Have any readers swabbed their cheeks and sent in their DNA yet? Want to share your results?

My twin brother did participate in the National Geographic Project. He sent me the results, but I need to dig it up where I saved.

No promises. If I find it easily on my computer, I'll share.

"My twin brother ..."

Are the two of you called Lav and Kush, by any chance?

I somehow missed that first post, but now I want to participate in the study. I swear, y'all find the coolest stuff of any blog out there.

Good stuff. :-)

A soon to be published genetic study of the population of Northern India is sure to get the attention of some right wing groups who like to come up with their own alternate “theories” with regards to the history of Hindu/Muslim interaction on the sub-continent.

Abhi, it confirms nationalist ideology, which has always maintained that subcontinental Muslims are Hindu converts, and not Arabs, Turks or Persians. See Veer Savarkar's "Hindutva", e.g.

i had my cheeks swabbed, first, for pleasure and second, for science. it appears i am closely related to the shigella and giardia lineages.

technology is an excellent way to threaten our notions of equality, history and identity. fortunately, or not, our society can buffet most of what our biology might dictate if resources eg ever became scarce.

That's interesting! Pravin Togadia would certainly be very happy. The surgical oncologist and Vishva Hindu Parishad boss in one of his more florid moents remarked that Hindus and the non-Hindus of India aren't different people, because we all have the same DNA and RNA! I am not sure if he meant genetic similarity - being a doctor I am sure he meant it knowingly. LK Advani too criticised VP Singh (or was it Rajiv Gandhi's) slogan Hindu-Muslim bhai bhai. Because you had to say Hindi-Chini bhai bhai as the Indians and the Chinese are peoples of different nations. Since Hindus and Muslims are fellow citizens (and in LKA's case even related by marriage as in the case of his niece who is maried to a Muslim) the VP/RG slogan seems less than innocent!

What about the Pakistanis, especially the Punjabi Pakistanis?

a few points

1) the similarity between muslims & non-muslims in any area has long been known since blood group analysis showed up early in the 20th century. this is simply another confirmation that the muslims are indigenous, easily ascertainable by the fact that without particular dress and other markers such as beards you wouldn't be able to tell the diff. in many regions of india.

2) don't rely on just one study. genetics is a statistical science subject to prior assumptions and sensitive to the methods used. different studies will give different results, don't take ANY as definitive.

3) there seems a 5% genetic load of recent central asian ancestry among UP muslims. this is averaged in the population, so some have quite a bit more, and most have nearly nothing.

4) be careful about the genographic test results. they're preconditioned upon european, africa and east asian ancestries, and so browns often get very, very, strange stories about their 'ancestry.' there is a Y chromosomal haplotype, r1a, which many northern indian males carry which is also found in central asia and eastern europe. from my understanding they tell the story about eastern europe if you get this result back because most of the people taking these tests are american, ergo, white. the history and nature of r1a is under dispute, some people suggest that it implies a lineage that expanded out of central eurasia 6,000 years BP, going west and south and east. others assert that its history is deeper, and reflects deep common ancestry (i.e., before 10,000 years ago).

More interestingly, some Muslim families from Gujarat (I am not sure if it is the Kutchi Memons, Ismailis or the Bohras) have geneaology charts all the way upto their last Hindu ancestor and beyond stretching into centuries. In fact one of these three communities till the late '30s followed mostly Hindu family law! Jinnah himself belonged to a community that venerated the Dashavatar of Narayana.

Jinnah himself belonged to a community that venerated the Dashavatar of Narayana.

jinnah was ismaili, and many ismailis are proud of their brahmin "ancestors" (though they were more likely from bania backgrounds if high caste).

Muslims in northern India are mostly descendants of local people who embraced Islam rather than repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders

also, a minor point, but many muslims might trace their lineage back to one foreign male ancestor. e.g., the muslims of kerala often claim to be the descendants of intermarriage between native women and arab merchants. if the local population is large then it stands to reason that a new population which arose out of intermarriage initially will quickly be genetically absorbed with some intermarriage over the generations. this might not apply just to muslims, but also to other groups in india. that might be explain the high frequency of r1a, spread through the patrilineage, despite the fact that north indians exhibit little overall genetic similarity with central asians and eastern europeans.

I think Hindus have always BEEN claiming that Indian muslims are descendants of local converts...it was usually Muslims who claimed foreign origins most of the time.

.it was usually Muslims who claimed foreign origins most of the time.

yeah, that was my impression. but, some of the racialist rhetoric from the hindutva crowd can make it somewhat confusing because of semantic issues (e.g., "hindu nation" vs. "muslim nation" makes it seem like there is a genetical difference).

Here is Savarkar from "Hindutva::

"That is why in the case of some of our Mohammedan or Christian countryman who had originally been forcibly converted to a non-Hindu religion and who consequently have inherited, along with Hindus, a common culture -- language, law, customs, folklore and history -- are not and cannot be recognized as Hindus. For though Hindusthan to them is Fatherland as to any other Hindu it is not to them a Holyland...blah blah blah"

I dispute the forced conversion thesis upheld by the nationalists at least partially. The converts in East Bengal may have largely been semi-Hinduized tribals. SM commenter dipanjan has an interesting blog about this subject:

Two critical events happened simultaneously in seventeenth-century East Bengal. First, Mughals started to take direct political control over the region after winning a bloody struggle with the local Hindu kings, zamidars and also the remnants of Afghan sultanate. Secondly, the Ganges river system linked up with Padma increasing the fertility of land and agricultural productivity. It also enabled river transportation system and set up economic integration of East Bengal with West Bengal and rest of Mughal empire in India.

All this opened up economic opportunities and the Mughals started to transform jungles into arable land. The indigenous tribes like Rajbansi, Pod, Chandal, Kuch who used to inhabit those regions were very slightly exposed to Hindu Brahmanic or Buddhist culture and were easy prey for conversion. The bulk of Bengali Muslims are their descendants. [link]

However there is good evidence of forced conversions in what is now Pakistan, or conversion by attrition in the case of groups like the Jat Muslims.

More interestingly, some Muslim families from Gujarat (I am not sure if it is the Kutchi Memons, Ismailis or the Bohras) have geneaology charts all the way upto their last Hindu ancestor and beyond stretching into centuries. In fact one of these three communities till the late '30s followed mostly Hindu family law! Jinnah himself belonged to a community that venerated the Dashavatar of Narayana.

half a Bohra and half a tamilian here.......:-)

there are so many Bohra customs that are very similar to Hindu customs. The food is great on both sides too. No complaints. I will sign up for the swab though!!

Not really surprising. In my case I'm a Gujju from Pakistan, so I always knew we were converts.

I always found it funny how people in Pakistan were so proud of having some Arab or Persian ancestry. I wouldn't be suprised to know that most of them are exaggerating, and would be crushed if they knew the truth. INteresting note - part of the Bengali oppression pre-71 was justified internally by claiming they were of inferior Indian races, while (West) Pakistan had glorious Persian and Arab ancestry etc.

conversion by attrition in the case of groups like the Jat Muslims.

What do you mean 'conversion by attrition'?

@qualified_trash:
you are straight out of that movie bombay, no? :)

My understanding of why so many people became Muslim in the areas which are now Pakistan and Bangladesh, is because those people (who converted) were largely Buddhist before that. A few centuries earlier, MOST of India had become Buddhist, but later a Hindu 'revival' was sweeping Buddhism off its feet. Just at that point, when Buddhism was ebbing, Islam arrived on the scene in the sub-continent...and for whatever reason, most of the remaining Buddhists (again, who were mostly in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) became Muslim. Maybe it was because they were bereft of their institutions, their clergy, and were in too weak of a position to maintain their religion...whereas Hinduism's revival gave it the force to stick around.

You have to take all the gene/DNA testing with a pinch of salt and desist from drawing conclusions. Ruth Hubbard has often spoken out about it likening it to the heredity theories that were all the rage late 19th/early 20th century (and fertile ground for Nazi Germany)

Hubbard's quote from wikipedia (where else)

It is beyond comprehension, in this century which has witnessed holocausts of ethnic, racial, and religious extermination in many parts of our planet, perpetrated by peoples of widely different cultural and political affiliations and beliefs, that educated persons—scholars and popularizers alike—can come forward to argue, as though in complete innocence and ignorance of our recent history, that nothing could be more interesting and worthwhile than to sort out the “racial” or “ethnic” components of our thoroughly mongrelized species so as to ascertain the root identity of each and everyone of us. And where to look for that identity if not in our genes.

In the case of Bengal, apparently just prior to the arrival of Islam, the Hindu Kings (who had just recently deposed Buddhist kings) were extremely cruel to the Buddhist masses...and when the option of Islam was made available, many oppressed Buddhists chose to convert.

In Punjab I think conversion (which ultimately claimed the majority of the populace) was a more gradual process...I'm pretty sure that if the Partition of 1947 (based on Muslim-majority areas being demarcated from non-Muslim areas) had been done in Guru Nanak's time (for example) the dividing line would have been significantly further to the west than what it eventually became.

What do you mean 'conversion by attrition'?

Over the course of centuries.

A few centuries earlier, MOST of India had become Buddhist, but later a Hindu 'revival' was sweeping Buddhism off its feet.

I don't think there is substantive evidence that "most of India" was ever Buddhist, though there were certainly Buddhist dynasties, eg. the Bengali Palas. I suspect that Buddhism was on the verge of extinction at the time of Muslim conquest.

There was no Buddhism as opposed to Hinduism as in two teams with different mascots, with groups of fans cheering one or the other! The isms are modern constructs. The Buddha taught a path to cross the river to use one of his analogies. The people followed multiple different traditions in different parts of the country, with the Buddha's teaching being part of the amalgamation in many places, just like say the Shirdi Sai Baba devotees are not exclusive Sai bhakts, but can have other deities like Ganesha as well. The Buddha's teaching became part of most "Hindu" cultural elements and in some parts he became another avataram of Vishnu.

So talk about more 'buddhists' became muslim and hindus did not doesn't hold much water. Conversion happened in mny different ways including coerced, voluntary, for reasons of power etc etc.

In the case of Bengal, apparently just prior to the arrival of Islam, the Hindu Kings (who had just recently deposed Buddhist kings) were extremely cruel to the Buddhist masses...and when the option of Islam was made available, many oppressed Buddhists chose to convert.

Again, there is no evidence for this claim. Read Burton's book, cited in the blog post above. He's a western scholar, not a Hindutvan. The East Bengal (Bangladesh) converts consisted of great numbers of tribals, with a limited relationship to Hinduism or Buddhists.

The East Bengal (Bangladesh) converts consisted of great numbers of tribals, with a limited relationship to Hinduism or Buddhists.

This does not seem unlikely.

How dumb is it to use your/anyone's genetic lineage for political purposes? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

But I guess inevitable.

To me, it's fascinating because it tells a story: gene dispersal, migrations, epics! Small bands of prehistoric people, moving around and about, learning to adapt to a place 20 or 40 or 200 miles away from where they started out.

To other people, it's ammunition to prove or disprove some idiotic notion of racial segregation (which is only useful or relevant as a form of determining or assuming some kind of supposed superiority or inferiority).

Ruth Hubbard is correct: our species is mongrelized. But she's incorrect in another way: humanity is very much concerned with how the mongrel "breeds" have segregated themselves, still, and focus more on the phenotypic differences between "races" (what a laugh...what other species has races?) and how they might predicate other differences, than with the similarities, which are apparently boring.

Excellent post, kudoos to the designer as well. do keep up the good work, will be back for more.

Warm Regards

Biby Cletus :- Blog

"My understanding of why so many people became Muslim in the areas which are now Pakistan and Bangladesh, is because those people (who converted) were largely Buddhist before that." Not, perhaps, that they converted to Islam BECAUSE they were Buddhist (one fails to see the nexus) but in order to get on economically and politically vis-Ã -vis the more advantaged Hindus (as well, no doubt, as to save their souls) under a Muslim regime after the arrival of Muhammed bin Qazim, AD 711: see Derryl N. Maclean, Religion and Society in Arab Sind (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989).

I'm amazed that such a well informed bunch fails on regular basis to understand the grievances, real or imagined, of the Hindutva camp. The earlier "revelation" on this blog that Sarvarkar was an atheist (gasp) surprised many as they are taught to imagine the Sangh Parivar as saffron analogues of Wahabbis or Christian fundamentalists when their thuggery is motivated by significantly different reasons. This does not contradict anything that they've been saying..their argument has always been that Indian Muslims are the products of forcible conversion. The truth of the matter is that the conversion was likely some mixture of escape from Brahmanical strictures, economic opportunism, forcible conversion, and sincere embrace of Islamic theology. Why not present this as an alternative hitsorical narrative instead of painting the "enemy" as a particular type of buffoon they are not ? The only people this will upset are lower class Muslims who had romanticized notions of Afghan/Arab/Turkic origins.

There was more of an uproar when it was announced several months ago that the Irish/Brits are all cut from the same bread and were impacted very little genetically speaking by the Anglo-Saxon & Norse invasions

Yes, byteword, Lav and Kush names are giveaways for twins.

Also, part of results from Genographic Project reproduced below. Enjoy

Your Y chromosome results identify you as a member of haplogroup H, a lineage defined by a genetic marker called M52. This haplogroup is the final destination of a genetic journey that began some 60,000 years ago with an ancient Y chromosome marker called M168.

The very widely dispersed M168 marker can be traced to a single individual—"Eurasian Adam." This African man, who lived some 31,000 to 79,000 years ago, is the common ancestor of every non-African person living today. His descendants migrated out of Africa and became the only lineage to survive away from humanity's home continent.

Population growth during the Upper Paleolithic era may have spurred the M168 lineage to seek new hunting grounds for the plains animals crucial to their survival. A period of moist and favorable climate had expanded the ranges of such animals at this time, so these nomadic peoples may have simply followed their food source.

Improved tools and rudimentary art appeared during this same epoch, suggesting significant mental and behavioral changes. These shifts may have been spurred by a genetic mutation that gave "Eurasian Adam's" descendants a cognitive advantage over other contemporary, but now extinct, human lineages.

Some 90 to 95 percent of all non-Africans are descendants of the second great human migration out of Africa, which is defined by the marker M89.

M89 first appeared 45,000 years ago in Northern Africa or the Middle East. It arose on the original lineage (M168) of "Eurasian Adam," and defines a large inland migration of hunters who followed expanding grasslands and plentiful game to the Middle East.

Many people of this lineage remained in the Middle East, but others continued their movement and followed the grasslands through Iran to the vast steppes of Central Asia. Herds of buffalo, antelope, woolly mammoths, and other game probably enticed them to explore new grasslands.

With much of Earth's water frozen in massive ice sheets, the era's vast steppes stretched from eastern France to Korea. The grassland hunters of the M89 lineage traveled both east and west along this steppe "superhighway" and eventually peopled much of the continent.

A group of M89 descendants moved north from the Middle East to Anatolia and the Balkans, trading familiar grasslands for forests and high country. Though their numbers were likely small, genetic traces of their journey are still found today.

The M201 lineage that defines an uncommon haplogroup called G, which is rarely present in population frequencies at greater than a few percent. Genealogists believe that this line of descent first appeared in northern India's Indus valley, on the M89 lineage, and subsequently dispersed during the past 10,000 to 20,000 years.

Currently, little else is known of haplogroup G's origin or history. Learning more about such unusual lineages is a primary goal of the Genographic Project.

The "Indian Marker," M52, is common in that country and rarely seen elsewhere. The marker arose some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago on the M201 lineage, most likely within India. Despite its current prevalence in India the lineage could actually have originated elsewhere in southern Central Asia, Iran, or the eastern Middle East.

Genealogists believe that M52 might have appeared somewhere along the migration route of peoples carrying the M20 Y chromosome marker. This "Indian Clan" migrated from Central Asia, south of the mountainous Pamir Knot, and into India. They were not the first humans to arrive in India, but likely undertook the first major settlement of the region some 30,000 years ago.

Doc Abhi, can you make any sense of it.

The East Bengal (Bangladesh) converts consisted of great numbers of tribals, with a limited relationship to Hinduism or Buddhists.

the idea that east bengal was more tribal & less hinduized does not negate a relationship to buddhism. buddhism's relative strength may be a symptom, not a cause, of hinduism's relative weakness. in other words, the relative on the peripheries of the subcontinent of heterodox religious movements between the 6th and 11th centuries might simply be due to the relative weakness of the elite 'hindu' cultural complex in this area which was radiating out of the central gangetic plain. the northwest was always under foreign influence, and regular foreign rule. the far east was a marchland. but in any case, i do recall that during the late 19th century census when it was found out that more muslims resided in the united bengal than hindus the british were surprised, as it was assumed to be a predominantly hindu domain.

i do think the tribal hypothesis is plausible because it has widespread analogs in the rest of the world. in mainland southeast asia christianity spread amongst the tribes outside the pale of therevada buddhist high culture. e.g., hmong of laos and parts of thailand (the lowland lao are very buddhist), the montagnards of the vietnam highlands, the karens and mizos. in island southeast asia christianity spread amongst those groups with the least contact with the malay and javanese hindu-buddhist cultures, which were later converted to islam (e.g., the batak of the sumatra, dayak in borneo, the ambonese and ther groups in the east). in africa christianity spread mostly among tribal religionists, not amongst muslims (and ethiopian orthodox christianity remained distinctive and associated with the coptic pope). in asia christianity has is a majority religion in one nation, the philippines. but the area of the country which was most thoroughly islamicized (the south) never converted to christianity. in taiwan though the majority of christians, the tribal peoples of the east are mostly christian while the chinese are not. and of course in india christianity which post-dates the sects of kerala has penetrated amongst the most marginal groups in relation to the dominant hindu culture.

A soon to be published genetic study of the population of Northern India is sure to get the attention of some right wing groups who like to come up with their own alternate "theories" with regards to the history of Hindu/Muslim interaction on the sub-continent.

Ignorance is Bliss.

In the case of Bengal, apparently just prior to the arrival of Islam, the Hindu Kings (who had just recently deposed Buddhist kings) were extremely cruel to the Buddhist masses...and when the option of Islam was made available, many oppressed Buddhists chose to convert.

Sometime previous to these reforms Akbar had abolished a custom so disgusting that we can hardly comprehend that it ever could have legally existed. At any rate it alone is sufficient to brand Islam and its supreme contempt for followers of other faiths, with one of the greatest stains in the history of humanity. When a tax-collector gathered the taxes of the Hindus and the payment had been made, the Hindu was required "without the slightest sign of fear of defilement" to open his mouth in order that the tax collector might spit in it if he wished to do so.

Garbe, Richard von from Akbar, Emperor of India
Link

Hey Intern
Can you remove my email id from my post? I thought it won't be published.

Yes, byteword, Lav and Kush names are giveaways for twins.

I meant PG Wodehouse, sorry byteword.

I only put the synopsis of Genographic Project results. There is more to it that came with the report. Personally, I think it is all too vague.

Can you remove my email id from my post? I thought it won't be published.

that's rich.

that's rich.

After reading Abhi's post on the Genographic project, I decided to send in $100 and some of my cheek cells for analysis. Weeks later, what I got in return was confusing and a bit hard to believe. Despite being Thai-Lao on my father's side, the DNA test traced my deep paternal ancestry back to something labeled as the "M201" line which is supposedly prevalent in Iran and Afghanistan. A cultural anthropologist friend of mine chided me for being so gullible and naive as to think that the test would actually tell me anything valid. He sent me off to read "What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee" by Jonathan Marks, which I did. I ended up $100 poorer and with even more questions than when I began.

my sister did it, we're from pakistan...our dna comes from Georgia, near Russia.

A cultural anthropologist friend of mine chided me for being so gullible and naive as to think that the test would actually tell me anything valid. He sent me off to read "What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee" by Jonathan Marks, which I did. I ended up $100 poorer and with even more questions than when I began.

marks is a propogandist, be careful. your genome consists of tens of thousands of "genes." the test is testing one gene. that one gene can be informative, e.g., it could for example reject paternity (if you didn't match with your father), but it is a lot dicier to use one gene to trace a population movement. it isn't like indians are 100% gene x and burmese are 100% gene y. usually it is indians are 80% x and 20% y and burmese are 20% x and 80%. you can do the conditional probabilities assuming particular parameters, but they're likelihoods, not certainties. on the other hand, if you look at hundreds of genes you'd have enough information to be far more certain on an individual level because various pieces of data would converge upon one possibility.

as an analogy, if you said "person X has straight black hair," you could eliminate a large portion of the world's regions as their likely place of origin (e.g., subsaharan africa, northern europe). but you are still left with most humans. if you added more traits, e.g., "epicanthic fold," "olive skin," you'd start converging. same with genes.

but yeah, save the $100. for most people it won't tell you what you don't already know, or, it will be unintelligible. this goes especially for brown ppl in the latter category because like i said, the narratives are geared toward populations of interest in the USofA.

my sister did it, we're from pakistan...our dna comes from Georgia, near Russia.

Are you Baluch, Sindhi or Punjabi ? I'm sure Razib will know, but this doesn't seem surprising for N. Indians or Pakistanis as I believe the Indo-Iranian & Saka homeland may have been in this region between the Black & Caspian Seas. I would be more surprised to see this in the South of India where I'm from but then again maybe the Coorgs have some of this going on too

here is a blog entry by me on why i think stuff like genographic is more marketing than science. and another.

I'm sure Razib will know, but this doesn't seem surprising for N. Indians or Pakistanis as I believe the Indo-Iranian & Saka homeland may have been in this region between the Black & Caspian Seas.

that's the r1a i was talking about (possibly). but anyway, when someone tells a brown person that their DNA comes from the caucasus, i would advise caution. historical population genetics is a science of precise aggregate populations, not of individuals. if you want to know your full ancestry wait until your personal genome is available in about 10 years for $1,000.

(if you have $100 to blow, go ahead, it's fun)

Very interesting.

Is there any truth to the belief among north Indians at least that ashraf Muslims are more likely to have foreign blood while ajlaf Muslims are more likely to be local converts? I remember learning about how last names were given according to the caste that one converted from, which was one of the ways that caste or at least an awareness of hierarchy was retained among Muslim converts.

At least two prominent Muslim royal families did a good deal of overseas mixing - the Awadhi family had strong ties with the Shia holy cities in southern Iraq (some are even buried in Najaf and Karbala), and the Nizam of Hyderabad's family has for several generations married women from Turkey. There was an interesting piece in Outlook magazine about this last year I suppose this sort of mixing is akin to what one would find among royals throughout India, seeking out fellow royals to marry even if they are from a random small kingdom several states away.

Is there any truth to the belief among north Indians at least that ashraf Muslims are more likely to have foreign blood while ajlaf Muslims are more likely to be local converts?

the groups are mixed with each other. like i said, on average 5% of the ancestry of uttar pradesh muslims seems to be of recent west eurasian provenance. of that 5%, a disproportionate amt. is to be found amongst the traditional ashraf, who are a small minority. there are ashraf who look totally west eurasian, but most that my family socialized with in the USofA (muslims from old families in UP) were brown like everyone else. nevertheless, the ashraf (i.e., individuals from north indian mughali families) were far more likely to look west eurasian than the typical north indian brown (even high caste hindus), even if only a minority were. the mughals themselves exhibit a range of physical type in keeping with their various mixtures. akbar married a rajput woman. his grandson a persian woman.

p.s., most people who claim to be ashraf are making it up btw. but enough are "for real" that it shows.

north indian mughali families

the nobility that is.

p.s. i checked the original paper. it tended to focus on mtDNA, the female lineage, which often tends to understate between-population differences (for a variety of reasons). just a note.

The study looked at the genetic composition of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Sunnis and Shias of UP. Blood samples from 60 Sunnis and 59 Shias volunteers were taken for this study. Their mtDNA was analyzed for specific genetic markers. Frequencies of the presence of these markers were compared to various groups in India and other countries. Link

What I'd like to know is more about the controversial invasion of the Vedic Aryans and their conquest of indigenous dravidians via genetic studies...is it a myth as claimed by Hindutva groups, or is there genetic studies to prove such a mass migration?

Isn't that a ridiculously small sample space?

seems so, around 20% of Uttar Pradesh (34 million) are Muslims. And among those aroun 20% are Shias. So 59 Shias for 7 million and 60 for the rest looks like a small number.

around 20% of Uttar Pradesh (34 million) are Muslims. And among those aroun 20% are Shias.

Where did you get the 20% Shia numbers from? I dont think there are many Shias outside of Eastern UP (Lucknow/Kanpur)

Where did you get the 20% Shia numbers from? I dont think there are many Shias outside of Eastern UP (Lucknow/Kanpur)

I remember reading it somewhere.. let me try to get some links. Ofcourse you would know better..

Here from wiki.. (anyone can edit wiki, so it could be unreliable)

About 20% of India's Muslim population is Shia, and significant Shia communities exist on the coastal regions of West Sumatra and Aceh in Indonesia (see Tabuik). Shia presence is negligible elsewhere in Southeast Asia, where Muslims are predominantly Shafi'i Sunnis.

Hey Razib,
What did you think of Gattaca?

The M201 lineage that defines an uncommon haplogroup called G, which is rarely present in population frequencies at greater than a few percent. Genealogists believe that this line of descent first appeared in northern India's Indus valley, on the M89 lineage, and subsequently dispersed during the past 10,000 to 20,000 years.

Currently, little else is known of haplogroup G's origin or history.

The "Indian Marker," M52, is common in that country and rarely seen elsewhere. The marker arose some 20,000 to 30,000 years ago on the M201 lineage, most likely within India. Despite its current prevalence in India the lineage could actually have originated elsewhere in southern Central Asia, Iran, or the eastern Middle East.

From the report it seems like we the browns of this world have this mystery marker which they don't know much about - not even where it originated. So in that sense, the project tracing our genes wont tell us about this aspect, maybe it would tell us about some other markers we may have which would give us an idea of what other mixes we have in our blood. The only thing which seems marginally conclusive is that we may have been part of the second great migration characterized by M89.

It would be interesting if some study did an analysis of how the genetic ancestry varies over the Indian subcontinent and thus maybe it might be easier to isolate the location of appearance of this marker. For eg, if it is found that this marker is found more in people who also show ancestry from the middle east than those who don't, then the probability of this marker appearing first there is higher.

But then all these theories Out of Africa might not make a lot of sense and M52 might be truly Indian!

Isn't that a ridiculously small sample space?

if it is geographically representative check their p-values (i don't have access to the original paper).

What I'd like to know is more about the controversial invasion of the Vedic Aryans and their conquest of indigenous dravidians via genetic studies...is it a myth as claimed by Hindutva groups, or is there genetic studies to prove such a mass migration?

we've gone over this before on SM and a lot of emotions are wrapped up in this. suffice to say that my own opinion is this:

1) the frequency of 'vedic aryan' ancestry which was exogenous in north india (inclusive of the whole gangetic plain), where exogenous means from beyond the mountains which bound the northwest of india, and precede the indo-aryanization of north india, is the minority. perhaps a very small minority.

2) but, there is every reason to think that india was a populous nation, so it was likely still a mass migration, even if the immigrants were a small proportion. as an analogy, the genetic signature of the finno-ugric maygars from the lower volga region is weak in modern day hungary, but, we know that their "hordes" probably totaled tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people in the 10th century. the majority of hungarian ancestry is indigenous though.

What did you think of Gattaca?

didn't watch it.

the idea that east bengal was more tribal & less hinduized does not negate a relationship to buddhism. buddhism's relative strength may be a symptom, not a cause, of hinduism's relative weakness. in other words, the relative on the peripheries of the subcontinent of heterodox religious movements between the 6th and 11th centuries might simply be due to the relative weakness of the elite 'hindu' cultural complex in this area which was radiating out of the central gangetic plain.

There should bee some evidence for widespread Budhhist identity, no? As I mentioned to Amitabh, the presence of a Buddhist monarch does not imply that the population followed Buddhist tradition. Brown kings tended to extend patronage to Buddhist, Hindu - and sometimes Jain - sanghas, monasteries and temples simultaneously, even the Buddhist Asoka and the Hindu Guptas. Also, Buddhism seems to have had many "centers," Kashmir, and South India (the Mahayana Buddhist philospohers whose metaphysics spread through Asia were largely South Indian), which were not within reach of the invaders to be expurgated (liberated?) upon arrival. This does not imply there was no Budhhist or Hindu influence among the tribals of East Bengal, just that it was thin.

As for the Northwest, Muslim court historians themselves document forced conversions. There is little debate over that. I agree with Amitabh that the conversion of Punjab was gradual, over several centuries, and did meet with resistance. There are still Jat and Rajput identifying Muslims in Pakistan.

i do think the tribal hypothesis is plausible because it has widespread analogs in the rest of the world. in mainland southeast asia christianity spread amongst the tribes outside the pale of therevada buddhist high culture. e.g., hmong of laos and parts of thailand (the lowland lao are very buddhist), the montagnards of the vietnam highlands, the karens and mizos. in island southeast asia christianity spread amongst those groups with the least contact with the malay and javanese hindu-buddhist cultures,

Agreed, and the only major success Christian missionaries have had in the modern period in India is amongst northeastern tribals as well.

I wonder how this DNA testing thing would work on a mixy-swirly-desi-au-lait like me? My understanding is that some test your maternal lineage and some test your paternal lineage and you get mixed or incomplete results depending.

There should bee some evidence for widespread Budhhist identity, no...This does not imply there was no Budhhist or Hindu influence among the tribals of East Bengal, just that it was thin.

i actually don't think the 'lower orders' are not that important in religious conversion. as i have argued elsewhere i believe that the basic religiosity of peasants, no matter outward or nominal confession, is very similar. this explains the pre-modern 'syncretism' of bengali peasants, muslim or hindu. the point for me is that cultural leaders (e.g., chiefs) were less influenced by orthodox hinduism. the buddhism of the pala kings might be indirect evidence of this since their support, or lack of resistance, from tribal leaders was probably necessary. but this is not a piece of evidence which can be viewed in isolation.

if it is geographically representative check their p-values (i don't have access to the original paper).

What I'd like to know is more about the controversial invasion of the Vedic Aryans and their conquest of indigenous dravidians via genetic studies...is it a myth as claimed by Hindutva groups, or is there genetic studies to prove such a mass migration?

Hindus didn't used to marry outside their castes, so this couldn't be due to intermixing of North Indians with South Indians

No expert on this but do we have enough information from the time period we are talking, i.e. around the time the Aryan migration is supposed to have occurred, to conclude this?

I did this around a year ago. My results are pasted below. About me: Hindu punjabi male. Mother's family is originally from NWFP (Pakistan) and Dad's family has always been around the Delhi area.

Haplogroup is R1a (M17)
Members of haplogroup R are descendents of Europe's first large scale human settlers. The lineage is defined by Y chromosome marker M173, which shows a westward journey of M45 carrying Central Asian steppe hunters. The M45 marker first appeared about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago in a man who became the common ancestor of most Europeans.
Haplogroup R1a originated 10,000 years ago, most likely on the grassy steppes of the Ukraine and southern Russia. Its defining genetic marker, M17, first appeared in a man of the M173 lineage. His descendents spread from Europe to the Middle East, India and even Iceland. Early M17 peoples were nomadic steppe farmers and possibly the first to domesticate the horse, which might have eased their numerous migrations. From the Czech Republic to Siberia, and south through Central Asia, some 40 percent of all men are members of this haplogroup.
This interesting line of descent may be responsible for the birth of Indo-European languages. The world's most widely spoken language family includes English, the Romance Languages, Farsi, and various Indian tongues. But many Indo-European languages share similar words for animals, plants, tools, and weapons-suggesting a common ancestor that linguists call proto-Indo-European.
Some linguists believe that the nomadic Kurgan people were the first to speak proto-Indo-European languages, some 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. Geneticists subsequently theorize that these people may have been the descendents of M17. The Indo-European time line and linguistic distribution interestingly mirror this lineage's genetic and physical journey.
Further language parallels are seen in India where speakers of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi, are predominantly M17. Speakers of India's unrelated Dravidian languages show much lower frequencies of this marker - even when they live in close proximity to one another. These data suggest a striking relation between the spread of language and the arrival of a unique genetic lineage brought to India by migrants from the steppes.

Hindus didn't used to marry outside their castes, so this couldn't be due to intermixing of North Indians with South Indians

1) they did.

2) we have very specific genetic evidence of it. in particular, female lineages which 'married up' into the higher castes.

3) yes, north indians are closer to south indians than they are to iranians, on average. to be precise, if you took a random gene from a south indian (say a tamil) and a north indian (say a punjabi) and an iranian (say someone from khurasan to keep it close to brownland) and traced back its lineage, 2 out of 3 times the punjabi and tamils would have the initial 'coalescence' (the point at which it seems that the two gene lineages bifurcated) on that gene, while most of the other 1 out of 3 times the punjabi and iranian would have the initial coalescence (a small minority would no doubt coalescene first between the tamil and the iranian as well). the 2 out of 3 and 1 out of 3 numbers aren't exact numbers, just to give a flavor.

Further language parallels are seen in India where speakers of Indo-European languages, such as Hindi, are predominantly M17. Speakers of India's unrelated Dravidian languages show much lower frequencies of this marker - even when they live in close proximity to one another. These data suggest a striking relation between the spread of language and the arrival of a unique genetic lineage brought to India by migrants from the steppes.

yes, this is one interpretation. a plausible on based on the data, but it hinges on the population structure of r1a.

Why must you post something that I am so much interested in, during the day?? I can only check blogs from the "lab". And now I will have to read all the comments and I am so busy... Damn you

Off -topic I know but: Qualified_trash # 15

Having grown up eating excellent Bohri food and excellent Tamilian food , I totally second your opinion on the exquisite cuisine that both your heritages provide .

Oh,I miss "paya soup", "keema with green garlic" and "puliyogare" and "bisi bele bhath" because my own culinary repetoire is kinda limited

It is always entertaining when Americans speak about Indian politics with the authority that comes from ignorance. Everybody knows that Indian Muslims are local. What's the big deal about this?

No expert on this but do we have enough information from the time period we are talking, i.e. around the time the Aryan migration is supposed to have occurred, to conclude this?

I think the study shows what most people in India already believe. The question never was whether Muslims were "outsiders", it was "how did they become Muslim?" - i.e whether they were forcibly converted or whether they embraced Islam to gain acceptance with the rulers and escape Jizya or whether it was a genuine conversion to a foreign belief system. Is there any good unbiased data as to how the conversions happened?

Although Vedas(1500 CE to 500 CE, Indus Valley collapsed in 1700 CE)

You probably mean - BCE - (Before Common Era). I read somewhere that the time of the Vedas - usually agreed upon as to be 1500 BCE was first proposed by Max Muller, the German orientologist(is that the right word?). Muller was - what we call today - a "young earth" creationist, who believed that the earth was literally some 6000 years old. So he based his calculations on the ancestries in the old testament and other accepted figures for the ages of different races to come up with the dates for Vedas and other oriental texts. Are there any unbiased good studies which validate/dispute the commonly accepted ~1500 BCE date for the Vedas?

i.e whether they were forcibly converted or whether they embraced Islam to gain acceptance with the rulers and escape Jizya or whether it was a genuine conversion to a foreign belief system. Is there any good unbiased data as to how the conversions happened?

it seems likely that it was a mix of all of these. also, pre-modern religious conversions often aren't individual choices in the way we'd understand them today. consider for example harald bluetooth of denmark, he was basically black-mailed into converting to christianity by threats of invasion from the german emperor. but, once bluetooth converted, under duress, he went about converting the subject populace. this did not involve "force" as much as simply switching royal patronage to christian priests from pagan ones.

The DNA and RNA's have almost confirmed two pet theories of Hindu Nationalist movement ...

1) Muslims were originally Hindus and they were converted to Islam.
2) Aryan Tourist Theory (TM by Rajeev Srinivasan) is bogus.

Other theories that have kind of being proven true by archaeological evidences ..

1) Krishna was historic figure and not mythological (Submerged Dwarka)
2) Rama was a historic figure and not mythological (Submerged Ram Setu or so called "Adam's Bridge")

I wonder what other claims of Hindu Nationalists would be proven true next ...?

DNA and RNA's

not RNA. RNA follows by necessity from DNA, they aren't independent lines of evidence (except for splicing).

And so ended those mighty marauding Danes eh Razib? Settled down, became good Christian pig farmers, and eventually built a compassionate little welfare state... borrrrrrrring. Bring back Odin!!

@71,

there is an interesting issue here. the point is that you are looking at just the successes---they are pure chance. if what you learn from it is that you should believe the other things these people say, you are in deep sh!t.

neither the theories put forth by hindu nationalists/whatever-the-opposite-calls-themselves had any reasoning between then. to hindu nationalists the above was convenient. for racist colonials, max meuller was perfect. in independent india, we are unscientific beyond belief.

reminds me of a story abt louis pasteur. pasteur was supposedly a genius who fought against the tide of contemporary opinion to invent pasteurization and in general put the blame on germs for diseases/etc. the truth is very different. he was a dogmatic catholic who did not believe life could come out of nothing---and therefore if you see an organic disease/spoilage, there had to be life already there. not that he had the persipacity to see it scientifically.

now, pasteur, and in your case, savarkar got lucky. it is not to say i have any respect for max meuller's theory, or for that matter, most of the people who are "scholars of history". and of course, for all that i have against pasteur's "genius", he had some amount of empirical rigor to back him up, so i would go with his theories---in verifiable science, not otherwise. imo, if you believe every nut who can speak, we would be studying intelligent design and attacking every country on earth. oh wait... we are already doing the later!

Proud desis of the world, do not believe this RNA invasion theory foisted upon us by whitey!

...Everybody knows that Indian Muslims are local. What's the big deal about this?

Most definitely, that is what a lot of Indians think. I'm not aware of mainstream Hindu nationalists claiming that Muslims are 'outsiders'. But hey, a lot of people up north are quite proud of their 'Aryan' ancestry and then we have the Dravidian nuts down south. Everybody wants to show what a great race they are/were.

Well, with all this data coming out, there will be people on both sides who will start claiming that they've been vindicated. As always, the truth will be garnished with nice seasoning for consumption by respective audiences. But it does look as if some of the supermacist myths will unravel (sadly people need to be reminded that they are people regardless of 'identity').

The DNA and RNA's have almost confirmed two pet theories of Hindu Nationalist movement ...

1) Muslims were originally Hindus and they were converted to Islam.

Ok y'all, this DOESN'T ACTUALLY CONFIRM THAT MUSLIMS WERE HINDUS THAT "WERE CONVERTED" TO ISLAM. No one says Buddhists "were converted"... I'm not saying that imperial/conquering powers DIDN'T impose their religions and ideologies, but to make the leap from ancestry to assuming HOW people were converted is just bullshit. This evidence could just as easily reflect voluntary conversion. There have been plenty of reasons at different points in Indian history for which people would have wanted to change religions. A moment of reflection please. The Hindutva clowns are not being vindicated in any way by this information.

And so ended those mighty marauding Danes eh Razib? Settled down, became good Christian pig farmers, and eventually built a compassionate little welfare state... borrrrrrrring. Bring back Odin!!

LOL. canute was a christian. so no.

Proud desis of the world, do not believe this RNA invasion theory foisted upon us by whitey!

There were some schools of thought among historians which actually did proffer the theory that dark skinned natives of the Indian sub continent were invaded and conquered by fair skinned invaders. However, there was also another school of thought which when it said 'Invasion' in AIT actually meant a cultural invasion more than anything else. Which meant that a new culture came in and influenced the existing culture to a reasonable degree resulting in a amalgamated culture. This school of thought has gained more acceptance (where a migration wave is assumed to have occurred) than a militaristic invasion as believed in popular thought in recent times. Also to avoid the confusion created by use of the term 'Invasion' a lot of people now call it the Aryan Migration theory.

a lot of people up north are quite proud of their 'Aryan' ancestry and then we have the Dravidian nuts down south. Everybody wants to show what a great race they are/were.

Well in the presence on inconclusive evidence, all theories are possible. People believe what works for them, but then isn't that what religion is all about too.

Hmmm ... Any idea about the Kashmiris? They seem more middle-eastern / Afghani than anything else.

look at kashmiris on this graph.

FWIW, the Hindu Right generally doesn't argue that Muslims are the descendants of invaders and foreigners, but rather that they were all once Hindus and are still "culturally" Hindus, deep down, and should acknowledge this and excavate their basic-Hindu-layer (ethnically and culturally defined) from under their Muslim religious commitments and stop looking to the Middle East as a cultural or religious home/reference point. This is also one of the arguments for "reconversion," an idea that was invented by 19C Hindu reformists.

Razib

Ah Canute, yes. Good old muscular Christianity, from darkest Karelia to Eton's rugby pitches, a wily doctrine for European expansion, the only harbringer of perpetual peace & brotherhood, as Livingstone said. I wonder if Viking genes flowed through Kierkegaard's blood? Frustrated fanatics do need an outlet for conquest after all, and in conquest's absence they have a tendency to turn in on themselves... Although I'm sure he could've got a decent position in the Prussian ranks.

neither the theories put forth by hindu nationalists/whatever-the-opposite-calls-themselves had any reasoning between then. to hindu nationalists the above was convenient. for racist colonials, max meuller was perfect. in independent india, we are unscientific beyond belief.

I don't know if the early nationalist position is necessarily "unscientific," after all it was in part based on the empirical observation that the vast majority of subcontinental Muslims look much like Hindus. They were also aware of the accounts of the great Muslim historians and proto-anthropologists, like Al Beruni and Ferishta, who wrote about the troubling nature of some conversions. But they certainly had a political motivation as well: they were trying to subvert Caliphate driven pan-Islamism which sought to unite the ummah, and delegitimize the rationale for partition.

Well in the presence on inconclusive evidence, all theories are possible.

The Aryan (Japhetic) invasion theory enjoyed much more status than one of many claims inhabiting a horizon of competing viewpoints. Thanks to rock-solid linguistic and philological analysis, it enjoyed a much higher status. The genetic studies that appeared mostly in the early years of this century have spectacularly decentered it; though some scholars continue to uphold it as though it was the Godawful Truth. One need understand the typical contentiousness that informs a Kuhnian "paradigm shift" in the sciences to see where all the rancor is coming from. It will still be some time before things settle; agnosticism is probably the most prudent stance.

Is there any good unbiased data as to how the conversions happened?

Besides the accounts of Musim historians themselves. I would again recommend this analysis by Eaton, which at the very least has problematized the convential wisdom about the sword and "social liberation".

The real question is, why do the Indian Shia have evidence of greater foreign genetic influence than do the Indian Sunnis.

Any thoughts on this matter?

My brother did this a few months ago, turns out we are traced back to Eastern Ukraine. We are Gujrathi Brahmins FYI.

As far as all this Muslim business goes, there is no point in crying over spilt milk. Identity politics on the sub-continent has been out of control for decades. How far back do you go to find "purity"? I think many Muslims have this need to be connected to Arabs or Persians in order to deny the fact that their ancestors converted. Its amazing how many Pakistanis you meet who claim links to the Middle East while totally denying they could have anything to do with the "kaffirs".

On the Hindutva side, there is this need to manufacture a pure hindu Eden in which everything was wonderful until the Muslims came.

Either way, its bullsh!t.

I think once Muslims started agitating for their own state based solely on religion, the sort of issues we have today in the region were inevitable. As far as the global troubles today, once Muslims start treating their religion as something for their personal lives and not a political agenda, we should be able to solve most of the conflicts.

My brother did this a few months ago, turns out we are traced back to Eastern Ukraine. We are Gujrathi Brahmins FYI.

How about posting your family pics here so that we can all enjoy a hearty laugh?

There are plenty Sudras here who also claim Scythian or european ancestry. Its not just muslims who yearn to belong to a non-desi race.

I think many Muslims have this need to be connected to Arabs or Persians in order to deny the fact that their ancestors converted.

In Islam there is no stigma in being descended from converts per se. The muslim arab, persian, afghan, and turk invaders of India were also descended from converts. The desperate attempts of desi muslims to claim non-desi ancestry has more to do with the fact that the natives of India, of any caste or creed, were considered an inferior breed by the mongol-turks, persians, afghans etc.

"How about posting your family pics here so that we can all enjoy a hearty laugh?

There are plenty Sudras here who also claim Scythian or european ancestry. Its not just muslims who yearn to belong to a non-desi race."

Prema, I think you misunderstood what I meant. If you do the National Geographic DNA test, they show you the migratory path yout Y chromosome has taken. As far as yearning to be european, I dont see anything about being a cheese eating surrender monkey that is particularly appealing.

I think once Muslims started agitating for their own state based solely on religion, the sort of issues we have today in the region were inevitable.

jwb: Right after debunking two myths, you offer another one. Tracing all problems back to partition is a puerile exercise. That post is self-contradictory, as it also says, "As far as all this Muslim business goes, there is no point in crying over spilt milk." Partition is a fait accompli. If partition hadn't taken place, that would not have magically preemptively solved all of the hypothetical Greater India's problems. Besides, Muslims didn't start agitating for their own state based solely on religion, in a vacuum.

.

I'm a Rajput. My ancestors embraced Islam 18 generations ago. I've always found it puzzling that some Muslims from the subcontinent wished so badly to have some lineage from outside South Asia. Prema's analysis seems plausible.

Many years ago I went to Washington, D.C. The ride I thought I had didn't materialize. I met a really nice ABD fellow traveler at the airport It turned out that our destinations in D.C. were close to each other. His uncle graciously gave me a ride. The uncle asked me what I was. I told him, "I'm Rajput," and that my ancestors were from Jullundur. He told me that I'm not a Rajput because I'm Muslim. I smiled because it was a curious thing for him to say and it made no sense to argue.

However, that incident shows that some (not all) Indians consider that Muslims can't belong to an Indian ethnic classification (and by extension, perhaps to India itself). That mindset / mentality seems to be what the subject of this blog post is meant to counter. Granted, it's not in the Hindutva canon or orthodoxy, but nobody claims Hindutva is the only form of Indian nationalism. Hindutva might be the most recognizable brand though. Sort of like, there are other breakfast cereal makers than Kellogg's and General Mills.

The real question is, why do the Indian Shia have evidence of greater foreign genetic influence than do the Indian Sunnis.

Cyrus: My guess is that phenomenon is consistent with the Shia belief system, in which ancestry determines status (meaning whether one is a "Syed") and how well one understands the religion. For example, by nature and not nurture, a man will have more insight into the Quran if his father was also a scholar of the Quran. That concept reinforces the Shia imamate as well.

I think many Muslims have this need to be connected to Arabs or Persians in order to deny the fact that their ancestors converted.

The fact remains that some muslims do and some more than others. For example, "the Indian Shia have evidence of greater foreign genetic influence than do the Indian Sunnis." Check out this North Indian's website: http://j2abraham.com/

I am an Indian muslim (memon) and I have absolutely no confusion about my ancestry. My ancestors got converted from Hindu Lohana in Sindh (Pakistan) during 16th century. I would be delighted to undergo DNA test along with a Hindu Lohana to confirm this historical fact. Any Arab or Persian ancestory would bring me a huge disappointment.

salim, go to http://j2abraham.com/ follow the links to FTDNA go to the National Geographic Genographic website to get yourself tested. regards bob

Hi all
I do not agree with 'converts not invaders'.
I am a British-born muslim whose parents originate from Azad Kashmir. Without any disrespect to the Hindu's or Sikhs of this area I think it is possible to make a distinction between races. Most of the my fellow people are lighter in skin colour, and have a stronger resemblance to European Aryan race than the local people no disrespect intended. Some of my cousins have light or even blue eyes, often fair skln and this did not arise from just leaving in the mountains. In our Bense caste I have seen people that look very Italian even Turkish. I have read some articles that in South India at least the Hindu's their were shorter because they were invaded by the local people of what used to be Australia the Aboriginas and this is why they look so different. I think its important to say in India alot of the muslims are local converts but you should not say the same thing for people in Pakistan and especially Azad Kashmir. Thank you.