Friday, August 24, 2012

On the origin of Indians - 3

Toomas Kivisild, Siiri Rootsi, Mait Metspalu, Ene Metspalu, Juri Parik, Katrin Kaldma,
Esien Usanga, Sarabjit Mastana, Surinder S. Papiha & Richard Villems, “The Genetics of
Language and Farming Spread in India,” ch. 17 in Examining the farming/language
dispersal hypothesis, eds. Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (Cambridge: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research, 2003), pp. 215–222.

can be found on the web.

Quote:


Second, great caution is required when interpreting the dates deriving from Y-chromosomal STR coalescent calculations. Table 17.3 reveals that profoundly inconsistent time estimates can be reached when different calibration methods are used. Hence, it seems safer to operate with raw diversity estimates to determine the polarity of the movement leaving the time of origin question unanswered until reliable dating methods for Y-chromosomal STR diversity are worked out. 

Yet, even if time estimates are avoided, there are some problems introduced by sampling strategies and differences in demographic histories. For example, in the study by Quintana- Murci et al. (2001), a decline in diversity stretching from Iran to India was observed in haplogroups 3 and 9 and the authors rushed to interpret this empirical observation in favour of directional gene flow to India during Neolithic period (haplogroup 9). They linked this finding to the introduction of Indo-Euro- pean languages (haplogroup 3) to India. Time estimates for their spread were derived from the STR clock. 
Here, however, the clock is just a secondary problem, the first being the Indian reference sample used. Indeed, the Indians included in this study consisted of a (limited) sample from Gujarat one of the western maritime provinces of India. When extending the Indian sample with colIections from different states, a quite different, even opposite, pattern emerges (Table 17.3). Indians appear to display the higher diversity both in haplogroups 3 and 9 even if a pooled sample of eastern and southern European populations was considered.If we were to use the same arithmetic and logic (sensu haplogroup 9 is Neolithic) to give an interpretation of this table, then the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture)and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe. We would also have to add that inconsistencies with the archaeological evidence would appear and disappear as we change rate estimates (Table 17.3).

Comments (12)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
India still appears to be under sampled, but this more recent study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28422... depends of geographically more diverse sources. They find the same sort of genetic gradient the earlier studies found, compatible, as they say, either with movement of females west or males west. However, the source population appears to be largely male.

If one equates the ancestral North Indian population with the Indo-Europeans, as linguistic evidence suggests, it's conceivable that they originated in India, but they still wind up being genetically quite a bit like the average modern European.
5 replies · active 657 weeks ago
Worth a read :) http://dro.dur.ac.uk/9222/1/9222.pdf?DDD5+
Castes of genes? Representing human genetic diversity in India
One point - to my knowledge, no Indian nationalist leader sought to justify caste **inequality**.
I hate that paper because it looks pretty much content free. Or at least it lacks content relevant to the question of the origins and dispersions of peoples. I am pretty much uninterested in the authors speculations on interpretations and psychological effects.

I see no salient critique of the Reich paper, which looks to me like the best data we have at present.
The 2006 paper
Sanghamitra Sahoo, Anamika Singh, G. Himabindu, Jheelam Banerjee, T. Sitalaximi, Sonali
Gaikwad, R. Trivedi, Phillip Endicott, Toomas Kivisild, Mait Metspalu, Richard Villems, &
V. K. Kashyap, “A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: Evaluating demic diffusion
scenarios,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 24 January 2006, vol. 103,
No. 4, pp. 843–848. (Italics in one of the quotations are mine.)

Another Indian biologist, Sanghamitra Sahoo, headed eleven colleagues, including T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap, for a study of the Y-DNA of 936 samples covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them tribes.

The Reich paper covers 25 populations with 132 samples.
The connection of Ancestral North Indians with Europeans however has a time depth that is not consistent with the Steppes-horse-chariot-comparative linguistics model.
1 reply · active 657 weeks ago
I agree that that is a highly intriguing anomaly, but I thought that I read that more data is needed for definitive characterization.

Speaking of time depth, there is evidence of European hybridization with Neanderthals and East Asian hybridization with Denisovians - a couple of truly interesting links.

My favorite crackpot theory in this domain currently is that the pale skin, blue eyes, and blonde hair of many contemporary Europeans might be a Neandertal trait.
The problem is the reasoning. If the researchers were given the data blind, can they identify the underlying language groups, castes, whatever?

My bet is they cannot.

They are assuming that the groups of people they have correspond to genetic groups, kind of assuming what they have to prove.
3 replies · active 657 weeks ago
Not really. People are grouped by region and caste or tribal identification, and genes are grouped by clade. Next the two types of data are correlated.

Language goes with regional and caste or tribal identification.

No one is claiming that knowing the genome of an individual permits identification of that individual's caste, language or whatever - the population is far too mixed for that. On the other hand, the population of India is far from homogeneous - there are clear regional and caste differences in gene frequency.

It's not implausible, as I have mentioned before, that everybody now in India, excluding some recent arrivals, shares exactly the same ancestors from 5000 years ago. Nor is it crazy that You, Wolfgang and I share exactly the same set of ancestors from only slightly longer ago, though not in the same proportions, of course.
I guess you don't realize how much of an accident language and caste are. Putting people in a group for genetic reasons makes sense only if the group makes genetic sense.

The paper you hate points out one important and relevant thing - the desire to find an Indian population suitable for clinical trials that would be relevant to the West.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2006/01/11/0507...

Principal component analysis (Fig. 3B) investigates the phylogeography of the Y haplogroups with respect to each other, illustrating the associations of haplogroups, irrespective of regional or cultural categories....The multidimensional scaling plot of these values (Fig. 4, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site) demonstrates that the combined data set for the tribal peoples (derived from all regions of India, excluding those of the east and northeast) actually falls midway between those for northern and southern castes, whereas the tribal populations of the east and northeast are confirmed as a separate category.

This is the right way to do it, to construct groupings first based on genetics, irrespective of regional and cultural categories, and then confirm/disconfirm that a current cultural category is indeed also a genetic category.

Post a new comment

Comments by