Global K25 models for the Munda Part 1: Bonda and Juang. [Archive] - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Maguzanci

05-17-2019, 09:28 AM

So I did some Global K25 models for the Austroasiatic speaking Bonda and Juang tribes who are part of the bigger Munda group of Eastern India.

This shows that the Bonda and Juang are predominantly AASI+East Asian with very minor West Eurasian admix. In fact, much much less West Eurasian than the average Indian and probably the lowest South Asians can score outside of the Andamanese and most Tibeto-Burmans who are predominantly East Asian genetically.

Will start with the Bonda:ORI34 who is the most Eastern Eurasian of all the 3 Bonda samples:

The individual Bonda:ORI34 seem to be between 7.5-10.83% West Eurasian (best represented by Sarazm Eneolithic although adding Yamnaya Bulgaria also does helps) with the rest of their genomes being around 57-64% AASI and 28-33% East Asian (best represented by the Lao_LN_BA, Malaysia LN can also work but does not fit as well)

Also this Bonda sample seem to prefer Simulated AASI averaged rather than the one by Matt or Traject.

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 2.1456,
"Simulated_AASI--By_Matt ": 64.17,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 28.33,
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged": 7.5,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI--By_Matt:Simulated_AASI--By_Matt: 12.58583",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N_Averaged:Averaged: 44.66518"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.7865,
"Simulated_AASI--By_Matt ": 63.33,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 28.33,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 8.33,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI--By_Matt:Simulated_AASI--By_Matt: 12.58583",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 43.38315"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.683,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 32.5,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 10.83,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.88733",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 43.38315"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI34",
"fit": 1.79,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 57.5,
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged": 32.5,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 10,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.44500",
"Malaysia_LN_Averaged:Averaged: 27.91296",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 43.38315"

Now I am going to post the models for Bonda:ORI35. Won't post Bonda:ORI36 as the individual score similar amounts to Bonda:ORI35.

Bonda:ORI35: This individual seem to be around 57-60% AASI, 29-32% East Asian and 10-11.67% West Eurasian.

"sample": "Bonda:ORI35",
"fit": 2.0618,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 31.67,
"RUS_Alan_Med_Averaged": 7.5,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 17.17574",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.52283",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 42.85483",
"RUS_Alan_Med_Averaged:Averaged: 45.08912"

"sample": "Bonda:ORI35",
"fit": 2.2265,
"Simulated_AASI--By_Matt ": 60.83,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 29.17,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 10,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI--By_Matt:Simulated_AASI--By_Matt: 13.31667",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.52283",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 42.85483"

Here is the model for the average Bonda: They seem to be around 55% AASI, 33% East Asian (Lao_LN_BA) 11-12% West Eurasian (this including Bonda:ORI34 who are less West Eurasian than the other two samples)

"sample": "Bonda:Average",
"fit": 1.4571,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 55,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 33.33,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 7.5,
"Yamnaya_BGR_Averaged": 4.17,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.94482",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.57428",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 43.05314",
"Yamnaya_BGR_Averaged:Averaged: 47.20293"

Now the Juang

Here is my modelling for the Juang: (there is only one lone individual sample. For some reason, I cannot model the Juang to be less than 2.4 in terms of fit which is not good).

This Juang seem to be around 57% AASI, 33% East Asian and 10-11% West Eurasian (Lao_LN_BA+Yamnaya_BGR)

"sample": "Juang:JUANA48",
"fit": 2.463,
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged": 56.67,
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged": 32.5,
"Yamnaya_BGR_Averaged": 5.83,
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged": 5,
"closestDistances": [
"Simulated_AASI_Averaged:Averaged: 16.94778",
"LAO_LN_BA_Averaged:Averaged: 27.66927",
"TJK_Sarazm_Eneolithic_Averaged:Averaged: 43.45620",
"Yamnaya_BGR_Averaged:Averaged: 47.22725"

Conclusion:

-The Bonda and Juang seem to be predominantly AASI+East Asian with very low West Eurasian based on these modelling.

--These are the lowest amount of West Eurasian admix I have ever seen for South Asians outsides of Andamanese and most Tibeto-Burmans. They really have very little West Eurasian compared to most South Asians.

-Bonda ORI:34 individual is around 7.5-10.83% West Eurasian.

-Juang lonely sample is around 10-10.83% West Eurasian sample. (For some reason, I cannot create a better fit for the Juang than 2.4-2.5)

-I feel it will be better and more accurate if there are more Bonda and Juang samples that just only 3 individuals. Maybe the West Eurasian score will be less than 10-12% which is what the average score .

-Also out all of the West Eurasian sources, Sarazm Eneolithic from Tajikistan and also Yamnaya Bulgaria seem to create one of the best fits for the Bonda and Juang

-Both the Bonda and Juang prefer Simulated AASI Averaged over the ones by Matt and Traject.

-Lao_LN_BA acts best as the proxy for East Asian ancestry in Bonda and Juang. Malaysia LN and Lao_BA works sometimes but not as good.