Where do North Indians come from or descend from?

[Jgamibi]

I am curious. I remember reading that they are Indo European or whatever, is there any haplogroup or whatever for them?

[sephiroth2099]

dude u should knw this, northern indians (punjabs etc) descend from indo-european people from the 'satem' branch settling in the indian subcontinent, the original aryans who settled in india were probably R1a carriers.

[Jgamibi]

dude u should knw this, northern indians (punjabs etc) descend from indo-european people from the 'satem' branch settling in the indian subcontinent, the original aryans who settled in india were probably R1a carriers.

I don't know any of that

[sephiroth2099]

I don't know any of that

lol ok well now u know, indo-europeans

[birko19]

Depends what North Indians we're talking about here, those who live in very far northern parts like Punjab for example tend to be mostly a mix of South Asian and West Asian along with a small mix of North European and East Asian, on the other hand Gujaratis tend to be more South Asian with a smaller Western Asian, North European, and East Asian, the more you go up north the more the Northern European and West Asian mixes grow (Like among Burusho and Pathan for example).

Indians are a diverse nation, when you say North Indians that does not mean anything because there are many different North Indian groups, in any case, yes, Northern Indians tend to have a very small European mix, but are South Asian and West Asian for most part.

[Jgamibi]

Depends what North Indians we're talking about here, those who live in very far northern parts like Punjab for example tend to be mostly a mix of South Asian and West Asian along with a small mix of North European and East Asian, on the other hand Gujaratis tend to be more South Asian with a smaller Western Asian, North European, and East Asian, the more you go up north the more the Northern European and West Asian mixes grow (Like among Burusho and Pathan for example).

Indians are a diverse nation, when you say North Indians that does not mean anything because there are many different North Indian groups, in any case, yes, Northern Indians tend to have a very small European mix, but are South Asian and West Asian for most part.

What about people from "Rajasthan" and "Kashmir" or whatever.

[birko19]

What about people from "Rajasthan" and "Kashmir" or whatever.

Well Rajasthan is close to Gujarat so I suspect they're similar, Kashmir is in the very north so I think they would have a little more North European in them but I also suspect they would have more East Asian due to their exposure to the Tibetans and the Turks/Mongols, anyways, go to this site for more information:

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/

[iateyourheadphons]

Which type of "Northern Indians"?

Just read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_Archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_Theory

[InquiringMind]

North+Central Indians are Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-European, Around 70% of Indians are Indo-Aryans. The Southindians Tamil Nadu, Karntaka etc. are Dravidians

[iateyourheadphons]

North+Central Indians are Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-European, Around 70% of Indians are Indo-Aryans. The Southindians Tamil Nadu, Karntaka etc. are Dravidians

Exactly.

[birko19]

North+Central Indians are Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-European, Around 70% of Indians are Indo-Aryans. The Southindians Tamil Nadu, Karntaka etc. are Dravidians

Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are language terms, you're mixing languages with genetics which is not proper.

[InquiringMind]

Indo-Aryan and Dravidian are language terms, you're mixing languages with genetics which is not proper.

There is a correlation between language and genetics. Dravidians have higher Southasian(Dienekes)/Southindian(Polako) and Indo-Aryans have higher West-Asian and European

[birko19]

There is a correlation between language and genetics. Dravidians have higher Southasian(Dienekes)/Southindian(Polako) and Indo-Aryans have higher West-Asian and European

Not really, take a look at the Burusho, they have a much higher amount of North European than the other Indian populations that speak an Indo-Aryan language, yet their language is not even Indo-European.

I would say geographical location correlates to genetics, not so much with languages.

[InquiringMind]

Not really, take a look at the Burusho, they have a much higher amount of North European than the other Indian populations that speak an Indo-Aryan language, yet their language is not even Indo-European.

I would say geographical location correlates to genetics, not so much with languages.

Burusho is a isolate language not related to any other but they are not Dravidian or Austro-Asiatics, they are seperat case

[birko19]

Burusho is a isolate language not related to any other but they are not Dravidian or Austro-Asiatics, they are seperat case

Yes, but they still have a significant North European and West Asian portion, yet their language is unrelated to any other, this shows that language does not correlate much with genetics.

[InquiringMind]

Yes, but they still have a significant North European and West Asian portion, yet their language is unrelated to any other, this shows that language does not correlate much with genetics.


We cannot compare because they are the only one who speak their language, and languages do share geographic space... geography and language correaletes also in indian northindians=indo-aryan speakers, southindians=dravidian speakers

[Bioguy]

dude u should knw this, northern indians (punjabs etc) descend from indo-european people from the 'satem' branch settling in the indian subcontinent, the original aryans who settled in india were probably R1a carriers.

R1a, G1, R2 and J2 most possible.

[Vasishta]

"North Indian", like "Indian" is a very vague term that covers a vast spectrum of different ethno-linguistic groups.

Be more specific.

[Jgamibi]

"North Indian", like "Indian" is a very vague term that covers a vast spectrum of different ethno-linguistic groups.

Be more specific.

people from Kashmir and Rajasthan

[birko19]

people from Kashmir and Rajasthan

Holy bump lol, dude, read this website, it should answer your question:

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/

[Indian]

dude u should knw this, northern Indians (punjabi etc) descend from indo-european people from the 'satem' branch settling in the indian subcontinent, the original aryans who settled in india were probably R1a carriers.

I am confused because quite a few notable geneticists are now debunking the Aryan invasion as myth and suggest much of the variation within India are very very ancient and possibly as a result of mutation in South Asia itself, and furthermore, the R haplogroups have origins in South Asia from where it spread out most likely first to Central Asia and then on to Europe.

---------- Post added 2011-02-13 at 23:15 ----------


Not really, take a look at the Burusho, they have a much higher amount of North European than the other Indian populations that speak an Indo-Aryan language, yet their language is not even Indo-European.

I would say geographical location correlates to genetics, not so much with languages.

The Burusho also have significant Central Asian Mongoloid contribution to their genetic make-up. Its so easy to see. Some of them look quite Europoid and yet quite a bit Asiatic at the same time.

[Dave]

they came from Iran and later on from nearby Arabic countries too.

but the Indian language relates to Iranian

[Falsetruth]

they came from Iran and later on from nearby Arabic countries too.

but the Indian language relates to Iranian

nope lol, complete BS and has been debunked many times.

if anything, the persians came from india.

Y dna R and R1a has a likely origin in north india and spread out from there into central asia and europe. this coupled with Sanskrit which is one of the oldest indo-european languages as well as the indian harappan language which has not yet been deciphered yet, but could likely be a proto-indo-european language even older than sanskrit. dont forget the term "aryan" also originated in India.

couple that with the fact that J2 haplogroups have an early pre-neolithic arrival in south asia and you cant link it to any invasion any more.

and btw the aryan invasion theory has also been debunked many times. watch this 3-part documentary to get the idea. it supports the altest genetic tests and archelogical findings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8-JCK45tc

Furthermore, no invaders has ever been able to leave any significant genetic impact on the native indian population, that fact regards the muslims, mongols and the europeans. Simply because india has always had a way to big local population.

its no different than the iberians having minor north african ancestry, except in Indias case its even more insignificant.

although i will agree that pakistan has had quite a major foreign influence, although still predominantly south asian.

[birko19]

nope lol, complete BS and has been debunked many times.

if anything, the persians came from india.

Y dna R and R1a has a likely origin in north india and spread out from there into central asia and europe. this coupled with Sanskrit which is one of the oldest indo-european languages as well as the indian harappan language which has not yet been deciphered yet, but could likely be a proto-indo-european language even older than sanskrit. dont forget the term "aryan" also originated in India.

couple that with the fact that J2 haplogroups have an early pre-neolithic arrival in south asia and you cant link it to any invasion any more.

and btw the aryan invasion theory has also been debunked many times. watch this 3-part documentary to get the idea. it supports the altest genetic tests and archelogical findings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8-JCK45tc

Furthermore, no invaders has ever been able to leave any significant genetic impact on the native indian population, that fact regards the muslims, mongols and the europeans. Simply because india has always had a way to big local population.

its no different than the iberians having minor north african ancestry, except in Indias case its even more insignificant.

although i will agree that pakistan has had quite a major foreign influence, although still predominantly south asian.

The Proto-Indo-Euopeans did not come out of India, that's just what Indian nationalists love to claim, it's nothing but wishful thinking, the fact is the Harappa culture is clearly not Indo-European and there is evidence that Indo-European languages came from outside India.

[Vasishta]

The Proto-Indo-Euopeans did not come out of India, that's just what Indian nationalists love to claim, it's nothing but wishful thinking, the fact is the Harappa culture is clearly not Indo-European and there is evidence that Indo-European languages came from outside India.
The most educated hypothesis that has been made in Brown population genetics-enthusiast circles is that the creators of the Indus Valley civilization were Neolithic agricultural revolutionaries and were most likely the main source of the West Eurasian (ANI) component in India, whereas the Indo-Iranians are speculated to have been exemplified by the Northern European and West Asian (Balochistan/Caucasus as per Harappa Project's labeling) - considering the latter's strong presence in even the southern most upper castes; as well as the South Asian (Ancestral North Indian part of it) to a much lesser extent. Razib Khan who writes at Gene Expression has tentatively termed this wave as ANI2. He also gave a rather simplified break down of the various proportions among various groups of the same, note that this is a rough estimation-


Punjabis, Pakistanis = ANI > ASI > ANI2
South Indian tribals = ASI > ANI
South Indian Brahmins = ANI 3 : ASI 2 > ANI2
Mundari tribals = ASI > ANI > SEA
Khasis = SEA > ANI ~ ASI > NEA > ANI2
Non-Dalits/Non-tribals in most of India = ANI ~ ASI
Iranians = ANI2 > ANI
Southeast Asians = SEA > EA > ASI


Most South Asian groups are overwhelmingly South Asian - which is precisely what they are. Recombination and mixing will obviously do that over the passage of time. Ultimately, it does seem like the two main language families of South Asia, Indo-European and Dravidian seem to have non-peninsular Indian origins. Nationalist sentiments shouldn't overrule one's rational thinking.

[Che]

nope lol, complete BS and has been debunked many times.

if anything, the persians came from india.

Y dna R and R1a has a likely origin in north india and spread out from there into central asia and europe. this coupled with Sanskrit which is one of the oldest indo-european languages as well


How come that Hethit language is older?

you seem to forget the fact, that the first linguistic and religious "Indo Aryan" traces were found in Mitanni . How comes that the Gods Indra, Mithra etc were mentioned in Mitan to the same time or even before Sanskrit Explain?

[beyoku]

Everybody comes from Africa...duh. :)

[Falsetruth]

How come that Hethit language is older?

you seem to forget the fact, that the first linguistic and religious "Indo Aryan" traces were found in Mitanni . How comes that the Gods Indra, Mithra etc were mentioned in Mitan to the same time or even before Sanskrit Explain?

there could be many explanations to that, like the old harappan language spoken by the south asian harappans (indus valley civilization). that language has yet to be dechiffered and could potentially be older than the hethit language.

the genetic evidence so far strongly point to the fact that the harappans where native south asian people and true ancestors of most modern indians.

and the are many theories that say that the harappan language could be the proto indo-european language and maybe even the linguistical link between the dravidian and indo-european languages. ie that indo-european derives from harappan and harappan derives from dravidian languages. it does actually make sense.

[Slavic Knight]

dude u should knw this, northern indians (punjabs etc) descend from indo-european people from the 'satem' branch settling in the indian subcontinent, the original aryans who settled in india were probably R1a carriers.

They are related to my people, the Slavs, at least paternally :D

[Falsetruth]

They are related to my people, the Slavs, at least paternally :D

i hope you realize that means that many slavs (those with R1a) have ancestors originally from the indian continent

[Che]

there could be many explanations to that, like the old harappan language spoken by the south asian harappans (indus valley civilization). that language has yet to be dechiffered and could potentially be older than the hethit language.

the genetic evidence so far strongly point to the fact that the harappans where native south asian people and true ancestors of most modern indians.

and the are many theories that say that the harappan language could be the proto indo-european language and maybe even the linguistical link between the dravidian and indo-european languages. ie that indo-european derives from harappan and harappan derives from dravidian languages. it does actually make sense.

Never heard about that Theories beside from Pan Indian Nationalists.

[Amuseme]

They are related to my people, the Slavs, at least paternally :D

Wait... we're related to Slavs?

[Firepower]

Slavic languages (most of all Russian!!) most close stand to a Hindi is the fact! ;)
From the European languages...ofcource :D

[Amuseme]

Slavic languages (most of all Russian!!) most close stand to a Hindi is the fact! ;)
From the European languages...ofcource :D

That's insane! I never knew that!

[Laksmi]

From Indo-Europeans....but most modern day North Indians have some Dravidian or mongoloid admixture. And from personal experiences, the more north you go the more Caucasian they tend to look but that's just from my experience.

...शांति...:)

[Falsetruth]

Never heard about that Theories beside from Pan Indian Nationalists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/war-of-words-in-the-cradle-of-south-asian-civilisation-1927005.html

it makes sense in many ways actually.

[PortiaD]

I found this topic to be simply fascinating and a wealth of information. It explains a lot of what I've been discovering about my own genealogy, which had me absolutely flummoxed, until now.

I was supposed to be French, Irish and Native American but my DNA results showed French, Tuscan, Pathan and Burusho, with some apparently Slavic relatives! What I still fail to understand however is, assuming these populations are correct shouldn't I still have at least a bit of East Asian DNA mixed in?

[harish2309]

North+Central Indians are Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-European, Around 70% of Indians are Indo-Aryans. The Southindians Tamil Nadu, Karntaka etc. are Dravidians

It's not so black and white. North Indians can be very Weddid Admixed and South Indians can be very Aryan looking ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Vidya_balan.jpg

(South Indian)

http://static.indianexpress.com/m-images/Wed%20Oct%2029%202008,%2016:09%20hrs/M_Id_44644_mayawati.jpg

(North Indian)

[pakistani]

From Indo-Europeans....but most modern day North Indians have some Dravidian or mongoloid admixture. And from personal experiences, the more north you go the more Caucasian they tend to look but that's just from my experience.

...शांति...:)

this is BS, even if we go by the ANI/ASI scale, all Indians for the most part have huge chunk of ASI in them and ANI itself is not all (indo european) or indo aryan. Aryans probably make a small part of ANI to begin with.

its so idiotic to see people saying things like north indians are aryans and south indians are Dravidian :whoco::lol: