Page 89 of 90 FirstFirst ... 397987888990 LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 897

Thread: An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers

  1. #881
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    6,884

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph View Post
    I have a question which is probably not even tangentially related to the Rakhigarhi sample. The I6553 sample from Swat Valley had the haplogroup C1b1a1a1, is this ancestral to the Gujarati C1bs on yfull?
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-Z5896/ or do they belong to a different subclade of C1b1a1a?
    Pribislav: I6553; 971-834 BC; Loebanr, Swat Valley; Pakistan; SPGT; C1b1a1a1-K281>K98>P92>Z5895 (xK96)
    Not ancestral. Those Z5896 are on a parallel line since the Swat sample is K96-, and K96 was in existence well before Swat.

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

     Aleph (10-15-2019),  Megalophias (10-14-2019)

  3. #882
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    Gonur Tepe

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Patarames View Post
    Just wanted to note that Persian Gulf islanders from Iran likely are the closest surviving population to Iran_N/CHG. The recent paper on Iranian auDNA revealed this.
    They just have added Levant admixture in line with their language shift to Arabic.

    I would like to see some models of them compared to ancient Iranian, CHG and IVC-related samples.

    Attachment 33848

    Thats highly unlikely. People in Hormuzgan all have elevated ANF even more than Pak Baloch, the island is settled by mainly Bandaris and Afro Iranians/Zanj people. The same incorrect conclusion was made with Iranian Zoroastrians few years back.

    Baloch/Brahui are the only population which seem to have the highest amounts of Iran_N. The most Turan like population are also these people.

    "sample": "Balochi:HGDP00086",
    "fit": 4.2786,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 70,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 12.5,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 7.5,
    "Simulated_AASI": 5.83,
    "WHG": 3.33,
    "NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP": 0.83,

    "sample": "Iranian_Bandari:BanII40",
    "fit": 2.7572,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 59.17,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 25,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 7.5,
    "Simulated_AASI": 6.67,
    "Bantu_Kenya": 0.83,
    "WHG": 0.83,

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

     Aleph (10-24-2019)

  5. #883
    Registered Users
    Posts
    108
    Sex

    To avoid conflicts of biased interpretations on ANI R DNA in the Subcontinent, should it be referred to as East European and would this satisfy Dravidian ASI people, to "reclaim" Indian identity for themselves? I'm ignorant of Dravidian haplogroups, but such propagandists claim Harappan for themselves. They're basically saying that "Indo-European" is an erroneous term. Should Hindu and Hindi be renamed, or is there a Dravidian name for the Subcontinent instead of India? Whatever is best for half the people of Sri Lanka, I'm unsure of how their nationalistic archæogenetics and archæology should tip the scales of Tamil Nadu in their favour also, instead of neutral observation that the majority of India and Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are Indo-Europeans and likely have ANI R haplogroups, not Dravidian origins, whatever type of spin can be stretched out of the Harappan sites.
    Last edited by Björnsson; 11-07-2019 at 09:31 PM.

  6. #884
    Registered Users
    Posts
    59
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Björnsson View Post
    To avoid conflicts of biased interpretations on ANI R DNA in the Subcontinent, should it be referred to as East European and would this satisfy Dravidian ASI people, to "reclaim" Indian identity for themselves? I'm ignorant of Dravidian haplogroups, but such propagandists claim Harappan for themselves. They're basically saying that "Indo-European" is an erroneous term. Should Hindu and Hindi be renamed, or is there a Dravidian name for the Subcontinent instead of India? Whatever is best for half the people of Sri Lanka, I'm unsure of how their nationalistic archæogenetics and archæology should tip the scales of Tamil Nadu in their favour also, instead of neutral observation that the majority of India and Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are Indo-Europeans and likely have ANI R haplogroups, not Dravidian origins, whatever type of spin can be stretched out of the Harappan sites.
    ANI and ASI don't have much meaning. They were made to cover up the real picture of Steppe + Iran HG + south Asian HG (AASI) ancestry in south Asia based on what I know. ANI itself can be seen as steppe + Iran HG (AASI set to minimum) while ASI is Iran HG + AASI (steppe set to minimum). As an example- Rakhigarhi was ~70% Iran HG (higher than any population on Earth alive today) + ~30% AASI. This means that there was extra AASI input even after the end of the IVC period into the population(s) that would result in later Indians. What you can take from all of this is that no one can claim to be a pure or original Harrapan, only mixed. North Indians have enough of the steppe ancestry to make them non-Harappan and south Indians have plenty of extra AASI to push them outside of the known Rakhigarhi + Indus periphery range. However it would be interesting to see Aditanalur results, I'd expect them to be much more AASI than IVC folk given their southern geographical location, so they would be much closer to modern south Indians, which would mean that south Indians could be seen as mostly Aditanalur + some minor steppe input in terms of a rudimentary approximation (though in reality, things would be more complex than that since the steppe ancestry is mitigated by partial-steppe groups and it didn't enter south India in some pure 100% steppe form).

    Pic related is supposed to be a look at the amount of Iran neolithic-related ancestries. I have noticed that pegasus has posted a breakdown with a Balochi sample being 70% Iran HG/pastoralist, but pic related gives a much better fit for the overall Balochi average with them being 55% Iran HG/pastoralist, the difference might be because of a Sintashta input instead of AG3.a global25 list.png
    Last edited by Aleph; 11-08-2019 at 04:48 PM. Reason: additional info

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aleph For This Useful Post:

     Björnsson (11-08-2019),  Helen (11-08-2019),  palamede (11-09-2019)

  8. #885
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    Gonur Tepe

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph View Post
    ANI and ASI don't have much meaning. They were made to cover up the real picture of Steppe + Iran HG + south Asian HG (AASI) ancestry in south Asia based on what I know. ANI itself can be seen as steppe + Iran HG (AASI set to minimum) while ASI is Iran HG + AASI (steppe set to minimum). As an example- Rakhigarhi was ~70% Iran HG (higher than any population on Earth alive today) + ~30% AASI. This means that there was extra AASI input even after the end of the IVC period into the population(s) that would result in later Indians. What you can take from all of this is that no one can claim to be a pure or original Harrapan, only mixed. North Indians have enough of the steppe ancestry to make them non-Harappan and south Indians have plenty of extra AASI to push them outside of the known Rakhigarhi + Indus periphery range. However it would be interesting to see Aditanalur results, I'd expect them to be much more AASI than IVC folk given their southern geographical location, so they would be much closer to modern south Indians, which would mean that south Indians could be seen as mostly Aditanalur + some minor steppe input in terms of a rudimentary approximation (though in reality, things would be more complex than that since the steppe ancestry is mitigated by partial-steppe groups and it didn't enter south India in some pure 100% steppe form).


    Pic related is supposed to be a look at the amount of Iran neolithic-related ancestries. I have noticed that pegasus has posted a breakdown with a Balochi sample being 70% Iran HG/pastoralist, but pic related gives a much better fit for the overall Balochi average with them being 55% Iran HG/pastoralist, the difference might be because of a Sintashta input instead of AG3.a global25 list.png
    Thats incorrect.
    Rakhigarhi does NOT have 70% Iran_N , the fact she is plotting between Inpe 9 and 10 says it all , but she is very much like InPe 10 and and she definitely has close to 40% Onge/AASI related ancestry. Baloch/Brahui ,Bandaris, Mazandarani Iranians and many Sindhis will have more Iran_N related ancestry than her. What your are saying holds true for those other InPe samples which definitely have 75+% Iranian related ancestry (Inpe 2,4,5,6,7). Also your model puts Baloch groups at Steppe levels similar to Brahmins in which case they should be pulling towards to Sintashta related groups (but they don't) rather they pull in the direction of the Turan , where populations have 70-90% Iran_N.
    Baloch/Brahui have Iranian related ancestry 62-72% depending on the EEF/ANF source you use but they are maximized for this ancestry there is no doubt on that. Also some of the Baloch/Brahui samples are more Sindhi like that would bring down the average Iran_N related scores slightly.



    {
    "sample": "CustomGroup_IVCp:IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I1145 9",
    "fit": 4.809,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 52.5,
    "Simulated_AASI": 35.83,
    "RUS_Tyumen_HG": 8.33,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 3.33,
    "NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP": 0,

    Here are some Iran_N rich Baloch/Brahui



    "sample": "Brahui:HGDP00023",
    "fit": 2.896,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 70,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 10.83,
    "Simulated_AASI": 8.33,
    "RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 5.83,
    "WHG": 4.17,
    "RUS_Tyumen_HG": 0.83,


    "sample": "Balochi:HGDP00086",
    "fit": 4.0342,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 71.67,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 8.33,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 7.5,
    "WHG": 5.83,
    "Simulated_AASI": 4.17,
    "NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP": 1.67,

    This is consistent with the fact this sample pulls towards the BMAC and even has BMAC samples show up in its top 50 closest matches

    36 Balochi:HGDP00086 TKM_Gonur1_BA I3374 Ancient; BCE:1695 5.755

    38 Balochi:HGDP00086 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA I7414 Ancient; BCE:1665 6.044
    39 Balochi:HGDP00086 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 I11474 6.107


    "sample": "TKM_Gonur1_BA:I3374",
    "fit": 3.9922,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 73.33,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 12.5,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 10,
    "Simulated_AASI": 2.5,
    "WHG": 1.67,


    Inpe 10 and as a corallary Rakhigarhi would have South Indians show up in their matches as they harbor similar AASI values

    2 CustomGroup_IVCp:IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I11459 Kerala_Nair nambiar 4.08
    3 CustomGroup_IVCp:IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I11459 Kerala_Nair kalashviv_wife_AGUser Modern; 4.187


    "sample": "Kerala_Nair:nambiar",
    "fit": 4.4733,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 43.33,
    "Simulated_AASI": 39.17,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 10,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 6.67,
    "WHG": 0.83,
    Last edited by pegasus; 11-09-2019 at 01:46 AM.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pegasus For This Useful Post:

     Helen (11-09-2019),  palamede (11-09-2019)

  10. #886
    Registered Users
    Posts
    59
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    Thats incorrect.
    Rakhigarhi does NOT have 70% Iran_N , the fact she is plotting between Inpe 9 and 10 says it all , but she is very much like InPe 10 and and she definitely has close to 40% Onge/AASI related ancestry. Baloch/Brahui ,Bandaris, Mazandarani Iranians and many Sindhis will have more Iran_N related ancestry than her. What your are saying holds true for those other InPe samples which definitely have 75+% Iranian related ancestry (Inpe 2,4,5,6,7). Also your model puts Baloch groups at Steppe levels similar to Brahmins in which case they should be pulling towards to Sintashta related groups (but they don't) rather they pull in the direction of the Turan , where populations have 70-90% Iran_N.
    Baloch/Brahui have Iranian related ancestry 62-72% depending on the EEF/ANF source you use but they are maximized for this ancestry there is no doubt on that. Also some of the Baloch/Brahui samples are more Sindhi like that would bring down the average Iran_N related scores slightly.



    {
    "sample": "CustomGroup_IVCp:IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I1145 9",
    "fit": 4.809,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 52.5,
    "Simulated_AASI": 35.83,
    "RUS_Tyumen_HG": 8.33,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 3.33,
    "NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP": 0,

    Here are some Iran_N rich Baloch/Brahui



    "sample": "Brahui:HGDP00023",
    "fit": 2.896,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 70,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 10.83,
    "Simulated_AASI": 8.33,
    "RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 5.83,
    "WHG": 4.17,
    "RUS_Tyumen_HG": 0.83,


    "sample": "Balochi:HGDP00086",
    "fit": 4.0342,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 71.67,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 8.33,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 7.5,
    "WHG": 5.83,
    "Simulated_AASI": 4.17,
    "NPL_Chokhopani_2700BP": 1.67,

    This is consistent with the fact this sample pulls towards the BMAC and even has BMAC samples show up in its top 50 closest matches

    36 Balochi:HGDP00086 TKM_Gonur1_BA I3374 Ancient; BCE:1695 5.755

    38 Balochi:HGDP00086 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA I7414 Ancient; BCE:1665 6.044
    39 Balochi:HGDP00086 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 I11474 6.107


    "sample": "TKM_Gonur1_BA:I3374",
    "fit": 3.9922,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 73.33,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 12.5,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 10,
    "Simulated_AASI": 2.5,
    "WHG": 1.67,


    Inpe 10 and as a corallary Rakhigarhi would have South Indians show up in their matches as they harbor similar AASI values

    2 CustomGroup_IVCp:IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I11459 Kerala_Nair nambiar 4.08
    3 CustomGroup_IVCp:IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I11459 Kerala_Nair kalashviv_wife_AGUser Modern; 4.187


    "sample": "Kerala_Nair:nambiar",
    "fit": 4.4733,
    "IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N": 43.33,
    "Simulated_AASI": 39.17,
    "RUS_AfontovaGora3": 10,
    "Anatolia_Barcin_N": 6.67,
    "WHG": 0.83,
    I haven't seen any mention of Rakhigarhi female being 40% AASI. The paper mentioned 27% or something like that. Also why are all of the fits that bad? Instead of using distant populations from the past like AG3, model them with temporally closer populations and then breakdown those temporally closer populations with older ones. Using RUS West Siberia would be better than using ANE to model ANE input outside of the Iran HG contribution. I have also noticed that you haven't used Sintashta in the recent population breakdown. Using more recent populations instead of AG3 + WHG + EEF would be a better idea.

    >Also your model puts Baloch groups at Steppe levels similar to Brahmins in which case they should be pulling towards to Sintashta related groups (but they don't) rather they pull in the direction of the Turan

    That isn't mine, and neither is pic related. However the Brahmins don't seem all that close to the particularly steppe-rich central Asians like Tajiks. It is well known that the steppe ancestry in Indians has been exaggerated in the past, so you shouldn't be surprised to find that Sindhis and Balochis have a comparable or just a mildly lower amount of steppe ancestry.G25_South_Asia_PCA.png

    As a last point I think that you should be posting group averages, individual values can fluctuate (like Rors going from 27% to 42% Sintashta depending on the individual) so its easy to pick individual samples that have plenty of ancestry from an ancestral group (like Iran neolithic) in question.

  11. #887
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    Gonur Tepe

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph View Post
    I haven't seen any mention of Rakhigarhi female being 40% AASI. The paper mentioned 27% or something like that. Also why are all of the fits that bad? Instead of using distant populations from the past like AG3, model them with temporally closer populations and then breakdown those temporally closer populations with older ones. Using RUS West Siberia would be better than using ANE to model ANE input outside of the Iran HG contribution. I have also noticed that you haven't used Sintashta in the recent population breakdown. Using more recent populations instead of AG3 + WHG + EEF would be a better idea.

    >Also your model puts Baloch groups at Steppe levels similar to Brahmins in which case they should be pulling towards to Sintashta related groups (but they don't) rather they pull in the direction of the Turan

    That isn't mine, and neither is pic related. However the Brahmins don't seem all that close to the particularly steppe-rich central Asians like Tajiks. It is well known that the steppe ancestry in Indians has been exaggerated in the past, so you shouldn't be surprised to find that Sindhis and Balochis have a comparable or just a mildly lower amount of steppe ancestry.G25_South_Asia_PCA.png

    As a last point I think that you should be posting group averages, individual values can fluctuate (like Rors going from 27% to 42% Sintashta depending on the individual) so its easy to pick individual samples that have plenty of ancestry from an ancestral group (like Iran neolithic) in question.
    The paper uses a version of AASI which is considerably deflates Onge related ancestry, 10-15% by my estimates, looking at Hoabinhians, Onge and even the most AASI shifted Paniya, there is something basal like and MA1 like, not accounted for and when they do find it, expect this ancestry to shoot up especially for most Indian populations. Projecting Rakhigarhi as 70-80% Iran_N is nothing more than a red herring and used to build the theory being pushed by prominent Indian scientists that this ancestry was local to Rakghigarhi region and a backdrop to advocate for indigenous Steppe ancestry, something Rai and others are already doing in their latest videos and podcasts.
    Reality is it originates in the Balochistan/Sistan corridor or the Eastern Iranian plateau, the Pakistani archeologists I know and who are carrying on the work done by earlier French archaeologists there strongly support this.



    You are mistaken , the range of Steppe ancestry in Gangetic populations (Where the most Brahmins are located) have more Steppe related ancestry and the ratio to Iranian related ancestry its quite higher compared to other populations.
    Thats why they are pulling towards Steppe populations or more proximally, Pamiri populations. Its quite evident from Rors, and most Brahmins can be modelled as AASI shifted iterations of them
    Last edited by pegasus; 11-09-2019 at 07:35 PM.

  12. #888
    Registered Users
    Posts
    59
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    The paper uses a version of AASI which is significantly deflated, 10-15% by my estimates, looking at Hoabinhians, Onge and even the most AASI shifted paniya, there is something basal like and MA1 like, not accounted for and when they do find it, expect this ancestry to shoot up especially for most Indian populations. Projecting Rakhigarhi as 70-80% Iran_N is nothing more than a red herring and used to build the theory being pushed by prominent Indian scientists that this ancestry was local to Rakghigarhi region and a backdrop to advocate for indigenous Steppe ancestry, something Rai and others are already doing in their latest videos and podcasts.



    You are mistaken , the range of Steppe ancestry in Gangetic populations (Where the most Brahmins are located) have significantly more Steppe related ancestry, in ratio to Iranian related ancestry its quite higher compared to other populations.
    Thats why they are pulling towards Steppe populations or more proximally, Pamiri populations. Its quite evident from Rors, and most Brahmins can be modelled as AASI shifted iterations of them
    Rors-yes, but the rest? Maybe not, the rest have a much lower amount of steppe ancestry. I don't think that anyone would believe that Iran HG ancestry spread out of India, but there is evidence of it being in south Asia for quite a while perhaps through early intrusions into south Asia.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...02929711004885
    Possibly even going back to 12,500 years.
    If there is basal and MA1 ancestry within AASI then that would be even more proof of early intrusions of unknown kinds, which makes an early Iran-like intrusion even more plausible. Isn't Iran_N like over 50% basal + MA1 combined when you split it into UHG (WHG-like) and non-UHG (all basal + ANE combined) ancestry anyway? Perhaps this basal and MA1-like symbol is exactly a sign of that.

  13. #889
    Registered Users
    Posts
    3,084
    Location
    Gonur Tepe

    Afghanistan Jammu and Kashmir United States of America Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph View Post
    Rors-yes, but the rest? Maybe not, the rest have a much lower amount of steppe ancestry. I don't think that anyone would believe that Iran HG ancestry spread out of India, but there is evidence of it being in south Asia for quite a while perhaps through early intrusions into south Asia.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...02929711004885
    Possibly even going back to 12,500 years.
    If there is basal and MA1 ancestry within AASI then that would be even more proof of early intrusions of unknown kinds, which makes an early Iran-like intrusion even more plausible. Isn't Iran_N like over 50% basal + MA1 combined when you split it into UHG (WHG-like) and non-UHG (all basal + ANE combined) ancestry anyway? Perhaps this basal and MA1-like symbol is exactly a sign of that.
    Basal Eurasians and Dzudzuana types are not going to be found in India thats for damn sure.
    The admix dates even for all the Inpe samples are ALL well after the Neolithic, and given how cosmopolitan their proportions are it points to the fact mixing occurred in varying degree within the period after, with further mixing post the IVC collapse.
    The basal and MA1 like ancestry in Onge is still minor and would not support an indigenous Iran_N or Steppe related source.
    There are no early Neolithic samples from Eastern Iran but once they do find them , it will be a done deal.

  14. #890
    Registered Users
    Posts
    59
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    Basal Eurasians and Dzudzuana types are not going to be found in India thats for damn sure.
    The admix dates even for all the Inpe samples are ALL well after the Neolithic, and given how cosmopolitan their proportions are it points to the fact mixing occurred in varying degree within the period after, with further mixing post the IVC collapse.
    The basal and MA1 like ancestry in Onge is still minor and would not support an indigenous Iran_N or Steppe related source.
    There are no early Neolithic samples from Eastern Iran but once they do find them , it will be a done deal.
    The whole point is that basal and MA1 early on shouldn't support indigenous Iran ancestry from India, just an early intrusion which is still foreign which wouldn't work in favour of OIT or something like that. I am not sure how important Dzudzuana is supposed to be here at least directly speaking, after all, it along with Iran populations were points on the UHG-basal and (in the case of Iran HGs) ANE clines. Does Iran HG like Hotu work better with or without UHG? Like can it entirely be basal + ANE? How much worse is the Hotu model without UHG? Does it work better with UHG or with Kostenki14 for that matter?

    "There are no early Neolithic samples from Eastern Iran but once they do find them , it will be a done deal."
    I am looking forward to this. Also, aren't there supposed to be more samples from Pakistan or something like that?

    "The admix dates even for all the Inpe samples are ALL well after the Neolithic"
    Do you happen to have these dates?

Page 89 of 90 FirstFirst ... 397987888990 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 272
    Last Post: 09-20-2019, 07:24 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-30-2018, 11:07 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-14-2018, 05:54 AM
  4. Steppe Pastoralists into Western Europe
    By A Norfolk L-M20 in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2016, 11:50 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-21-2016, 06:06 PM

Posting Permissions

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