A Case for Gujaratis to be Closer to West Asian Than South Asian?

[midichlorian]

Two articles I've read recently have said the following:

"The current paradigm for explaining modern Indian
population structure suggests that they derive from
admixture between two main ancestral populations,
Ancient North Indians (ANI) and Ancient South Indians
(ASI), with the proximity of Pakistani groups and
Gujaratis to Southwest Asians due to high levels of ANI
ancestry"

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.co...medcentral.com

And

"The
Gujarati Indians (GIH), originating from Gujarat (the most
western state of India and immediately adjacent to Pakistan) are
easily placed in Central South Asia where they are classified as
Pakistanis"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf





Are Gujarati people more likely to be West Asian than South Asian in that case?

[poi]

Two articles I've read recently have said the following:

"The current paradigm for explaining modern Indian
population structure suggests that they derive from
admixture between two main ancestral populations,
Ancient North Indians (ANI) and Ancient South Indians
(ASI), with the proximity of Pakistani groups and
Gujaratis to Southwest Asians due to high levels of ANI
ancestry"

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.co...medcentral.com

And

"The
Gujarati Indians (GIH), originating from Gujarat (the most
western state of India and immediately adjacent to Pakistan) are
easily placed in Central South Asia where they are classified as
Pakistanis"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf





Are Gujarati people more likely to be West Asian than South Asian in that case?

Short answer: no.

Long winded answer: It really depends on how you define "South Asian". If, by South Asian, you really meant AASI, then most non-tribal South Asians will not be closer to AASI. We are somewhere in the middle of AASI-WestEurasian cline. If you mean non-tribal South Asians, then Gujaratis are the definition of South Asians lol

[Rahuls77]

Two articles I've read recently have said the following:

"The current paradigm for explaining modern Indian
population structure suggests that they derive from
admixture between two main ancestral populations,
Ancient North Indians (ANI) and Ancient South Indians
(ASI), with the proximity of Pakistani groups and
Gujaratis to Southwest Asians due to high levels of ANI
ancestry"

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.co...medcentral.com

And

"The
Gujarati Indians (GIH), originating from Gujarat (the most
western state of India and immediately adjacent to Pakistan) are
easily placed in Central South Asia where they are classified as
Pakistanis"

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf





Are Gujarati people more likely to be West Asian than South Asian in that case?

While I agree with Poi's response, I have my own two cents.

Here is what I think, the only population in the South Asian subcontinent closest to the West Asians is that of the Baloch, they are probably closest to the Pre-Steppes Indo-Iranians, and likely had much in common with the West Asians in the distant past, pre-3500 ybp, than the present. The Sindhis and the Gujratis are probably the most proximate people to the West Asians, next to the Baloch. The Gujratis had been trading with the West Asians, besides. And Gujratis are also closest to the Caucasians on their latitude in modern India. Of course I am quoting from the Harappa.

[Saad2016]

Can I please ask why most south Asian casts/clans tend to lobby for their being more west Asian or having more steppe. I see a clear biased and have strong reasons to believe that some of the south Asians in this field who develop this admixture calculators etc. can be very biased when concluding/designing such calculators and can cherry pick samples they feel fit for their cause.

[MonkeyDLuffy]

Can I please ask why most south Asian casts/clans tend to lobby for their being more west Asian or having more steppe. I see a clear biased and have strong reasons to believe that some of the south Asians in this field who develop this admixture calculators etc. can be very biased when concluding/designing such calculators and can cherry pick samples they feel fit for their cause.

So far no South Asian has developed a calculator.

[Saad2016]

So far no South Asian has developed a calculator.

could be that they have now become mongols, arabs , turks etc etc...or some ancient lost/extinct tribe. or 33 percent Indian, 22 percent Greek, 15 percent Berber and so on. After going through some of the threads from the community, it appear as if all of the world populations somehow either originated from what is now India/Pakistan/Bangla or has a connection to this area...which to me is pretty absurd!

[MonkeyDLuffy]

could be that they have now become mongols, arabs , turks etc etc...or some ancient lost/extinct tribe. or 33 percent Indian, 22 percent Greek, 15 percent Berber and so on. After going through some of the threads from the community, it appear as if all of the world populations somehow either originated from what is now India/Pakistan/Bangla or has a connection to this area...which to me is pretty absurd!

Err, since south Asia is one of the oldest civilization, there are historical records in multiple cultures of invasion or contact or trade with South Asia. If you look around geographically, south Asia is amazingly fertile and full of resources and precious metals. It's not something made up in a secret meeting. You're welcome to believe whatever you'd like.

[bmoney]

Short answer: no.

Long winded answer: It really depends on how you define "South Asian". If, by South Asian, you really meant AASI, then most non-tribal South Asians will not be closer to AASI. We are somewhere in the middle of AASI-WestEurasian cline. If you mean non-tribal South Asians, then Gujaratis are the definition of South Asians lol

Second that. Gujarati is surprisingly diverse with SI shifted Patels who cluster with Telugu mid-castes to Lohana types who cluster with Sindhis to Gujju Bromins who cluster with NW Bromins

But as poi said if you were to run an average on the ancestral components of all South Asians from North to South, maybe excluding East and SE India, then youd get the same result as if you ran that average through Gujarat

[midichlorian]

So then what are these studies implying by saying they're grouping Pakistanis and Gujaratis together or saying they have high proximity to Southwest Asians?

[poi]

So then what are these studies implying by saying they're grouping Pakistanis and Gujaratis together or saying they have high proximity to Southwest Asians?

Both are true. But they still don't mean Gujaratis are closer to West Asians than they are to, say, non-tribal Marathis or Telugus.