A diffusion based study of population dynamics: Prehistoric migrations into South Asia
Mayank N. Vahia, Nisha Yadav, Uma Ladiwala, Deepak Mathur
Published: May 11, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176985
Abstract:
A diffusion equation has been used to study migration of early humans into the South Asian subcontinent. The diffusion equation is tempered by a set of parameters that account for geographical features like proximity to water resources, altitude, and flatness of land. The ensuing diffusion of populations is followed in time-dependent computer simulations carried out over a period of 10,000 YBP. The geographical parameters are determined from readily-available satellite data. The results of our computer simulations are compared to recent genetic data so as to better correlate the migratory patterns of various populations; they suggest that the initial populations started to coalesce around 4,000 YBP before the commencement of a period of relative geographical isolation of each population group. The period during which coalescence of populations occurred appears consistent with the established timeline associated with the Harappan civilization and also, with genetic admixing that recent genetic mapping data reveal. Our results may contribute to providing a timeline for the movement of prehistoric people. Most significantly, our results appear to suggest that the Ancestral Austro-Asiatic population entered the subcontinent through an easterly direction, potentially resolving a hitherto-contentious issue.Rudradev's commentary:
The paper uses a mathematical model based on Fisher's equation (a reaction diffusion equation with positive constant parameters) to estimate patterns of population migration, and admixture, in the Indian subcontinent starting from 10kya.
It begins with the assumption that at least three of the five ancestral groups identified by Moorjani et al (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/) and Basu et al ( http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full.pdf) using genome-wide analysis: Ancestral North Indian (ANI), Ancestral South Indian (ASI), and Ancestral Austro-Asiatic (AAA) began diffusing throughout the subcontinent from putative locations of origin around 10kya. Some would say this is actually a low estimate; according to the authors they may have arrived as many as 60 kya, but 10kya is the late-bound hypothesis they go with.
Note: The fourth group identified by the Moorjani and Basu studies is Ancestral Tibeto Burman (ATB), which probably only entered the subcontinent much more recently than the first three; and the fifth is almost entirely restricted to the Andaman Islands. However, virtually every Indian likely harbors genetic markers from both the ANI and ASI groups.
Using a computer simulation of preferential migratory patterns in which various parameters of Fisher's equation are modeled using satellite data: altitude, slope of land, proximity to water etc, the authors show that by 4000 years ago, ASI, ANI, and AAA had moved ALL over the subcontinent and admixture of populations had already begun. In effect, their data support the hypothesis that, even if ASI/ANI/AAA had begun diffusing from singular places of origin only 10kya, they would have spread all over the subcontinent, and commenced interbreeding with each other, as of 4 kya. Importantly, the authors note that 4 kya is roughly contemporaneous with the IVC.
Meaning: By the time IVC (and putatively, Saraswati civilization) were in existence, the "Ancestral North Indian" population (with many markers in common with Central Asian and European populations) and "Ancestral South Indian" population had already intermingled. The genetic admixture we see of ANI and ASI markers throughout India, had already happened as of IVC. In fact, in one of the simulations run by the authors, it is already occurring by 6 kya.
Therefore: the ANI population migrated into India well before dates of "Aryan Invasion Theory" posited by race-mongering Western Indologists (1500 BCE or thereabouts). After all if ANI and ASI had already intermingled by 4000 years ago, then both groups must have been present in India very long before that.
The "relative geographical isolation" refers to the Fisher-equation based model hitting a steady state at about 4 kya (in a simulation that begins 10 kya) where the overall level of migration becomes less extensive and more discontinuous, probably because tribes had staked out their pieces of territory separated by natural barriers like mountains or rivers. With less migration comes less admixture.
This is distinct from the deliberate practice of endogamy, also indicated by genetic sampling of caste and tribe groups, to have begun around 70 generations (~1600 years) ago during the Gupta era. That was a normative preference rather than a product of geographical isolation.
None of this has any bearing on the validity of an "Out of India" hypothesis... indeed, the paper builds on a body of evidence arguing that the ANI group clearly migrated from somewhere else into India at some later date than the ASI and AAA groups.
guest · 408 weeks ago
documented with ancient DNA are anything but diffusive. Instead, surge and partial or complete replacement seems to be the rule.
macgupta 81p · 408 weeks ago
I think you are confusing the Yamnaya invasion of Europe with "most population movements".
Starting with the Neanderthal and Denisovian mixtures with modern humans, the evidence is that it is diffusive.
guest · 408 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 408 weeks ago
guest · 408 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 408 weeks ago
i.e., population A didn't replace population B, but rather population A had sometimes extended admixture with population B before population B went extinct.
"Neanderthal ancestry in all present-day non-Africans is estimated to be 1.5–2.1 %".
I don't know how to do the math, but 2^7 = 128, so in 7 generations, a single Neanderthal admixture would be reduced to less than 1%. At 25 years to a generation, 40,000 years is 1600 generations. For 1.5-2.1% to be there among "all present-day non-Africans" how would one compute this? Clearly if both parents are 1.5-2.1% Neanderthal, so would the offspring. So e.g., if there were 10,000 out-of-Africaners who met up with 10,000 Neanderthals, how thoroughly did they have to mix so that all the descendants would be at 1.5-2.1% Neanderthal? That would tell us how "leaky" the "leaky replacement" was.
Think about it - if America-like racial rules applied so that out-of-Africa were like modern "white" and out-of-Africa + Neanderthal mixes are like modern "black", then (a) no "whites" have survived and (b) everyone today 1600 generations later is an almost equal mixture of the two races.
macgupta 81p · 408 weeks ago
In terms of the above racial analogy, all non-Africans are somewhere between "Sang-mêlé" (1/64 = 1.5625%) and "Quarteronné (1/32 = 3.125%) Neanderthal, though Neanderthals ceased to exist tens of thousands of years ago.
Is it correct to think that our ancestral population can be considered to be the result of the thorough mixing of a ratio of 64:1 out-of-Africa:Neanderthal ancestors?
guest · 408 weeks ago
Only if there are no selection effects, but there is reason to suspect that some Neandertal genes were selected for (probably including eye, skin, and hair color) and others (mostly related to reproduction) selected against. Most "replacement events" seem to be partial rather than complete. In the case of the waves of European settlement, replacement was always far less than total.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/1...
macgupta 81p · 408 weeks ago
Quote:
"Over time that small population size meant Neanderthals began interbreeding with distant relatives, picking up negative genetic mutations, or "weakly deleterious gene variants," writes Eva Botkin-Kowacki at The Christian Science Monitor. But because the population was small, natural selection did not winnow these mutations out. Instead, they accumulated within the Neanderthal genome for thousands of years.
When Neanderthal’s began mating with humans, however, who had a much larger population, genetics did not favor keeping those genes, "purging" the mutations from their genomes, Ivan Juric, a geneticist at 23andme and co-author of the study tells Yin.
“The human population size has historically been much larger, and this is important since selection is more efficient at removing deleterious variants in large populations,” Juric says in a press release. “Weakly deleterious variants that could persist in Neanderthals could not persist in humans. We think that this simple explanation can account for the pattern of Neanderthal ancestry that we see today along the genome of modern humans.”
Coop says in the release that if Neanderthals had a larger population size that could naturally breed out the mutations or if humans weren’t quite so numerous it’s likely that non-African humans would carry much more Neanderthal genetic material.
The study jives with another paper published earlier this year computing the likelihood of negative mutations in Neanderthal and early human populations. “Our simulations showed that early hybrids would have been much less fit than pure humans,” Kelley Harris of Stanford, one of the paper’s authors, tells Yin. That would have meant much of their DNA would be left behind during natural selection.
In fact, Rasmus Nielsen, co-author of that study tells Botkin-Kowacki that he believes Neanderthals didn’t go extinct in the traditional sense. “They just simply got absorbed into the human species … Neanderthals were not driven to extinction by competition with humans—or by warfare with humans,” he says. “Rather they disappeared by simply slowly interbreeding with humans and by becoming part of the human species.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/study-re...
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter"
macgupta 81p · 408 weeks ago
Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia