HarappaWorld HRP0375-HRP0384

I have added the HarappaWorld Admixture results for HRP0375-HRP0384 to the individual spreadsheet.

Do note that the admixture components do not necessarily represent real ancestral populations. Also, the names I have chosen for the components should be thought of as mnemonics to ease discussion. I chose them based on which populations in my data these components peaked in. They do not tell anything directly about ancestral populations. The best way to look at these admixture results is by comparing individuals and populations. Finally, the standard error estimates on these results can be about 1%. Therefore, it is entirely possible that your 1% exotic admixture result is just noise.

I have also updated the group averages.

Related Posts:

118 Comments.

  1. Thanks for posting!

  2. Very interesting results. The UP Pathan seems to be more like Northwest South Asians in terms of admixture than typical UP populations. The admixture results indicate that the individual does likely have actual Pashtun ancestry but is also more South Asian than the HGDP Pashtuns or HAP Pashtuns.

    The two Kerala Christians also seem quite similar to one another.

  3. I think Paul's has hit the nail on the head here. This individual definitely has Pashtun ancestry. His mixed Oracle results are strongly suggestive of a predominantly Pashtun heritage:

    [1,] "kashmiri_harappa_2" "6.76"
    [2,] "gujarati-muslim_harappa_3" "7.7145"
    [3,] "kashmiri-pandit_reich_5" "8.3497"
    [4,] "punjabi_harappa_10" "9.2473"
    [5,] "punjabi-jatt_harappa_8" "9.6979"
    [6,] "punjabi-brahmin_harappa_2" "9.885"
    [7,] "haryana-jatt_harappa_5" "9.8988"
    [8,] "singapore-indian-c_sgvp_10" "10.2718"
    [9,] "nepalese-a_xing_12" "11.0007"
    [10,] "kashmiri-pahari_harappa_2" "11.0136"
    [11,] "up_harappa_5" "11.11"
    [12,] "pathan_hgdp_23" "11.1352"
    [13,] "punjabi-ramgarhia_harappa_2" "11.3501"
    [14,] "pashtun_harappa_3" "11.6228"
    [15,] "burusho_hgdp_25" "12.255"
    [16,] "punjabi-arain_xing_25" "12.2877"
    [17,] "up-brahmin_harappa_3" "12.942"
    [18,] "bihari-muslim_harappa_4" "13.6208"
    [19,] "bhatia_harappa_2" "13.8549"
    [20,] "kalash_hgdp_23" "13.9592"

    And

    [1,] "12.2% chuvash_behar_17 + 87.8% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3"
    [2,] "66.9% pashtun_harappa_3 + 33.1% sri-lankan_harappa_2"
    [3,] "89% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 11% mordovian_yunusbayev_15"
    [4,] "89.7% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 10.3% russian_behar_2"
    [5,] "89.6% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 10.4% russian_hgdp_25"
    [6,] "44% bengali-brahmin_harappa_6 + 56% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [7,] "33.4% caribbean-indian_harappa_3 + 66.6% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [8,] "89.1% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 10.9% ukranian_yunusbayev_20"
    [9,] "10.1% belorussian_behar_9 + 89.9% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3"
    [10,] "35.5% bengali_harappa_8 + 64.5% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [11,] "88.6% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 11.4% slovenian_xing_25"
    [12,] "88.5% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 11.5% hungarian_behar_19"
    [13,] "34.3% bihari_harappa_2 + 65.7% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [14,] "90.7% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 9.3% lithuanian_behar_10"
    [15,] "30.7% turkmen_yunusbayev_11 + 69.3% up-brahmin_harappa_3"
    [16,] "45.7% bihari-muslim_harappa_4 + 54.3% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [17,] "21.7% stalskoe_xing_5 + 78.3% up_harappa_5"
    [18,] "29.9% kanjar_metspalu_7 + 70.1% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [19,] "72.6% pashtun_harappa_3 + 27.4% up-scheduled-caste_metspalu_5"
    [20,] "74.4% punjabi_harappa_10 + 25.6% romanian-b_behar_2"
    [21,] "31% dharkar_metspalu_11 + 69% pashtun_harappa_3"
    [22,] "8.3% finnish_1000genomes_100 + 91.7% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3"
    [23,] "76.3% pashtun_harappa_3 + 23.7% satnami_reich_4"
    [24,] "23.6% turkish_harappa_4 + 76.4% up-brahmin_harappa_3"
    [25,] "68.8% pashtun_harappa_3 + 31.2% up-muslim_metspalu_5"
    [26,] "89.4% gujarati-muslim_harappa_3 + 10.6% n-european_xing_25"
    [27,] "66.7% pashtun_harappa_3 + 33.3% srivastava_reich_2"
    [28,] "65.8% brahmin-uttar-pradesh_metspalu_8 + 34.2% turkmen_yunusbayev_11"
    [29,] "72.9% pashtun_harappa_3 + 27.1% tharu_reich_7"
    [30,] "59.7% pashtun_harappa_3 + 40.3% vaish_reich_4"

  4. I do not understand why Pathan and Pashtuns are seperate. They are both the same ethnic group split by a border that is not very old. Nobody in my family has ever used the word Pathan before. Pashtun/Pakthun is our actual ethnic identifier.

    • I think it's down to the Human Genome Diversity Project labeling their FATA Pashtun samples as Pathan. The term Pathan seems to be sometimes used by researchers or geneticists for whatever reason. Although, in the more recent study on Afghanistan, the Afghan Pashtuns were labeled with the normal term. Outside of that context, it's mostly a South Asian term for Pashtun/Pakhtun.

      However, in the case of UP Pathans, they aren't fully ethnic Pashtun and most refer to themselves as Pathans anyways. The Rohilla Pathans are one of the primary "Pathan" groups in UP.

    • The karlani Fata pakhtuns were registered in British records as "true pathans". Britisher anthropolgy researchers carefully made a distinction between hill dwelling karlani pakhtuns whom they called "true pathans" and their neighboring pashto speaking counterparts like durrani and ghilzai pashtuns as "afghans". It can still be found in old British records that they always made a distinction between karlani FATA pathans and durrani ghilzai afghans. One interesting note that I found in one of records was that britishers claimed that karlani pathans are taller averaging 170 cm compared to durrani ghilzai afghans averaging 163 cm.

      Since HGDP samples are from kurram valley which is inhabited by FATA karalni pashtuns so most of the geneticists use the term "pathans" for them in light of the distinction made by british in british india.

      • @ HRP0286 - I couldn't agree more, Pashtuns never use the term "Pathan". Nobody in my family does either. But Paul hit the nail right on the head, HGDP labelled them "Pathan", so that's what they will always be known as. I wish they could've designated them as Pakhtun, as this is what Pashtuns in those parts use to refer to themselves.

        @ supari - Not really the case. The most important British authority on everything related to Pashtuns, Mountstuart Elphinstone, the man who described all of Afghanistan from Taxila to Herat in the 19th century, and whose work was foundational in laying British policy towards Afghanistan, referred to Karlanri Pashtuns simply as "Afghans" (he also notes that the indigenous term is Pakhtun-Pashtun, while the "Hindustani" term is "Pitan"). I have quite a few pieces of old-outdated British ethnographic material at hand (most of them official). They are often riddled with simple mistakes, but this is not one of them. All of them refer to eastern highlanders as "Afghans". I've never encountered the term "true Pathan" before in any of these official and unofficial accounts. The British started referring to Pashtuns as "Pathans" when the "settled areas" finally came under their nominal jurisdiction. The trend of referring to British-ruled Pashtuns as "Pathans" was concomitant with referring to all Pashtuns, whether subject to Kabul or Calcutta, as "Pathan". At that point, "Afghan" lost it's ethnic specificity, ceasing to be a term used only for Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line, but rather for all people under the sovereignty of Kabul. Still though, in Afghanistan, non-Pashtuns still refer to all Pashtuns as "Afghan". Pakistani Pashtun nationalists keen on separatism still refer to Pakistani Pashtuns as "Afghan". But the average Pakistani or Afghan Pashtun never does, because "Afghan" is simply a foreign term of Persian provenance, just as Pathan is supposedly of Hindko origins.

        In addition, there is no local justification for this. The Afridi, Orakzai, Wazir, Khattak, Khostwal, Zadran, Mangal, Taniwal, Mehsud, Bangash, Turi, and other Pashtun highlanders, do not see themselves as distinct from other Pashtuns, nor are they considered distinct by other Pashtuns. They are unique in only one respect, they take Pashtunwali very seriously, and that does elevate them in the eyes of other rural, non-literate Pashtuns. This is the only sense I can make of calling them "true Pathans", as in them being more stringent in matters of revenge and hospitality? If so, that would make more sense.

        • In punjab pathan refers to a person whose physical features differ from general punjabis. For example we call dardic people of Gilgit , chitral etc. also as pathan, even the people of baltastan are also called pathan in punjab. People from afghanistan regardless of whatever language they speak are called pathans. The word pathan in punjab really does not denote anything to pashto language or any kind of the culture. We call everyone whose culture is different from punjabis and who lives in the regions north and west of punjab as pathan.

        • Yes even among punjabis also if someone has physical features similar to pathans , he is also called to look like a pathan. I think atleast in punjab the word pathan is indeed related to a particular phenotype rather than a specific linguistic group. For example if a pashto speaking person does not fit into "pathan phenotype" we openly say to him that he does not look like a "pathan" which again signifies that it is a reference to a "phenotype".

    • They are two separate groups because they are from different databases, HGDP and mine. I do not combine groups across databases.

      As for being labeled "Pathan", that's HGDP's doing.

    • "Nobody in my family has ever used the word Pathan before."

      There are a lot of Pakistanis that self-identify with the word "Pathan" or even use it as a surname.

      • Forgot to add, it's not being used by HGDP in the same way. The group that self-identifies as Pathan is not the one being studied here, so the labeling is off.

      • No one uses pathan as his surname in pakistan, pakistani pashtuns either use khan or their tribal surnames like yusufzai, shinwari, afridi, wazir, bangash etc.

        • You're wrong, go on Facebook and search for the name "Pathan", you'll find a ton of people of Pakistani descent using it.

    • In the historical records Afghan is the most common followed by Pathan, but when I ran a search for Pashtun variants at the Persian Literature site it draws a blank:
      "1303 for Afghan"
      "232 for Pathan"
      "No results for Pashtun"
      "No results for Pashtoon"
      "No results for Pakhtoon"
      "No results for Pakhtun"
      http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main

      Please see also: "The author of the " Tarikh Sultan" (a history of Afghanistan), while quoting from the "Tarikh Firishtah" (a history in Persian), says that in the early times Afghans settled in Patna. The term Pathan underwent a change afterwards, and became Pashtun."
      http://books.google.com/books?id=eQk8AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA10

      • We were simply known as the Afghans and Pashtun is a self-designation for Kandahar/Oruzgan/Helmand/Farah people and Pakhtun is a self-designation of those in Zabul/Nangarhar/Wardak/Logar/Nuristan. And obviously Khyber which is now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa'. I feel Pathan was probably an Indian pronunciation of Pakthun, it seems a little more likely than Patna.

        Persians just know us by Afghan because in the Safavid era thats how the Afghan emissaries to the Persian court chose to identify us to the Iranians, the actual etymology is probably hidden or linked to the Asvakas. Probably lost to history.

        • I am sure that pathan is "punjabi" version of saying pakhtun because only punjabis were the neighbors of karlani pakhtuns and interacted with them just as any neighbor. No indian from modern day india ever interacted with karlani pakhtuns because all other indians are geographically far away from pakhtuns (karlani) lands in FATA.

          • But then Punjabi is a post Mughal term, younger than Pathan. Bellew had this to say: "The term Pathan is not a native word at all. It is the Hindustani form of the native word Pukhtana, which is the plural of Pukhtun, or Pakhtun (the a as in our pack) as it is pronounced by the Afridi. And Pukhtun is the proper patronymic of the people inhabiting the country called Pukhtunkhwa, and speaking the language called Pukhtu or Pukhto."

            Not sure about Karlani, but there are Karrani Pathans in Bihar and Bengal. Among the numerous Pathan dynasties of Bengal, one was Karrani. http://books.google.com/books?id=bJfcCPUr0OoC&pg=PA168
            My famiy's whole history is interwoven with that of Pathans - alliances as well as enmity. One of the early land grants to an ancestor is from the Pathan Hussein Shah of Bengal. Later the balance of power shifted after Todar Mall and Pathans lost a lot of ground to the Mughals, and later to Rajputs and Brahmans.

        • Patna itself derives from the word patan - port. Patan does indeed look close to the word Pathan. In the Mughal period and even earlier Bihar and Bengal were the strongholds of Pathans. In all the older records from the area, I only see Afghan mentioned, never Pasthun or Pakhtun. It would be interesting to know how and when this identity developed.

          Another potential etymology given for Pathan is from Pratishthan - prestigious establishment, the prakrit equivalent of which is Pathan. Notes, http://books.google.com/books?id=UQUtQzPtC6wC&pg=PA206

          • I agree that the questions of Pashtun ethnogenesis are very interesting. Nevertheless, I don't think the terms "Afghan" or "Pathan" have any real relevance in this case. People in the area have, for as long as they remember (and they have very long memories, at least in rural areas. People will recount events that took place in the 12th century as if they only happened 12 years before the preset) called themselves Pashtun/Pakhtun. Only neighboring peoples have used the terms "Pathan" or "Afghan". "Pathan" just looks to be a corruption of Pakhtun. "Afghan" has a more vague and complex history. It's half-jokingly suggested by some scholars that the term Afghan is just equivalent to the Farsi word "afghan" (spelled the same way as "Afghan" in Farsi), which has various connotations, including but not limited to, "noisy, unruly, less than sedate, wailing". Although this would be rather humorous if true, another possibility might be a connection to "Asvaka", as HRP0286 mentioned. I honestly don't know. But whatever may be the case, Pashtuns never really call themselves "Afghan" or "Pathan" in an intra-Pashtun setting.

            Descendants of old Pashtun migrants deep in India are a different story, most self-identify as Pathan, and are rather unfamiliar with the term "Pashtun". But then again, Indian Pathans maintain little if any social and cultural connections with Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of them can speak Pashto, and culturally, they are indistinguishable from fellow North Indian Muslims. And for the most part, admixture with local Muslims has been so extensive as to make many Indian Pathans physically indistinguishable from other North Indian Muslims (in fact, the vast majority of Indian Pathans I've known can't be phenotypically distinguished from other North Indian Muslims). In Karachi, Indian Pathans side with other Muhajirs in Muhajir-Pashtun conflicts, and don't feel any sort of kinship with the Pashtun tribesmen who live and work in Karachi, most of whom are from FATA, or are Afghan refugees.

            These Karrani Pathans are very interesting. I've only interacted with UP Pathans, mostly individuals who are of Yusufzai origin. Are these Pathans in Bihar and Bengal like other North Indian Muslim "castes" ("Syed", "Mughul", "Ansari"), or do they still have distant links with their tribal past?

          • The links and contacts no longer exist. The Pathans who left for Pakistan may be more in touch, or perhaps the muhajir divide you mention has kept them apart too.

            Are far as the term Pathan goes, I think we will always be in the dark about it since folk closer to its genesis ascribe a number of origins and what looks like contrived etymologies.

            I would also note that what now looks like a national name with full acceptability by those so entitled, may not have been the name in the past. An example would be the term Hindu which is not a native ethnic or identity term but the Persian form of the name of river Sindhu. But usage by others first as an ethnic and then as a religious term, has over time made the term self-identifying. (Another example would be 'Chinese')

  5. Does anyone know whether or not HRP0375 is the Tajik man from Konibodom, Tajikistan, who writes under the pen name "Viktor L1"?

  6. Yes, this is me HRP0375. I switched my nickname. :)

  7. At least in the Kabul area, everyone is referred to as Afghan. To identify Pashtuns, other groups call them Pashtuns not Afghan.

    Also, I believe as far as Pashtunwali goes. We do not practice it and I had never heard of it until I got online. So, I think the Durranis who left for Kabul are a little removed from some aspects of Pashtun culture.

    • This is very true, the term has basically lost it's ethnic specificity. People living to the north of the Hindu Kush were considered inhabitants of "lesser Turkistan", while the Herat area was an extension of "Khorasan". "Afghanistan" only referred to southeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. That has obviously changed. But the local Pashtun term for "Afghanistan proper" has always been Pashtunkhwa/Pakhtunkhwa.

      Urbanized Durranis outside Kandahar are known to lack a real connection with Pashtunwali. But I think this applies to many urban Pashtuns who live in open plains or fertile valleys. Pashtuns in economically marginal areas are the most stringent in matters of Pashtunwali, while Pashtuns in regions with more productive agriculture and a history of centralized authority, such as Peshawar or Kandahar, just don't have much invested in Pashtunwali. For example, among Durranis, the Achakzai are known for being very serious when it comes to Pashtunwali. And that makes sense, in light of their economic position.

      Some members of my extended family, who live in rural areas, still practice Pashtunwali, although close relatives don't (all of my close relatives live in urban centers, and all of them have had excellent educations, and I think education is a crucial factor here). In a contemporary context, Pashtunwali is simply not a good thing. Hospitality and generosity are great values, but "badal" just isn't. Out of my four great-grandfathers, two lost their lives due to "blood feuds". If I go further back, the number of male ancestors who died for the sake of "badal" only increases. Three of my cousins have recently ended their lives this way. Many young man have to seek refuge in FATA, and effectively renounce any hope of seeing their place of birth ever again. Simply because they can't control their temper, and feel impelled by local opinion to exact some sort of "retribution" for any supposed "wrong", however minor. Or else they must face an abstract and faceless "shame", a fate worse than death in the eyes of many of these people. "Revenge" is even exacted at funerals (only last year, 4 funeral attendees had to be laid to rest alongside the man whose funeral they had come to attend, and the funeral itself involved a distant cousin of my mother who lost his life in a blood feud). People in the area don't realize how much they've made their lives miserable and unnecessarily difficult, all for the sake of an ancient pre-Islamic code of conduct, whose practical impetus is no longer truly understood, or relevant in contemporary Pakistan.

      All of these incidents involve very rural, isolated areas. In Peshawar, such incidents are extremely rare. It boils down to education. as well as integration with the center. Unfortunately, Pashtun areas are at the periphery of Pakistan, especially FATA. The level of development and integration is abysmal. The precarious nature of the state apparatus in Pakistan doesn't leave one optimistic, and international dynamics are muddling things beyond comprehension.

      • According to my circle, all of Afghanistan is Pashtun land and the other groups are migrants from their respective countries(Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia etc). However its considered impolite to talk about that outside of a closed circle. Instead, rather like to emphasize-pan Afghan identity focusing on the history of Balkh and Ghazni in particular to avoid the topic of Pashtun expansionism. Getting down to it, the some of the historical memories have been revisioned to suit us in private.

  8. I asked:

    "Does anyone know whether or not HRP0375 is the Tajik man from Konibodom, Tajikistan, who writes under the pen name "Viktor L1"?"

    Tajik replied:

    "Yes, this is me HRP0375. I switched my nickname. :)"

    Tajik,

    Thanks for the info you provided. Your HarappaWorld results are quite different from those of the Tajik samples of the Yunusbayev et al. 2011 paper and quite similar to those of the Uzbek samples of the Behar et al. 2010 paper (who were also included in the Yunusbayev et al. paper). You have more than twice the total amount of Mongoloid ancestry than the average of the Yunusbayev et al. Tajiks. The Yunusbayev et al. Tajiks were sampled from different parts of Tajikistan while the Behar et al. Uzbeks were sampled from different parts of Uzbekistan (I know these through my correspondence with Ene Metspalu, one of the authors of those papers), You are from northern Tajikistan, where the Uzbek population of Tajikistan makes its peak in Tajikistan. A lot of scenarios come to mind in light of all these info.

    • Yes, there are a number of potential scenarios that arise. The recent 23andme geographic info sorted much of my Mongoloid component as being Mongolian proper. My Kyrgyz contacts have similar results with their (much larger) East Asian component.

      • I do not know the way 23andMe assigns part of your Mongoloid component to Mongolian ancestry, but I think it may be Turkic ancestry rather than Mongolian ancestry given the similarities between the type of Mongoloid ancestry found in the Turkic and Mongolic populations of Central and Inner Asia.

  9. West UP was a heavy Afghan/Pashtun area prior to 1947, both Pashtuns and Dari Speaking Afghans lived there, many of the West UP cities are still named after their afghan founders and Urdu language was developed in the region, so it is no surprise that many muslims from that area would be mixed with Afghans

  10. Many muhajirs who came to Karachi from Delhi and west UP in 1947, also claim pashtun/afghan ancestry, I guess they are right to an extent

    • India in general was seen as a much more hospitable place to live in for the Afghans that lived in the mountains. I understand why they would want to go there. On the other hand, us plains people stayed put because we had warm fertile territory in Helmand, Farah and Kandahar.

  11. My point is that its Indo-Aryan 'Indian', Punjabis are a part of that, in origin and definetely not Persian. I think Persians could have caught onto using it at some point because of the Mughals use of it. And Afghan was used mainly by western Afghans and the people around them.

    • No body recognizes or even knows anything called indo-aryan at least in pakistani punjab, for punjabis they are just punjabis and the people living east of punjabis lands were called hindustanis by us. This indo-aryan term is a british invention and is found only in academic books and has no meaning for the actual people living on the ground.

      • Punjabis are part of the indic population, there is not too much different overall between punjabis and lets say UttarPardeshis. Generally people from these are look the same and even have similar cultures. Hindustani is a term usually applied to only the Hindi Speaking (Uttar Pardeshi) population, but generally all people from Punjabi to Bangladesh are Indic

        • Punjab's cultural position is actually very interesting. In broad terms, Punjab is obviously a part of Greater India, in the same way that the Pashtun region is a part of Greater Iran. Nevertheless, just as the Pashtun region is a part of Greater Iran, but intimately connected with Greater India, Punjab has quite an ancient and intense relationship with the Iranian plateau. In fact, it is well known that before the 11th century, interactions between the Iranian plateau and the Punjab were as substantial and important as links between the Ganges plain and southern India.

          • Yeah that's definitely true. Especially if you place it in political context. Iran, Khorasan, and parts of modern day Pakistan and India were under the same political roof for a long time (whose nexus was Arabia) until the recent rise of Shi'ite Safavids in Iran when Afghanistan's cultural link shifted to the East with the Sunni Indian kingdoms.

            Afterwards, the Afghan empires, especially the Durrani empire, established a strong connection with India. There were Pashtun descendants spread across all of North India, even as far East as Bihar and Bangladesh. Until the British defeated the Sikhs and formally conquered Punjab, there were still plenty of Pashtun living there. This was in effect kind of the first partition of Punjab, when many Pashtun tribes who had been settled for some time left.

            Btw, what do you think of this historical breakdown:

            http://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/aboutus/History.php

  12. "I would also note that what now looks like a national name with full acceptability by those so entitled, may not have been the name in the past. An example would be the term Hindu which is not a native ethnic or identity term but the Persian form of the name of river Sindhu. But usage by others first as an ethnic and then as a religious term, has over time made the term self-identifying. (Another example would be 'Chinese')"

    You make a very good point here.

    • The "Chinese" identity is not a good example to that phenomenon, since the Chinese people do not use the "Chinese" identity among themselves. A good example would be the "Turkmen" identity. The original identity of Turkmens was "Oghuz". Sometime during the early Islamic times Muslim Persians began to refer to the Islamized Oghuz as "Turkmen" (or "Turkman") and after a while the Muslim Oghuz themselves adopted the exonym "Turkmen" to the detriment of their original endonym "Oghuz", perhaps to distance themselves from the non-Islamized Oghuz, and "Turkmen" became their new endonym.

  13. @ AD - I think you've hit the nail right on the head. The area has seen quite a lot of cultural dynamism and contact. The relationship between Punjab and the highlands to it's west is very ancient and persistent. And just as there were Pashtun tribes in pre-British Punjab, Punjabi people have always figured prominently in Pashtun areas. In KP, the Hindkowan are very close to Pashtuns, and are a very substantial population. In some areas of Peshawar, most of the population is Hindkowan, and intermarriages with Pashtuns are pretty common. An untold percentage (but probably very huge) of Swat's population is of Indo-Aryan origin, and has quite recently adopted a Pashtun identity.

    • Also, I think the historical breakdown they've provided is pretty accurate.

    • I've noticed during my time in Pakistan a bit of tension between the three groups. The Pashtun/Pathan, the Pahari folks (not counting Kashmiris but including Hindkowans to an extent though they overlap with the Pashtun/Pathan into areas slightly West of the Pahari regions), and the Punjabis. It's mostly a peculiar kind of racism directed by the Pashtun/Pathan and Punjabis towards the Pahari peoples. I think there's a religious component involved too (Deobandi vs. Barelwi) but there's a cultural aspect whose history I'm not sure of. It's exacerbated by stereotypes of the Pakistani immigrants to Britain (most of whom are Mirpuri).

      My Punjabi family has typical views of non-Punjabi groups but the Pahari people, despite speaking Western Punjabi languages and actually being composed of Jatts and being geographically closer, have a lower standing than Pashtun/Pathan people from the West who are seen as the closest thing to equals possible in a Punjabi worldview.

      The tensions between Pashtun/Pathan and Pahari I'm not sure about, I figure it might be religiously and ethnically based. Maybe a bit of history as well since they historically fell along opposing lines of political alliances at times.

      Also there has been an increased "Deobandization" of Punjab, particularly Central/South Punjab and in the major cities which has compounded this development. The Pahari people are pretty hardcore Barelwi still whereas in Punjab Barelwism was the standard majority affiliation of rural villagers who weren't zealous about it. I wonder if Punjabis during their heyday under the Sikhs spreading their Eastern dialect and wiping out all but the Western dialects might have contributed to this. Perhaps Punjabis of today inherited this viewpoint from some of their non-Muslim ancestors. All in all it's pretty curious.

      I said earlier "not counting Kashmiris" because inexplicably Kashmiris enjoy a decent status in Punjab. Many of them have migrated there and mixed into the population (Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is a Punjabi of Kashmiri Butt origin).

      • Nawaz sharif is not Butt origin. He is kashmiri of Wani origin but in pakistani punjab this stupid surname "Butt" is used by many kashmiris like mir, dar, lone, rather, naik, wani, sheikh, khawaja even khan etc. Most of the kashmiri muslims of pakistani central punjab are of labour class origin from kashmir and they are known to be crooks of the highest order in lahore, gujranwala, gujrat , sialkot etc. Most of the members of assembly from urban parts of these areas are kashmiri muslims. Nawaz sharif´s strength is the large and powerful kashmiri biradari of urban centres of central punjab but also because he is a person who behaves like a typical punjabi of central parts of pakistan and is seen as fatherly figure by the people in the region.

      • In the case of Pashtuns, it's mostly driven by religious differences. In fact, for Pashtuns and Pahari people, the Deobandi vs Barelvi dynamic is determinative when it comes to ethnic tension.

        Although, there are other factors. Some tribal Pashtuns take a dim view of Hindkowans due to their urban lifestyle. The Pashto term for them is "Khariyan", or city-dweller. Also, in Peshawar-Kohat-Mardan, Hindkowans are a very business oriented community. It would be no exaggeration to say that in the eyes of some Pashtuns (especially, if not exclusively, those with firm tribal roots), running a proper business is far more lowly a profession than kidnapping or murdering for hire. Some Hindkowan also resent Pashtuns due to the history of the area. Pashtuns as a group are newcomers to the central Indus basin north of the Khyber, and the Pashtun expansion here was not pretty. It is quite clear that it involved a lot of violence, plunder, and brutality against the Pahari people of the area. In addition to the violence, most of these Pahari populations were subjected to a jajmani-like social structure, one characterized by highly unequal socioeconomic schisms and labor relations. Also, Peshawar has always been a predominantly Hindkowan city. Only in the 1980's, with a huge influx of Pashtun refugees from Afghanistan, and the movement of local Pashtuns from rural areas to the city, did Peshawar really become a Pashtun town. Many Hindkowan still regard this as highly unfair. And this doesn't apply only to Peshawar. Much of urban KP was dominated by Hindkowan, especially cities north of Bannu.

        Though, in my personal experience, Pashtuns who aren't from intensely tribal backgrounds don't disparage Hindkowans. In the case of my family, quite a few of my cousins are now of mixed Pashtun-Hindkowan backgrounds. On a somewhat humorous note, this sort of admixture is so common that many of my comparably aged (to me) relatives don't look like Pashtuns anymore, and some speak Punjabi and Hindko far better than Pashto. It's usually Pashtuns from FATA or Afghanistan that take a dim view of Hindkowan people, and even then, these tensions never morph into physical violence. This would be in stark contrast to the Pashtun experience with Muhajirs. In that case, unfortunately, violence has become an expectation.

  14. Indo-populations

    I don't know what to make of this article. Its kind of is contradictory to the research on here. It suggests Gujaratis have 15% Indo-European genes while the Indian Punjab population is principally derived from India itself.

    http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2009-10-31.pdf

    • I don't see a point in trusting DNA-Tribes on any of this. Stick to studies published in actual academic journals.

      • I agree. I don't even see the point in discussing outdated stuff from an inferior genome service such as DNA Tribes when information using raw data from 23andMe, FTDNA, Geno 2.0, etc. in conjunction with ancestry projects like HAP, Eurogenes, Dodecad and their various calculators on Gedmatch is much more informative. Not to mention we know very little about the populations sampled for each of those regions.

        • Indo-Populations

          I don't think we should discard it altogether. I have noticed very few Indian Punjabs (Sikhs) have the classic Indo-Aryan look like some Brahmins do.

          • There is literally no worth to it at all aside from it perhaps personally suiting one worldview or another. DNA tribes is not taken seriously.

          • What do you look like Indo-Populations? What ethnic group you belong to? I have among my relatives that you can't distinguish from North Europeans. And what is a Brahmin, if I may ask you that?

          • Indo-Populations

            No disrespect but it might also explain why Sikhs are not known to be an intellectual community. I think it might be the Shudra origins.

          • You insult a whole community and then say you don't? I am a Jatt by ethnicity but Brahmin by my Horoscope. Please check you horoscope you may find yourself a sudra in it. I have not met many Jatts who talk the nonsense you do, though they may be rough and tough behaving. Ones genes don't always translate into good looks even when one have them.

            Another thing there are many communities who are Sikhs. Jatts, Khatri, Brahmins, Chamar, Weavers, Bhangi(Mazhabi) etc. People who always stay in the shade will always look lighter than the ones who work in the sun.

          • What is an indo-aryan look? Provide a link to an example.

  15. Indo-populations

    Punjab has always had a very high ratio of lower castes, like Dalits and Shudras. If you look closely at Sikhs then you will see signs of that in many of them.

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42497000/jpg/_42497615_sikhs_afp416.jpg

  16. Indo-populations

    Discussion: Results in Table 1 indicated that the largest basic genetic contribution in all studied Hindu Kush populations was from India, peaking at 91.8% in Punjab, India and achieving a minimum of 39.3% in Afghanistan. This is consistent with substantial continuity with indigenous populations of India (possibly including Dravidian related Indus Valley populations predating Indo-Aryan invasions), as well as later contacts among local Indo-Aryan and Iranian peoples.

    Results also indicated substantial European contributions in most studied populations: these were highest in Afghanistan (23.1%), and were between 6.1% and 15.2% in all other studied populations except Punjab, India (where no European contribution was identified). This is consistent with gene flow from European populations associated with Indo-European expansions in Asia11.

    A third substantial component identified for most surveyed populations was Near Eastern, peaking at 26.8% in Afghanistan and present in all other surveyed populations except Gujarat, India. These Near Eastern contributions might reflect contacts with nearby civilizations of the Near East (such as Elam in the Iranian Plateau to the west). These contacts might have begun before the Indo-Aryan invasions, but also continued by way of contacts among later Asian IE peoples (such as Iranians, who themselves had come in contact with non-IE civilizations) as well as Muslim migration to the Hindu Kush that continues to the present day.

    Smaller but substantial American Indian contributions were also identified, particularly for Afghanistan (10.2%) and Gujarat, India (6.4%). The American Indian like genetic characteristics observed here might reflect contacts with Paleo-Siberian or Yeniseian cultures mediated by early Eurasian steppe cultures such as the White Huns12 (perhaps in periods before the expansion of more characteristically East Asian genetic patterns in Central Asia via Mongolic cultures).

    Small Sub-Saharan African contributions were observed in Pakistan (3.4%) and Kashmiri Muslims of Punjab, India (1.3%). These contributions might reflect contacts with Africans mediated by the Arabian Sea, similar to the maritime contacts that in modern times have brought the Sheedi and other African descended communities to southern coastal areas of Pakistan.

    • Punjabi on the average have greater European component than other Indians. Who are you, Indo-populations, identify yourself please.

      • Indo-Populations

        Here is what I think about Punjabis, particularly the Sikhs. Given they were mostly Jats, which in the old Hindu caste system would have meant lower castes, I think its fair to assume Sikhs probably have lot of their genes from within India itself. However, I do think they have some Iranian admixture (Near East) and not Indo-Aryan. If you look closely at Sikhs lot of them do look like the picture I showed above, which clearly shows up significant Dalit, Shudra elements in their face. But you will also see a few Sikhs that can look somewhat Iranian (not fully) but very few have the classic Indo-Aryan look other than few Punjabi Brahmins of which there are very few.

  17. Indo-Populations

    The Indus Valley civilization was very much a Dravidian one. Also, Punjabi happens to be the closest Indo-European language in India to the Dravidian. When the Aryans arrived they mostly settled along the Gangetic Plains stretching across Northern India to the Eastern part. The land was fertile in those regions. The European elements in the Punjab was brought in later through mixing with Iranians, Turks and what have you, rather by the Aryans.

    • Jatts lived in villages, hardly touched by these invasions and you city dwellers bore the brunt of it and got all those gene mixing. Punjabi is a Shauraseni language and also a new development. If you really are a Brahmin, you certainly are not a Pandit.

  18. Indo-Populations

    *rather than by the Aryans

    • Except the Jats have higher European admixture than all these other groups you mention. Have you actually looked at the Harappa results database? You can't make sweeping generalizations on phenotype of a few individuals from a picture on Google.

  19. None of the Indians are Europeans, stop day dreaming of being white. We are not even sure how old is the small European component is in Indians. It's probably very old, that's why it doesn't show up on Indian faces. Indians largely have a uniformed look, which is a mixture between Caucasian and Veddoid. People living west of the Indian Subcontinent like Afghans, Northern Pakistanis, Iranians etc... are much more caucasian looking overall. I have seen Iranians, Afghans, some pakistanis who look completely white, never seen a indian like that.

    • I shouldn't feed the trolls but I mean, just look at a random sampling of Bollywood stars. Most have all Indian heritage in the past several generations.

      Additional points:

      > small European component is in Indians

      Compare the amount of European admixture in North Indian groups like Brahmins and Jatts to Iranians. The link to the Harappa admixture spreadsheet is on the right hand side, you'll be surprised.

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE

      https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdGE4eDh6emt1dUs2U2pXTkVjS0lsV1E&hl=en

      > It's probably very old, that's why it doesn't show up on Indian faces.

      The reason it "shows up on the faces" in Iranians is because they have Caucasian admixture in the neighborhood of 40% or more (and plenty of Iranians still look "brown" and not "white"). European admixture of 25% or less still isn't enough usually to look "white" (but people who equate European with "white" phenotypes probably can't think that far ahead of themselves anyway).

      > Indians largely have a uniformed look

      India has one of the widest varieties of phenotypes of any place on Earth. The range within one ethnic group is amazing to say nothing of the entire country or subcontinent.

      > People living west of the Indian Subcontinent like Afghans, Northern Pakistanis, Iranians etc... are much more caucasian looking overall.

      Because they are closer to the Caucasus. Besides the fact that Caucasian is not the same as European.

      Also the western border of the Indian subcontinent is formed by the Hindu Kush mountains... in Afghanistan. And Pakistan is firmly within the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan didn't even exist independently of India until 1947. Basic high school level geography here.

      • indians may have higher of the european component then iranians, but the fact is, they look nothing like Europeans, I guess because of much higher south indian component in them, it takes their caucasian/european look away. Majority of Indians look mixed between caucasian and veddiod and of course are much darker on average, compared to the people west of them

        also Caucasian genetically may be different from European component, however people from the Caucasus region are still white European looking, so basically they are part of the same stock of people.

        and no, generally indian look is uniformed, ask any non indian and he will tell you the same, of course that's not to say all indians look similar, but most general population does

        also, by west of indian subcontinent, I mean the pashtun areas of pakistan, which are not part of it. The indic areas of pakistan are Punjab and Sindh

    • Indo-Populations

      Of course Indians don't look European in phenotype as Indians are an INDO-European people not an EUROPEAN people.
      The term 'Indo-European' is linguistic and covers an area from Europe all the way to India, but genetically the people are obviously not the same. Indians are typically a mix of Indian and Europoid whereas Europeans do not share Indian genes and therefore you can't expect Indians to look fully European.

      Even if they happen to be very light skin they still don't look fully or highly European. There is something about the face. One thing I have found though, I think the European element in Indians are Western/Northern European. You can tell this by looking at the face. Iranians on the other hand tend to show Southern Euro element.

      I don't how accurate the spreadsheets on this site are (since the samples are very small) but they show Iranians typically have less Northern Euro than South Asians. I think the Mediterranean element overwhelms
      the Northern Euro in Iranians.

  20. This girl is actually a pakistani pathan girl, is one of my friend, she can easily fit in europe without second notice: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=695067030510160&set=a.447563561927176.131073.100000206087152&type=1&theater

    • @ IranianR1A - I don't really know if it's wise to respond to you. Nevertheless, I'll do so anyway.

      There is nothing distinctive about this girl. She doesn't even look particularly "European". And among Pashtuns, Pakistani or Afghan, her phenotype is nothing out of the ordinary. Of my three siblings, two can pass as Europeans. In my case, I look like an Iranian/Kurd, although I blend in best with Mexicans (obviously, we're dealing with an American context here). Some of my cousins can blend into the general population of any part of Europe (the fully Pashtun ones), excluding Scandinavia. And, of those that don't look European, most can pass as West Asian people, especially Kurds (again, the fully Pashtun ones. The Pashtun-Hindkowan mixes are a different story). My maternal great grandfather had auburn hair, blue eyes, and skin that turned brick red in the sun. His son, my maternal grandfather, looked like a West Asian with pinkish pale skin, but in the US, our Serbian neighbors thought he originated from their neck of the woods. They we're rather shocked to find out that he was of Pakistani origin. And they couldn't believe we were Pakistani either. They said we "didn't look it". This is a consistent part of my phenomenological experience with Pakistanis as well. Most don't regard me as a "Desi", even though my Urdu is better than their Urdu. By contrast, Iranians always assume I'm Iranian, and the Turks who live in my area think I'm Anatolian. I can fit into any population between Istanbul and Peshawar. But I can't pass as a Punjabi or Sindhi, and I look highly unusual and distinctive among North Indians. A Punjabi friend from Pakistan once told me that I just "don't look Pakistani", which is simply a repeat of what our Serbian neighbors said long ago.

      But look at my HarappaWorld results. I'm a liminal South Asian, and very different genetically from "proper" West Asians. In my mother's family, one finds an excess of individuals who look oddly European, but she is much more South Asian-shifted than myself. Phenotype is simply a poor guide to genotype. If this wasn't the case, genetically, I should be 70% Southern European, and 30% Native American. And my siblings should be very similar to people from the Balkans. Not the case though. We clearly share most of our ancestry with other peripheral South Asians.

      But let's forget all of that. The big question, why do you even care? This, to my mind, is the most pertinent question. What are you trying to prove? And why are you attaching so much stigma to "looking South Asian"? Also, what prize do you earn for "looking European"?

      @ Ad - I agree wholeheartedly with what you've written, but just a few things. Not all of Pakistan is technically a part of South Asia. Most of Pakistan west of the Indus is a part of the Iranian plateau, geographically, ecologically, and anthropologically. West Asia, in a fine-grained sense, terminates at the foot hills of the Hindu Kush. Contemporary borders complicate things, but the physical geography corresponds well to the human geography. The Indus has always constituted the natural boundary of India. Of course, this is a pretty basic and cardboard depiction of things. When we get down to historical detail, things are less simple. At some points in history, much of Afghanistan was a part of South Asia. As a corollary to this, Punjab is distinctive in many respects, and has a very complex relation to the Iranian plateau. Depending on how one seeks to define things, one could say that eastern and southern Afghanistan is as South Asian an area as Pakistan, or one could say that even Punjab isn't "really" an unambiguous part of South Asia. But looking at it from a fairly simple angle, one that takes it's queue from the present, only Pakistan east of the Indus is "in" South Asia. Also, I've known many Muhajirs, and most are very South Asian in terms of phenotype. Even the "Pathans", who claim descent from Pashtuns. I've yet to met a "Pathan" that looks Pashtun, and I've known many. Most of those who do probably have some Pashtun ancestry look Punjabi, rather than North Indian or Pashtun.

      • Also, sorry about that, I meant to say "but just a few things we should note."

      • HRP I agree she is not out of the ordinary, in fact I would say a lot of pashtun women have that look, the men are more west asian looking in general, though there are also many men who would be called white

        Also I didn't say she looks 100% european, what is 100% european look anyways, they are themselves diverse, but my point is she looks white and wouldn't fit out among the white population of the world and same is the case for many other pashtuns, iranians. afghans, but defiantly not for Indians.

        also about genetics, I am not really sure what does the "south asian" really represent. we are not even sure what the skin tone was of the "south indian" component for example, they might as well be light brown people and perhaps like other components, they were mixture of different looking people.

        There has to be a reason why there is such a huge contrast between looks of Iranian people including pashtuns and those of indian background. I think once more and more research is done on these components we will find out

        • sorry, I meant the south asian component living in the afghan/pak region, could have been light skinned.

  21. ^ show me a indian like that, even from northern india

    • There's a huge population of Indian Pathans, Parsis, etc who look like that. Many of the Mahajir in Pakistan are of Pathan roots and I have several friends who are Mediterranean or Caucasian looking whose families cannot remember any ancestry outside of Uttar Pradesh.

      • Indo-Populations

        I don't agree with you. I think Indian Pathans are a fraud. Indian Pathans are very typically Indian looking, not Pashtun.

        • Indo-Populations

          I think I better rephrase that.

          I don't agree with you. I think MANY Indian Pathans are a fraud. Indian Pathans are very typically Indian looking not Pashtun. However, some do have that 'Pashtun' look about about them.

  22. ^ the ones with pathan/pashtun ancestry could be, but most pathans in India are mixed, also I am not really talking about them, as they are not really indians and are recent migrants from afghanistan/northern pakistan

    • Decent people don't display their pictures on the net, especially of their women. You certainly don't know what beauty is, if that picture is your definition of beauty.

      • she is not my women, also my point of the pic was not about her beauty, but to show how many Iranian/afghan/pashtun people look. Indians do not have that type of look at all

        • Mixed Europoid and Mongoloid. 60+/-10% Euro and 40+/-10% Mongoloid. You mentioned she is your friend. I have among my relatives women with blue eyes and white skin also better than the one in that picture in every which way. Though average Punjabi is dark skin and eyes but light ones are there too.

          • I dont see any Mongolid in her, you must be blind and also I have never seen any indian with blue eyes and especially light skin like that , just because you are saying it, doesn't make it so. we all know how indians have a inferiority complex about their looks, you desperately want to be white. Punjabis are no different from other indians. You are guys 100% indian looking with a clear mix caucasian/veddoid features.

          • Where do you live boy? You are no Iranian but a Pashtun. Pashtuns have much more Euro than Iranians. You must be looking at her eyes only. Mongoloid element shows in her face clearly. I live in Vancouver canada, if you live around here let me know so I can show you a Punjabi girl who looks better than her and a guy who looks better than you. Toronto will also do. It is obvious that you have not been to India. I once seen a girl at Delhi airport who was as white and good looking as a Scandinavian with blue eyes while her husband looked like a dalit.

          • again, your an idiot to suggest to suggest she looks mongolid, I know her whole family, and her whole family looks white, her father looks Kurd/West asian, they have no mongol genes at all, like most pashtuns

            also the pics you have posted are not blue eyes, at the most they are hazel/green and are only found in some sindhi/rajahistani people not punjabis or other indians. and even in the pics most people are heavily veddiod like most indians, they will never fit in Pashtun/Afghan areas and Iran. They dont look white at all

          • Indians can almost never look white, never seen one

          • This is a site about genotype, not phenotype. Nonetheless, here is an example:

            http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/5174467/1/

          • Pukhtun, I asked you where you live

          • Pukhtun, you moron, I asked you where you live, instead of meeting the people personally you make baseless claims.

            Again, I posted no picture, I only posted a link with four Punjabi Sikh guys in there, and I bet you, your eyes are darker than them and so is your skin compared to at least one of the kids.

            All Pashtun have Mongoloid admixture. What is your and this girl's Kit #s at 23andMe, FTDNA, Harrapa Project and Gedmatch?

          • some pashtuns in afghanistan have some mongolid in them but generally most in Pakistan and eastern afghanistan do not. 99% if punjabis have huge veddoid mixture in them, which you can clearly see on their faces.

            Also curious, thats just one guy and even he doesn't look white, you can clearly see and Indian veddoid vibe in him

          • Pakhtun, you are a hopeless case, you want to be white when you are not and you refuse to admit that some Indians also look like white people even when they do.

            I only gave posted a link which had Indian people who have light eyes. Now you tell me that it is only one, can you show me even one Pashtun in the Post # 14 and 20 of the link I gave you about Pashtuns? .100% of those Pashtune show Mongoloid and Veddoid admixture.

            At the same time I must admit that on the average more Pashtun People have much lighter eyes and skin tone. Iranians actually have more Mongoloid and less Europoid admixture than Pashtuns.

            Are you an anthropologist who is qualified to make such claims? And don't forget that you are trying to compare a single tribe with the whole population of Punjab which is consisted of many many tribes. That kid in the link I am sure have lighter eyes and skin and also is less veddoid than you and that is making you very uncomfortable.

          • She looks like an Indian with a bad bleach job!!!

  23. I think Pakistanis are more Indo-Iranian than Indo-Aryan. I have noticed some Punjabi Pakistanis have Iranid influence whereas the Sikhs and Indian Punjabis look Indic.

    • Indo-populations

      This could be the Muslim influence on Pakistanis over several centuries.

    • what is a indio aryan look? you seem to be making up stuff like other inferiority complexed indians. All the pics posted by you show a clear Indian veddiod look, Iranians of all kinds indeed lack that look, but that is defiantly not how original indo aryans looked like. Indo aryans did not have any veddoid features in them

      • Indo-populations

        The pictures of people I showed do not show really show Veddoid on their phenotypes. I think you've convinced yourself that Indians are all Veddoid. Whilst I am not doubting that Indians have Veddoid admixture, not all will show it on their phenotype to any considerable degree. AR Rahman or Sanath Jayasurya are good examples of people with substantial Veddoid look about them.

        I think one of the reasons why the British first started investigating the link between themselves and South Asians, was because they were curious why some looked similar to them, albeit with darker tone. They would have been dealing a lot with Brahmins, some of whom no doubt had phenotypes similar to theirs.

        As for Iranians, I suspect there is significant Arab admixture. Some Iranians do look rather Arab. Its likely the several hundred years of direct Arab rule there.

        • Indians are very veddoid mixed, thats why even the whitest looking indian would never fit in europe, all the pics you guys have posted clearly give a indian/veddoid vibe to them, these guys would never fit even in the Iranian/pashtun areas, let alone europe.

  24. Zack, you have said that "the standard error estimates on these results can be about 1%. Therefore, it is entirely possible that your 1% exotic admixture result is just noise." Does the 1% noise threshold also apply to Admixture Proportions that are broken out by individual Chromosome as shown in your "HarappaWorld Admixture Proportions" utility?