sreenathan wrote:
> Dear friend
> Please follow the following link
> http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full.pdf
> you may get some better idea on paternal ancestry of Indians
I've read that paper. In fact it was one I had specifically in mind
when I pointed out, at
http://james.fabpedigree.com/hindu.htm#nons
the absurd way results are reported in such papers. Did you read
my remarks at that page?
Sahoo samples 936 Y-chromosomes, but presents NO table of results
at all! He makes a tribal vs caste distinction, but does NOT break
out the "caste" group into ... well, castes! The genetic distinction
BETWEEN castes is obviously of interest, but Sahoo is ... uninterested?
Let me reiterate. It is the genetic differences BETWEEN castes which
allow one to deduce the parameters of any correlation between
migration and caste imposition. Either Sahoo doesn't even understand
this much, or he obfuscates deliberately for political purpose.
Sahoo does have one table "Genetic distances between population
estimated from Y-haplogroup frequencies." In my link above I show
why presenting results in that form cannot possibly be at once both
intellectually honest and intellectually competent.
Briefly: Y-haplogroups do NOT have the multiple characters of varying
correlation that need or justify the statistical method Sahoo seems
to like. By presenting a simple table of his observed Y-haplogroups,
Sahoo could have presented much more information in a smaller table!
(Though still of limited use, since Sahoo chooses to lump all castes,
Brahmin to Sudra and perhaps even Panchama, together!)
> Also, there are many other studies to refine your understanding
> sreenathan
I've searched for them with little success. Please post a study,
if you know of one, which meets my criteria. Obviously it will have
to be MUCH better than the Sahoo, et al you mentioned already.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard Wordingham wrote:
> James Dow Allen wrote:
> > The Aryan effect is shown by Y-DNA, because caste is male-inherited
> > and higher caste males may enjoy a procreative advantage
> > unavailable to females of any caste.
> >
> > This is explained here:
> > http://james.fabpedigree.com/hindu.htm#proof
>
> If I understand you right, the Indo-Aryan immigrant Y chromosomes show
> up amongst Brahmins, not amongs Kshatriyas. Does this mean that Brahmins
> were part of the Indo-Aryan status kit in India? Incidentally, they have
> also played such a role in Thailand and Cambodia.
>
> Richard.
Information on caste/haplogroup correlation seems hard to come by.
And, I'm sure there are big variations between regions. The only
paper I've come across with data presented well enough to have
much value is Sengupta et al ("Polarity and Temporality ...").
In his results, 45.3% of IE-speaking Brahmins (N=86) were R1a;
only 10.4% of IE-speaking "Middle caste" (N=48) were R1a.
Unfortunately, Sengupta defines "Middle caste" to include Vaisya
as well as Kshatriya.
R2 seems to be a common Kshatriya haplogroup, but it's important to
remember that R2 and R1a probably diverged about 20,000 years ago, so
treating R2 as sibling to R1a (as some Indocentric argumentation does)
is wrong-headed even as applied to the Neolithic age.
I claim no model for the mysterious arrival of Aryan language and culture
in South Asia, but it does seem that a smallish group, perhaps recruiting
warriors locally, achieved high status due to special skills. The skills
may have included novel social or religious ideas (and perhaps hypnosis!)
as well as obvious Indo-European skills like metallurgy. It isn't unusual
for a smallish group of high-prestige males to have a large genetic impact
specific to the Y-chromosome. Genghis Khan (1162-1227) is thought to have
millions of living Y-chromosome descendants.
James