ASI Genetic Component

[Mortimer]

The User Treopod on Anthroscape wrote

Pure ASI [Ancestral Southindian] are not australoids, and Onge are not ASI either.

once again:

The Reich et al paper had Nigerians-ASI distance at 1772, and Andaman-ASI distance at 1199

80,000-60,000 yrs BP (4,000 gens) split between Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians
40,000-30,000 yrs BP (2,000 gens) split between Western and Eastern Eurasians
34,000-25,500 yrs BP (1,700 gens) proto-Indian-Andamanese Onge split.
8000-6000 yrs BP (400 gens) split of Europeans and Adygei

so basically, ASI are so distant from Onge and australoids in australia and papua that you cannot consider them related at all, unless you consider that caucasoids are related to mongoloids as well as negroids.


ASI are unique to South Asia and in their pure form they probably already had caucasoid facial features. Btw its possible that ANI originated in south asia as well and spread out into west asia and europe instead before mixing within south asia with the ASI took place.

A few sources

http://www.genome.duke.edu/seminars/...ature08365.pdf

An Indian Perspective on Reich et Al
http://www.scribd.com/premendra_priy...ich-Et-Al-2009

-----

I think the Dienekes k12a Southasian component is closer to ASI than to ANI or more ASI than ANI (centered in South or Central India). The Gedrosia would be than more ANI and centered among Balochi People.

The K12a Spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...ldWxwVmc#gid=0

What do you think?

[Mortimer]

Anyone got a informations to share?

[Mortimer]

on harappadna a discussion emerged.

AV writes
HRP15,
Wrong, as the groups with the highest ASI in the subcontinent, namely South-Indian tribals metrically deviate from the old-school definition of Caucasoid. And, these tribals have ~30% West-Eurasian ('ANI') admixture. This is probably why indigenous South-Asian tribal or ādivāsī groups in fact differ quite significantly in some important anatomical traits from the aboriginal Australians (such as head length-breadth-height; stature; nasal index, etc), despite the fact that old-school physical anthropologists initially did adduce certain similarities in the morphological features of of Australian aborigines and Indian tribals. One can only imagine that without their West-Eurasian admixture, mainland peninsular Paleolithic South-Eurasians would have been even more archaic looking. So, no, ASI is not a West-Eurasian (Caucasoid) component, and thus did not have Caucasoid features. The ASI fraction in South-Asians is precisely what pulls them away from mainstream West-Eurasians.

Me writes
The Tribals do derivate from the metric defintion of caucasoid true, but God knows why. Namely on the other hand the most caucasoid looking indians have up to 30-40% ASI (in Northindian Upper Castes) and they are textbook examples of Caucasoid, acknowledged by every anthropologist. Yet if you said they have like 5-10% ASI i could believe they look like they do but with 30-40% they would looke more Onge or Australoid like, or whatever ASI is supposed to be, they wouldnt look caucasoid.

[Mortimer]

@treopod from anthroscape writes

Id like to talk to that idiot you responded too, he is factually wrong about his entire statement.

ASI is not australoid and not Onge either, that is established fact. Onge cluster extremely far away from ASI, and extremely far away from australian aborigines as well, who in turn cluster extremely far away from ASI as well, none of these components are related at all.

The adivasi tribes of india do in fact carry some australoid/negrito admixture that is separate and unrelated to ASI, which is why they look archaic and non-caucasoid. But the main indian population (Indo-aryan and dravidian caste populations) do not have that admixture, it is restricted to these tribal populations.

ASI does not make you less caucasoid, as we dont know how pure ASI people looked like, for all we know, ASI had caucasoid features as well, as the majority of dravidian speakers who have the most ASI, look caucasoid with dark skin.

For example, Europeans have cromagnoid/paleolithic european admixture, which some central asian and middle eastern cacuasoid populations lack, but still each of these populations are classfied as caucasoid despite them being very different looking from each other, so indians should follow the same rule, despite the fact that they on average have 50% ASI, vast majority of the main population is still fully caucasoid in terms of anthropolical studies.

[Mortimer]

There's no arguing all this. The ASI is NOT a West-Eurasian or "Caucasoid" component. To deny it's connection with the Andamanese is blatantly intellectually dishonest.

Move on.

-------If you reread what you just wrote you will see that Onge are not related with ASI just very distant, as well we may consider the Caucasoid related with the Mongoloid and we are all out of Africa. Genetically the ASi is not a Westerneurasian Group proper but also not australoid or onge. We dont know how they may have looked like. My speculation based on cranium of Caste Populations is that they ASI may have very well been a different branch of the Caucasoid Subspecies, genetically more distant but from Cranium basically very similar, something like the Indian Cro-Magnon.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/sho...d.php?p=896983

[Etelfrido]

After all this time, what's the consensus?

Is it correct that both the Onge and Negritos split from ASI and that all of them are distinct from Australasian (Australoid?)?

The Onge, along with other related tribals are believed to have branched out of one of mankind’s oldest splits, Ancestral South Indians (ASI), who are genetically distinct from West Eurasians, East Asians, and Australasians.

Although estimates vary from 7,000 to 50,000 years, with Harvard leaning towards 40,000 years as the period of separation of the Onge from other mainland Negritos, my analysis better supports the 7,000 year time frame best.

https://eurasiandna.com/the-paradoxical-onge/