PDA

View Full Version : Gene Flow Between Southern and South-eastern Asia



Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 03:20 AM
Of course, not counting the Andamanese tribes like Onge, Jarawa who are isolated from any outside influence or the Tibeto Burmans of NE India and Nepal who are obviously not indigenous South Asian genetically.

Asking this because I read somewhere that they found very high levels of AASI ancestry among Austroasiatics of Eastern India especially the Juang who are a mix between Nicobarese-like+AASI+ASI (which is basically 75% AASI with 25% Iranian farmer type admix): http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/09/12/the-munda-as-upland-rice-cultivators/

Quoting Shaikorth in Eurogenes:


Originally Posted by Shaikorth from Eurogenes
High Proportions of AASI Ancestry in Present-Day Austroasiatic Speakers. The Juang are an Austroasiatic speaking group in India which our PCA analyses in Data S4 show have a low proportion of West Eurasian ancestry. We were unable to model Juang as a mix of ASI and a source that was a clade with Nicobarese (isolated Austroasiatic speakers from the Nicobar Islands). However qpGraph obtains an excellent fit by adding a substantial component of AASI ancestry to Juang (Figure 3C). In other words, the Juang have too much AASI- related ancestry relative to ancient Iranian agriculturalists to be a
simple two-way mixture of a Nicobarese-related population and ASI. These results suggest that Austroasiatic speaking groups were in peninsular India at a time when there were still populations that had little if any Iranian
agriculturalist-related admixture

The Juang has been modelled as 60% Nicobarese-like and 40% ASI (which is around 25% Iranian Farmer). This would make the Juang only 10% West Eurasian (of Iran Farmer and maybe some ANE admix) with them being predominantly AASI and East Asian then?

https://www.brownpundits.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/munda.png

So the question is: would Austroasiatic tribes like Juang, Bonda have very minor West Eurasian admix compared to most South Asians and how much in percentage? Also would they hae the lowest West Eurasian in South Asia outside of Andamanese and Tibeto Burmans?

Kulin
04-22-2019, 03:29 AM
Yeah, tribes like Juang and Bonda have very low West Eurasian mixture due to isolation.

Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 03:39 AM
Yeah, tribes like Juang and Bonda have very low West Eurasian mixture due to isolation.

How much do you think they have? I think some Gonds might also have very minor West Eurasian.

Saw your previous comment on Nagas, Mizos. Yeah they do not really have West Eurasian admix despite living in the region. Geographic isolation perhaps?

I think the Burmese, Thai, Cambodian and Malay who live in close proximity to rhe subcontinent could have some West Eurasian admix from their South Asian ancestry though. What do you think?

Kulin
04-22-2019, 03:44 AM
How much do you think they have?

Saw your previous comment on Nagas, Mizos. Yeah they do not really have West Eurasian admix.

I think the Burmese and Thai who live in nearby regions could have minor West Eurasian admix from their South Asian ancestry though. What do you think?

Both Burmese and Thai along with Khmer/Malay/Cham and a lot of Indonesian groups have up to 5-10% South Asian mixture on average, as well as y-dna lineages like R1, J and H due to Indian migration there. Bamar are the most South Asian shifted among populations tested, but I'd wager the Rakhine would be the most South Asian shifted group from Burma. I'll try to model the available populations on Poi's G25 runner once my exams are over.

related content: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/06/19/south-asian-ancestry-in-southeast-asians/

An image taken from Razib's blog:

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SEASup_htm_2ddabbd4-1.png

Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 03:54 AM
Both Burmese and Thai along with Khmer/Malay/Cham and a lot of Indonesian groups have up to 5-10% South Asian mixture on average, as well as y-dna lineages like R1, J and H due to Indian migration there. Bamar are the most South Asian shifted among populations tested, but I'd wager the Rakhine would be the most South Asian shifted group from Burma. I'll try to model the available populations on Poi's G25 runner once my exams are over.

related content: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/06/19/south-asian-ancestry-in-southeast-asians/

An image taken from Razib's blog:

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SEASup_htm_2ddabbd4-1.png

That is all true. Yep Burmese and Rakhine are indeed the most South Asian shifted genetically. They can be up to 20% or more South Asian. I think they could have some West Eurasian admix as well.

I will try to run the SE Asian samples on nmonte as well.

Btw how much West Eurasian do the Juang and Bonda and some Gonds have? Like 10% and less?

Kulin
04-22-2019, 03:57 AM
That is all true. Yep Burmese and Rakhine are indeed the most South Asian shifted genetically. They can be up to 20% or more South Asian. I think they could have some West Eurasian admix as well.

I will try to run the SE Asian samples on nmonte as well.

Btw how much West Eurasian do the Juang and Bonda and some Gonds have? Like 10% and less?

Not sure about Bonda, but Juang have around 12-14% West Eurasian, while Gonds are significantly more West Eurasian at 30-34%. Gonds are Dravidian speaking from Central India, and not Austroasiatic like the former two.

FrostAssassin0701
04-22-2019, 03:59 AM
Both Burmese and Thai along with Khmer/Malay/Cham and a lot of Indonesian groups have up to 5-10% South Asian mixture on average, as well as y-dna lineages like R1, J and H due to Indian migration there. Bamar are the most South Asian shifted among populations tested, but I'd wager the Rakhine would be the most South Asian shifted group from Burma. I'll try to model the available populations on Poi's G25 runner once my exams are over.

related content: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/06/19/south-asian-ancestry-in-southeast-asians/

An image taken from Razib's blog:

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SEASup_htm_2ddabbd4-1.png

"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 2.4202,
"Tibetan_Averaged": 44.17,
"Dai_Averaged": 43.33,
"Velamas_Averaged": 9.17,
"Uttar_Pradesh_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Tibetan_Averaged:Averaged: 8.960879",
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 12.145803",
"Uttar_Pradesh_Averaged:Averaged: 37.091457",
"Velamas_Averaged:Averaged: 38.482451"

Here's a quick model for the Burmese. Not sure how much sense it makes but it's giving around 12.5% South Asian.

Kulin
04-22-2019, 04:05 AM
Alright before I go to sleep, I checked the distances between me and four major SEA populations. Note that I am around 12% East Asian myself (both Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman). Ignore the modelling.

[
{
"sample": "Bengali_Bangladesh:Kulin_AGUser",
"fit": 30.5741,
"Thai": 85,
"Burmese": 15,
"Cambodian": 0,
"Malay": 0,
"closestDistances": [
"Thai: DCH002: 30.59000",
"Burmese:bumaBR50: 31.09185",
"Thai: DCH008: 31.26932",
"Thai: DCH010: 31.29460",
"Burmese:bumaBR54: 31.81738",
"Thai: DCH006: 31.84778",
"Thai: DCH011: 31.96885",
"Malay:SGVP00120: 32.46168",
"Thai: DCH012: 33.09082",
"Thai:CHI007: 33.87451",
"Burmese:bumaBR55: 34.98634",
"Thai: DCH009: 35.20890",
"Cambodian:HGDP00713: 35.63151",
"Malay:SGVP00091: 36.05587",
"Cambodian:HGDP00711: 36.42300",
"Malay:SGVP00089: 36.60319",
"Thai: DCH007: 37.72392",
"Malay:SGVP00026: 39.02790",
"Thai:CHI034: 40.33823",
"Cambodian:HGDP00712: 40.37542"
]
}
]

Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 04:18 AM
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 2.4202,
"Tibetan_Averaged": 44.17,
"Dai_Averaged": 43.33,
"Velamas_Averaged": 9.17,
"Uttar_Pradesh_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Tibetan_Averaged:Averaged: 8.960879",
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 12.145803",
"Uttar_Pradesh_Averaged:Averaged: 37.091457",
"Velamas_Averaged:Averaged: 38.482451"

Here's a quick model for the Burmese. Not sure how much sense it makes but it's giving around 12.5% South Asian.

What modelling did you use for that? Is it Nmonte?

FrostAssassin0701
04-22-2019, 04:22 AM
What modelling did you use for that? Is it Nmonte?

Yeah, it's Poi's tool

Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 04:34 AM
Yeah, it's Poi's tool

How do you get Poi's tool? Do you need to download it somewhere?

FrostAssassin0701
04-22-2019, 04:35 AM
How do you get Poi's tool? Do you need to download it somewhere?

http://185.144.156.77:3000/

Just use this link

Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 04:54 AM
Not sure about Bonda, but Juang have around 12-14% West Eurasian, while Gonds are significantly more West Eurasian at 30-34%. Gonds are Dravidian speaking from Central India, and not Austroasiatic like the former two.

How did you figure out that the Juang will be around 12-14% West Eurasian? If I remember correctly, the Bonda cluster close to the Juang on PCA, so they should similar amounts of admix or lesser amount than the Juang.

Actually David on Eurogenes also mentioned that some Gonds like Gond1 and Gond2 samples are almost pure AASI. That these Gonds would be less than 20% West Eurasian, like only 15% Iran Neo and minor ANE/AG3/MA1. However Davidski thinks that the AG3/MA1 is just the algorithmic correction that there are no perfect references for ASI in his data, also
some of their Iran Neo score might actually be AASI.

Gond1, he is referring to in G25 spreadsheet
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FSzKKknFGcOgfyA76q9PD7B-n-MJs7L8/view?usp=sharing

Source: scroll down to comment by Davidski in March 19, 2018 at 4.45 am. It end at the last comment by David in March 19, 2018 at 9:17 am

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/max-planck-scientists-on-mission.html?m=1

client
04-22-2019, 05:33 AM
The group 'Kol' which is supposed to be Austro-Asiatic(but doesn't seem so, at all on paper) matches 1-1 with Dravidian middle castes and even has a strange NE Euro signal on Harappa. I am not sure whether this group was mislabelled.

Kol
SI BALOCH CAUC NE EURO SE ASIAN
61% 30% 1% 3% 1%

Lack of SE Asian, and the fact that this sample has more baloch than mainstream caste Indians from the east(non-Brahmin Bengalis for example) makes me think that this is either mislabelled or that there is another group from non-eastern india with the same name.


Oh this is confusing

The term "Kol people" or Kolarian is used in India to refer to some of the Austroasiatic tribal groups of India. In eastern and northeastern India, Kol is a generic umbrella term which includes certain closely related tribal groups such as the Munda, Ho and Santal as well as the Khasi, Jaintia in Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, North Bengal, Bangladesh, and Nepal.

another source

hese tribes are concentrated in central India and the northeastern regions of the Deccan plateau. They speak related languages described as "Kolarian," which are known today as the Munda languages. The tribes include the Santal, Munda, and Ho.But in modern usage, the term "Kol" is used in a more restricted sense to identify a specific tribe among these Munda-speaking peoples.

poi
04-22-2019, 05:50 AM
The group 'Kol' which is supposed to be Austro-Asiatic(but doesn't seem so, at all on paper) matches 1-1 with Dravidian middle castes and even has a strange NE Euro signal on Harappa. I am not sure whether this group was mislabelled.

Kol
SI BALOCH CAUC NE EURO SE ASIAN
61% 30% 1% 3% 1%

Lack of SE Asian, and the fact that this sample has more baloch than mainstream caste Indians from the east(non-Brahmin Bengalis for example) makes me think that this is either mislabelled or that there is another group from non-eastern india with the same name.


Oh this is confusing


another source

"Kol" in G25 was based on the academic samples and the study listed them as "Indo European", so those Kols in G25 were not AustroAsiatic speakers. And their genetics is not like other AAs either.

Tsakhur
04-22-2019, 06:03 AM
Can anyone answer else reply to the OP?

client
04-22-2019, 06:10 AM
"Kol" in G25 was based on the academic samples and the study listed them as "Indo European", so those Kols in G25 were not AustroAsiatic speakers. And their genetics is not like other AAs either.
Ah, they were mislabelled as Austro-Asiatic elsewhere, perhaps not on the academic samples. Yes, definitely non-AA.

Interesting that AA tribes like Asur do not have elevated farmer ancestry given their extremely high incidence of J2b2-M241. Founder effect, presumably.

Kulin
04-24-2019, 06:57 PM
How did you figure out that the Juang will be around 12-14% West Eurasian? If I remember correctly, the Bonda cluster close to the Juang on PCA, so they should similar amounts of admix or lesser amount than the Juang.

Actually David on Eurogenes also mentioned that some Gonds like Gond1 and Gond2 samples are almost pure AASI. That these Gonds would be less than 20% West Eurasian, like only 15% Iran Neo and minor ANE/AG3/MA1. However Davidski thinks that the AG3/MA1 is just the algorithmic correction that there are no perfect references for ASI in his data, also
some of their Iran Neo score might actually be AASI.

Gond1, he is referring to in G25 spreadsheet
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FSzKKknFGcOgfyA76q9PD7B-n-MJs7L8/view?usp=sharing

Source: scroll down to comment by Davidski in March 19, 2018 at 4.45 am. It end at the last comment by David in March 19, 2018 at 9:17 am

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/max-planck-scientists-on-mission.html?m=1

I estimate their AASI by multiply their harappa 'South Indian' by 0.8, then using the remainder and other West Eurasian components to calculate the total. This matches what I got when modelling them with nmonte as well.

I'm not sure if David is correct here, Gonds shouldn't be 'fully AASI'.

Kulin
04-25-2019, 01:46 AM
I just modeled the Thai average using Poi's nmonte runner.

The model below shows the Indian mixture in Thai. You can see that there is preference for Velama (a mid caste community from Andhra), in contrast to the Dharkar, (an artisan community from Uttar Pradesh). This represents the fact that the transmission of Indian/Hindu culture, and especially genetic influence into South-east Asia was mainly through South India. The Tamil Cholas, especially had a very big impact, as well as Sinhalese later during the Buddhist age culturally. This is reflected in the region's scripts, motifs and architecture. Though a very big North Indian was also obviously felt through spread of Buddhism during the Mauryan empire, but the region was already Hindu prior to this and there was no migration or genetic change.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.1747,
"Dai": 78.33,
"LAO_Hoabinhian": 12.5,
"Velamas": 8.33,
"Dharkar": 0.83


This next model represents the Thai migrations into the land of the Mon-Khmer people that earlier inhabited Thailand, who were most likely very Cambodian like in genetics, while the migrating Thai are represented by the Dai. Thailand was obviously subject to a significant Han migration later from Southern China, so Han is used to account for that.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 1.0757,
"Cambodian": 44.17,
"Dai": 33.33,
"Velamas": 11.67,
"Han": 10.83

FrostAssassin0701
04-25-2019, 02:48 AM
I just modeled the Thai average using Poi's nmonte runner.

The model below shows the Indian mixture in Thai. You can see that there is preference for Velama (a mid caste community from Andhra), in contrast to the Dharkar, (an artisan community from Uttar Pradesh). This represents the fact that the transmission of Indian/Hindu culture, and especially genetic influence into South-east Asia was mainly through South India. The Tamil Cholas, especially had a very big impact, as well as Sinhalese later during the Buddhist age culturally. This is reflected in the region's scripts, motifs and architecture. Though a very big North Indian was also obviously felt through spread of Buddhism during the Mauryan empire, but the region was already Hindu prior to this and there was no migration or genetic change.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.1747,
"Dai": 78.33,
"LAO_Hoabinhian": 12.5,
"Velamas": 8.33,
"Dharkar": 0.83


This next model represents the Thai migrations into the land of the Mon-Khmer people that earlier inhabited Thailand, who were most likely very Cambodian like in genetics, while the migrating Thai are represented by the Dai. Thailand was obviously subject to a significant Han migration later from Southern China, so Han is used to account for that.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 1.0757,
"Cambodian": 44.17,
"Dai": 33.33,
"Velamas": 11.67,
"Han": 10.83

Something I’ve noticed is that the Burmese seem to have more North Indian related ancestry than Cambodians/Thais. The model I ran had them at 4% “Uttar Pradesh” and 8% Velamas which is in contrast to the Thais being almost only Velamas. Could this reflect some extra Bengali ancestry in the Burmese that Thais/Cambodians don’t have?

Edit: Here's a model I ran but I'm not sure if Thai IA is hiding some South Asian, which would explain why it seems relatively low. The Dharkar and Velama amount is identical though.
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 2.0745,
"Thailand_IA_Averaged": 50.83,
"Tibetan_Averaged": 40.83,
"Dharkar_Averaged": 4.17,
"Velamas_Averaged": 4.17,

Kulin
04-25-2019, 03:18 AM
Something I’ve noticed is that the Burmese seem to have more North Indian related ancestry than Cambodians/Thais. The model I ran had them at 4% “Uttar Pradesh” and 8% Velamas which is in contrast to the Thais being almost only Velamas. Could this reflect some extra Bengali ancestry in the Burmese that Thais/Cambodians don’t have?

Edit: Here's a model I ran but I'm not sure if Thai IA is hiding some South Asian, which would explain why it seems relatively low. The Dharkar and Velama amount is identical though.
"sample": "Burmese:Average",
"fit": 2.0745,
"Thailand_IA_Averaged": 50.83,
"Tibetan_Averaged": 40.83,
"Dharkar_Averaged": 4.17,
"Velamas_Averaged": 4.17,

Yeah, a year back or so, Razib had this post (https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/06/19/south-asian-ancestry-in-southeast-asians/) on his blog regarding it.

The Burmese tend to have a heavy shift towards Bengalis in PCAs and such. Likely during the Pyu City States (Iron Age Burma), the people of those states absorbed Indian cultures, probably through a migration of proto-Bengali like people. These Pyu people were proto-Burmese, who would likely have had way more South Asian-like ancestry, before the actual Burmese-like people migrated from borders of Yunnan and mixed with them to produce the modern Bamars. Also, the Bamars have a very huge variation in mtdna (probably the most diverse in SEA), including a lot of Indian-specific mtdna, in contrast to the other South-east Asian ethnic groups further east, who mainly have South Asian/West Eurasian y-dna markers.

Since, the region is largely contiguous with the Indian subcontinent, greater share of ancestry is to be expected, though the region is sheltered from South Asia by the Arakan Yoma mountains and Lushai hills. In addition, mainstream Burma used to host a large population of Brahmins, before the British conquest. Most of these Brahmins hailed from Manipur and Kashi (Benares/Varanasi), but there was a large native Burmese Brahmin population in the border regions with South Asia, until very recently. People west of the Arakan yoma range, the Rakhine, especially the Northern Rakhines in Bangladesh, probably have up to 30% South Asian ancestry. The Rakhine rulers, used to style themselves using Persianate/Hindu titles, and was a vassal of the Bengal Sultanate for a lot of its history. Even after gaining independence, the Rakhine court was mostly composed of Bengali intellectuals/poets (including some of my own ancestors) and military men. They were also notorious for slave raiding, along with the Portuguese in Bengal. A small minority of Rakhines in Bangladesh, can often somewhat resemble Bengalis, such as this film director from Bangladesh.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AEGC0RG3g

Tsakhur
04-25-2019, 04:11 AM
I estimate their AASI by multiply their harappa 'South Indian' by 0.8, then using the remainder and other West Eurasian components to calculate the total. This matches what I got when modelling them with nmonte as well.

I'm not sure if David is correct here, Gonds shouldn't be 'fully AASI'.

I am also not sure about this. But it is interesting. Maybe you should inquire David/Generalissmo on Anthrogenica regarding this " some Gonds being almost pure AASI" matter.

I see. Thanks. So here I tried to find the Western admixture in Bonda and Khonda Dora by modelling them with Simulated AASI, Han and Sardinian. I used Sardinian because they are the purest West Eurasian (I believed) while Han is used to represent their East Asian admix. I wonder how pure is the Simulated AASI? Does it contain any ANE?

I know it is not that of a good fit. But I used Sardinian rather than Ganj Dareh because I want to see how much Western they really are.

I also used the least Western-shifted Bonda sample which is Bonda:ORI34 while there is only one Khonda Dora.

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 7.0518,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 65.83,
"Han_Averaged": 25.83,
"Sardinian_Averaged": 8.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Han_Averaged:Averaged: 33.73315",
"Sardinian_Averaged:Averaged: 53.11635"
]
},
{
"sample": "Khonda_Dora:S_Khonda_Dora-1",
"fit": 7.4547,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 65,
"Han_Averaged": 24.17,
"Sardinian_Averaged": 10.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.55870",
"Han_Averaged:Averaged: 34.79519",
"Sardinian_Averaged:Averaged: 51.60991"

From here, it seems like this Bonda (Bonda ORI34) and Khonda Dora sample are around 8 and 11% Western admixed (not counting ANE which is considered by many ppl to be predominantly archaic West Eurasian genome with some AASI-like affinities).

However, when I also included MA1 to filter out any ANE along with other West Eurasian admix. The mix seems a bit better:

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 6.8289,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 64.17,
"Han_Averaged": 25.83,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 5.83,
"Sardinian_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Han_Averaged:Averaged: 33.73315",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440",
"Sardinian_Averaged:Averaged: 53.11635"
]
},
{
"sample": "Khonda_Dora:S_Khonda_Dora-1",
"fit": 7.2281,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 63.33,
"Han_Averaged": 24.17,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 6.67,
"Sardinian_Averaged": 5.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.55870",
"Han_Averaged:Averaged: 34.79519",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 45.86442",
"Sardinian_Averaged:Averaged: 51.60991"

Now the Bonda (Bonda ORI34) and Khonda Dora sample seem around 10% and 12% Western (Sardinian and some AG3/ANE) admix. Although the ANE might also contain some AASI/East Eurasian admix, so the West Eurasian for Bonda and Khonda Dora might be few percents less than that like 8 and 10%.

P.S.- Keep in mind this a Bonda sample, not the average Bonda.

Tsakhur
04-25-2019, 04:31 AM
I just modeled the Thai average using Poi's nmonte runner.

The model below shows the Indian mixture in Thai. You can see that there is preference for Velama (a mid caste community from Andhra), in contrast to the Dharkar, (an artisan community from Uttar Pradesh). This represents the fact that the transmission of Indian/Hindu culture, and especially genetic influence into South-east Asia was mainly through South India. The Tamil Cholas, especially had a very big impact, as well as Sinhalese later during the Buddhist age culturally. This is reflected in the region's scripts, motifs and architecture. Though a very big North Indian was also obviously felt through spread of Buddhism during the Mauryan empire, but the region was already Hindu prior to this and there was no migration or genetic change.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.1747,
"Dai": 78.33,
"LAO_Hoabinhian": 12.5,
"Velamas": 8.33,
"Dharkar": 0.83


This next model represents the Thai migrations into the land of the Mon-Khmer people that earlier inhabited Thailand, who were most likely very Cambodian like in genetics, while the migrating Thai are represented by the Dai. Thailand was obviously subject to a significant Han migration later from Southern China, so Han is used to account for that.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 1.0757,
"Cambodian": 44.17,
"Dai": 33.33,
"Velamas": 11.67,
"Han": 10.83

Interesting. So I tried to gauge the average West Eurasian admixture in Thai/Cambodians using AASI, Dai and Sardinian (maybe I should have used Ganj Dareh).

It seems the average Thai and Cambodian are around 6 and 3% West Eurasian (maybe there is some more hiding in the AASI if they have ANE?)

"sample": "Cambodian:Average",
"fit": 4.6287,
"Dai_Averaged": 89.17,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 7.5,
"Sardinian_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 6.842985",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 41.221696",
"Sardinian_Averaged:Averaged: 60.555519"
]
},
{
"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.8567,
"Dai_Averaged": 82.5,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 11.67,
"Sardinian_Averaged": 5.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 8.453019",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 38.974913",
"Sardinian_Averaged:Averaged: 57.676041"
]

Kulin
04-25-2019, 05:29 PM
@Tsakhur, the fits are way too large for them to be 'legitimate'. Also you cannot count ANE as either West Eurasian or East Eurasian, it predates both. If you count ANE as E eurasian, then no Indo-Aryan or Dravidian group in South Asia is predominantly West Eurasian, since even groups like Kalash are like 37% ANE. South Asians overall have the highest ANE after some Uralic/Siberian/Native American populations.

Model them with ancients like Iranian Neolithic/Sintashta to get a more accurate estimation of their West Eurasian ancestry.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 12:52 AM
@Tsakhur, the fits are way too large for them to be 'legitimate'. Also you cannot count ANE as either West Eurasian or East Eurasian, it predates both. If you count ANE as E eurasian, then no Indo-Aryan or Dravidian group in South Asia is predominantly West Eurasian, since even groups like Kalash are like 37% ANE. South Asians overall have the highest ANE after some Uralic/Siberian/Native American populations.

Model them with ancients like Iranian Neolithic/Sintashta to get a more accurate estimation of their West Eurasian ancestry.

Thanks for your suggestion.

What is ANE really then if it predates both? If thats the case, pure blood Native Americans do not really have West Eurasian ancestry then even if they have like 40% ANE?

Are you addressing this regarding only the modelling of Bonda, Khonda Dora or also the modelling of Cambodian and Thai samples?

Should I also use Iranian Neolithic/Sintashta to get a more accurate estimation of West Eurasian ancestry in Thais and Cambodians?

Kulin
04-26-2019, 02:44 AM
Thanks for your suggestion.

What is ANE really then if it predates both? If thats the case, pure blood Native Americans do not really have West Eurasian ancestry then even if they have like 40% ANE?

Are you addressing this regarding only the modelling of Bonda, Khonda Dora or also the modelling of Cambodian and Thai samples?

Should I also use Iranian Neolithic/Sintashta to get a more accurate estimation of West Eurasian ancestry in Thais and Cambodians?

Yeah it should work if you do. I meant ANE is present in a lot of Eurasian populations from East Asians to Europeans. You cannot really classify it in the East or West Eurasian cluster.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 03:04 AM
Yeah it should work if you do. I meant ANE is present in a lot of Eurasian populations from East Asians to Europeans. You cannot really classify it in the East or West Eurasian cluster.

I will try it. I don't think there is ANE in most East Asians though except some groups like Mongols or Northern ethnic minorities in China like Ulchi, Oroqen, Hezhen.

I really hope there are more research into what ANE really is.

Does Sintashta have any East Eurasian admix or is it 100% West Eurasian?

Kulin
04-26-2019, 03:07 AM
I will try it. I don't think there is ANE in most East Asians though except some groups like Mongols or Northern ethnic minorities in China like Ulchi, Oroqen, Hezhen.

I really hope there are more research into what ANE really is.

Does Sintashta have any East Eurasian admix or is it 100% West Eurasian?

ANE is present in most Eurasians except those with more Basal Eurasian ancestry like in Arabia. Search for Davidski's ANE K7 spreadsheet.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 03:10 AM
Yeah it should work if you do. I meant ANE is present in a lot of Eurasian populations from East Asians to Europeans. You cannot really classify it in the East or West Eurasian cluster.

Anyway here are some modelling to find the amount of AASI and West Eurasian ancestry in Thais and Cambodians. I used the Sintashta for the Steppe signal (which would likely show North Indian influence in these SE Asians).

So this Thai average sample is 8.33% West Eurasian and 9.17% AASI while the Cambodian average sample is 3.34% West Eurasian and 7.5% AASI? Make sense for Thai to have more West Eurasian and AASI than Cambodians though as they are geographically further west which is closer to South Asia.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.3858,
"Dai_Averaged": 82.5,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 9.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 8.453019",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 38.974913",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 52.050957",
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged:Averaged: 53.664100"

"sample": "Cambodian:Average",
"fit": 4.6476,
"Dai_Averaged": 89.17,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 7.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 1.67,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged": 1.67,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 6.842985",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 41.221696",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 55.383989",
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged:Averaged: 56.667931"

Kulin
04-26-2019, 03:20 AM
Anyway here are some modelling to find the amount of AASI and West Eurasian ancestry in Thais and Cambodians. I used the Sintashta for the Steppe signal (which would likely show North Indian influence in these SE Asians).

So this Thai average sample is 8.33% West Eurasian and 9.17% AASI while the Cambodian average sample is 3.34% West Eurasian and 7.5% AASI? Make sense for Thai to have more West Eurasian and AASI than Cambodians though as they are geographically further west which is closer to South Asia.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.3858,
"Dai_Averaged": 82.5,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 9.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 8.453019",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 38.974913",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 52.050957",
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged:Averaged: 53.664100"

"sample": "Cambodian:Average",
"fit": 4.6476,
"Dai_Averaged": 89.17,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 7.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 1.67,
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged": 1.67,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 6.842985",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 41.221696",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 55.383989",
"RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_Averaged:Averaged: 56.667931"

Distance for the Thai is decent, but the Cambodian modelling isn't the best. I would suggest adding Iron Age Laos (Hoabinhan) to account for AASI-like native SEA ancestry, which is more prevalent in Cambodians. The Thai sample especially also needs Han btw.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 03:24 AM
Distance for the Thai is decent, but the Cambodian modelling isn't the best. I would suggest adding Iron Age Laos (Hoabinhan) to account for AASI-like native SEA ancestry, which is more prevalent in Cambodians. The Thai sample especially also needs Han btw.

I see. Should I still have the Simulated AASI for the Cambodians or replaced it with Iron Age Laos instead?

Ok I will add Han for the Thai but the problem is for me, this runner (which is free-tier) only allows 4 reference groups. I cannot select more reference groups than that.

Kulin
04-26-2019, 03:26 AM
I see. Should I still have the Simulated AASI for the Cambodians or replaced it with Iron Age Laos instead?

Ok I will add Han for the Thai but the problem is for me, this runner (which is free-tier) only allows 4 reference groups. I cannot select more reference groups than that.

Use Poi's freeform nmonte runner. The averaged coordinates can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Obeulb6oqo677Fm6dtYAvYYUCRjFqEgz/view (though there isn't an 'AASI' sample so you might have to replace it with Irula, though they harbor some West Eurasian ancestry).

aaronbee2010
04-26-2019, 03:59 AM
Use Poi's freeform nmonte runner. The averaged coordinates can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Obeulb6oqo677Fm6dtYAvYYUCRjFqEgz/view (though there isn't an 'AASI' sample so you might have to replace it with Irula, though they harbor some West Eurasian ancestry).

Do you know if the majority of Irula's West Eurasian ancestry is BMAC-related or not? I found a study (Mallick et al. 2016) a while ago, which had two Irula samples with BMAC-related Y-DNA (one had L1a2a-M2385* [below L1a2-M357] and the other had R2a2b1b2a-SK2142*) and I thought it was quite interesting.

Kulin
04-26-2019, 04:03 AM
Do you know if the majority of Irula's West Eurasian ancestry is BMAC-related or not? I found a study (Mallick et al. 2016) a while ago, which had two Irula samples with BMAC-related Y-DNA (one had L1a2a-M2385* [below L1a2-M357] and the other had R2a2b1b2a-SK2142*) and I thought it was quite interesting.

It's a possibility, though given the region's history, I would think its directly from Dravidian farmers, tracing back to Iranian Zagrosian farmers of the neolithic.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 04:29 AM
Use Poi's freeform nmonte runner. The averaged coordinates can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Obeulb6oqo677Fm6dtYAvYYUCRjFqEgz/view (though there isn't an 'AASI' sample so you might have to replace it with Irula, though they harbor some West Eurasian ancestry).

Ok so here is a new modelling for the Cambodians: They score only Dai and Lao Hoabinhnian now. Irula is zero. Iran Ganj Dareh is zero. So what happen to the minor West Eurasian in them? The fit is better now though.

"sample": "Test1:Cambodian",
"fit": 2.8911,
"Dai": 80,
"LAO_Hoabinhian": 20,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 0,
"Irula": 0,
"closestDistances": [
"Dai:undefined: 3.489982",
"LAO_Hoabinhian:undefined: 7.625383",
"Irula:undefined: 10.938412",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:undefined: 13.471365"

However, when I changed the Hoahbinhnian to Thailand IA and also get rid of the Dai, the fit gets even better. Now the Iran Ganj Dareh is back but only 1.67%. Yeah maybe the Irula is hiding some West Eurasian score in Cambodians as well besides providing as the main source for AASI.

"sample": "Test1:Cambodian",
"fit": 2.4922,
"Thailand_IA": 94.17,
"Irula": 4.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 1.67,
"closestDistances": [
"Thailand_IA:undefined: 2.567693",
"Irula:undefined: 10.938412",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:undefined: 13.471365"

thejkhan
04-26-2019, 04:34 AM
ANE is present in most Eurasians except those with more Basal Eurasian ancestry like in Arabia. Search for Davidski's ANE K7 spreadsheet.

You mean Western Eurasians. ANE is barely present in most East Eurasians, at least not in any meaningful amount -- except for some Siberian groups.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 04:59 AM
Distance for the Thai is decent, but the Cambodian modelling isn't the best. I would suggest adding Iron Age Laos (Hoabinhan) to account for AASI-like native SEA ancestry, which is more prevalent in Cambodians. The Thai sample especially also needs Han btw.

So I add the Han and Thailand IA for the Thai. Now the Thai has around 11% Chinese admix. However the distance is now farther away than what it should be.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 3.5616,
"Thailand_IA_Averaged": 79.17,
"Han_Averaged": 10.83,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 5.83,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Thailand_IA_Averaged:Averaged: 5.353491",
"Han_Averaged:Averaged: 13.181785",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 38.974913",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 52.050957"

But when I deleted the Han and add the Dai, the distance improved. This time even better than the distance in the previous post. But the now the Thai is only around 6% West Eurasian (Ganj Dareh)? Maybe there is no Han admix in this Thai sample if the distance improved much better?

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 1.8252,
"Dai_Averaged": 48.33,
"Thailand_IA_Averaged": 38.33,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 7.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Thailand_IA_Averaged:Averaged: 5.353491",
"Dai_Averaged:Averaged: 8.453019",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 38.974913",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 52.050957

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 05:04 AM
Use Poi's freeform nmonte runner. The averaged coordinates can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Obeulb6oqo677Fm6dtYAvYYUCRjFqEgz/view (though there isn't an 'AASI' sample so you might have to replace it with Irula, though they harbor some West Eurasian ancestry).

So I also did a freeform nmonte runner for the Thai as well. The fit is pretty good I think. The Han Chinese admixture is now at 23%. While the Irula is 9.17% while Iran Ganj Dareh is now at 4.17%.

"sample": "Test1:Thai",
"fit": 2.0437,
"Thailand_IA": 64.17,
"Han": 22.5,
"Irula": 9.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Thailand_IA:undefined: 3.041239",
"Han:undefined: 5.357801",
"Irula:undefined: 10.071327",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:undefined: 12.597122"

poi
04-26-2019, 05:07 PM
I modeled a few Southeast Asians using a few Subcontinental-heavy models:

Here, I picked a few Steppe-rich inner South Asians like various Brahmin pops + No/Less-Steppe SouthAsians like Chamar and Velamas + Onge + Southern Chinese + Papuan:

https://i.imgur.com/IMOjh96r.png

The model is pretty good for Thai and Vietnam, but very bad for Burmese and Cambodian. In this model, we're could be missing more western-type of East Asian necessary.

So, let's add the ancient Nepal Chokhopani sample from ~750BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/yRo1R4Pr.png

Note how adding the ancient Chokhopani brings the Burmese down to a good fit, but does not change Cambodian. Furthermore, Chokhopani helps improve Vietnam.

Basically, Vietnam is entirely East Asian with Southern Chinese mixed with a bit of Western Chinese (proxied by Chokhopani).
Cambodian probably need more SEAsian farmers rather than straight up Onge.

Here, added DMXX's simulated AA... things are even better for Burmese, Thai, and Vietnam, plus Cambodian fit distance also goes down.

https://i.imgur.com/chQXXfpr.png

Note how Nepali Brahmins are preferred over other South Asians, for Burnese and Thai, when we add the simulated AA? No Chamar, no Velamas, and not even Gangetic Brahmins. Strange right? Does that model makes sense? Just 4 references needed to model 3 out of 4 SE Asian groups. Re-running the model again by removing all those references scoring zero.

https://i.imgur.com/pqJzLE5r.png

Thoughts?

Alright, replaced Nepal Brahmins with Rors. Things get even better for Burmese and Thais

https://i.imgur.com/9F3c7LYr.png

Basically, Ror-like pops brought along IndoAryan to Burmese and Thais. I'm curious to see if that holds up for more southern pops like Malays and Indonesians.

Kulin
04-26-2019, 05:17 PM
^ Pretty good models, but I think especially for Cambodians, it needs an Iron Age Sample that will absorb extra ASE-like ancestry native to SEA. The burmese preferring Nepali Khas brahmin probably makes sense, but I'm not so sure why the Thai samples are preferring it as well.

poi
04-26-2019, 05:20 PM
^ Pretty good models, but I think especially for Cambodians, it needs an Iron Age Sample that will absorb extra ASE-like ancestry native to SEA. The burmese preferring Nepali Khas brahmin probably makes sense, but I'm not so sure why the Thai samples are preferring it as well.

I have updated my post above with Rors instead of Nepali Brahmins. The fits get even tighter with Rors.

poi
04-26-2019, 05:35 PM
Replaced Ror with the core BA components for IndoAryans (Sintashta+BMAC+IVC SIS3):

https://i.imgur.com/6SMvLiBr.png

The fits are still as great as when we used the modern South Asians.

Look at how Steppe/BMAC rich SouthAsian the Thais and Cambodians need when we use the Simulated AA. Thus, the modern model was liking Rors so much.

The question is -- do Thais/Burmese have AASI? In this model, having AA does not require AASI at all. Weird.

Perhaps the IA pops that moved to Burma and Thailand were Steppe+BMAC that mixed with AA-rich folks from the Northeast and they moved further east to Burma and Thailand.

Kulin
04-26-2019, 05:48 PM
Replaced Ror with the core BA components for IndoAryans (Sintashta+BMAC+IVC SIS3):

https://i.imgur.com/6SMvLiBr.png

The fits are still as great as when we used the modern South Asians.

Look at how Steppe/BMAC rich SouthAsian the Thais and Cambodians need when we use the Simulated AA. Thus, the modern model was liking Rors so much.

The question is -- do Thais/Burmese have AASI? In this model, having AA does not require AASI at all. Weird.

The 'simulated AA' is a simulation of Central/East Indian Austroasiatic tribes (baed on the Juang?), its not a direct interpolation of South-east Asian ancestry, so much of the AASI is getting absorbed by that particular component IMO.

poi
04-26-2019, 05:56 PM
The 'simulated AA' is a simulation of Central/East Indian Austroasiatic tribes (baed on the Juang?), its not a direct interpolation of South-east Asian ancestry, so much of the AASI is getting absorbed by that particular component IMO.

IIRC -- Simulated AA has AASI removed to reflect the basal AA that entered South Asia.

Kulin
04-26-2019, 06:06 PM
IIRC -- Simulated AA has AASI removed to reflect the basal AA that entered South Asia.

Oh I see, but the thing is, there was already a sister population of AASI present in SEA which can similarly absorb some of that AASI. Cambodians especially have greater amounts of this. Also I feel that AASI_South will work best for them to absorb their South Asian AASI.

poi
04-26-2019, 06:15 PM
Oh I see, but the thing is, there was already a sister population of AASI present in SEA which can similarly absorb some of that AASI. Cambodians especially have greater amounts of this. Also I feel that AASI_South will work best for them to absorb their South Asian AASI.

Perhaps SiS3 is not the right pop in SE Asians as far as accounting for AASI... I will check what happens if we use straight up AASI -South instead.

Edit -- adding AASI_South makes absolutely no difference.

https://i.imgur.com/uVpLyQPr.png

It does look like the "South Asian" that Thais and Burmese have is Steppe+BMAC while Basal-AA makes up the rest. So, Steppe+BMAC pop moved to Northeast SouthAsia, mixed with AA, then moved further east to Burma and Thailand.

Kulin
04-26-2019, 06:27 PM
Perhaps SiS3 is not the right pop in SE Asians as far as accounting for AASI... I will check what happens if we use straight up AASI -South instead.

I think using simulated AA isn't ideal in this case since it isnt ancestral to them. All of these populations have ancestry from Southern China, starting with the Austroasiatics (Khmer/Viet), then with the Tai/Dai migration mixing with that population and Tibeto-Burman migration in case of Burma. and supplanted by later Chinese admixture in case of Thai and Vietnamese. Much of their South Asian ancestry is also from the South, but there was definitely a migration of Brahmins as well. Austroasiatic admixture itself came into South Asia from South-east Asia, which had been there in SEA for some time, after coming down originally from Southern China.

pegasus
04-26-2019, 06:36 PM
Perhaps SiS3 is not the right pop in SE Asians as far as accounting for AASI... I will check what happens if we use straight up AASI -South instead.

There are Hoabinhians now on G25 , they are extremely close to Onge and the closest genome to AASI yet. SE Asian are mainly a mix between Chinese farmer populations and the local Onge like HG population.

The clear genetic distinction between the Onge-like Hoabinhian and EA Neolithic
demonstrated by this study provides an overwhelming support for the Two Layer model and
indicates that in SEA, like in Europe, the onset of agriculture was accompanied by a
demographic transition.

poi
04-26-2019, 06:37 PM
I think using simulated AA isn't ideal in this case since it isnt ancestral to them. All of these populations have ancestry from Southern China, starting with the Austroasiatics (Khmer/Viet), then with the Tai/Dai migration mixing with that population and Tibeto-Burman migration in case of Burma. and supplanted by later Chinese admixture in case of Thai and Vietnamese. Much of their South Asian ancestry is also from the South, but there was definitely a migration of Brahmins as well. Austroasiatic admixture itself came into South Asia from South-east Asia, which had been there in SEA for some time, after coming down originally from Southern China.

Removed AA, the fit is still good.. now AASI-South is used and Steppe goes up.

https://i.imgur.com/WS49XINr.png

Basically, it looks like South Asian component for Thais and Burmese is a rich Steppe+BMAC plus either AASI or AA pop that moved further east.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 06:46 PM
Removed AA, the fit is still good.. now AASI-South is used and Steppe goes up.

https://i.imgur.com/WS49XINr.png

Basically, it looks like South Asian component for Thais and Burmese is a rich Steppe+BMAC plus either AASI or AA pop that moved further east.

Sorry if my question is ignorant but should not the Thai, Burmese also have some Iran Neolithic besides the Steppe+BMAC South Asian ancestry? Or is the Iran Neolithic already represented/absorbed by the BMAC?

Kulin
04-26-2019, 06:49 PM
Sorry if my question is ignorant but is should not the Thai, Burmese also have some Iran Neolithic besides the Steppe+BMAC South Asian ancestry?

Yeah, this is what is what may be over-inflating their Sintashta as both all of them are West Eurasian. You need a non-BMAC Iranian farmer signal to absorb that. Sarazm would work best IMO, Ganj Gareh maybe too.

Btw, a model for Burmese, with modern and ancient mix, and me as well.


"sample": "Test1:Burmese",
"fit": 1.5791,
"Tibetan": 50,
"Dai": 26.67,
"LAO_BA": 12.5,
"Kulin_scaled": 5.83,
"Irula": 5,
"closestDistances": [
"Tibetan:undefined: 8.960882",
"Dai:undefined: 12.145800",
"LAO_BA:undefined: 16.138570",
"Kulin_scaled:undefined: 32.601873",
"Irula:undefined: 34.120196"

client
04-26-2019, 06:50 PM
Removed AA, the fit is still good.. now AASI-South is used and Steppe goes up.

https://i.imgur.com/WS49XINr.png

Basically, it looks like South Asian component for Thais and Burmese is a rich Steppe+BMAC plus either AASI or AA pop that moved further east.

Poi your run lacks Iran_N, of course steppe signal would go up if you don't include Iran_N because sintashta and Iran are western eurasian components and are closer to each other than to AASI... so nMonte has to make do with 'Sintashta +BMAC' for the small amount of W eurasian ancestry these groups have. That is also why the fit is bad for groups that di have such admixture vs Vietnam.

see what happens when one adequately accounts for Iran_N
"sample": "Test1:Thai",
"fit": 1.4652,
"Laos_BA": 46.67,
"Han": 41.67,
"Piramalai": 10.83,
"Sintashta_MLBA": 0.83,
"Laos_Hoabinhian": 0,

"sample": "Test1:Thai",
"fit": 1.4388,
"Laos_BA": 46.67,
"Han": 41.67,
"Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3": 10.83,
"Sintashta_MLBA": 0.83,
"Laos_Hoabinhian": 0,


You have to look in terms of packages of ancestry. How is it feasible for SEAs to have high steppe and BMAC but low AASI? That would imply that early BMAC Indo-Iranians went all the way to SEA in their unmixed state. A ratio of components has to be maintained.

--
"sample": "Test1:Thai",
"fit": 1.4211,
"Laos_BA": 46.67,
"Han": 41.67,
"Velamas": 11.67,
"Laos_Hoabinhian": 0,
"Sintashta_MLBA": 0,

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 07:13 PM
Yeah, this is what is what may be over-inflating their Sintashta as both all of them are West Eurasian. You need a non-BMAC Iranian farmer signal to absorb that. Sarazm would work best IMO, Ganj Gareh maybe too.

Btw, a model for Burmese, with modern and ancient mix, and me as well.


"sample": "Test1:Burmese",
"fit": 1.5791,
"Tibetan": 50,
"Dai": 26.67,
"LAO_BA": 12.5,
"Kulin_scaled": 5.83,
"Irula": 5,
"closestDistances": [
"Tibetan:undefined: 8.960882",
"Dai:undefined: 12.145800",
"LAO_BA:undefined: 16.138570",
"Kulin_scaled:undefined: 32.601873",
"Irula:undefined: 34.120196"

Hehe. The Burmese fit is better now also when including you. Seems like they also have Bengali-like ancestry.

True. If we add Iran Farmers for the Burmese, Thai and Cambodian, we should get better fits as well. Looks like these SE Asians have minor Steppe which would reflect that they have North Indian ancestry besides South Indian ancestry.

At least we can conclude that SE Asians have small amounts of West Eurasian ancestry (shouls be mostly Iran N+some Steppe) from their South Asian gene flow which I have already suspect for a long time until these models proved my assumptions

Kulin
04-26-2019, 07:17 PM
Hehe. The Burmese fit is better now also when including you. Seems like they also have Bengali-like ancestry.

True. If we add Iran Farmers for the Burmese, Thai and Cambodian, we should get better fits as well. Looks like these SE Asians have minor Steppe which would reflect that they have North Indian ancestry besides South Indian ancestry.

At least we can conclude that SE Asians have small amounts of West Eurasian ancestry (shouls be mostly Iran N+some Steppe) from their South Asian gene flow which I have already suspect for a long time until these models proved it.

Yeah, Burmese require direct NI ancestry. But, yeah in general, 'Indianiazed' South-east Asians have some West Eurasian ancestry (mainly IranN and some very little Steppe), while non-Indianized ones like Vietnamese (those without Cham and low Khmer ancestry) do not.

Tsakhur
04-26-2019, 07:24 PM
Yeah, Burmese require direct NI ancestry. But, yeah in general, 'Indianiazed' South-east Asians have some West Eurasian ancestry (mainly IranN and some very little Steppe), while non-Indianized ones like Vietnamese (those without Cham and low Khmer ancestry) do not.
Indeed. I always thought the Burmese would have the most West Eurasian but it seems the Thai have more than them here which I find it strange as they are more geographically further east. Also I am surprised how little West Eurasian ancestry the Cambodians have compared to Thai and Burmese samples.

I guess we can assume Malays and a lot of Indonesians, Chams, maybe some Philipinos would have some West Eurasian ancestry as well since they are also Indianized.

Looks like Vietnamese, maybe Laotians and some hill tribes in mainland SE Asia, etc. are one of the few groups in the region who do not have any West Eurasian in them.

Tsakhur
04-30-2019, 03:38 PM
Ok here it goes. So I specifically choose the Bonda individual sample ORI34 as it seem to be the most Eastern-shifted among the three Bonda samples (Me wana see what is the lowest amount of West Eurasian the Bonda can score).

I also did some models for the Khonda Dora and Ho (another Munda tribe) individual sample (Ho:HO_01_35) as it is the most East Eurasian-shifted Ho sample (Also wana seem the lowest amount of Western admixture the Ho can score). But I will post them later.

This post focuses on this Bonda sample. So I notice that this Bonda ORI34 can range from 9-11% Western Eurasian (Ganj Dareh+Sintashta/Afontova Gora) depending on the components used. However, I also noticed that the Western Eurasian can go as low as 5-6% when using Lao Hoahbinhian for the East Asian proxy in the Bonda. I also use pops such as Lao BA, Malaysia LN, Lao L_BA to estimate the East Asian ancestry. Also when using Sardinian to capture the West Eurasian affinity, the sample end up scoring 8% Western admix.

I think there more Bonda samples need to be collected to show the lowest amount of West Eurasian they can score. Three samples are not enough imo. But outside of Andamanese and Tibeto-Burman groups, this seem to be the lowest amount of West Eurasian a South Asian can be.

So many models. Don't know which is the most accurate one. Can anyone tell me?

Is it more accurate for this Bonda sample to be around 9-11% Western or 5-6% Western admix?

At least we can conclude that this Bonda sample is predominantly AASI+East Asian+very minor Western Eurasian admixture.

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.712,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 32.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 7.5,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"
]
},

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.8511,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 32.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 6.67,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.9021,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 32.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5.83,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.9886,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 55.83,
"LAO_BA_Averaged": 34.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 6.67,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 26.67975",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.1398,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 16.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 16.67,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 9.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.1942,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"Mlabri_Averaged": 16.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 15.83,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 10,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Mlabri_Averaged:Averaged: 27.86672",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"
]
"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.2327,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"LAO_BA_Averaged": 16.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 16.67,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 9.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 26.67975",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.413,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 50,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 25.83,
"LAO_Hoabinhian_Averaged": 18.33,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5.83,
"closestDistances": [
"LAO_Hoabinhian_Averaged:Averaged: 10.75420",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"

tipirneni
05-01-2019, 09:23 PM
Ok here it goes. So I specifically choose the Bonda individual sample ORI34 as it seem to be the most Eastern-shifted among the three Bonda samples (Me wana see what is the lowest amount of West Eurasian the Bonda can score).

I also did some models for the Khonda Dora and Ho (another Munda tribe) individual sample (Ho:HO_01_35) as it is the most East Eurasian-shifted Ho sample (Also wana seem the lowest amount of Western admixture the Ho can score). But I will post them later.

This post focuses on this Bonda sample. So I notice that this Bonda ORI34 can range from 9-11% Western Eurasian (Ganj Dareh+Sintashta/Afontova Gora) depending on the components used. However, I also noticed that the Western Eurasian can go as low as 5-6% when using Lao Hoahbinhian for the East Asian proxy in the Bonda. I also use pops such as Lao BA, Malaysia LN, Lao L_BA to estimate the East Asian ancestry. Also when using Sardinian to capture the West Eurasian affinity, the sample end up scoring 8% Western admix.

I think there more Bonda samples need to be collected to show the lowest amount of West Eurasian they can score. Three samples are not enough imo. But outside of Andamanese and Tibeto-Burman groups, this seem to be the lowest amount of West Eurasian a South Asian can be.

So many models. Don't know which is the most accurate one. Can anyone tell me?

Is it more accurate for this Bonda sample to be around 9-11% Western or 5-6% Western admix?

At least we can conclude that this Bonda sample is predominantly AASI+East Asian+very minor Western Eurasian admixture.

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.712,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 32.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 7.5,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"
]
},

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.8511,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 32.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 6.67,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.9021,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 32.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5.83,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.9886,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 55.83,
"LAO_BA_Averaged": 34.17,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 6.67,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged": 3.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 26.67975",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518",
"RUS_AfontovaGora3_Averaged:Averaged: 46.93440"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.1398,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 16.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 16.67,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 9.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.1942,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"Mlabri_Averaged": 16.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 15.83,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 10,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Mlabri_Averaged:Averaged: 27.86672",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"
]
"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.2327,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"LAO_BA_Averaged": 16.67,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 16.67,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 9.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 26.67975",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.413,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 50,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 25.83,
"LAO_Hoabinhian_Averaged": 18.33,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 5.83,
"closestDistances": [
"LAO_Hoabinhian_Averaged:Averaged: 10.75420",
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"
Many tribals have really diverse mix among them, some have few outside ones that may have happened during Iron age. This is due to massive urbanization during Magadh culture in late Iron age & late Copper age from post Harappa collapse prior to that. Many of these tribals used to work for these massive armies mentioned in

Indian literature. After a while during medieval ages there was not much development so they got fixed on their village life.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRS0rozLym8KuJ36QLAkIHW0n_Q7MCjF Q9L1T5dNKnUevUEQgix

Look at variety among Bonda people. All remnants of the heavy Iron age urban mixing. Same thing you can find among Chencus etc.. tribals tooo.

http://sillyfox.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/primitive-bonda-tribes.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/6033/5893105395_561fe42743_b.jpg
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/A5TBDY/young-bonda-tribal-girl-wearing-her-traditional-jewellry-in-koraput-A5TBDY.jpg
https://i1.trekearth.com/photos/95310/dsc_0283.jpg
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/bonda-tribe-onkudelli-orissa-india-picture-id555875795?s=612x612

https://medium.com/@manas007_2000/asurgarh-history-untold-de63d3c0a2d8

Tsakhur
05-07-2019, 06:03 PM
Yeah, Burmese require direct NI ancestry. But, yeah in general, 'Indianiazed' South-east Asians have some West Eurasian ancestry (mainly IranN and some very little Steppe), while non-Indianized ones like Vietnamese (those without Cham and low Khmer ancestry) do not.

I know this is forum is not appropriate to discuss this type of stuff. But I want to post this for discussion purposes. I think the South Asian genetic influence can be visibly seen in the phenotypes/physical features of many Thai and Burmese people:


Famous Politician from Surat Thani in Southern Thailand (He looks South Indian influenced to me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZEBtUaCem0

Famous Thai movie actor (He seem to have recent South Asian ancestry judging by his features, his look is very atypical for Thailand. He look very West Eurasian-influenced compared to most Thais ) His name is Sorapong Chatree if you want to search for more pics.
http://tnews.teenee.com/etc/img6/296248.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsE1e1yChfA

Former President of Burma (He looks pretty South Asian-influenced)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BIs5Jemzkk

jortita
05-10-2019, 08:15 AM
Of course, not counting the Andamanese tribes like Onge, Jarawa who are isolated from any outside influence or the Tibeto Burmans of NE India and Nepal who are obviously not indigenous South Asian genetically.

Asking this because I read somewhere that they found very high levels of AASI ancestry among Austroasiatics of Eastern India especially the Juang who are a mix between Nicobarese-like+AASI+ASI (which is basically 75% AASI with 25% Iranian farmer type admix): http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/09/12/the-munda-as-upland-rice-cultivators/

Quoting Shaikorth in Eurogenes:


The Juang has been modelled as 60% Nicobarese-like and 40% ASI (which is around 25% Iranian Farmer). This would make the Juang only 10% West Eurasian (of Iran Farmer and maybe some ANE admix) with them being predominantly AASI and East Asian then?

https://www.brownpundits.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/munda.png

So the question is: would Austroasiatic tribes like Juang, Bonda have very minor West Eurasian admix compared to most South Asians and how much in percentage? Also would they hae the lowest West Eurasian in South Asia outside of Andamanese and Tibeto Burmans?

Thought you might find this recent research article interesting, contrasting maternal and paternal genetic histories of Thai and Lao populations, https://watermark.silverchair.com/msz083.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3Z L_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlIwggJOBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggI_MII COwIBADCCAjQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMk CKVr3ZZR-R5KoSfAgEQgIICBS9eBbkcp120op6Lg6Ll9fZO1NAzO3ISDB9U wmFIQ8RYRJcVd2tKTkex0XA7BAf7uMrqRPa1DhXOL9Vf7kKOqv rap2n5mOhwH49XXtEho5uKUeelykf1tzW62Ix15mBtf7bd84IY RUTpobJv13HD-mJkIUtNizQx2jFzSCmsduxdT5aozAQDnugP2OaKun1Bh_JlG_z mJltOwwvFPYKvALk47lcpQ1frbF3I8dEPum5L5E6jEQ0m8je9z jfOL0SzZ9f5jUVKKg2vkMI39vUw6pyqO75QTzT5kG9iJjSviZM iQmLsIaE1SL_o3IqTiQ8IBhQpwtIdQDoGTY37mrtsWX2F7D61T E3uFr8WHdsspFVnCRELN2Eyolt4plIxtjiLU8uzd7cenW8KshJ qxL_XhZJVQ5te4zcOI4xPmoCEuEEccuoiQg10J2S3MbV7V0YUT 0D5-0L2KMc99Zp88ZwM1n6IS-hSsbmin5pOL3nyYL5Sidm9VR1djDTDRsyYpDKm11Vi7qD_G-MEjOKGZwCgwX8wM8_w9LsDLsjQMtwmIvsW1SQc4WwAQSSLY-5w9VlJ1ZK-qXtWI29QUJBT4V8l_CUXhrJjt1Z1iqf2l_rZwLkvvd5VXAnYD8 53rAc9nDIbGOX-8dn45FxoxUj2hTl6roiIAc_9QdJOsVNUfwFS1-CUSxecWrI. The results show that significant proportion of Central Thai have R YDNA haplogroup and both Central Thai and Lao Isaan also have J. I have just had a Thai professor who has confirmed that my mtdna is Tai as evident from my ethnogene results which include Zhuang and Northern Vietnamese type ancestry

jortita
05-11-2019, 10:07 AM
Thought you might find this recent research article interesting, contrasting maternal and paternal genetic histories of Thai and Lao populations, https://watermark.silverchair.com/msz083.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3Z L_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlIwggJOBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggI_MII COwIBADCCAjQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMk CKVr3ZZR-R5KoSfAgEQgIICBS9eBbkcp120op6Lg6Ll9fZO1NAzO3ISDB9U wmFIQ8RYRJcVd2tKTkex0XA7BAf7uMrqRPa1DhXOL9Vf7kKOqv rap2n5mOhwH49XXtEho5uKUeelykf1tzW62Ix15mBtf7bd84IY RUTpobJv13HD-mJkIUtNizQx2jFzSCmsduxdT5aozAQDnugP2OaKun1Bh_JlG_z mJltOwwvFPYKvALk47lcpQ1frbF3I8dEPum5L5E6jEQ0m8je9z jfOL0SzZ9f5jUVKKg2vkMI39vUw6pyqO75QTzT5kG9iJjSviZM iQmLsIaE1SL_o3IqTiQ8IBhQpwtIdQDoGTY37mrtsWX2F7D61T E3uFr8WHdsspFVnCRELN2Eyolt4plIxtjiLU8uzd7cenW8KshJ qxL_XhZJVQ5te4zcOI4xPmoCEuEEccuoiQg10J2S3MbV7V0YUT 0D5-0L2KMc99Zp88ZwM1n6IS-hSsbmin5pOL3nyYL5Sidm9VR1djDTDRsyYpDKm11Vi7qD_G-MEjOKGZwCgwX8wM8_w9LsDLsjQMtwmIvsW1SQc4WwAQSSLY-5w9VlJ1ZK-qXtWI29QUJBT4V8l_CUXhrJjt1Z1iqf2l_rZwLkvvd5VXAnYD8 53rAc9nDIbGOX-8dn45FxoxUj2hTl6roiIAc_9QdJOsVNUfwFS1-CUSxecWrI. The results show that significant proportion of Central Thai have R YDNA haplogroup and both Central Thai and Lao Isaan also have J. I have just had a Thai professor who has confirmed that my mtdna is Tai as evident from my ethnogene results which include Zhuang and Northern Vietnamese type ancestry

Sorry this is the link, https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msz083/5449617

Ebizur
05-11-2019, 03:55 PM
Sorry this is the link, https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msz083/5449617It is great to see some Y-DNA data from Thailand (plus n=40 from Laos).

It appears that the authors have found K2a*/NO*-M2346/M2313 in 1/17 Kalueng (Kaleun), a currently Southwestern Daic-speaking ethnic group of possibly Katuic or Vietic ancestry, and 1/29 Pray, a subgroup of Htin or Lua people (a Khmuic-speaking ethnic group). However, the Kalueng sample includes one individual of clearly South Asian patrilineal ancestry (1/17 H-Z5889), and the Pray sample includes one other individual of possibly South Asian (or deep Southwest Asian) ancestry (1/29 J2a1-L26).

The authors report having found G1b-L830/L835 in 16.7% (7/42) of their samples of Karen males from Northern Thailand, including 37.5% (3/8) of one sample of S'gaw Karen, 27.3% (3/11) of one sample of Pwo Karen, and 8.3% (1/12) of another sample of S'gaw Karen, but 0% (0/11) of a sample of Paduang Karen. The modal haplotype among the Argyn tribe of Kazakhs belongs to G1a. The TMRCA of G1-M342, subsuming both G1a and G1b, is currently estimated by YFull to be 18,400 (95% CI 16,700 <-> 20,200) years before present, so the Karen G1b lineage and the Kazakh G1a lineage are only very distantly related.

One of the most curious findings of this study concerns Y-DNA haplogroup N. According to Supplementary Table 2, these all belong to the N-L665 or "N1c2b2" clade, which is currently represented on the YFull tree only by two individuals from Finland (formed 2,800 [95% CI 2,100 <-> 3,600] ybp, TMRCA 1,200 [95% CI 700 <-> 1,900] ybp). This is a subclade of N-P43, which may be most well-known for the high frequency of its N-B478 subclade among Nenetses and Nganasans in arctic Western Siberia. However, according to YFull, N-L665 belongs to N-L1419, which has been found most often in northern and eastern parts of European Russia among Komis, Vepsas, Maris, northern Russians, etc. In the main article, the authors have stated, "Haplogroup O1a*, C* and D* show expansions in Ne ~2.0-2.5 kya and haplogroup N* shows a recent expansion ~1.0 kya." Such a recent growth of the effective population size would be consistent with Y-DNA haplogroup N individuals from Thailand and Laos all belonging to a single, highly derived subclade. However, I wonder whether there might have been some error and these individuals might actually belong to e.g. N-L666, whose N-Y23738 subclade has previously been observed in Vietnam.

Tsakhur
05-17-2019, 10:06 AM
Thought you might find this recent research article interesting, contrasting maternal and paternal genetic histories of Thai and Lao populations, https://watermark.silverchair.com/msz083.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3Z L_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlIwggJOBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggI_MII COwIBADCCAjQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMk CKVr3ZZR-R5KoSfAgEQgIICBS9eBbkcp120op6Lg6Ll9fZO1NAzO3ISDB9U wmFIQ8RYRJcVd2tKTkex0XA7BAf7uMrqRPa1DhXOL9Vf7kKOqv rap2n5mOhwH49XXtEho5uKUeelykf1tzW62Ix15mBtf7bd84IY RUTpobJv13HD-mJkIUtNizQx2jFzSCmsduxdT5aozAQDnugP2OaKun1Bh_JlG_z mJltOwwvFPYKvALk47lcpQ1frbF3I8dEPum5L5E6jEQ0m8je9z jfOL0SzZ9f5jUVKKg2vkMI39vUw6pyqO75QTzT5kG9iJjSviZM iQmLsIaE1SL_o3IqTiQ8IBhQpwtIdQDoGTY37mrtsWX2F7D61T E3uFr8WHdsspFVnCRELN2Eyolt4plIxtjiLU8uzd7cenW8KshJ qxL_XhZJVQ5te4zcOI4xPmoCEuEEccuoiQg10J2S3MbV7V0YUT 0D5-0L2KMc99Zp88ZwM1n6IS-hSsbmin5pOL3nyYL5Sidm9VR1djDTDRsyYpDKm11Vi7qD_G-MEjOKGZwCgwX8wM8_w9LsDLsjQMtwmIvsW1SQc4WwAQSSLY-5w9VlJ1ZK-qXtWI29QUJBT4V8l_CUXhrJjt1Z1iqf2l_rZwLkvvd5VXAnYD8 53rAc9nDIbGOX-8dn45FxoxUj2hTl6roiIAc_9QdJOsVNUfwFS1-CUSxecWrI. The results show that significant proportion of Central Thai have R YDNA haplogroup and both Central Thai and Lao Isaan also have J. I have just had a Thai professor who has confirmed that my mtdna is Tai as evident from my ethnogene results which include Zhuang and Northern Vietnamese type ancestry

Thank you. I will have a look at it.

jortita
05-25-2019, 01:31 PM
I created an anonymous gmail account not linked to my ancestry and then uploaded my ancestry DNA onto ethnogene, providing no clue of my ancestry and got results which confirmed the earlier results and are probably a little more accurate

South Asia 86.2%
Bodo Kachari 62.1% (Includes Tai Ahom, Deuri, Thengal Kachari, Dimasa Kachari, Tiprasa/Tripuri, Rabha, Tiwa and Phulgaria among others but does not include caste Hindu Indo Aryan related Brahmin and Kalita groups)
Rajbongshii 8% (Koch-Rajbongshi tribe linked to the Bodic language group)
Bengali 6.9% (Reference sample being Bangladesh)
Odisha 2.7%
Uttar Pradesh 2.6%
Rajasthani 1.6%
Nepali 1.3% (Nepalese are multi ethnic group and a result of migration from several different regions.However, they all mainly share proportions of Central Asian, East Asian, and South Asian genetic segments)
Makrani 1.0%

Southeast Asia 12.7%
Bamar 3.3% (Northern Myanmar)
Moluccan 3.1%
Vietnamese 1.8% (Northern Vietnam)
Tangsa 1.3% (Sub-group of Naga ethnic group but linked to Theravada culture presently and celebrate Poi Sangken/Songkan)
Nyishi 1.2% (One of the main tibeto-burmese ethnic groups of Arunachal Pradesh)
Miao 1.0%
Mon 1.0%

East Asia 1.1%
Zhuang 1.1%

Trace Ethnicity
Malaysian 0.92%
Bihari 0.99%
Hmong 0.93%
Yi 0.97%
Khasi 0.98%
Tibetan 0.89%
Karbi 0.94%


I would be curious to compare my results with yours as well

Censored
06-07-2019, 01:08 AM
IMO the simulations have issues when they're used on the groups that were referenced to create them. The Munda groups get over 60% simulated AA which seems excessive. And Paniya get well over 88% AASI when I think it's known they're at least 20% Iran_N-like.

poi
06-07-2019, 05:40 AM
IMO the simulations have issues when they're used on the groups that were referenced to create them. The Munda groups get over 60% simulated AA which seems excessive. And Paniya get well over 88% AASI when I think it's known they're at least 20% Iran_N-like.

Could you post the models used?

Regarding Mundas being high AA, it makes sense considering they are AA speakers..

Censored
06-07-2019, 09:57 PM
Could you post the models used?

Regarding Mundas being high AA, it makes sense considering they are AA speakers..

"sample": "Irula:Average",
"fit": 3.2187,
"Simulated_AASI": 70,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 30,

"sample": "Paniya:Average",
"fit": 3.3144,
"Simulated_AASI": 77.5,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 22.5,

This is stimulated AASI by Matt, and it goes in line perfectly with what we know. The paniya are said to be 20-25% Ganj Dareh meanwhile the Irula are 30%, that's also indicated by the Narasimhan paper where they are 40% Indus diaspora hence 30% Iran_N. Now try using the DMX simulation:

sample": "Irula:Average",
"fit": 1.4628,
"Simulated_AASI_South_by_DMXX": 70,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 21.67,
"Simulated_AASI_NW_by_DMXX": 8.33,

"sample": "Paniya:Average",
"fit": 1.8305,
"Simulated_AASI_South_by_DMXX": 78.33,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 14.17,
"Simulated_AASI_NW_by_DMXX": 7.5,
"closestDistances": [

Ganj Dareh is noticeably lower for both.

For Austro-asiatics, first penalty then no penalty:
30847

30848

I have a hard time believing that Bonda/Juang etc. are that high AA. As we know their mtDNA is fully south Asian, for them to be over 70% austro-asiatic then the AA males would have had to somehow outnumber the females 3:1 which is unlikely.

I tried to make another model consisting of the least-west Eurasian shifted Paniya(I think 17) and then southeast asian groups. This was the highest SE-Asian I could get them to and that's using Jehai which are negritos and they still appear majority South Asian. I don't know how much negrito ancestry Austro-Asiatics had, but if it was a lot, I can potentially see why things may seem a bit "off" in these models as it's a closely related component to AASI.

30849

DMXX
06-07-2019, 10:24 PM
We don't have any clarity regarding how Matt created his simulations, nor do we know which samples were used for them. I've posed the question at least three times in this thread without receiving an answer.

Given the apparent unknown quantity that is Matt's sim, it doesn't seem sensible to construct inferences or interpretations of the outputs based on the derivatives.



This is stimulated AASI by Matt, and it goes in line perfectly with what we know. The paniya are said to be 20-25% Ganj Dareh meanwhile the Irula are 30%, that's also indicated by the Narasimhan paper where they are 40% Indus diaspora hence 30% Iran_N. Now try using the DMX simulation:


That isn't correct. SiSBA3 is 51-52% Iran_N per Narasimhan's qpAdm output (line 3886). (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/03/31/292581.DC1/292581-1.pdf)* The Irula are 40.1% Indus periphery-derived according to their qpAdm's on moderns (supplementary spreadsheet). Ergo, the Irula are approximately 20% Iran_N according to Narasimhan's primary data.

That's (near exactly) what your run with my simulations show.

The "Paniya = 20% Iran_N Irula = 30% Iran_N" idea is, I believe, an inference based on Davidski's work prior to Narasimhan's pre-print being made available online. It'll prove difficult knowledge base-wise in the long term in these discussions if proportions from outdated models are presented as current.



I have a hard time believing that Bonda/Juang etc. are that high AA.


Frankly, all anyone has on the relationship between the "pre-AASI" autochthonous HG's of the Subcontinent and the early speakers of AA is belief. We lack the data and the framework to begin forwarding any proposals on that.

For all you know, the "early AA" simulation I constructed could be correct in a South Asian context, but might contain 20-30% (random range) of cryptic AASI-related admixture that's sufficiently drifted from either of the AASI simulations I used to cleave off as much of the additional AASI as possible. That would explain the disparity between your models and the uniparentals somewhat. We just don't know.

* They didn't include Anatolia_N for SiSBA2 or 3, but did for SiSBA1, so the real value might be less than that, given SiSBA1 is 12-20% Anatolia_N and their models for SiSBA2 or 3 lack any other BE-rich sources outside of Ganj_Dareh. Strange move.

Censored
06-07-2019, 10:52 PM
We don't have any clarity regarding how Matt created his simulations, nor do we know which samples were used for them. I've posed the question at least three times in this thread without receiving an answer.

Given the apparent unknown quantity that is Matt's sim, it doesn't seem sensible to construct inferences or interpretations of the outputs based on the derivatives.



That isn't correct. SiSBA3 is 51-52% Iran_N per Narasimhan's qpAdm output (line 3886). (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/03/31/292581.DC1/292581-1.pdf)* The Irula are 40.1% Indus periphery-derived according to their qpAdm's on moderns (supplementary spreadsheet). Ergo, the Irula are approximately 20% Iran_N according to Narasimhan's primary data.

That's (near exactly) what your run with my simulations show.

The "Paniya = 20% Iran_N Irula = 30% Iran_N" idea is, I believe, an inference based on Davidski's work prior to Narasimhan's pre-print being made available online. It'll prove difficult knowledge base-wise in the long term in these discussions if proportions from outdated models are presented as current.



Frankly, all anyone has on the relationship between the "pre-AASI" autochthonous HG's of the Subcontinent and the early speakers of AA is belief. We lack the data and the framework to begin forwarding any proposals on that.

For all you know, the "early AA" simulation I constructed could be correct in a South Asian context, but might contain 20-30% (random range) of cryptic AASI-related admixture that's sufficiently drifted from either of the AASI simulations I used to cleave off as much of the additional AASI as possible. That would explain the disparity between your models and the uniparentals somewhat. We just don't know.

* They didn't include Anatolia_N for SiSBA2 or 3, but did for SiSBA1, so the real value might be less than that, given SiSBA1 is 12-20% Anatolia_N and their models for SiSBA2 or 3 lack any other BE-rich sources outside of Ganj_Dareh. Strange move.

Isn't IVCp the average of SIS2 and SIS3? There's an IVCp sample on nmonte which appears to be in between the two, and also this text from the paper may indicate it:

"The following two samples have significant amounts of South Asian HG related admixture,
2059 and we call these samples part of the Indus_Periphery genetic grouping"

referring to SIS2 and 3.

The average of these would have roughly 25% AASI, the rest being mostly Iran_N.

Edit: aight here we go-
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13910-South-Asian-PCA-based-on-the-latest-2018-South-Central-Asian-paper&p=373633&viewfull=1#post373633

DMXX
06-08-2019, 02:20 AM
Isn't IVCp the average of SIS2 and SIS3? There's an IVCp sample on nmonte which appears to be in between the two, and also this text from the paper may indicate it:

"The following two samples have significant amounts of South Asian HG related admixture,
2059 and we call these samples part of the Indus_Periphery genetic grouping"

referring to SIS2 and 3.

The average of these would have roughly 25% AASI, the rest being mostly Iran_N.

Edit: aight here we go-
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13910-South-Asian-PCA-based-on-the-latest-2018-South-Central-Asian-paper&p=373633&viewfull=1#post373633

Right you are - However, I haven't found a clear indication in the paper that they used both samples in their basic qpAdm model. Perhaps I overlooked it? Did you see anything regarding how they treated IVCp in their model?

Chad Rohlfsen
06-08-2019, 03:05 AM
There were, I believe, three samples they used for IVCp. Look in the Excel datasheet for labelling info.

Censored
06-08-2019, 03:18 AM
Right you are - However, I haven't found a clear indication in the paper that they used both samples in their basic qpAdm model. Perhaps I overlooked it? Did you see anything regarding how they treated IVCp in their model?

Well, no, I haven't been able to find a direct quote from the paper itself but others who've read it have basically said the same thing I have. And the thing is that if they're using strictly SIS3+Onge+Sintashta to model south Asians, it's going to result in a poor fit for a lot of South Asians particularly those originating in the northwest because that's too much AASI and not enough Iran_N. Kalash alone have similar levels of Iran_N compared to SIS3 and way less AASI.

IVCp apparently was described as being a straight mix of Iranian farmer and AASI ancestry:

"In fact, it was certainly the case that the peoples of the Indus Valley were genetically
297 heterogeneous as we observe one of the Indus_Periphery individuals having ~42% AASI
298 ancestry and the other two individuals having ~14-18% AASI ancestry (but always mixes of the
299 same two proximal sources of AASI and Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry)."

There were 4 total SIS samples, 2 of which belonged to SIS1. So perhaps they've used 3 of the 4? It's quite confusing

parasar
06-09-2019, 05:01 PM
Right you are - However, I haven't found a clear indication in the paper that they used both samples in their basic qpAdm model. Perhaps I overlooked it? Did you see anything regarding how they treated IVCp in their model?

"Indus_Periphery sample (a pool of three outlier individuals from the BMAC site of Gonur and from Shahr-i-Sokhta)"


"Gonur2_BA This sample has significant amounts of South Asian HG related ancestry and is part of a genetic grouping we call Indus_Periphery"

"The following two samples have significant amounts of South Asian HG related admixture, and we call these samples part of the Indus_Periphery genetic grouping.
... Shahr-i-Soktha_MLBA2 ... Shahr-i-Soktha_MLBA3"

For each Indian Cline group X, we estimated the vector of coefficients under qpAdm:
c(X) = (cS(X), cI(X), cA(X)) (4.1)
where cj(X) are admixture coefficients for S=Steppe-related (Steppe_MLBA), I=Iranian
agriculturalist-related (Indus_Periphery), and A=South Asian hunter-gatherer (AASI)-related (Onge).
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2018/03/31/292581.DC1/292581-1.pdf

DMXX
06-09-2019, 05:18 PM
You guys are right, and that's been my interpretation since reading the paper when the pre-print first came out.

The question I'm posing is with respect to the qpAdm three pop model they feature - What is being used for their IVCp ref pop? Are they using SiSBA2? SiSBA3? Both (somehow)?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere (a comment in this forum perhaps) suggesting they used SiSBA3. That made sense prima facie, given SiSBA3 is the most AASI-shifted sample we currently have. Didn't double-check the statement concerning that and assumed it was true, but now I can't find any obvious statement in the paper regarding this, now that Censored's given me/us a valid reason to doubt that assumption is true.

pegasus
06-09-2019, 09:07 PM
You guys are right, and that's been my interpretation since reading the paper when the pre-print first came out.

The question I'm posing is with respect to the qpAdm three pop model they feature - What is being used for their IVCp ref pop? Are they using SiSBA2? SiSBA3? Both (somehow)?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere (a comment in this forum perhaps) suggesting they used SiSBA3. That made sense prima facie, given SiSBA3 is the most AASI-shifted sample we currently have. Didn't double-check the statement concerning that and assumed it was true, but now I can't find any obvious statement in the paper regarding this, now that Censored's given me/us a valid reason to doubt that assumption is true.

Its a trio of SIS2, SIS3 and Gonur2, I told poi to simulate the averages on G25, it essentially is 70% Iran_N related/30% AASI, their criteria for Iran_N is a more Hotu/Sarazm version so it includes WSHG/AG3 like ancestry, there is 13 of them now, most are still from Shahr I Shokta and they are very likely coming from Balochistan/Sind and I don't think the main cluster is ancestral for most Indian populations they are way too Iran_N shifted, Gangetic and Insular Indians need a more tribal shifted base that is very evident from the figure below. In the new figures they are more broad , Steppe MLBA is now just Steppe (include Dali or WSHG sources I am assuming) and Iran_N is now Iran related source, its a smart way of not admitting error but fixing it at the same time. Rather the 2 outliers are most ancestral and likely coming from further east.

I wish they included the Daamgard samples so the "ANI" side would be filled up .


https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/62625707_415345602406036_2337171729031364608_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=105&_nc_oc=AQntcXhn6qzz7oxORC8E0Tv2USvT6zZ4wLh0jAGX3-t9wxYsRO1_bvZzu-IUHwY3Jwg&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=ad8d657de1644a6440a0febb680381e3&oe=5D94BF30

okarinaofsteiner
07-29-2019, 06:32 AM
I modeled a few Southeast Asians using a few Subcontinental-heavy models:

Here, I picked a few Steppe-rich inner South Asians like various Brahmin pops + No/Less-Steppe SouthAsians like Chamar and Velamas + Onge + Southern Chinese + Papuan:

https://i.imgur.com/IMOjh96r.png

The model is pretty good for Thai and Vietnam, but very bad for Burmese and Cambodian. In this model, we're could be missing more western-type of East Asian necessary.

So, let's add the ancient Nepal Chokhopani sample from ~750BCE:

https://i.imgur.com/yRo1R4Pr.png

Note how adding the ancient Chokhopani brings the Burmese down to a good fit, but does not change Cambodian. Furthermore, Chokhopani helps improve Vietnam.

Basically, Vietnam is entirely East Asian with Southern Chinese mixed with a bit of Western Chinese (proxied by Chokhopani).
Cambodian probably need more SEAsian farmers rather than straight up Onge.

Here, added DMXX's simulated AA... things are even better for Burmese, Thai, and Vietnam, plus Cambodian fit distance also goes down.

https://i.imgur.com/chQXXfpr.png

Note how Nepali Brahmins are preferred over other South Asians, for Burnese and Thai, when we add the simulated AA? No Chamar, no Velamas, and not even Gangetic Brahmins. Strange right? Does that model makes sense? Just 4 references needed to model 3 out of 4 SE Asian groups. Re-running the model again by removing all those references scoring zero.

https://i.imgur.com/pqJzLE5r.png

Thoughts?

Alright, replaced Nepal Brahmins with Rors. Things get even better for Burmese and Thais

https://i.imgur.com/9F3c7LYr.png

Basically, Ror-like pops brought along IndoAryan to Burmese and Thais. I'm curious to see if that holds up for more southern pops like Malays and Indonesians.


I wonder if the Nepali Brahmin sample is slightly East Eurasian ("Mongoloid") admixed, since that would explain why it's a better fit for the S_Asian ancestry of those groups.

Khmers having less actual South Asian ancestry but more "para-AASI"/Hoabinhian (Razib Khan's "Ancestral SE Asian") makes sense.

shazou
09-09-2019, 09:48 AM
How would you interpret this 6.7% South Asian percentage I get on the LivingDNA.com test as a filipino?:

https://i.imgur.com/LWkV1FW.jpg

okarinaofsteiner
09-13-2019, 05:20 AM
How would you interpret this 6.7% South Asian percentage I get on the LivingDNA.com test as a filipino?:

https://i.imgur.com/LWkV1FW.jpg

I have your MyHeritage results in my private GEDmatch dataset. You scored 0.51% "South_Central_Asian" and 3.21% "South_Indian" in MDLP K23b, so you have some genuine South Asian ancestry. You also scored another ~2% West Eurasian, which could just as easily be Spanish as it could be Indian.

Nibelung
09-13-2019, 06:19 AM
I should like to point out that EST IA 0LS10_1 can be modeled with a full quarter Sintashta, so some trace Uralic ancestry could perhaps in the right combinations masquerade as South Asian in Europe :)

fit 2.5334 pen=0

Estonia BA 52.5
Sintashta MLBA 25
Corded Ware Baltic 16.67
Nganassan 4.17
Shamanka N 1.67

shazou
09-16-2019, 04:59 PM
I have your MyHeritage results in my private GEDmatch dataset. You scored 0.51% "South_Central_Asian" and 3.21% "South_Indian" in MDLP K23b, so you have some genuine South Asian ancestry. You also scored another ~2% West Eurasian, which could just as easily be Spanish as it could be Indian.
my mother scored like 2.7% south asian on the recent 23andme BETA v5.2 update (she is of full tagalog ethnicity(50% from nueva ecija & 50% from bulacan region):

https://i.imgur.com/19Rl3zM.jpg

Dizos9
09-30-2019, 03:09 AM
@shazou is that south Asian percentage normal for a Filipino? I am wondering if that's ancient dna or if it could be from a recent admixture

shazou
09-30-2019, 09:36 PM
@shazou is that south Asian percentage normal for a Filipino? I am wondering if that's ancient dna or if it could be from a recent admixture
I read that it's a pretty normal occurence actually, though from the 23andme results/samples I've seen..my mother's South Asian percentage is a lil above average (on gedmatch though most filipinos score some south asian which i guess could either be proto-austronesian and/or actual recent south asian ancestry etc).

from wikipedia:


History
Ancient history
See also: Hinduism in the Philippines, Religion in pre-colonial Philippines, Indosphere, Indianisation, and List of India-related topics in the Philippines

India had greatly influenced the many different cultures of the Philippines through the Indianized kingdom of the Hindu Majapahit, and the Buddhist Srivijaya. For at least two millennia before the arrival of the Spanish, Philippines was ruled by Hindu kings called Rajahs and Pramukhas. Numerous kings with written genealogies and Sanskrit names were found by Spanish warlords and friars.[8] Indian presence in the Philippines has been ongoing since ancient times along with the Japanese people, and the Han Chinese, and Arab and Persian traders, predating even the coming of the Europeans by at least two millennium. Indian people together with the natives of the Indonesian Archipelago and the Malay Peninsula, who came as traders introduced Hinduism to the natives of the Philippines. Indian migrants have been crucial in the establishment of several Indianized Kingdoms or "Rajahnates" in the Philippines, Rajahates such as that of Butuan and Cebu. Indian Bania converts to Islam brought Sunni Islam to the Philippine islands in the course of trade, which was later enhanced and strengthened by Arab Muslim Sea traders to Mindanao and Sulu Sultanate.[9]

By the 17th century, Gujarati merchants with the aid of Khoja and Bohri ship-owners had developed an international transoceanic empire which had a network of agents stationed at the great port cities across the Indian Ocean. These networks extended to the Philippines in the east, East Africa in the west, and via maritime and the inland caravan route to Russia in the north.[10]
Colonial Period

Sepoy troops from Madras (now Chennai, Tamil Nadu), British India also arrived with the British expedition and occupation between 1762 and 1764 during the Seven Years' War. When the British withdrew, many of the Sepoys (Army privates) mutinied and refused to leave. Virtually all had taken native brides (or soon did so). They settled in what is Cainta, in what was then the Province of Manila (currently part of Rizal Province).[11] As of 2006, between 70 and 75 percent of Indians in the Philippines lived in Metro Manila, with the largest community outside of Manila being in Isabela province.[12] The region in and around Cainta still has many Sepoy descendants.

However, Indian business people started to arrive in larger numbers in The Philippines during the American colonial period (1898–1930s) - especially during the 1930s and 1940s, when many Indians and Indian Filipinos lived in Filipino provinces, including Davao. The longest serving Mayor of Manila, Ramon Bagatsing, was of Indian-Punjabi descent, having moved to Manila from Fabrica, Negros Occidental before the second world war.

A second surge of Indian businessmen, especially Sindhis arrived in Philippines during the 1947 India-Pakistan partition.[13]
Present

Most of the Indians and Indian Filipinos in the Philippines are Sindhi and Punjabi as well as a large Tamil population. Many are fluent in Tagalog and English as well as local languages of the provinces and islands. Many are prosperous middle class with their main occupations in clothing sales and marketing. Sikhs are involved largely in finance, money lending (locally called Five - six[14] ), sales and marketing.

Over the last three decades, a large number of civil servants and highly educated Indians working in large banks, Asian Development Bank and the BPO sector have migrated to Philippines, especially Manila.[15] Most of the Indian Filipinos and Indian expatriates are Hindu, Sikh or Muslims, but have assimilated into Filipino culture. The community regularly conducts philanthropic activities through bodies such as the Mahaveer foundation, The SEVA foundation[16] and the Sathya Sai organization.[17]

Most Indians congregate for socio-cultural and religious activities at the Hindu Temple (Mahatma Gandhi Street, Paco, Manila), the Indian Sikh Temple (United Nations Avenue, Paco, Manila), and the Radha Soami Satsang Beas center (Alabang, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila). The late "priest" (scripture reader in Sindhi and Gurumukhi) of the Hindu Temple, Giani Joginder Singh Sethi, was active in interfaith affairs, accepted visits by school students, and organised the first major translation of Guru Nanak's Jap Ji into Filipino (Tagalog), translated by Usha Ramchandani and edited by Samuel Salter (published 2001).

Many Indians have intermarried with Filipinos, more so than in neighboring countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, mainly because their populations are largely Muslim, and the Indians there (with the exception of Indian-Muslims) are averse to marrying Muslims in those host countries.[18]

Indian Filipino companies with the largest work force include Indo Phil Textile (1,800 employees), Global Steel (950 employees and 8,000 in Iligan), Hinduja Global (3,500 workers) and Aegis People Support (over 12,000).[19]

Lots of Indian students mainly from southern part of India are studying in various parts of Philippines notably in Davao, where more than 5000 Indian students are currently doing their MD program from Davao Medical School Foundation.Other cities like Manila, Cebu, Legazpi also have considerable number of Indian students.


here's a prominent study: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201660

some quotes:


We detected a minor South Asian component in our ADMIXTURE analyses in MSEA and ISEA populations (green k4, Figure 1a, Supplementary Figure S2; green, Supplementary Figure S3B), which was further confirmed by f3, f4 and ALDER results and dated to have entered SEA from 2.4kya (Table 1). Although this component is more widespread at lower Ks (Figure 1b, Supplementary Figure S2), at the best K=9 (Figure 1a), the evidence is strongest for the Burmese and the Malay and somewhat weaker for Bajo and Filipinos, where it is limited to the f-statistics (Table 1, Supplementary Table S4). It is important to explore how these results relate to the linguistic and archaeological evidences, attesting a continuous presence of South Asian cultures in Southeast Asia since 2.5 kya.12, 17, 50, 51 This should be performed keeping in mind that in the majority of SEA populations, the Indian component is absent or below the scale of a potential error and detectability. First, it is most likely that the ‘carriers’ of South Asian culture were traders, artisans50 and at a later date, religious scholars (Brahmins) who were influential as advisers to Southeast Asian rulers. Some of these might have been locals educated in India who brought home Sanskrit texts and Brahmanic rituals.52 Therefore, this rather small group would not have left a major genetic signature. Second, the epigraphic record and evidence from monumental archaeology during the late first millennium CE attests that the Indian presence is biased towards courts and generally higher social strata, which can lead us to overestimate the impact on the majority of the population.52 More generally speaking, there are a wide range of scenarios relating to the spread of cultural elements and gene flow and the patterns of this relationship are highly complex to model (cf. the example of the Neolithization in Europe53). Therefore, with the exception of the Burmese, who are also geographically very close to the Indian subcontinent, the evidence points to rather minor Indian gene flow, in contrast to the documented cultural influence which, however, overlaps with the admixture range dated with ALDER (Table 1). This low South Asian gene flow was, however, also detected in some other populations across ISEA.2, 19, 20, 21, 22 Taken together, these findings suggest Southeast Asia as a potential waypoint for the reported South Asian migration into Australasia, which was disputed by the authors who proposed this migration event.23 However, the date obtained using ALDER (2.4 kya) is at least 1500 years posterior to the reported South Indian migration into Australasia.23 A preliminary conclusion would envisage the SEA and Australasia migrations as two separate events. Besides the fact that the dating methods were different in our case and Pugach et al.23 (they used a method based on wavelet transform analysis), at least two caveats can be brought up to reconcile this fragmented scenario. Given the evidence presented here, it seems reasonable to assume a constant gene flow from South Asia into SEA via land, with Australasia being only a sporadic end point. In this case, the 4 kya estimate provided by Pugach and colleagues would be a point estimate of the sparse arrival into Australasia, while our ALDER estimate should be interpreted as the midpoint37 of such a flow between 4 kya and more recent times. Second, given the surprising concordance of linguistic and archaeological evidences for a South Asian presence in SEA around 2.5 kya, one could imagine a particularly intense corresponding gene flow during that time further biasing the ALDER estimate toward this period.

discreetmaverick
11-24-2020, 05:42 PM
I just modeled the Thai average using Poi's nmonte runner.

The model below shows the Indian mixture in Thai. You can see that there is preference for Velama (a mid caste community from Andhra), in contrast to the Dharkar, (an artisan community from Uttar Pradesh). This represents the fact that the transmission of Indian/Hindu culture, and especially genetic influence into South-east Asia was mainly through South India. The Tamil Cholas, especially had a very big impact, as well as Sinhalese later during the Buddhist age culturally. This is reflected in the region's scripts, motifs and architecture. Though a very big North Indian was also obviously felt through spread of Buddhism during the Mauryan empire, but the region was already Hindu prior to this and there was no migration or genetic change.

"sample": "Thai:Average",
"fit": 2.1747,
"Dai": 78.33,
"LAO_Hoabinhian": 12.5,
"Velamas": 8.33,
"Dharkar": 0.83




Script

here is the spread of the script, spread from AP to Sri Lanka and South East Asia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmic_scripts#/media/File:Language_travel_from_India.png

Ashoka Buddisht missions

This the map of Buddhist missions sent by Ashoka

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajyav%C4%81da#/media/File:Asoka%CC%A0_Buddhist_Missions.png

It looks like the mission reached the same or close to the same place in AP from where the script reached Sri Lanka.

Doctrine


Tambapaṇṇiya (Skt. Tamraparṇiyas, later known as Mahāvihāravāsins and Theravada), established in Sri Lanka (at Anuradhapura) but active also in Andhra and other parts of South India (Vanavasa in modern Karnataka) and later across South-East Asia. Inscriptional evidence has been found in Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajyav%C4%81da


Could script and doctrine went together from Andra to Southeast Asia? as Tambapaṇṇiya was active in Andhra as well

Or

Script or doctrine reached separately, if separately what doctrine was brought by those who took the script to South East Asia?