dnatribes - non-local genetic components in southern india

8/13/2019 DNATribes - Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

1/16

DNA Tribes Digest October 1, 2013

All contents 2006-2013 DNA Tribes. DNA Tribes.DNA Tribes patented analysis is available exclusively fromDNA Tribes. U.S. PAT. NO. 8,285,486. All rights reserved.

DNA TribesDigest October 1, 2013 Page 1 of 16

Web: www.dnatribes.com;Email: [email protected]; Facebook: facebook.com/DNAtribesMail: DNA Tribes, P.O. Box 735, Arlington, VA 22216

DNA TribesDigest October 1, 2013Copyright 2013 DNA Tribes. All rights reserved.

To request an email subscription to DNA Tribes

Digest, email [email protected] with the subject headingSubscribe. To unsubscribe from DNA Tribes Digest, email [email protected] with the subject heading

Unsubscribe. Previous issues of DNA TribesDigest are available online athttp://dnatribes.com/library.html.

Table of Contents:

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India ..................................................................... 2

Historical Background: Ships from Meluhha and Indian Ocean Trade Links betweenAfrica and Posturban Harappa ............................................................................................. 2Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Regions (STR) ....................................... 7Non-Local Genetic Components of South Asian Populations (SNP) ................................ 10Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 14

DNA TribesAnnouncements for October 2013 ...................................................................... 15Sale for New 22 Marker and 26 Marker Kit STR Tests .................................................... 15AboutDNA TribesSNP(genome data required) ............................................................. 16

Introduction

Hello, and welcome to the October 2013 issue of DNA TribesDigest. This months articleexplores 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 SouthAsia. In addition, the origins of Austroasiatic and Dravidian languages will be explored in thecontext of recent genetic evidence for the Ancestral South Indian (ASI) component sharedthroughout the Indian Subcontinent.

Best regards,Lucas MartinDNA Tribes

DNA Tribesis on Facebook.

Find us athttp://facebook.com/DNAtribes
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dnatribes.com/library.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/library.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/library.htmlhttp://facebook.com/DNAtribeshttp://facebook.com/DNAtribeshttp://dnatribes.com/library.htmlmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/16





Non-Local Genetic Components in Southern India

Historical Background: Ships from Meluhha and Indian Ocean TradeLinks between Africa and Posturban Harappa

Introduction

The Indian Subcontinents ancient links with Central Asia and West Asia are well known toscholars 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 spokenthroughout the Indian Subcontinent.

However, less well understood are the relationships of the Austroasiatic and Dravidianspeaking culturesof eastern and southern India with neighboring parts of the world (such as SoutheastAsia 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 populationsthroughout the Indian Subcontinent. However, it is most characteristic of tribal populations of southernand eastern India and the nearby Andaman Islands.1

According to a recently published genetic analysis of modern populations, this ASI componentbegan a process of mixture with a separate Ancestral North Indian (ANI) component approximately2,200 BCEand continuing into the Common Era. Notably, this ANI-ASI mixture started in a periodwhen the relatively cosmopolitan Mature Harappan (Indus Valley) civilization was undergoing a periodof de-urbanization and dispersion to more localized cultures based on village agriculture.

The languages and cultural processes associated with this ancient ANI-ASI interface areunknown. However, the language families spoken today in the Indian Subcontinent include: the Indo-European, Dravidian, and Austroasiatic languages, as well as the Tibetan-Burman languages (KukiNaga languages spoken in Far Eastern India).

To more fully engage the archaeological and linguistic record, this months Digest will includea 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 afterthe Mature Harappan period; (2) maritime transmissions of arid-adapted crops between Asia and Africavia the Indian Ocean between 2,000 1,500 BCE; (3) the emergence of the Proto-Dravidian languagebefore 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 yearsafter the decline of the Harappan urban centers.

The Decline of Urbanism and the Dispersal of the Late Harappans

As discussed in previous Digest issues,2South Asia was home to one of the largest and mostsophisticated 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 ofkings, state bureaucracy, wealthy temples, or monumental residences. Instead, this highly organized,

1 See Moorjani et. al.,"Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India" athttp://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.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-04-02.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-04-02.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-04-02.pdfhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248


3/16





technologically advanced, and multi-cultural civilization (unifying four local phases or regions of theIndian Subcontinent) appears to have been united by a single ideology of complexity withouthierarchy. 3This urban yet egalitarian model of life (best exemplified in the ancient city of Mohenjo-

Daro) 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 theIndian Subcontinent. In this period, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa were deserted (except for squatterpopulations practicing urn burials). The Indus Script, sophisticated drainage systems, and grid system ofurban planning all fell into disuse. South Asian urbanism virtually disappeared, not to be re-establishedfor approximately 1,000 years.

The remaining traces of Mature Harappan traditions were modified to suit the needs of asociety that was increasingly based on small scale village agriculture. South Asia entered a type ofDark Age, returning to older, local patterns of culture from before the Mature Harappan era.5Populations shifted east and south in the Subcontinent, away from the former Indus Valley cities. Oneexplanation that scholars have suggested for this puzzling regression of society is that the Mature

Harappan ideology, which had emerged ex nihiloseveral centuries earlier, was too inflexible and brittleto adapt to changing technological, environmental, or social conditions.6

Nevertheless, archaeological evidence supports the continuity of local populations, whichsuggests that internal factors (such as marginal sub-cultures in the Mature Harappan trade networks)were involved in this transition.7For this reason, a closer examination of the several linguistic familiesattested 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 MatureHarappan Period

The Indian Subcontinent has been home to Southeast Asian related cultures since early periods.These Asian connections are reflected in the Austroasiatic languagesspoken primarily in eastern India

and Bangladesh. In addition to Munda and other South Asian language groups, the Austroasiaticlanguage 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 andchronologically. Notably, archaeologists have suggested that some of the earliest Neolithiccommunities of Mehrgarh in present day Balochistan (around 6,000 BCE) involved populations relatedto present day Southeast Asians.8Similarly, archaeologists have alsosuggested the presence of an EastAsian related population in Inamgaon during the Chalcolithic period.9

3See G. Possehl, The Indus Civilization pp. 51-55.4Ibid., p. 175.5Ibid., p. 237.6Ibid., p. 244.7For instance, the Dasarajnanarrative of the Rigvedic texts might provide a model for how this type of intra-civilizational dynamic could have taken place.8See Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization by Jonathan M. Kenoyer, p.38; Indus Age: The Beginningsby Gregory L. Possehl, p. 489. Citations courtesywww.harappadna.org.9See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy pp. 322.
http://www.harappadna.org/http://www.harappadna.org/http://www.harappadna.org/http://www.harappadna.org/


4/16





During the Localization Era of Harappa, another renewal of Southeast Asian cultural links issuggested by the use of jar or urn burials (Cemetery H stratum I).10Beginning with the Cemetery Hculture, 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 framebeginning 2,000 BCE in which ANI-ASI admixture reshaped the genetic landscape of South Asia.11

Ships from Meluhha and OceanicCrop Transmissions between India and Africa

Also in this transitional period (around 2,000-1,500 BCE), several bi-directional crop transfersare 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 zebucows.12In the Indian Subcontinent, the new African crops first appeared in Gujarat (near the outskirtsof the Harappan civilization).

Notably, scholars have suggested that these African-Indian trade links were established bysmall-scale entrepreneurs operating outside the more prestigious trade routes with Mesopotamia,possibly creating alternate channels for commerce that were not dominated by the Harappan urbancenters of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro.13

It is worth pointing out that Sumerian and Assyrian records mention maritime trade withMeluhha (thought to refer to South Asia but also associated with Northeast Africa) not only durin gthe Mature Harappan period, but also continuing during the Posturban transition and later Iron Age.14This suggests that perhaps the Meluhhan sea traders themselves helped transmit these new cropsbetween Asia and Africa.15

Dravidian Languages and the Southern Neolithic Complex

Aside from Southeast Asian related Austroasiatic languages, another family of languages existsalongside Indo-European in South Asia: the Dravidian languages. Scholars have suggested that the first

10Ibid.,pp. 304 306. Urn burial customs are later attested in Iron Age Southeast Asian cultures (such as theLaotian Plain of Jars and the Sa Huynh culture of South Vietnam). Similar burials are still in use among presentday Khmer (Cf. Khumri; Himyar), who aresometimes said to be related to the Kambojas of classical Sanskrittexts. For more detailed discussion, seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf.11Seehttp://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. athttp://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/0544/ant0850544.pdf.14See G. Possehl, The Indus Civilization pp. 240.15 Notably, the Rigvedic texts mention non-Vedic Pani merchants or traders, sometimes interpreted as non-Vedic Phoenician and/or Scythian related cultures. It is worth nothing that there was a persistent belief in theancient world that the Classical Phoenicians originated in the Erythraean Sea (somewhere in the Persian Gulf orRed Sea) before moving to the East Mediterranean.Although not known to be related to these Indian Ocean contacts, iron smelting appeared in the African GreatLakes and Sahel (possibly in Bantu related contexts) between 1,000-600 BCE, before iron technology reachedEgypt. Incidentally, early iron use has also been suggested in the city of Chanhudaro (a Harappan city withpossible links to Africa). For more discussion, seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-03-02.pdf.
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/0544/ant0850544.pdfhttp://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/0544/ant0850544.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-03-02.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-03-02.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-03-02.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-03-02.pdfhttp://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/0544/ant0850544.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf


5/16





Proto-Dravidian languages began to differentiate near the Godavari Basin in southeastern India (nearthe modern populations in which early ANI-ASI admixture has been suggested), eventually diverging toseveral branches by 1,100 BCE.16

According to linguistic reconstructions, the Early Proto-Dravidian language retains traces of apastoralist 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 thearchaeological Southern Neolithic Complex, which first appeared near the Upper Krishna River (not farfrom the Godavari Basin) around 2,500 BCE and later incorporated new (including arid adapted cropsbrought from Africa between 2,000 and 1,500 BCE). Because there is no other candidate language forthe Southern Neolithic Complex, scholars have suggested these cultures probably spoke Dravidianlanguages (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 culturesthat 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 IndianSubcontinent where genetic evidence for early admixture between Ancestral North Indian (ANI) andAncestral South Indian (ASI) populations has been identified based on the analysis of present day SouthAsian 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, SouthAsia remained a primarily rural society for approximately 1,000 years. However, urban life wasreestablished in India after approximately 700 BCE (during the South Asian Iron Age). In this new IronAge 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 sub-cultures that raised horses and cattle and acted as merchants between urban settlements.20Archaeological evidence megalithic populations of South Asia were not homogenous and also

involved multiple burial traditions (such as urn burial or stone cists). Nevertheless, tribal populationserect megalithic structures to the present day. Local traditions associate the ancient megaliths withvarious folkloric and literary figures, including pygmies, Asuras,21and even the five Pandava brothers

16 See Proto-Dravidian Agriculture by F. C. Southworth at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdf.17However, linguistics do not rule out that Proto-Dravidian was first transmitted from outside India prior to itslocal development near the Godavari Basin. It has been argued that there are no Dravidian loanwords in theRigveda; however, there is evidence for contact between Old Indic and South Dravidian. Interestingly, someDravidian 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" athttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248.19For instance, South Asian megaliths included tombs with port holes similar to structures built in West Asiaand Europe. See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, p. 342.20Ibid. pp. 342, 356.21For instance, the Indian writer Malati Shendge has suggested an association between the Asuras mentioned inSanskrit texts and the ancient Assyria (Aur), which might reflect cultural links with West Asia. Near another
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdfhttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdfhttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdfhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdfhttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/Proto-DravidianAgriculture.pdf


6/16





(said to have wandered the countryside after their exile from the royal city of Hastinapura). 22Scholarshave also sometimes suggested the involvement of exogenous cultures (such as Scythians) in Iron Agemegalithism.

It is worth noting that the Iron Age (beginning after 800 BCE with Sarai Khola, near Taxila inwestern Punjab) is one of only two periods since the Chalcolithic when archaeological evidencesupports substantial population movements into the Indian Subcontinent. 23For this reason, the geneticlandscape of Sri Lanka and the Southern Indian subcontinent might have also been affected by theselater 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 geneticanalysis) attests several processes that have shaped the genetic landscape of the southern IndianSubcontinent. 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 populationsto the south and east following the declineof urbanism in the Indus Valley around 2,000 BCE.

(3) Links with Southeast Asiaduring the Neolithic (Mehrgarh), Chalcolithic (Inamgaon), andperhaps 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 tradecontactsbetween 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 ofurbanismand the construction ofmegalithic monumentsnear the new cities.

The following genetic analyses explore non-local components in South Asia using autosomalSTR and autosomal SNP data. This can illuminate the underlying relationships of the Ancestral SouthIndian (ASI) genetic component (found today throughout the Indian Subcontinent) and identify whetherthere are non-local genetic links links that might relate to the multiple formative processes attested inthe South Indian archaeological record.

distant periphery of the ancient Near East, both Phoenician and Assyrian contacts have been suggested for someIron Age Sahelian and West African societies. Seehttp://www.dierklange.de/saharan-trade-and-contacts.html.22See God-Apes and Fossil Men: Paleoanthropology in South Asia by Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, pp. 342, 341, 328.23Ibid., p. 304. The other period of major population movements into India was between 6,000-4,4500 BCE. Formore detailed analysis, including critical discussion of the prevailing theory that Indic languages came to Indiaduring the Bronze Age, see The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture by Edwin Bryant.
http://www.dierklange.de/saharan-trade-and-contacts.htmlhttp://www.dierklange.de/saharan-trade-and-contacts.htmlhttp://www.dierklange.de/saharan-trade-and-contacts.htmlhttp://www.dierklange.de/saharan-trade-and-contacts.html


7/16





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

Non-local genetic contributions to South Asian regions were identified based on autosomalSTR data.24 Results are summarized in Table 1and illustrated inFigure 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 1express several non-local components in South Asia. Several of thesecomponents are shared by all studied regions, including: Mesopotamian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan,and Australian percentages.

STR Region Southern

African

Spanish

Thracian

Mesopo-

tamian

Southeast

Asian

Tibetan

Japanese

Polynesian

Australian

Other

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

(Orissa tribals)0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 23.1% 23.3% 25.8% 0.0% 0.0% 25.6% 2.0%

Table 1: Non-local genetic components of South Asian STR regions, excluding percentages of local Indus Valley,Eastern India, and South India components.

24For information about the 32 world genetic regions distinguished in DNA Tribes 22 and 26 Marker Kitautosomal STR tests, seehttp://dnatribes.com/populations.html.
http://dnatribes.com/populations.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/populations.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/populations.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/populations.html


8/16





Mesopotamianpercentages 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 ofthe 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 intrade with West Asia during the Bronze Age. This might further reflect contacts with Indo-Europeanspeaking populations of West Asia and Central Asia during various periods, 25possibly including theIron Age population movements thought to be associated with the return of urbanism and megalithicmonuments after approximately 700 BCE.

Southeast Asian percentages are highest in Eastern India (23.3%) where Austroasiaticlanguages are spoken and lowest in the Indus Valley (6.9%). These components might expressSoutheast Asian links with the Indian Subcontinent since early periods, possibly including earlyagricultural links with Mehrgarh and Inamgaon, as well as later periods.

Tibetanpercentages 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 IndianSubcontinent and East Asian populations since early periods (possibly including contacts with Tibeto-Burman 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 ofOceania is usually ascribed to very early time periods (substantially earlier than the post-Neolithicprocesses discussed in this article), the Indian Ocean archaeological links suggest that more recentperiods 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 sinceapproximately 2,200 BCE. Although ANI-ASI admixture might have involved multiple languagefamilies, these East Asian (Southeast Asian and Tibetan) and Oceanian (Australian) geneticcomponents might have involved Austroasiatic and/or Dravidian speaking cultures.

In addition, several other non-local genetic components are expressed in the Indus Valleyand/or South India but absent in the Eastern India region. These include: Southern African, Spanish,Thracian, Japanese, and Polynesian percentages.

Southern Africanpercentages (5.5% in South India; 3.9% in the Indus Valley) might reflectmaritime contacts with Africa attested in the archaeological record during the Mature - Posturbantransition of the Harappan Civilization (possibly involving the Ships from Meluhha mentioned inSumerian and Assyrian records).

25 For more detailed discussion, see http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf andhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf.26Notably, a recent paper identified signatures of gene flow between India and Australia dated to approximately2,230 BCE, which is close to the period separately identified for ANI-ASI admixture in South Asia. See Pugachet. al., Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia athttp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110. For more about Oceanian related ancestry in Asia,seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdf;http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdf.
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-06-01.pdfhttp://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf


9/16





Spanishpercentages are expressed only for South India (12.2%). This component might reflectlinks with ancestral Mediterranean related populations of West Eurasia (although not necessarilyoriginating 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 reflectearly links with West Eurasia and in particular Eastern Europe via the Eurasian Steppe (potentiallyinvolving Indo-European speaking cultures).28

Japanesepercentages (14.2% in South India; 7.7% in Indus Valley) might reflect early linkswith North Asian populations attested during several periods of South Asian history (probably dating atleast to the Northern Neolithic cultures attested near Mehrgarh).29

Polynesianpercentages (2.6% in Indus Valley) might reflect early Asian-Pacific links via theIndian Ocean, attested near the periphery of the Mature Harappan civilization. These links predatedPolynesian expansions, which probably originated in Southeast Asia and reached the Pacific Islandssince 1,350 BCE with the Proto-Oceanic Lapitaculture (whose urn burials recall traditions attested inSoutheast 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 (mosttypical of tribal populations) is relatively simpler than other studied regions. In Eastern India, four non-local genetic components are expressed: Mesopotamian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian.

This suggests that these components might have been involved in the early Ancestral SouthIndian (ASI) and Ancestral North Indian (ANI) populations. For instance, one possibility is that ANIpopulations were more Mesopotamian-like, and ASI populations had larger proportions of theSoutheast 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 theprimary ANI and ASI expansions. Instead, these might reflect secondary relationships local to specificparts of South Asia.

27 For more detailed discussion of Mediterranean related ancestry in the Fertile Crescent, seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf.28Seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf.29For 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 andEurasia, seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdf.
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-05-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf


10/16





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

Non-local genetic contributions to South Asian regions were identified based on autosomalSNP data.31 For each non-local component expressed in this analysis, the South Asian population forwhich the largest percentage is listed. Results are summarized in Table 2and illustrated inFigure 2.

Figure 2: Non-local genetic components of South Asian populations based on autosomal SNPdata, excluding percentages of local Indus Valley and South India SNP components. Austroasiaticspeaking populations are highlighted in red; Dravidian speaking populations are highlighted inyellow. Indo-Europeanspeaking populations are highlighted inblue.

31For information about DNA TribesSNP (previous genome data required), seehttp://dnatribes.com/snp.html.The populations listed here include the sampled South Asian populations for which the highest percentage ofeach non-local component is expressed. For a full listing of admixture components not excluding local IndusValley and South India components, seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2013-05-14.pdf.
http://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2013-05-14.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2013-05-14.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2013-05-14.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2013-05-14.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.html


11/16





Discussion: Results in Table 2 express a variety of non-local genetic components in SouthAsian populations, with maximum percentages of some components expressed in populations speaking

each of three language families of South Asia (Austroasiatic, Dravidian, and Indo-European).

Population SoutheastAsian

[ASIrelated?]

Tibetan

HornofAfrica

NWE

uropean

Uralic

Arabian

Mesopotamian

[ANIrelated?]

Caucasus

Mountains

Siberian-Arctic

Nilotic

Slavic-Baltic

Mesoamerican

WestAfrican

Khoisan-A

ka

Oceanian

[ASIrelated?]

Bonda 49.9% 8.9% 1.5% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.4% 1.6% 7.5% 3.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 1.3% 9.6%

Khasi 37.4% 36.2% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 2.9% 9.0% 4.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.7% 0.0% 4.3%

Juang 48.8% 11.6% 3.9% 0.0% 3.6% 0.0% 13.1% 0.0% 1.5% 1.3% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0%

Savara 44.6% 9.5% 2.3% 0.0% 9.6% 0.0% 14.8% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 0.7% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5%

Gadaba 48.7% 9.7% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 13.2% 6.3% 2.0% 0.0% 5.2% 0.3% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2%

Brahmin

Uttaranchal5.6% 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%

Meghawal 14.4% 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%

Kalash 3.3% 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%

Bhunjia 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%

Balochi 6.2% 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%

Makrani 5.6% 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%

Meena 18.0% 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%

Pulliyar 24.9% 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%

Paniya 18.2% 11.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.7% 9.2% 9.8% 6.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0% 1.1% 15.6%

Malayan 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%

Table 2: Non-local genetic components of South Asian populations based on autosomal SNP data, excludingpercentages of local Indus Valley and South India SNP components. Austroasiatic speaking populations arehighlighted in red; Dravidian speaking populations are highlighted in yellow. Indo-European speakingpopulations are highlighted inblue.

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 Asianpercentage (49.9%) is expressed for Austroasiatic speaking Bondaof Eastern India. The smallest Southeast Asian percentage (3.3%) is expressed for Indo-Europeanspeaking Kalash in remote mountain valleys of the Northwestern Indian Subcontinent (present dayPakistan).

This suggests that Southeast Asian related population movements reached even distant parts ofthe Indian Subcontinent. Notably, this genetic component might relate to early Southeast Asian linksidentified by archaeologists that date to the Neolithic Mehrgarh in Balochistan and ChalcolithicInamgaon, as well as later possible links (suggested by the spread of urn burial traditions and the spread


12/16





of rice agriculture) during the Posturban period of the Harappan Civilization. Similarly, this might alsoreflect 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). Thissuggests that, unlike Southeast Asian related expansions (possibly dating to Neolithic Mehrgarh),Tibetan related populations did not penetrate all of the Indian Subcontinent (perhaps because theseexpansions took place during later periods).

Arabianpercentages are expressed only for Gadaba (13.2%) and Khasi (2.9%) of Eastern andNortheastern India, respectively. The absence of Arabian components in other sampled populationssuggests that this does not reflect a widespread process, but instead might reflect more limitedpopulation relationships that are less typical of Indian Subcontinent populations in general.

The largest Uralicpercentage is expressed for Savara (9.6%). Like Arabian percentages, Uraliccomponents are expressed sporadically in sampled populations, and for this reason might not reflectwidespread population relationships in South Asia.

Horn of Africa percentages are expressed for several Austroasiatic speaking populations ofOrissa (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 populationsand the Horn of Africa, perhaps related to the Indian Ocean crop transfers or other unknown processesat the periphery of the predominantly Indo-European speaking cultures of South Asia.

A Northwest Europeanpercentage (2.0%) is expressed for Austroasiatic speaking Bonda ofOrissa (Eastern India). Although small, this percentage suggests that the genetic relationships betweenSouth Asian and European populations might be fairly ancient and not limited to the expansions thattransmitted Indo-European languages (possibly originating in Southeastern Europe or West Asia) toboth 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 westernIndian 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 componentsexpressed for all sampled South Asian populations.

These widespread Mesopotamian percentages might reflect ancient relationships with FertileCrescent populations, possibly dating to Neolithic Mehrgarh and later population movements at thebeginning 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 Indo-European languages into South Asia (discussed as a possibility in several past Digest articles).33

A similar distribution is expressed for Caucasus Mountainspercentages, which are largest in

Kalash (43.5%) and absent in sampled Juang (0.0%) and Savara (0.0%) of Orissa, India. This mightreflect similarly widespread population contacts, possibly including links in later periods that did notevenly penetrate the South Asian genetic landscape (such as megalithic related expansions during theIron Age of India and Sri Lanka, discussed earlier in this article).

32See The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture by Edwin Bryant.33 For more discussion of possible IE expansions from Southeastern Europe or West Asia, seehttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfandhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdf.
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-08-01.pdfhttp://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-11-01.pdf


13/16





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-Arcticpercentages 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 mightinstead reflect other patterns of contact between South Asia and Siberia.

For instance, these might include early Northern Neolithic links attested near Mehrgarh, and/orCentral Asian populations that might have been active in South Asia during the Iron Age (such asShakya or early Indo-Scythian related cultures). Similarly, Slavic-Baltic(largest in Kalash, 6.9%) andMesoamerican(largest in Meena, 5.4%) might reflect Eurasian related contacts in South Asia attestedsince early periods.

However, less expected are the several African components associated with Indo-Europeanspeaking 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 theseAfrican percentages might reflect the genetic traces of Indian Ocean contacts between South Asia andAfrica during the Posturban transition of the Harappan Civilization.

Unexpectedly, this suggests that some of these African links might have taken place inIndo-European speaking contexts, possibly including small-scale maritime traders. If so, perhapsthese maritime entrepreneurs included the Panis mentioned in Sanskrit literature and the Ships fromMeluhha described in Sumerian and Assyrian records.

Lastly, the largest percentage for only one component is expressed for Dravidian speakingpopulations: the Oceanian component (largest for Pulliyar, 15.6%). However, this Oceaniancomponent is also one of only three components expressed to some degree for all sampled South Asianpopulations.

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 describedin the Historical Background section of this article) began a process of mixture with a previouslyseparate Ancestral North Indian (ANI) population approximately 2,200 BCE. Specifically, this

Oceanian component expresses a genetic relationship with present day Papuan and Melanesianpopulations, 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 earlyexpansions taking place near both the Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans (possibly including earlyAustronesians 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 andother parts of Eurasia remain little studied, new genetic data might illuminate the early history of thesemaritime cultures in the future.

In summary, only three non-local genetic components were expressed for all sampled SouthAsian populations (with no 0.0% results for any sample) based on autosomal SNP data: SoutheastAsian, Oceanian, and Mesopotamian (underlined in Table 2). This suggests that these three

components might characterize a common South Asian population substrate shared throughout theIndian 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 anexpansion from the Indian Subcontinent approximately 2,300 BCE, around the same period that ANI-ASIadmixture began in the Indian Subcontinent. See http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929713003248http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1211927110


14/16





and/or Ancestral South Indian (ASI) populationsthat have mixed since approximately 2,200 BCE tobecome the common ancestors of present day South Asians.

Conclusion

Both autosomal STR and SNP analyses express genetic components related to West Asian, EastAsian, and Oceanian populations in the Indian Subcontinent. Based on autosomal STR data, there arefour non-local genetic components found today in all studied regions: Mesopotamian, SoutheastAsian, 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 throughoutthe 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 2,200BCE to become the common ancestors of present day South Asians.

Of these, Mesopotamian STR and SNP components might reflect genetic traces of West Asianrelated 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 tracesof Austroasiatic related expansions. Lastly, Australian STR components and Oceanian SNPcomponents might in part reflect the genetic traces of Dravidianexpansions between 2,300 and 1,500BCE (identified based on archaeology and recently published genetic analysis).

Furthermore, these shared South Asian genetic components might have been involved inAncestry South Indian (ASI) and Ancestral North Indian (ANI) populations. For instance, onepossibility is that ANI populations were more Mesopotamian-like, and ASI populations had largerproportions of one or more of the Southeast Asian, Tibetan, and Australian STR components andSoutheast Asian and Oceanian SNP components.


15/16





DNA Tribes

Announcements for October 2013

Sale for New 22 Marker and 26 Marker Kit STR Tests

DNA Tribesis pleased to introduce our new 22 Marker Kit and 26 Marker Kit tests using enhancedSTR technologies at great prices. These new STR testing options replace 15, 21, and 27 Marker Kit labtests. 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 markersused in DNA fingerprinting around the world, together with DNA TribesNative Population Match,Global Population Match, and World Region Match analysis. Both kits options include the mostdetailed and comprehensive comparison of your autosomal DNA to world populations availableanywhere.

NewDNA Tribes22 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.

NewDNA Tribes26 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 onlinecheckout system athttp://www.dnatribes.com/order.html.

Upgrade testing for customers who have previously tested using DNA Tribes15 or 21 Marker Kit testsare available athttp://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.html.

Updates incorporating new populations and world region definitions for previous 15, 21, or 27 MarkerKit tests (including all previously ordered add-on reports) are available using the $24.99 Update YourSTR Analysis option athttp://dnatribes.com/order_addons.html.

35 26 Marker Kit test all markers previously included in 27 Marker Kits, with the exception of SE33, at asubstantially lower test cost.
http://www.dnatribes.com/order.htmlhttp://www.dnatribes.com/order.htmlhttp://www.dnatribes.com/order.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_addons.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_addons.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_addons.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_addons.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/order_upgrades.htmlhttp://www.dnatribes.com/order.html


16/16





About DNA TribesSNP(genome data required)

Population Percentage

Yoruba Nigeria 26.9%

Bambara West Africa 9.6%

Igbo Nigeria 6.7%

Kaba Chad 5.2%

Fang Cameroon 5.1%

Bantu South Africa 5.0%

Kongo 4.2%

Tunisia 3.8%

Herero Namibia 3.6%

Hausa Nigeria 3.4%

Dogon West Africa 3.2%

England 2.5%

France 2.5%

Pima Mexico 2.4%

Mandenka Senegal 2.4%

More information (including sample reports) and orders are available at:

http://dnatribes.com/snp.html.

Do you have genome data from a SNP test? DNA Tribes SNP is a detailed "deepancestry" analysis that can be performed based on your genotype raw data from any ofseveral SNP microarray tests. (Genome Data from Previous Testing Required)

DNA TribesSNPreports (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.
http://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.htmlhttp://dnatribes.com/snp.html

dnatribes - non-local genetic components in southern india

Documents