DNATribes - Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013
All contents 2006-2013 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Copyright 2013 DNA Tribes. All rights reserved.
To request an email subscription to DNA Tribes Digest, email digest@dnatribes.com with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe from DNA Tribes Digest, email digest@dnatribes.com with the subject heading Unsubscribe. Previous issues of DNA Tribes Digest are available online at http://dnatribes.com/library.html.
Table of Contents:
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India ..................................................................... 2 Historical Background: Ships from Meluhha and Indian Ocean Trade Links between Africa and Posturban Harappa ............................................................................................. 2 Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Regions (STR) ....................................... 7 Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Populations (SNP) ................................ 10 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 14 DNA Tribes Announcements for October 2013 ...................................................................... 15 Sale for New 22 Marker and 26 Marker Kit STR Tests .................................................... 15 About DNA Tribes SNP (genome data required) ............................................................. 16
Introduction
explores non-local genetic links in Southern India using autosomal STR and SNP data. The historical background section highlights the role of maritime trade between Africa and India during the Late Harappan transition to more localized, rural forms of society in South Asia. In addition, the origins of Austroasiatic and Dravidian languages will be explored in the context of recent genetic evidence for the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component shared throughout the Indian Subcontinent.
Best regards, Lucas Martin DNA Tribes Hello, and welcome to the October 2013 issue of DNA Tribes Digest. This months article
DNA Tribes is on Facebook. Find us at http://facebook.com/DNAtribes
DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216
Page 1 of 16

All contents 2006-2013 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively from DNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.
Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

Historical Background: Ships from Meluhha and Indian Ocean Trade Links between Africa and Posturban Harappa
Introduction
The Indian Subcontinents ancient links with Central Asia and West Asia are well known to scholars and attested by the Indo-European languages. This language family includes classical Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, as well as present day Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, and many other languages spoken throughout the Indian Subcontinent. However, less well understood are the relationships of the Austroasiatic and Dravidian speaking cultures of eastern and southern India with neighboring parts of the world (such as Southeast Asia and Oceania). In recent years, researchers have identified an Ancestral South Indian (ASI) genetic component. This ASI component is shared (in varying proportions) by all populations throughout the Indian Subcontinent. However, it is most characteristic of tribal populations of southern and eastern India and the nearby Andaman Islands. 1 According to a recently published genetic analysis of modern populations, this ASI component began a process of mixture with a separate Ancestral North Indian (ANI) component approximately 2,200 BCE and continuing into the Common Era. Notably, this ANI-ASI mixture started in a period when the relatively cosmopolitan Mature Harappan (Indus Valley) civilization was undergoing a period of de-urbanization and dispersion to more localized cultures based on village agriculture. The languages and cultural processes associated with this ancient ANI-ASI interface are unknown. However, the language families spoken today in the Indian Subcontinent include: the IndoEuropean, Dravidian, and Austroasiatic languages, as well as the Tibetan-Burman languages (Kuki Naga languages spoken in Far Eastern India). To more fully engage the archaeological and linguistic record, this months Digest will include a discussion of South Asian prehistory since 2,000 BCE (the time suggested for ANI-ASI admixture), including evidence for: (1) Southeast Asian links with the Indian Subcontinent, both before and after the Mature Harappan period; (2) maritime transmissions of arid-adapted crops between Asia and Africa via the Indian Ocean between 2,000 1,500 BCE; (3) the emergence of the Proto-Dravidian language before 1,100 BCE; and (4) lastly, the return of urbanism and spread of megalithic cultures in India (possibly stimulated by migrations from West Asia) during the Iron Age, approximately 1,000 years after the decline of the Harappan urban centers.
The Decline of Urbanism and the Dispersal of the Late Harappans

As discussed in previous Digest issues, 2 South Asia was home to one of the largest and most sophisticated civilizations of the Bronze Age: the Mature Harappan or Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). Unlike the sprawling empires of Mesopotamia, the Mature Harappans left no archaeological traces of kings, state bureaucracy, wealthy temples, or monumental residences. Instead, this highly organized,
See Moorjani et. al.,"Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India" at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248. 2 For more detailed discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-04-02.pdf; http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216 Page 2 of 16
1

technologically advanced, and multi-cultural civilization (unifying four local phases or regions of the Indian Subcontinent) appears to have been united by a single ideology of complexity without hierarchy. 3 This urban yet egalitarian model of life (best exemplified in the ancient city of MohenjoDaro) was newly established around 2,600 BCE (possibly by founders with trade links to West Asia). 4 After a heyday of approximately 600 years, the Mature Harappan period ended when its major cities were abandoned around 1,900 BCE. In its place, a new Posturban or Localization Era began in the Indian Subcontinent. In this period, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa were deserted (except for squatter populations practicing urn burials). The Indus Script, sophisticated drainage systems, and grid system of urban planning all fell into disuse. South Asian urbanism virtually disappeared, not to be re-established for approximately 1,000 years. The remaining traces of Mature Harappan traditions were modified to suit the needs of a society that was increasingly based on small scale village agriculture. South Asia entered a type of Dark Age, returning to older, local patterns of culture from before the Mature Harappan era. 5 Populations shifted east and south in the Subcontinent, away from the former Indus Valley cities. One explanation that scholars have suggested for this puzzling regression of society is that the Mature Harappan ideology, which had emerged ex nihilo several centuries earlier, was too inflexible and brittle to adapt to changing technological, environmental, or social conditions. 6 Nevertheless, archaeological evidence supports the continuity of local populations, which suggests that internal factors (such as marginal sub-cultures in the Mature Harappan trade networks) were involved in this transition. 7 For this reason, a closer examination of the several linguistic families attested in the Indian Subcontinent might provide clues to the cultural landscape of post-urban period.
Austroasiatic Languages and links with Southeast Asia before and after the Mature Harappan Period
The Indian Subcontinent has been home to Southeast Asian related cultures since early periods. These Asian connections are reflected in the Austroasiatic languages spoken primarily in eastern India and Bangladesh. In addition to Munda and other South Asian language groups, the Austroasiatic language family includes languages such as the Vietnamese and Khmer languages of Southeast Asia, which possibly originated near the Mekong River System around 4,000 BCE. However, Indian links with Southeast Asia extend further, both geographically and chronologically. Notably, archaeologists have suggested that some of the earliest Neolithic communities of Mehrgarh in present day Balochistan (around 6,000 BCE) involved populations related to present day Southeast Asians. 8 Similarly, archaeologists have also suggested the presence of an East Asian related population in Inamgaon during the Chalcolithic period. 9
See G. Possehl, The Indus Civilization pp. 51-55. Ibid., p. 175. 5 Ibid., p. 237. 6 Ibid., p. 244. 7 For instance, the Dasarajna narrative of the Rigvedic texts might provide a model for how this type of intracivilizational dynamic could have taken place. 8 See Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization by Jonathan M. Kenoyer, p.38; Indus Age: The Beginnings by Gregory L. Possehl, p. 489. Citations courtesy www.harappadna.org. 9 See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy pp. 322.
4
Page 3 of 16

During the Localization Era of Harappa, another renewal of Southeast Asian cultural links is suggested by the use of jar or urn burials (Cemetery H stratum I). 10 Beginning with the Cemetery H culture, rice-based agriculture became more widespread in India, after its rapid spread in Southeast Asia and Nepal in the late 3rd millennium BCE (probably emerging first in Southern China). Taken together, these factors suggest that Southeast Asian related cultures might have played a role in India both before and after the Mature Harappan period, possibly including the time frame beginning 2,000 BCE in which ANI-ASI admixture reshaped the genetic landscape of South Asia. 11
Ships from Meluhha and Oceanic Crop Transmissions between India and Africa
Also in this transitional period (around 2,000-1,500 BCE), several bi-directional crop transfers are attested between India and Africa. These included arid adapted foods (some originally from Africa; others from India and Asian-Pacific regions), such as sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet, and zebu cows. 12 In the Indian Subcontinent, the new African crops first appeared in Gujarat (near the outskirts of the Harappan civilization). Notably, scholars have suggested that these African-Indian trade links were established by small-scale entrepreneurs operating outside the more prestigious trade routes with Mesopotamia, possibly creating alternate channels for commerce that were not dominated by the Harappan urban centers of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. 13 It is worth pointing out that Sumerian and Assyrian records mention maritime trade with Meluhha (thought to refer to South Asia but also associated with Northeast Africa) not only during the Mature Harappan period, but also continuing during the Posturban transition and later Iron Age. 14 This suggests that perhaps the Meluhhan sea traders themselves helped transmit these new crops between Asia and Africa. 15
Dravidian Languages and the Southern Neolithic Complex

Aside from Southeast Asian related Austroasiatic languages, another family of languages exists alongside Indo-European in South Asia: the Dravidian languages. Scholars have suggested that the first
Ibid., pp. 304 306. Urn burial customs are later attested in Iron Age Southeast Asian cultures (such as the Laotian Plain of Jars and the Sa Huynh culture of South Vietnam). Similar burials are still in use among present day Khmer (Cf. Khumri; Himyar), who are sometimes said to be related to the Kambojas of classical Sanskrit texts. For more detailed discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf. 11 See http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf. 12 Another ancient drought-resistant survivor crop attested in India, the Middle East, and Africa is sesame, mentioned in both Assyrian and Indian legends. 13 See Across the Indian Ocean: the prehistoric movement of plants and animals by Fuller et. al. at http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/0544/ant0850544.pdf. 14 See G. Possehl, The Indus Civilization pp. 240. 15 Notably, the Rigvedic texts mention non-Vedic Pani merchants or traders, sometimes interpreted as nonVedic Phoenician and/or Scythian related cultures. It is worth nothing that there was a persistent belief in the ancient world that the Classical Phoenicians originated in the Erythraean Sea (somewhere in the Persian Gulf or Red Sea) before moving to the East Mediterranean. Although not known to be related to these Indian Ocean contacts, iron smelting appeared in the African Great Lakes and Sahel (possibly in Bantu related contexts) between 1,000-600 BCE, before iron technology reached Egypt. Incidentally, early iron use has also been suggested in the city of Chanhudaro (a Harappan city with possible links to Africa). For more discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-03-02.pdf. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216 Page 4 of 16
10

Proto-Dravidian languages began to differentiate near the Godavari Basin in southeastern India (near the modern populations in which early ANI-ASI admixture has been suggested), eventually diverging to several branches by 1,100 BCE. 16 According to linguistic reconstructions, the Early Proto-Dravidian language retains traces of a pastoralist economy using cattle, sheep/goats, buffalo, and dogs, but without terms for cereal crops. However, the Late Proto-Dravidian language shows evidence for a more hierarchical society, commercial activity, and a full suite of agricultural activities. This linguistic evidence from Late Proto-Dravidian provides a good match for the archaeological Southern Neolithic Complex, which first appeared near the Upper Krishna River (not far from the Godavari Basin) around 2,500 BCE and later incorporated new (including arid adapted crops brought from Africa between 2,000 and 1,500 BCE). Because there is no other candidate language for the Southern Neolithic Complex, scholars have suggested these cultures probably spoke Dravidian languages (still spoken in Southern India and parts of Pakistan to the present day). 17 This evidence is consistent with Dravidian speaking populations in at least some of the cultures that emerged in South Asia after the decline of the Mature Harappan urban centers. Notably, this archaeological and linguistic evidence places Late Proto-Dravidian near southern areas of the Indian Subcontinent where genetic evidence for early admixture between Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) populations has been identified based on the analysis of present day South Asian populations. 18
Megalithic Cattle Cultures and the Return of Urbanism during the Iron Age
Following the abandonment of the Mature Harappan urban centers around 1,900 BCE, South Asia remained a primarily rural society for approximately 1,000 years. However, urban life was reestablished in India after approximately 700 BCE (during the South Asian Iron Age). In this new Iron Age period of urbanism, new megalith building cultures appeared throughout India and Sri Lanka (possibly linked with new migrants from West Asia 19). Intriguingly, the megaliths (Stonehenge like monuments constructed at the outskirts of the new cities) were possibly associated with nomadic subcultures that raised horses and cattle and acted as merchants between urban settlements. 20 Archaeological evidence megalithic populations of South Asia were not homogenous and also involved multiple burial traditions (such as urn burial or stone cists). Nevertheless, tribal populations erect megalithic structures to the present day. Local traditions associate the ancient megaliths with various folkloric and literary figures, including pygmies, Asuras, 21 and even the five Pandava brothers
See Proto-Dravidian Agriculture by F. C. Southworth at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/ProtoDravidianAgriculture.pdf. 17 However, linguistics do not rule out that Proto-Dravidian was first transmitted from outside India prior to its local development near the Godavari Basin. It has been argued that there are no Dravidian loanwords in the Rigveda; however, there is evidence for contact between Old Indic and South Dravidian. Interestingly, some Dravidian loan words attested in Sanskrit are also found in the Nuristani languages of Pakistan (a separate branch of the Indo-Iranian languages). Ibid. 18 See Moorjani et. al.,"Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India" at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248. 19 For instance, South Asian megaliths included tombs with port holes similar to structures built in West Asia and Europe. See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, p. 342. 20 Ibid. pp. 342, 356. 21 For instance, the Indian writer Malati Shendge has suggested an association between the Asuras mentioned in Sanskrit texts and the ancient Assyria (Aur), which might reflect cultural links with West Asia. Near another DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216 Page 5 of 16
16

(said to have wandered the countryside after their exile from the royal city of Hastinapura). 22 Scholars have also sometimes suggested the involvement of exogenous cultures (such as Scythians) in Iron Age megalithism. It is worth noting that the Iron Age (beginning after 800 BCE with Sarai Khola, near Taxila in western Punjab) is one of only two periods since the Chalcolithic when archaeological evidence supports substantial population movements into the Indian Subcontinent. 23 For this reason, the genetic landscape of Sri Lanka and the Southern Indian subcontinent might have also been affected by these later processes that probably took place after the initial expansion of Proto-Dravidian cultures.
Summary: Multiple Threads of Ancestry in the Southern Indian Subcontinent

In summary, the archaeological record (in some cases elucidated by linguistic and genetic analysis) attests several processes that have shaped the genetic landscape of the southern Indian Subcontinent. These include: (1) The mixture of Ancestral South Indians (ASI) and Ancestral North Indians (ANI) beginning around 2,175 BCE. (2) The dispersal of Late Harappan populations to the south and east following the decline of urbanism in the Indus Valley around 2,000 BCE. (3) Links with Southeast Asia during the Neolithic (Mehrgarh), Chalcolithic (Inamgaon), and perhaps Late Harappan period (urn burials and rice agriculture in the Cemetery H culture), possibly related to Austronesian speaking cultures. (4) The emergence of the Southern Neolithic Complex (influenced by Indian Ocean trade contacts between 2,000 1,500 BCE), possibly related to Proto-Dravidian cultures. (5) Iron Age links with West Asian or Central Asian cultures, related to the return of urbanism and the construction of megalithic monuments near the new cities. The following genetic analyses explore non-local components in South Asia using autosomal STR and autosomal SNP data. This can illuminate the underlying relationships of the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) genetic component (found today throughout the Indian Subcontinent) and identify whether there are non-local genetic links links that might relate to the multiple formative processes attested in the South Indian archaeological record.
distant periphery of the ancient Near East, both Phoenician and Assyrian contacts have been suggested for some Iron Age Sahelian and West African societies. See http://www.dierklange.de/saharan-trade-and-contacts.html. 22 See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, pp. 342, 341, 328. 23 Ibid., p. 304. The other period of major population movements into India was between 6,000-4,4500 BCE. For more detailed analysis, including critical discussion of the prevailing theory that Indic languages came to India during the Bronze Age, see The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture by Edwin Bryant. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216 Page 6 of 16

Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Regions (STR)
Non-local genetic contributions to South Asian regions were identified based on autosomal STR data. 24 Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Non-local genetic components of South Asian STR regions, excluding percentages of local Indus Valley, Eastern India (most typical of Orissa tribal populations), and South India components.
Discussion: Results in Table 1 express several non-local components in South Asia. Several of these components are shared by all studied regions, including: Mesopotamian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian percentages.
Polynesian Australian Southeast Asian Southern African Japanese Mesopotamian Thracian Spanish Tibetan
STR Region Indus Valley
3.9%
0.0%
11.1%
42.9%
6.9%
9.1%
7.7%
2.6%
12.7%
3.1%
South India 5.5% 12.2% 7.8% 12.3% 12.9% 8.5% 14.2% 0.9% 24.1% 1.6% Eastern India 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 23.3% 25.8% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 2.0% (Orissa tribals) Table 1: Non-local genetic components of South Asian STR regions, excluding percentages of local Indus Valley, Eastern India, and South India components.
24
For information about the 32 world genetic regions distinguished in DNA Tribes 22 and 26 Marker Kit autosomal STR tests, see http://dnatribes.com/populations.html. Page 7 of 16
Other

Mesopotamian percentages are highest in the Indus Valley region that includes predominantly (but not exclusively) Indo-European speaking populations of northern India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (42.9%) and lowest in the South India region (12.3%). This is consistent with the geographical position of Indus Valley populations near the trade routes (both inland and coastal) linking the civilizations of the Indian Subcontinent and the Fertile Crescent. These Mesopotamian components might reflect present day traces of Ancestral North Indian (ANI) populations, possibly related to the inhabitants of Mature Harappan urban centers that engaged in trade with West Asia during the Bronze Age. This might further reflect contacts with Indo-European speaking populations of West Asia and Central Asia during various periods, 25 possibly including the Iron Age population movements thought to be associated with the return of urbanism and megalithic monuments after approximately 700 BCE. Southeast Asian percentages are highest in Eastern India (23.3%) where Austroasiatic languages are spoken and lowest in the Indus Valley (6.9%). These components might express Southeast Asian links with the Indian Subcontinent since early periods, possibly including early agricultural links with Mehrgarh and Inamgaon, as well as later periods. Tibetan percentages are highest in Eastern India (25.8%) and lowest in South India (8.5%). Like Southeast Asian components, these Tibetan percentages might reflect contacts between the Indian Subcontinent and East Asian populations since early periods (possibly including contacts with TibetoBurman speaking populations). Australian percentages are highest in Eastern India (25.6%) and lowest in the Indus Valley (12.7%). Notably, these components suggest ancestral relationships between South Asian and Oceanian (Australian Aboriginal and/or Papua New Guinea related) populations. Although the settlement of Oceania is usually ascribed to very early time periods (substantially earlier than the post-Neolithic processes discussed in this article), the Indian Ocean archaeological links suggest that more recent periods of maritime contact could have linked South Asia and Oceania. 26 Taken together, these three non-local genetic components (Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian) found today in all studied regions might reflect the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component that has reshaped the genetic landscape of the Indian Subcontinent since approximately 2,200 BCE. Although ANI-ASI admixture might have involved multiple language families, these East Asian (Southeast Asian and Tibetan) and Oceanian (Australian) genetic components might have involved Austroasiatic and/or Dravidian speaking cultures. In addition, several other non-local genetic components are expressed in the Indus Valley and/or South India but absent in the Eastern India region. These include: Southern African, Spanish, Thracian, Japanese, and Polynesian percentages. Southern African percentages (5.5% in South India; 3.9% in the Indus Valley) might reflect maritime contacts with Africa attested in the archaeological record during the Mature - Posturban transition of the Harappan Civilization (possibly involving the Ships from Meluhha mentioned in Sumerian and Assyrian records).
For more detailed discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf and http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf. 26 Notably, a recent paper identified signatures of gene flow between India and Australia dated to approximately 2,230 BCE, which is close to the period separately identified for ANI-ASI admixture in South Asia. See Pugach et. al., Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110. For more about Oceanian related ancestry in Asia, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf; http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdf. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216 Page 8 of 16
25

Spanish percentages are expressed only for South India (12.2%). This component might reflect links with ancestral Mediterranean related populations of West Eurasia (although not necessarily originating in the Iberian Peninsula) involved in early Dravidian speaking cultures. 27 Thracian percentages (11.1% in Indus Valley; 7.8% in South India) might similarly reflect early links with West Eurasia and in particular Eastern Europe via the Eurasian Steppe (potentially involving Indo-European speaking cultures). 28 Japanese percentages (14.2% in South India; 7.7% in Indus Valley) might reflect early links with North Asian populations attested during several periods of South Asian history (probably dating at least to the Northern Neolithic cultures attested near Mehrgarh). 29 Polynesian percentages (2.6% in Indus Valley) might reflect early Asian-Pacific links via the Indian Ocean, attested near the periphery of the Mature Harappan civilization. These links predated Polynesian expansions, which probably originated in Southeast Asia and reached the Pacific Islands since 1,350 BCE with the Proto-Oceanic Lapita culture (whose urn burials recall traditions attested in Southeast Asia and Late Harappan Cemetery H). 30 In summary, it is worth noting that of the three studied STR regions of the Indian Subcontinent (Indus Valley, South India, and Eastern India), the composition of Eastern India (most typical of tribal populations) is relatively simpler than other studied regions. In Eastern India, four nonlocal genetic components are expressed: Mesopotamian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian. This suggests that these components might have been involved in the early Ancestral South Indian (ASI) and Ancestral North Indian (ANI) populations. For instance, one possibility is that ANI populations were more Mesopotamian-like, and ASI populations had larger proportions of the Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and/or Australian components. In contrast, the components expressed for only some regions of the Indian Subcontinent (Southern African, Spanish, Thracian, Japanese, and Polynesian) might not have been involved in the primary ANI and ASI expansions. Instead, these might reflect secondary relationships local to specific parts of South Asia.
For more detailed discussion of Mediterranean related ancestry in the Fertile Crescent, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf. 28 See http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf. 29 For information about the Northern Neolithic, see The Indus Civilization by Gregory L. Possehl, p.36. 30 For more detailed discussion of the genetic relationships between present day populations of Oceania and Eurasia, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdf. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216 Page 9 of 16
27

Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Populations (SNP)

Non-local genetic contributions to South Asian regions were identified based on autosomal SNP data. 31 For each non-local component expressed in this analysis, the South Asian population for which the largest percentage is listed. Results are summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Non-local genetic components of South Asian populations based on autosomal SNP data, excluding percentages of local Indus Valley and South India SNP components. Austroasiatic speaking populations are highlighted in red; Dravidian speaking populations are highlighted in yellow. Indo-European speaking populations are highlighted in blue.
31
For information about DNA Tribes SNP (previous genome data required), see http://dnatribes.com/snp.html. The populations listed here include the sampled South Asian populations for which the highest percentage of each non-local component is expressed. For a full listing of admixture components not excluding local Indus Valley and South India components, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2013-05-14.pdf. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Page 10 of 16
Web: www.dnatribes.com; Email: dna@dnatribes.com; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribes Mail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216

Discussion: Results in Table 2 express a variety of non-local genetic components in South Asian populations, with maximum percentages of some components expressed in populations speaking each of three language families of South Asia (Austroasiatic, Dravidian, and Indo-European).
Southeast Asian [ASI related?] Mesopotamian [ANI related?] Mesoamerican Siberian-Arctic Horn of Africa NW European
Population Bonda Khasi Juang Savara Gadaba Brahmin Uttaranchal Meghawal Kalash Bhunjia Balochi Makrani Meena Pulliyar Paniya
49.9% 8.9% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 1.6% 37.4% 36.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 2.9% 44.6% 48.7% 5.6% 14.4% 3.3% 6.2% 5.6% 18.0% 24.9% 9.0% 4.2% 48.8% 11.6% 3.9% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0% 9.5% 2.3% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 14.8% 0.0% 9.7% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 13.2% 6.3% 2.0%
7.5% 3.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.3% 9.6% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.7% 0.0% 4.3% 1.5% 1.3% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.7% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 5.2% 0.3% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2%
27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.8% 24.2% 17.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 1.6% 5.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.7% 17.4% 16.3% 3.7% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 25.9% 43.5% 8.7% 0.0% 6.9% 1.9% 1.5% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52.5% 29.6% 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 4.1% 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 51.5% 31.6% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 6.1% 0.0% 1.5% 2.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 42.3% 20.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 5.4% 1.2% 2.0% 2.7% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.5% 2.6% 10.7% 4.4% 2.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 15.6% 9.8% 6.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 15.6%
38.0% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0% 12.7% 11.6% 5.9% 8.6% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.9%
18.2% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 9.2%
16.4% 11.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 20.1% 18.9% 9.2% 3.6% 0.0% 1.3% 2.5% 0.7% 14.9% Malayan Table 2: Non-local genetic components of South Asian populations based on autosomal SNP data, excluding percentages of local Indus Valley and South India SNP components. Austroasiatic speaking populations are highlighted in red; Dravidian speaking populations are highlighted in yellow. Indo-European speaking populations are highlighted in blue.
Components with the largest expressed percentages in Austroasiatic speaking populations (highlighted in red in Table 2) include (in order from largest maximum percentage to smallest): Southeast Asian, Tibetan, Arabian, Uralic, Horn of Africa, and Northwest European. The largest Southeast Asian percentage (49.9%) is expressed for Austroasiatic speaking Bonda of Eastern India. The smallest Southeast Asian percentage (3.3%) is expressed for Indo-European speaking Kalash in remote mountain valleys of the Northwestern Indian Subcontinent (present day Pakistan). This suggests that Southeast Asian related population movements reached even distant parts of the Indian Subcontinent. Notably, this genetic component might relate to early Southeast Asian links identified by archaeologists that date to the Neolithic Mehrgarh in Balochistan and Chalcolithic Inamgaon, as well as later possible links (suggested by the spread of urn burial traditions and the spread
DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Page 11 of 16
Oceanian [ASI related?]
West African
Khoisan-Aka
Slavic-Baltic
Caucasus Mountains
Arabian
Tibetan
Nilotic
Uralic

of rice agriculture) during the Posturban period of the Harappan Civilization. Similarly, this might also reflect the Munda related vocabulary (but possible absence of Dravidian words) in Vedic Sanskrit. 32 The largest Tibetan percentage (36.2%) is expressed for Austroasiatic speaking Khasi of Northeast India. However, no Tibetan percentage (0.0%) is expressed for several sampled populations, including Balochi, Kalash, Makrani, and Meghawal (all in the Northwestern Indian Subcontinent). This suggests that, unlike Southeast Asian related expansions (possibly dating to Neolithic Mehrgarh), Tibetan related populations did not penetrate all of the Indian Subcontinent (perhaps because these expansions took place during later periods). Arabian percentages are expressed only for Gadaba (13.2%) and Khasi (2.9%) of Eastern and Northeastern India, respectively. The absence of Arabian components in other sampled populations suggests that this does not reflect a widespread process, but instead might reflect more limited population relationships that are less typical of Indian Subcontinent populations in general. The largest Uralic percentage is expressed for Savara (9.6%). Like Arabian percentages, Uralic components are expressed sporadically in sampled populations, and for this reason might not reflect widespread population relationships in South Asia. Horn of Africa percentages are expressed for several Austroasiatic speaking populations of Orissa (Eastern India), including: Juang (3.9%), Gadaba (3.4%), Savara (2.3%), and Bonda (1.5%). This suggests the possibility of a common relationship between these linguistically related populations and the Horn of Africa, perhaps related to the Indian Ocean crop transfers or other unknown processes at the periphery of the predominantly Indo-European speaking cultures of South Asia. A Northwest European percentage (2.0%) is expressed for Austroasiatic speaking Bonda of Orissa (Eastern India). Although small, this percentage suggests that the genetic relationships between South Asian and European populations might be fairly ancient and not limited to the expansions that transmitted Indo-European languages (possibly originating in Southeastern Europe or West Asia) to both continents. Components with the largest percentages expressed in Indo-European speaking populations (highlighted in blue in Table 2) included (in order from largest maximum percentage to smallest): Mesopotamian, Caucasus Mountains, Siberian-Arctic, Nilotic, Slavic-Baltic, West African, Mesoamerican, and Khoisan-Aka. The largest Mesopotamian percentage (52.5%) is expressed for Balochi of the far western Indian Subcontinent. The smallest Mesopotamian percentage (6.3%) is expressed for Gadaba of Orissa (Eastern India). Notably, Mesopotamian percentages are one of just three non-local components expressed for all sampled South Asian populations. These widespread Mesopotamian percentages might reflect ancient relationships with Fertile Crescent populations, possibly dating to Neolithic Mehrgarh and later population movements at the beginning of the Mature Harappan civilization (discussed in the Historical Background of this article). Notably, this would be consistent with a primarily West Asian related context for the spread of IndoEuropean languages into South Asia (discussed as a possibility in several past Digest articles). 33 A similar distribution is expressed for Caucasus Mountains percentages, which are largest in Kalash (43.5%) and absent in sampled Juang (0.0%) and Savara (0.0%) of Orissa, India. This might reflect similarly widespread population contacts, possibly including links in later periods that did not evenly penetrate the South Asian genetic landscape (such as megalithic related expansions during the Iron Age of India and Sri Lanka, discussed earlier in this article).
See The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture by Edwin Bryant. For more discussion of possible IE expansions from Southeastern Europe or West Asia, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf and http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf.
33 32
Page 12 of 16

Siberian-Arctic percentages are largest (17.7%) in a Brahmin sample from Uttaranchal (Northern India, near the border with China). However, it is worth noting that Siberian-Arctic percentages are expressed for both Indo-European and Dravidian speaking populations. This suggests that these contacts were not exclusively related to the spread of either language family and might instead reflect other patterns of contact between South Asia and Siberia. For instance, these might include early Northern Neolithic links attested near Mehrgarh, and/or Central Asian populations that might have been active in South Asia during the Iron Age (such as Shakya or early Indo-Scythian related cultures). Similarly, Slavic-Baltic (largest in Kalash, 6.9%) and Mesoamerican (largest in Meena, 5.4%) might reflect Eurasian related contacts in South Asia attested since early periods. However, less expected are the several African components associated with Indo-European speaking populations of South Asia. These include Nilotic (largest in Bhunjia, 8.6%), West African (largest in Makranis, 6.1%), and Khoisan-Aka (largest in Meena, 2.0%). One possibility is that these African percentages might reflect the genetic traces of Indian Ocean contacts between South Asia and Africa during the Posturban transition of the Harappan Civilization. Unexpectedly, this suggests that some of these African links might have taken place in Indo-European speaking contexts, possibly including small-scale maritime traders. If so, perhaps these maritime entrepreneurs included the Panis mentioned in Sanskrit literature and the Ships from Meluhha described in Sumerian and Assyrian records. Lastly, the largest percentage for only one component is expressed for Dravidian speaking populations: the Oceanian component (largest for Pulliyar, 15.6%). However, this Oceanian component is also one of only three components expressed to some degree for all sampled South Asian populations. Notably, the widespread distribution of this Oceanian component might reflect the genetic traces of the Ancestry South Indian (ASI) populations, which (according to recent analysis described in the Historical Background section of this article) began a process of mixture with a previously separate Ancestral North Indian (ANI) population approximately 2,200 BCE. Specifically, this Oceanian component expresses a genetic relationship with present day Papuan and Melanesian populations, which are genetically related in part to Polynesians, as well as (based on STR data) Australian Aboriginals. 34 In this context of the prehistory of Island Southeast Asia and Oceania, this might reflect early expansions taking place near both the Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans (possibly including early Austronesians or Proto-Oceanic speakers and/or the creators of the Lapita archaeological culture). Although Island Southeast Asia and Oceania and their relationships with the Indian Subcontinent and other parts of Eurasia remain little studied, new genetic data might illuminate the early history of these maritime cultures in the future. In summary, only three non-local genetic components were expressed for all sampled South Asian populations (with no 0.0% results for any sample) based on autosomal SNP data: Southeast Asian, Oceanian, and Mesopotamian (underlined in Table 2). This suggests that these three components might characterize a common South Asian population substrate shared throughout the Indian Subcontinent, possibly reflecting genetic structure related to the Ancestral North Indian (ANI)
34 Notably, a recent genetic analysis of Australian Aboriginals similarly expressed the genetic signature of an expansion from the Indian Subcontinent approximately 2,300 BCE, around the same period that ANI-ASI admixture began in the Indian Subcontinent. See http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248.
Page 13 of 16

and/or Ancestral South Indian (ASI) populations that have mixed since approximately 2,200 BCE to become the common ancestors of present day South Asians.
Conclusion
Both autosomal STR and SNP analyses express genetic components related to West Asian, East Asian, and Oceanian populations in the Indian Subcontinent. Based on autosomal STR data, there are four non-local genetic components found today in all studied regions: Mesopotamian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian. Similarly, three non-local SNP components are expressed for all sampled populations: Southeast Asian, Oceanian, and Mesopotamian. These STR and SNP components shared throughout the Indian Subcontinent might reflect genetic structure related to the ancient Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and/or Ancestral South Indian (ASI) populations that have mixed since approximately 2,200 BCE to become the common ancestors of present day South Asians. Of these, Mesopotamian STR and SNP components might reflect genetic traces of West Asian related expansions in South Asia (possibly related to the spread of Indo-European languages). Southeast Asian STR and SNP components and Tibetan STR components might reflect genetic traces of Austroasiatic related expansions. Lastly, Australian STR components and Oceanian SNP components might in part reflect the genetic traces of Dravidian expansions between 2,300 and 1,500 BCE (identified based on archaeology and recently published genetic analysis). Furthermore, these shared South Asian genetic components might have been involved in Ancestry South Indian (ASI) and Ancestral North Indian (ANI) populations. For instance, one possibility is that ANI populations were more Mesopotamian-like, and ASI populations had larger proportions of one or more of the Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian STR components and Southeast Asian and Oceanian SNP components.
Page 14 of 16

DNA Tribes Announcements for October 2013

Sale for New 22 Marker and 26 Marker Kit STR Tests
DNA Tribes is pleased to introduce our new 22 Marker Kit and 26 Marker Kit tests using enhanced STR technologies at great prices. These new STR testing options replace 15, 21, and 27 Marker Kit lab tests. However, updates incorporating new populations and world region definitions for 15, 21, and 27 Marker Kit results are available. Each 22 and 26 Marker Kit tests includes your Autosomal STR Profile for industry standard markers used in DNA fingerprinting around the world, together with DNA Tribes Native Population Match, Global Population Match, and World Region Match analysis. Both kits options include the most detailed and comprehensive comparison of your autosomal DNA to world populations available anywhere. New DNA Tribes 22 Marker Kits (Sale Price $139.99) test the following autosomal STR markers: Amelogenin, CSF1PO, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, FGA, Penta D, Penta E, TH01, TPOX, vWA, D19S433, D2S1338, D10S1248, D12S391, D1S1656, D22S1045, and D2S441. New DNA Tribes 26 Marker Kits (Sale Price $159.99) test the following autosomal STR markers: Amelogenin, CSF1PO, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D21S11, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, FGA, Penta D, Penta E, TH01, TPOX, vWA, D19S433, D2S1338, D10S1248, D12S391, D1S1656, D22S1045, D2S441, F13A1, F13B, FES/FPS, and LPL. 35 More information and new 22 and 26 Marker Kit test orders are available through our secure online checkout system at http://www.dnatribes.com/order.html. Upgrade testing for customers who have previously tested using DNA Tribes 15 or 21 Marker Kit tests are available at http://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.html. Updates incorporating new populations and world region definitions for previous 15, 21, or 27 Marker Kit tests (including all previously ordered add-on reports) are available using the $24.99 Update Your STR Analysis option at http://dnatribes.com/order_addons.html.
26 Marker Kit test all markers previously included in 27 Marker Kits, with the exception of SE33, at a substantially lower test cost. DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013 Page 15 of 16
35

About DNA Tribes SNP (genome data required)

Do you have genome data from a SNP test? DNA Tribes SNP is a detailed "deep ancestry" analysis that can be performed based on your genotype raw data from any of several SNP microarray tests. (Genome Data from Previous Testing Required) DNA Tribes SNP reports (http://dnatribes.com/snp.html) include: Admixture Percentages Continent, Region, Native Population, and Global Population Percentages. Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) Graphs Continent, Region, Native population, and Global Population. Total Similarity Compare your Genotype to over 280 Populations in our SNP Database.
Population Yoruba Nigeria Bambara West Africa Igbo Nigeria Kaba Chad Fang Cameroon Bantu South Africa Kongo Tunisia Herero Namibia Hausa Nigeria Dogon West Africa England France Pima Mexico Mandenka Senegal
Percentage 26.9% 9.6% 6.7% 5.2% 5.1% 5.0% 4.2% 3.8% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4%
More information (including sample reports) and orders are available at: http://dnatribes.com/snp.html.
Page 16 of 16

DNATribes - Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNATribes - Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes is on Facebook. Find us at http://facebook.com/DNAtribes

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

The Decline of Urbanism and the Dispersal of the Late Harappans

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

Dravidian Languages and the Southern Neolithic Complex

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

Summary: Multiple Threads of Ancestry in the Southern Indian Subcontinent

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Regions (STR)

STR Region Indus Valley

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Populations (SNP)

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

18.2% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 9.2%

Oceanian [ASI related?]

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

DNA Tribes Announcements for October 2013

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

About DNA Tribes SNP (genome data required)

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

You might also like