Did we migrate from Germany?

[Seenu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I have been hearing for quite some time from now that "Brahmins came from Germany". Did our ancestors migrate from Europe to cultivate Aryan community here?

I was just bewildered and flabbergasted to have come across such strange news.

I regret my historical ignorance, if not.

 

[kunjuppu]

I have been hearing for quite some time from now that "Brahmins came from Germany". Did our ancestors migrate from Europe to cultivate Aryan community here?

I was just bewildered and flabbergasted to have come across such strange news.

I regret my historical ignorance, if not.

seenu, the simple answer, i think, is a big NO.

there are always cranks talking about 'aryan' theory, superiority of race etc. to the germans, we are brown skinned foreigners, with whom they are happy as long as we stay far away from their country.

we do not look like germans. we do not eat german type food. we are not into sciences like the germans. germans, i think, are a north european race. we are basically for milleniums rooted in south india. our DNA is akin to other communities in south india.

thank you.

 

[WeAreTheFire]

Quite the opposite Kunjuppu, as far as our DNA goes. We seem to be way more related to Europeans/Middle Easteners/other West Eurasian groups than South Indian lower castes who are significantly more related to East Asians ..

No, we did not migrate from Germany. If we go by the Aryan Migration Theory, Central Asia seems like a more likely candidate, at least if it is the Sanskrit speaking Aryans in question.

Not all Brahmins descend from the same waves of Vedic missionaries into South India. There might have been two or more waves into South India but it is evident that our origins lie in the North Western parts of India, and also what is now present day Pakistan.

I have not come across enough solid research done on the origins of Tamil Brahmins, or perhaps this information is not easily accessible, most likely due to the political correctness of the government of India.
I think it is a little obvious via a brief run through of our cultures, customs, and even genetics if you like, that ours is characteristically more similar to Brahmins elsewhere than fellow Tamils, even though I respect their culture/language as well. This essentially implies that our roots definitely do not lie in the south, leave alone Tamil Nadu.

However, I must add on a side note that European Paganism and Sanatana Dharma have many similarities, and the cultural affinities between these Indo-European sprung cultures cannot be denied.

 

[sunkan]

ON A LIGHTER NOTE,
YOU THINK THAT IS WHY INDIAN CURRY IS POPULAR IN EUROPE:angel:..SUNKAN

 

[kunjuppu]

Quite the opposite Kunjuppu, as far as our DNA goes. We seem to be way more related to Europeans/Middle Easteners/other West Eurasian groups than South Indian lower castes who are significantly more related to East Asians ..

.

south indian lower castes? who is that? are we supposed to be the high one?

 

[WeAreTheFire]

south indian lower castes? who is that? are we supposed to be the high one?

Erm are you joking? A Brahmin on a forum dedicated to his ethnic group is asking who he is and how the others are different? :frusty:

Agamudaiyars, Vellaras, Kallars (these being rather socially dominant) and Pallans are the ones I have at the back of my head..

Agumudaiyars from Madurai -

http://i50.tinypic.com/16lmhqr.jpg

ON A LIGHTER NOTE,
YOU THINK THAT IS WHY INDIAN CURRY IS POPULAR IN EUROPE..SUNKAN

Not funny However, your point is true because Indian food has maintained more of it's authenticity, especially so, when compared to Chinese food.

Hey, you seem to be from Bangalore. Hebbar Iyengar or what ?
___

On another lighter note, when I used to live in Dehli some years ago, my family used to know this blue eyed vathiyar with a long, pointy nose in the Swaminathan temple. They used to call him the 'German vadhyar' :thumb:

 

[kunjuppu]

Erm are you joking? A Brahmin on a forum dedicated to his ethnic group is asking who he is and how the others are different? :frusty:

Agamudaiyars, Vellaras, Kallars (these being rather socially dominant) and Pallans are the ones I have at the back of my head..

Agumudaiyars from Madurai -

__



Not funny However, your point is true because Indian food has maintained more of it's authenticity, especially so, when compared to Chinese food.

Hey, you seem to be from Bangalore. Hebbar Iyengar or what ?

i am amazed at your insight. truly thought provoking statements, if not outright provoking.

peace

 

[Nara]

....., as far as our DNA goes. We seem to be way more related to Europeans/Middle Easteners/other West Eurasian groups than South Indian lower castes who are significantly more related to East Asians

I have heard this refrain quite often, that Brahmins are close to Eurasian DNA than the NB population of India. Quite often people make this claim with a dash of superiority thrown in. It is indeed surprising that closeness to a population that produced Genghis Khan and Timur is a matter of pride.

Be that as it may, are the Brahmins much more closely related to foreigners? Are they descendants of an invading hoard of Aryans? Does this mean these Brahnmins take AIT to be a fact? Oh, well, I will leave it to them to answer these questions. But let us look at the central claim of DNA proximity itself.

Sometime back HappyHindu gave a list of journal articles that addressed this question. One of those articles presented evidence that there was more homogeneity of DNA markers between certain Brahmin clusters and Adivasees in Maharashtra (?) than between different Brahmin populations.

There was another article that suggested, and I quote,

"The upper caste Brahmins and Muslims were closest to Caucasians while middle caste populations were closer to Asians"
-- click here for the article
​

But this is only half the story. The other half of this story is found in another article,and I quote from this one,

"although the Y-chromosome data show that the genetic distances of populations are not correlated to their position in the caste hierarchy"
-- Click here for this article
​

So, this tells us that all our mothers came from the same indigenous population in the same proportion among all castes, but among the the population studied, the proportion of fathers from indigenous population was lower among Brahmins and Muslims. So, Brahmins and Muslims have a larger proportion of fathers who are of later arrivals, who may have come from central Asia starting from about 50,000 years to as late as 3000 years ago. All this shows is that we all are mongrels and mutts, and, perhaps the so called upper castes and Muslims are more so than the "lower" castes.

There may be a 1000 claims back and forth. Yet, from the evidence discovered so far we can safely say we all are thoroughly mixed up, we are all mongrels and mutts and let us enjoy life as they do without getting caught up on how much of what DNA we have.

Cheers!

 

[WeAreTheFire]

I have heard this refrain quite often, that Brahmins are close to Eurasian DNA than the NB population of India.

As far as I have read on DNA oriented forums and papers, it's more of a West Eurasian equivalent.
West Eurasian can be considered the genetic entity of the Caucasoid race, of course.

Quite often people make this claim with a dash of superiority thrown in. It is indeed surprising that closeness to a population that produced Genghis Khan and Timur is a matter of pride.

A little misunderstanding there buddy? Timur and Genghis Khan are Central Asians. When the AIT/AMT said we came from Central Asia, it did'nt mean our ancestors looked like the present day inhabitants, who honestly genetically and phenotypically seem to be like the Turkics, a Caucasian-Mongoloid hybrid peoples.

Yes, it is said with pride among Brahmin, you are right. We claim our 'Aryan blood' from our paternal lineage.

Be that as it may, are the Brahmins much more closely related to foreigners? Are they descendants of an invading hoard of Aryans? Does this mean these Brahnmins take AIT to be a fact? Oh, well, I will leave it to them to answer these questions. But let us look at the central claim of DNA proximity itself.

For the most parts Brahmins are more related to North Indians. That's all there is to it. Any self-respecting caste, especially like us Brahmins would not claim a foreign origin, atleast we wouldnt go as far as some Pakistanis seem to go, all this 'Scythian' and this other nonsense. Brahmins expanded from what is now Pakistan/North West India i.e Ancient Indus Valley to other parts of the sub continent. In truth we are the original definition of the word 'diaspora'.

It is undeniable through our gotrams/family names,etc we will ultimately trace our lineage back to those areas.

Sometime back HappyHindu gave a list of journal articles that addressed this question. One of those articles presented evidence that there was more homogeneity of DNA markers between certain Brahmin clusters and Adivasees in Maharashtra (?) than between different Brahmin populations.

Brahmins everywhere are more related to each other than they are to the general population. Be it the customs, culture, religion or as it is in question now, DNA.

There was another article that suggested, and I quote,

"The upper caste Brahmins and Muslims were closest to Caucasians while middle caste populations were closer to Asians"
-- click here for the article
​

But this is only half the story. The other half of this story is found in another article,and I quote from this one,

"although the Y-chromosome data show that the genetic distances of populations are not correlated to their position in the caste hierarchy"
-- Click here for this article
​

So, this tells us that all our mothers came from the same indigenous population in the same proportion among all castes, but among the the population studied, the proportion of fathers from indigenous population was lower among Brahmins and Muslims. So, Brahmins and Muslims have a larger proportion of fathers who are of later arrivals, who may have come from central Asia starting from about 50,000 years to as late as 3000 years ago. All this shows is that we all are mongrels and mutts, and, perhaps the so called upper castes and Muslims are more so than the "lower" castes.

It is the general concensus that higher/twice born castes are significantly more related to West Eurasian groups and lower castes of South and the East of India more related to Eastern Eurasian groups. The lower castes of Northern (West) India are itself significantly West Eurasian by genes it seems.

There may be a 1000 claims back and forth. Yet, from the evidence discovered so far we can safely say we all are thoroughly mixed up, we are all mongrels and mutts and let us enjoy life as they do without getting caught up on how much of what DNA we have.

Yes, Tamil Brahmins are mixed. But to be a Brahmin you have to have a Brahmin father. Ours is a patriarchal society so as to speak, so we claim our lineage through our paternal line. Any intermixing with the locals is mostly maternal, as reveals our DNA too..

Our northern counterparts, on the other hand are fully West Eurasian, both maternally and paternally. This is the only difference between us and them.