The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
How East Bengalis Got East Asian
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

51KHpfTVbiL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ Let’s start at the beginning. If you read a book about Indian history in the 1980s it might begin with this sort of stylized narrative: in the beginning were the Mundas. Then there were the Dravidians, then finally the Aryans (and as an afterthought various East Asian groups on the fringes of northern and eastern Aryavarta). The thesis, broadly, was that the Munda people, who speak an Austro-Asiatic language, were the closest that the Indian subcontinent had to genuine aboriginals. The oldest of old. Supporting this contention is the fact that the languages of the Munda people, with distant affinities to Cambodian and Vietnamese, are very alien in comparison to Dravidian and Indo-Aryan (if Dravidian has any connections outside of the subcontinent, they are always posited to the west, in ancient Iran. The Munda languages clearly have eastern connections). The supposition then was that from the Munda arose various peoples of eastern Eurasia. To cut to the chase this model is probably wrong. The genetic structure of South Asia seems to have arrived at its current outlines relatively recently. In regards to the Munda people their origin is in Southeast Asia. They are not the progenitors of Southeast Asians, they are in part derived from Southeast Asians. Part of the broader expansion of “first farmers” in Southeast Asia from southern China. Their Y chromosomal lineages and autosomal heritage both imply this. Additionally, they carry the Northeast Asian derived variant of EDAR. Though much of their culture is almost certainly exogenous, and of relatively recent vintage, they are clearly highly admixed with the South Asian substrate. In particular, the fusing of an ancient West Eurasian population (“Ancestral North Indians”, or ANI) and a deeply rooted indigenous group with distant affinities further east (“Ancestral South Indians”, or ASI).

Chaubey, Gyaneshwer, et al. "Population genetic structure in Indian Austroasiatic speakers: the role of landscape barriers and sex-specific admixture." Molecular biology and evolution 28.2 (2011): 1013-1024.

Chaubey, Gyaneshwer, et al. “Population genetic structure in Indian Austroasiatic speakers: the role of landscape barriers and sex-specific admixture.” Molecular biology and evolution 28.2 (2011): 1013-1024.

One of the reasons that the ancient character of Munda residence in South Asia was persuasive is that they are resident in upland zones, which perhaps refuges after being marginalized by later arrivals. Their fragmented distribution is a tell that they occupied wider territories than is the case today. One thesis is that the Gangetic plain was inhabited by Munda people before the Indo-Aryans arrived. Rather than Dravidians, the indigenes in the Vedas may have been Mundas. But I’m interested in a more parochial question: can Munda ancestry explain the high fraction of East Asian ancestry in Bengalis, particular eastern Bengalis?

We can address this question a bit with genetics thanks to the resources we have in terms of population coverage. As readers know I’ve started to work with the 1000 Genomes data set. Luckily it has a large number of Bengalis within it. Meanwhile, the Estonian Biocentre has put its genotype data online, and there are Munda samples in there. I merged the data together, and removed pretty much all missing alleles. At the end of it I had 185,000 SNPs. To explore the questions I had in mind I decided to look at several populations. Bengalis and Telegu speakers (their genetic position would put them as “middle castes”; not Brahmins, but not Dalits or tribals). Georgians (from the Caucasus) as an outgroup. For Southeast Asian groups, Burmese, Cambodians, Filipinos and Dai. Finally, a small number of Munda. I plotted them on a PCA and removed those individuals who were not easily assigned to a cluster. The first PCA: MundaPC1

This isn’t really telling you much you don’t know. Let’s look at PC 3 now: Rplot

As you can see the Munda show a cline toward the Cambodians. This makes sense if the Munda descend from Austro-Asiatic agriculturalists. The Austro-Asiatic expansion in Southeast Asia probably dates to 4,000 years ago or so. Peter Bellwood has stated that archaeologists have excavated villages in northern Vietnam which catch the process of ethnic transition in action at this date (e.g., 75% of the burials are of gracile individuals, whille 25% very robust individuals). Such dates might put a ceiling on how early the Munda arrived inthe Indian subcontinen. In these results the Filipinos are representative of Austronesians, who have their roots in Taiwan and the Fujian coast, while the Dai are the forerunners of the Thai who arrived in Southeast Asia over the last few thousand years, taking over the uplands of Burma (Shan) and Laos (Lao), and swallowing the Khmer civilization which once flourished in the Chao Phraya basin (becoming Thailand). But it’s hard to make out what’s going on with the Bengalis…to me it isn’t clear that they’re shifted as much toward the Cambodians as they should be if the Asian ancestry was due to Munda being absorbed by Indo-Aryan speaking farmers.

So next I ran Admixture. I ran supervised and unsupervised and they showed the same qualitative result. Below is a bar plot of the unsupervised result, K = 5.

plinkAA_htm_mf149510

The Munda ancestry which is Southeast Asian here is overwhelmingly Austro-Asiatic. That is not the case with the Bengalis, who exhibit a range of fractions. There is very little Austronesian ancestry, which is something one might expect. But, there’s a balance of Austro-Asiatic and Daic ancestry in many individuals, though there is inter-individual variation (my mother has one of the strongest Austro-Asiatic skews among the Bengalis, while my father is among the most Daic; previous runs of admixture consistently show that her eastern Eurasian is more Southeast Asian than his, which has suggestions of Northeast Asian). This is not consistent with Munda being the sole source of East Asian ancestry in modern Bengalis.1 Using rolloff based methods researchers have estimated that admixture into Bengalis occurred on the order of 1,000 years ago. There’s nothing here that would contradict that, and the admixture can easily be explained by the Burmese in the data above, or Khasi and Garo people, who live to north and and east of Bengalis.

Finally, I ran TreeMix on the data. I removed the Georgians and Filipinos because they didn’t add much. Additionally, for kicks I broke apart the Bangladeshis into two groups defined by the 25 most Daic, and 25 least Daic. Below are the ten plots from the ten runs.

MTree.9 MTree.10 MTree.1 MTree.2 MTree.3 MTree.4 MTree.5 MTree.6 MTree.7 MTree.8

I don’t think breaking apart the Bengalis did any good. There were runs with the full fused sample, and the results were similar. It is clear that TreeMix also suggests that Munda are not a singular donor to Bengalis of their East Asian heritage. The source of the donor migration arrow is always shifted more toward Southeast Asian groups proper. Breaking apart the Bengalis into Austro-Asiatic and Daic skewed groups did result in the source of the gene flow being somewhat different. But not appreciably. I also ran the f3 and f4 statistics. There’s nothing surprising about who mixes with who…though it is notable in these and the above results that Burmese show nearly as high a gene flow from South Asians as Bengalis show from Southeast Asians. There have long been suggestions of gene flow from India to Cambodia, perhaps associated with the ancient mediation of South Asian cultural forms across Southeast Asia. But the Burmese evidence of gene flow is tragically ironic in light of the fact that modern Burmese are virulently racist toward dark skinned Muslims who clearly have South Asian origins.

51MGYd330tL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ So what happened in Bengal? At the top of the post I have an illustration of The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760. The thesis of this book is that the Islamic nature of eastern Bengal is in large part due to its relatively recent settlement by Indo-Aryan farmers. Though Bengal has always been a marchland, on the fringes of Aryavarta, before the Islamic conquest of the 13th century its center of gravity, culturally and demographically, was in what is today in the Indian state of Bengal, to the west of Bangladesh. The author of The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 suggests that Islamic elites were instrumental in opening up the lands to the east of the old core, and the peasant cultivators who came to cultivate the new territory under their leadership identified vaguely with the religious identity of this new elite (though in general practicing on a day to day level their own folk beliefs), as the old organically developed institutions of Hinduism and Buddhism were poorly moored in the virgin lands. To me this is reminiscent of Michelle Salzman’s data in The Making of a Christian Aristocracy, which suggests that Christian elites arose on the frontiers, rather than the old cores, under patronage of the new religious dispensation (these data are predicted by Peter Turchin in War and Peace and War). In contrast the old Roman elite was relatively late to Christianity, as they were attached their own customs and traditions, which had thick and deep roots in the heartlands of the Roman world. Similarly, Hinduism (or what became what we term Hinduism) between the Doab and western Bengal seems to have resisted Islam’s attempt to destabilize local institutions and interpose itself as the dominant religious ethos of the sub-elites. Only on the destabilized fringes of the west and east, where old orders did not exist or were totally torn down, did Islam find purchase as a majority dispensation.

Finally, the high component of East Asian ancestry among the peasants of eastern Bengal is probably a function of the fact that there were groups from the east also pushing into the fertile territory. If the initial population density was low then a modest inflow at the early stages, ~1,000 years ago, could have a major long term impact. The crushing population densities of “Golden Bengal” was centuries into the future. A lack of cultural memory of this admixture is curious, but to a great extent shifting to the new religion meant that the proto-east Bengalis were creating a new identity. Things get lost….

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Bangladesh, History 
Hide 35 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Numinous says:

    The author of The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 suggests that Islamic elites were instrumental in opening up these lands, and the peasant cultivators who came to cultivate the new territory under their leadership were easily convinced to change their religious affiliations, as the old organically developed institutions of Hinduism and Buddhism were poorly moored in the virgin lands.

    Razib, if this is so, then what’s your theory about why Assam and Manipur, both further east and having more “eastern” ethic affiliations (at least to my eye) remained predominantly Hindu? Manipur seems to have a sizeable Christian minority (I think as a result of missionary activity during British rule), but few Muslims. And if I am not mistaken, Assam was a part of historical Bengal; the British separated Assam from Bengal in 1905.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    like nepal, assam was never conquered by muslims

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam#Ancient
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /gnxp/how-east-bengalis-got-east-asian/#comment-1007980
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Twinkie says:

    This is very fascinating, but if I might quibble a bit, you seem to be using East Asian and Southeast Asian interchangeably, which I found a bit confusing. Are you using the latter as a subset of the former (with Northeast Asian being the other subset)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    yeah, i made a few changes. genetically compared to another world region (e.g., south asia) malays to japanese doesn't make a different ;-) but yes, east and se asian are both subsets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. I notice the Munda have essentially no West Asian ancestry. I know this is probably an artifact to some degree, given the Indian admixture component itself is a mixture of ANI and ASI. Still, I would think this might cast doubt on the Munda contributing in any significant way to the Bengali population. I say this because if you compare the West Asian proportion of the Telegu and the Bengalis, they are very close. Bengalis have slightly less West Asian it looks like – something closer to 20% than 30%. But they also have less Indian as well. Just eyeballing it, it looks like if you took out the Austro-Asiatic and Daic components from Bengalis, the ratio of West Asian to Indian would be damn close to identical.

    Of course, it may be that the resemblance is accidental – that Telugu is not a good fit in terms of the Indian/West Asian donor population. After all, the two groups are not geographically adjacent, and Bengalis, speaking Indo-European, should be expected to have somewhat higher West Asian proportions. If the West Asian donor population was significantly more West Asian shifted, it would allow for the Munda to contribute genetically to the Bengalis in some non-trivial way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    a plausible model is that the munda are the product of:

    (ASI+ANI) + austro-asiatic.

    the bengalis, ((ASI+ANI) + indo-aryan)+munda)+burmese tribe)

    or, the munda element in bengalis might be part of the broader pattern on the north india plain. but i see no EDAR or signs of east asian admixture...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Numinous

    The author of The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204-1760 suggests that Islamic elites were instrumental in opening up these lands, and the peasant cultivators who came to cultivate the new territory under their leadership were easily convinced to change their religious affiliations, as the old organically developed institutions of Hinduism and Buddhism were poorly moored in the virgin lands.
     
    Razib, if this is so, then what's your theory about why Assam and Manipur, both further east and having more "eastern" ethic affiliations (at least to my eye) remained predominantly Hindu? Manipur seems to have a sizeable Christian minority (I think as a result of missionary activity during British rule), but few Muslims. And if I am not mistaken, Assam was a part of historical Bengal; the British separated Assam from Bengal in 1905.

    like nepal, assam was never conquered by muslims

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam#Ancient

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vijay
    In Manipur, Vaishnavism arrived in 1702, and was imported by Bishnupriya Bengalis from Barak Valley and Tripura.

    The kamarupa dynasty ruled Assam in 600 AD+, and appears to be contemporaneous to Guptas; however, there is no mention of Hinduism in Kamarupa pala dynasty, and Yuwan Chuang mentions Tibetan and Buddhist religious influences only. However the real Hindu switchover in Assam started after an Ahom king adopted Hinduism and christened him Jayadajha singh in 1554. Ahoms have Tai origin and not Indian.

    In summary, both, Assam and Manipur have a young Hindu age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Karl Zimmerman
    I notice the Munda have essentially no West Asian ancestry. I know this is probably an artifact to some degree, given the Indian admixture component itself is a mixture of ANI and ASI. Still, I would think this might cast doubt on the Munda contributing in any significant way to the Bengali population. I say this because if you compare the West Asian proportion of the Telegu and the Bengalis, they are very close. Bengalis have slightly less West Asian it looks like - something closer to 20% than 30%. But they also have less Indian as well. Just eyeballing it, it looks like if you took out the Austro-Asiatic and Daic components from Bengalis, the ratio of West Asian to Indian would be damn close to identical.

    Of course, it may be that the resemblance is accidental - that Telugu is not a good fit in terms of the Indian/West Asian donor population. After all, the two groups are not geographically adjacent, and Bengalis, speaking Indo-European, should be expected to have somewhat higher West Asian proportions. If the West Asian donor population was significantly more West Asian shifted, it would allow for the Munda to contribute genetically to the Bengalis in some non-trivial way.

    a plausible model is that the munda are the product of:

    (ASI+ANI) + austro-asiatic.

    the bengalis, ((ASI+ANI) + indo-aryan)+munda)+burmese tribe)

    or, the munda element in bengalis might be part of the broader pattern on the north india plain. but i see no EDAR or signs of east asian admixture…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Twinkie
    This is very fascinating, but if I might quibble a bit, you seem to be using East Asian and Southeast Asian interchangeably, which I found a bit confusing. Are you using the latter as a subset of the former (with Northeast Asian being the other subset)?

    yeah, i made a few changes. genetically compared to another world region (e.g., south asia) malays to japanese doesn’t make a different ;-) but yes, east and se asian are both subsets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Vijay says:

    1. Should title be “How Bengalis got East Asian”?

    2. Multiple rounds of admixture, including the biggest one at about 500-600 AD.

    3. I wish to argue for a third and final admixture. A a significant part of East Bengal was under Ahom kingdom before Mughals invaded the meghna-Padma delta. The Ahom are the descendants of the ethnic Tai (Dai) people that accompanied the Tai prince Sukaphaa into the Brahmaputra valley about 1220. Before Mughal conquest, the region east of Brahmaputra river was more conducive to boats from the north and conquest from the east. The Mughal-Ahom wars of 17th century pushed the Ahom north and east, and east Bengal became both, Muslim and ASi-ANI dominated only after complete Mughal occupation.

    As you drive around the periphery of Bengal from Siliguri to Cooch-behar to Kalimpong to silchar to Cachar to Agartala to Chittagong, the Asian admixture changes so much from Tibetan to Dai to Khasi-Garo to Kuki. A multiple wave admixture model that correlates with history is needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    1. Should title be “How Bengalis got East Asian”?


    sort of. zack at harappa has west bengali data

    1) less admixture
    2) brahmins show very little in comparison to others (e.g., kayastha)

    but i only have bangladesh data.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Vijay
    1. Should title be "How Bengalis got East Asian"?

    2. Multiple rounds of admixture, including the biggest one at about 500-600 AD.

    3. I wish to argue for a third and final admixture. A a significant part of East Bengal was under Ahom kingdom before Mughals invaded the meghna-Padma delta. The Ahom are the descendants of the ethnic Tai (Dai) people that accompanied the Tai prince Sukaphaa into the Brahmaputra valley about 1220. Before Mughal conquest, the region east of Brahmaputra river was more conducive to boats from the north and conquest from the east. The Mughal-Ahom wars of 17th century pushed the Ahom north and east, and east Bengal became both, Muslim and ASi-ANI dominated only after complete Mughal occupation.

    As you drive around the periphery of Bengal from Siliguri to Cooch-behar to Kalimpong to silchar to Cachar to Agartala to Chittagong, the Asian admixture changes so much from Tibetan to Dai to Khasi-Garo to Kuki. A multiple wave admixture model that correlates with history is needed.

    1. Should title be “How Bengalis got East Asian”?

    sort of. zack at harappa has west bengali data

    1) less admixture
    2) brahmins show very little in comparison to others (e.g., kayastha)

    but i only have bangladesh data.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. You seem to have omitted the admixture bar chart. Maybe some interaction with the page cut?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    fixed. got yanked on an edit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Vijay says:

    “So next I ran Admixture. I ran supervised and unsupervised and they showed the same qualitative result. Below is a bar plot of the unsupervised result, K = 5″

    At that point, there used to be a bar chart. It is missing now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @Douglas Knight
    You seem to have omitted the admixture bar chart. Maybe some interaction with the page cut?

    fixed. got yanked on an edit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Vijay says:
    @Razib Khan
    like nepal, assam was never conquered by muslims

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam#Ancient

    In Manipur, Vaishnavism arrived in 1702, and was imported by Bishnupriya Bengalis from Barak Valley and Tripura.

    The kamarupa dynasty ruled Assam in 600 AD+, and appears to be contemporaneous to Guptas; however, there is no mention of Hinduism in Kamarupa pala dynasty, and Yuwan Chuang mentions Tibetan and Buddhist religious influences only. However the real Hindu switchover in Assam started after an Ahom king adopted Hinduism and christened him Jayadajha singh in 1554. Ahoms have Tai origin and not Indian.

    In summary, both, Assam and Manipur have a young Hindu age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Matt_ says:

    With the Garo and Burmese ancestry mentioned, the Harappa Project splits East Asian ancestry a slightly different way into SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian (roughly, there’s also a Beringian component but it starts really far north).

    The Garo fit with a ratio of SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian of 26:45:6, with the remaining 23 of their ancestry being essentially all S_Indian, with fractions of percents in other categories. If you scale that to an assumption of the 3 EAs summing to 100%, then 34:58:8.

    Similarly, the Burmanese samples have SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian 28:42:6 (balance is 17% South Indian, like Garo, but also a bit more complex with some West Eurasian and Papuan components). To 100%, 36:55:8, for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.

    That seems kind of interesting in light of the Dai samples scoring 71% in the SE Asian component, and Vietnamese samples 58%, while Cambodian also score 71% in the SE Asian component (or 84% of their membership in the 3 East Asian components).

    The Southern Chinese samples have membership of 33% SE Asian and 66% NE Asian.
    That doesn’t seem totally surprising, as a contrast, given that Garo and Burmese are Sino-Tibetan languages.

    So even though the NE Asian and SE Asian clusters are closely related (even a small amount of S Indian would push two populations farther apart than large differences in the NE Asian vs SE Asian, genome wide), it seems like there’s a dimension there on which the Garo and Burmanese samples differ from other SE Asian populations in affinity to Siberian and NE Asian populations that could be relevant for Bengalis.

    The Harappa Project’s small (11) “Bengali” sample has SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian of 7:6:2, which would scale over to 46:39:15. That’s a little shaky as it’s an extrapolation from a small percentage of the ancestry of a small sample, but seems kind of consistent with a relatively more Burman / Garo like East Asian ancestry in the Bengalis than a Cambodian like one (unless its something different that’s fitting awkwardly into those categories).

    Another lot are the Aonaga population, from Nagaland, fit with 2:84:7 for SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian. Compares with Tibet 0:78:12, Japanese 0:99:1 and North Chinese 0:78:12 for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian. By the measure of the Harappa Project’s analysis, they’re almost like transplants from Northeast Asia, with a low 7% of non-EA component.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Compares with Tibet 0:78:12, Japanese 0:99:1 and North Chinese 0:78:12 for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.
     
    Are Mongolians and Koreans closer to Tibetans and North Chinese or Japanese in their intermixtures?
    , @Greg Pandatshang

    The Garo fit with a ratio of SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian of 26:45:6, with the remaining 23 of their ancestry being essentially all S_Indian, with fractions of percents in other categories. If you scale that to an assumption of the 3 EAs summing to 100%, then 34:58:8.

    Similarly, the Burmanese samples have SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian 28:42:6 (balance is 17% South Indian, like Garo, but also a bit more complex with some West Eurasian and Papuan components). To 100%, 36:55:8, for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.

     

    I find this interesting in light of Blench and Post's work on Sino-Tibetan (or "Trans-Himalayan") language classification, for instance “Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages” (which I've mentioned a couple times in comments on this blog previously). They argue that the origin of that macro-family is most likely in the vicinity of Arunachal Pradesh. Regarding the Burmese, they believe that Burmese is especially closely related to Chinese and Tibetan, so perhaps NE Asian genes in Burma could plausibly be predicted based on language and history. But Bodo-Garo does not seem to be especially closely related to anything outside of the NE India/Pakistan region (although Blench and Post do describe it as firmly part of Sino-Tibetan, which is more than you can say for a lot of the local languages that have been assumed to be of that stock). I wonder if it's possible that highlands Arunachal already had a lot of NE Asian ancestry as of 6 or 7 kya (or whenever Proto-Sino-Tibetan was spoken).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Twinkie says:
    @Matt_
    With the Garo and Burmese ancestry mentioned, the Harappa Project splits East Asian ancestry a slightly different way into SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian (roughly, there's also a Beringian component but it starts really far north).

    The Garo fit with a ratio of SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian of 26:45:6, with the remaining 23 of their ancestry being essentially all S_Indian, with fractions of percents in other categories. If you scale that to an assumption of the 3 EAs summing to 100%, then 34:58:8.

    Similarly, the Burmanese samples have SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian 28:42:6 (balance is 17% South Indian, like Garo, but also a bit more complex with some West Eurasian and Papuan components). To 100%, 36:55:8, for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.

    That seems kind of interesting in light of the Dai samples scoring 71% in the SE Asian component, and Vietnamese samples 58%, while Cambodian also score 71% in the SE Asian component (or 84% of their membership in the 3 East Asian components).

    The Southern Chinese samples have membership of 33% SE Asian and 66% NE Asian.
    That doesn't seem totally surprising, as a contrast, given that Garo and Burmese are Sino-Tibetan languages.

    So even though the NE Asian and SE Asian clusters are closely related (even a small amount of S Indian would push two populations farther apart than large differences in the NE Asian vs SE Asian, genome wide), it seems like there's a dimension there on which the Garo and Burmanese samples differ from other SE Asian populations in affinity to Siberian and NE Asian populations that could be relevant for Bengalis.

    The Harappa Project's small (11) "Bengali" sample has SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian of 7:6:2, which would scale over to 46:39:15. That's a little shaky as it's an extrapolation from a small percentage of the ancestry of a small sample, but seems kind of consistent with a relatively more Burman / Garo like East Asian ancestry in the Bengalis than a Cambodian like one (unless its something different that's fitting awkwardly into those categories).

    Another lot are the Aonaga population, from Nagaland, fit with 2:84:7 for SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian. Compares with Tibet 0:78:12, Japanese 0:99:1 and North Chinese 0:78:12 for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian. By the measure of the Harappa Project's analysis, they're almost like transplants from Northeast Asia, with a low 7% of non-EA component.

    Compares with Tibet 0:78:12, Japanese 0:99:1 and North Chinese 0:78:12 for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.

    Are Mongolians and Koreans closer to Tibetans and North Chinese or Japanese in their intermixtures?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Matt_ says:

    , apologies, Han_N_China was actually 12:78:6 for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian.

    The Harappa Project’s ADMIXTURE run (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE) doesn’t use a Korean sample. It has a couple of different Mongolian samples which vary are SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian 7:62:23 (8:67:25) and 0:39:38 (0:51:49) for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian (with the balance being West Eurasian).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    on PCA koreans are prefect betwee n_chinese and japanese. the japanese are modeled as a 75% korean 25% jomon(ish) mix, so that makes sense (n_chinese and koreans are not that distant, but the 0.25 jomon drags japanese away from koreans).
    , @Twinkie

    Han_N_China was actually 12:78:6 for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian.
     
    That sounds more plausible than 0:78:12.

    I am still not convinced that "Japanese 0:99:1" is right. I read a while back that Koreans are almost entirely NE Asian and Siberian, but that Japanese actually have some SE Asian. Is that outdated?

    Where were the Mongolian samples taken?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Matt_
    @Twinkie, apologies, Han_N_China was actually 12:78:6 for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian.

    The Harappa Project's ADMIXTURE run (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE) doesn't use a Korean sample. It has a couple of different Mongolian samples which vary are SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian 7:62:23 (8:67:25) and 0:39:38 (0:51:49) for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian (with the balance being West Eurasian).

    on PCA koreans are prefect betwee n_chinese and japanese. the japanese are modeled as a 75% korean 25% jomon(ish) mix, so that makes sense (n_chinese and koreans are not that distant, but the 0.25 jomon drags japanese away from koreans).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I wonder how North Chinese, Koreans, and Manchus compare. I mean full-blooded Manchus, as rare as they are nowadays.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Forgive my ignorance, but when you say “Northeast Asia” – where are we talking about specifically? Is it inclusive or exclusive of your average Han Chinese person?

    And re: Dai links to Northeast Asia – does anyone have a good overview on this they could point me to?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Twinkie says:
    @Matt_
    @Twinkie, apologies, Han_N_China was actually 12:78:6 for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian.

    The Harappa Project's ADMIXTURE run (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE) doesn't use a Korean sample. It has a couple of different Mongolian samples which vary are SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian 7:62:23 (8:67:25) and 0:39:38 (0:51:49) for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian (with the balance being West Eurasian).

    Han_N_China was actually 12:78:6 for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian.

    That sounds more plausible than 0:78:12.

    I am still not convinced that “Japanese 0:99:1″ is right. I read a while back that Koreans are almost entirely NE Asian and Siberian, but that Japanese actually have some SE Asian. Is that outdated?

    Where were the Mongolian samples taken?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    ADMIXTURE components are not absolutes, what they represent depends on the initial samples used when running the program. National Genographic's analysis shows Japanese are 75% NE Asian 25% SE Asian. Harappa Japanese are 99% NE Asian. Essentially this means that National Genographic's NE Asian component is more "northern" than Harappa's which also represents alleles Genographic counts as SE Asian.

    Formal testing and IBS comparisons give the most accurate picture about a population's relative position. You can get decent idea from ADMIXTURE and PCA's too but keep in mind their limitations - comparing results from different ADMIXTURE analyses can be confusing if you don't know the components aren't actually the same thing in different runs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Twinkie says:
    @Razib Khan
    on PCA koreans are prefect betwee n_chinese and japanese. the japanese are modeled as a 75% korean 25% jomon(ish) mix, so that makes sense (n_chinese and koreans are not that distant, but the 0.25 jomon drags japanese away from koreans).

    I wonder how North Chinese, Koreans, and Manchus compare. I mean full-blooded Manchus, as rare as they are nowadays.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i'm going to generate PCAs for you tonight. i have big data sets on this sort of stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Twinkie
    I wonder how North Chinese, Koreans, and Manchus compare. I mean full-blooded Manchus, as rare as they are nowadays.

    i’m going to generate PCAs for you tonight. i have big data sets on this sort of stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Shaikorth says:
    @Twinkie

    Han_N_China was actually 12:78:6 for SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian.
     
    That sounds more plausible than 0:78:12.

    I am still not convinced that "Japanese 0:99:1" is right. I read a while back that Koreans are almost entirely NE Asian and Siberian, but that Japanese actually have some SE Asian. Is that outdated?

    Where were the Mongolian samples taken?

    ADMIXTURE components are not absolutes, what they represent depends on the initial samples used when running the program. National Genographic’s analysis shows Japanese are 75% NE Asian 25% SE Asian. Harappa Japanese are 99% NE Asian. Essentially this means that National Genographic’s NE Asian component is more “northern” than Harappa’s which also represents alleles Genographic counts as SE Asian.

    Formal testing and IBS comparisons give the most accurate picture about a population’s relative position. You can get decent idea from ADMIXTURE and PCA’s too but keep in mind their limitations – comparing results from different ADMIXTURE analyses can be confusing if you don’t know the components aren’t actually the same thing in different runs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Formal testing and IBS comparisons give the most accurate picture about a population’s relative position.

    i don’t agree with this. all methods have limitations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Shaikorth says:

    There’s no perfect method, but I don’t see ADMIXTURE trumping either of the ones I mentioned. PCA is not really even a competing method, but allows for a partial visualization of IBS/formal/ADMIXTURE results. SpaceMix looks interesting but hasn’t been yet utilized enough for me to make conclusions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    who are you talking to? i know the methods better than you. you said that a set of methods was better than another set of methods. i said i disagreed. not that there's a perfect method. don't respond to what you think i meant, respond to what i said.

    all methods have upside and downsides. they're mapping onto reality, not representations of reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Shaikorth
    There's no perfect method, but I don't see ADMIXTURE trumping either of the ones I mentioned. PCA is not really even a competing method, but allows for a partial visualization of IBS/formal/ADMIXTURE results. SpaceMix looks interesting but hasn't been yet utilized enough for me to make conclusions.

    who are you talking to? i know the methods better than you. you said that a set of methods was better than another set of methods. i said i disagreed. not that there’s a perfect method. don’t respond to what you think i meant, respond to what i said.

    all methods have upside and downsides. they’re mapping onto reality, not representations of reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    The statement that no method is perfect was there to clarify my own position, meaning that I don't think IBS and formal testing are perfect (just that they give a more accurate picture overall), not some attempt to educate you about said methods. :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Shaikorth says:
    @Razib Khan
    who are you talking to? i know the methods better than you. you said that a set of methods was better than another set of methods. i said i disagreed. not that there's a perfect method. don't respond to what you think i meant, respond to what i said.

    all methods have upside and downsides. they're mapping onto reality, not representations of reality.

    The statement that no method is perfect was there to clarify my own position, meaning that I don’t think IBS and formal testing are perfect (just that they give a more accurate picture overall), not some attempt to educate you about said methods. :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Matt_ says:

    Twinkie: I am still not convinced that “Japanese 0:99:1″ is right. I read a while back that Koreans are almost entirely NE Asian and Siberian, but that Japanese actually have some SE Asian. Is that outdated?

    IRC on the whole, compared to Korea, Japanese cluster / position slightly “further” from mainland Southeast Asia on most PCA, FST statistic, population trees and ADMIXTURE I’ve seen, with less ancestry components in common. They basically overlap though, and sometimes the Koreans are more distant from SE Asian populations. It seems a little like Razib says above, which is that this Jomon element pushes Japan a little further away from others such as Southeast Asia than Koreans, and while there is some gene flow from North Asia to Korea, it is of less effect in pushing Korea away from SE Asia. It could be that something more complex is going on with slightly more SE Asian like genetic flow into Japan which is masked by Jomon gene flow pushing further away, but I don’t think anyone has ever tested anything like that, and that pattern doesn’t just immediately seem to emerge inadvertently.

    That’s just my impression though, different PCA / ADMIXTURE can show slightly different things.

    You occasionally get people on the internet burbling on about how the Jomon were Southeast Asian. That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.

    With the % above, Zack at Harappa Project is careful to say on his blog this is just a component he has labelled NE_Asian based on where it peaks (North China-Japan & Tibet) – it may actually be more Japanese, with a composite of “real” NE Asian with some degree of Jomon ancestry, and the lack of or lower such Jomon ancestry might affect the clusters. I’m interested in it here because it provides an element of differentiation between the Sino-Tibetan groups in Northeast India (Garo, Aonaga, Nyishi) and peoples of SE Asia, and that could say something about the East Asian ancestry in Bengalis, even if its not necessarily an unmixed ancient population.

    Re: where the Mongolian samples are from, the spreadsheet I linked has a dataset label and these comes from papers by Morten Rasmussen and Bayazit Yunusbayev, so you could check those out to find out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Shaikorth
    "That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians."

    The allele sharing figures from Kanzawa-Kiriyama's paper (fig. 3.12-3-13) support the idea that Jomon was more of a pure outgroup than having NE Asian related ancestry, wouldn't you say? Ainu, Ryukyans and mainland Japanese top the list in that order, but after that southern East Asian groups are as close or closer than northern East Asian or Native American groups.

    Modern Ainu however may have Paleo-Siberian ancestry via their Okhotsk contacts.
    , @Twinkie

    You occasionally get people on the internet burbling on about how the Jomon were Southeast Asian. That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.
     
    There are fragmentary firsthand Yamato records about various groups of the Emishi, who were likely descendants of the Jomon and ancestors of the Ainu. Interestingly from a military historical point of view, the Emishi were apparently quite adept at horse riding and cavalry tactics - yet another evidence that they were quite unlikely to be Southeast Asian in origin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Shaikorth says:
    @Matt_
    Twinkie: I am still not convinced that “Japanese 0:99:1″ is right. I read a while back that Koreans are almost entirely NE Asian and Siberian, but that Japanese actually have some SE Asian. Is that outdated?

    IRC on the whole, compared to Korea, Japanese cluster / position slightly "further" from mainland Southeast Asia on most PCA, FST statistic, population trees and ADMIXTURE I've seen, with less ancestry components in common. They basically overlap though, and sometimes the Koreans are more distant from SE Asian populations. It seems a little like Razib says above, which is that this Jomon element pushes Japan a little further away from others such as Southeast Asia than Koreans, and while there is some gene flow from North Asia to Korea, it is of less effect in pushing Korea away from SE Asia. It could be that something more complex is going on with slightly more SE Asian like genetic flow into Japan which is masked by Jomon gene flow pushing further away, but I don't think anyone has ever tested anything like that, and that pattern doesn't just immediately seem to emerge inadvertently.

    That's just my impression though, different PCA / ADMIXTURE can show slightly different things.

    You occasionally get people on the internet burbling on about how the Jomon were Southeast Asian. That doesn't really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.

    With the % above, Zack at Harappa Project is careful to say on his blog this is just a component he has labelled NE_Asian based on where it peaks (North China-Japan & Tibet) - it may actually be more Japanese, with a composite of "real" NE Asian with some degree of Jomon ancestry, and the lack of or lower such Jomon ancestry might affect the clusters. I'm interested in it here because it provides an element of differentiation between the Sino-Tibetan groups in Northeast India (Garo, Aonaga, Nyishi) and peoples of SE Asia, and that could say something about the East Asian ancestry in Bengalis, even if its not necessarily an unmixed ancient population.

    Re: where the Mongolian samples are from, the spreadsheet I linked has a dataset label and these comes from papers by Morten Rasmussen and Bayazit Yunusbayev, so you could check those out to find out.

    “That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.”

    The allele sharing figures from Kanzawa-Kiriyama’s paper (fig. 3.12-3-13) support the idea that Jomon was more of a pure outgroup than having NE Asian related ancestry, wouldn’t you say? Ainu, Ryukyans and mainland Japanese top the list in that order, but after that southern East Asian groups are as close or closer than northern East Asian or Native American groups.

    Modern Ainu however may have Paleo-Siberian ancestry via their Okhotsk contacts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    if they diverged prior to 10 thousand years ago, like, seems they should be an outgroup. a lot of NE + SE Asian genetic variation today is a function of agricultural age expansions. though my impression is that Jomon are closer to other east euarasians than ASI would be. perhaps equivalent to an west eurasian-ANI clade. 20 to 30 K BP.
    , @Matt_
    Yeah, on the whole, looking at the figures you describe, those do suggest that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Shaikorth
    "That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians."

    The allele sharing figures from Kanzawa-Kiriyama's paper (fig. 3.12-3-13) support the idea that Jomon was more of a pure outgroup than having NE Asian related ancestry, wouldn't you say? Ainu, Ryukyans and mainland Japanese top the list in that order, but after that southern East Asian groups are as close or closer than northern East Asian or Native American groups.

    Modern Ainu however may have Paleo-Siberian ancestry via their Okhotsk contacts.

    if they diverged prior to 10 thousand years ago, like, seems they should be an outgroup. a lot of NE + SE Asian genetic variation today is a function of agricultural age expansions. though my impression is that Jomon are closer to other east euarasians than ASI would be. perhaps equivalent to an west eurasian-ANI clade. 20 to 30 K BP.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Matt_ says:
    @Shaikorth
    "That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians."

    The allele sharing figures from Kanzawa-Kiriyama's paper (fig. 3.12-3-13) support the idea that Jomon was more of a pure outgroup than having NE Asian related ancestry, wouldn't you say? Ainu, Ryukyans and mainland Japanese top the list in that order, but after that southern East Asian groups are as close or closer than northern East Asian or Native American groups.

    Modern Ainu however may have Paleo-Siberian ancestry via their Okhotsk contacts.

    Yeah, on the whole, looking at the figures you describe, those do suggest that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. SD says:

    Why is that Munda group does not have west asian component. If they have admixed with ANI and ASI, they should have west asian component? Because ANI contains west asian component. Even tribes and tamils have these. Or is it that the blue Indian component represents ANI + ASI ? and by west asian do you mean mediterranean and european which was carried by Indo-Iranians?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Twinkie says:
    @Matt_
    Twinkie: I am still not convinced that “Japanese 0:99:1″ is right. I read a while back that Koreans are almost entirely NE Asian and Siberian, but that Japanese actually have some SE Asian. Is that outdated?

    IRC on the whole, compared to Korea, Japanese cluster / position slightly "further" from mainland Southeast Asia on most PCA, FST statistic, population trees and ADMIXTURE I've seen, with less ancestry components in common. They basically overlap though, and sometimes the Koreans are more distant from SE Asian populations. It seems a little like Razib says above, which is that this Jomon element pushes Japan a little further away from others such as Southeast Asia than Koreans, and while there is some gene flow from North Asia to Korea, it is of less effect in pushing Korea away from SE Asia. It could be that something more complex is going on with slightly more SE Asian like genetic flow into Japan which is masked by Jomon gene flow pushing further away, but I don't think anyone has ever tested anything like that, and that pattern doesn't just immediately seem to emerge inadvertently.

    That's just my impression though, different PCA / ADMIXTURE can show slightly different things.

    You occasionally get people on the internet burbling on about how the Jomon were Southeast Asian. That doesn't really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.

    With the % above, Zack at Harappa Project is careful to say on his blog this is just a component he has labelled NE_Asian based on where it peaks (North China-Japan & Tibet) - it may actually be more Japanese, with a composite of "real" NE Asian with some degree of Jomon ancestry, and the lack of or lower such Jomon ancestry might affect the clusters. I'm interested in it here because it provides an element of differentiation between the Sino-Tibetan groups in Northeast India (Garo, Aonaga, Nyishi) and peoples of SE Asia, and that could say something about the East Asian ancestry in Bengalis, even if its not necessarily an unmixed ancient population.

    Re: where the Mongolian samples are from, the spreadsheet I linked has a dataset label and these comes from papers by Morten Rasmussen and Bayazit Yunusbayev, so you could check those out to find out.

    You occasionally get people on the internet burbling on about how the Jomon were Southeast Asian. That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.

    There are fragmentary firsthand Yamato records about various groups of the Emishi, who were likely descendants of the Jomon and ancestors of the Ainu. Interestingly from a military historical point of view, the Emishi were apparently quite adept at horse riding and cavalry tactics – yet another evidence that they were quite unlikely to be Southeast Asian in origin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ebizur
    Most recorded Ainu words that have anything to do with horses or equestrianism are transparent loanwords from Japanese (or from Chinese via Japanese).

    Ainu umma ~ unma ~ uma "horse" < Japanese uma "horse" (< Chinese 馬 mǎ "horse")

    Ainu kitchi "trough" < Japanese dialect (Aomori) kitchi "trough" ( kuyu ~ kuśi "trough" and some Buryat word for "pail, bucket, tub, trough" whose precise form I cannot recall at the moment). The word kitchi also has been recorded with the meaning "a wooden storage unit, a shed" in Miyagi, "a water tank" in Iwate and Senboku District, Akita, or "a rice chest" in Aomori and Esashi District, Iwate. The forms kitsu, kittsu, kichi, kisu, and kishi also occur with similar meanings (sharing the common denominator of "wooden storage unit or container") in various Japanese dialects from Niigata and Ibaraki in the south throughout the Tohoku region. The Standard Japanese form is hitsu ~ -bitsu, likely from the same Chinese source (but with retention of labialization and loss of the velar segment instead of the retention of the velar and loss of the labial that is seen in the northeastern dialect forms). The Standard Japanese form most commonly refers to a container for holding rice, either cooked or uncooked.

    Ainu kura "saddle, packsaddle" < Japanese kura "saddle," Ainu norinkura "saddle" < Japanese norikura "riding saddle"

    Ainu kurunki "a chestnut or sorrel horse" < Japanese kurige "a chestnut or sorrel horse (or the coloration of such a horse)" < Japanese kuri "chestnut" + Japanese ke "hair."

    The etymology of a couple Ainu words is somewhat cloudy:

    Ainu choni ? Turkish yeni) and Mongolian shine "new."

    Ainu mesas "horse's mane" ?< Ainu *me '(back of the) neck' as in Ainu merit 'scruff of the neck, nape of the neck, back of the neck, sinews of the neck' (-rit is as in Ainu sinrit 'root (of a tree or a plant); ancestor; clan, ancestors and descendants; one's deceased father' or Ainu kemrit ~ kemorit 'blood vessel') + some unknown morpheme *sas. The first morpheme (*me 'neck') seems rather similar to Jurchen-Manchu meifen 'neck' and Turkish boyn- (< Proto-Turkic *boyn- ~ *moyn-; there used to be no regular distinction between /b/ and /m/ in Turkic) 'neck.' The second, unknown morpheme (*sas) seems rather similar to Turkish sach 'hair of the head.'

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Matt_
    With the Garo and Burmese ancestry mentioned, the Harappa Project splits East Asian ancestry a slightly different way into SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian (roughly, there's also a Beringian component but it starts really far north).

    The Garo fit with a ratio of SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian of 26:45:6, with the remaining 23 of their ancestry being essentially all S_Indian, with fractions of percents in other categories. If you scale that to an assumption of the 3 EAs summing to 100%, then 34:58:8.

    Similarly, the Burmanese samples have SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian 28:42:6 (balance is 17% South Indian, like Garo, but also a bit more complex with some West Eurasian and Papuan components). To 100%, 36:55:8, for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.

    That seems kind of interesting in light of the Dai samples scoring 71% in the SE Asian component, and Vietnamese samples 58%, while Cambodian also score 71% in the SE Asian component (or 84% of their membership in the 3 East Asian components).

    The Southern Chinese samples have membership of 33% SE Asian and 66% NE Asian.
    That doesn't seem totally surprising, as a contrast, given that Garo and Burmese are Sino-Tibetan languages.

    So even though the NE Asian and SE Asian clusters are closely related (even a small amount of S Indian would push two populations farther apart than large differences in the NE Asian vs SE Asian, genome wide), it seems like there's a dimension there on which the Garo and Burmanese samples differ from other SE Asian populations in affinity to Siberian and NE Asian populations that could be relevant for Bengalis.

    The Harappa Project's small (11) "Bengali" sample has SE_Asian:NE_Asian:Siberian of 7:6:2, which would scale over to 46:39:15. That's a little shaky as it's an extrapolation from a small percentage of the ancestry of a small sample, but seems kind of consistent with a relatively more Burman / Garo like East Asian ancestry in the Bengalis than a Cambodian like one (unless its something different that's fitting awkwardly into those categories).

    Another lot are the Aonaga population, from Nagaland, fit with 2:84:7 for SE Asian, NE Asian and Siberian. Compares with Tibet 0:78:12, Japanese 0:99:1 and North Chinese 0:78:12 for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian. By the measure of the Harappa Project's analysis, they're almost like transplants from Northeast Asia, with a low 7% of non-EA component.

    The Garo fit with a ratio of SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian of 26:45:6, with the remaining 23 of their ancestry being essentially all S_Indian, with fractions of percents in other categories. If you scale that to an assumption of the 3 EAs summing to 100%, then 34:58:8.

    Similarly, the Burmanese samples have SE Asian:NE Asian:Siberian 28:42:6 (balance is 17% South Indian, like Garo, but also a bit more complex with some West Eurasian and Papuan components). To 100%, 36:55:8, for SE Asian, NE Asian, Siberian.

    I find this interesting in light of Blench and Post’s work on Sino-Tibetan (or “Trans-Himalayan”) language classification, for instance “Rethinking Sino-Tibetan phylogeny from the perspective of North East Indian languages” (which I’ve mentioned a couple times in comments on this blog previously). They argue that the origin of that macro-family is most likely in the vicinity of Arunachal Pradesh. Regarding the Burmese, they believe that Burmese is especially closely related to Chinese and Tibetan, so perhaps NE Asian genes in Burma could plausibly be predicted based on language and history. But Bodo-Garo does not seem to be especially closely related to anything outside of the NE India/Pakistan region (although Blench and Post do describe it as firmly part of Sino-Tibetan, which is more than you can say for a lot of the local languages that have been assumed to be of that stock). I wonder if it’s possible that highlands Arunachal already had a lot of NE Asian ancestry as of 6 or 7 kya (or whenever Proto-Sino-Tibetan was spoken).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Ebizur says:
    @Twinkie

    You occasionally get people on the internet burbling on about how the Jomon were Southeast Asian. That doesn’t really seem to be supported at all by present day dna of the Ainu or adna of ancient Jomon, where it looks more like like Jomon / Ainu may have been varying mixes of an outgroup equally related to all East Asian and people like present day North Asians.
     
    There are fragmentary firsthand Yamato records about various groups of the Emishi, who were likely descendants of the Jomon and ancestors of the Ainu. Interestingly from a military historical point of view, the Emishi were apparently quite adept at horse riding and cavalry tactics - yet another evidence that they were quite unlikely to be Southeast Asian in origin.

    Most recorded Ainu words that have anything to do with horses or equestrianism are transparent loanwords from Japanese (or from Chinese via Japanese).

    Ainu umma ~ unma ~ uma “horse” < Japanese uma "horse" (< Chinese 馬 mǎ "horse")

    Ainu kitchi "trough" < Japanese dialect (Aomori) kitchi "trough" ( kuyu ~ kuśi “trough” and some Buryat word for “pail, bucket, tub, trough” whose precise form I cannot recall at the moment). The word kitchi also has been recorded with the meaning “a wooden storage unit, a shed” in Miyagi, “a water tank” in Iwate and Senboku District, Akita, or “a rice chest” in Aomori and Esashi District, Iwate. The forms kitsu, kittsu, kichi, kisu, and kishi also occur with similar meanings (sharing the common denominator of “wooden storage unit or container”) in various Japanese dialects from Niigata and Ibaraki in the south throughout the Tohoku region. The Standard Japanese form is hitsu ~ -bitsu, likely from the same Chinese source (but with retention of labialization and loss of the velar segment instead of the retention of the velar and loss of the labial that is seen in the northeastern dialect forms). The Standard Japanese form most commonly refers to a container for holding rice, either cooked or uncooked.

    Ainu kura “saddle, packsaddle” < Japanese kura "saddle," Ainu norinkura "saddle" < Japanese norikura "riding saddle"

    Ainu kurunki "a chestnut or sorrel horse" < Japanese kurige "a chestnut or sorrel horse (or the coloration of such a horse)" < Japanese kuri "chestnut" + Japanese ke "hair."

    The etymology of a couple Ainu words is somewhat cloudy:

    Ainu choni ? Turkish yeni) and Mongolian shine “new.”

    Ainu mesas “horse’s mane” ?< Ainu *me '(back of the) neck' as in Ainu merit 'scruff of the neck, nape of the neck, back of the neck, sinews of the neck' (-rit is as in Ainu sinrit 'root (of a tree or a plant); ancestor; clan, ancestors and descendants; one's deceased father' or Ainu kemrit ~ kemorit 'blood vessel') + some unknown morpheme *sas. The first morpheme (*me 'neck') seems rather similar to Jurchen-Manchu meifen 'neck' and Turkish boyn- (< Proto-Turkic *boyn- ~ *moyn-; there used to be no regular distinction between /b/ and /m/ in Turkic) 'neck.' The second, unknown morpheme (*sas) seems rather similar to Turkish sach 'hair of the head.'

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Ebizur says:

    The site would not publish correctly this part of my previous comment:

    Ainu choni ‘foal; pony’ maybe from Japanese dialect jon ‘a word for calling a girl’ (Ehime), ‘a term of endearment for a child’ (Oita) ~ jonjon ‘a boy of high birth, a nobleman’s son’ (Fukuoka) ~ jonko ‘Miss, young lady, a respectful term for someone’s daughter’ (Hyogo, Tokushima, Ehime), ‘a good child, a clever one’ (Ibaraki, Chiba). The Japanese dialect words are probably all from Chinese 娘 niáng ‘mother; girl, young lady; woman, wife.’ I suppose the Ainu word also somewhat resembles Proto-Turkic *yang’i ‘new’ (> Turkish yeni) and Mongolian shine ‘new.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Ebizur says:

    This section also did not make it through correctly for some reason:

    Ainu kitchi “trough” from Japanese dialect (Aomori) kitchi “trough” (from Chinese 柜子 guìzi “cabinet”; also cf. Korean kuzi > kuyu ~ kuśi “trough”…)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007