As per AV's comment, here are the individual results for Xing et al South Asians.
So what I suspected has turned true that the results of few individuals belonging to certain castes or ethnicities cannot be taken as a representative results for the rest of the millions of members of that community. One can easily see that there is a huge variation of european component among pakistani arains ranging from as low as 14 to as high as 25 %. Same goes for nepalese who also shos eurpean component ranging between 4% to 27% depending on the particular individual. Pakistani arain samples must have been taken from Lahore as that city is dominated by arains, when arains from the same city differ so much from each other in terms of their genetic components , one can easily expect much bigger variation of genetic make up of arains from different parts of pakistani punjab.
The Nepalese are a special case. They form 3 clusters instead of one.
One cluster of the Nepalese is showing ~25% European.
Could it have been
Could it have been from recent admixture? Say, the past 500 years?
Looking at the mean and variance among the samples gives a better picture than looking at extreme values, to analyze variation. Even then, one needs to be cautious extrapolating it to a whole population.
As Zack said, the Nepalese are not a "caste" per say, and have many different ethnic groups.
I think a better use of such studies is to study variation among different ethnic groups, which is clearly evident. The ap_mala+ap_madiga group together, the tn_dalit+tn_irula group together etc.
Kashmiris are also not a caste, all people living in kashmir valley who speak kashmiri/kaushar language are called kashmiri, muslims kashmiris have many different lineages among them like sheikh, Butt, dar, lone, khawaja, pathan, mughal and so on. But why are they being portrayed here as one entitiy where the result of one or two individuals is being treated as genetic make up of millions of diverse tribes of kashmir valley, I mean it does not make any sense.
I am not sure where the few Kashmiri samples are portrayed as representative for all Kashmiris, especially by Zack. But know that phenotype(e.g. how people look on the outside) does not necessarily correlate with genotype(what the genes say). Whether the genotype of a Muslim Butt would correlate with a Hindu Bhat even though historically they were from the same population, I do not know.
Butt surname is used very loosely by kashmiri muslims, many many kashmiri muslims use it eventhough they are related to hindu bhats especially in pakistani punjab where surname Butt is considered synonym as Kashmiri, I know many kashmiri muslims in punjab pakistan who belong to Mir, Wani, Sheikh, khawaja, even pathan kashmiris who use Butt as their surname just because it is famous in pakistani punjab as kashmiri surname.
I made a mistake I wanted to say that many many kashmiri muslims settled in pakistani punjab use Butt as their surname eventhough they are not related to hindu Bhats of kashmir.
I made a mistake I wanted to say that many many kashmiri muslims settled in pakistani punjab use Butt as their surname eventhough they are not related to hindu Bhats of kashmir. Moreover even kashmiri muslims with surname Butt in the kashmir valley cannot be equated blindly with hindu people with surname Bhat as not all hindus in kashmir valley have Bhat as their surname , only small no. of hindu pandits use Bhat as their surname , the rest of hindu pandits belong to other categories.
I think you are also wrong in your assertion that phenotype does not correlate with genotype, from the results that we have so far on harrappa database, it is getting quite clear that people belonging to higher castes have more west eurasian ancestray while those belonging to lower castes have more ancestral south indian or onge ancestry. It is also quite obvious from their phenotypes. So in south asia Phenotype DOES correlate with genotype.
The Dalit have no traces of European at all, now one would have thought that there should at least be some European, but there's none at all.
In terms of these admixture components, that's true. However, do note that according to Reich et al, all Indians are a mix of Ancestral North Indian (West Eurasian) and Ancestral South Indian. Since we do not have the source population of Ancestral South Indians, we do not get that in admixture.
Also, the South Asian and SW Asian components include some West Eurasian elements.
The bulk of the "South Asian" component is West Eurasian. As for the "SW Asian" component, like the "European" component, it is a virtually full West Eurasian component.
Yeah individual results gives more info than group totals but in group totals main components are seen though there are noise problems.
and i forgot another thing chaps, components are nice to understand genetic relations but the age of the components in certain groups or individuals is a vital thing, without it the glass is to remain half full.
Computing age is not very easy.
Zack, it will be great if you could also post a spreadsheet with all the data. Thanks.
As in all the Xing samples? Or all the samples in all datasets?
Thanks, Zack I found the data from your link.
Reading the discussion interested me on the topic of Kashmiri clan, which is broken down into Mir, Butt, Mirza, Khwaja etc.
Would anyone be able to elaborate the Khwaja caste?
Because I find information that they are migrated from Iran etc, but then I see information that they are a part of the Malik Rajput , which has confused me.
Btw there are two types I am questioning, one is khwaja and the other is khawaja.
They Mir, Butt, Mirza, are all for the most part just titles/honorifics.
Mir is the Turki form of Arab Amir - chief.
Mirza is Arab Persian: son of Amir - Amirzad.
Butt generally meant soldier.
Khoja/Khawajas were Arab and Persian notables - mainly a religious honorific.
Rajputs can be all varieties. The word just means sons of Rajas.
Malik (mlk) is seen in Aramaic inscriptions from an ancient period = eg prydrsh mlk (Piyadasi King) http://books.google.com/books?id=9U6RlVVjpakC&pg=PA398
Though I suspect Malik Rajputs are a medieval variety. In the Islamic period we see a number of such titles - Khan, Sahi - used by Rajputs and others. Some are even first names - eg Hammir.
"Mir" is actually the Persian form of the Arabic word "amir". It passed to Turkic languages from Persian.
"Khoja"/"Khawaja" is a Persian word ultimately.
"Malik" is the Arabic word for king, not Aramaic. Aramaic word for king is "malka" (a cognate of Arabic "malik").
You are correct Aramaic has the form malka - mlk'
Though we also sometimes see mlk, eg myhrdt mlk
"Mlk" is pronounced as "malk" in Aramaic thus different from "malik", which is clearly Arabic.
Possible, but not certain.
mlk may have been pronounced malyk when used in sense of owner/proprietor rather than king.
mlk may have been pronounced malyk when used in sense of owner/proprietor rather than king.
Why so? Why do you think Arameans used a different pronounciation for "mlk" when they used it to mean "owner/"proprietor"? Do you have a basis for that claim?
No not really.
I just started attempting to read Aramaic a few years back, when I realized that Ashk or Arshk is very likely the person known as Asok in the east. Both are contemporaries ~250bc. Asok in Aramiac would likely be transcribed Arshk. In eastern tongues sh=s and rsh=s, eg Piyadasi=Prydrsh (Aramiac).
Therefore Asok=Arshk is possible as any mention of Asok who built stupas in Balkh and Pamir is completely absent in contemporary Persian and Greek records that much later mention a very shadowy figure Ashak/Arsaces.
The owner/proprietor reference I had come across here: http://books.google.com/books?id=gCchBkJVBggC&pg=PA139
Your hypthesis about the origin of the title "malik" is too speculative and convoluted. The simplest and most logical explanation is that it comes from Arabic, not Aramaic, and is the same word as the Arabic word "malik", which has exactly the same spelling, pronounciation and meaning as the title "malik".
There is a difference in the origin of the work malik itself and its presence in the name of a type of Rajput. The latter I too think is from Arabic - "Though I suspect Malik Rajputs are a medieval variety. In the Islamic period we see a number of such titles - Khan, Sahi - used by Rajputs and others. Some are even first names - eg Hammir"
But the Arabic version itself could have been derived from a earlier Mesopotamian source.
Another example would be the word Dinar. Today its usage is for the most part related to the Arab caliphate expansion. But its origin is not Arab. It existed in India well before the Arab period, died out as a currency name, and its presence in Sindh and Multan in the Mongol period can be attributed to the Arabs.
The Arab dinar comes from the Byzantine dinarion, which in turn comes from the Roman denarius.
Arabic indeed borrowed many words from Aramaic before and after the Islamic expansion. Also, Greek and Latin words mostly entered Arabic via Aramaic.
The Arab & Indic Dinars are indeed proposed to have been derived from the Roman denarius (supposedly 10 asses equivalent silver currency).
Why the Arabs call gold piece Dinar is not very clear - they had the exact weight measure as the Byzantine Solidus.
The Indic Dinar's etymology is given as din + ar (shine + eminent) and is used for gold currency. It is explained in Part III of a work entitled Unadi Sutras ( http://archive.org/details/TheUnadiSutrasPartI ). This work is mentioned by Panini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini
Panini is supposed to have lived in the 600-400bc period, but it is possible that he was much later, ie, post 269bc when the Denarius was introduced.
No parasar Panini didnt live in the 3rd century b.c he lived before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāṇini#Date_and_context
But its possible that some one throwed some aspects on his original work at a later period though alas no direct proof.
Your suggestion on Dinar is possible but we never know BTW what do you know about Sakatayana? And are the Hindu Mullicks are same with Malik?.
I think Mullick is just a form of Malik.
Sakayana posited that all nouns are derived from verbal roots. He precedes Panini.
Indians (or at least Magadhans) were illiterate and had no knowledge of scripts when Megasthenes visited ("they have no knowledge of written letters") and no good evidence of writing exists prior to Asoka. As Panini mentions writing, he is either post Megasthenes or had knowledge of writing from the Persians. The problem is that there is no evidence of writing prior to Asoka is the whole eastern/Indus part of the Persian empire either. http://books.google.com/books?id=9U6RlVVjpakC&pg=PA397
Sakatayana was also older to Yaska.
I will search more on the Mullicks.
Well, surely Indus basin has the evidence of sometype of writing prior to Asok with the Sindhu Lipi! Going back to 4th millenium b.c! Though i'm not sure it had any relation with the Kharosthi/Brahmi or not but as far i know no true evidence with any other script is there either! Same with the Kharosthi/Brahmi.
Interestingly Rik- of Rikved can also mean writing.
It comes with the same root that means writing 'likh-'.
It is also not possible to remember over 1000 suktas for for thousands of years just by chanting is it?.
True, the Indus script did exist and that is why I limited my comment to "when Megasthenes visited."
That writing existed and then lost was known even before Marshall's discovery of IVC. El Beruni: "As to the writing or alphabet of the Hindus, we have already mentioned that it once had been lost and forgotten; that nobody cared for it, and that in consequence people became illiterate"
But even after writing re-emerged, there was a proscription: "They do not allow the Veda to be committed to writing ... Vasukra, a native of Kashmır, a famous Brahmin, has of his own account undertaken the task of explaining the Veda and committing it to writing. He has taken on himself a task from which everybody else would have recoiled, but he carried it out because he was afraid that the Veda might be forgotten and entirely vanish out of the memories of men"
Dear Parasar, I didn't have any time to write a proper reply so i wrote those 3 letters.
Yes Mullick is a variant title of Malik.
It will be idiotic to say Indians as illiterate both the times M and A visited by means of knowledge a simple reason among many is that both of worlds oldest learning centre and university is credited to India with Taksasila and Nalanda! There is a news also:
So it's obvious as you know that the word was used as people can't write but...
It seems that S India had Brahmi in use from atleast 6th century b.c.! So by common sense we can say N India had it much earlier or atleast from 7th century b.c! So if Panini mentions writing then we probably dont have to put him in Greek times.
Do you have any source of IBD analysis done on South Asians? I need it.
If you have any query on any aspect of Rikved then just ask as i assure you or any a baseful solution.
Stay well and a Happy 15th of August.
I had read about that Brahmi report and it is utterly unconvincing - "So far, we have been doing it on palaeographic grounds. Now, we will get a scientific date."
As far as the present site of Nalanda is concerned please see:
"Nalanda Mahavihara, regarded as one of the greatest universities of ancient world, was founded by Kumaragupta I (413-455 A.D.)"
"excavations have not revealed anything earlier than the Gupta period, the main focus of activity being during the time of the Palas (8th -12th centuries). Fa Hien, early- 5th century, does not mention any monastic establishment here except a stupa (Legge, 1886, p. 31). But by the 7th century Nalanda had established its reputation as a centre of learning as Hiuen Tsang spent here a few years studying Mahalanda Buddhism and mentions a few monasteries supposedly built by later Gupta rulers."
Regarding Takshashila, I would doubt any 'major' university existed prior to the Buddhist period (post IVC). There is little (if any) Achaemenid period structure [at Bhir or elsewhere], most construction is after 300bc. As Allchin says, Bhir artifacts "clearly point to a Gangetic influence in early establishment" and Kenoyer says for the earlier periods we should look at indigenous Indus rather than Achaemenid or Gandhara/Ganga influences. http://books.google.com/books?id=efaOR_-YsIcC&pg=PA39
IMO, the Achaemenids and Aramaics fleeing from the Greeks (and the Greeks themselves) brought about a significant material change and 'new' literacy to the subcontinent.
I have known something on the Brahmi issue but i can't leak it.
BTW what is your view on this?:
Surely Chanakya/Vishnu Gupta was a teacher in Taksasila and logic says It had an earlier history.
Nalanda is still the first university of the world and its collapse is probably related to the Muslim attacks.
However, the Relation of Brahmi and Kharosthi to others is not proved and all i can say surely is that both have nothing to do with Yavanas and the relation to Aramic is puted and about Magadhians well from Rikved to the time Of Chanakya Magadh was not an Idol.
Confluences are the blood lines of civilizations which some accept some don't and some are puted.
Copyright © 2013 Harappa Ancestry Project | Theme zBench
| Powered by WordPress