Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia
"Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recently—our haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture.
Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool."
Link
------
"According to Prof Singh, Dr Chaubey, and Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, another member of the team, the findings disprove the caste theory prevailing in India. Interestingly, the team found that instead of Aryan invasion, it was Indians who moved from the subcontinent to Europe. “That’s the reason behind the findings of the same genetic traits in Eurasian regions,” said Dr Thangaraj, senior scientist, CCMB."
Link
"Knowing whether signals associated with the initial peopling of Eurasia fall within our detection limits requires additional extensive simulations, but our current results indicate that the often debated episode of South Asian prehistory, the putative Indo-Aryan migration 3,500 years ago (see e.g., Abdulla) falls well within the limits of our haplotype-based approach. We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8. Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recently—our haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture.
Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia. Given the close genetic relationships between South Asian and West Eurasian populations, as evidenced by both shared ancestry and shared selection signals, this raises the question of whether such a relationship can be explained by a deep common evolutionary history or secondary contacts between two distinct populations. Namely, did genetic variation in West Eurasia and South Asia accumulate separately after the out-of-Africa migration; do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool."
Link
------
New research debunks Aryan invasion theory
Published: Saturday, Dec 10, 2011, 10:30 IST
By Kumar Chellappan | Place: Chennai | Agency: DNA
By Kumar Chellappan | Place: Chennai | Agency: DNA
"According to Prof Singh, Dr Chaubey, and Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj, another member of the team, the findings disprove the caste theory prevailing in India. Interestingly, the team found that instead of Aryan invasion, it was Indians who moved from the subcontinent to Europe. “That’s the reason behind the findings of the same genetic traits in Eurasian regions,” said Dr Thangaraj, senior scientist, CCMB."
Link
Posts
"Both k5 and k6 ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia at K = 8 demonstrate much greater haplotype diversity than those that predominate in West Eurasia. This pattern is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and/or a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia."
ReplyDelete"do the observed instances of shared ancestry component and selection signals reflect secondary gene flow between two regions, or do the populations living in these two regions have a common population history, in which case it is likely that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene pool."
Good to see haplotype diversity being used in the latest paper, unlike the quasi-plausibility arguments used in Reich's. It looks like an expansion of SSVC/IVC westward. Also noticeable are remnant signals in India of the westward expansion which led to formation of the paleo western genome.
Rajanya, A major paper on Iranian y-dna by Grugni et al. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252;jsessionid=49A7AEE306635A328C7FAE5337A900B0
DeleteRajanya at one point it also states that UP brahmins are close to west asian genome, and pakistan( pakistan as it was indian land can be classed as indian land, but is that just bias, as it clearly would mean that Brahmins of UP moved into west asia!
ReplyDeletebmdriver,
ReplyDeleteWe know from the haplogroup evidence that the entire "West Eurasian" genome is derived from India. At the level of mtDNA, the N and U types found in W. Eur were wintering in the Indus region prior to AMH's first venture to the West. From Metspalu it is clear that these groups have very low autosomal diversity in comparison to populations east. this fact has interesting consequences for the intermediate diversity component (K5) found in the west: it cannot have been generated in regions through which the low diversity WE groups necessarily resided and must signal secondary flow from regions further east. Supportive is Metspalu's evidence regarding the very weak cline of K5 in India from the Indus basin, versus the robust cline westwards including across the refugia of the Caucasus:
"However, considering the geographic spread of this component within India, there is only a very weak correlation (r = 0.4) between probability of membership in this cluster and distance from its closest core area in Baluchistan. Instead, a more steady cline (correlation r = 0.7 with distance from Baluchistan) of decrease of probability for ancestry in the k5 light green ancestral population can be observed as one moves from Baluchistan toward north (north Pakistan and Central Asia) and west (Iran, the Caucasus, and, finally, the Near East and Europe)."
Probably it was this intermediate component which pushed out the initial low diversity components (which themselves could not have arisen anywhere else but at the edges of S Asia) to the West in the first place. More interestingly, the K5 components in Russia and France appear to have directly come from S Asia rather than the Caucasus and it is this specifically which is the out-of-india IE component and corresponds to the now well-attested r1a1 migration westwards.
Any contrary scenario (out of Caucasus for example) would have the intermediate component K5 going against the "diversity cline" (with S Indian K6 as the most diverse) into the NW region of the subcontinent which we know independently from mtDNA evidence had harbored an "effective population size" of considerable antiquity (see Atkinson, Gray, Drummond http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/2/468.abstract). It is quite obvious that such a scenario would be near impossible especially without producing any appreciable cline in India.
What we are seeing with the autosomal evidence of an India-specific group is merely the restrictedness of mtDNA macro-haplogroup M to India and further East. Of course this does not mean that N and R did not arise in India, they most definitely did as well. It is a different matter, that N and R can be *labeled* as "West Eurasian" and the aryans can thus be ushered in against all phylogeny- and trajectory-based analyses.
It's as if the IBM computational center results never happened. Their capacity for self-delusion is absolutely astounding..
ReplyDeleteMore interestingly there is now a war on whether you can put the invasion or not! For example there are some papers which are arguing for invasion as a fact without doubt! and taking the linguistic theory as a scientific and historic fact! which is not the case as far as the text and archaeologic record is concerned. http://www.ichg2011.org/cgi-bin/showdetail.pl?absno=20758
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ichg2011.org/cgi-bin/ichg11s?abst=R1a1&sort=ptimes&sbutton=Detail&absno=20168&sid=286979
(in case the second paper can not be seen go to the sites home and search R1a1 for the stepanov et al. paper).
and some are taking their starting step with a neutral and scientific attitude like the above and getting something else than the academic criteria's assumptions.
Eurocentrics will NEVER give up with their lies and invented history. Unfortunately they have created a divided India with 'Dravidians' and Muslims supporting their ridiculous invasionist propaganda.Any attempt to counter their theories are attacked with accusations of 'Hindu nationalism'. Remember that 'Out of India' was totally ridiculed till a couple of years ago and a few of them are now giving it some thought. Look at the history of the R1a page on Wikipedia as a good example.
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia, one poster pointed out that Reich's argument in the follow-up paper is for an "acceleration" of ANI and ASI interaction at 1500 BC and this is supposed to be the AIT. Many had pointed in jest that Pakistan invading India was not AIT, but their entire case seems to have been built on precisely this type of premise. If this is the best that can be done, then the case is quite dismal indeed. With haplogroup evdience showing precisely the opposite movements to AIT (including two waves of R1a1, one into Europe with no extension of derived lines back into Asia and the other one delimited to the known Indo-Iranian domain), the next plan may be to reverse the Romani trajectory: do not be surprised if a few studies pop up proving Romani as the most pure Indian with no Australoid admixture. Go for it, Dieno, go for it..
ReplyDelete"Remember that 'Out of India' was totally ridiculed till a couple of years ago and a few of them are now giving it some thought."
ReplyDeleteEven more amazing is that there is nary an Indian arguing for the evidence -- most are even more zealous supporters of AIT than the euros and will not even concede the southern route, much less any secondary dispersals such as R1a1 from Interior Asia. So the entire discourse is being propelled not by any Indian "machinations" but solely by a fear within "academia" of what the evidence really is. After it became clear that C Asia was not the staging ground for AIT, the focus shifted to Anatolia: precisely these same fellows had previously argued that Anatolia was the one place which was brimming with non-IE such as Hurrian and could be confidently excluded. Almost all will agree that MNOPS, P, R, and R1 both were generated in India, but any expansions thereof can certainly not be from India!! It is no wonder these fellows came up with the genre of surreality or pathetic suspence. With a 2000 year history of monotheism behind them, shamelessness in deceit is certainly their forte.
The most shameless are perhaps those jokers who will concede an ME origin for R1b but insist on R1a1 going in the exact opposite direction. And of course there are those who will concede R1a1 out of India but somehow the "carriers" must have been deaf anf mute!!
And no one has even begun synthesizing the wave expansion models for R1a1 with Nichols' evidence for linguistic expansion out of AfPak.
Time for massive corrections in our age old history books.Time also tell sarkari historians to stop spreading lies.
ReplyDelete@Jitendra - I don't believe we will see any change soon. Discarding the AIT will deny Euros of their self appointed status as the masters of the universe. :) They will continue to muddle history with their fraudulent PIE linguistic theories. Indian scholars who want to make a name for themselves in this white mans world have to accept their version of history to be seen as 'legitimate'. DNA forums are silent on recent research clearly pointing towards an Out of India migration.
ReplyDeleteWe need a wave of undisputable facts such as:
ReplyDelete1. There is not a single mention of any invasion/migration in the vast vedic literature and after.
2. There is no archaeologic existence of any alien intrusion on nw india which was the cradle of vedic civilization and its "predicted time".
Now the 1500b.c. ANI ASI admixture growth can be a result of Ghaggar-hakra drying up which forced the western population to move eastward and maybe some to west is well and on caste check this: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full?sid=99aa9f1b-76b7-4e0e-9f36-b5400c4d3791
Hi i am a bengali brahmin and want to share few thoughts on indology.
ReplyDeleteI. We should be understanding this that a 100 y.o. attitude of migration/invasion will take time to be changed as its legacy is vast and well rooted in the academics.
II. They have a 100% right to stand their ground as we have ours because it is about our culture and identity and we must accept only self-proven scientific facts if we truly love our identity but not to get carried away by emotion and start to appear like religious extremists!
III. When indology was getting its current form our society was in its dark ages and logical appearance of british culture was helping us to get in modern era though couple of centuries before they were also in a same state, everything they said was accepted by us without any doubt because they showed advanced thoughts than our backwarded and hindered society but as they stole many treasures from here they also stole our identity in the basis of our crippled by greed and shrouded by prejudice society but now we should be questioning and investigating anything that have relations with us and our culture from the very beggining to find truths about our true past! I will say few aspects on indology:
1.Genetics> Haplogroup R1a1a is what that we should keep our eyes on cause it is related to our culture(indo-european) and the fact is that it is atleast 4600 y.o. in eurasia as skeletons from corded ware culture have yielded it but its uncle R2a is only found in India in significant level and Kurds whom are ancient neighbors to our culture.
If skeletons from Farmana also yield R1a1a then it will be monumental with the aspects of direct facts than various assumptions.
2. Archaeology: nothing much to say but one can google B.B. Lals 19th century paradigms and read the informative article.
3.linguistics> The linguistics is baseless in judging unseen time.
For linguistics Hittite is older than vedic cause its graph is found from 2000 b.c. In Anatolia, a few things here,
one, There is no method which can prove that vedic was not spoken on that time or the reverse is well.
Two, In Hittite there are also many non indo-european words.
So in many cases we depend on assumptions but if other assumptions are also can have the place please academics give them that place and make indology much truthful and scientific.
P.s. Giacomo Benedetti is one of the upcoming megastars of refreshing movement In the field of mainstream Indology, So you guys can also take a look at his blog "New Indology" and find many interesting prospects standed by him.
Have a good time.
The brahmin from Bengal.
Significantly, Hittite is found in intimate association only with Mittani, and not with any other. While Tocharian is found within the sphere of Sanskrit proper itself. Both the historically resurrected relics are in the Southern arc. Also, *only* Iranian and Indic showed expansions above (Scythic/Sindoi-Maeotae) and below (Iranian/Mittani-Kassites) the Black Sea, and the two northern and southern trajectories meet back in C Asia/Af/Pak.
ReplyDeleteEven the C Asian clade of R1b appears to have drifted northward while its European equivalent was making its way westward across Anatolia into the cul-de-sac: the two meet back in Zagros/E Iran or even Sindh. R2 variance peaks overall in India and any India-specific R2 clade appears to have made its way to the furthest reaches in the west and is a clear indicator of the 2nd (Indic-Iranian) expansion which had trailed the 1st.
The herrenvolk must daily bear the sight of Vardos weilding ironsmithing horsetraders in their midst and yet they imagine themselves in the same role blazing East! Perhaps R1b and R1a shook hands as one was going west and the other East.
They styled themselves as those with "pathos" while all others were mere bumblers, so why not embrace the real unfolding tragedy. Take out the crucifix and stake yourselves, miyans. Even their modern prophet did not dare pen 'Thus Spake Zarathustra the Ruski', for fear of ridicule, surely, na.................
Rajanya, it is interesting isn't it?
ReplyDeleteBut let us forget genetics for the moment and focus on chariots the Ratha! With the historiography of Mahabharata, now about chariots, they are present in sumer from 2500 b.c. But guess what they weren't horse drawn but drawn via by ox or ass'es!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot
now the first Horse chariots remains are credited to Andronovo culture which is "indo-iranian" from 2000 b.c. Which is also a "clue" for academics to date Rikhveds atmost ancientness! Which can be thought as quite logical as Ved narrates deities like Ushas, Ashvins driving ashva chariots! Now few things,
one, a fact, Rikhved does not narrate any man yes any bloke ever riding a horse! Go check it totally!
Which can be rationaly thoughted as in Rikhvedic times people didnt even know how to ride horses! Using them in war is far catch and deities riding them was a mythological thought.
Two, Rikhvedic Horse Ashva can be totally different than modern eurasian and other horses! As Rv.1.162.18 clearly describes a horse having 34 ribs! Instead of now known war horses 36/38 ribs!
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv01162.htm
So the vedic horse is a great mystery, some say vedic horse can be indigenous Eqqus Sivalensis, but the fact of having 34 ribs matches only with The Arabian Horse and guess what very recent discovery of Neolithic Al magar in Saudi Arabia have yielded artifacts which shows signs of Horse training 9000+ years ago!.
Now lets think of Mahabharata worlds largest epic, the bharata war is dated on around 1000 b.c. One, The traditional notion of the war happening in the 4th mil. B.C. was dated by a famous scientist Aryabhata of 5 th century a.d. And Remember he was a great scientist and his geographic and other calculations were seriously factual or close to the current accurate ones!
Two, not just him The 8th century Aihole inscriptions also gives a similar date to the 4th mil.B.C.
A very interesting analysis of the war dating:
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html
Have a good time.
The brahmin from Bengal.
About "chariots":
DeleteThe Rig Vedic ratha is from the root (RRi/ ऋ/ ঋ meaning movement) - as "ra + tha" it merely means goer/ mover/ vehicle. Older translations of Rig Veda (pre-AIT) refer to ratha as "car" and not as chariot. "Chariot" became popular after AIT, after Indra was accused of decimating the Harrapans.
Plus the ratha is also described as:
pRRithu - "broad" (1.123.1)
bRRihat - "tall, big" (6.61.13)
variShTha...vandhura - "widest...box/seating space" (6.47.9)
trivandhura - "three seated" (1.41.2; 7.71.4; etc)
aShTavandhura - "eight seated" (10.53.7)
It is difficult to visualize a war chariot which is broad, big, tall with huge seating spaces, and with three or eight seats. Probably it was just an ox or bullock cart transporting people or goods.
In fact, the only real-life, not mythological, ratha in a race is mentioned in 10.102 and this is pulled by oxen. The Rig Veda does not make a single mention of a real-life battle with horse-drawn rathas. One may refer to Nicholas Kazanas's detailed analysis of this.
Hello there, simply become alert to your weblog thru Google, and fosbobetund that it’s really informative. I’m gonna watch out for brussels
ReplyDeleteRajanya, an interesting research http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032546
ReplyDeleteand a comment On R1a1 in this blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/genetic-affinities-of-central-indian.html?m=1#comment-form
The Brahmin from Bengal.
Hello there everybody.
ReplyDeleteI am a Norwegian man, and I have to admit that I still suspect that R1 branched into R1b and R1a in NW Europe. I am aware that many scientific papers have been written saying that ALL the migrations in the R haplogroup has been from India to Europe. Also that this has become somewhat of a mainstream view in later years.
But I have also heard of people with differing views.
From what I have read, certain Vedic hymns, Avestic passages, Vedic chronology and Vedic calendars indicate that the Aryans migrated from a location close to the Arctic circle to India early in their history.
I can see that most the comments here disagree with this view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_Vedas
Now, I am a Norwegian man, tested as R1a1a1g3b "Old Scandinavian".
I think the R1b is older than R1a and developed in the Iberian Ice Age refuge, and that R1a appeared before the LGM 20k years ago, somewhere around the English Channel.
At the beginning of the current inter-glacial period which started about 18500 years ago, and not 11 k years ago as so many people mistakenly think.
During this time the R1a would have inhabited the then above sea level North Sea, which was a giant plain with huge rivers and fertile sediments.
When the Ice age ended 18500 years ago, the huge body of water located south of the ice in Russia, drained into the the Atlantic in a series of enormous floods at intervals of thousands of years. Of course, the R1a people living on the North Sea plains would have been in the way of this series of floods and consequent rising sea levels. Which sounds eerily similar to the myths of the Arians in India. Since that time, R1a has migrated eastwards to India, south to the Levant and Italy and to every other place the R1a are currently found.
The origin of the R haplogroup could be theorized in Europe, the R2 developing as the R spread TO India. That would explain why R2 is not found in Europe. And why there is so little R1b in India. That would of course reverse many of the migrational arrows used to support the current mainstream interpretations of the DNA history of R1b and R1a. Now, the current state of Y-DNA interpretations is so uncertain still that both the scenario with India as the origin and the one with Europe as the origin seem entirely possible.
In any case, later migrations in both directions seem to have taken place, leaving the patterns we see today.
Looking at the clear division of Europe West(R1b) and East(R1a) makes it seem clear to me that R1 must have branched there. This is completely ignored in the other comments here. And it is obvious when you look at the map.
Here is a quote on Y-DNA from another blog;
'That's it: there's no such thing as "ancestral R1a" (nor any other haplogroup) because, in Y-DNA particularly (much much longer than mtDNA), mutations never stop happening (not sure of the exact frequency but at least one SNP every generation, possibly more). If we could work with full Y-DNA sequences (so far highly impractical and expensive but maybe easier in the near future) we would get extremely rich and nuanced trees, what would be a nightmare for the nomenclature, already overly complicated. What we have is a simplified (and occasionally even too simple) scheme of the real phylogenetic tree based on the known SNPs. The tree is correct but not nearly as complete as the actual thing. The map is not the reality.'
I am not saying that my opinion constitutes proof.
And if it turns out in the end that the R haplogroup is from India, I promise I will not be disappointed by that :)