Kumar V, Wang W, Zhang J, et al. Bronze and Iron Age population movements underlie Xinjiang population history. Science. 2022;376(6588):62-69. doi:10.1126/science.abk1534
New mammoth paper containing 201 ancient samples from Xinjiang got published recently. Although I do not have access to the main paper yet, I did go through the supplement file and excel data which has most of the technical information about the samples.
An in depth analysis of all the samples is out of the scope of this post, I will just leave a few generic thoughts about them here.
1. Early bronze age samples (pre 2000 Bce) have ancestry from Afanasievo, Tarim Basin and minor BMAC.
2. Late bronze age samples between 1500-1000 Bce are mostly similar to Sintashta_MLBA with minor addition of other ancestries.
3. For Iron age samples, in general they lie on a cline between Sintashta/Andronovo and east asian ancestry from Mongolia Slab grave culture. With some samples closer to Andronovo/Sintashta and other samples heavy on the east Asian ancestry.
4. All these Iron Age samples have additional ancestry from either BMAC, Afanasievo, Tarim Basin or Swat (SPGT), or all of them. In short, the samples are all over the place.
5. None of the samples are confirmed archaeologically to be Tocharian speakers, so in my mind all 3 external ancestries - Afanasievo, Andronovo & BMAC could be a source for Tocharian. I prefer Andronovo as the Tocharian source, with BMAC ancestry providing Bactrian & Sogdian loanwords to Tocharian, but that's just a hypothesis.
6. The SPGT like ancestry from the Indian subcontinent almost definitely provided the Sanskrit loanwords, Buddhist culture and Brahmi script to Xinjiang in the iron age.
7. Bronze age male samples are mostly R1b+, possibly related to Afanasievo, with few Q1+ samples.
8. 3 males samples from the LBA, 1 is R1a-Z2124+ (from andronovo), another is supposedly R1a-Z280+ (European) and 3rd one belongs to Q. Suggests increased andronovo related influence, which is also seen autosomally.
9. Among the male IA samples, there are many Q1+, many J2+, J1+ and central/east asia specific R1b-PH155 samples. Amongst the R1a samples, most if not all are of the Sintashta/andronovo kind, ie Z2124+ (R1a1a1b2a2+). One of the samples is of the Indian subclade R1a-Y3+ (R1a1a1b2a1+) and possibly even L657+. Given that most of Indian subcontinent R1a is L657+ (>80%) whereas most of andronovo related samples are Z2124+ (> 90%), andronovo does not seem to be a direct source of the L657+ Y hg in the Indian subcontinent.
10. Basic 2D PCA of the Xinjiang samples below. 3D PCA will present these complex ancestries more accurately. Most of the samples fall roughly between Sintashta and Mongolia_slabgrave, with additional ancestries from BMAC, SPGT, Afanasievo and Tarim_EMBA.
POSSIBLE NEW SOURCES OF ANCESTRY FOR ROR AND BURUSHO
THE ANCESTRY OF THE BURUSHO PEOPLE
Burusho people can be modeled as 15% Kalatasi_IA + 85% Swat_IA (SPGT)
102 comments:
If Afanasievo like ancestry disappears or becomes a minor component from LBA onwards then its highly likely it wasnt/isnt source for Tocharian language.
There is a lot of Andronovo type ancestry between 1500bce-1000bce in xinjiang, right?
How are these samples related to scythians? Could they be proto-scythians or are they unrelated?
I wonder what this proto-Ror spoke?
Any possibility of it being Proto-Kushana as well? Any possibility of Ror being the descendents of Kushanas?
The kushana samples we have don't fit well as source for Indians
Oh! Thanks.
Is it the east asian component which makes it a bad fit? Many Kushana kings from kanishaka onwards had Arya names.
Were these guys really kushana or were they Indian descent kings of Kushana dynasty? And if thats the case then it appears only a handful of Kushana & Saka elites were sanskritized and became rulers of largely Indian masses which could explain why Greek scholars considered Indian kings to be of different race compared to the people they ruled.
The ratios of steppe:bmac:east asian makes them bad fits.
This Xinjiang samples fits well for Rors because it has correct proportion of steppe:bmac:east asian and ANE
Thanks.
Also based on modern Indian DNA what is the likely ancestry profile of neolithic kashmir & Ganga plains from 3000bce-2000bce?
Any chance of a Tarim basin like ancestry in neolithic kashmir?
Have you talked to Niraj Rai? Any hint on when his sanauli & neolithic paper be published?
There seems some kind of cultural similarity between native american & neolithic kashmir.
I am not sure but arent Native American population derived from ANE like source? Thats why i thought may be we would find that sort of ancestry in neolithic kashmir.
There's ANE in India as well as native Americans. That connection is from paleolithic times most likely.
@Assuwatama
Kushanas are not Yuezhi.
https://www.academia.edu/28643805/Kushan_were_not_Yehzhi_based_on_New_Discoveries_and_Reinterpretation_from_Chinese_Sources
https://www.academia.edu/51146894/Discovery_of_Bamboo_Chronicle_and_its_impact_on_the_identity_of_Yuezhi_and_Kushan_tribes
Thanks
I have a query and i think it may not sound logical but lets hear it out first....
Language that stays in PIE homeland is closest to PIE
Language that left the homeland last is closest to PIE
Think about it ... Tocharian and Anatolian are the first to move out from PIE homeland but are attested 1000s of kms away and 1000s of year later in regions which were linguistically diverse.
My bet is these languages have deviated a lot from PIE and most likely the farthest away from PIE.
So if homeland was steppe then Indo-Iranian is closest to PIE (Kurgan hypothesis)
And if homeland is NW India then also Indo-Iranian is closest to PIE as it remained in its homeland and deviated the least. (OIT hypothesis)
Hi...what samples are being used as being representative of Kushan ancestry?
I12292 and I12294
TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan:I12292,0.100164,0.102568,-0.046763,0.004845,-0.051394,0.01004,0.004465,-0.005538,-0.038655,-0.021322,0.008444,0.001798,-0.000446,-0.006331,0.011401,0.009546,-0.004694,0.010642,0.011564,-0.013131,-0.001622,-0.006554,0.003451,-0.002651,0.005029
TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan:I12294,0.095611,0.016248,-0.012822,0.043282,-0.054472,0.007251,-0.001645,-0.000462,-0.030679,-0.030069,-0.003735,0.001798,0,-0.015138,0.004479,0.00769,0.001173,0.004561,0.004399,-0.009129,-0.013851,0.003833,-0.004067,-0.001566,-0.001437
Kangju samples are better fits for steppe in modern Indians than sintashta or kushanas
> My bet is these languages have deviated a lot from PIE and most likely the farthest away from PIE.
My thoughts exactly. See SS Mishra's work on debunking the Laryngeal Theory. There is literally nothing archaic about Anatolian. Its a highly degraded and creolized language, with such little material, that its hard to make its exact place in the linguistic tree. I don't know too much about Tocharian to comment on it.
vAsiSTha, if Kumar et al's paper of this year (2022) has samples out, can you check if their paper from last year (2021) has samples out:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34320653/
It's the paper with Uzbek IA samples, they were supposed to not have East Asian until early CE, unlike Shaka, yet otherwise be like Kushan etc.
Considering the Uzbek IA paper was from last year, surely those samples must be out by now? If so, can you run them also?
@comet Otyrar samples from Uzbekistan paper are kangju like, because that was the kangju capital. sample id knt001-005
Hi, this is off-topic, but can you use qpAdm to find out how much AASI/Onge Paniya-14 from G25 has? (Using Ganj_Dareh_N, Onge, and Afontovogora).
Thanks!
G25 cannot be used for this purpose as I don't have a good AASI source. Onge is very drifted from the actual aasi source. In fact, Paniya is the label which is best used as AASI proxy in G25.
Hi, I am aware that Onge is not a good proxy for AASI, but can you try it on qpAdm and see what you get? I am talking about the Paniya-14 sample.
@vAsiSTha
Razib Khan said that AASI has some non insignificant introgression of west eurasian ancestry. Do you know anything about this?
@anon
Paniya samples arent present in .geno dataset.
@3rdacc
There's no west eurasian in AASI that I detect in my qpgraphs. Its forms a clade with Tianyuan without additional admixture from anything.
There's about 13% ANE (related to tarim_emba) in the shahr_sokhta_ba2, which either admixed first with the IndiaN or the AASI. IndiaN is more likely because somewhat similar ancestries already existed in Turan.
@vAsiSTha
Ok thank you. Also what do you think of this article by Jaydeepsinh,
https://t-o-i-h.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-antiquity-of-west-eurasian-ancestry.html.
He argues that there is connections between IranN, ANE and AASI, and that their origin must be in South Asia. I know that you believe in a foreign origin of the shared Indo-Iranian ancestry.
"Otyrar samples from Uzbekistan paper are kangju like, because that was the kangju capital. sample id knt001-005"
Thanks.
1. Do you know the dates of these samples?
I was trying to find the archaeological context for these samples, but neither the Uzbekistan IA paper (Kumar et al 2021) nor its Supplementary Materials PDF mention the words "Otyrar" or "knt", so I can't work out their dates.
2. Where did you access the Uzbekistan IA paper's samples?
3. Also, did none of the other Uzbek IA samples fit as good admixture sources for modern Indians, such as their Kushan-like samples?
Mallory was unable to get Afanasievo's archaeological trail past the Dzungar basin (the northern part of Xinjiang) into Tarim basin (southern part of Xinjiang). This absence of Afanasievo in Tarim, had made Mallory admit the case for Afanasievo's origins of Tocharian could not be sustained from archaeology.
From Fig S26 of the new Kumar et al 2022 paper on Xinjiang:
The R1b1 (Afanasievo) samples are marked as from north and west of Xinjiang (Fig1), but the locations are still not in Tarim, being still north thereof. This therefore does not further the archaeological findings and conclusions.
In this paper, there are no BA samples from Tarim. Tarim's BA was covered in an earlier paper, found to harbour an Asian population native to the region with relation to WSHG. This paper's Tarim-proper samples are the southern ones from both IA and Historical Era (HE) and carry Tarim BA's R1b2 and other Asiatic lineages, and a low presence of R1a in southern samples of both IA and HE, thus in Tarim proper. But there is variety there.
This R1a, traced to the West-Eurasian steppe cultures, are especially prominent in IA in the west which is still not the Tarim, but do make it into the Tarim at low frequency.
It's unclear what naming convention is used in this paper, but per Kivisild 2017 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5418327/), R1a2 is Z93 while R1a1 is Z283 (common in Europe).
R1a1, presumably Z283, is the most frequent kind of R1a in Xinjiang. Has Z283 been found in Sintashta-Andronovo? There is 1 R1a2 sample (presumably Z93) in historical era central Xinjiang.
These central samples are from the historical era (from 2kbp onward) and still north of or on the cusp of the Tarim. In its 3 samples, there is 1 steppe lineage of R1a2. Assuming Z93, being a common era presence, it may perhaps even be Buddhist mediated.
The steppe penetration of Tarim thus happened in the Iron Age, and from the male markers does not appear to have been great: 1 out of 20 samples was R1a, specifically R1a1 (presumably Z283).
Perhaps the steppe ancestry in Tarim proper was again female mediated?
The presence of R1a1, if indeed the European Z83 common in modern East-Europeans, raises the interesting question of what Z283 was doing at high frequencies in Iron Age Dzhungaria of Xinjiang. (The R1a2 presence, if Z93, in common era Xinjiang can be explained through Buddhism for instance.)
How common are the Z83 finds in Corded Ware and other European and West-Eurasian steppes prior to these Xinjiang samples?
Considering the paucity of male steppe markers in the Tarim proper even in the Iron Age (and in the historical era, 1 out of 3, possibly Buddhist mediated Z93) can we be sure the steppe ancestry was relevant to Tocharian?
Are we so sure Z283 is exclusively associated with Balto-Slavic? Or was Dzungharia speaking proto-Balto-Slavic also?
The main paper does describe R1a1 as steppe MLBA specifically:
"the presence of the distinct Steppe_MLBA Y-haplogroup, R1a1 (n = 30)"
However, the paper makes no mention of R1a2, nor are Z93 and Z83 explicitly mentioned. Further, author comments to Li et al 2010 by Mair and associates, of uniparentals in Xinjiang's Xiaohe cemetery (possibly east of this paper's samples), heavily and with certainty insisted none of the R1a they found in were Z93, but were European R1a instead: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7007-8-15/comments. Taken together, this may point to the numerous R1a1 in Tarim being indeed Z283 or at least not of Z93 variety. It's possible this paper is blurring lines (perhaps to not openly contradict the statements of past authors regarding Xinjiang R1a, hence no direct reference to clades by SNP such as Z93) and ascribing all R1a generally to Steppe MLBA using f3-stats results.
For clarification, are there Anthrogenica pages revealing the exact subclades/identifying SNPs of the R1a and other samples found in Xinjiang? I can't seem to find this paper discussed in Anthrogenica at all.
In short:
By far most of the steppe paternal lineages found in Xinjiang in Kumar et al 2022 are in the Dzungar Basin rather than in Tarim. This is notably true for Afanasievo's R1b. Following Mallory's archaeological work, this reduces the chance of Afanasievo impact in producing Tocharian found in Tarim. Further, Afanasievo-affiliated samples are from the Bronze Age, separated by much time from the earliest texts found in Tocharian, and Afanasievo paternal lines in Dzungaria become eclipsed by R1a1 gaining from LBA and especially Iron Age.
There is 1 steppe paternal marker, R1a1, among 20 in Iron Age southern Xinjiang, which would be Tarim proper. And in the historical era of 2kbp and later, which is the era where Tocharian will first be found, there is an R1a (R1a2) in central Xinjiang, which may be close to Tarim bounds.
Next, most R1a samples are R1a1 which may be the European R1a (Z83), whereas the later, solitary R1a of the Historical Era (2kbp onward) is R1a2 which may be Z93. This follows Kivisild 2017's assignment of R1a1 as Z83 and R1a2 as Z93, as well as conforming to authors' comments of Li et al 2010 which studied the Eastern Xinjiang Cemetery's uniparental markers:
"Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried HgR1a1in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch(our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians."
"He argues that there is connections between IranN, ANE and AASI, and that their origin must be in South Asia."
---
@3rdacc,
I don't think he argues for origin of ANE in south asia but he argues for origin for iran_N like ancestry in south asia based on aDNA(Zagros herders showing some Onge like ancestry) as well as climate modelling.
Regarding ANE, he claims that ANE ancestry is old in india based on presence of some early split uniparental haplogroups like Q, I think he is right here as Y-HG R2 seems to have deep presence in south asia which may be indicative of early ANE introgression.
ANE is defined as a population descended from Mal'ta Buret boy( roughly 22,000 years old). In order to attempt to show ANE originated in india, you would have to show proto-ANE migrated out of south asia around 25,000 years ago for which we have no evidence.
Regarding the Xiaohe R1a samples, they were from an old paper using STR rather than SNPs. The new samples from Tarim_EMBA dont have any R1a, although the samples from both papers don't overlap. I do believe that they were R1a but kurganists don't.
@comet
"Otyrar samples from Uzbekistan paper are kangju like, because that was the kangju capital. sample id knt001-005"
Thanks.
1. Do you know the dates of these samples?"
200-400ce
from the GnecchiRuscone paper
" During this period, Otyrar was a main center of the Kangju kingdom and a crossroad along the Silk Road (29). In the neighboring region of the Tian Shan mountains, in the third century CE site of Alai Nura, a genetic profile typical of the much earlier IA Tian Shan Sakas can still be found (Fig. 3B and data file S4)."
samples knt001, knt002 till knt005. Knt005 has indian/pak ancestry also.
Regarding the R1a in the xinjiang samples, a lot of it is Z93 but the andronovo kind R1a1a1b2a2 (Z2124+). Z93 being R1a1a1b2+.
What you said about lack of afanasievo in Tarim basin proper is interesting. I have not checked these new samples wrt their location inside/outside Tarim, but if the samples inside Tarim are R1a and R1b2 (R1b-PH155, of the tarim basin kind), then it strengthens my bias that tocharian probably was carried by andronovo and not afanasievo.
But this otyrar and kangju ancestry is seen in this new Xinjiang paper from 500bce onwards. Some samples are similar, however the variety of these ancestries is large, homogeneity is low
@3rdacc
There is plenty of hard evidence for additional substantial West Eurasian ancestry in AASI. I will post links later.
@Anonymous
Thank you. this may be the reason why Vasistha's qpgraph gave ratios of 60:40 AASI:IndiaN for Irula instead of the standard model of 70:30 AASI : west eurasian? Or could it be that IndiaN has some residual east eurasian due to its proximity to AASI? Or could it just be that qpgraph has some variance?
Correction to my comment from "April 12, 2022 at 6:54 AM":
"Taken together, this may point to the numerous R1a1 in correction Xinjiang [not Tarim] being indeed Z283 or at least not of Z93 variety. "
@vAsiSTha
I know this is another lengthy comment, please read points 3 and 4 carefully as they are rather important.
1. "Regarding the R1a in the xinjiang samples, a lot of it is Z93 but the andronovo kind R1a1a1b2a2 (Z2124+). Z93 being R1a1a1b2+."
Were these results posted on Anthrogenica? Can you post a link? If there are BAM files, I may check the results myself.
2. "from the GnecchiRuscone paper"
Thanks. I have been especially interested in Kumar et al 2021 (last year's) Uzbekistan IA paper: are those samples not out, yet Kumar et al 2022's samples are out? That would be very strange indeed.
Could you check if Kumar et al 2021 Uzbekistan IA samples are out: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34320653/
They were said to not have eastern Asian ancestry until some century CE.
3. I'll restate what I said before in a different way, hoping to make it clear.
Fig 1 (main paper, available on Research Gate) of the present Xinjiang paper is a map of the locations sampled and it clearly differentiates between Dzungarian Basin vs Tarim Basin. It's only the few South sample locations that are actually in the Tarim (and maybe the Central ones from the Historical Era).
Fig S26 (Supplementary Materials) is Y Hgs frequencies found in Xinjiang, both Dzungar Basin and Tarim and rest of Xinjiang.
Per the Y Hg distribution in Fig S26:
All the Afanasievo R1b, and all but 2 R1a are found in Dzungaria, not Tarim. At most 2 steppe paternal markers are found in actual Tarim in this paper.
* 1 out of 20 Iron Age South samples (so Tarim proper) carry a steppe lineage, specifically R1a1.
* Versus 19 out of the 20 Iron Age samples from Tarim proper are non-steppe paternal lineages.
The final R1a (labelled R1a2) that may be relevant to Tarim is from Central Xinjiang in the Historical Era, a location which is either just within or just outside Tarim's bounds. However, this is well within Silk Road/Buddhist era of influence.
Also note that Kivisild 2017 uses label R1a1 for Z83 and R1a2 for Z93: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5418327/
Notably, R1a1 comprises all but one of the R1a found in Kumar et al 2022. The solitary R1a2 is the one found in historical era Central Xinjiang.
Even if autosomally you were to find Tarim dwellers had gained steppe after EMBA, it appears to be female mediated.
This paper provides no support for any argument that Indo-European would be spread by steppe male dominance.
4. Mallory found it hard to get Afanasievo's archaeological trail past the Dzungar Basin, conceding that this made an Afanasievan archaeological connection to Tocharian tenuous at best. This paper shows that a steppe trail leading to Tocharian is still hard going by paternal markers, and that Andronovo is barely a better case either: only 1 out of 20 samples of Iron Age Tarim has a steppe paternal marker (R1a). The rest of the copious steppe male markers in this paper are all in the Dzungar Basin.
This paper has no pre-IA samples from Tarim proper. But Zhang et al 2021 covered Tarim EMBA samples, revealing Tarim was non steppe in EMBA. Per that paper, Afanasievo inroads were again only into Dzungaria, which reconfirms archaeology and this paper's fundings.
Per Mallory's reasoning, no trail meant Afanasievo may be irrelevant to Tocharian. Even after so many samples, there is likewise still barely a trail of steppe paternal markers into Tarim proper.
And unless female-mediated steppe in Tarim is argued as resulting in a language switch to Indo-European (Tocharian), there is still no reason to suppose any steppe culture, Andronovo or Afanasievo, EMBA or IA, were relevant to Tocharian.
"but if the samples inside Tarim are R1a and R1b2 (R1b-PH155, of the tarim basin kind), then it strengthens my bias that tocharian probably was carried by andronovo and not afanasievo. "
But this paper's samples inside Tarim barely have any R1a. In this paper, there's 2 R1a in or near Tarim: 1 Iron Age sample that is R1a in Tarim. Plus a different R1a in a location that may or may not be within Tarim's bounds. But it's from the Historical Era (Common Era, CE) also known as Tarim's Buddhist era.
So if you too question Afanasievo's relevance to Tocharian due to Afanasievo's R1b being confined to Dzungaria, then Andronovo is not very relevant to Tocharian either: hardly present in Tarim, and confined almost entirely to Dzungarian samples. Any significant gain in steppe in Tarim inhabitants after EMBA appears to be female mediated again.
"There is plenty of hard evidence for additional substantial West Eurasian ancestry in AASI. I will post links later."
There can be no hard evidence for aasi as aasi samples haven't been found. So I'm not looking forward to your evidence lol.
In any case, show me a qpgraph in which west Eurasian admixed into aasi.
@comet
Rough models of the Kumar 2021 Uzbek samples show mostly sintashta+bmac ancestry + significant levant ancestry (high in anatoliaN). This is a western iranic sort of signature (kurds and iranians). one of the Rabat_ia like outlier samples is straight up mix between sintashta and alalakh.
https://imgur.com/a/olxMoIY
1 of the 2 kushan samples is also similar to rabat_ia
@3rd acc @Vasistha
It's not "my evidence" -- its the evidence from researchers with credentials in archaeogenetics that know far more about this than you and I ever will. Please refer to the latest analyses done by researchers -- I read an excerpt from Ygor Coelho on Quora where he summarized the latest findings from other researchers showing that AASI indeed appears to have substantial West Eurasian admixture, this is corroborated by the evidence that West Eurasian presence in India goes back even further than what we previously believed. These West Eurasians mixed with the indigenes of South Asia at a very early point of time, giving rise to the current AASI. Furthermore, Razib Khan alluded to the same when referring to the fact that AASI is on the Western border of the East Eurasian group, among other such pieces of evidence. It appears that all strains of AASI have West Eurasian admixture, though I think the NW_AASI strain has the most, goes back to South Asia existing on a cline. I will post direct links when I get more time.
@anon
https://www.quora.com/Are-Indians-closer-to-Australoid-Papuans-or-Iranians-Middle-Easterners
This is ygor coelho's answer, and it is absolute garbage.
One does not simply use g25 coordinates PCA to figure out admixtures for extremely old components. On PCA, samples drift away due to genetic drift and isolation, not just admixture.
Also, he uses a sample called simulated_aasi, which again is absolute anthrogenica garbage, and gives results not comparable to qpAdm. It is a random creation of some of the users from some IVC samples. It consistently gives very inflated aasi % in Irula higher than what qpAdm agrees with.
"its the evidence from researchers with credentials in archaeogenetics that know far more about this than you and I ever will" literally never heard of this dude lol, he should learn to use admixtools to make his points about deep ancestries.
AASI, by definition of narasimhan2019 as actual samples haven't been found, forms a clade with Onge (in qpgraph) unadmixed with any other source. This is how aasi is defined, a pure clade with Onge.
Now, coming to actual data where there can be compromise.
Shahr_sokhta_ba2 is made up of 60% IranN/IndiaN + 10% ANE/WSHG/tarim_emba + 30% aasi. (As per qpgraph and qpAdm), with aasi defined as I did above.
The question is how did this ANE admix into ancestors of IVC. Was it (IndiaN +ANE) + AASI or was it IndiaN + (ANE + AASI). I will admit I don't know the answer to this, as we need very old samples from India to prove this either way. But the ANE in this IVC as per my qpgraphs seems to form clades with the ANE in EHG and WEHG, formed around the same time probably around 10kbce.
Game over!!!
https://m.timesofindia.com/city/kolkata/we-are-carrying-same-harappan-gene-culture-from-gujarat-to-bengal-indus-valley-experts/amp_articleshow/90808908.cms
About traces of the Harappan civilization in Bengal, Shinde later told TOI, “At Pandu Rajar Dhipi in Midnapore, we find pottery similar to Harappan ones of 1900 BC, a later period of Harappa. It showed that the Harappan civilization gradually moved from the Indus and Saraswati basin along the Indo-Gangetic plain and left its imprints all along it.
What do they mean by Middle eastern admixture in south indians? And what is the admixture date for it?
Any possibility of traders from elam regions mixing with these groups?
Or are these ME admixtures post 300bce
Maldivian is an indo aryan language right?
Do we have genetic data for them?
Y haplogroups? Mtdna?
Thank you :)
Finally a KP ancestry profile
SiS_BA2 52%
Kangju 38%
Sintashta_MLBA 0%
Bustan_BA 10%
Kinda disappointed by such low % of Harappan ancestry. Seems like kangju like ancestry is an outcome of trade on silk route :)
Women sold in market place or women lined in market place as possible brides in ancient times......
Any one?
Is that how women mediated steppe ancestry showing up?
In before my previous post is misunderstood, Asura marriage has been documented in hindu texts though "considered inappropriate by Hindu Smriti-writers because greed, not what is best for the woman, can corrupt the selection process."
"Seems like kangju like ancestry is an outcome of trade on silk route :)"
Or kushana era admixture
Oh! Yes very likely and hosting of 4th buddhist council may have brought many to kashmir.
I have qpAdm proof for Pandits too. Although its just 1 sample, but its a nice diploid sample.
https://pastebin.com/2fMLGp25
left pops:
Kashmiri_Pandit.DG
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 0.355
Kazakhstan_Kangju.SG 0.433
Irula.DG 0.211
p-value 0.21
However, same model is fail with sintashta
Kashmiri_Pandit.DG
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 0.48
Irula.DG 0.26
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 0.26
p-value 6.4e-7
https://pastebin.com/xMZkM9Z0
wow that p value difference is huge.
What is Kangju made up of again? Steppe + BMAC + east asian? In what proportions?
Rough modeling of Kangju is like this
https://imgur.com/a/Zs9XuxL
Those Otyrar samples are also like Kangju, can be lumped together in one label
https://imgur.com/cjHvfFD
@Vashishta , similar result
left pops:
Kashmiri_Pandit.DG
ShahrISokhta_BA2 0.53
Kazakhstan_Kangju_o3.SG 0.42
Nepal_Chokhopani_2700BP.SG 0.047
p-value 0.27
Kazakhstan_Kangju_o3 , DA206
Target: KAZ_Kangju:DA206
Distance: 1.8255% / 0.01825521 | R3P
52.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
41.4 TKM_Gonur1_BA
6.6 RUS_Shamanka_EBA
@Vasistha,
Thank you, does that mean that the actual steppe_mlba in Indians is actually somewhat lower? Does the BMAC in Kangju eat up the IndiaN/IranN ancestry?
This is not about indians, it's about the kashmiri pandit sample, and the same is true for brahmin.dg (2 Telugu Brahmin samples).
I have not been able to make any passing qpAdm model for the rajput and UP Brahmins of the mondal dataset.
So until I can figure out what's going on, I wouldn't extend this observation to all indians. Also, the .Geno dataset has very limited modern Indians as compared to the G25 samples.
I have not been able to make a passing model for kalash either.
Yes, my failed Sintashta model shoes 26% Sintashta, but if you were to go by anons successful model, it shows 42% kangju in pandit sample, which is 52% Sintashta. So .42x.52 = ~22%.
So yeah, the Sintashta component falls but the net external ancestry increases (42% kangju vs 26% Sintashta)
It would be interesting to see the profile for other dardic groups. If i am not wrong kashmiri preserves archaic features of vedic sanskrit compared to other indo aryan languages.
I wonder what kind of substratum is their in kashmiri. How much it borrowed from easter iranic language. Later persian influence is there but thats 1300 years post the kangju admixture.
Also the traditional Agni Aga Aag of indo aryan becomes "Ogun" in Kashmiri.
@Vasistha
Ok thank you.
@Vasishta
left pops:
Kalash.DG
ShahrISokhta_BA2 0.35
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 0.26
TKM_C_Namazga.SG 0.39
p-value 0.63
Ancestry profiles for majority of Pashayis, Kohistanis, Brokpas, Nuristanis and Kho?
@Vasistha
Razib recently mentioned that there is substantial evidence for West Eurasian admixture in AASI. I dont see how he wouldnt know what he is talking about. And as you mentioned, we dont have the full picture yet, owing to a lack of ancient samples, so I can see how AASI has West Eurasian admixture that hasn't been parsed out yet. There are also different strains of AASI -- the NW AASI strain that Iranians and NWners are admixed with is certainly going to be different than the Southern strains.
Finally, what is this connection of AASI with Onge? Razib and other researchers have explicitly said that AASI has nothing to do with Onge. It simply shared a common ancestor with Onge deep in time, just like other East Eurasians did. AASI is 100% East Eurasian and lacks any Onge -- on the other hand, Onge has some admixture from South and East Asians and AASI-like sources, which is why some affinities can be observed. It is no different than the AASI-like affinity observed in Australian Aboriginals because they have a minority of AASI admix, not because AASI has Aboriginal admixture.
A hypothetical 100% AASI population would cluster with other East Eurasians like the Han Chinese and SE Asians, which is why the Reich and Narasimhan Lab paper found that Han was an excellent proxy for AASI. Even in IBD sharing, AASI shares more with SE Asians (almost a 100% match) than with Onge or other Australasians/Oceanians. AASI also lacks Onge haplogroups. Why is your analysis so different from these researchers' findings?
@anon
Dude, you don't get to define what AASI is however the way you want it. AASI is used in the Rakhigarhi paper and Narasimhan 2019 in a very specific way. That is its definition, period. All your bullshitting does not change the way of how it is defined. If you want, give the ghost node another name and do all sorts of hypothesizing with it.
Rakhigarhi paper says this, internalize it and repeat it so it gets inside your thick skull.
"If one of these population fits, it does not mean it is the true source; instead, it means that it and the true source population are consistent with descending without mixture from the same homogeneous ancestral population that potentially lived thousands of years before. The only fitting two-way models were mixtures of a group related to herders from the western Zagros mountains of Iran and also to either Andamanese hunter-gatherers (73% ± 6% Iranian-related ancestry; p = 0.103 for overall model fit) or East Siberian hunter-gatherers (63% ± 6% Iranian-related ancestry; p = 0.24)"
All the rakhigarhi paper says is this,
sample = IranN + Onge/ESHG.
The actual source forms deep clade with Onge/ESHG without any external admixture and ONLY THIS is labeled AASI.
"AASI has nothing to do with Onge, it simply shared a common ancestor deep in time"
The first part (before the comma) is wrong by your own admission in the second part.
'AASI is 100% East Eurasian and lacks any Onge'
That's because there's no admixture, Onge and AASI are deep clades, as you have yourself stated. And so have I. By definition, AASI has the same ancestry components as Onge, and Onge DOES NOT have any west eurasian.
Note that you are on record here admitting that AASI is 100% east eurasian, what an own goal.
"-- on the other hand, Onge has some admixture from South and East Asians and AASI-like sources, which is why some affinities can be observed. It is no different than the AASI-like affinity observed in Australian Aboriginals because they have a minority of AASI admix, not because AASI has Aboriginal admixture."
I never said Indians have Onge admixture, thats your confused self misunderstanding almost everything. All my qpgraphs use an AASI node which diverges from the Onge node. AASI needed for IVC splits closer to Onge than to other SE Asians, but not by much. AASI & Onge have a common ancestor, which in turn shares a common ancestor with China_Tianyuan (the oldest East Eurasian sample).
"which is why the Reich and Narasimhan Lab paper found that Han was an excellent proxy for AASI."
Really? So AASI doesn't have west eurasian admixture after all? lol. Or do you claim Han also have west eurasian admixture?
"Even in IBD sharing, AASI shares more with SE Asians (almost a 100% match) than with Onge or other Australasians/Oceanians. AASI also lacks Onge haplogroups."
AASI only forms a clade with Onge, I never claimed admixture of Onge in Indians.
I think people like Razib have addled your brain lmao
You need to learn what qpAdm results mean.
qpAdm model passing does not mean that the sources are true sources, rather it means that the sources used form a clade with the true sources without additional admixture.
So a successful model which uses Onge as a qpAdm source, does not literally mean that Onge is a source.
Also, terms have very specific meaning.
How is one to define east Eurasian and west Eurasian? Only with respect to paleolithic samples and their relation on the qpgraphs with other populations.
So, kostenki is a quintessential west Eurasian population & tianyuan is quintessentially east Eurasian. Both are older than 30k bce. Samples like ust-ishim, bacho kiro and zlatykun, on the other hand do not fall neatly into either of the 2 subtrees and are sort of basal to both east and west Eurasians.
If I have time, I shall try and make a nice qpgraph with these paleolithic samples and IVC/some other Indian sample to explain AASI position.
"left pops:
Kalash.DG
ShahrISokhta_BA2 0.35
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 0.26
TKM_C_Namazga.SG 0.39
p-value 0.63"
How about with kangju?
Also is bmac an alternative for namazga? Or geoksyur, sarazm, anau?
Kushans and Huns replaced Indo-Greek kingdome in NW, their observation is true. Both Kushans and Huns were "Indianized" only in religious sense, since they issued coins with Hindu deities and donated to Buddhist temples.
@Vashishta
Models with BMAC sources fail, Eneolithic Sarazm/Anau are marginally better but Namazga seems to be the only source that works but Namazga is akin to Dzharkutan (BMAC ), so must be some issue with the samples perhaps.
sample: Namazga Tepe En:Average
distance: 4.2875
Ganj_Dareh_N: 73
Kumsay_EBA: 14
Boncuklu_N: 13
sample: Dzharkutan1 BA:Average
distance: 3.323
Ganj_Dareh_N: 65
Boncuklu_N: 15.5
Kumsay_EBA: 13
Gonur2_BA: 6.5
Kangju, Saka, Wusun do not work. A combination of Bustan_o2+Namazga +Srubna works but is not as effective as the model posted.
Thanks
Apologies if my views came across as acrimonious, I am simply here to learn, not to make enemies. I would like to understand your assertions further, if you could perhaps expound on some of your statements, particularly with respect to the following details, it would be of great service to acolytes in the field.
>>>>>>>>>The reason I said AASI has some West Eurasian admixture, is because according to Razib, it is very West Shifted/is on the Western border of the East Eurasian clade/cluster, thereby indicating ancient West Eurasian affinities/admixture from a West Eurasian source. This is not my insight, but what the latest research appears to show according to him and some other folks. I am not aware of the fidelity of this claim.
>>>>>>>>>I did say that it is a purely East Eurasian component, because I wanted to indicate that it is free of Australasian admixture, particularly the component native to the Onge and other natives of Australasia. As for whether something can be purely East Eurasian while still appearing to show West Eurasian affinities, indeed this can be the case when analyzing a ghost population like ASI, as not only did the original ANI-ASI paper define ASI as a pure East Eurasian source free of West Eurasian admixture (only to reverse this finding and subsequently claim that ASI was ~30% or so West Eurasian) but even the Natives of the Americas were originally considered to be pure East Eurasians only to find that they shared, in most cases, a minority of their ancestry with West Eurasians because of an ancient admixture event.
Also, the Han and Northern Chinese do indeed show a scarce minority of West Eurasian admixture in many samples. Furthermore, the Onge even were detected as showing a minority of West Eurasian admix according to the heat maps I've seen of World populations, perhaps mediated through South Asian admixture which introduced ASI admixture into their genome as well. If the ASI was originally found to be purely East Eurasian, devoid of any West Eurasian, only to later possess substantial West Eurasian admixture, I dont see why AASI cant have a minority of West Eurasian admixture as well, only time will tell. After all, you state that no AASI samples have been found yet, and this is still a ghost population that we hypothesize with.
>>>>>>>>Which brings me to the next query, if AASI samples havent been found yet, and this is still a ghost population, can you please explain to me how we know that it forms a clade with Onge and East Siberian Hunter Gatherers? Indeed can we be sure about any of its characteristics when everything appears to be based on simulation at this point? In this sense, how confident are you about the simulated/ghost AASI and any of its genetic attributes?
>>>>>>>>In that quote from the Rakhigarhi paper you state that the best fits include AHG and ESHG. Which is the best fit between the two? And why did researchers find that the Han Chinese can be used as a good proxy for AASI (or indeed the Dai as well) with a higher fit value using either of the aforementioned than with using AHG or ESHG? Does this mean Han/Dai are the best proxy for AASI, as opposed to ESHG and AHG? And if this is indeed the case, doesnt that make using Onge as a proxy wrong?
>>>>>>>>You say that AASI (which hasnt been found yet) forms a deep clade without any external admixture with ESHG or AHG. Isn't this true of other East Eurasian groups as well? Both Northeastern and Southeastern Asians, Native Americans, Siberians, and AASI, in addition to ESHG, form a part of this same clade, and all of these groups share the same common ancestor with Onge, one that they diverged from in the same time frame. Therefore, why is only AASI's relationship to AHG emphasized, as if the other East Eurasian groups (SE Asians, Siberians, NE Asians etc) dont share the same degree of relationship/deeply shared distantly related common ancestor with Onge? Indeed, according to the data we have Onge shares an even closer relationship to Tibetans and SE Asians than to AASI.
>>>>>>>>"AASI has nothing to do with Onge, it simply shared a common ancestor deep in time" The first part (before the comma) is wrong by your own admission in the second part." -----
-------This statement was more meant to highlight what I wrote in 5) regarding the fact that simply sharing a distantly related common ancestor deep in time with AHG doesnt make AASI share direct ancestry with native Onge sources, anymore than it makes East Eurasians like SE Asians, East Asians, share direct ancestry from an Onge source.
>>>>>>>'AASI is 100% East Eurasian and lacks any Onge'
"That's because there's no admixture, Onge and AASI are deep clades, as you have yourself stated. And so have I. By definition, AASI has the same ancestry components as Onge, and Onge DOES NOT have any west eurasian." -----
------Wait a second, if AASI doesnt have admixture from Onge itself, why do you state that AASI has the same ancestry components as Onge? When we know that the Onge have Australasian admixture that is completely absent in mainstream South Asians, in addition to SE Asian, and East Asian (including Basal East Asian admixture) admixture from Tibetan and Han migrants, which is also lacking in most South Asians? I know that there is some minor AASI-like admixture in the Onge as well, but that is no different than the AASI-like affinity and SE Asian affinity observed in Australian Aboriginals because they have a minority of AASI admix, not because AASI or SE Asians have Aboriginal admixture. Only a minority of the Onge genome is AASI, but the majority of the genome consists of SE Asian, East Asian, Basal East Asian, and Australasian admixture.
>>>>>>>> "I never said Indians have Onge admixture, thats your confused self misunderstanding almost everything. All my qpgraphs use an AASI node which diverges from the Onge node. AASI needed for IVC splits closer to Onge than to other SE Asians, but not by much. AASI & Onge have a common ancestor, which in turn shares a common ancestor with China_Tianyuan (the oldest East Eurasian sample)."------
-------Then we are in agreement, what I dont understand is why this relatively closer (by a minor amount) split to Onge is emphasized when IBD sharing shows that Onge shares more with SE Asians (almost a 100% match) than with the AASI. After all, AASI also lacks Onge haplogroups. Furthermore, doesnt this slightly closer split to Onge occur simply because there is some minor AASI-like admixture in Onge? I'd imagine SE Asians/other East Eurasians also split closer to Onge, because of minor SE Asian/East Asian admix in the Onge.
>>>>>>>>>> So a successful model which uses Onge as a qpAdm source, does not literally mean that Onge is a source.-----
------This makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>> If I have time, I shall try and make a nice qpgraph with these paleolithic samples and IVC/some other Indian sample to explain AASI position. -----
-------Please do this as a public service for all of us, but just as a starter query, from what we know so far, is AASI a purely East Eurasian component? (ignoring the very minor West Eurasian admixture that Razib Khan says it might or might not possess) And do ESHG and SE Asians share an even closer relationship to Onge in your graphs, as suggested by the research?
Thank you.
I have made this qpGraph explaining position of AASI. AASI qpgraph link
"The reason I said AASI has some West Eurasian admixture, is because according to Razib, it is very West Shifted/is on the Western border of the East Eurasian clade/cluster, thereby indicating ancient West Eurasian affinities/admixture from a West Eurasian source. "
I do not know of any research which shows west eurasian admixture into AASI. There is a Eurasian source which splits into west eurasian and east eurasian (presumably this common population splits, one goes into europe and one east into asia). AASI could be said to be closer (in terms of lesser drift units) to this 'Eurasian common source' than other samples like tianyuan or Dai . No admixtures. So in that general sense, AASI could be said to have more shared drift with west eurasian paleolithic samples than other east eurasians.
"I did say that it is a purely East Eurasian component, because I wanted to indicate that it is free of Australasian admixture, particularly the component native to the Onge and other natives of Australasia. As for whether something can be purely East Eurasian while still appearing to show West Eurasian affinities, indeed this can be the case when analyzing a ghost population like ASI, as not only did the original ANI-ASI paper define ASI as a pure East Eurasian source free of West Eurasian admixture (only to reverse this finding and subsequently claim that ASI was ~30% or so West Eurasian) but even the Natives of the Americas were originally considered to be pure East Eurasians only to find that they shared, in most cases, a minority of their ancestry with West Eurasians because of an ancient admixture event."
All of aasi, onge, australasians etc fall under the node of EE (check my qpgraph). It is not a geographical term but a genetic term and can be check via qpGraphs. None of them have WE admixtures. Wrt ASI, ASI is not AASI. ASI = AASI + IVC.
Natives of america indeed have WE ancestry (via ANE - defined by sample MA1 Malta boy. ANE itself is mixed between EE and WE). The hypothetical AASI natives of 40kya old India do not have this.
"If the ASI was originally found to be purely EE, devoid of any WE, only to later possess substantial West Eurasian admixture, I don't see why AASI cant have a minority of WE admixture as well, only time will tell. After all, you state that no AASI samples have been found yet, and this is still a ghost population that we hypothesize with."
IVC = AASI (defined as having no WE) + IndiaN + WSHG/tarim_EMBA. Mix and match these 3 components, only these possibilities can be foreseen to be found within Indian aDna pre 2000bce. And maybe a 4th component basal to both EE and WE if we go back long enough to the first population of India from africa.
"can you please explain to me how we know that it forms a clade with Onge and East Siberian Hunter Gatherers? Indeed can we be sure about any of its characteristics when everything appears to be based on simulation at this point? In this sense, how confident are you about the simulated/ghost AASI and any of its genetic attributes?"
Quite confident.
"In that quote from the Rakhigarhi paper you state that the best fits include AHG and ESHG. Which is the best fit between the two? And why did researchers find that the Han Chinese can be used as a good proxy for AASI (or indeed the Dai as well) with a higher fit value using either of the aforementioned than with using AHG or ESHG? Does this mean Han/Dai are the best proxy for AASI, as opposed to ESHG and AHG? And if this is indeed the case, doesnt that make using Onge as a proxy wrong?"
Theoretically, qpAdm will allow every EE source (which don't have WE admixture) as a proxy source instead of AASI. But aasi and onge share a common parent, the common parent of aasi and dai/han/tibetan etc are more distant. So Onge is the best proxy so far.
”You say that AASI (which hasnt been found yet) forms a deep clade without any external admixture with ESHG or AHG. Isn't this true of other East Eurasian groups as well? Both Northeastern and Southeastern Asians, Native Americans, Siberians, and AASI, in addition to ESHG, form a part of this same clade, and all of these groups share the same common ancestor with Onge, one that they diverged from in the same time frame. Therefore, why is only AASI's relationship to AHG emphasized, as if the other East Eurasian groups (SE Asians, Siberians, NE Asians etc) dont share the same degree of relationship/deeply shared distantly related common ancestor with Onge? “
AASI shares an immediate parent node with Onge, but not with others. Eg Dai people are admixed with 76% Onge like and 24% Tianyuan like ancestry when 3 EEs are fed into the qpgraph (onge, dai and tianyuan/amur paleolithic). But no such admixture is needed for AASI. If we feed all EE into qpgraph (including Japanese, se Asians, Australasians, Chinese groups it will create a complex shitshow. Maybe some one can do it. This qpgraph from a published paper attempts it. Link
“Indeed, according to the data we have Onge shares an even closer relationship to Tibetans and SE Asians than to AASI.”
Which data? Which paper explores AASI in this detail?
“ This statement was more meant to highlight what I wrote in 5) regarding the fact that simply sharing a distantly related common ancestor deep in time with AHG doesnt make AASI share direct ancestry with native Onge sources, anymore than it makes East Eurasians like SE Asians, East Asians, share direct ancestry from an Onge source.”
Which is why we use qpgraphs to present relationships rather than put it in words.
” Wait a second, if AASI doesnt have admixture from Onge itself, why do you state that AASI has the same ancestry components as Onge? When we know that the Onge have Australasian admixture that is completely absent in mainstream South Asians, in addition to SE Asian, and East Asian (including Basal East Asian admixture) admixture from Tibetan and Han migrants, which is also lacking in most South Asians? I know that there is some minor AASI-like admixture in the Onge as well, but that is no different than the AASI-like affinity and SE Asian affinity observed in Australian Aboriginals because they have a minority of AASI admix, not because AASI or SE Asians have Aboriginal admixture. Only a minority of the Onge genome is AASI, but the majority of the genome consists of SE Asian, East Asian, Basal East Asian, and Australasian admixture.”
All of what you said is nonsense. Onge DOES NOT have Australasian admixture. Austro share a common ancestor with Onge but have additional Denisovan admixture. Onge DO NOT have additional admixture from SE Asians and Hans. You need to seriously understand qpGraphs, parent nodes, drift, admixture etc. Heres 2 qpgraphs from published papers
Link 1
Link 2
“Then we are in agreement, what I dont understand is why this relatively closer (by a minor amount) split to Onge is emphasized when IBD sharing shows that Onge shares more with SE Asians (almost a 100% match) than with the AASI. After all, AASI also lacks Onge haplogroups. Furthermore, doesnt this slightly closer split to Onge occur simply because there is some minor AASI-like admixture in Onge? I'd imagine SE Asians/other East Eurasians also split closer to Onge, because of minor SE Asian/East Asian admix in the Onge.”
Because both Onge and SE Asians are completely EE, whereas we have no AASI sample. So what is IBD sharing being checked with? all available Indian samples are EE/WE mixed due to IndiaN. About the minor AASI admixture in Onge, that we will only know once for certain we get AASI samples. So far, I would say that it is minimal.
“ Please do this as a public service for all of us, but just as a starter query, from what we know so far, is AASI a purely East Eurasian component? (ignoring the very minor West Eurasian admixture that Razib Khan says it might or might not possess) And do ESHG and SE Asians share an even closer relationship to Onge in your graphs, as suggested by the research?”
I pasted my qpGraph in prior comments which explains relation of AASI with Onge, Dai and Tianyuan. I also pasted 2 links in prior comments which have qpgraphs from published papers. They explain relation of Onge with various other eastern and north Asian populations. The basic takeaway from that is that Onge is a really isolated unadmixed and ancient EE population. And my bet is the same for AASI. What this means is that Onge are an almost unadmixed (at least not from currently sampled ancients and moderns) pure descendants of the out of africans who underwent a lot of genetic drift specific to themselves. AASI could be similar.
@ Vasistha
Thank you, learned one. I am very impressed by your command of this discipline, and hope to continue learning from your esteemed self. You have taught me many things and cleared up quite a few misconceptions. I will post the link to the IBD sharing, the paper discussing the specific relationships of Onge with Australasians and others, and the paper discussing the admixture that Onge have from other sources below. Please let me know if I have misunderstood anything, I am indebted to you.
>>>>>>>BTW, I had a related query: what would be the most analogous component to Onge in the West Eurasian tree/qpgraph? What about AASI?
>>>>>>>The reason I ask is because I wanted to learn if AASI and Onge (I know these two are separate btw) are authentically East Eurasians, just as other West Eurasians, no matter how drifted/distant, are authentic West Eurasians. So comparing to a similar component/ancestry in the West Eurasian tree would help determine if our identity as East Eurasians is ambiguous or uncontestable.
Because at the moment, I'm seeing a lot of ridiculous BS being bandied about by racists who want to prove that Indians are their own race, distinct from all other groups of humanity, and that their native ancestral component, which is AASI, is sui generis, and finds no parallel to/relationship to other ancestral components on earth, making Indians a pariah group of sorts, and therefore the subject of ridicule, the implication being that other West Eurasian and East Eurasians components share a much closer relationship, to the exclusion of AASI.
"BTW, I had a related query: what would be the most analogous component to Onge in the West Eurasian tree/qpgraph? What about AASI?"
No pure WE population exists today. They all got admixed before 10kbce due to a wave of ANE/EE. All modern europeans are admixed between WE & EE to variable extent. On the other hand, many pure EEs exist today (no WE admixture) - in SE Asia and E Asia. Tibetans too.
"The reason I ask is because I wanted to learn if AASI and Onge (I know these two are separate btw) are authentically East Eurasians, just as other West Eurasians, no matter how drifted/distant, are authentic West Eurasians. So comparing to a similar component/ancestry in the West Eurasian tree would help determine if our identity as East Eurasians is ambiguous or uncontestable."
Huh? Those two are authentically east eurasians. In fact, the ancestors of Onge and SE Asians give ancestry to ANE which then is integral in the formation of Eastern European HG and Western European HG, the 2 components which characterize neolithic Europe. The other components in modern Europeans are AnatoliaN from Turkey and IranN/IndiaN which is most common in west asia, India and SC asia today.
"Because at the moment, I'm seeing a lot of ridiculous BS being bandied about by racists who want to prove that Indians are their own race, distinct from all other groups of humanity, and that their native ancestral component, which is AASI, is sui generis, and finds no parallel to/relationship to other ancestral components on earth, making Indians a pariah group of sorts, and therefore the subject of ridicule, the implication being that other West Eurasian and East Eurasians components share a much closer relationship, to the exclusion of AASI."
Yea those are re tards typing from their mums basement. Btw, these racists keep using 'Hindu nationalism' to oppose any viewpoint they don't like. But the war in Ukraine has shown us the number of actual Nazis festering in eastern Europe. These groups have been incessantly attacking the camps of the Roma people there for centuries. These are the same eastern european nationalist lot who are also active in the genetic debate forums. You will see them claim that PIE was from the area next to their great grandfather's house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos The gypsy holocaust by the Nazis, not as famous as the Jewish one because Romani are not the chosen people (and are brown).
'In 2011, Poland officially adopted 2 August as a day of commemoration of the Romani genocide.'
Who knows, Davidski's grandfather could have played a part in this.
Romani are from NW india, have enough south asian ancestry and have a lot of y haplo H
First result on Google
"Up to 63% of Roma show a founder lineage, and from those 30% show founder non-H Indian lineages. More than 44% of the Roma individuals belonged to the Indian H-M52 haplogroup (including H-M82), ranging from 64% in the Balkan Peninsula to 21% in Spain (Supplementary Figure S1)."
@Vasistha
>>>>>Agreed with your statements. I was referring to their origins within the Indian subcontinent itself; since their haplogroups show the highest similarity with groups in Southern Indian tribal populations, where the particular haplogroup specific to Romas reaches the highest frequencies. In fact, they found a specific downstream mutation on the Y chromosome you refer to, shared by both the Roma and these Southern Indian tribes in particular. A paper that examined the proto-Roma (that is, the founding population of Roma that originally left India for the West) found that their origins match closely with a founding population that possessed very low levels of West Eurasian ancestry (much less than 20%) and matched/IBD shared with disenfranchised/lowest caste groups in Southern and Eastern India, as well as some similarity with the lowest caste in the Punjab. There are no castes in NW India that have such little West Eurasian ancestry either. This, along with the linguistic and historical evidence that shows Roma have Southern/Central Indian origins within India, leads to the conclusion that the proto-Roma originate from a Dalit-like South Indian group that eventually migrated to the NW, and from there migrated to West Asia and Europe, picking up admixture along the way.
>>>>>>>And Roma are extremely diverse, one Roma group cannot be used as a proxy to understand others, the Iberian Roma for instance are up to 99% West Eurasian, and on average around 95% or so West Eurasian. Such high West Eurasian numbers are not uncommon for most Roma living in Western Europe/Northern Europe and Iberia, based on the admixture results/studies conducted on them. Even in West Asia and Eastern Europe, the Roma show diversity, both with regard to their West Eurasian levels, and haplogroup percentages. Overall though, they cluster with Euro and/or West Asians, so my main point was that while they shouldnt be hating the Roma for any reason, they are actually ironically hating their own people in most cases, who share most of their ancestry with Europeans, and even cluster with them.
Regardless of who the Roma are, Europeans have no business genociding them.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2022.813934/full
The west Eurasian-specific haplogroups observed were HV0e (0.06), U3 (0.02), and U7 (0.02). Among the haplogroups observed, the most frequent haplogroup was M39 (0.24), followed by R32 (0.14).
Can you ask Niraj or Gyan for their autosomal data?
I don't think they could salvage good quality autosomal data
@Vasistha
>>>>>>>>Agreed completely about the reprehensible nature of acts committed by Europeans against Roma, there is simply no excuse for this atrocity. I stated the same sentiment, was just refining the origins of the Roma and their indisputable closeness/clustering with West Eurasians, which is an uncomfortable fact for these racists. Life is an exercise in irony for people living on the margins of society while possessing fringe opinions.
>>>>>>>>>Going back to what you said regarding the lack of a pure West Eurasian population in existence today, it is certainly fascinating (and ironic, yet again) that the group most concerned with purity of blood and race (West Eurasians) is the most admixed -- on the other hand, East Eurasians, even the pure ones -- appear to have no such pathologies, by and large.
>>>>>>>>>>I just had a question regarding the original query comparing AASI with analogous West Eurasian components --- keeping in mind that all West Eurasians are mixed, is there a West Eurasian component/population that shares the same fate/identity as AASI, in the sense of being as diverged and drifted from other West Eurasians as AASI is from more "mainstream" East Eurasians (NE Asians, SE Asians), both in terms of its time frame of divergence and its position within the East Eurasian tree/shared ancestral nodes? Which West Eurasian population is as "unique" and/or as relatively drifted and diverged as AASI is, except within the West Eurasian family tree?
>>>>>>>>>>Along the same lines, is there an analogous component among African natives (West Africans, Central Africans, the San, Bantus etc) that is as diverged from/drifted/isolated from other Africans in the African tree, as AASI is from other East Eurasian groups? This question and the previous one only further help to situate AASI within the larger East Eurasian tree, and touch upon a bigger issue, highlighted below.
>>>>>>>>>I agree with your assertion that "Hindutva" is used as a counter by these irrational folks when faced with a mountain of evidence contradicting their claims. It is a red herring, a non sequitur. Only goes to show that they are luddites who will not disavow their dogmatic embrace of a fantastical and comforting narrative that only serves to buttress their fragile egos and low self-esteem. Pathetic. Lots more to say on this in the future.
>>>>>>>>>I apologize if I came across as unaware when asking about the East Eurasian-ness of AASI and Onge -- I am aware of the fact that both of these components are fully East Eurasian, I just wanted to get more evidence for the same in order to fight back against narratives espoused by certain bigots who choose to exclude AASI from East Eurasian membership because they consider it to be too different or unique, and by extension, those mixed with it to be their own race
>>>>>>>>>>Since AASI and Onge are purely East Eurasian, and since any East Eurasian source can be used as a good proxy for AASI, is it then fair to say that possessing AASI admixture is no different than possessing NE Asian or SE Asian admixture, in terms of its ENA nature? Fundamentally, isnt AASI admixture just NE/SE Asian admixture by another name? Sure AASI has a unique appearance, but all East Eurasians have unique appearances, and AASI is a purely East Eurasian population. After all, if West Eurasian components/populations are interchangeably used as proxies for each other, so can East Eurasian components be used interchangeably. Is this a correct understanding?
>>>>>>>>>>You will notice that I was asking you about which West Eurasian and African components are as exotic/drifted/unique/isolated within their trees as AASI and Onge are from other East Eurasians. This goes back to fighting against narratives that paint AASI as a pariah population without any connections or parallels to the rest of humanity. Pointing out populations of West Eurasians and Africans that have parallels to AASI help silence these false accusations.
Along the same lines, you surely know how racists and even well meaning historians like to group all West Eurasians together in order to claim the achievements of everyone from the Mesopotamians to the Egyptians to the Europeans as being a product of the White race or Caucasian race, in order to illustrate the superiority of this race over others, and to show that they all share a common heritage. That Western civilization is part and parcel of Babylonian civilization and vice versa.
By the same token, is it fair to say that AASI and NE Asians, SE Asians and the Natives of the Americas share a common heritage/root genetically, and as such, one can combine the achievements of AASI, NE Asians, SE Asians, American Natives into one cohesive group, to represent the achievements of the East Eurasian race? Can someone who is mostly or possesses AASI thus claim the achievements of the Han and Korean/Japanese/Mongols/SE Asians, because AASI is a purely East Eurasian component that shares ancestry with other East Eurasians and since all East Eurasians cluster together in the same tree? Or is AASI too much of an exotic component/sui generis within the East Eurasian qpgraph/tree/cluster to make such claims?
>>>>>>>>>Following from the above, it appears that South Asians are simply West Eurasian-East Eurasian mixes like Latin Americans, Central Asians, Russians, and much of Eastern and Northeastern Europe. Indeed, because all West Eurasians have ancient and varying levels of modern East Eurasian admixture, doesnt this mean that South Asians are also authentic Eurasians, no different from West Asians, Central Asians and Europeans etc in their identity as being part of the larger Eurasian group? Or is the nature of AASI too divergent for them to be grouped with other West-East Eurasian mixes and Eurasians? Are they their own thing due to AASI admixture, like North Africans are because of SSA admixture?
>>>>>>>>>Since Gypsies are fundamentally West-East Eurasian admixes, doesnt it follow that people who label them as being pariahs/unique due to solely possessing AASI admixture are wrong, since AASI is interchangeable with other East Eurasian components/populations, and that anyone with West and East Eurasian admixture of any sort (NE Asian, SE Asian, Native American etc) can be considered a gypsy genetically? So Latin Americans, Russians, Central Asians and Turks would then fairly be considered gypsies genetically? Indeed they can look identical in many cases too, since they vary in their admixture.
>>>>>>>>>>Finally, since the ancestors of the Onge and SE Asians and AASI gave ancestry to ANE which later formed the EHG and WHG, doesnt this mean that Europeans and MENA also possess ancient AASI DNA? I know that Iran_N has substantial AASI within it, are there European components that have AASI in them as well? Do you know of any other West Eurasian components/populations with AASI admixture?
Thank you so much for this lesson, I am indebted to you for your expertise.
*******Just a correction/addendum to this paragraph:
>>>>>>>>>>Since AASI and Onge are purely East Eurasian, and since any East Eurasian source can be used as a good proxy for AASI, is it then fair to say that possessing AASI admixture is essentially no different than possessing NE Asian or SE Asian admixture, in terms of its ENA/East Eurasian nature? Fundamentally, isnt AASI admixture just East Eurasian admixture by another name? (Its just one type/strain of East Eurasian ancestry, part of the overall diversity/types of East Eurasian strains, including NE Asians, SE Asians, Native Americans, Siberians, etc. Sure AASI has a unique appearance, but all East Eurasians have unique appearances due to recent changes in phenotype/evolving in different climes, and AASI is no different in this respect. But it is still a purely East Eurasian population that descends from the same common ancestor as all East Eurasians and shares full ancestry with other EE.)
After all, if West Eurasian components/populations are interchangeably used as proxies for each other, so can East Eurasian components be used interchangeably. Is this a correct understanding of AASI and its relationship to other East Eurasians? And where does a hypothetical ghost 100% AASI population (since we dont have a sample yet) mostly likely cluster? Well within the East Eurasian cluster and close to NE Asians, SE Asians, etc. or much outside/on the fringes of this EE cluster, to the point that it cannot be considered a true, mainstream East Eurasian component? Do AASI/AASI admix populations ever form a cline with Australasians and/or Australoid populations btw, or are they part of the general East Eurasian cline? This is another claim that gets thrown around when trying to otherize AASI.
I know Native Americans and even Siberians cluster at relatively far distances from NE Asians and SE Asians, who in turn have much distance between themselves, but they are still considered mainstream East Eurasians overall due to neatly fitting within the East Eurasian cluster (though there is minor WE admixture in some NativeA). In fact, Siberians and Native Americans also have different clines when compared to North East Asians and SE Asian clines, but they are overall part of the EE cline.
Thanks so much and sorry for the rather lengthy post.
Is Dravidian-Korean linguistic similarity a recent phenomena or an ancient one?
@Vasistha,
You had said previously that Anthrogenica's Simulated_AASI gave inflated values for Irula. What do you think the real percentage is?
> Is Dravidian-Korean linguistic similarity a recent phenomena or an ancient one?
Well there certainly is a nostratic connection, but many words could be borrowings during the Buddhist period.
"You had said previously that Anthrogenica's Simulated_AASI gave inflated values for Irula. What do you think the real percentage is?"
Irula has 55-60% AASI rest being IndiaN + ANE
"is there a West Eurasian component/population that shares the same fate/identity as AASI, in the sense of being as diverged and drifted from other West Eurasians as AASI is from more "mainstream" East Eurasians (NE Asians, SE Asians), both in terms of its time frame of divergence and its position within the East Eurasian tree/shared ancestral nodes? Which West Eurasian population is as "unique" and/or as relatively drifted and diverged as AASI is, except within the West Eurasian family tree?"
Maybe the west eurasian component in IranN/IndiaN and AnatoliaN is like that, diverged from other west eurasians.
"Do AASI/AASI admix populations ever form a cline with Australasians and/or Australoid populations btw, or are they part of the general East Eurasian cline? This is another claim that gets thrown around when trying to otherize AASI."
A cline is with respect to PCA and represent admixtures. if two populations A,B exist and C, D, E, F are an admixture between A & B in different ratios, then A, B, C, D, E, F will form a cline.
"general East Eurasian cline" - There is no such thing as a general East eurasian cline. Onge AASI Australasians are unadmixed populations from common parent, so they don't form a cline.
On a PCA chart, a population clusters separately because of either
1) admixture with some other pop, or
2) Genetic drift due to isolation from each other, such that drift affects both separately and independently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
PCA itself cannot tell us whether the reason is 1 or 2. We need Admixtools for that (qpAdm or qpgraph or Fstats)
I cannot answer more of your questions, too long to read.
@Vasistha
Thank you for your input. That helped immensely. I realize I wrote too much, but if you could perhaps answer these two questions specifically, it would answer all of the queries I wrote above. I greatly appreciate your efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>Since AASI and Onge are purely East Eurasian, and since any East Eurasian source can be used as a good proxy for AASI, is it then fair to say that possessing AASI admixture is no different than possessing NE Asian or SE Asian admixture, in terms of its ENA nature?
Racists like to group all West Eurasians together in order to claim the achievements of everyone from the Mesopotamians to the Egyptians to the Europeans as being a product of the White race or Caucasian race.
By the same token, is it fair to say one can combine the achievements of AASI, NE Asians, SE Asians, American Natives into one cohesive group, to represent the achievements of the East Eurasian race? Can someone who is mostly or possesses AASI thus claim the achievements of the Han and Korean/Japanese/Mongols/SE Asians? Or is AASI too much of an exotic component to make such claims?
Genetic drfit vs natural selection - from wiki
"While natural selection has a direction, guiding evolution towards heritable adaptations to the current environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the mathematics of chance.[29] As a result, drift acts upon the genotypic frequencies within a population without regard to their phenotypic effects. In contrast, selection favors the spread of alleles whose phenotypic effects increase survival and/or reproduction of their carriers, lowers the frequencies of alleles that cause unfavorable traits, and ignores those that are neutral.[30]
The law of large numbers predicts that when the absolute number of copies of the allele is small (e.g., in small populations), the magnitude of drift on allele frequencies per generation is larger. The magnitude of drift is large enough to overwhelm selection at any allele frequency when the selection coefficient is less than 1 divided by the effective population size. Non-adaptive evolution resulting from the product of mutation and genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations.[31] The mathematics of genetic drift depend on the effective population size, but it is not clear how this is related to the actual number of individuals in a population.[17] "
The smaller the effective population size, the higher the genetic drift resulting in fixing of some alleles (becomes 100% in frequency) and loss of others (becomes 0% and can never be recovered), all by chance without giving a fk about phenotypes or evolutionary survivability.
Which is why Onge and AASI, even though from same ancestors, can appear so distant on PCA chart.
"Since AASI and Onge are purely East Eurasian, and since any East Eurasian source can be used as a good proxy for AASI, is it then fair to say that possessing AASI admixture is no different than possessing NE Asian or SE Asian admixture, in terms of its ENA nature?"
Political question. AASI is an EE population and there are many other EE populations who have been isolated wrt each other for a long time.
"Racists like to group all West Eurasians together in order to claim the achievements of everyone from the Mesopotamians to the Egyptians to the Europeans as being a product of the White race or Caucasian race."
Christian Europeans in 1700s believed all languages to be from Hebrew with Sanskrit moving east with one of the sons of Noah. This belief was based upon the Book of Genesis from the Old testament. This Judeo-Christian centric view is very old in them. The race based view is an offshoot of this history. They will appropriate every culture of the world as their achievement if allowed to.
"The Tower of Babel (Hebrew: מִגְדַּל בָּבֶל, Migdal Bavel) narrative in Genesis 11:1–9 is an origin myth meant to explain why the world's peoples speak different languages.[1][2][3][4]
According to the story, a united human race in the generations following the Great Flood, speaking a single language and migrating eastward, comes to the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָר). There they agree to build a city and a tower tall enough to reach heaven. God, observing their city and tower, confounds their speech so that they can no longer understand each other, and scatters them around the world."
"By the same token, is it fair to say one can combine the achievements of AASI, NE Asians, SE Asians, American Natives into one cohesive group, to represent the achievements of the East Eurasian race? Can someone who is mostly or possesses AASI thus claim the achievements of the Han and Korean/Japanese/Mongols/SE Asians? Or is AASI too much of an exotic component to make such claims?"
I don't think they can or should. Lot of isolation between them in space and time.
@ Vasistha
Thank you for explaining the drift aspect. I was asking the two questions above (please see the post above your post explaining drift vs selection) in the context of this chart:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a215ab6bd51ebca8226c811f3dc93719-pjlq
Here, Andamanese have approximately 45% East Asian and 55% Papuan ancestry.
This is an ancestry model of the Andamanese Onge using MDLP K23b:
Onge: 67.54% Oceanic, 0.98% Melano_Polynesian, 13.57% EA, 13.21% S_EA. 28.55% East Eurasian (~30% shared drift with "East Asians) and the N-S cline for the East Eurasian ancestry is 0.6882.
And this PCA:
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d2d0205f5eb998462076c5d9986af2df
Here Andamanese are obviously differentiated from Australo-Melanesians. The Andamanese have a best fit with ~30% to ~50% East Asian and ~50% to ~70% Australasian (Papuan).
Vallini et al. 2021 shows:
"Taken together with a lower bound of the final settlement of Sahul at 37 kya (the date of the deepest population splits estimated by 1) it is reasonable to describe Oceanians as an almost even mixture between East Asians and a basal lineage, closer to Africans, which occurred sometimes between 45 and 37kya."
So Australo-Melanesians formed from an Paleolithic admixture event including Basal-East Asians, samplified by Andamanese or Han, and an earlier South-Eurasian lineage, somewhere in the (northern) Sahul region. Other studies came to similar conclusions, by analyzing the Denisovan and other archaic admixture among Oceanians/Australo-Melanesians and other Eurasians.
Australo-Melanesian genome show evidence for two distinct Denisovan introductions, one local Denisovan lineage and one introduced by a group from the Asian Mainland.
All of this shows that Onge are a mix of Basal East Asians and Australasian Papuan-like populations. Is AASI different from Onge in this respect? This is why racists like talking about AASI and Onge, presumably to show that since Onge has significant Papuan admixture, so does AASI, and by extension this makes AASI extremely different from mainstream East Eurasians like NE and SE Asians, etc.
Thoughts? I appreciate your input like always dear sir.
Onge does not have admixture from papuans, or any oceanian, as shown explicitly in the various qpGraphs that I have linked above.
@Vasistha
Thank you, I would like to contribute to your efforts through financial donations. Where can I send you such funds? I want to learn more about these things and since it takes time, I would like to compensate you for your efforts. Please let me know if you have an email address I can contact you at, PayPal works well for such things.
Thanks. My email is vikramraj12344321 at gmail.com. paypal on the same email
@Vasistha
Sounds excellent. I will send you the funds and associated details on that email.
@Anonymous
That admixture chart you used for Onge is not the studys final model. Onge is unadmixed. This is the study where it's from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7475039/
That quoute you posted is WRONG.
Here is full quoute from the study Vallini et al study 2021 - also see chart, Papuan is unadmixed but related to Tianyuan distantly.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.444621v2.full.pdf
"we tried to model Oceanian populations (modern Papuans) within the emerging picture to resolve a long lasting debate on their topological position with respect to East and West Eurasians. Starting from the topologies proposed in 141 1,2 we first tried to place Papuans as the most basal branch along the non-African sub-tree, allowing for the documented Denisova admixture 36,37 143 . We avoided including the sampled Denisova aDNA within the population tree to eliminate attractions from yet uncharacterized, deep splits along the hominin branch, and opted for a surrogate ghost split along the archaic human lineage. Simply placing Papuans in a basal position (either before or after the split of Zlatý Kůň) was rejected and highlighted a notable attraction between them and Tianyuan. We then modelled Papuans as sister of Tianyuan (Figure 1.B, Figure S7.A) 3 148 , a solution that yielded only two marginal outliers that could be resolved when taking all the SNPs into account (Supplementary 150 Section 3.8). This topology could be marginally improved when allowing for a contribution of a basal lineage, whose magnitude decreased the deeper was its position along and beyond the OoA tree: 94% as the ancestor of Bacho Kiro and Tianyuan (Figure S7) or 53% as the most basal IUP lineage (Figure S7.C), 40% before the West/East Eurasia split (Figure S7.D), 2% before the Zlatý Kůň lineage, along the OoA path (Figure S7.E) and 2% as an extinct OoA (xOoA, Figure S7.F) as proposed by Pagani and colleagues. Notably, all the acceptable solutions for the placement of Papua within the broader OoA tree confirm Zlatý Kůň as the most basal human genome among the ones ever found Out of Africa. Taken together with a lower bound of the final settlement of Sahul at 37 kya (the date of the deepest population splits estimated it is reasonable to describe Oceanians as either an almost even mixture between East Asians and a lineage basal to West and East Asians occurred sometimes between 45 and 37kya, or as a sister lineage of East Asians with or without a minor basal OoA or xOoA contribution. We here chose to parsimoniously describe Papuans as a simple sister group of Tianyuan, cautioning that this may be just one out of five equifinal possibilities."
Looks like you got all your misnformation from qoura. Don't waste your time there. Go read actual genetic studies.
@vasishtha we have kushan samples?
From which paper?
Has someone upload them,where can we access it?
What's the sample ID for the two kushan samples u gave the g25 coordinates for?
And from which paper?
Post a Comment