeuroasian and then used them for reference, looks as much work. and interesting im no expert though and cant doubt the study.
Of course, I see we are in agreement then. There was a time when I questioned this very thing, the same as you before getting the knowledge about it. But your comment is correct this time, yes. That's absolutely right, that's exactly what they do :)

Indians, no doubt are an interesting people to study I must say.

Mortimer

12-26-2014, 04:37 AM

Well you are welcome to your opinions, that I can not take from you. But if you understand genetics usually tie in with history, and in many times prehistoric history, much of which happened before such things were even recorded. But if you look at the DNA of Indians in many genetics studies, there is a mention of a mongoloid component. Not trying to say everything you are saying is wrong, you have a right to your belief, but understand that these studies and genetic results are calculated by professionals that far exceed our knowledge on the topic.

As for the guy in the pic, since you appear scholarly, I would expect you to know better than to judge his genetics by his phenotype. Partial prehistoric Australoid ancestry found in the ASI (Ancient South Indian) component of Indians would not necessarlly produce an Australoid appearance. You mentioned Pygmies and African, but if you look at admixture runs on the African continent, you can see there is admixture in some (East African, Maasai, Fulani, etc) and not so much admixture in others (Yoruba or Mandinka for example). There's genetic diversity in India, like other places, but significant Australoid and Mongoloid genetic frequencies are detected in most peer-reviewed studies on them. Much of which I believe is prehistoric. If you understand genetics, you know it may or may not. Genetics are unpredictable.

you judged his apperance first by posting him as australoid i just said my opinion that he is not. but you seem like a nice guy and i dont want to fight with you. it might be preshistoric. but i wouldnt equate preshistoric dna with sub-races, sub-races are based on skull measurements and feature positions from past two hundred years, but prehistoric dna might show that we are part amphibian. if you can get what i mean. for example look at davidskis ancient genome run, and irish turned out part aboriginal and part la brana etc. also there were other species on the planet like neanderthal and denisovan and maybe others etc. and there were ancient men who were nothing of what we know today, like part amerindian part westerneuroasian who carried R haplogroup in siberia etc. prehistoric dna is tricky. but in the past 5000 years i doubt indians mixed with mongoloids, or why mongoloids are not mixed with indians? it should be both ways but mongoloids are shown to be pure mostly or very few of other components. and i think the caucasoid is just a part of the genome what europeans, and indians have in common i dont think it means that indians are really part "european/caucasoid" all humans have 99% genome in common though. i would take that with a graint of salt. and why this discussion started you said europeans are pure indians are mixed, but in a study it was shown that genetic marker for light skin like we know it now in europeans mutated somewhere between southindia and mideast, and was carried to europe.

Isleño

12-26-2014, 05:53 AM

you judged his apperance first by posting him as australoid i just said my opinion that he is not. but you seem like a nice guy and i dont want to fight with you. it might be preshistoric. but i wouldnt equate preshistoric dna with sub-races, sub-races are based on skull measurements and feature positions from past two hundred years, but prehistoric dna might show that we are part amphibian. if you can get what i mean. for example look at davidskis ancient genome run, and irish turned out part aboriginal and part la brana etc. also there were other species on the planet like neanderthal and denisovan and maybe others etc. and there were ancient men who were nothing of what we know today, like part amerindian part westerneuroasian who carried R haplogroup in siberia etc. prehistoric dna is tricky. but in the past 5000 years i doubt indians mixed with mongoloids, or why mongoloids are not mixed with indians? it should be both ways but mongoloids are shown to be pure mostly or very few of other components. and i think the caucasoid is just a part of the genome what europeans, and indians have in common i dont think it means that indians are really part "european/caucasoid" all humans have 99% genome in common though. i would take that with a graint of salt. and why this discussion started you said europeans are pure indians are mixed, but in a study it was shown that genetic marker for light skin like we know it now in europeans mutated somewhere between southindia and mideast, and was carried to europe.

Oh no, I would never want to be in an argument, we are only debating opinions, facts and ideas. Never take it serious as an argument, at least I don't. You also seem like a nice guy and I know sometimes these debates may get frustrating, but with certain people that you know are not being condescending and are not trying to "one up" you, but rather is just a fellow armchair anthropologist such as yourself, I think would be best to keep it at a friendly debate level. We are both subject to making errors and both you and I have in the past. But I think we pick up more knowledge as we go, so it's a great start that we agree on some things.

As for genetic components, yes it's basically that there is a component that Europeans, Middle Easterners and Indians share that is detectable by DNA, and many professionals choose to label it as Caucasoid, others choose to label it as other things like Eurasian, or what have you. I think some use Caucasoid because that is the skull shape and skeletal body plan most stronly associated with this component. Excuse me if my words came off as meaning Indians are predominantly European, which I would never, ever say in my entire life. I think there was just a misunderstanding. I think what it is that I was trying to get across is that Indians are largely Caucasoid, or if you want to call it a Eurasian component. I only refer to Europeans because they seem to have the highest percentage of this component.

As for Indians vs. Europeans, from all of the studies I've read, it would appear that there is some prehistoric admixture from Mongoloid and Australoid peoples. I don't want you to take it as Europeans are better because they are purer in the Caucasoid component, no that's not what I meant or would ever say. That would be out of context from what I mean. I just mean that Europeans had less prehistoric/modern admixture from other scientific races outside of the Caucasoid component. It seems Indians, have indeed taken on some admixture in significant proportions. Doesn't mean any one population is better than the other. It's simply scientific, when have you ever known me to say a population of people is better than another? Never.

And forgive me if may have come across as me posting the Makrani gentleman as an Australoid example, but I didn't post him in regards to Australoid ancestry (therefore I never judged him by phenotype), but rather just to show a picture of a Makrani person. I just think you interpreted it differently than the reason I posted him. It was in an impartial context and was entirely neutral. And yes, the genetic marker for light skin did appear between the Middle East and was carried to Europe (where genetics even further mutated lighter in Northern Europe afterward) and by no means was I suggesting Indians are mixed European/Australoid. But I did say that Indians are mixed and were predominantly Caucasoid, but with significant Australoid admixture with a smaller, but still significant Mongoloid admixture. In my argument, Caucasoid does not equal European, but does equal that common component found in Europeans, South Asians, MENA's and even East Africans (to an extent). If we choose to call it Caucasoid or not, it's that component that I mean, not a component exclusive to Europe.

Isleño

12-26-2014, 06:30 AM

The Sheedis came from Southeast Africa specifically Zanzibar and were captured Bantu slaves, they were never Caucasoid or had any Caucasoid element while the man, Makrani you posted are Sheedis that intermixed with the Baloch in Makran region of Balochestan and therefore they have mixed Caucasoid-negroid features.

Upon looking into the populations of these people a bit further, it seems there are Makranis that are similar to Baloch people, but with added small scale Negroid DNA and these are included in the "Makrani" samples in both the K=6 I posted and also the Harappa Ancestry Project results I posted. There is also a study that says the same thing by Guha et al. 2012, this is in mention when speaking about Makranis. But then there seems to be other groups of them, more commonly referred to as Siddis/Sheedis and are largely of African Bantu origins which is also noted by the Shah et al. 2011 study suggesting that the Siddis he studied were 65%-75% African Bantu in origins. This would mean there are two separate groups living in similar areas with similar culture/identity, but are racially two different peoples. This would explain why Jatt could post some that looked like black Africans and I could find some that didn't. There are two racially different groups. Notice the Makrani sample on the K=6 I posted and the percentages I posted from the Harappa Ancestry project, they are reading the same:

Harappa Ancestry Project K=12

Baloch/Caucasus (West-Asian) - 58%
South-Asian - 24%
SW Asian - 7%
Kalash - 3%
East Bantu - 3%
West African - 3%
East African - 1%
European - 1%

K=6 based on Lazaridis et al. 2013/2014 update (Makranis are to the bottom right):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s669/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png

Notice they are reading about the same, mostly Caucasoid with significant Australoid admixture with minor Negroid admixture. These seem to be the predominantly Caucasoid type and the predominanly Negroid type is not represented in these samples.

Also, notice the Baloch sample on the K=6 from Lazaridis et al., it's almost the same in components to the Makrani on the K=6, except the Makrani sample has some minor Negroid admixture. The Harappa K=12 shows it's sample has a total of 7% Negroid DNA. It's the same thing the K=6 is saying. Guha et al. is saying the same thing:

"the genome-wide ancestry of the Makrani was essentially the same as that of the neighboring Indo-European speaking Balochi and Dravidian-speaking Brahui"

And notice the Brahui in the K=6 is just like the Balochi and Makrani in similar proportions for each component, except the Makrani has the small Negroid admixture (7% on Harappa K=12). They are all saying the same thing, Guha et al., Lazaridis et al. K=6, and Harappa Ancestry Project's K=12. They are just studying the predominantly Caucasoid group, not the predominantly Negroid Siddis/Sheedis that Jatt was posting. Big difference.

jatt

12-26-2014, 12:17 PM

jatt

12-26-2014, 12:31 PM

Upon looking into the populations of these people a bit further, it seems there are Makranis that are similar to Baloch people, but with added small scale Negroid DNA and these are included in the "Makrani" samples in both the K=6 I posted and also the Harappa Ancestry Project results I posted. There is also a study that says the same thing by Guha et al. 2012, this is in mention when speaking about Makranis. But then there seems to be other groups of them, more commonly referred to as Siddis/Sheedis and are largely of African Bantu origins which is also noted by the Shah et al. 2011 study suggesting that the Siddis he studied were 65%-75% African Bantu in origins. This would mean there are two separate groups living in similar areas with similar culture/identity, but are racially two different peoples. This would explain why Jatt could post some that looked like black Africans and I could find some that didn't. There are two racially different groups. Notice the Makrani sample on the K=6 I posted and the percentages I posted from the Harappa Ancestry project, they are reading the same:

Harappa Ancestry Project K=12

Baloch/Caucasus (West-Asian) - 58%
South-Asian - 24%
SW Asian - 7%
Kalash - 3%
East Bantu - 3%
West African - 3%
East African - 1%
European - 1%

K=6 based on Lazaridis et al. 2013/2014 update (Makranis are to the bottom right):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Oa3bBts6e3M/Ur6VH_81tpI/AAAAAAAAAUI/JGoPs1UmWyA/s669/Lazaridis2014_EDF3_K6.png

Notice they are reading about the same, mostly Caucasoid with significant Australoid admixture with minor Negroid admixture. These seem to be the predominantly Caucasoid type and the predominanly Negroid type is not represented in these samples.

Also, notice the Baloch sample on the K=6 from Lazaridis et al., it's almost the same in components to the Makrani on the K=6, except the Makrani sample has some minor Negroid admixture. The Harappa K=12 shows it's sample has a total of 7% Negroid DNA. It's the same thing the K=6 is saying. Guha et al. is saying the same thing:

"the genome-wide ancestry of the Makrani was essentially the same as that of the neighboring Indo-European speaking Balochi and Dravidian-speaking Brahui"

And notice the Brahui in the K=6 is just like the Balochi and Makrani in similar proportions for each component, except the Makrani has the small Negroid admixture (7% on Harappa K=12). They are all saying the same thing, Guha et al., Lazaridis et al. K=6, and Harappa Ancestry Project's K=12. They are just studying the predominantly Caucasoid group, not the predominantly Negroid Siddis/Sheedis that Jatt was posting. Big difference.

http://i.dawn.com/2011/03/baloch-culture-day-1.jpghttp://www.footballpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Aijaz-Baloch-inaugurating-the-6th-Ada-Sher-Mohammad-Baloch-Football-Tournament.jpghttp://www.footballpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Crowd.jpg

lol that's how your everyday baloch looks like with high west Asians and Caucasoid component... why is it hard to understand the fact when pehenotype doest match genotrype the tests probably are misleading and false

Isleño

12-27-2014, 06:24 AM

sheedi are in indian too... but majority of makranis look much less Caucasoid then Punjabis, so does baloch etc....now tell me what about turkman and turkik mongoloid looking people being 80% Caucasoid..

I don't see the need to keep repeating that phenotype does not equal genotype, I think we have moved past that. I just explained in depth the genetic samples of the Makrani vs. the darker Siddi/Sheedi types and explained they are two different groups genetically. I don't think we need to do this for every sample on the K=6. Just understand that all of the samples in the K=6 are from a peer-reviewed study, a most up-to-date study from Lazaridis et al. 2013/2014 update. Even when we examined the Makrani people, all of the samples matched up from a few different studies including Shah et al. and Guha et al. and genetic ancestry projects such as the one from Harappa. That's three different studies saying the same thing, plus a genetic ancestry project. So the results are real and are validated, that we know. I would just like to see you embrace these findings as the non-Caucasoid components are all prehistoric and are not recent, which makes a big difference since these elements would evolve in the Indian subcontinent over time. I mean we could go through the whole thing again to show you how the Turkmen people have those genetics, but again, there's no need to go down the list one by one to validate them as if the source was a doubtful one, which it's not. The source is solid.

Isleño

12-27-2014, 06:29 AM

http://i.dawn.com/2011/03/baloch-culture-day-1.jpghttp://www.footballpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Aijaz-Baloch-inaugurating-the-6th-Ada-Sher-Mohammad-Baloch-Football-Tournament.jpghttp://www.footballpakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Crowd.jpg

lol that's how your everyday baloch looks like with high west Asians and Caucasoid component... why is it hard to understand the fact when pehenotype doest match genotrype the tests probably are misleading and false
How can you even use pictures of comparing phenotypes to known, tested genetic information, that is repeated over and over by several credible, peer-reviewed sources? That's like comparing ignorance to knowlege. You can not tell an individual's genetic make up by looking at them visually. You can maybe guess factors, but not percentages, but then not even all factors. This is a useless tactic in an educated debate, seriously...not trying to be mean, but seriously.

Demhat

12-27-2014, 07:01 AM

How can you even use pictures of comparing phenotypes to known, tested genetic information, that is repeated over and over by several credible, peer-reviewed sources? That's like comparing ignorance to knowlege. You can not tell an individual's genetic make up by looking at them visually. You can maybe guess factors, but not percentages, but then not even all factors. This is a useless tactic in an educated debate, seriously...not trying to be mean, but seriously.

Are you still trying to keep a serious discussion with this guy? :D
I mean he even tried to portray Indians as more West Eurasian than Europeans. He is cherry picking.. No way are Indians as Caucasian as Baluchi. Not even remotely. Neither genetically nor physically.

Isleño

12-27-2014, 07:37 AM

Antimage

12-27-2014, 07:53 AM

Demhat

12-27-2014, 08:44 AM

in the latin american 23and me thread i saw 50%amerindian and 50%european guy that looked full european... so sometimes genotype doesn't match phenotype..

haven't you seen children who look exactly the same as one parent and looks nothing like the other?

Sure and thats what I said. Indians are genetically predominantly West Eurasian so even though they have some ~30% (North Indians) non West Eurasian DNA, they have become a stabile Caucasian looking group with ~70% West Eurasian DNA.

But you can't claim that they can look more Caucasians than a population with 90% West Eurasian DNA.

Thats like an half Asian/half Black who suprisingly turned out as mostly Asian looking, tells his full Asian uncle that he is more Asian than him :D

Isleño

12-27-2014, 08:51 AM

Sure and thats what I said. Indians are genetically predominantly West Eurasian so even though they have some 30% non West Eurasian DNA, they have become a stabile Caucasian looking group with 70% West Eurasian DNA.

But you can't claim that say can look more Caucasians than a population with 90% West Eurasian DNA.

Thats like an half Asian/half Black who suprisingly turned out as mostly Asian looking, tells his full Asian uncle that he is more Asian than him :D

Great statement. These are the reasons I stress that phenotype is not equal to genotype. No one that is educated in genetics/anthropology would dare to support an argument that favors the calculated origins of a people based on phenotype over genetic study.

Demhat

12-27-2014, 08:54 AM

Great statement. These are the reasons I stress that phenotype is not equal to genotype. No one that is educated in genetics/anthropology would dare to support an argument that favors the calculated origins of a people based on phenotype over genetic study.

Thats true but as said, If there are phenotypical characteristics, it is not far fetched to assume some genetics behind it also.

Remember people thought for over a century that Amerindians show "Caucasian" characteristics but all were saying that they are East Eurasian, until we found out more about ANE and so everything made much more sense. You certanly can look almost fully Caucasian even with as low as only 50% West Eurasian DNA but you will never look full blood Caucasian with only <30% West Eurasian DNA.

But you are right physical appearance should never been put over genetics.

Isleño

12-27-2014, 09:06 AM

Thats true but as said, If there are phenotypical characteristics, it is not far fetched to assume some genetics behind it also.

Remember people thought for over a century that Amerindians show "Caucasian" characteristics but all were saying that they are East Eurasian, until we found out more about ANE and so everything made much more sense. You certanly can look almost fully Caucasian even with as low as only 50% West Eurasian DNA but you will never look full blood Caucasian with only <30% West Eurasian DNA.

But you are right physical appearance should never been put over genetics.

Well because genetics are so random and unpredictable. It usually takes enough of a component to make significant modifications, but not always, even smaller amounts can make a noticeable impact. Because DNA is so random and unpredictable and can produce a range of phenotypes that do not always equal the genotype, using phenotypes to accurately calculate admixture in Humans is near impossible. We can play the guessing game and even the best of us could make some pretty good guesses, but that's all it will be.

And by the way, ANE is one the most interesting subjects to me. M'alta boy has opened up the door to so much so far and so much more yet to see.

jatt

12-27-2014, 11:33 AM

Are you still trying to keep a serious discussion with this guy? :D
I mean he even tried to portray Indians as more West Eurasian than Europeans. He is cherry picking.. No way are Indians as Caucasian as Baluchi. Not even remotely. Neither genetically nor physically. I am talking ablout phenotype... u probably aint south Asian and dunno how balochis look in real life... what do you think balochis look like...... do I need to post more crowd picture of some balochi festival or something.. I simply believe in visual phenos.... THESE GENETIC TEST SHOW HOW A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE MORE CLOSER TO REFERANCE GROUP OF PEOPLE...that's why mongoloid looking people are turning out to be 80% caucasoids and yet look mongoloids,

jatt

12-27-2014, 11:44 AM

how does we differentiate people into races.. by visual observation and skull measurements or by looking in to genomes.. genomes as I have said tells what percentage a studied population is similar to base population used in study...have the genes that give us the particular eye shape, skull shape and color of skin decoded yet.. nope .. till then all is guess work.

jatt

12-27-2014, 01:03 PM

if we go by genetics pashtoons and sindhis are similar population which they aint at all.. kashmiris have higher ASI than sindhis yet look closer to pashtoons than sindhis.. balochis are west Asians yet look different... which proves my point genetic tests only determine 1 populations proximity to another population based on some common shared components. its just that nothing more nor less.

Demhat

12-27-2014, 01:27 PM

I am talking ablout phenotype... u probably aint south Asian and dunno how balochis look in real life... what do you think balochis look like...... do I need to post more crowd picture of some balochi festival or something.. I simply believe in visual phenos.... THESE GENETIC TEST SHOW HOW A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE MORE CLOSER TO REFERANCE GROUP OF PEOPLE...that's why mongoloid looking people are turning out to be 80% caucasoids and yet look mongoloids,

No don't show me anymore "wisely picked group photos". Be sure I know more about Baloch than you do. Saying you know more about Baloch because you are from South Asia is like a German guy saying he knows more about Greeks because he is also European. I doubt that you have even seen a handful of Baloch in your entire life.

By the way Balochistan is mostly located in Southwestern Asia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan

That alone makes this argument invalid.

jatt

12-27-2014, 01:49 PM

No don't show me anymore "wisely picked group photos". Be sure I know more about Baloch than you do. Saying you know more about Baloch because you are from South Asia is like a German guy saying he knows more about Greeks because he is also European. I doubt that you have even seen a handful of Baloch in your entire life.

By the way Balochistan is mostly located in Southwestern Asia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan

That alone makes this argument invalid.

dude they may be located wherever but they are definitely less Caucasoid then Punjabis. british considered them as non martial people. if it was not for british we Sikhs would have changed their society which is made of some rich influencial waderas and rest poor people. even Pakistani army did not recruited from their ethnicity much upto recently as people agitated against Punjabi hegemony..your everyday balochis aint much different from sindhis.

Shah-Jehan

12-27-2014, 05:44 PM

dude they may be located wherever but they are definitely less Caucasoid then Punjabis. british considered them as non martial people. if it was not for british we Sikhs would have changed their society which is made of some rich influencial waderas and rest poor people. even Pakistani army did not recruited from their ethnicity much upto recently as people agitated against Punjabi hegemony..your everyday balochis aint much different from sindhis.

Caucasoidness is not a real term and both Punjabis and Baloch are Caucasoid.

I think you got it wrong, the Baloch were also one of the Martial races as picked by the British.
The Pakistani army actually tried to maintain Punjabi hegemony and tried to limit the number of Bengalis, Sindhis, Baloch and Muhajirs and even though Baloch fell under the Martial races category, they were not encouraged to recruit them because of rebellions by Baloch nobles in some regions.

and you are right, Baloch and Sindhis have very minimal difference in terms of phenotypes. About 40% of Sindhis are said to even have Baloch origin and Sindhis even have tribes called "Baloch" or "Balochi". The difference between the Brahuis and Baloch are even more minimal even though Brahui people are Dravidian.

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 05:30 PM

NE Euro DNA has been found in one Haryana Hindu Jat from my caste at 29% isn’t it interesting we have the highest in South Asia more than the Brahmins, Kalash and Pathans on average?

Leto

03-09-2018, 06:03 PM

I was looking at the K12b spreadsheet and they have 14% North European, more than Sicilians even.

Anyone know why? Are they mixed with the English maybe?
No, not from the English but from the Indo-Iranians and maybe later from the Scythians. Here are the results of a Nepali Brahmin for example. Nepal is more Eastern than both India and Pakistan, yet the high caste even there has preserved some Aryan DNA

Eurogenes K13:

# Population Percent
1 South_Asian 46.31
2 West_Asian 27.24
3 North_Atlantic 7.97
4 Baltic 6.84
5 Siberian 4.39
6 East_Asian 2.98
7 Amerindian 2.13
8 Red_Sea 1.68
9 Oceanian 0.46

Dodecad K12b:

# Population Percent
1 South_Asian 34.15
2 Gedrosia 32.46
3 North_European 15.39
4 Caucasus 6.21
5 East_Asian 4.77
6 Atlantic_Med 3.28
7 Southeast_Asian 1.85
8 Siberian 1.30

HarappaWorld:

# Population Percent
1 S-Indian 33.70
2 Baloch 32.25
3 NE-Euro 14.10
4 Caucasian 7.76
5 NE-Asian 4.35
6 Mediterranean 2.58
7 American 1.45
8 Beringian 1.29
9 Siberian 1.09

http://asiaseminaryforministry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Nepal.png

Mingle

03-09-2018, 06:12 PM

NE Euro DNA has been found in one Haryana Hindu Jat from my caste at 29% isn’t it interesting we have the highest in South Asia more than the Brahmins, Kalash and Pathans on average?

Punjabi Jatts don't get higher than Pashtuns or Kalashes, dunno about Haryanvi ones.

Which calc did the Haryana Jatt get 29% on? Seems very unlikely they could get 29%.

turbosat

03-09-2018, 07:51 PM

Caucasoidness is not a real term and both Punjabis and Baloch are Caucasoid.

I think you got it wrong, the Baloch were also one of the Martial races as picked by the British.
The Pakistani army actually tried to maintain Punjabi hegemony and tried to limit the number of Bengalis, Sindhis, Baloch and Muhajirs and even though Baloch fell under the Martial races category, they were not encouraged to recruit them because of rebellions by Baloch nobles in some regions.

and you are right, Baloch and Sindhis have very minimal difference in terms of phenotypes. About 40% of Sindhis are said to even have Baloch origin and Sindhis even have tribes called "Baloch" or "Balochi". The difference between the Brahuis and Baloch are even more minimal even though Brahui people are Dravidian.

Baloch and Sindhis are generally not "minimal difference" in phenotype. Its just that some Baloch living in Sindh might be now calling themselves Sindhi, or more likely there are a lot of rural Sindhis now calling themselves "Baloch" and then people think (like you do) Baloch and Sindhi look similar to each other when the "Baloch" are really Sindhis now calling themselves "Baloch". Then you have some mixed Baloch-Sindhi who might just call themselves Sindhi etc

Also 40% of Sindhis are unlikely to be Baloch origin. I have read in several books written by Europeans in 19th century, and Baloch at the time were less than 10% of Sindh population. They are unlikely to be 40% now.

Hadouken

03-09-2018, 07:54 PM

29% ?

oouuuuukaaaayyyyy....

Marmara

03-09-2018, 08:00 PM

I don't know how high but it's definetly from Indo-Iranians.

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 08:05 PM

Punjabi Jatts don't get higher than Pashtuns or Kalashes, dunno about Haryanvi ones.

Which calc did the Haryana Jatt get 29% on? Seems very unlikely they could get 29%.

Hi Mingle,

I’ve sent you the link HRP0188 a Haryana Jatt, has the highest NE Euro component (29%) of all South Asians. Plus, yes some Jats do get higher NE Euro than the Brahmins and some Kalash and Pathans.

http://www.harappadna.org/2011/11/admixture-ref3-k11-hrp0181-hrp0190/

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 08:10 PM

Hi Mingle,

I’ve sent you the link HRP0188 a Haryana Jatt, has the highest European component (29%) of all South Asians. Plus, yes some Jats do get higher NE Euro than the Brahmins and some Kalash and Pathans.

http://www.harappadna.org/2011/11/admixture-ref3-k11-hrp0181-hrp0190/

I just searched up pictures of haryvana jatts, they look like typical north indians, quite surprised they scored that high tbh. However, the south asian component is almost 60 percent in most of them, which can explain the phenotype. U gotta look all the stats before saying something like that.

Mingle

03-09-2018, 08:12 PM

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 08:18 PM

The list of the South-Asians with the highest NE Euro score (top 25), in descending order;
HRP0188 (Haryanvi Jatt) - 29%
HRP0131 ([3/4] Haryanvi Tomar Jatt [1/4] U.P Jatt) - 27%
HRP0170 (Haryanvi Jatt) - 26%
HRP0093 [=HRP006 FTDNA data] (Punjabi Sandhu Jatt) - 22%
HRP0187 (Punjabi Lali Jatt) - 22%
HRP0033 (Rajasthani Brahmin) - 21%
HRP0021 (Kashmiri) - 21%
HRP0005 (Punjabi Gill Jatt) - 21%
HRP0008 (Punjabi Jhaj Jatt) - 20%
HRP0178 (Punjabi Khatri) - 20%
HRP0129 (U.P Brahmin) - 20%
HRP0162 (Punjabi/Gujarati) - 20%
HRP006 (Punjabi Sandhu Jatt) - 19%
HRP0085 (Thathai Bhatia) - 19%

Mingle

03-09-2018, 08:20 PM

^ I looked at HRP0118, my bad. Yes, that one does seem to be 29% European.

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 08:20 PM

29% ?

oouuuuukaaaayyyyy....

WTF are u talking about, dude starseeds has atleast 50 percent european dna LOL ur just jealous bro, cant u see his uncle???

Mingle

03-09-2018, 08:27 PM

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 08:38 PM

Btw Starseed, the HarappaWorld link shows different components than what the current HarappaWorld calc has. That HarappaWorld calc has only generic European, South Asian, etc. whereas the current one has NE Euro, Med, South Indian, Baloch, etc.

Hi Mingle,

I looked at HRP0118 results on the spreadsheet and it’s divided shows all his NE Euro, South Indian, Baloch, Med etc... and his haplogroup is R1a1a.

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 08:40 PM

Hi Mingle,

I looked at HRP0118 results on the spreadsheet and it’s divided shows all his NE Euro, South Indian, Baloch, Med etc... and his haplogroup is R1a1a.

Its probably an atypical jatt like ur self (who is very aryan i must admit), i doubt any caste within india would have such high NE when they look like typical north indians phenotypically.

Leto

03-09-2018, 08:50 PM

I posted this boy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbsRd6wIQn8

68.1% South Asian

14.0% European (11.2% Irish, Scottish and Welsh, 2.8% Baltic)

11.0% West Asian

5.8% Central Asian

1.1% African (Nigerian)

Thambi

03-09-2018, 08:57 PM

Its probably an atypical jatt like ur self (who is very aryan i must admit), i doubt any caste within india would have such high NE when they look like typical north indians phenotypically.

Haryanvi jatts look more indic than both punjabi jatts and kashmiri pandits despite the latter two groups being more south indian shifted with less NE Euro. I think this is a case with climate adaptation/natural selection.

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 08:58 PM

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 08:59 PM

Hi Leto,

You posted that last week and Jats still have the most NE Euro DNA than the Brahmins and many Kalash and Pathans isn’t that interesting? We’re more pure than the majority of other Southern Asians and that video doesn’t state his caste so why post that on this page about Jats?

U might be right about that, they are more caucasian than most of india and even the kalash/pathans weird isnt it?

Thambi

03-09-2018, 09:02 PM

Hi Leto,

You posted that last week and Jats still have the most NE Euro DNA than the Brahmins and many Kalash and Pathans isn’t that interesting? We’re more pure than the majority of other Southern Asians and that video doesn’t state his caste so why post that on this page about Jats?

You statement is ironic. If you have more euro mixture compared to other south asians, wouldn't that make you guys the most mixed rather than pure?

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 09:04 PM

Ik im just joking lol. The starseeds guy has an obsession with being "aryan" (he keeps pming me how he is more aryan than me and stuff lol). Kashmiri pandits from the north of kashmir seem to be way less influenced by dravidians than jatts in general let alone kalashas lol. So yeah the jatts might have more NE but the dravidian influence is even higher than most north indians.

Mingle

03-09-2018, 09:05 PM

Haryanvi jatts look more indic than both punjabi jatts and kashmiri pandits despite the latter two groups being more south indian shifted with less NE Euro. I think this is a case with climate adaptation/natural selection.Even though they have more NE Euro, they also have more ASE/ASI iirc, so that would explain it.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 09:05 PM

You statement is ironic. If you have more euro mixture compared to other south asians, wouldn't that make you guys the most mixed rather than pure?

HAHHAHAHAH SO TRUE LOL. He thinks being more european = more pure.

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 09:06 PM

You statement is ironic. If you have more euro mixture compared to other south asians, wouldn't that make you guys the most mixed rather than pure?

Hi Thambi,

I meant being more Caucasian Aryan and yes Jats are very mixed and it’s most likely we mixed with the foreigners more considering blue eyes, red hair, high cheek bones, very tall height , almond eyes and typical Indian features occur in my family.

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 09:10 PM

Even though they have more NE Euro, they also have more ASE/ASI iirc, so that would explain it.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

The Jat with the most NE Euro has 29% and his ASI is only 13% isn’t that interesting?

ASI:
HRP0107 Punjabi 15%
HRP0005 Punjabi Jatt 15%
HRP0162 Punjabi (1/2), Gujarati (1/2) 15%
HRP0006 Punjabi Jatt 14%
HRP0086 Punjabi (1/2), Sindhi (1/2) 14%
HRP0183 UP, MP, Punjabi Khatri 14%
HRP0188 Haryana Jatt 14%
HRP0161 Punjabi (3/4), Egyptian (1/4) 13%
HRP0126 Punjabi Jatt 13%
HRP0187 Punjabi Jatt 13%
HRP0170 Haryana Jatt 13%

Mingle

03-09-2018, 09:15 PM

Hi Thambi,

I meant being more Caucasian Aryan and yes Jats are very mixed and it’s most likely we mixed with the foreigners more considering blue eyes, red hair, high cheek bones, very tall heigh, almond eyes and typical Indian features occur in my family.

Which groups are Jatts mixed with.

These are the ones that I've heard from Jatts: Scythians, Persians, Afghans, Aryans, Arabs, Bactrians, Huns, Mongols, Chinese, Greeks, Turks.

Did I miss any? Do you guys pick up any mix from the British?

Anyways, now I can see why people say that Punjabis are the most mixed people out there. It was an entry point of invaders for centuries. Even the name Punjab is of Persian origin.

Btw, how common is brown hair among Jatts? Would you say its more common than black hair?

Thambi

03-09-2018, 09:15 PM

Even though they have more NE Euro, they also have more ASE/ASI iirc, so that would explain it.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

No haryanvi jatts have less south indian than punjabis/kashmiris. However, they have less caucasian than those two groups. Kashmiris also have little extra siberian/east asian on top of caucasian compared to punjabis and haryanvis, making them the lightest among northwest indians. Climate also adds up in kashmir's case though since they live in the mountains.

harpoon

03-09-2018, 09:17 PM

Which groups are Jatts mixed with.

These are the ones that I've heard from Jatts: Scythians, Persians, Afghans, Aryans, Arabs, Bactrians, Huns, Mongols, Chinese, Greeks, Turks.

Did I miss any? Do you guys pick up any mix from the British?

Anyways, now I can see why people say that Punjabis are the most mixed people out there. It was an entry point of invaders for centuries. Even the name Punjab is of Persian origin.

Btw, how common is brown hair among Jatts? Would you say its more common than black hair?

They're mixed with all of those except Ching Chongs.

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 09:18 PM

They're mixed with all of those except Ching Chongs.

are u sure? I have seen some with very small eyes... (starseeds dad is an excellent example)

Mingle

03-09-2018, 09:21 PM

They're mixed with all of those except Ching Chongs.IIRC, Starseed said that his family is descended from some Chinese Kang clan or something.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 09:22 PM

IIRC, Starseed said that his family is descended from some Chinese Kang clan or something.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

Yes his family are the original aryans did u not know that harpoon?

Starseed88

03-09-2018, 09:25 PM

IIRC, Starseed said that his family is descended from some Chinese Kang clan or something.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

Hi Mingle,

Historians have traced the Kang Jats to the Kangju Huns from Central Asia and it could be true the clan traces it origins to Afghanistan and have Central Asian features high cheek bones, almond eyes, blue/green eyes and red/brown hair.

Leto

03-09-2018, 09:26 PM

Hi Leto,

You posted that last week and Jats still have the most NE Euro DNA than the Brahmins and many Kalash and Pathans isn’t that interesting? We’re more pure than the majority of other Southern Asians and that video doesn’t state his caste so why post that on this page about Jats?
Hi,

First of all, I didn't say anything about who's more or less Aryan. Second, why not post that here again? The boy is an Indian Sikh and he is 14% European on that test. Probably he is your average Jat genetically.

harpoon

03-09-2018, 09:27 PM

are u sure? I have seen some with very small eyes... (starseeds dad is an excellent example)

The small eyes and mongoloid traits are from the Huns and Mongols I would have thought.

Leto

03-09-2018, 09:28 PM

The Punjabis are not mixed with Chinese or Arabs, that's BS. They are normal Northern South Asians.

harpoon

03-09-2018, 09:33 PM

The Punjabis are not mixed with Chinese or Arabs, that's BS. They are normal Northern South Asians.

They haven't mixed with Arabians or Chinese at all but some Punjabis have admixture from those other groups listed above.

Mingle

03-09-2018, 09:52 PM

Hi Mingle,

Historians have traced the Kang Jats to the Kangju Huns from Central Asia and it could be true the clan traces it origins to Afghanistan and have Central Asian features high cheek bones, almond eyes, blue/green eyes and red/brown hair.

Would you say that its accurate to say that Punjabis are a mix of Persians and Central Asians or is that an oversimplification?

I saw this on Facebook a while ago and the person claiming this seemed informed on history and stuff:

https://i.imgur.com/K1qKopG.png?1

jamakzai12

03-09-2018, 09:59 PM

Would you its accurate to say that Punjabis are a mix of Persians and Central Asians or is that an oversimplification?

I saw this on Facebook a while ago and the person claiming this seemed informed on history and stuff:

https://i.imgur.com/K1qKopG.png?1
The jatts are mixed with persian plus central Asians WITH Europeans, hence why they have so much Europeans dna. They look more caucasian then even central Asians afghans and Kurds!! They are an anomaly in India hence why’d almost lov of them have greenish eyes!!

lameduck

03-09-2018, 10:28 PM

Caucasoidness is not a real term and both Punjabis and Baloch are Caucasoid.

I think you got it wrong, the Baloch were also one of the Martial races as picked by the British.
The Pakistani army actually tried to maintain Punjabi hegemony and tried to limit the number of Bengalis, Sindhis, Baloch and Muhajirs and even though Baloch fell under the Martial races category, they were not encouraged to recruit them because of rebellions by Baloch nobles in some regions.

and you are right, Baloch and Sindhis have very minimal difference in terms of phenotypes. About 40% of Sindhis are said to even have Baloch origin and Sindhis even have tribes called "Baloch" or "Balochi". The difference between the Brahuis and Baloch are even more minimal even though Brahui people are Dravidian.

average Baloch is lighter than average Sindhi , though obviously there are similarities because they are neighbors

SIr Richard Burton Compared Sindhis and Balochs like this

"The Sindee proper is a taller, stronger, more robust, and more muscular man than the native of Western India. His hands, feet, and ancles have none of that delicacy of formation observable among the natives that inhabit the broad lands lying on the other side of the Indus, The Sindee, in fact, appears to be a half breed between the Hindoo and the Persian. His features are regular, and the general look of the head is good. The low forehead and lank hair of India are seldom met with in this province. His beard, especially among the upper classes, is handsome, though decidedly inferior to that of Persia or Afghanistan. At the same time the dark complexion of the Sindee points him out as an instance of arrested development . In our old descriptions of Sind, as for instance those of Captain MacMurdo, &c., the Belooch is generally called a Sindee. The former, however, is a far superior being : he is fairer in complexion, more powerfully formed, of more hardy constitution, and, when intoxicated, sufficiently brave in battle."

Hadouken

03-09-2018, 11:58 PM

The jatts are mixed with persian plus central Asians WITH Europeans, hence why they have so much Europeans dna. They look more caucasian then even central Asians afghans and Kurds!! They are an anomaly in India hence why’d almost lov of them have greenish eyes!!

stop your stupid jokes

and dont use my ethnicity in your posts . no fucking way are jatts more caucasian looking than us . neither genetically they are

I know you are just joking around (I hope so . otherwise :confused:) but it stucks

just let us out . we have nothing to do with the topic nor the peoples so far east ...

Aren

03-10-2018, 12:01 AM

Guys please take your pills before posting please.

turbosat

03-10-2018, 09:16 AM

Haryanvi jatts look more indic than both punjabi jatts and kashmiri pandits despite the latter two groups being more south indian shifted with less NE Euro. I think this is a case with climate adaptation/natural selection.

Thats just a few samples (4 or 5?) of Haryanvi Jatts people keep quoting as having more NE Euro and less south Indian shifted.
I would think if you were to get a large representative sample of Haryanvi Jatts then you will see a different story.

turbosat

03-10-2018, 09:24 AM

Tauromachos

03-10-2018, 09:28 AM

I was looking at the K12b spreadsheet and they have 14% North European, more than Sicilians even.

Anyone know why? Are they mixed with the English maybe?

Interesting

It is about as much as the Steppe component in Mycanean Greeks

Pahli

03-10-2018, 09:32 AM

29% NE_Euro? A Turkish Kurd according to that link gets 21% European and an Iranian gets 20%, something doesn't match up here. I don't think the European component here is exclusively NE_Euro, but a mix of NE_Euro and Mediterranean so that 29% NE_Euro isn't legit, he probably has around 20% NE_Euro, but doubtfully 29%.

turbosat

03-10-2018, 09:37 AM

Would you say that its accurate to say that Punjabis are a mix of Persians and Central Asians or is that an oversimplification?

I saw this on Facebook a while ago and the person claiming this seemed informed on history and stuff:

https://i.imgur.com/K1qKopG.png?1

Paul Gill (he was confused about many things as well) didnt mean Persians or Central Asians of today or even 500 years ago. He was thinking of more ancient people from somewhere around those areas (Persia, Central Asia).

jamakzai12

03-10-2018, 09:59 AM

stop your stupid jokes

and dont use my ethnicity in your posts . no fucking way are jatts more caucasian looking than us . neither genetically they are

I know you are just joking around (I hope so . otherwise :confused:) but it stucks

just let us out . we have nothing to do with the topic nor the peoples so far east ...

;p ur just jealous that jatts loo more euro than kurds

jamakzai12

03-10-2018, 10:02 AM

;p ur just jealous that jatts loo more euro than kurds

Btw when the fuck were kurds caucasian, they dont even look iranian, they are a mix between arab and iranian, hence the phenotype. Jatts have sharper noses and more of them have greener eyes than kurds. SORRY HADOUKEN BUT U ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL ARYANS!!!!

jamakzai12

03-10-2018, 10:03 AM

Pahli

03-10-2018, 10:03 AM

Btw when the fuck were kurds caucasian, they dont even look iranian, they are a mix between arab and iranian, hence the phenotype. Jatts have sharper noses and more of them have greener eyes than kurds. SORRY HADOUKEN BUT U ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL ARYANS!!!!

Dude wtf xD

Kurds aren't really Caucasian, but close to them, just slightly more shifted towards the levant and with 20 - 25% Central Asian admix.

Iranians are close to us btw, looks don't equal genetics all the time ;)

jamakzai12

03-10-2018, 10:04 AM

Dude wtf xD

Kurds aren't really Caucasian, but close to them, just slightly more shifted towards the levant and with 20 - 25% Central Asian admix.

ik im just trolling hadouken lol

Yaglakar

03-10-2018, 11:01 AM

Hi Mingle,

Historians have traced the Kang Jats to the Kangju Huns from Central Asia and it could be true the clan traces it origins to Afghanistan and have Central Asian features high cheek bones, almond eyes, blue/green eyes and red/brown hair.

There is no such thing as Kangju Huns. These are separate entities. Xiongnu Huns were from Altai, and Kanju was semi-nomadic state centered around modern Tashkent. Kangju would later be known as Sogdians and have a profound impact on Central Asia and beyond. Taking into account the geography of the region, they were mostly absorbed by modern Uzbek population or became Tajiks of Uzbekistan.

https://i.imgur.com/d7woZ8J.png

Hyun Jin Kim. 2015. The Huns. Routledge. page 314

jamakzai12

03-10-2018, 11:02 AM

There is no such thing as Kangju Huns. These are separate entities. Xiongnu Huns were from Altai, and Kanju was semi-nomadic state centered around modern Tashkent. Kangju would later be known as Sogdians and have a profound impact on Central Asia and beyond. Taking into account the geography of the region, they were mostly absorbed by modern Uzbek population.

https://i.imgur.com/d7woZ8J.png

Hyun Jin Kim. 2015. The Huns. Routledge. page 314

ya idiot, starseed is more aryan than u ya twonk, his family has more aryan features than u ur jealous u commoner.

Yaglakar

03-10-2018, 11:09 AM

ya idiot, starseed is more aryan than u ya twonk, his family has more aryan features than u ur jealous u commoner.

Of course he is more Indo-Iranian. My forefathers sprung from Northern Steppes. :)

jamakzai12

03-10-2018, 11:12 AM

Of course he is more Indo-Iranian. My forefathers sprung from Northern Steppes. :)

I would have thought u got the joke. The starseed guy is known for saying how his family is more aryan then everyone XDD. I thought u would have gotten the joke, I made a post how i used to be black but star seed made me aryan XDD.

Leto

03-10-2018, 03:13 PM

just let us out . we have nothing to do with the topic nor the peoples so far east ...
You are more Western, yet they have more Aryan admixture. Hell, even Turkic-speaking groups have more NE European than Kurds who are Indo-European.

pashtunstar

03-10-2018, 03:16 PM

You are more Western, yet they have more Aryan admixture. Hell, even Turkic-speaking groups have more NE European than Kurds who are Indo-European.

Yeah very true, Turkic speaking groups have MUCH more NE euro than most kurds, (almost all kurds). This might be because the kurds have a bit more south asian influence or something. There was some study done on turkish kurds and apparently even they have more south asian genetics than most turks, quite interesting.

Leto

03-10-2018, 03:18 PM

pashtunstar

03-10-2018, 03:19 PM

Kurds don't have much South Asian, lower than the Iranian average. They are mostly Iranian Neolithic by origin.

interesting, would u call them a mix between arabs and iranian?? And btw there was actually some study dont that proved that yes, Kurds have a slight affinities with north indians, quite a few actually, specifically with the gene Lm20 or something

Mingle

03-10-2018, 03:39 PM

Paul Gill (he was confused about many things as well) didnt mean Persians or Central Asians of today or even 500 years ago. He was thinking of more ancient people from somewhere around those areas (Persia, Central Asia).Lol, nice cope. Persian is the name of an ethnicity. It's not a geographical term. Knowing him and his obsession with Scythians, he absolutely meant ethnic Persians and the Central Asians of the time.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

pashtunstar

03-10-2018, 03:46 PM

Lol, nice cope. Persian is the name of an ethnicity. It's not a geographical term. Knowing him and his obsession with Scythians, he absolutely meant ethnic Persians and the Central Asians of the time.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

who has an obsession with scythians?

Hadouken

03-10-2018, 05:58 PM

Yeah very true, Turkic speaking groups have MUCH more NE euro than most kurds, (almost all kurds). This might be because the kurds have a bit more south asian influence or something. There was some study done on turkish kurds and apparently even they have more south asian genetics than most turks, quite interesting.

our south asian score is below 10% and we have only 3 % or so more south asian than turks thats it . NE euro in turks is more but not strikingly so . it depends also on the turk . central and east anatolian turks have barely more

my result :

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent

1 West_Asia 43.21
2 SW_Europe 20.72
3 SW_Asia 16.66
4 NE_Europe 8.29
5 South_Asia 5.24
6 Siberia 1.49
7 West_Africa 1.27
8 Americas 1.13
9 NE_Asia 0.77
10 SE_Asia 0.62
11 South_Africa 0.58

Turkish result from northwest turkey :

# Population Percent

1 West_Asia 30.86
2 SW_Europe 24.65
3 NE_Europe 16.01
4 SW_Asia 11.15
5 NE_Asia 6.11
6 Siberia 5.05
7 South_Asia 3.02
8 Americas 0.93
9 Oceania 0.85
10 East_Africa 0.61
11 South_Africa 0.48
12 SE_Asia 0.27

Starseed88

04-27-2018, 08:09 PM

This is interesting a Punjabi Jat Sikh from my caste showed he genetically clusters closer to Pathans, Kalash, Tajiks than Khatris and Rajputs that’s strange and that’s more proof that some Jats clans came much later to India from Afghanistan and Central Asia.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10765-Jatt-Sikh-here-why-do-DNA-tests-say-I-m-most-similar-to-Tajiks-Pashtuns-amp-Kalash/page2

Leto

04-27-2018, 08:42 PM

Leto

05-09-2018, 01:14 PM

A self-described Lohana Gujarati

Dodecad K12b Oracle results:

Kit H407615

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Gedrosia 38.86
2 South_Asian 29.43
3 Caucasus 14.85
4 North_European 12.51
5 Southwest_Asian 1.79
6 Southeast_Asian 1.39
7 Siberian 0.83
8 East_African 0.24
9 Atlantic_Med 0.11

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Pathan (HGDP) 8.21
2 Jatt (Dodecad) 11.33
3 Burusho (HGDP) 12.15
4 Sindhi (HGDP) 15.81
5 Brahmins_from_Uttar_Pradesh (Metspalu) 17.94
6 Bnei_Menashe_Jews (Behar) 19.36
7 Cochin_Jews (Behar) 20.96
8 Kshatriya (Metspalu) 21.23
9 Brahmins_from_Tamil_Nadu (Metspalu) 22.33
10 Indian (Dodecad) 22.96
11 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 24.91
12 Iyer (Dodecad) 24.95
13 Iyengar (Dodecad) 25.57
14 GIH30 (Dodecad) 28.18
15 Tharus (Metspalu) 29.11
16 INS30 (SGVP) 29.42
17 Dharkars (Metspalu) 30.13
18 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 30.35
19 Muslim (Metspalu) 30.44
20 Kanjars (Metspalu) 30.85

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 90% Pathan (HGDP) + 10% Pulliyar (Metspalu) @ 3.58
2 89.1% Pathan (HGDP) + 10.9% ASUR (Chaubey) @ 4.06
3 89.9% Pathan (HGDP) + 10.1% Ho (Chaubey) @ 4.12
4 89.9% Pathan (HGDP) + 10.1% Savara (Chaubey) @ 4.19
5 88.6% Pathan (HGDP) + 11.4% Nihali (Metspalu) @ 4.21
6 89.2% Pathan (HGDP) + 10.8% MALAYAN (Behar) @ 4.21
7 89.9% Pathan (HGDP) + 10.1% Kharia (Chaubey) @ 4.24
8 87.6% Pathan (HGDP) + 12.4% Gond (Metspalu) @ 4.36
9 90.3% Pathan (HGDP) + 9.7% Juang (Chaubey) @ 4.63
10 88.1% Pathan (HGDP) + 11.9% North_Kannadi (Behar) @ 4.65
11 90.3% Pathan (HGDP) + 9.7% BONDA (Chaubey) @ 4.65
12 73.6% Pathan (HGDP) + 26.4% Bnei_Menashe_Jews (Behar) @ 4.73
13 87.9% Pathan (HGDP) + 12.1% Hakkipikki (Metspalu) @ 4.85
14 86.4% Pathan (HGDP) + 13.6% Chenchus (Metspalu) @ 5.03
15 87.4% Pathan (HGDP) + 12.6% Chamar (Metspalu) @ 5.04
16 87.4% Pathan (HGDP) + 12.6% SAKILLI (Behar) @ 5.11
17 81.7% Pathan (HGDP) + 18.3% Tharus (Metspalu) @ 5.13
18 86.2% Jatt (Dodecad) + 13.8% Georgians (Behar) @ 5.23
19 86.3% Pathan (HGDP) + 13.7% Kol (Metspalu) @ 5.24
20 76.4% Pathan (HGDP) + 23.6% Cochin_Jews (Behar) @ 5.3

puntDNAL K15 Oracle results:

Kit H407615

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 39.1
2 S_Indian 36.86
3 NE_European 11.83
4 Mediterranean 4.59
5 Siberian 1.63
6 Oceanian 1.58
7 SW_Asian 1.43
8 W_African 1.01
9 Amerindian 0.91
10 Omo_River 0.52
11 Beringian 0.33
12 S_African 0.16
13 Wht_Nile_River 0.04

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Kashmiri 3.88
2 Pathan 5.94
3 Sindhi 6.1
4 Burusho 8.57
5 Pashtun 15.73
6 UP_Brahmin 15.93
7 UP_Muslim 17.43
8 Tamil_Nadu_Brahmin 18.18
9 Balochi 19.38
10 Brahui 19.89
11 Makrani 22.03
12 Bengali 22.91
13 Tadjik 24.42
14 Kanjar 24.64
15 Tharus 25.78
16 Romani 25.91
17 Turkmen 30.01
18 Iranian 31.82
19 Uttar_Pradesh_SC 32.69
20 Tamil_Nadu_SC 32.72

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 86.9% Kashmiri + 13.1% Makrani @ 2.05
2 85.7% Kashmiri + 14.3% Balochi @ 2.19
3 63.4% Kashmiri + 36.6% Pathan @ 2.24
4 86.3% Kashmiri + 13.7% Brahui @ 2.28
5 90.5% Sindhi + 9.5% Macedonian @ 2.33
6 91% Sindhi + 9% Brazilian @ 2.37
7 91.5% Sindhi + 8.5% French @ 2.37
8 90.3% Sindhi + 9.7% Bosnian @ 2.38
9 90.5% Sindhi + 9.5% Bulgarian @ 2.38
10 90.9% Sindhi + 9.1% Serbian @ 2.39
11 90.6% Sindhi + 9.4% Romanian @ 2.41
12 91.6% Sindhi + 8.4% South_German @ 2.43
13 91.7% Sindhi + 8.3% Utahn_White @ 2.46
14 90.6% Sindhi + 9.4% Montenegrin @ 2.49
15 92.5% Kashmiri + 7.5% Lezgin @ 2.51
16 90.8% Sindhi + 9.2% Italian @ 2.53
17 91.6% Sindhi + 8.4% Portuguese @ 2.53
18 91.3% Sindhi + 8.7% Croatian @ 2.54
19 91.8% Sindhi + 8.2% Spaniard @ 2.54
20 91.9% Sindhi + 8.1% English @ 2.54

SexyLionMan

11-05-2018, 05:27 PM

Anymore opinions why Jats have the most Northern European DNA in India, but aren’t the highest caste?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-bbMVoH8qTM/maxresdefault.jpg

zarzian

11-05-2018, 05:49 PM

Leto

11-05-2018, 06:46 PM

@zarzian, where in Iran are you from? I'm looking for any samples from Khorasan, do you think they would be more similar to Western Afghanistan than to, say, Southwestern Iran?

Mingle

11-05-2018, 08:42 PM

@zarzian, where in Iran are you from? I'm looking for any samples from Khorasan, do you think they would be more similar to Western Afghanistan than to, say, Southwestern Iran?

This guy is from Gorgan, so probably the closest we can find for now.

https://www.worldatlas.com/img/locator/city/093/11593-gorgan-locator-map.jpg

Got this from Anthrogenica:

Punt K12

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus_HG 44.17
2 Anatolian_NF 19.31
3 South_Asian 13.84
4 Near_East 13.11
5 European_HG 4.94
6 East_Asian 1.78
7 Siberian 1.41
8 South_African_HG 0.66
9 Sub-Saharan 0.65
10 Oceanian 0.14

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Iranian 7.19
2 Kurdish 11.7
3 Turkish 13.74
4 Georgian_Jew 15.97
5 Kumyk 16.29
6 Afghan_Pashtun 16.37
7 Laz 16.72
8 Turkish_Trabzon 17
9 Turkish_Kayseri 17.1
10 Chechen 17.15
11 Assyrian 17.57
12 Iranian_Jew 17.91
13 Armenian 18.04
14 North_Ossetian 18.29
15 Balkar 19.62
16 Adygei 20.04
17 Balochi 20.36
18 Abkhasian 20.66
19 Makrani 21.05
20 Pakistan_Pashtun 21.3

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 64.3% Georgian_Jew + 35.7% Burusho @ 1.98
2 80.5% Iranian + 19.5% Burusho @ 2
3 63.1% Georgian_Jew + 36.9% Pathan @ 2.45
4 82% Iranian + 18% Kashmir @ 2.57
5 80.2% Iranian + 19.8% Pathan @ 2.7
6 81.4% Iranian + 18.6% Sindhi @ 2.72
7 87.2% Iranian + 12.8% Bengali_Muslim @ 2.74
8 56.1% Makrani + 43.9% Cypriot @ 2.81
9 82.2% Iranian + 17.8% Punjabi_Jatt_Muslim @ 2.91
10 80.4% Iranian + 19.6% Punjabi_Jatt_Sikh @ 2.99
11 76.4% Iranian + 23.6% Pakistan_Pashtun @ 3.06
12 66.1% Georgian_Jew + 33.9% Kashmir @ 3.08
13 84.3% Iranian + 15.7% UP_Muslim @ 3.16
14 88.2% Iranian + 11.8% Keralam @ 3.19
15 81.9% Iranian + 18.1% Haryana_Jatt @ 3.21
16 86.9% Iranian + 13.1% Gujarati @ 3.22
17 57.4% Georgian_Jew + 42.6% Pakistan_Pashtun @ 3.25
18 63.1% Georgian_Jew + 36.9% Punjabi_Jatt_Sikh @ 3.28
19 57.1% Afghan_Pashtun + 42.9% Iraqi_Jew @ 3.28
20 71.6% Iranian + 28.4% Afghan_Pashtun @ 3.33

Some things to keep in mind:

• He gets modeled as ~30% Kandahari and ~70% Western Persian.
• Gorgan is more West Asian shifted than Khorasan.
• Khorasan is kinda big so there may be a bit of a difference between western Khorasan and eastern Khorasan.
• The Afghan Pashtun sample is not based on the most West Asian shifted part of Afghanistan. The Afghan Pashtun is mainly based off Kandahar with some influence from the northeast (which is more South Asian-shifted than Kandahar). The most West Asian-shifted part of Afghanistan is Herat and they aren't in any of the GEDmatch samples.

So my guess is that if this guy gets modeled as 30% "Kandahari", then he'd probably get modeled as 50% Herati. And a Khorasani would easily get over 50% Herati.

Another thing I'd like to add is that Khorasan is mostly R1a similar to East Iranics. There were some Y-DNA studies done on Khorasan, but no autosomal ones as far as I know. Here (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9ItFg3ZDOCc/UAfrJKKY7aI/AAAAAAAAFC8/WQfxUO6_9Vw/s1600/journal.pone.0041252.t001.jpg) is one:

22% R1a
17% J2
13.6% G2a (11.9% G2a + 1.7% G1)
6.8% R1b
6.8% J1
6.8% Q (5.1% Q1b1 + 1.7% Q1)
5.1% T
3.4% L1a2 (old L1c)
3.4% E1b1b1a1a
3.4% R2
3.4% H1a
3.4% R*
3.4% O
1.7% R1*

N=59

Leto

11-05-2018, 08:56 PM

This guy is from Gorgan, so probably the closest we can find for now.

https://www.worldatlas.com/img/locator/city/093/11593-gorgan-locator-map.jpg

Got this from Anthrogenica:

Some things to keep in mind:

• He gets modeled as ~30% Kandahari and ~70% Western Persian.
• Gorgan is more West Asian shifted than Khorasan.
• Khorasan is kinda big so there may be a bit of a difference between western Khorasan and eastern Khorasan.
• The Afghan Pashtun sample is not based on the most West Asian shifted part of Afghanistan. The Afghan Pashtun is mainly based off Kandahar with some influence from the northeast (which is more South Asian-shifted than Kandahar). The most West Asian-shifted part of Afghanistan is Herat and they aren't in any of the GEDmatch samples.

So my guess is that if this guy gets modeled as 30% "Kandahari", then he'd probably get modeled as 50% Herati. And a Khorasani would easily get over 50% Herati.

Another thing I'd like to add is that Khorasan is mostly R1a similar to East Iranics. There were some Y-DNA studies done on Khorasan, but no autosomal ones as far as I know. Here (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9ItFg3ZDOCc/UAfrJKKY7aI/AAAAAAAAFC8/WQfxUO6_9Vw/s1600/journal.pone.0041252.t001.jpg) is one:
Interesting info. The haplogroup list is very diverse.

This is a retired soccer player from Mashhad, Khorasan. He would fit in Uzbekistan perfectly
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/85/f8/3f85f86894028b49315f6a2cc02b27ce.jpg

• The Afghan Pashtun sample is not based on the most West Asian shifted part of Afghanistan. The Afghan Pashtun is mainly based off Kandahar with some influence from the northeast (which is more South Asian-shifted than Kandahar). The most West Asian-shifted part of Afghanistan is Herat and they aren't in any of the GEDmatch samples.
Even this one?

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 40.20
2 South_Asian 25.38
3 Baltic 10.18
4 North_Atlantic 8.26
5 East_Med 7.01
6 Siberian 3.82
7 East_Asian 1.49
8 Amerindian 1.30
9 Red_Sea 0.97
10 Sub-Saharan 0.59
11 Oceanian 0.47
12 West_Med 0.26
13 Northeast_African 0.07

Only 25+% South Asian, not even 30%.

Mingle

11-05-2018, 09:10 PM

Interesting info. The haplogroup list is very diverse.

This is a retired soccer player from Mashhad, Khorasan. He would fit in Uzbekistan perfectly
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/85/f8/3f85f86894028b49315f6a2cc02b27ce.jpg

He's most likely Turkmen. There are a lot of Turkmens in northwest Khorasan and he may have traveled to Masshad as its the biggest city in the Khorasan region. I don't think he's representative of the Persians there either way.

Even this one?

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 40.20
2 South_Asian 25.38
3 Baltic 10.18
4 North_Atlantic 8.26
5 East_Med 7.01
6 Siberian 3.82
7 East_Asian 1.49
8 Amerindian 1.30
9 Red_Sea 0.97
10 Sub-Saharan 0.59
11 Oceanian 0.47
12 West_Med 0.26
13 Northeast_African 0.07

Only 25+% South Asian, not even 30%.

Looking at my results for that again, Punt K12 seems to be the worst calc in all of GEDmatch for me. Dunno why the user jesus posted it for the Gorgani guy. It exaggerates my South Asian-shift, so it could be doing the same for the guy I posted.

Southern Pashtuns (Kandahar, Quetta, etc) tend to have less South Asian than northern Pashtuns (Peshawar, N2KL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N2KL)). So 25% isn't too low for them. Which region is the person who you posted from?

Leto

11-05-2018, 09:18 PM

He's most likely Turkmen. There are a lot of Turkmens in northwest Khorasan and he may have traveled to Masshad as its the biggest city in the Khorasan region. I don't think he's representative of the Persians there either way.
I was thinking the same. After all, the IR of Iran is an explicitly civic nationalist state, as long as you speak Persian and are Shia. By the way, that is Khodadad Azizi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khodadad_Azizi).

Looking at my results for that again, Punt K12 seems to be the worst calc in all of GEDmatch for me. Dunno why the user jesus posted it for the Gorgani guy. It exaggerates my South Asian-shift, so it could be doing the same for the guy I posted.

Southern Pashtuns (Kandahar, Quetta, etc) tend to have less South Asian than northern Pashtuns (Peshawar, N2KL). So 25% isn't too low for them. Which region is the person who you posted from?
Yes, Punt K12 is crap, I never use. The only one of that series I use is K15. It is also the most recent one.

The results I posted are the Eurogenes average for Afghan Pashtuns.