Friday, July 1, 2011

Results up to DOD764 are posted (+portraits, Indo-Iranians etc.)

The results can be found in the spreadsheet

Submission to the Project is currently closed, and of course I encourage participants who have not already done so to leave a message in the ancestry thread.

This completes the results for all Project participants who joined during the latest submission opportunity.

The population averages are finalized -for the time being- but I will occasionally update the _D populations as more participants join the Project and/or I discover cases of fraud in terms of ancestry self-reporting.

Population Portraits

Finally, the population portraits have been uploaded (here and here). For example, here is the Nganassan one, showing three distinctive outliers:

A colorful view of the Nepalese, showing the co-existence of South-Asian-like and East-Asian-like individuals:
Note, that there are also some portraits of populations not included in the averages. For example here are the Onge:
The Onge from the Indian Ocean are outside the area covered by the populations used to create the Dodecad v3, and show mixed "South Asian", "South-East Asian" affiliations. They are probably a good example of case #4.

Indo-Iranian Origins

Here is the population portrait of the Kurds:
I have long noticed that all Indo-Iranian populations possess some of the "South Asian" component. The origin of that component is difficult to ascertain, as it is a composite of "North Indian" and "South Indian" ancestral components, related to West Asians and Onge respectively.

What also seems interesting is that the "South Asian" component is closer to the "West Asian" one with respect to all other West Eurasian components, while many South Asian individuals have substantial levels of the "West Asian" component itself.

The occurrence of "South Asian" in non-negligible levels seems to track the Indo-Iranian world quite well: it is found at about 1/10 in Iranians and Kurds, and also occurs widely in Central Asia, where its true ancient levels were probably much higher due to the substantial presence of east Eurasian elements in the area today. It even occurs at non-trace levels in people who have been part of historical Persian empires such as those from the eastern Caucasus (compare Lezgins and Azerbaijan Jews with Georgians and Adygei, and Iranians/Kurds with Turks, Cypriots, Syrians, and Armenians).

These patterns can be well-explained, I believe, if we accept that Indo-Iranians are partially descended not only from the early Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Near East, but also from a second element that had conceivable "South Asian" affiliations. The most likely candidate for the "second element" is the population of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC). The rise and demise of the BMAC fits well with the relative shallowness of the Indo-Iranian language family and its 2nd millennium BC breakup, and has been assigned an Indo-Iranian identity on other grounds by its excavator. As climate change led to the decline and abandonment of BMAC sites, its population must have spread outward: to the Iranian plateau, the steppe, and into South Asia, reinforcing the linguistic differentiation that must have already began over the extensive territory of the complex.

The proposed Indo-Iranian homeland, transitional between the West and the South would explain both:
  • the presence of the "West Asian" component in South Asians (contrast e.g., Kashmiri Pandits with other Indians and south Indian Brahmins with non-Brahmin south Indians), and also
  • the "South Asian" component in Iranians and Iranian-admixed Central Asian Turkic speakers
In their westward march, the Iranians would acquire an excess of West and Southwest Asian components (which would reduce their "South Asian" one), while in their southward march, the Indo-Aryans would acquire an excess of the South Asian component (which would reduce their "West Asian" one).

10 comments:

  1. I think there is recent Russian or something similar admixture in at least one of the Behar Georgians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have a question regarding the South Asian component in Iranians. You wrote:
    "It is a composite of "North Indian" and "South Indian" ancestral components, related to West Asians and Onge respectively." This is also shown here:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PH9dHcTz4tU/TePlWHYVOuI/AAAAAAAADzA/E0Mqv1KXk3U/s1600/Iranians_6.png

    You also wrote:
    "The most likely candidate for the "second element" is the population of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC)."

    If this would be true, then the population of BMAC would have been a mix of "North Indian" and "South Indian" ancestral components.

    What if the "South Indian component" is not part of the Indo-Iranian story but more part of the Elamo-Dravidian story.
    The North Dravidian Brahui might be interesting to compare for it.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CXGkFDZN8wM/TeS2b0dYMCI/AAAAAAAADzQ/RTc-veypHFU/s1600/_7.png

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Nepali samples are a mix of Hindu upper castes (Brahmin and Chhetris) and the largely native Magar and Newar, which explains the diversity in Xing et al's Nepali data-set. Also, to what extent is the origins of Indo-Europeans in the Near East supported by archaeology? A rather robust hypothesis, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, to what extent is the origins of Indo-Europeans in the Near East supported by archaeology? A rather robust hypothesis, don't you think?

    It is far from clear that archaeologists can trace the spread of languages in the material record. Until recently many of them held to an idea of Paleolithic continuity and 'acculturation' that was almost ideologically suspicious of migration. I would say that any theory of language spread should harmonize with the material record, but I don't expect the material record itself to decide the issue.

    What if the "South Indian component" is not part of the Indo-Iranian story but more part of the Elamo-Dravidian story.

    I won't speculate on what languages were originally spoken by populations with a high "South Asian" component. After all most of the components are associated with multiple languages today, so I don't think that equivalent components in the past were associated with a single language.

    Also, the Indo-Iranian connection does not mean that the _original_ language of the "South Asian" component was Indo-Iranian. Rather it means that the Indo-Iranians formed in a population that had some of this component by a fusion of Indo-European speakers of some sort and a native element of some sort. The latter may well have spoken an Elamo-Dravidian type of language and have been substantially "South Asian" genomically.

    It is the fact that traces of the "South Asian" are found throughout the Iranian world that makes one believe that it was a part of the Proto-Indo-Iranian gene pool to begin with, that is, that there were no Iranian groups devoid of it completely.

    If we find some Iranian groups devoid of the "South Asian" this might indicate that only a subset of Iranians came to be associated with it, and hence the earliest homeland would have to be sought in a different place.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don´t know what to say but it almost seems like the South Asian component correlates with the "West and East European" components.

    ReplyDelete
  6. it almost seems like the South Asian component correlates with the "West and East European" components

    In which regions/populations of the world does the "South Asian" component correlate with the "West and East European" components? And what do you mean exactly by correlation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm a bit confused. How could the people of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex contribute South Asian genes to the people of Iran when they didn't come from South Asia? Isn't it more likely that there have been extensive interactions between the people of the Indus Valley and the people of Iran which included movements of people in the period that you're considering?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The "South Asian" component is not limited to South Asia. It has a clinal distribution, being most important in South Asia. I don't deny the possibility of historical interactions, but the fact that it seems extended far to the west and north among Iranic populations as well as (to a lesser degree) populations that were included in the Iranian sphere of influence suggests to me that it may very well have been an original Indo-Iranian component.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Question, is the sample of Gayán et al study available ? It has 800 spaniards. Also I wanted to say the IBS sample includes people of Canarian ancestry, thus non-iberian.

    ReplyDelete
  10. anthrospain: Also I wanted to say the IBS sample includes people of Canarian ancestry, thus non-iberian.

    How do you know that? Even if that is true, I don't think there are many people of Canarian ancestry in the IBS.

    Corduene: I don´t know what to say but it almost seems like the South Asian component correlates with the "West and East European" components.

    Onur: In which regions/populations of the world does the "South Asian" component correlate with the "West and East European" components? And what do you mean exactly by correlation?

    BTW, I don't see any correlation between the "South Asian" component and the "West and East European" components; that is why I asked the above questions to Corduene.

    ReplyDelete