Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 85

Thread: South Asian PCA based on the latest 2018 South/Central Asian paper

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    283
    Sex

    Greece
    You can ignore what I say but according to the Greek sources (based on myths that may or may not have been based on actual events) there were two movements to 'India' (the region around Indus, therefore basically mostly around Pakistan), one older associated with Dionysus [who has Thracian & Phrygian (Brigian) connections] and the spread of agriculture according to the story, the other associated to 'Egyptian Heracles'. I will leave the first aside. Concerning the second the following is interesting:

    All from Udegram_IA in Swat valley

    7725.E1.L1.........M65a1.........E1b1b1b2......... 831-796 calBCE
    S8191.E1.L1.......T2a1b..........E1b1b1b2......... 894-798 calBCE
    S8195.E1.L1.......U8b1a2b......E1b1b1b2.........89 5-801 calBCE
    S8194.E1.L1.......R30a1b........H1a1a............. .900-800 BCE
    I3261...................................DE........ ...........921-831 calBCE
    I1992.................H2a2...........E1a.......... .......921-831 calBCE
    I6899...................................E1b1b1b2.. .......921-831 calBCE
    I6900...................................E1b1b1b2.. .......927-831 calBCE
    I1985.................M................E1b1b1b2a.. .....968-833 calBCE
    I3262................ H14a...........E1b1b1b2a........974-836 calBCE
    I6197.................M65a...........A0-T.................974-836 calBCE
    I1799.................T2a1b..........E1b1b1b2..... ....992-830 calBCE

    What is the genetic profile of those samples?

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Kanenas For This Useful Post:

     Jatt1 (01-13-2019),  jesus (04-02-2018),  khanabadoshi (04-02-2018),  parasar (04-28-2018)

  3. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,494
    Sex
    Location
    Punjab Zindabad!!!
    Ethnicity
    Punjabi Jatt Sikh
    Nationality
    American & Canadian
    Y-DNA
    L1a2a1 / L1a1
    mtDNA
    HV2a3 / R0

    United States of America California Republic Canada India Punjab Sikh Empire Nishan Sahib
    Quote Originally Posted by khanabadoshi View Post
    Everyone read page 96 of the supplementary...

    A very interesting list of groups considered fringe South Asians, Balochi and Brahui in this list. Implications are interesting.
    An even more interesting list of 7 populations excluded due to statistically significant African ancestry... in this list Sindhis, Gujjars, and Kamboj are found...
    This makes no sense. Most of the HGDP Sindhis have no African ancestry. In fact, only 2 samples have notable West African admixture in the 8-10% range (likely from Siddis or Makrani) and two have minor W African admixture (2-4%). As for Gujjars and Kamboj, they shouldn't be scoring any African admixture based on geography but even then, outliers could have been thrown out. My guess is they didn't have enough Gujjar and Kamboj samples to do so?

    http://www.harappadna.org/2013/07/gu...rld-admixture/

    They didn't bother addressing any population that doesn't help their cline. ie. the hard ones. It's a cop out to not model Baloch, Brahui, Makrani -- as how you model each of them them shows your theory of the ethnogenesis of the region in numbers and not words. Massive cop out for not modeling Sindhi. Seriously.
    Bengali is too East Eurasian to consider in the South Asian cluster... !!!!
    Yeah, for Sindhis, they had a very weak excuse. They could have just tossed 4 of the HGDP Sindhi samples if necessary. As for the Baloch, Brahui and Makrani, they could have removed the ones with African admixture. I guess the issue was they couldn't be modeled properly with Indus diaspora (Indus periphery) due to low levels of AASI admixture nor with Steppe MLBA due to very low Steppe levels. Well, if that's the case, why not model them with just Iran N, Steppe MLBA and AASI (ie without using Indus Periphery) and put it in the supplementary data? Perhaps, add another ancient West Asian population if necessary to make them fit?

    Furthermore, I'm getting the impression that the suggestion that certain populations are fringe populations (like Baloch), the authors are implying that their Iran N is independent/not-related to to Iran N/AASI story for the rest of South Asia as mediated via Indus-periphery.
    By not including these populations in the model and saying they are atypical, it seems to me they are passively proposing that they are not necessary to explain the ethnogenesis of the region. ie. they are later arrivals, and they are not the source of Iran N, nor received Iran N from the Indus-periphery.
    Exactly, I'm not sure what implications are meant to be drawn from the lack of not including the Baloch, Brahui and Makrani. For years, we thought their data was crucial to the understanding of ancient South Asian ancestral populations.

    I haven't read the entire paper in detail at all. Just skimmed through, because what stood out to me IMMEDIATELY were plots with no Iranian population, no Baloch, no Sindhi, no Tajik, no Bengali.
    Magically, on academic papers they decided to make a Jatt Sikh group and a Chaudhary ethnic group!? I highly doubt that idea occurred in a vacuum.... I think the South Asian community on AG's collective efforts to sort things out may have been absorbed via osmosis.
    I'm still wondering where they got the autosomal data for 41 Jatt Sikh samples. There wasn't a single academic paper that included their autosomal data to my knowledge. The 2017 Mahal paper was focused only on Y-DNA as far as I'm aware. I didn't realize they had the autosomal data available. Regardless, that begs the question why they had so many Jatt Sikh samples (41) and so little of others such as Punjabi Khatri (3) and Gujarati Lohana (2) or even Gujarati A (4). Especially, considering the Gujarati A data has more than 4 samples available.

    Kalash, Pathan, Khatri and Lohana at one end of the spectrum and Pulliyar at the other, and Chamar... another.....? I don't even know how to frame it. They cut out the populations we use to bound everyone between.
    Of course the Brahmin groups will stand out with significant Steppe ancestry, the analysis didn't include the majority of ethnic groups that live between the Brahmins and the Pashtun and Kalash.... except the Jatt Sikh.
    Well, I guess they did include the Punjabi Khatris and Gujarati Lohana (proxy for Hindu Sindhis and Sindhi Lohana?).

    They basically define South Asia as 2 populations from Pakistan + India. They excluded the rest of Pakistan, south of the northwestern corner of KPK and Northeastern Punjab as fringe and atypical. In India they exclude all of Bengal and AAs, and additionally, they don't consider Bangladesh.
    My guess is the Burusho were excluded due to their East Asian admixture as well? Otherwise, they're quite similar to the HGDP Pathan and Kalash. Only explanation I could think of.

    Somehow the Kalash fit perfectly, but Burusho are too "W Eurasian" to consider -- Chaudhary is a real ethnicity on the plot, and there are no other populations in Northern Pakistan that exist to plot.
    Yeah, some of the sample naming mechanisms and labeling leaves a lot to be desired.
    Last edited by Sapporo; 04-02-2018 at 11:51 AM.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Sapporo For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-02-2018),  khanabadoshi (04-02-2018),  pnb123 (04-03-2018),  poi (04-02-2018),  redifflal (04-02-2018),  Reza (04-02-2018)

  5. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    251

    Quote Originally Posted by poi View Post
    Here is my summary wrt the South Asians.

    Basically, we were expecting the Swat valley samples to be rich in Steppe and full of R1a, i.e. the Indo Aryan signal. Well, it turn out that the samples examined in this batch are less Steppe than the modern populations and have no R1a before 300BCE. Not the exclamation mark on the mass Aryan invasion that was supposed to turn the subcontinent upside down. Oh well.

    It could very well be the case where they will not be finding mass R1a even if R1a did indeed turn out to be the patrilineal Aryans. If the Aryans were cremating their dead, good luck with aDNA. Sigh.

    Hopefully we will know more about the Rakhigarhi samples soon.
    I agree except point out that it appears that the consensus from Indology is that there was an Indo-Aryan migration not an ultra-violent Indo-Aryan invasion, though both may overlap to a certain extent (for that matter, the movement of Iranian agriculturalists into India is an invasion, the movement of Austroasiatic languages into India is an invasion, the movement of Dravidian languages to India/south India is an invasion, everything can be said to be an invasion). The interpretation of Rigveda and other texts leads the Indologists to that conclusion, I believe.

    The R1a mystery is not yet clarified and perhaps is really going to be a bit difficult, as you say, because of potential cremation of many R1as and other stuff; in case the R1a truly came with later known steppe groups like Kushans, etc., it has had such dramatic effect over all of India though; and if the major steppe ancestry was also accompanied by these R1a bearing later Iranian-speaking groups, as opposed to the conclusions of the paper that the Swat Valley samples can be truly modeled as true Steppe_MLBA (the putative Indo-Aryans being pre-Scythian and post-Yamna, etc.) plus others, then it again has to be noted how massive of an effect these Iranian-speaking groups had on India culturally, and the elevated steppe ancestry in Brahmins should be explained as because of admixture between the Indian elite and the new Iranian elite.

    It is all messy to me right now regarding the extent to which the paper's results go towards conclusively showing an Indo-Aryan migration into India. While the first movement towards that can be thought of as happened, it is definitely not conclusive in my opinion and it is much more helpful if they get aDNA from Cemetery H, etc. etc. (corresponding to the time the Indo-Aryans also likely buried their people) to document this more clearly. Till then, the Indus people can continue to be very well be Indo-Aryans (not to the people believing in academic consensus but for opposers of the consensus) though funnily or not, the Out-of-India theory for Indo-European languages is pretty much completely ruled out because the Iranian agriculturalists most likely moved into India from some place some where not the other way around.

    According to me though, as I share the view of the consensus more or less (I came to doubt it a while ago but it seems I was mistaken and the consensus is after all basically correct it appears), the absence of Steppe-related ancestry in the Indus diaspora (who were really very likely to be true Indus diaspora according to me), which according to me correlates with Indo-European languages, seems to imply that Indo-Aryan came to India after IVC or at the end of it, not at the beginning of it or a while before it (their steppe signal could have vanished by the time of the diaspora though, I can't evaluate how likely this possibility is).

    Overall for me personally, this paper is not about Indo-Aryan migrations at all (just the first step towards showing that) but about the proof of the presence of Ancient Ancestral "South" Indian ancestry in the ancient Indus diaspora individuals who died in Eastern Iran and BMAC. This tiny little diaspora group will always be held dear by me and I will be extremely disappointed if it turns out that these three folks did not have anything to do with the Indus tradition.

    And forgot to add, the details of Dravidian invasion (why should only Indo-Aryans have all the fun? lol) into south India (or the lack thereof? This possibility quite unlikely in my view though) are also nowhere near clear with this research, just like the details of Indo-Aryan migration. For that to be known somewhat more conclusively, aDNA from pre-Southern Neolithic, Ashmound phase of the Southern Neolithic, and later phases of the same Neolithic have to be obtained and analysed. But some strange (only to me?) things seem to be implied by their modeling of Malayalam-languages-speaking tribal groups of Kerala as having almost pure ASI without later mixture and they having that admixture at such ancient time frame as 1700 BC. The reasons are as follows:

    1. The ancestor of what is now Malayalam was the west coast dialect of Old Tamil the crystallisation of which cannot be put earlier than at most 5th or 6th century BC. And these seemingly-relic groups since ancient times but still showing admixture between Indus_Periphery and AASI all speak Malayalam languages and not any divergent Dravidian language.

    A somewhat parsimonious view to me, or so it was, I thought, was that they shifted language to Dravidian very recently like after Pre-Tamil people migrated to Kerala sometime in the second half of the first millennium BC. And thus they should have mostly AASI ancestry (going by the assumption that Dravidian languages were more likely to have been connected to Iranian agriculturalists or Indus_Periphery than to AASI of the south) and low Iranian agriculturalist related and any little admixture should be dated to very late at the second half of first millennium BC. In the paper they do have the lower bound for Indus_periphery and AASI admixture at 400 BC which makes sense for this view (though it is very difficult to believe that a pure Indus_Periphery-like population existed till that later point in time) but going by their 1700 BC number, I can see the following implications:

    1. That basically the same thing as what I described earlier happened and the ancestors of Ulladan, etc. got their Indus_Periphery at the one admixture event they got their new language also. This means that Malayalam was existent at 1700 BC. Which is completely absurd.

    2. All these folks Ulladan, Malayan, etc. in fact became foragers recently and were part of the mainstream west coast society till recently, perhaps with a lower social status. It is problematic why they did not have much of a later ANI admixture though. They say that they do have some minor ANI in the paper, so that may be correct.

    3. A possible interesting implication may be that Indus_Periphery-type ancestry was in fact not responsible for the dispersal of Dravidian languages as we know them or that it dispersed some older Dravidian languages which were replaced later by the powerful South Dravidian dialect Pre-Tamil in the Kerala region. If Dravidian languages were AASI-of-south-related, then again, this implies that more powerful dialects possibly replaced older Dravidian languages routinely, layer over layer.

    I may have missed some other relevant possibilities, please suggest them to me if you have some in mind.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to anthroin For This Useful Post:

     khanabadoshi (04-02-2018),  poi (04-02-2018),  Sapporo (04-02-2018)

  7. #24
    Banned
    Posts
    3,063
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    L1a1
    mtDNA
    M30

    Quote Originally Posted by poi View Post
    Here is my summary wrt the South Asians.

    Basically, we were expecting the Swat valley samples to be rich in Steppe and full of R1a, i.e. the Indo Aryan signal. Well, it turn out that the samples examined in this batch are less Steppe than the modern populations and have no R1a before 300BCE. Not the exclamation mark on the mass Aryan invasion that was supposed to turn the subcontinent upside down. Oh well.

    It could very well be the case where they will not be finding mass R1a even if R1a did indeed turn out to be the patrilineal Aryans. If the Aryans were cremating their dead, good luck with aDNA. Sigh.

    Hopefully we will know more about the Rakhigarhi samples soon.
    To me its also the radical finding that during and before Swat Valley samples, the R1a peoples had nothing to do with SA history (though they did begin to arrive by then due to the 1 sample that was found), as they were mostly in the Kazakh steppe at that time.

    Maybe now we can stop thinking of SA history as purely in terms of R1a and focus on the J, L and R2 peoples and their culture and how they contributed to modern SA society

    The main R1a expansion probably happened just post Swat samples and gained dominance around the Kuru period

    The genetic profile of the Swat samples fits these predictions the most:

    According to Kennedy, who argues for a local cultural continuity, the Gandhara grave culture people shared biological affinities with the population of Neolithic Mehrgarh. This suggests a "biological continuum" between the ancient populations of Timargarha and Mehrgarh.

    According to Tusa, the Gandhara grave culture and its new contributions are "in line with the cultural traditions of the previous period"
    Last edited by bmoney; 04-02-2018 at 02:35 PM.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bmoney For This Useful Post:

     khanabadoshi (04-02-2018),  redifflal (04-02-2018),  Sapporo (04-02-2018)

  9. #25
    Banned
    Posts
    3,063
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    L1a1
    mtDNA
    M30

    This means that Malayalam was existent at 1700 BC. Which is completely absurd.
    They did not get Malayalam in that admixture event, which is a Sanskritised form of Western Tamil formed by northern immigrants relatively recently, but rather something close to proto-Tamil perhaps

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bmoney For This Useful Post:

     anthroin (04-02-2018),  poi (04-02-2018)

  11. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    251

    Quote Originally Posted by bmoney View Post
    They did not get Malayalam in that admixture event, which is a Sanskritised form of Western Tamil formed by northern immigrants relatively recently, but rather something close to proto-Tamil perhaps
    As I said, I did go as far back as Pre-Tamil which gave birth to Tamil, Malayalam, Irula, Toda, Kota, Kurumba (edit: should also include Kodagu), and all the Tamil languages and all the Malayalam languages. Pre-Tamil is dated to 6th century BC just after Pre-Kannada separated from common stage Tamil-Kannada. It is very unlikely a distinctly South Dravidian-I language could have existed at 1700 BC, any form of Tamil is much more unlikely at that ancient period. Also, I was very liberal to have stretched the proto-language definition of the languages of these Kerala tribal groups to include as old a language as Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Irula-Toda-Kota-Kurumba (that one's erroneous; it should be Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Irula-Toda-Kota-Kurumba-Kodagu) aka Pre-Tamil; Wikipedia says that languages of Malayan, etc. are distinctly Malayalam, by which we mainly have in mind, Malayalam-like features like Tamil-Malayalam palatalisation, change of nasal-stop clusters of Old Tamil into nasal-nasal clusters, removal of person-number-gender agreement requirements in verbs, etc. Malayalam is not just about sanskritisation and it was definitely not "created" (edit: haha for some reason I wrongly read what you wrote as "created"; sorry; even if "formed" is milder, it is not correct though, as just one or few groups did not form the language but all of the Kerala-side Tamilakam people and a Malayalam became a distinct entity a good while before the lexical sanskritisation as detailed later too) by northern immigrants (by which you perhaps mean Nambutiris?) but it evolved west coast dialectisms a good while before Nambutiris and others sanskritised it lexically. In any case, even if lexically the languages of these tribal groups are not very sanskritised unlike the language of mainstream Kerala, grammatically their language is Malayalam if it has palatalisation, nasal-nasal clusters, etc. Or at most, they can be considered one of Tamil languages if not Malayalam but they are definitely not like Toda-Kota or Gondi-Kui or Kurukh-Malto or even Irula, which are results of older branch-offs from Dravidian speech history.

    Edit: I get what you said perhaps; that the language that they got was some form of Dravidian that evolved to become Malayalam- this possibility I included in the 2 of my list. This possibility is very well there but the thing is, for one thing, it indicates that they were not as distant from mainstream as thought to be, as it requires that they have close contact with mainstream Kerala to commonly come to speak Malayalam with all of Kerala and also hypothetical true separations which took place at such ancient time frames like 1700 BC look like how Nilgiri languages evolved today- while the oldest Irula is almost exactly Old Tamil, once it separated, the modern Irula is very different from modern Tamil, similarly, modern Toda is worlds apart from earliest Pre-Toda which was like Pre-Tamil; similarly modern Telugu is worlds apart from the earliest Pre-Telugu which was like Proto-South-Dravidian-II.
    Last edited by anthroin; 04-02-2018 at 03:55 PM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to anthroin For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-03-2018)

  13. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    767
    Sex
    Location
    Gonur Tepe
    Y-DNA
    L-SK1414
    mtDNA
    U8b1a1

    African Union Ainu AchaemenidEmpire1 Kurdistan Star of David Dravida Nadu
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    It would have been nice to compare with modern day Eastern Iranians from near the site , as well as Southern Iranians after all Shahr e Shokta is in Iran . S/SE Iran has maintained a strong continuum since the Neolithic. Interestingly the Steppe element to the paper was quite underwhelming, I was expecting very Steppe shifted samples that was not the case. The main take away was the various iterations of how Neolithic Iranian ancestry has mixed , how it has existed in almost unmixed form well into the early Bronze Age ( like the Afghan sample ), how the IVC contributed to the BMAC and existence of the ANE rich Central Asian "ghost" population ie Siberian HG / Kelteminar.
    I donít think that they left a major impact on Iran, since even the Baloch in the area arenít that high in ASI. All of the four samples has y-DNA J2a, but their mtDNAs were diverse.

    mtDNA list:
    I1
    J1
    U2c1
    R7

    R7 map. They were basically trading as far as eastern/south eastern India!


  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jesus For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-03-2018),  khanabadoshi (04-02-2018),  redifflal (04-02-2018),  Sapporo (04-02-2018)

  15. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    251

    Please never mind.
    Last edited by anthroin; 04-02-2018 at 04:22 PM. Reason: post deemed not useful by self

  16. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,122
    Location
    Gonur Tepe

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by jesus View Post
    I donít think that they left a major impact on Iran, since even the Baloch in the area arenít that high in ASI. All of the four samples has y-DNA J2a, but their mtDNAs were diverse.

    mtDNA list:
    I1
    J1
    U2c1
    R7

    R7 map. They were basically trading as far as eastern/south eastern India!

    They ( Gonur and the similar Eastern Iranian sample) would still show strong affinities to modern day Brohi , because of the high levels Iran_N, I would say even more so that Afghan sample, whose 86% Iran_N (with Brohi). Yes , the AASI element drops off on the Iranian plateau rapidly, but taken as the Indus periphery which includes Iran_N, there would be an genetic influence in the Eastern regions and more in the South as these were important seaports connecting the IVC with Mesopotamia their main trading partner.
    Though the Shahr e Sokta is from Eastern Iran I am assuming its more connected with the Helmand culture.
    Last edited by pegasus; 04-02-2018 at 05:16 PM.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to pegasus For This Useful Post:

     bmoney (04-03-2018)

  18. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    104
    Location
    NYC
    Ethnicity
    Sindhi
    Nationality
    American

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    They ( Gonur and the similar Eastern Iranian sample) would still show strong affinities to modern day Brohi , because of the high levels Iran_N
    Slightly OT, but I'm curious where you picked up the term "Brohi" - As far as I know, its pretty much used exclusively by Sindhis of Brahui origin. All the Brahui (from Balochestan), that I've ever come across, identify as Baloch, and refer to their language as Brahui or Brahvi.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Central and South Asian DNA Paper
    By Principe in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 813
    Last Post: 10-12-2018, 05:29 PM
  2. Notes on South Asian genetics, 2018
    By firemonkey in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 01-27-2018, 03:44 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-06-2017, 02:47 PM
  4. In what world is Afghanistan Central or South Asian?
    By MyAnthropologies in forum Pashto
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-17-2016, 08:18 PM
  5. DNA based ancestral Kurd affinity to South Asian groups
    By Kurd in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-10-2015, 04:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •