For example: Suppose that you set up the experiment to detect how closely Desis cluster with Georgians, you would want to test for a gene expression that the Georgians have a lot or a dirth of. OTOH, if they only expressed something at an intermediate level, say 50%, than this is much less useful by itself. The neighbors of the Georgians may express it more or less than 50% but further out, they may express it at 50% as well. So it’s useless unstable information.

1. Why not have one of the nodes at Tajikistan, which was the original homeland of the Aryans before they migrated to Desh and Iranian plateau? The Tajiks weren’t supplanted by the Turks either, but by other Iranian groups (i.e. Sogdians, etc.).

2. Has anything been elucidated about the Greek/Persian immigration into Afghanistan/Pakistan in ~300BC?

3. Why not have a “polar node” from the people who now live at the Harappa/Indus Valley area, and compare how the vicinal areas have this gene set and at what frequency? Another words, this would measure the equally-likely supposition that Harappans migrated OUTSIDE to even Afghanistan/Turkmenistan/etc. This actually makes sense, since this area was prepopulated early on and had a big population. They were very likely to migrate outwards.

Thanks for all of your amazing insights and contributions here, Razib. I love your articles.

here’s a map of B if ppl are curious:

http://johndenugent.com/images/map-of-b-blood-in-the-world.gif

the “european” in south asians is clearly affiliated with eastern europeans. i’m not going to get into the details, but it is pretty obvious if you run ADMIXTURE yourself. it’s a band from the baltic down to the caucasus and sweep to northwest india and a little beyond.

We could have even framed the poles as a Tamil Dalit Node, a Tibetan Node, a Portuguese Node (to detect admixtures amongst Konkani Brahmins and Goan Christians), a Tajik/Sogdian/Pamiri Node to detect Scythians, or even a Persian Node to detect Greeks (since Alexandrea troops were mostly Iranians when he came to Pakistan).

some populations really are more “types” than others. a tamil dalit and portuguese node makes sense. the others don’t. those groups are simply always linear combinations of other groups in all the runs i’ve seen.

Now that I think about it, there are many “poles” which to reference data sets.

We could have even framed the poles as a Tamil Dalit Node, a Tibetan Node, a Portuguese Node (to detect admixtures amongst Konkani Brahmins and Goan Christians), a Tajik/Sogdian/Pamiri Node to detect Scythians, or even a Persian Node to detect Greeks (since Alexandrea troops were mostly Iranians when he came to Pakistan).

All this being said, I’m very surprised at how homogenous Desi are when it comes to the “Indian” gene an it seems to cut off sharply when you go outside the pashtun/baluchi area in a non-cline manner.

there’s no guarantee that the first settlers made much of an impact and weren’t replaced. i think this has happened in europe, and, in much of east africa.

This doesn’t make sense, and it’s like saying that apes have a lot of human genes (not the semantically more lucid “humans have a lot of ape genes.”). The research’s narrative should attempt to elucidate how much Proto-Indian genes remains in C Asia and S Asia and SE Asia.

there is a non-trivial probability that all of non-africa was settled from the fringes of south asia. but the ASI lineage which is oldest in india, even if it is descended from the first settlers, obviously has changed since the last common ancestor with other lineages.

fwiw, i bet ASI is basal to all east eurasian, oceanian, and amerindian lineages. it might be basal to west eurasian ones though. there is mounting evidence that anatomically modern humans left africa closer to ~100,000 years ago, but that there was a “pause” or interregnum somewhere in southwest asia before a second expansion event.

Anyways, the narrative here seems to patronize the indigenous genotypes here. This doesn’t make sense, and it’s like saying that apes have a lot of human genes (not the semantically more lucid “humans have a lot of ape genes.”). The research’s narrative should attempt to elucidate how much Proto-Indian genes remains in C Asia and S Asia and SE Asia.

yes.

Also the (single) Rajasthani brahmin with E.Asian–is it a Scythian or Mongol contribution or just migrations from within other parts of N.Indai. There have been a lot of those as I’ve said before. Can you clarify what E.Asian is (something shared with peoples of SE Asia, the Han etc…)?

these results won’t allow clarification. but it’s not that hard. generally it is as you expect, ppl from nw south asia are more ‘turk’, those from east south asia more ‘southeast asian.’

so zack calls “gujarati b” “gujarati a.” so it is resolved. probably patels.

Impressive that the n.w south asia (indus) has seen an admixure of other “continental” influences like African & N.E Asian so is Bengal in that matter; they were really the “borderlands”.

Apologies for the confusion but is there any resolution or clarity on Gujarati B?