Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
huh? is this the right link an dmap? it says Sikh.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
Everything I call Pakistani history is Sindh history, Pakistani Punjab history, NWFP history, Balochistan history and Northern Areas history. Everything within Pakistan’s current borders is Pakistan’s history, not anyone elses.
Celts and Mongols form complete opposite spectrums of the Aryan theory. Depending on what your interpretation of Aryan is (and mine is the Central Asian pre history interpretation like most of the texts, including the people that called themselves Aryans), under no circumstances do Celts fit into any definition of Aryan, they are more associated with an expansion from the Iberian peninsula from what I know. Mongols will not under any circumstances fall under the banner of Aryan - that is impossible. Indians do not fall under the banner of Aryan..there’s very few Aryans in India, though they do exist. Pakistan is more Aryan than India. This is more or less a genetic fact.
Actually, they are DNA evidence. Haplogroups are the DNA sequences taken from the Y chromsomes, so yes, they are DNA evidence. They do change with time only in the sense that migrations might take place to various regions.
No guesswork in haplogroups.
Actually the graphs for South Pakistan and India are completely different if you know what’s happening. The green is MtDNA haplogroup M*. Haplogroup M split off from N early on in human evolution and went seperate ways. Haplogroup M went on to form the majority of East Asian populations as well as India (Pakistan is less than half haplogroup M, majority is N). The Mitomaps will show this. But digressing aside, and the important point is that all of East Asia is haplogroup M. So, where you see blues and reds in say Mongolia, this is actually haplogroup M, like India, like Pakistan. For reasons known to the authors, they have classified M-South Asia as green, but coloured the rest in differently (could be something to do with the fact the authors are Indian). But anyhow, the proof of this can be seen by clicking on the following table.
Look at how Punjab (indian), Gujerat, and Kashmir all have high haplogroup W in the final column. Also see how central, northeastern, Southern Indian states have very little W. Then see how Kashmir, Punjab and Gujerat have the lowest of M* (first column). That’s the first to note. Now, the combined M of course is actually highest in East Asia, places like Mongolia, and there is a gradient from West to East of increasing M. So India actually has less M than East Asia, but more than Pakistan. So M is not actually an Indian haplogroup or green in reality. It’s just what the author liked to make it as. M in fact is very high in the South of India, the East, central India everywhere except Northwest, where it is still present. Pakistan has lower amounts of M, and is majority N, unlike shown in India. Be careful of how people draw maps.
Aborigines dont look Dravidian do they?
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
Map was drawn under British Colonial times, The region of Pakistan was ruled by Sikhs I suppose. So it might just be referring to Sikh kingdoms.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
I find that most of the members are so blinded by their faith that don't even want to explore about others. Following religion is one thing....exploring and seeking knowledge is another. Latter seem to be low priority for many members.
I am very interested in learning about other ppls belief systems, but hate the 'hate' it stirs up in ppl. Islam instructs us to respect other ppl but even so when religion is on the agenda it always seems to down spiral into verbal attacks. What I find most illogical of all is that instead of respecting any rights and personal choice that an individual has made and at least showing empathy for the feelings of the individuals involved... ppl are so 'attacked' that it is as if we stand in some strange 'man court' demanding that ppl insult their own faith by agreeing to inflammatory thesis and should justify the right to follow that faith.
That is not debate, it isn't sharing or valuing each other... its akin to a street brawl. Actually its more than that really isn't it? Isn't it really demanding the right to insist that the person 'becomes converted to the ideals of the insulter and denounces ones own faith/belief system? Where is the respect in that?
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
you seem to be quoting which suits your agenda. wont your aryan invasion theory make harappa and mohenjadara civilizations that of dravidians?...in fact it is theirs. this you cannot deny. every other theory supports this. even your aryan invasion theory which you support, supports this. cleverly dont deny this while accepting others as true. if you do, then you are only trying to be biased in your so called "educational" thread.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
mt dna analaysis is in your referances that you gave. The numbers I quote are also in the references that i gave. The map that you showed is in German and I have no idea what it is you are talking about. besides you are comparing apples and oranges. On one hand you are analysing a dna which has markers for time in memorial and other case you are talking about the tribal populations in these places.
Honestly I dont understand what are u arguing about. Do u think R1a is indegenous.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
and you have not given the link for all this source of yours. you might be quoting all these, from a website which supports all this.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
Point out where I have done that - you’ll find I don’t have an agenda. If I did I would be like you guys trying to steal names and other people’s histories. I have based all my information from genetics - genetics do not lie. The same cannot be said of humans.
Havent you understood anything in this thread? I have given the explanation for this before. I’ll repeat it again. There are many other scenarios for an influx of Aryans into the Pakistan area aside from some violent genocidal migration. The Aryans might well have just rode in on horseback over a period of time, found the Indus Valley a nice place to settle, and then lived there after that. They then might have brought over others over the period of hundreds of years and integrated with the indigenous Indus populations (identity not known, but they could have been Aryans even, or Dravdians). The most likely explanation is that Harrapa was a mix of Aryans and Dravidian people - this is what archaeology suggest, but it is not 100% unlike the genetic evidence. There is absolutely no proof Harrapa was 100% Dravidian, as we know from archaeological digs at Harrapa that Aryans were there at the time.
Here is some proof of what I say. Harrapa was a mixture of people, most likely Aryans were amongst them.
The Bronze-Age Harappans: A re-examination of the skulls in the context of the population concept
*The biometric data on 72 usable adult skulls excavated at Harappa and dated ca. 2500-1700 bc have been re-examined in the light of the genetic concept of population. The original study of the material considered separately and independently the various samples from locally differentiated cultural deposits, Cemetery R37, Area G, Cemetery H, etc., and used the typologic concept of racial analysis, a traditional method now sterile. ***One of the major findings of the study, postulating hypothetical original races, was that a varying proportions of different racial types constituted each sample. **
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110484971/ABSTRACT
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
What does this mean?
[quote]
The map that you showed is in German and I have no idea what it is you are talking about. besides you are comparing apples and oranges.
[/quote]
How is it apples and oranges. The map shows physical anthropology groups of the subcontinent and shows Pakistan as a completely different element to the groups in India.
[quote]
On one hand you are analysing a dna which has markers for time in memorial and other case you are talking about the tribal populations in these places.
Honestly I dont understand what are u arguing about. Do u think R1a is indegenous.
[/quote]
huh? What does this mean? I have analyzed DNA but talk about tribals, and then said R1a(1?) is indigenous? Do you know what you're typing about?
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
Which sources have I not given?
All the maps have been referenced.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
All the maps have been referenced.
from where r u getting those maps?...from which site?
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
Try reading what's been written. It's a waste of time typing all this out again.
Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure
*Analabha Basu,1,4 Namita Mukherjee,1,4 Sangita Roy,2,4 Sanghamitra Sengupta,1,4 Sanat Banerjee,1 Madan Chakraborty,1 Badal Dey,1 Monami Roy,1 Bidyut Roy,1 Nitai P. Bhattacharyya,3 Susanta Roychoudhury,2 and Partha P. Majumder1,5 *
The paper was in the Journal, "Genome Research".
**Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan*
Raheel Qamar,1,2 Qasim Ayub,1,2 Aisha Mohyuddin,1,2 Agnar Helgason,3 Kehkashan Mazhar,1 Atika Mansoor,1 Tatiana Zerjal,2 Chris Tyler-Smith,2 and S. Qasim Mehdi1
The journal it was published in was The American Society of Human Genetics.*
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
roadrunner a lot of good info here. The offtrack discussion has been moved to a diff thread so this can stay on course.
I think this is a lot of info for someone reading it casually thats why ppl are not getting it. I have had to read and reread it. it would be nice to have larger pictures, they would really help, because once u do understand what you are looking at and how to read it, the realization is fairly immediate.
correct me if i am wrong but from what i read it states that there are some similarities in northwest India and part of Pakistan that its next to, other than that for the most part the groups are fairly distinct.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
I think this is a lot of info for someone reading it casually thats why ppl are not getting it. I have had to read and reread it. it would be nice to have larger pictures, they would really help, because once u do understand what you are looking at and how to read it, the realization is fairly immediate.
correct me if i am wrong but from what i read it states that there are some similarities in northwest India and part of Pakistan that its next to, other than that for the most part the groups are fairly distinct.
Will try and expand the pictures from now on on this page. I think if you click on the pictures and expand the window, the picture expands too.
Yes, more or less NW India is fairly different to the rest of India in terms of it's genetics and physical anthropology. It's midway between Pakistan and South, East and Central India. There's genetic evidence that shows this. Might find some more if I have some time later, but generally, the Indian areas bordering Pakistan, for example, Gujerat, Punjab, Rajasthan, are not really too similar with the rest of India. By the time you go East of Punjab you find the more Aryan markers are completely gone. Will see if I can find something more on this.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
How is it apples and oranges. The map shows physical anthropology groups of the subcontinent and shows Pakistan as a completely different element to the groups in India.
huh? What does this mean? I have analyzed DNA but talk about tribals, and then said R1a(1?) is indigenous? Do you know what you're typing about?
At least read the conclusion part of the papers you have given. The one paper on India concluded that most of the indian population started of from the few famale individuals. How the tribals in India (which is only 8% of population) have the most indegenious genes 2) paper on pakistan was about the diffferent ethenicities in pakistan and their roots. Only one which has relation to the mongols was right and the rest of story of the origin of ethenicity are baseless(thats what they say). They disclaim the idea that many of pakistanies,sindhies or punjabies(i dont remember) are from iran or persia. They also say that kashmir people are not the lost tribes of isreal.
U did not give any reference to the map showing the europe and the different pakistan tribal and ethenic variations. I am not a gene expert and I want data showing that R1a originates in pakistan.
The only way you can prove that, all that was in pakistan belonged to pakistani people from the start by providing proof of the origin of this r1a factor in pakistan. The age of it. As far as I understood, from my little reading,it is possible to determine the age of this factor you are talking about.
If you cant do that there are many other possibilities of the way r1a factor is predominant in pakistanies.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
India and Pakistan have been invaded by Persians, Central Asians, Mughals and so on since many centuries. I don't think one can say that this or that group is dominant in Pakistan or India.
Regarding the facial features of North Indians and Pakistanis, there is no difference.
Look all of us on this forum haven't seen each others' faces. Now if unnamed photos are posted, I don't think one can definitely say "He must be Indian", or "He is Pakistani". I won't even bet 10 Ruppees on that !
roadrunner, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Pakistanis have Aryan marks and Indians have non-Aryan marks ? Indians have Indian marks (lower cheekbones) whereas Pakistanis have in general higher cheekbones (Mongol like). How did you arrive at the conclusion that Mongol features are Aryan like and Indian features are non-Aryan ?
Again, Parsis of India have exclusive features (low cheekbones, light-coloured eyes and bleached fair skin). They migrated to India after they were driven out by invaders from further west. They were the original inhabitants of Iran, and followers of the fire-worshipping faith of Zoroastrianism.
Now, it is an undisputed fact that Zoroastrianism and the RigVedic people were infact in contact because there are numerrous similarities in the RigVeda and the Zen Avesta. Even words are common. And the Zoroastrians have finally come to settle back with their long-lost brothers in India. It proves that Indians and Zoroastrians are the true descendents of Aryans and not the present middle-eastern populations. roadrunner, in your equations I guess you forgot to factor in one very important point : forced migrations and conquests spread over 2 millenia.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
It has been invaded but you cannot change the base populations unless you are advocating some complete genocide and mass migrational movement which we know from history has most likely not occurred.
In fact we know that India is predominantly Dravidian. This is an anthropological fact. Do not think that all the time the British were there, they did not analyze the Indian and Pakistani populations anthropologically. Many studies were carried out, I have shown just two on them in the map, which you missed obviously. Pakistan currently has some Dravidian people, but the majority, and this is a genetic fact, are Aryan people. I say it's a genetic fact because the Y haplogroups carry what are Aryan markers (defined as central asian tribes from 2000 years ago), and the Mt DNA of Pakistanis is over half (perhaps 60% or 70% of the N haplogroup and not Indian, whereas the majority of Indian Y haplogroups are non Aryan, and are around 70-90% Dravidian MtDNA. This has been proved already for the most part (and the rest is proveable through other genetic papers, if I have time will show).
[QUOTE]
Regarding the facial features of North Indians and Pakistanis, there is no difference.
[/QUOTE]
Rubbish. Look at the Guha and Eickelstat maps for one. There's a huge difference, it's not all about the colour of the skin. That's only a part of it. It's many other features that are different.
Indians, Pakistanis in the West do look the same to and extent (though the Pakistanis I know tend to be lighter on average) - the reason is because Indians in the West tend to be from the NorthWestern areas ethnically: Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujerati, and the Pakistanis tend to be from Punjab, or Mirpur (which is in essence Punjabi). They are all of the same ethnic group, and the ones from India do not represent the "real India" such as Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Central India etc.
[QUOTE]
Look all of us on this forum haven't seen each others' faces. Now if unnamed photos are posted, I don't think one can definitely say "He must be Indian", or "He is Pakistani". I won't even bet 10 Ruppees on that !
[/QUOTE]
Try it. I would probably guess 6 times out of 10 correctly for which are Indian Punjabis and which are Pakistani Punjabis.
[QUOTE]
roadrunner, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Pakistanis have Aryan marks and Indians have non-Aryan marks ? Indians have Indian marks (lower cheekbones) whereas Pakistanis have in general higher cheekbones (Mongol like). How did you arrive at the conclusion that Mongol features are Aryan like and Indian features are non-Aryan ?
[/QUOTE]
Mongol cheekbones. What a load of cow's rear end (no offence). Hazara of Pakistan are Mongol looking, a Pashtun is one of the most Caucasian people on earth (the ones from the villages towards the West of Pakistan), the people of Sindh and Punjab are Mongol looking? lol Genetic evidence I have repeated time over again shows that Pakistanis carry the Aryan markers, and that Indians do not. See the genetics thread.
[QUOTE]
Again, Parsis of India have exclusive features (low cheekbones, light-coloured eyes and bleached fair skin).
[/QUOTE]
Stop telling Bollywood fantasies. Parsis of India do NOT have light coloured eyes - their cheekbones might be lowered. If you look at Parsi DNA it is totally paternally Iranian and totally maternally Dravidian. The Dravidian side of the Parsis will mean that 99% of Parsis do not have light eyes except in Bollywood dreams. Even Iranians do not have light eyes in any substantial quantities, so the Parsi DNA will most likely not have contributed many light eye coloured genes, and if any were there when they moved to India 1,000 years back, the mixing with Dravidians would have swamped out any light-coloured eye genes completely.
[QUOTE]
They migrated to India after they were driven out by invaders from further west. They were the original inhabitants of Iran, and followers of the fire-worshipping faith of Zoroastrianism.
[/QUOTE]
I know what a Parsi is thank you.
[QUOTE]
Now, it is an undisputed fact that Zoroastrianism and the RigVedic people were infact in contact because there are numerrous similarities in the RigVeda and the Zen Avesta. Even words are common. And the Zoroastrians have finally come to settle back with their long-lost brothers in India. It proves that Indians and Zoroastrians are the true descendents of Aryans and not the present middle-eastern populations. roadrunner, in your equations I guess you forgot to factor in one very important point : forced migrations and conquests spread over 2 millenia.
[/quote]
Where do I start. This is a proven incorrect hypothesis. The Zoroastrians were the people of pre Islamic Persia that followed their Prophet Zoroaster who grew up in the Vedic community. This means he spread his religion, probably after migrating from Vedic Pakistan, to pre Islamic Persia, and CONVERTED the people there to his faith. He did not go there, bring a load of Indians over and force them to reproduce with Iranians, so that Indians and Iranians are related. He only CONVERTED the people there. If your point is that Iranians and Indian populations are genetically similar, then it's just a joke. I've put up a table in the genetics thread which proves that Iranian haplogroups and Indian haplogroups are completely different (MtDNA especially).
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
I dont understand what you're trying to say. Quote me the part which you think proves your point, and then I should be able to understand your point if you have one.
[QUOTE]
2) paper on pakistan was about the diffferent ethenicities in pakistan and their roots. Only one which has relation to the mongols was right and the rest of story of the origin of ethenicity are baseless(thats what they say).
[/QUOTE]
Not a clue what you're saying. Everything in the paper which they show from the haplogroup charts that I posted is a conclusion. Again quote it me.
[QUOTE]
They disclaim the idea that many of pakistanies,sindhies or punjabies(i dont remember) are from iran or persia.
[/QUOTE]
WHERE DID I SAY THAT PAKISTANIS WERE FROM IRAN OR PERSIA?
Iranians and Pakistanis according to genetics are a completely different group of people. I've tried drilling this into your head with two attempts now, and it still hasnt gone in. Apologies for the caps, but it's annoying.
[QUOTE]
They also say that kashmir people are not the lost tribes of isreal.
[/QUOTE]
Where did I say any ethnic group had anything to do with Israel, Arabs or Persians?
[QUOTE]
U did not give any reference to the map showing the europe and the different pakistan tribal and ethenic variations. I am not a gene expert and I want data showing that R1a originates in pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
The map is on the first page of this thread at the end of the page. Data is from there. You can see it's the same. I dont believe R1a1 originated in Pakistan. But some experts do, like Oppenheimer, though I dont agree with him.
[QUOTE]
The only way you can prove that, all that was in pakistan belonged to pakistani people from the start by providing proof of the origin of this r1a factor in pakistan. The age of it. As far as I understood, from my little reading,it is possible to determine the age of this factor you are talking about.
If you cant do that there are many other possibilities of the way r1a factor is predominant in pakistanies.
[/quote]
Even if R1a1 did not originate in Pakistan, then so what? The fact of the matter is that the people of R1a1 made their Aryan culture whilst they were in Pakistan. They did not for example develop Sankrit in Central Asia. They developed it in Pakistan. They developed their compass in Pakistan. This makes it Pakistani history.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring popu
Not a clue what you're saying. Everything in the paper which they show from the haplogroup charts that I posted is a conclusion. Again quote it me.
WHERE DID I SAY THAT PAKISTANIS WERE FROM IRAN OR PERSIA?
Iranians and Pakistanis according to genetics are a completely different group of people. I've tried drilling this into your head with two attempts now, and it still hasnt gone in. Apologies for the caps, but it's annoying.
Where did I say any ethnic group had anything to do with Israel, Arabs or Persians?
The map is on the first page of this thread at the end of the page. Data is from there. You can see it's the same. I dont believe R1a1 originated in Pakistan. But some experts do, like Oppenheimer, though I dont agree with him.
Even if R1a1 did not originate in Pakistan, then so what? The fact of the matter is that the people of R1a1 made their Aryan culture whilst they were in Pakistan. They did not for example develop Sankrit in Central Asia. They developed it in Pakistan. They developed their compass in Pakistan. This makes it Pakistani history.
Look you cant bluff up a scientific evidence and say that since there is more r1a factor in pakistan meaning aryans came from that place. U have to prove that aryans did have r1a factor, which ofcourse you cant prove.
Though these are scientific studies, ur conclusions are highly speculative.
Re: An educational thread on the differences between Pakistanis and neighbouring populi
It's not a bluff. It's a scientific conclusion. You need to know history first. The first point is do you accept the Aryans to be a central asian tribe? If the answer is no, then you will be going against what every textbook says of them. If yes, then I'd probably agree. The Aryans were part of the Yamna culture, Andronovo cultures that were found in central Asia. There is a lot of evidence these people existed. In other words the original Aryan homeland was Central Asia.
Genetic maps clearly show the connection between the Northern regions and further South in Pakistan. The same connection does not exist in India which is thoroughly Dravidianized. Even parts of Pakistan are Dravidianized to an extent, but then many parts are not.