Paper No. : 08 Human Population Genetics Module : 24 Classification of Indian Population Development Team Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Principal Investigator Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Paper Coordinator Prof. Gautam K. Kshatriya Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Content Writer Gangaina Kameih Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Content Reviewer Prof. A.Paparao Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh 1 Human Population Genetics Anthropology Classification of Indian Population Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name 08 Human Population Genetics Module Name/Title Classification of Indian Population Module Id 24 2 Human Population Genetics Anthropology Classification of Indian Population Learning outcomes After studying this module: You shall be able to understand the human typology i.e. morphological and genetical trait that can be used in classifying the population. You would learn and identify the Indian population given by different Anthropologists. You would understand the criticism made by many people based on the given classified Indian population. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Criteria for Human typology 3. Contribution to the classification of Indian population 3.1. Risley’s (1915) classification 3.2. Giufrida (1921) classification 3.3. A.C.Haddon (1924) classification 3.4. Eickstedt (1934) classification 3.5. B.S. Guha (1931) classification 3.6. S.S. Sarkar (1954) classification 4. Criticism from different Anthropologists 5. Summary 3 Human Population Genetics Anthropology Classification of Indian Population 1. Introduction Throughout the globe there is abundant human variation, inhabitants of different countries are more or less distinct both physically and culturally. This rule of geographic diversity is applicable to animals, plants as well as humans. Homo sapiens are a polytypic species with unique evolutionary pattern. Polytypism in fact is the variability between populations or groups. It is different from polymorphism, which is the variability within populations. But polymorphism serves as a store of genetic raw material for the origin of polytypism. Geographic races are mendelian populations of a species that inhabit different territories and they differ in the incidence of some genes or alleles in their gene pool (B.R.K.Shukla and Sudha Rastogi. 2008). The main responsible for the formation of races are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, migration, isolation, hybridization, sexual selection and social selection (B.M.Das.2004). Hooton defined “race” as a great division of mankind, the members of which, though individually varying are characterized as a group by a certain combination of morphological and metrical features, principally non-adaptive, which have been derived from their common descent. Different anthropologists have proposed different classifications of mankind. However, it could be said that there are three major races of man. These are Negroid, Caucasoid and mongoloid. Some anthropologists want to call the Australoids a separate major racial group. In that case there are four major races. All anthropologists have agreed that each of the major races can be divided into certain groups or subgroups (B.M.Das.2004). Indian population comprising of more than a billion people consists of 4,693 communities with several thousands of endogamous groups, 325 functioning languages and 25 scripts (Singh 2002). In some geographical regions of India, inbreeding is practiced. The population inbreeding coefficient in India varies from 0.00 to 0.20 (Rao 1984; Malhotra and Vasulu 1993; Bittles and Neel 1994). Besides different waves of migration has led to admixture of different ethnic groups, cultures and languages with the native population, thereby contributing significantly to the present day gene pool of the subcontinent (Sankalia 1974; Allchin and Allchin 1982; Bhasin et al. 1994; Gadgil et al 1998). With the exception of Africa, such an extent of genetic diversity is not observed in comparable global regions (Majumdar 1998). Indian population can be, to a large extent, substructured on the basis of their ethnic origin as well as linguistic lineages. All the four major morphological types-Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negrito are present in Indian population (Malhotra 1978). The Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations are mainly concentrated in the north and northeastern parts of India. The Australoids are mostly confined to the central, western and Southern India, while the Negritos are restricted only to the Andaman Islands (Cavallisforza et al. 1994). Linguistically, Indian population belongs to four major language families: Indo-European, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman and Austro- Asiatic. The Indo-European and Dravidian languages are spoken in the northern and southern parts of India, respectively (Gadgil et al.1998). The Tibeto-Burman speakers are concentrated in the north 4 Human Population Genetics Anthropology Classification of Indian Population eastern parts of the country. The Austro-Asiatic speakers are exclusively tribals and are dispersed mostly in the central and eastern parts of India. Molecular diversity studies have revealed that Austro- Asiatic speakers are likely to have been the most ancient inhabitants of India (Majumdar 2001; Roychoudhury et al.2001). After Risley’s classification of the people of India, more attempts have been contributed by different people in the classification of Indian population. Each classification has been attempted in a specific manner. Indian classification given by Risley (1915), Giufrida (1921), A.C.Haddon (1924), Eickstedt (1934), B.S. Guha (1931) and S.S. Sarkar (1954) have been discussed below accordingly. 2. Criteria for Human typology Ever since the recognition of human variability, attempts have been made to understand not only the extent of variability but also to decipher groups of humans having characteristics features peculiar to them. The questions of a broadly acceptable and clear cut classification of mankind have engaged the attention of anthropologist in general and physical anthropologist in particular. Consequently, the earlier anthropological literature is largely devoted to an evaluation and assessment of observable somatic characteristics like skin color, hair form, texture and color, head shape, nose form, etc. Before such criteria were used only for the purpose of human taxonomy. Later it was realized that these observable traits by and large are not objective, as the observers are likely to make different interpretations and categorizations of a particular observation say skin color or hair form etc. With this realization, emphasis gradually shifted to such trait which can be measured and reduce to mathematical expression and that is how the somatic measurements came to be considered as criteria for human typology. This naturally resulted into a critical evaluation of the techniques of measurement and their standardizations. It was believed that accurate measurements would enable us to work out better and dependable classification of the human species, and also help in understanding the process of human evolution. Therefore, volumes of literature appeared on this subject and morphological and metric traits continued to be used extensively. After the introduction of the genetics and the availability of the details of such genetical characteristics as blood groups, physical anthropologist could not stop the temptation of using genetical characteristics in ethnic discrimination. With more clarifications and realizations of the better dependability of genetical traits, gradually the emphasis changed in their favor and they were adopted in human taxonomic studies. Today, we know that numerous genetic characteristics with known mode to inheritance are being used as criteria for human typology. Thus we find that broadly speaking, the characteristics that may be used for the establishment of physical grouping of mankind are either morphological or genetical or both (Fig. 3). Figure 3: Morphological and genetical traits of the three major races of man Physical Caucasoid Negroid Mongoloid characteristics 5 Human Population Genetics Anthropology Classification of Indian Population 1.Head form Long to broad and Predominantly long Predominantly broad short 2.Head height Medium to very high Low to medium Medium 3.prognathism None Marked Medium to slight (projection of jaws) 4.Face Narrow to medium, Medium, broad to Medium broad to very broad, tends to be narrow tends to be broad, medium high, high medium high cheek bones tend to be high and flat 5.Nose Form Narrow to medium Medium broad to Medium broad to vey broad broad Low Low to medium Bridge High Straight or concave Usually concave Profile Straight, concave or convex 6.Chin Usually projecting Slight medium 7.Eye Color Light blue to dark Dark brown to brown Brown to brown brown black and black Lateral fold Vertical fold common Form of lids Medium epicanthic occasional fold 8.Lips Very thin to medium, Thick, much aversion Medium thickness small aversion with aversion of membranous of often heavy integumented lips 9.Skin color Plate reddish, white to Brown, yellow brown Saffron to yellow olive brown to brown to brown brown, some reddish 6 Human Population Genetics Anthropology Classification of Indian Population black brown 10.Hair Head hair Light blown to dark Dark brown to black Brown to brown Color brown Black Black Texture fine to medium Course Coarse Form straight to wavy Light curl to wavy Straight