Based on Dienekes' instructions, I have created DIYHarappaWorld for anyone to compute their admixture results for my HarappaWorld calculator.
Here's what you need to do:
- Download DIYHarappaWorld files and unzip them.
- Download DIYDodecad v2.1 (File->Download).
- Unpack DIYDodecad2.1.rar by using 7-zip, WinRAR, or Linux rar/unrar command.
- Start R and change the working directory to where you have the DIY files.
- Enter the following command in R:
source('standardize.r') - If you have your 23andme raw data, run the following command in R:
standardize('genome_john_doe.txt', company='23andMe')where genome_john_doe.txt is the filename for your raw data file.
- If you have your FTDNA Family Finder data in a file named johndoe.csv, run the following in R:
standardize('johndoe.csv', company='ftdna') - From your operating system command prompt, run the appropriate command:
DIYDodecadWin harappaworld.par ./DIYDodecadLinux32 harappaworld.par ./DIYDodecadLinux64 harappaworld.par
- The program will start computing the admixture percentages. It took about 5-10 minutes on my computer.
- The best way to understand your results is to compare them with other populations and individuals. Do not take the component names seriously. They do not represent true ancestral populations.
You can also edit the harappaworld.par file's last line to one of genomewide/bychr/byseg/target to calculate the admixture percentages for the whole genome, by chromosome, by segment or target region respectively. Do note that the last three will have larger noise.
UPDATE: I should also point out that this DIY calculator will work better for those individuals whose genetic variation was included in computing the admixture model. Those belonging to a group not included at all in the set of samples I used might get somewhat odd results.
Thanks Zack!
The results correlate well with your founder only table entries.
For new users, you can also add that one can run the program from the GUI of 'R'by typing:
system('DIYDodecadWin harappaworld.par')
Great work!
I just ran my data - I'm 100% Irish from Ireland, and here's what I got:
0.00% S-Indian
11.10% Baloch
5.81% Caucasian
50.58% NE-Euro
0.08% SE-Asian
0.03% Siberian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
0.61% American
0.00% Beringian
31.64% Mediterranean
0.02% SW-Asian
0.11% San
0.02% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% W-African
I'm mtDNA T1a1 and I've been looking into this haplogroup for a while, and note that:
Top 10 locations for T1 by highest frequency:
1. Romania - 8.51%
2. Parsis (Pakistan) - 6.80%
3. Bulgaria - 6.38%
4. Portugal (Northern) - 6.38%
5. Azerbaijan - 6.25%
6. Armenia - 5.76%
7. Brahui (SW Pakistan) - 5.30%
8. Mazandarian (N Iran) - 4.8%
9. Macedonia - 4.5%
10. Pathan (NW Pakistan) - 4.5%
Here's what Doug McDonald predicted:
Most likely fit is 97.5% (+- 0.5%) Europe (all Western Europe)
and 2.5% (+- 0.5%) S. Asia (various subcontinents)
The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
Basque= 0.205 Irish= 0.765 Sindhi= 0.031
Basque= 0.207 Irish= 0.758 Pathan= 0.035
Basque= 0.201 Irish= 0.775 N_India= 0.025
Basque= 0.198 Irish= 0.781 S_India= 0.021
Basque= 0.080 English= 0.901 S_India= 0.019
Basque= 0.084 English= 0.895 N_India= 0.021
Basque= 0.088 English= 0.891 Sindhi= 0.021
So here's my prediction, that mtDNA T1 is somehow involved in the spread of the Baloch component, as it is found in a path starting in Mehrgarh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrgarh - and going into Southern Afghanistan, across Northern Iran, and into the Caucasus, and from there to Europe. IMO it spread both into South East Europe by land mostly, but also by boat to South West Iberia, and then kicked off the Bell Beaker revolution. I now wonder if R1b also followed this path?!
pconroy - this is interesting, where there any Romani heritage in your background that could have given rise to the South Asian component?
No, there are no Roma in Ireland, unlike most other places in Europe.
pconroy,
It does appear though that there were Roma (described as black or swarthy) in Ireland at one time and had some cultural influence on the Irish Travelers and Tinkerers.
Parsar,
That is incorrect, there is no evidence for it. Irish Travelers DNA has been examined and it matches the general Irish population very well, and more specifically the best county level match is Co Leitrim, near Northern Ireland. For my own observation, Travellers tend to be blonder/blue eyed than the average Irish person. If I had to guess, I'd say they have Viking ancestry - as the Leitrim area has the highest Viking ancestry in Ireland.
Both of my parents have a Baloch component, that is similar, but not as high as mine. All other Irish people also have this.
The only possible recent South Asian ancestry in me might be British Army, though I have no known connection with the British Army. When I searched a database of British Army in Bengal though, there were 2 officers and 38 enlisted men with my name "Conroy" in it, so who knows.
On balance though it's probably an ancient component.
pconroy,
I had read it somewhere - will try to locate the reference - that expertise in horse breeding, iron working etc came from the Roma. As the Roma were quite insular the effect was quite likely, as I had mentioned, only cultural, not genetic.
Plus even if there was indeed any genetic input, it would be trace.
As a comparison:
You
0.00% S-Indian
11.10% Baloch
5.81% Caucasian
50.58% NE-Euro
0.08% SE-Asian
0.03% Siberian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
0.61% American
0.00% Beringian
31.64% Mediterranean
0.02% SW-Asian
0.11% San
0.02% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% W-African
Roma from England HRP0205
0% S-Indian
11% Baloch
4% Caucasian
50% NE-Euro
0% SE-Asian
0% Siberian
0% NE-Asian
0% Papuan
0% American
0% Beringian
34% Mediterranean
1% SW-Asian
0% San
0% E-African
0% Pygmy
0% W-African
Parsar,
If you look at this article on Irish Traveller in the UK, you'll see that up till 2011 in the UK, ethnic Irish Travellers were labelled Gypsies.
So, HRP0205 is probably of Irish Traveller descent.
Here's an article by an Irish Traveller:
http://www.irishtraveller.org.uk/images/history-culture.pdf
"Irish Travellers have their roots in a Celtic (and possibly pre Celtic) nomadic
population in Ireland. They are very definitely not Roma (or Gypsies)"
By the way Roma/Gypsies speak the Roma language, Irish Travellers speak Cant, with is an Irish Gaelic Creole with many English loan words.
there are roma and irish traveller both in the UK, its not either/or but both and if mcdonald said you are part southasian then you are probably part roma
This is awesome, thanks so much Zack. As SB previously stated, it corresponds well to the founder only table entries.
pconroy - this is interesting, where there any Romani heritage in your background that could have given rise to the South Asian component?
You mean his "Baloch" component? The "Baloch" component is a general Caucasoid component and has nothing to do with South Asianness; this is pretty clear from its worldwide distribution and its Fst distances to the other components. The fact that the "Baloch" component constitutes the bulk of the Caucasoid or ANI ancestry (as opposed to the Dravidoid or ASI ancestry) in South Asian individuals does not make it a South Asian component. Do note that the "Baloch" component peaks in Brahui, Baloch and Makrani, all of whom are West Asian peoples.
- The Baloch component (along with related ones like Gedrosia of Dodecad and West-Central Asian of Eurogenes) is likely simply a bottle-necked West-Eurasian component of an Iranian plateau, and ultimately, an Anatolian Neolithic source that has now become modal in Balochistan. The fact that Iranians exhibit the highest amounts of these Balochistan-centered components across all ADMIXTURE exercises among all West-Asian ethnic groups strongly implies that an Iranian-like group largely contributed to the major influx of West-Eurasians into South-Asia, likely correlating with Neolithic farming. The component is closest to the Caucasus component (Fst distance of 0.041) in Dodecad K12a. In HarappaWorld too it is closest to Caucasian (Fst distance of 0.046).
-The Baloch component peaks in the Brahui of Balochistan, followed by the Balochis and Makranis (southern Baloch with non-trivial African admixture). The Baloch and Brahui are virtually identical to each other, both genetically and morphologically/phenotypically. The Brahui are not a West-Asian people, and are Dravidian speaking. Brahui does have very substantial Iranic (Balochi) influence - linguists estimate that up to 20% of Brahui lexicon is from Balochi. It is also worth nothing that modern-day Brahui has adopted the Balochi phonological system and Balochi's suffixed pronouns. The Balochi language is said to have been spread by relatively recent migrants from the Western portion of the Iranian belt. Thus, the most plausible explanation is that the Balochi are simply culturally Iranicized Brahuis, and both groups received only a limited amount of gene flow from these linguistic and cultural fore-bearers corroborating with a elite dominance scenario, perhaps represented by parts of their Caucasian and SW Asian autosomal components. Any proposition that the Balochis (or Brahuis) are recent arrivals in the region is contradicted by the fact that they are identical to their Dravidian-speaking counterparts in the same locality.
- "Dravidoid" and other such terms are highly out-dated nomenclature that weren't ever even used in old-school physical anthropology typology-related books to begin with, which are out-dated in themselves. This ("Dravidoid") is a fallacious, whimsical term created by amateurs on online forums. Dravidian is probably not what the Paleolithic South-Eurasian inhabitants of South-Asia spoke. Given that Austro-Asiatic Munda languages itself show high correlation with exogenous East-Eurasian admixture in the Chota Nagpur plateau regions, Munda isn't the aboriginal tounge either. The language of the ASI is lost, so it is incredibly fallacy-ridden to term the ASI ancestry of South and South-Central Asians as "Dravidoid".
Dravidoid? Seriously?
AV wrote:
"Thus, the most plausible explanation is that the Balochi are simply culturally Iranicized Brahuis"
I am not sure how this qualifies as the most plausible explanation. More likely is that the Brahui are a remnant of a few Dravidian speaking tribes (timing and source of origin of whom is still unclear) that have been culturally *and* genetically assimilated by the Baluch.
This assimilation appears to be relatively recent and has accelerated substantially in the past couple of centuries.
The Brahui of the 17th century were, based on contemporary accounts, noticeably different from the Baluch, and even today people of my grandmother's generation identify the Brahui appearance (at least the stereotype) as different from the Baluch. It is probably no longer based on reality, as genetic tests show, however it takes longer for perceptions to die out.
This is the perception even in Sindh where, unlike in Baluchistan, the Baluch and Brahui are regarded as separate ethicities. For what it's worth, there is a specific stereotypical phenotype associated with the Baluch (or Baroch as they are called in Sindh) that is more or less the same as for any other West Asian ethicity.
I will admit that, given the degree of assimilation of the Brahui by the Baluch, it is very hard to identify which of the Brahui speaking Baluch tribes is of actual Brahui origin. This is made harder still by the fact that many of these tribes have switched languages between Brahui and Baluchi several times in recent history. Virtually all are bilingual.
I would not use the Baluchi/Brahui/Makrani genetic samples as distinct ethnicity markers. They are more accurately Baluchi samples from the geographic locations of Quetta, Kalat and Makran. The relative minor variation is easilly attributable to the their locations. Makran is on the coast and furthest from Sindh, hence the lowest South Asian admixture and highest African, since the Baluchistan coast was one of the hubs of the Gulf slave trade. Kalat is the most insular part of Baluchistan, and would show the highest amount of 'Baluchi' and lowest African. Quetta is the most cosmopolitan city in Baluchistan and samples from there show the greatest diversity, as is to be expected.
BTW, the vocabulary of Brahui is closer to 80% Baluchi/Persian *not* 20%. Even the numbering is Baluchi derived.
raz,
Very good information - thanks.
It appears that both the Brahui & Baroch have traditions of a migration from Syria ( http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/PDF-TAC/Baluch%20and%20the%20Brahui.pdf ). Is this tradition post-Islamic or did it exit prior to the 11th century?
Raz,
– I find it a little implausible to believe that the Brahui were assimilated to the point of being genetically indistinguishable from the Baloch. We would at least see some genetical signal in them that pointed to a comparatively more southerly origin relative to the Balochis. Yet, the Brahuis are as West-Eurasian and Ancestral South Indian as the Balochis.
– I cannot comment on the stereotypes of the supposed morphological and phenotypic discrepancy between the Brahuis and Balochis. But, the anthropometric data collated by H.H Risley in his book The people of India (1908) illustrated that;
- An average of 271 Balochi individuals from Bugti Hills and Kacchi revealed an average nasal index of 72.5 and average stature of 167.8
- An average of 198 Brahuis from the Sarawan country revealed an average nasal index of 70.9 and average stature of 165.9
– Going by the above key anthropometric measurements, the Balochis do not seem to be markedly different from the Brahuis in morphology, although the above says little about pigmentation. The following is seemingly a bit more anecdotal, but these Mengal clan Brahuis [1] [2] [3] [4]; who are the largest clan of the Brahuis if I am not mistaken, do not look all that different Balochis in my humble opinion. There are a few more pictures from a Facebook group dedicated to them but I chose to post only a few pictures.
– Please see the Stanford University's Rosenberg Lab data, that gives a more detailed supplement of the geographic coordinates of the populations in their data set.
- The HGDP Balochi and Brahui samples are from Gulistan, Qilla Abdullah district in Northwestern Balochistan bordering Afghanistan and is in proximity with FATA. Is there any real scope for acquiring cosmopolitan ancestry in such a non-cosmopolitan area?
- The HGDP Makrani sample is from somewhere slightly south of the Ratodero - Gwadar Motorway, in east Balochistan.
– Lastly, linguist Andronov Mikhail's seminal work The Brahui Language (1980) estimates that while ~20% of Brahui vocabulary is Balochi, it also has fairly substantial Urdu (in turn, Farsi and Arabic), Sindhi (including the Landhi dialect) and even Pashto loan words. While I certainly trust your opinion as a local of the region, is Brahui really that influenced by Balochi (80%)? In light of that, it is a wonder how it is even considered a part of the Dravidian language as it is even beyond creole language status and if the 80% figure is indeed true, virtually an Iranic language.
Due to its grammatical elements.
"Lexicon. Brahui's lexicon is of mixed origin; contains only 15% Dravidian words.
Dravidian origin 15%
Balochi origin 20%
Indo-Aryan origin 20%
Perso-Arabic origin 35%
Unknown origin 10%"
http://salrc.uchicago.edu/workshops/sponsored/121203/resources/brahui.pdf
The map in the link above illustrates two migration theories. I think the late migration theory makes more sense. El Beruni mentioned that Kannada speaking soldiers serving Mahmud's army in Merv and Samarkand were from Karnatadesa.
"Karnatadesa ... whence those troops come which in the armies are known as Kannara"
AV Wrote -:
"I find it a little implausible to believe that the Brahui were assimilated to the point of being genetically indistinguishable from the Baloch"
The problem with trying to identify a Brahui marker is that it's extremely difficult to determine 'real' Brahui ancestry. There are a few tribes in Sindh as well as the Bizenjo tribe in Baluchestan that *may* have real Brahui ancestry, but I would be the first to admit that I would be speculating, purely based on appearance. I think that its hard to argue that the Baluch are 'iranicised' Brahui, rather than the converse because there is so little in the way of anything that points to the Brahui pre-dating the Baluch.
Quoting from the Encyclopaedia Iranica:
"All census returns since 1911 have been characterized by confusion between those designated Brahui tribesmen and those claiming Brahui as their mother tongue, which has led to constant overestimates of the latter and underestimates of the former in later Pakistani census returns (up to 1961, the last year in which census data on mother tongue were provided; see Emeneau, 1962). It has been customary among Brahuis for many centuries to describe themselves as Baluch, especially to outÂsiders, regardless of the language they habitually use. As Brahui tribal affiliations have always been rather loose, it is easy to see how misleading official figures are likely to be. Many Brahuis are “bilaterally bilingual†(in Emeneau’s felicitous phrase), as large numbers of them have two mother tongues, Brahui and Baluchi"
Further:
"it is important to note that the term “Brahui tribe†has always meant more a political entity than an ethnic one; the Brahui tribe is essentially a loosely knit grouping of families bound only by mutual interests relating to such matters as grazing rights, cattle ownership, and blood ties—of which the last is the least important. The basic criteria of Brahui tribal affiliation are patrilineal descent and political allegiance: As not one of the present-day Brahui tribes possesses a coherent genealogy (indeed, none can be traced, even in legend, earlier than the 16th century), it seems likely that most, if not all, of these tribes have been formed comparatively recently"
Regarding their history:
"The first certain appearance of the Brahuis in history is in 17th-century Mughal notices on the Khanate of Kalat. Their previous history is still entirely a matter of speculation, in the absence of even a trace of genuine Brahui traditions. The few early Brahui traditions known are merely echoes of Baluch traditional history, and none is preserved in the Brahui language in the form of ballads or anything else. There is no evidence for any early association of the Brahuis and the Baluch before their encounter in the highlands of Kalat in the 13th century or perhaps a bit earlier. Brahui traditions said to be preserved in Baluch historical ballads earlier than the 19th century nowhere mention the name Brahui or that of any known Brahui tribe"
My point in all this is that, *today*, the Brahui and Baluch are essentially the same people, hence the lack of genetic differences. Indeed it may not even be easy to determine which tribes are truly Brahui. It may be possible to find Brahui genetic differences if we could first identify tribes (or perhaps, specific clans within these tribes) that are genuinely Brahui (ethnically as well as linguistically). However, even if this were possible, it would be hard to measure the genetic impact as the historical record (or rather, the lack of one) would suggest that the original Brahuis were, numerically, a relatively tiny group compared to the Baluch.
This is what Metspalu et al. say about their “k5†corresponding to the Baloch/Caucasian component. “We found no regional diversity differences associated with k5 at K = 8.Thus, regardless of where this component was from (the Caucasus, Near East, Indus Valley, or Central Asia), its spread to other regions must have occurred well before our detection limits at 12,500 years. Accordingly, the introduction of k5 to South Asia cannot be explained by recent gene flow, such as the hypothetical Indo-Aryan migration. The admixture of the k5 and k6 components within India, however, could have happened more recently—our haplotype diversity estimates are not informative about the timing of local admixture.†They are further open to the notion, “that West Eurasian diversity is derived from the more diverse South Asian gene poolâ€. They see more diversity in South Asia not less due to bottle necking. I am sure more refined statistical analytical methods as well as new data will soon resolve this issue.
Furthermore, "within India the geographic cline (the distance from Baluchistan) of the Indus/Caucasus signal (PC4 or k5) is very weak ..."
http://www.biotech.ebc.ee/Publications/Metspalu_M_et_al_2011.pdf
How about deep ancestry? As far as Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroup? Even if autosomally the Balochi and Brahui are indistinguishable, their Haplogroups should point show differences if they were two different populations in antiquity. Is there higher prevalance of Y-DNA H or mtDNA-M in the Brahui? Going by linguistics alone, neither Balochi(being a north west Iranian language) nor Brahui(being a Dravidian language) seem endemic to south western Pakistan at first glance. The wikipedia entry that lists frequency of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups by ethnicity make the two populations indistinguishable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MtDna_haplogroups_by_populations
Qamar: "The suggested origin of the Baluch is in Syria. Syrians, like Iranians, are characterized by a low frequency of haplogroup 3 and a high frequency of haplogroup 9 (9% and 57%, respectively; Hammer et al. 2000), whereas the corresponding frequencies in the Baluch are 29% and 12%. This difference and the high frequency of haplogroup 28 in the Baluch (29%) make a predominantly Syrian origin for their Y chromosome unlikely, and the admixture estimate was 0% (table 3), although the 8% frequency for haplogroup 21, the highest identified in Pakistan thus far, does indicate some western contribution to their Y lineages. The Brahuis have a possible origin in West Asia (Hughes-Buller 1991) and it has been suggested that a spread of haplogroup 9 Y chromosomes was associated with the expansion of Dravidian-speaking farmers (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001). Brahuis have the highest frequency of haplogroup 9 chromosomes in Pakistan (28%) after the Parsis, providing some support for this hypothesis, but their higher frequency of haplogroup 3 (39%) is not typical of the Fertile Crescent (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001) and suggests a more complex origin, possibly with admixture from later migrations, such as those of Indo-Iranian speakers from the steppes of Central Asia and others from further east. This possibility is supported by the detection of low frequencies of haplogroups 10, 12, and 13 in the Brahuis, all rare in Pakistan and typical of East Asia, East and northern Asia, and Southeast Asia, respectively."
Qamar did see some differences at the STR level which can be attributed to tribal isolation:
"Yet a more detailed analysis of the Y haplotypes (e.g., figs. ​figs.33–6) reveals some distinct features of the Brahui and considerable population specificity; population-specific clusters of related haplotypes are commonly found in these networks. Such clusters will only be seen if populations are isolated from one another. It may be that a low degree of gene flow between populations over a long time is sufficient to result in similar haplogroup frequencies without producing many shared clusters."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447589/
mtDNA too looks very similar with the Baloch having may be slightly higher South Asian specific types.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181978/figure/FG1/
Roma from England HRP0205
0% S-Indian
11% Baloch
4% Caucasian
50% NE-Euro
0% SE-Asian
0% Siberian
0% NE-Asian
0% Papuan
0% American
0% Beringian
34% Mediterranean
1% SW-Asian
0% San
0% E-African
0% Pygmy
0% W-African
Here is another Gypsy from England: HRP0149
5% S Indian
11% Baloch
9% Caucasian
44% NE Euro
0% SE Asian
0% Siberian
0% NE Asian
0% Papuan
1% American
0% Beringian
28% Mediterranean
2% SW Asian
0% San
0% E African
0% Pygmy
0% W African
The 5% "S Indian" component of this individual clearly comes from his Gypsy ancestors; it cannot come from his indigenous European ancestors. So, we can say with confidence that not all Gypsies in England are genetically undetectable. In contrast, Conroy's component results are indistinguishable from the non-Gypsy British and, in all probability, Irish results; he is genetically a typical British/Irish.
So, HRP0205 is probably of Irish Traveller descent.
I agree. I think only HRP0149 is a genuine Gypsy from England.
That's interesting, because the Roma are believed to have left the Indian sub-continent around 700-1000 C.E. This would mean considerable intermarriages with people in Western Europe.
Great analysis, thank you Onur.
Y to the rescue!
HRP0205 is not an Irish Traveler/Tinker unless they too happen to have H1a.
HRP0205 ethnicity is listed as Romany and his Y Haplogroup as H1a. Please see the ethnicity/haplogroup tab.
This would mean considerable intermarriages with people in Western Europe.
Assuming that HRP0149 is the only genuine Gypsy from England in this project and that he is representative of the genetics of Gypsies of England, Gypsies of England must be so much North European admixed to be phenotypically indistinguishable from non-Gypsies there (5% "S Asian" component is too low to have an effect on physical traits).
The Brahui are not a West-Asian people, and are Dravidian speaking.
Genetically and phenotypically they are West Asian. The language they speak does not determine their region.
"Dravidoid" and other such terms are highly out-dated nomenclature that weren't ever even used in old-school physical anthropology typology-related books to begin with, which are out-dated in themselves. This ("Dravidoid") is a fallacious, whimsical term created by amateurs on online forums. Dravidian is probably not what the Paleolithic South-Eurasian inhabitants of South-Asia spoke. Given that Austro-Asiatic Munda languages itself show high correlation with exogenous East-Eurasian admixture in the Chota Nagpur plateau regions, Munda isn't the aboriginal tounge either. The language of the ASI is lost, so it is incredibly fallacy-ridden to term the ASI ancestry of South and South-Central Asians as "Dravidoid".
Dravidoid is a racial term and in no way means Dravidian, just as Caucasoid does not mean Caucasian, Mongoloid does not mean Mongolian, Australoid does not mean Australian Aborigine, etc. Anyway, genetics has shown that pure or almost pure Dravidoids do not exist today; almost all extant South Asians are biracial (Caucasoid-Dravidoid hybrids; Mongoloid admixture is inexistent or in small amounts in almost all South Asians, so they cannot be labeled as triracial).
I think the ASI already had caucasoid features
- Western Pakistan is not in West Asia. Pick up an Atlas before engaging in such nonsensical statements. Iranic languages are a recent phenomenon in the region and the Brahui are simply a glimpse of what was something much more widespread not only in the region, but all of Northwest India and eastern Pakistan before the advent of Indo-Iranians.
- The Brahui are Dravidian speaking and thus linguistically South-Asian par excellence per your own definition of what constitutes an aboriginal South-Asian.
- Dravidoid is not a legitimate 'racial' term at all and has never been featured in any old-school physical anthropology and anthropometry works and text-books, which are themselves out-dated. The correct genetic term you're looking for is ASI. As I already mentioned, Dravidian is likely the linguistic legacy of one (of the many) waves of farmers that took place during the Neolithic age, perhaps with an ultimate origin in and around ancient Elam, and thus hypothetically consistent with the concept of a greater Elamo-Dravidian language family. Both Iran and Pakistan-India have similar Neolithic periods. South-Asia and Iran also have very similar datings for their Neolithic settlements/sites. For instance, the earliest Neolithic site in South Asia is Mehrgarh, dated to 7500 BC, in the Kachi plain of Baluchistan, Pakistan - this site has evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats). Iran also has similar sites, such as ÄŒhoga Bonut (7200 BC) and Ganj Dareh (7000 BC). The fact that Iranians exhibit the highest amounts of these Balochistan-centered components, and that the one of the oldest Neolithic settlement in South-Asia is in Balochistan corroborates with the empirical evidence provided by the Neolithic sites. Iranians have the highest shared ancestry with South/South-Central Asians, as evidenced by their Baloch scores relative to other West-Asians.
- Imposing new-world concepts and terms such as bi-racial on old-world populations is riddled in logical fallacies of the highest order. Biracial refers to a person of recent ancestry from two different ethnicities or "races". The admixture event between West-Eurasians and Paleolithic South-Asians is too deep rooted in history to term South-Asians as bi-racials in a modern sense.
HRP0205 ethnicity is listed as Romany and his Y Haplogroup as H1a. Please see the ethnicity/haplogroup tab.
"Romany" is just a politically correct and newly popularized version of the word "Gypsy", so it has no significance. He may still be of Irish Traveler origin thus fake Gypsy. But his Y haplogroup may indeed point to a genuine Gypsy origin. BTW, in the "Harappa Participants Haplogroups" table linked under the "Data" tab of this blog, his ethnicity is given as "Romany Gypsy, Native American, European - English", so he seems to have some recent ancestors who have no "Gypsy" identity, genuine or fake. I suggest you to contact him about his precise genealogical ancestry, including the source of his "Gypsy" identity (e.g., is it genuine, or fake as in the case of Irish Travelers?).
Romany is the self designation of the Roma People and means "Man or Husband" as far as i know. Gypsy on the other hand originates from the Word Egyptian and is a false concept because Gypsies are not from Egypt.
Before you go around calling people fake, I hope you take some time to understand the difference between genetic and genealogical ancestry.
@Zack when will you have the World Oracle out?
Thanks for the great work btw
Probably tonight.
"BTW, in the "Harappa Participants Haplogroups" table linked under the "Data" tab of this blog, his ethnicity is given as "Romany Gypsy, Native American, European - English", so he seems to have some recent ancestors who have no "Gypsy" identity, genuine or fake."
That is the point I was trying to make in my response to pconroy - that even for folk who trace clear Gypsy lineage, but have not been isolated, it would be difficult (but IMO not impossible) to autosomally distinguish them from their neighbors. In the case of HRP0205, apparently his ancestors moved to England, then subsequently moved to America.
Before you go around calling people fake, I hope you take some time to understand the difference between genetic and genealogical ancestry.
By fake Gypsy, I am referring to groups traditionally labeled as "Gypsy" but in actuality have no connection to Gypsies. Irish Travelers are an example to fake Gypsies.
Romany is the self designation of the Roma People and means "Man or Husband" as far as i know. Gypsy on the other hand originates from the Word Egyptian and is a false concept because Gypsies are not from Egypt.
I know these. But even some fake Gypsies (see above) may have recently switched to a "Romany" identity due to the negative connotations of the word "Gypsy".
yet this has nothing to do with the word itself, and they may switched because of similar discrimination against them but i think travellers consider themselfes a seperate group of people. and i think he maybe of southasian origins somewhere deep down because he is of haplogroup H1 (which is an asian haplogroup)
if mcdonald said you are part southasian then you are probably part roma
McDonald's inferences are often inaccurate, so I don't trust them.
however thats why we concern ourselfes with genetics and are here to find out. it can be inaccurate at times, true.
yet this has nothing to do with the word itself, and they may switched because of similar discrimination against them but i think travellers consider themselfes a seperate group of people. and i think he maybe of southasian origins somewhere deep down because he is of haplogroup H1 (which is an asian haplogroup)
I think we have speculated about HRP0205 enough. Those who want to learn about the ethnic and genealogical background of HRP0205 may contact him.
but i think travellers consider themselfes a seperate group of people
Some of them may still be under the influence of the Gypsy/Romany origin hypothesis.
- Western Pakistan is not in West Asia. Pick up an Atlas before engaging in such nonsensical statements. Iranic languages are a recent phenomenon in the region and the Brahui are simply a glimpse of what was something much more widespread not only in the region, but all of Northwest India and eastern Pakistan before the advent of Indo-Iranians.
It is you who makes no sense by imposing modern political borders on ethnic groups. Baloch, Makrani and Brahui are genetically West Asian, they look West Asian, and that is all that matters in this discussion (this is a genetics discussion blog, not a political one).
- The Brahui are Dravidian speaking and thus linguistically South-Asian par excellence per your own definition of what constitutes an aboriginal South-Asian.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said quite the opposite of what you ascribe to me:
"The language they speak does not determine their region."
In addition to region, I could say the same thing for race.
Also I wrote:
"Dravidoid is a racial term and in no way means Dravidian, just as Caucasoid does not mean Caucasian, Mongoloid does not mean Mongolian, Australoid does not mean Australian Aborigine, etc."
- Dravidoid is not a legitimate 'racial' term at all and has never been featured in any old-school physical anthropology and anthropometry works and text-books, which are themselves out-dated. The correct genetic term you're looking for is ASI.
By your logic, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are not legitimate either.
As I already mentioned, Dravidian is likely the linguistic legacy of one (of the many) waves of farmers that took place during the Neolithic age, perhaps with an ultimate origin in and around ancient Elam, and thus hypothetically consistent with the concept of a greater Elamo-Dravidian language family. Both Iran and Pakistan-India have similar Neolithic periods. South-Asia and Iran also have very similar datings for their Neolithic settlements/sites. For instance, the earliest Neolithic site in South Asia is Mehrgarh, dated to 7500 BC, in the Kachi plain of Baluchistan, Pakistan - this site has evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats). Iran also has similar sites, such as ÄŒhoga Bonut (7200 BC) and Ganj Dareh (7000 BC). The fact that Iranians exhibit the highest amounts of these Balochistan-centered components, and that the one of the oldest Neolithic settlement in South-Asia is in Balochistan corroborates with the empirical evidence provided by the Neolithic sites. Iranians have the highest shared ancestry with South/South-Central Asians, as evidenced by their Baloch scores relative to other West-Asians.
Why are you telling me all these? Did I say anything contradictory?
- Imposing new-world concepts and terms such as bi-racial on old-world populations is riddled in logical fallacies of the highest order. Biracial refers to a person of recent ancestry from two different ethnicities or "races". The admixture event between West-Eurasians and Paleolithic South-Asians is too deep rooted in history to term South-Asians as bi-racials in a modern sense.
South Asians are very far from uniform in their Caucasoid/Dravidoid ratio (say "ANI/ASI ratio" if you wish), that is why we can't talk about them as a single race.
South Asians are very far from uniform in their Caucasoid/Dravidoid ratio (say "ANI/ASI ratio" if you wish), that is why we can't talk about them as a single race.
---
I believe the "Dravidoid" had already archaic Caucasoid features
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 ÄdivÄsÄ« 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.
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.
Onur,
- The Balochi, Brahui and Makrani have Onge admixture in the Harappa Reference 3 K=11 admixture analysis. They exhibit the component in question at 7%, 5% and and 5% respectively and have inferred ASI fractions of 14%, 16% and 14% respectively, all very non-trivial percentages. The appreciable presence of the ASI autosomal component in them intimately ties them to South-Asia. The fact that the Brahui are also linguistically Dravidian further removes them from your definition of West-Asian, which is purely genetic to begin with, but is in reality far more intricate than that. The Balochi are genetically indistinguishable from the Brahui. Thus, the very likely scenario is that the vast majority of a once large populace of Dravidian-speaking Brahuis faced a cultural and language shift to Iranic.
- No, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are not legitimate in a genetic or socio-cultural context. They are legitimate terms in the context of the works of 19th and early 20th century physical anthropologists. The fallacy here is that Dravidoid was never used by any of the prominent physical anthropologists of yore like Carleton S. Coon, Egon von Eickstedt, Bertil J. Lundman or Joseph Deniker; who were themselves pseudo-scientists at best sans the anthropometric and pigmentation data they collected. Not even British anthropologists or ethnologists in India used the preposterous term you are trying to perpetuate as scientifically legitimate.
- Race is a Western social construct and certainly does not apply to old-world populations, especially in South-Asia which has been a pre-historic and historic melting pot of sorts, and thus genetically pure races never existed here to begin with. So there's no question of assigning a "race" to South-Asians in the first place, thus deeming South-Asians as bi-racial is intellectually dishonest malarkey. Humanity is in reality a genetic cline with few populations representing poles of this clinal variation.
It is you who makes no sense by imposing modern political borders on ethnic groups. Baloch, Makrani and Brahui are genetically West Asian, they look West Asian, and that is all that matters in this discussion (this is a genetics discussion blog, not a political one).
---
they look no different than pakistanis and northindians
they look no different than pakistanis and northindians
Pakistanis and adjacent Indians are very far from being genetically and phenotypically uniform in themselves. This is expected taking into acount the geography and ethnic structure of that area. So, what you say doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are speaking as if Pakistanis and adjacent Indians are uniform in their genetics and looks, which is nonsense.
We're confusing nationality with race it seems.
I think Deniker and Carletoon Coon wrote about it, Brahuis i think are of Indo_Afghan Race which is found is according to Deniker found among Afhgans, Rajputs and Caste of the Brahmans. Coon also puts "Dravidoids" as Caucasoid because of metric position and Skull Structure.
Now you're confusing science with pseudo science.
We do not know when the Dravidians came into southern India or whence, although the presence of the Dravidian-speaking Brahui in Baluchistan is a suggestion that they came from the Indus valley, and both the Brahuis and the Baluchis bear some physical resemblance to the Dravidians of southern India. Being Caucasoids, the latter could only have come from the northwest. That they were already in a Bronze Age or Iron Age cultural level seems likely, and they may well have been associated in some way with the Indus Valley civilization, as many archeologists have suggested but as yet no one has proven. The racial composition of the skeletal remains from the Indus Valley site does no violence to such a derivation.
--
Carleton Coon
It is quite possible that the Brahui Dravidian language is not a relic of the neolithic past but came in the medieval period with the Karnata empires of the Chaluktas, Rastrakutas and once again Chalukyas (now called Rajputs - Rathore and Solanki). In my neck of the woods in eastern India there was a Karnata influx too (there are medieval inscriptions proving that) in the form the Bengal Sena Karnatas and the Bihar and Nepal Karnatas. A tongue similar to Brahui exists in our area too called Kurukh.
Maybe evidence of this is also seen in Sindhi where the counting for the game gulli danda was in Dravidian - moor, naar, aar, etc. [cf mooru naalku aaru in Kannada]
That is the point I was trying to make in my response to pconroy - that even for folk who trace clear Gypsy lineage, but have not been isolated, it would be difficult (but IMO not impossible) to autosomally distinguish them from their neighbors. In the case of HRP0205, apparently his ancestors moved to England, then subsequently moved to America.
If HRP0205 has significant recent non-Gypsy admixture, there is no point in treating him as representative of Gypsies of England. This is to Zack: also, if anyone of his grandparents is a non-Gypsy, there is no point in putting him in the Gypsy group in this project.
As for Conroy's case, he has no family tradition of any descent from Gypsies and his genetics does not point to any Gypsy origin; he is genetically a typical British/Irish person. McDonald's inferences, as usually expected from them, do not make any sense.
HRP15,
My Dravidoid is not the same as Coon's Dravidoid, as my Dravidoid is based in genetics and represents the non-Caucasoid and non-Mongoloid portion of South Asian ancestry. Also, as I said countless times, Dravidoid does not equal Dravidian (the former is a racial category and the latter is a linguistic category).
represents the non-Caucasoid and non-Mongoloid portion of South Asian ancestry
Also the non-Negroid (Siddis, Makranis and some Sindhis in mind)
Also the non-Negroid (Siddis, Makranis and some Sindhis in mind)
BTW, I mentioned Makranis due to their small Dravidoid admixture, not because that I regard them as South Asian.
you shouldnt invent own categories to begin with, you mean ASI genetic component. I think its an archaic caucasoid component, it just goes well together because indians are a caucasoid population and so it makes sense that ASI was caucasoid
Guys,
I've done a little more research and may have hit on something interesting!
First, here's what 23andMe say about mtDNA T1:
"Although T1 is relatively rare in Europe today, it appears to have been much more common at some times in the past. Though it is present in only 2% of the modern English population, T1 was found at levels of 23% in DNA extracted from skeletons buried in Norwich, England during the 10th century AD.
But the complete absence of T1 even earlier, in DNA extracted from the skeletal remains of Anglo-Saxon Britons dating to the 5th and 6th centuries, suggests that the haplogroup did not arrive in England with the original agricultural expansion. It may have come with the Viking invaders who began menacing the coastal settlements of Britain and Ireland in AD 793"
Then there is this article:
"A Romani mitochondrial haplotype in England 500 years before their recorded arrival in Britain"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617141/
"The nomadic Romani (gypsy) people are known for their deep-rooted traditions, but most of their history is recorded from external sources. We find evidence for a Romani genetic lineage in England long before their recorded arrival there. The most likely explanations are that either the historical record is wrong, or that early liaisons between Norse and Romani people during their coincident presence in ninth to tenth century Byzantium led to the spread of the haplotype to England."
Both seem to talk about the exact same burial ground.
So the question is, could some "Vikings" have Roma maternal ancestry, via the Varangian Guard in Constantinople (Istanbul)??
Here's a Roma Timeline:
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1161964-Timeline-of-Romani-Gypsy-History---1--
Both my parents have some possible Viking ancestry. My father suffers from "Viking Hand", and my mother has some Northern Britain Viking ancestry. Also my mother has a relative from Denmark who has documented ancestry for 400 years to the island of Funen, yet is mtDNA M1a??
pconroy,
Wow M1a!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1945034/
It is possible there is come connection between the Romany and the Hun/Khazar and through the latter to the Vikings. The Roma could have been the metal-workers and horse-handlers for the Hun/Khazar.
Another possibility is arrival with the Normans. There are folk in the Isles that are turning up as R1a-Z93+, a number of whom are named Farrar who were traditionally horse handlers and smiths and have clear Norman pedigree as they came to the Isles with the Normans.
see e.g. "We are not Arab, Indian, Tatar" http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25916-The-Normans&p=392949&viewfull=1#post392949
please see also: Z93+ Z94- L342- "British cluster" @ FTDNA Ra1a1 and Subclades.
comment in moderation - 2 URLs
- The Balochi, Brahui and Makrani have Onge admixture in the Harappa Reference 3 K=11 admixture analysis. They exhibit the component in question at 7%, 5% and and 5% respectively and have inferred ASI fractions of 14%, 16% and 14% respectively, all very non-trivial percentages. The appreciable presence of the ASI autosomal component in them intimately ties them to South-Asia. The fact that the Brahui are also linguistically Dravidian further removes them from your definition of West-Asian, which is purely genetic to begin with, but is in reality far more intricate than that. The Balochi are genetically indistinguishable from the Brahui. Thus, the very likely scenario is that the vast majority of a once large populace of Dravidian-speaking Brahuis faced a cultural and language shift to Iranic.
I am fed up with this discussion of who is West Asian and who is South Asian, so I won't repeat the same things. What is really important is the fact that the "Baloch" component is a typical Caucasoid component and has nothing to do with South Asianness. BTW, you are still putting words in my mouth by saying "the fact that the Brahui are also linguistically Dravidian further removes them from your definition of West-Asian", as I explicitly separated region from language and also race from language.
- No, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are not legitimate in a genetic or socio-cultural context. They are legitimate terms in the context of the works of 19th and early 20th century physical anthropologists. The fallacy here is that Dravidoid was never used by any of the prominent physical anthropologists of yore like Carleton S. Coon, Egon von Eickstedt, Bertil J. Lundman or Joseph Deniker; who were themselves pseudo-scientists at best sans the anthropometric and pigmentation data they collected. Not even British anthropologists or ethnologists in India used the preposterous term you are trying to perpetuate as scientifically legitimate.
- Race is a Western social construct and certainly does not apply to old-world populations, especially in South-Asia which has been a pre-historic and historic melting pot of sorts, and thus genetically pure races never existed here to begin with. So there's no question of assigning a "race" to South-Asians in the first place, thus deeming South-Asians as bi-racial is intellectually dishonest malarkey. Humanity is in reality a genetic cline with few populations representing poles of this clinal variation.
Race is a very complex issue. I don't want to enter into another long discussion by writing a refutation contra your arguments. I have discussed the race issue in other discussion boards enough.
If your basis of deeming people as West-Asian is purely genetic, then you might as well call South-Indians as West Asian-ASI Mullatos and Northwest Indians/eastern Pakistanis and South-Central Asians as Northeast European octoroons :).
you shouldnt invent own categories to begin with, you mean ASI genetic component. I think its an archaic caucasoid component, it just goes well together because indians are a caucasoid population and so it makes sense that ASI was caucasoid
I am not inventing new categories but just updating the already existent ones in light of the recent genetic results. You, on the other hand, are fabricating by stating that ASI is Caucasoid (whether archaic or not), which is incorrect.
Metspalu et al. have found only the least age of ANI to be 12500ybp in India! Can anyone say its wrong or right?
Farmanas DNA will provide many answers specially if the components of aDNA also shown.
If Mehrgarhs skeletons DNA were also in the test that would have been goody goody.;-)
Me:
0.57 S-Indian8.48 Baloch
13.73 Caucasian
44.61 NE-Euro
0.00 SE-Asian
0.00 Siberian
0.00 NE-Asian
0.00 Papuan
0.30 American
0.15 Beringian
29.54 Mediterranean
2.62 SW-Asian
0.00 San
0.00 E-African
0.00 Pygmy
0.00 W-African
You don't have my data, and you don't have any data from anyone of my ethnicity. My results don't look unusual and is rather consistent with other genome projects.
I was referring to this quote:
"DIY calculator will work better for those individuals whose genetic variation was included in computing the admixture model. Those belonging to a group not included at all in the set of samples I used might get somewhat odd results."
Apparently I messed up the tags... wish I could preview before posting.
Here are mine, maybe typical for a Brit!
S-Indian 0.43%
Baloch 10.22%
Caucasian 6.22%
NE-Euro 50.86%
SE-Asian -
Siberian -
NE-Asian 0.19%
Papuan -
American -
Beringian 0.21%
Mediterranean 30.83%
SW-Asian 0.99%
San -
E-African -
Pygmy 0.06%
W-African -
This maybe something out of the blue, but do you think there will come a time when tools such as the Population Finder on ftdna and I assume on other websites too, will be able to distinguish between the populations of South Asia, like the tools that Harappa and Dienekes now have?
So for example, instead of having Pashtun and North India for populations it will have Pashtun, Punjabi etc.
0.00% S-Indian
7.94% Baloch
32.40% Caucasian
20.90% NE-Euro
0.00% SE-Asian
0.22% Siberian
0.40% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
0.00% American
0.51% Beringian
25.34% Mediterran
11.84% SW-Asian
0.00% San
0.39% E-African
0.06% Pygmy
0.00% W-African
Mixed southern European
The 7 t o10 percent Baloch showing up as typical people of Northwest Europe is a testament to the Caucasic ancestry in Baluchis and nothing more or less.
I'm Irish/Polish 50/50
0.0% S-Indian
8.28% Baloch
9.43% Caucasian
51.31% NE-Euro
0.0% SE-Asian
1.02% Siberian
0.0% NE-Asian
0.0% Papuan
0.11% American
0.0% Beringian
29.25% Mediterranean
0.54% SW-Asian
0.0% San
0.0% E-African
0.0% Pygmy
0.0% W-African
every one seems to be getting similar results
Guess it's been a while since I visited the web site, I see I have been used as a topic of discussion on this forum and I will address that matter.
I resent the term "fake" being used before you have all the facts before you.
What a dinlo!
I should not be made to have to explain my ancestry and family history to anyone, but I will just to set the record straight.. But I will explain my family history with resentment because I see I have been used as a topic on this forum before most of you know all the facts.
205 is not Irish Traveller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 205 is ME! My direct paternal ancestry is English Romanichal "Gypsy", a branch of the European Roma.
My ancestor was one of those English Romanichal's transported to the American Colonies by 1728, possibly as early as 1715.
England and Scotland both had created anti Gypsy laws and started rounding up their Romany population and convicting them of petty crimes and transporting them over seas as convicts, some of whom ended up in the American Colonies as early as the 1670's. England and Scotland made it illegal to be a "Gypsy", so just being who they were in either country was an illegal act. Those who were not hung, burned at the stake or jailed, were transported over seas as convicts just for being a Gypsy in those 2 countries.
There is a long history of Romanichal's having to flee back and forth between the Scottish and English boarder trying to elude the lawmen who were after them because of the anti Gypsy laws of that era.
And because my paternal forefather was transported to the American Colonies, my family is very mixed today, so using my autosomal DNA test as a comparrison is not a good test to compare to because we are so mixed with European blood ties after 8 generations born in the USA.
My admixture is what it is because my ancestor was one of those caught up during the anti Gypsy laws in England and transported to the American Colonies as a convict..
There were darn few Romanies in the American Colonies to choose from as mates, so they married whom every they could and over the last 8 generations exactly explains my rather high admixture results. And because I am a Deep Clade SNP tested H1a man with the 425 = 0 marker mutation, I am living proof Romanies were in the American Colonies as early as 1728.
Traditionally Romanichal's and Irish Travellers do not get along well, and rarely mingled with one another and doing so could get a Romany banished out of the vitsa "clan" for life. No offence to the Irish, but I am not Irish and I resent being called Irish!
I likely have Irish blood ties, but are blood ties here in the USA not back in England.
In my direct male lineage, I am the 8th generation American born English Romanichal descendant, but my female ancestry is made up of English, Scottish, Irish, German, Cherokee ladies making me a very mixed person today.
My mother is of German and French Canadian ancestry further adding to that admixture. And because they were in England and Europe , my ancestors were likely already mixed long before they came to the American Colonies.
Honestly I don't mind you all discussing my results, but when a dinlo "idiot" starts resorting to calling me or anyone "fake", I take that rather personal because that dinlo knows nothing about me, knows nothing about my family history.
No DNA participant should be made to have to defend his or her self to anyone.
Nor should a DNA participant be made to have to openly expose themselves in order to have to explain why they have certain admixtures.
It is one thing to discuss things in a scientific manor, but when some folks starts calling other people "fake", is just down right rude and uncalled for.
Irish Travellers are NOT Gypsies! The term Gypsy is a slang word for Egyptian and there is only one people known as the European Egyptians, they are the Romany people who were given the nick name Gypsy because of the false impression my ancestors were Egyptians when they were in fact South Asians in origin.
Never in recorded history were the Irish called Gypsies, that is an ethnic term exclusive to the Romany people of Europe.
I am of the English Romanichal vitsa "clan" and darn proud of my Romanichal origins.
I am in fact a 65/67 genetic match to another English Romanichal Locke, we are both Y DNA tested to the 67 marker level, both Deep Clade SNP tested and are 100% proven to be directly related and even Bennett Greenspan CEO of Family Tree DNA himself has personally reviewed our test results and concures this is a proof positive family connection. Bennett Greenspan himself explained to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE for my ancestor and my cousins ancestor to not be related, impossible to not be related being the key term here. There are now 9 of us Romanichal Locke's Y DNA tested from England and the USA, and all 9 of us male cousins are in Y Haplo H1a.
I am the Admin of the Romany DNA project and Y Haplo Group H DNA project, and I think any of you who have questions should take the time to visit both DNA projects and study up on the topic of discussion before going around calling anyone a fake.
All my closest Y DNA matches are to the English and Scottish Romanichal's of the Lock(e), Smith, Boswell, Lee, Stanley, Ingram, Bailey, Campbell surnames.
All of whom are well documented and well known Romanichal family surnames.
So before calling someone a fake, maybe you ought to do a bit of research first in to the topic before you put your foot in to your overly large big mouth!
Opre Romanichal!
Kushti Bokt
Donald Locke # 205 , FTDNA kit # 21343
I have excluded you from the population "Romany" in my analysis.
Donald Locke,
I don't have any problems with how you identify yourself. You may call yourself whatever you like and identify with whatever ancestors you have, however distant. Notice that I didn't declare you as a fake Gypsy but only speculated that you may be a fake Gypsy principally based on your autosomal genetic results, and I also speculated that you may indeed have distant Gypsy origin due to your Y-haplogroup. But as your Romany from England ancestry is extemely diminished due to admixing with non-Romanies throughout the last 8 generations, you should not be labeled as "Romany from England" or "Romany" in this project and you should not be used as a genetic representative of Romanies from England or Romanies as a whole except in Y-chromosome haplogroup analyses. This is a genetic project, so ancestry information should be based on all the recent ancestry and not on the preferred identity.
Zack,
Treating the project participant HRP0205 as a Romany from England in particular and as a Romany in general in this project just because that he has distant Romany from England ancestry and that it is his preferred identity is against the main purpose of this project, which is revealing the genetic make up and relationships of the populations and regions covered in this project. I am afraid that treating recently admixed individuals according to their preferred identity in this project will lead to chaos and will do a disservice to the main purpose of this project. So I request you to change the ethnicity and group information of the project participant HRP0205 in a way that reflects the proportions of each of the ancestral ethnic groups in his recent genealogy rather than his preferred identity.
@Donald Locke,
So culturally you are a Romanichal, however genetically you are not - with the exception of your Y-DNA - as you are virtually indistinguishable from other people of assorted English or Irish descent.
This has been a problem in other projects with 3/4 or 1/2 Irish people claiming they were fully Irish, and skewing the results for other Irish people.
I tried downloading this on my Macbook and am having trouble executing it (and I work in IT, yikes!). Could anyone offer any assistance or perhaps run it for me if I provide my DNA file to you? Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
Nevermind, the program is for Windows so I will just download it on my home computer where it will be compatible, thanks guys and gals!
The HarappaWorld admix test on Gedmatch.com claims that M065536 is Lithuanian with some minor Siberian mixed in. Can't be. It should say Finnish (western to be exact). *shrugs* The recent DNA Tribes update said: Uralic 36.3%, Slavic-Baltic 35.9%, Northwest European 25.2%, Siberian-Arctic 2.6%. But then it said "Finland 50.7%". Not sure what to believe.
The Oracle results should not be thought of as providing parent populations at the very top.
Also in the 2-population oracle results, at #4 is 60% Finnish + 40% Orcadian, which shows that M065536 is a bit more Western European than the Finnish samples from 1000Genomes.
Ah, OK... Thanks! So why do you think it says Lithuanian? Is it because my Uralic is lower than the 1000Genomes samples but S-B and NwE are higher, maybe? I guess they don't have too many samples from Western Finland then...
I also have South Asian in my admixtue that I cannot explain. Both of my parent's families come from England, Scotland, and Ireland. With names like Little, Sprague, Ward, Smith and Bailey. I cannot see where I get the South Asian. I am mtDNA haplogroup K1e and my dad's y-DNA is Rb1. My Ancestry is clearly European so does that mean I am Roma also?
Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? I followed all the steps and have everything unzipped and decompressed in directory C:\j... This is what I keep getting: standardize('jm.txt', company='23andMe') Error: could not find function "standardize"; At line 135 of file DIYDodecad.f90 file: "genotype.txt"
Traceback: not available, compile with -ftrace=frame or -ftrace=full
Fortran runtime error: The system cannot find the file specified.
Did you run "source('standardize.r')" in R before that?
No, and that just fixed it. Thank you very much.
shukla madhyandin brahman....
40.14% S-Indian
34.03% Baloch
7.91% Caucasian
11.83% NE-Euro
0.23% SE-Asian
1.03% Siberian
0.26% NE-Asian
1.30% Papuan
0.50% American
0.73% Beringian
0.41% Mediterranean
1.18% SW-Asian
0.00% San
0.46% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% W-African
E african and American entries are interesting
Anything 1% or less could be noise.
For those who are questioning how Bailey is a British surname but show South Asian DNA, here is something that might be important.
I discovered on a website about Colonial Virginia, the importation of East Indian (what they called Indians from the Subcontinent India)as slaves, one such "Baillie" was a runaway slave.
I am just using the term "Subcontinent Indian" as merely a way to describe those from India, rather than breaking it down to different groups in India, and to differentiate Indian from Native American.
And there are several other things to take into consideration when it comes to Asian in the gene pool of Brits. The British East India Company that transported many Chinese and Subcontinent Indians to England prior to 1700. In fact, the Chinese had several neighborhoods in Liverpool and London, they worked on the docks and on the ships.
Don't assume Romani if there may be evidence of a direct line of Subcontinent Indians as a result of the British East India Company. We know that Indians themselves considered themselves from different castes and groups, but the British were unlikely to call them anything else except East Indian.
And I am proposing what may become an unpopular theory, but I have Colonial American ancestry so I am going to put it out there:
What if those of our ancestors were actually Subcontinent Indians, and their descendents heard Indian but applied it to the definition of Native American, so the assumption would become that they were Native American, but were actually Subcontinent Indian or Chinese?
I think it's a great assumption that only white, European British English were on the ships, but think about where the tea came from that the Americans tossed overboard in Boston.
We know from many references in literature that people from India and China were in fact in England by 1600.
And then consider this, the Dutch East India company that was set up in Indonesia. They also transported many Indonesians back to the Netherlands. But on top of that, even the Portuguese were doing the same thing. So you might have Romani ancestry, but you might just have straight direct from India ancestry.
Here are my results from Harappa World Oracle 4
# Population Percent
1 NE-Euro 49.40
2 Mediterranean 29.89
3 Caucasian 12.25
4 Baloch 6.74
5 SW-Asian 1.71
And Harappa World Oracle
# Population Percent
1 NE-Euro 49.27
2 Mediterranean 29.81
3 Caucasian 12.22
4 Baloch 6.72
5 SW-Asian 1.71
6 San 0.16
7 Beringian 0.1
8 Papuan 0.01
I'm not quite ready to jump in there and immediately call that Romani, a lot more investigation needs to done. But now my question is this, what does Papuan mean? Is that noise, or could there be some Indonesian that might have come through the Dutch East India Company? I do have Dutch ancestry, so I am just theorizing, I am not making a solid claim yet.
There is a Bailey participating in the Romany DNA Project. The project is managed by Donald Locke, you could e-mail him if you are interested in finding out more about the Bailey's I know the Bailey participant is haplogroup H1a. H1a originates from India, the old Romany clan's of England UK are carrying this haplogroup, Also Donald Locke discovered a mutation 425=0 that all the Romanies in the project are carrying. surnames such as Lee, Smith,Boswell, Locke, Stanley and many more are in the project
I too have read about Romanies being transported to America during the colonial days, and found it very interesting. Several of my genetic cousins who reside in America thought they were Native Americans until they shared genomes with my siblings and myself and found that my family are Romanichal's from England. My Romanichal's cousins who knew they are Romanies,immigrated to America in 1800 and are still showing South Asian in their genomes, this is because the clans stayed together and intermarried alot. Your results does not show any South Asian which is to be expected as the Bailey's have lived in America since the Colonial days and as there was not many Romany women "if any" to marry, your genes have been diluted. If your Y haplogroup is H1a you are Romany without a doubt! Some would say the % of Papuan you are showing is noise?
My haplogroups are both Romany, paternal H1a maternal U3b Here are my results using Harappa calculator. My genes have also been diluted due to my maternal line marry none Romanies.
# Population Percent
1 NE-Euro 44.06
2 Mediterranean 27.16
3 Baloch 12.37
4 Caucasian 8.58
5 S-Indian 7.06
6 American 0.78
Hope this helps
Here are of my family's results from the harappa project
Maternal aunty
South Asian 10%
Onge 3%
East Asian 1%
SW Asian 19%
European 64%
Siberian 1%
Papuan 1%
San/Pygmy 1%
Mine:
South Asian 13%
Onge 4%
SW Asian 18%
European 65%
Brother:
South Asian 13%
Onge 3%
SW Asian 20%
European 64%
Im not sure about this topic but just had my Family Finder Dna results
and in terms or lifestyle culture and Language i am a British Romany Gypsy,
my mother is predominantly of Celtic Decent so with my results there will be a lot of European were as my father is full Romany and i would think his Asian and East European results would double mine?
European Tests on Roma Gypsy's show them to be of West Asian and Eastern European Ancestry but given the 500 years we have lived in Briton we have mixed a lot as is clear in my results.
my family are a mix of very dark in color and White, i have a sister and cousins who look Asian and others who look English if that's the right description?
i think British Romany could best be described as Anglo Romany.
but all Gypsy's share a culture broken language history and blood lines that binds us together but as time go's on these links are bound to be tested.
my results are my own and not a marker for any other Romany or mixed Romany,
i just thought i would post my results to see if its of any help or not to the discussion Thank you.
Dodecad K7b Admixture Proportions
Population
South_Asian 4.87%
West_Asian 15.70%
Siberian 1.26%
African 0.09%
Southern 14.19%
Atlantic_Baltic 63.89%
East_Asian -
Single Population Sharing:
HarappaWorld Oracle
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 NE-Euro 43.56
2 Mediterranean 26.61
3 Baloch 12.21
4 Caucasian 9.72
5 S-Indian 3.8
6 SW-Asian 2.72
7 American 1.21
8 Siberian 0.11
9 Pygmy 0.06
Here is another result from Gedmatch with Baloch.
Incidentally i head heard many times Romany people were from
Balochistan they share a dialect of Punjabi,
# Population Percent
1 S-Indian 3.80
2 Baloch 12.21
3 Caucasian 9.72
4 NE-Euro 43.56
5 SE-Asian 0.00
6 Siberian 0.11
7 NE-Asian 0.00
8 Papuan 0.00
9 American 1.21
10 Beringian 0.00
11 Mediterranean 26.61
12 SW-Asian 2.72
13 San 0.00
14 E-African 0.00
15 Pygmy 0.06
16 W-African 0.00
on Gedmatch i get results saying Romany and Roma. we use Romany and Rumneychell but i posted this its saying Gypsy witch if fine by me but there is no such people by definition. i cant understand it who have they based these results on? the Sinti are mixed the french and the Roma? my last post interesting reading.
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 86.1% CEU (CEU) + 13.9% GYP (Gypsy) @ 7.79
2 86.4% GER (German) + 13.6% GYP (Gypsy) @ 8.45
3 86.1% GBRWAL (Welsh) + 13.9% GYP (Gypsy) @ 8.66
4 85.6% GBRKN (British from Kent) + 14.4% GYP (Gypsy) @ 9.46
5 84.8% GBRCORN (Cornish) + 15.2% GYP (Gypsy) @ 10.62
6 84.9% NRW (Norwegian) + 15.1% GYP (Gypsy) @ 10.89
7 80.2% GBRWAL (Welsh) + 19.8% NOG (Nogai) @ 11.3
8 50.2% CRS (Corsican) + 49.8% NRUS (North-Russian) @ 11.38
9 81.2% CEU (CEU) + 18.8% NOG (Nogai) @ 11.4
10 84.1% GBRARG (British from Argyle) + 15.9% GYP (Gypsy) @ 11.41
11 78% NRW (Norwegian) + 22% TRK (Turk) @ 11.44
12 54.1% PRT (Portuguese) + 45.9% NRUS (North-Russian) @ 11.45
13 53.5% PRT (Portuguese) + 46.5% MRD (Erzya) @ 11.46
14 82.4% CEU (CEU) + 17.6% TRK (Turk) @ 11.47
15 84.8% GBRORK (Orcadian) + 15.2% GYP (Gypsy) @ 11.47
16 78.9% BSN (Bosnian) + 21.1% BASQ (Basque) @ 11.48
17 58% BSN (Bosnian) + 42% FRN (French) @ 11.54
18 53.2% SPN (Spaniard) + 46.8% MRD (Erzya) @ 11.54
19 70.7% BSN (Bosnian) + 29.3% SPN (Spaniard) @ 11.56
20 87.7% SRB (Serbian) + 12.3% GYP (Gypsy) @ 11.6
Like · · Unfollow Post · 6 minutes ago
sorry this is my last post' just to show some Roma proportions, almost all the calculators have me around 20% Asia.
all the best hope this helps.
# Population Percent
1 South_and_West_European 43.65
2 North_and_East_European 34.18
3 Caucaus_Parsia 10.86
4 Indian 6.05
5 Middle_East 5.27
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Romania +50% Slovakian @ 3.747
2 50% Romania +50% Czech @ 3.766
3 50% Croatian_V +50% Romania @ 4.082
4 50% German-North +50% Romania @ 4.104
5 50% German +50% Romania @ 4.163
6 50% Romania +50% Slovenian @ 4.342
7 50% Romania +50% Ukrainian-West @ 4.701
8 50% Romania +50% Norwegian_V @ 4.735
9 50% Swedish_V +50% Romania @ 4.753
10 50% Romania +50% Sorb @ 4.770
33153 iterations.
Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% French +25% Latvian +25% Roma @ 2.178
2 50% Swedish +25% Serbian +25% Roma @ 2.243
3 50% French +25% Roma +25% Lithuanian @ 2.248
4 50% German-South +25% Lithuanian_V +25% Roma @ 2.273
5 50% German_V +25% Swedish +25% Roma @ 2.282
6 50% Austrian +25% Swedish +25% Roma @ 2.282
7 50% German-North +25% Roma +25% German-South @ 2.289
8 50% CEU_V +25% German-North +25% Roma @ 2.309
9 50% Swedish +25% Montenegrin +25% Roma @ 2.313
10 50% CEU_V +25% Roma +25% Czech @ 2.319
1826342 iterations.
Using 4 populations approximation:
1 Lithuanian_V + Roma + Provancal + Orcadian @ 1.856
2 Lithuanian_V + Roma + Provancal + British @ 1.880
3 Lithuanian_V + Italian_North + Roma + Orcadian @ 1.939
4 Roma + Belarusian + Provancal + Orcadian @ 2.038
5 Lithuanian_V + Italian_North + Roma + British @ 2.053
6 Lithuanian_V + French + Roma + German-South @ 2.063
7 French + Roma + Polish_V + CEU_V @ 2.063
8 French + Roma + Polish_V + German_V @ 2.071
9 Swedish + Roma + Croatian + Orcadian @ 2.074
10 Lithuanian_V + Welsh + Roma + Provancal @ 2.098
11 Swedish + Roma + Polish_V + Provancal @ 2.098
12 Swedish + Roma + CEU_V + Croatian @ 2.110
13 Swedish + Welsh + Roma + Croatian @ 2.113
14 Swedish + Lithuanian_V + Roma + Kosovar @ 2.117
15 Italian_North + Roma + Lithuanian + Orcadian @ 2.118
16 Roma + Provancal + Lithuanian + British @ 2.125
17 Roma + German-South + Polish_V + Orcadian @ 2.125
18 French + Roma + German-South + Lithuanian @ 2.137
19 Lithuanian_V + Italian_North + Welsh + Roma @ 2.139
20 Roma + Provancal + Lithuanian + Orcadian @ 2.140
I don't understand why I am having such a difficult time with this?
I don't know what I am doing wrong I think I followed all of the instructions and I keep getting this
Error: could not find function "standardize"
Hope you actually put the harappaworld par files into Dienekes' DIYdodecad folder. Secondly, you need to change directily in R to the working directory where all your DIY files reside. Only then can you run standardize command.
And don't forget to do step 5 (using source command to load standardize.r) in Zack's post before you try to standardize a data set.
Changing working directory and failing to run the source command to load standardize.r first, are two common errors.
What would you say I have in the of of Romani indicators? I've reached a wall here with what I can figure out is other than my known ancestry which to the best of my knowledge is Italian (both north and south) with one mystery great grand parent from across the Adriatic that settled in Calabria in the 1870's that no one seems to know anything about and the other side is primarily from Spain but with a great grandparent from Genova. And one great grandparent that spent his childhood and young adulthood in London in the 1840's and 1850's. Does anyone see anything here that is out of place of that or shows Romani? Maybe that is the mystery great grandmother? If you were to see this on paper without a background I just gave you what would you think this person is? Thank you in advance!!!
Population
S-Indian -
Baloch 6.56%
Caucasian 25.91%
NE-Euro 27.04%
SE-Asian -
Siberian 0.34%
NE-Asian -
Papuan 0.10%
American 0.77%
Beringian 0.36%
Mediterranean 28.83%
SW-Asian 9.65%
San -
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African 0.44%
# Population Percent
1 Mediterranean 28.83
2 NE-Euro 27.04
3 Caucasian 25.91
4 SW-Asian 9.65
5 Baloch 6.56
6 American 0.77
7 W-African 0.44
8 Beringian 0.36
9 Siberian 0.34
10 Papuan 0.1
Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 tuscan (1000genomes) 8.13
2 tuscan (hapmap) 8.13
3 tuscan (hgdp) 8.13
4 italian (hgdp) 10.19
5 ashkenazi (harappa) 11
6 romanian-a (behar) 13.38
7 bulgarian (yunusbayev) 13.38
8 ashkenazy-jew (behar) 15.01
9 romany (harappa) 16.76
10 spaniard (behar) 18.12
11 morocco-jew (behar) 18.87
12 sephardic-jew (behar) 20.55
13 spaniard (1000genomes) 21.76
14 puerto-rican (1000genomes) 22.38
15 french (hgdp) 23.21
16 slovenian (xing) 24.9
17 hungarian (behar) 24.9
18 n-european (xing) 26.94
19 utahn-white (1000genomes) 26.94
20 utahn-white (hapmap) 26.94
I don't see any Romany indicators.
Thanks Zack.
Is there anything in there that represents something not in my profile? I'm trying to make sense of a few mysteries in the family.
I'm supposed to be of one hundred percent pure English American with exception of perhaps one Scottish ancestor. At least that is what it looks like on the paper trail. These are my results:
Population
S-Indian 1.20%
Baloch 8.82%
Caucasian 6.37%
NE-Euro 47.15%
SE-Asian -
Siberian 0.51%
NE-Asian -
Papuan -
American -
Beringian 0.05%
Mediterranean 33.86%
SW-Asian 1.74%
San 0.15%
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African 0.14%
Using 1 population approximation:
1 n-european @ 6.459
2 utahn-white @ 6.459
3 utahn-white @ 6.459
4 french @ 10.480
5 british @ 10.742
6 orcadian @ 10.742
7 belorussian @ 19.329
8 ukranian @ 19.329
9 hungarian @ 19.905
10 slovenian @ 19.905
372 iterations.
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% british +50% french @ 3.963
2 50% french +50% orcadian @ 3.963
3 50% french +50% n-european @ 5.077
4 50% french +50% utahn-white @ 5.077
5 50% french +50% utahn-white @ 5.077
6 50% lithuanian +50% spaniard @ 5.126
7 50% basque +50% lithuanian @ 5.783
8 50% lithuanian +50% spain-basc @ 5.783
9 50% belorussian +50% spaniard @ 6.068
10 50% spaniard +50% ukranian @ 6.068
69378 iterations.
Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% lithuanian +25% basque +25% spaniard @ 1.839
2 50% lithuanian +25% spain-basc +25% spaniard @ 1.839
3 50% british +25% italian +25% n-european @ 2.277
4 50% british +25% italian +25% utahn-white @ 2.277
5 50% british +25% italian +25% utahn-white @ 2.277
6 50% orcadian +25% italian +25% n-european @ 2.277
7 50% orcadian +25% italian +25% utahn-white @ 2.277
8 50% orcadian +25% italian +25% utahn-white @ 2.277
9 50% lithuanian +25% basque +25% spaniard @ 2.406
10 50% lithuanian +25% spain-basc +25% spaniard @ 2.406
1981223 iterations.
Using 4 populations approximation:
1 basque + lithuanian + lithuanian + spaniard @ 1.839
2 lithuanian + lithuanian + spain-basc + spaniard @ 1.839
3 british + french + lithuanian + spaniard @ 1.969
4 french + lithuanian + orcadian + spaniard @ 1.969
5 british + british + italian + n-european @ 2.277
6 british + british + italian + utahn-white @ 2.277
7 british + british + italian + utahn-white @ 2.277
8 british + italian + n-european + orcadian @ 2.277
9 british + italian + orcadian + utahn-white @ 2.277
10 british + italian + orcadian + utahn-white @ 2.277
11 italian + n-european + orcadian + orcadian @ 2.277
12 italian + orcadian + orcadian + utahn-white @ 2.277
13 italian + orcadian + orcadian + utahn-white @ 2.277
14 british + french + lithuanian + spaniard @ 2.401
15 french + lithuanian + orcadian + spaniard @ 2.401
16 basque + lithuanian + lithuanian + spaniard @ 2.406
17 lithuanian + lithuanian + spain-basc + spaniard @ 2.406
18 british + british + hungarian + spaniard @ 2.445
19 british + british + slovenian + spaniard @ 2.445
20 british + hungarian + orcadian + spaniard @ 2.445
Pct. Calc. Option 2
1 british 40.90%
2 n-european 37.99%
3 tunisia 6.57%
4 basque 6.14%
5 romanian-b 5.77%
6 russian 1.10%
7 turk-aydin 1.10%
8 romany 0.21%
9 french 0.21%
10 morocco-n 0.00%
What do you guys think?
Yes, I too am wondering if my results mirrors my parents makeup of a North and South Italian with south eastern european great grandparent and a Spaniard with Italian great grandparent
why do I get the following error:
standardize('nik_monroe.txt','23andme')
Error in is.data.frame(x) : object 'X' not found
Because your file "nik_monroe.txt" is not in the current working directory.
zack:
thanks for replying. checked and the file exists in current working dir.
thanks
nik
Try:
a<-read.table("nik_monroe.txt") dim(a) What do you get?
Zack, how do I run things on Mac? Your instructions are for Windows and Linux operating systems, correct? How do I get the program to run on Mac? On a Mac, Step 8 (obviously) fails. Thanks.
Mac is not supported. But you might be able to run the Windows executable using Wine.
Can someone please help me with the DIY. I have tried so many times. I guess I am terrible with computers 🙁
What issues are you running into?
Every issue . I keep getting could not function standardize. 🙁
It's not working for me. Uuuggghhhh....
What does utahn-white mean?
Utah residents with Western and Northern European ancestry.
Ok thanks! Why are these folks given their own "cluster" or distinction as opposed to other groups in N. America?
This group was included in HapMap.
Hello,
I've uploaded my maternal DNA into your calculator and got the following results. I became interested in my DNA as there is a mystery about my grandmother and where here ancestors may be from. My haplogroup is U1b. Any feedback anyone might give me would be very appreciated.
Thank you. Kristine
HarappaWorld Oracle results:
23 April 2013 - Oracle reference population percentages revised.
Kit M170244
Admix Results (sorted):
# Population Percent
1 NE-Euro 47.18
2 Mediterranean 28.65
3 Caucasian 10.23
4 Baloch 9.47
5 SW-Asian 2.74
6 Siberian 0.59
7 E-African 0.34
8 Beringian 0.31
9 S-Indian 0.24
10 American 0.22
11 San 0.02
Single Population Sharing:
# Population (source) Distance
1 n-european (xing) 6.32
2 hungarian (behar) 6.34
3 utahn-white (1000genomes) 6.9
4 utahn-white (hapmap) 7.37
5 slovenian (xing) 8.03
6 french (hgdp) 8.64
7 british (1000genomes) 8.79
8 orcadian (hgdp) 10.91
9 ukranian (yunusbayev) 15.11
10 romanian-a (behar) 18.14
11 belorussian (behar) 20.01
12 spaniard (behar) 20.37
13 bulgarian (yunusbayev) 20.49
14 mordovian (yunusbayev) 20.69
15 spaniard (1000genomes) 21.44
16 italian (hgdp) 21.64
17 russian (behar) 21.88
18 russian (hgdp) 23.31
19 lithuanian (behar) 26.21
20 chuvash (behar) 26.78
Mixed Mode Population Sharing:
# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 89.8% utahn-white (hapmap) + 10.2% druze (hgdp) @ 0.65
2 89.2% utahn-white (hapmap) + 10.8% lebanese-druze (haber) @ 0.91
3 89.2% utahn-white (hapmap) + 10.8% lebanese-christian (haber) @ 0.94
4 88.7% utahn-white (hapmap) + 11.3% lebanese-muslim (haber) @ 1.08
5 88% utahn-white (hapmap) + 12% cypriot (behar) @ 1.08
6 90.8% n-european (xing) + 9.2% iraq-jew (behar) @ 1.11
7 90.6% n-european (xing) + 9.4% lebanese-druze (haber) @ 1.12
8 90.6% n-european (xing) + 9.4% lebanese-christian (haber) @ 1.12
9 90.8% n-european (xing) + 9.2% assyrian (harappa) @ 1.12
10 62.5% orcadian (hgdp) + 37.5% romanian-a (behar) @ 1.14
11 89.6% n-european (xing) + 10.4% cypriot (behar) @ 1.15
12 90.7% n-european (xing) + 9.3% georgia-jew (behar) @ 1.15
13 90.9% n-european (xing) + 9.1% iranian-jew (behar) @ 1.15
14 90.2% n-european (xing) + 9.8% lebanese-muslim (haber) @ 1.16
15 90.8% n-european (xing) + 9.2% azerbaijan-jew (behar) @ 1.16
16 90.8% n-european (xing) + 9.2% iraqi-mandaean (harappa) @ 1.21
17 89.3% utahn-white (hapmap) + 10.7% georgia-jew (behar) @ 1.21
18 65.4% orcadian (hgdp) + 34.6% bulgarian (yunusbayev) @ 1.21
19 89.8% n-european (xing) + 10.2% lebanese (behar) @ 1.23
20 85.9% n-european (xing) + 14.1% ashkenazy-jew (behar) @ 1.25
Here are my results:
5.88% S-Indian
19.69% Baloch
16.94% Caucasian
16.26% NE-Euro
0.02% SE-Asian
12.04% Siberian
21.22% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
1.61% American
2.63% Beringian
2.64% Mediterranean
0.80% SW-Asian
0.27% San
0.00% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% W-African
what is your ethnicity?
Here is my DODECAD k=12b:
19.90% Gedrosia
13.27% Siberian
0.05% Northwest_African
0.47% Southeast_Asian
3.06% Atlantic_Med
18.35% North_European
5.67% South_Asian
0.23% East_African
1.10% Southwest_Asian
23.06% East_Asian
14.84% Caucasus
0.00% Sub_Saharan
And this is my v3:
10.07% East_European
12.59% West_European
7.83% Mediterranean
0.08% Neo_African
19.69% West_Asian
11.25% South_Asian
17.80% Northeast_Asian
18.66% Southeast_Asian
0.00% East_African
1.89% Southwest_Asian
0.02% Northwest_African
0.12% Palaeo_African
Guess my ethnicity!
Guess. :p
50% european (on your father's side) 50% chinese or mongoloid on your mother's side.
No, I am pure Central Asian. 🙂
So I will probably submit my results to Harrapa. I am eligible apparently, because my whole family--is from same country. 🙂
which country would that be? kazakhstan?
No, I am Tajik. Too South Asian to be Kazakh :p
You are too Mongoloid-admixed for a Tajik. Are you from Xinjiang?
ViktorL1 has made his ancestry clear in other venues, his family originates from Tajikistan.
I sent my data to Harrapa project. Hope it helps.
What is your Harappa ID in the spreadsheet, HRP???
ViktorL1 has made his ancestry clear in other venues, his family originates from Tajikistan.
From which part of Tajikistan is he?
ViktorL1 is from the north of the country.
Did he make clear his province and/or district of origin?
Konibodom, in the Leninabad (Sughd) province.
Is any further information available for him, like jamoat, kishlak, etc.?
I am afraid ViktorL1 didn't mention this. Perhaps he could chime in?
Karakchikum which is in Lohuti jamoat.
Onur, where are you from? What is your ethnicity?
I'm actually from Moscow oblast 😛
Onur, where are you from? What is your ethnicity?
First, I want to thank you and HRP0282 for sharing your information. It seems you are from a region of Tajikistan where Tajiks and Uzbeks have been living together for centuries. That may explain your high (for a Tajik) Mongoloid component results. BTW, is your Harappa ID available as of now?
As for my ethnicity, I am a Turk from Turkey. My paternal side is Anatolian Turks from the interior part of Anatolia. My maternal side is Balkan Turkish immigrants from Bulgaria and Greece. So I am 50% Anatolian Turk, 50% Balkan Turk.
FYI, I have not had my DNA tested yet.
I'm actually from Moscow oblast 😛
Yeah, me from LA!
ok so i have read through all the instructions and notes and cant figure out how to get standardize.r to run on my windows 8 computer. i have tried all the suggested command prompts even tried a few i pasted together myself from online stuff. but to be honest our of my element. i have every thing downloaded and unzipped but i need a step by step guide for what to do now since my computer says i cant open standardize.r when i type it into the run window i can get the whole DIYDodecadWin harappaworld.par thing to respond well it pops up a window and then shuts it to fast for me to read...ugh help please!
Did you change directory first in R to where standardize.R is located?? Only then you can load and run it.
Viktor, are you HRP0375 (Tajik individual from Tajikistan)? His results are extremely similar to yours.
Yes, that is me. I am ViktorL1.
Tajik, thanks for the info.
Thank you for creating the HarappaWorld model. I ran my results and this is what I got back. Can you tell me what that means to me? Thank you.
Population
S-Indian 0.66%
Baloch 3.04%
Caucasian -
NE-Euro 11.89%
SE-Asian 0.63%
Siberian 0.71%
NE-Asian -
Papuan 0.19%
American 0.68%
Beringian -
Mediterranean 7.69%
SW-Asian -
San 0.58%
E-African 3.29%
Pygmy 3.98%
W-African 66.65%
Fascinating thanks. My bio maternal line is predominantly English, Scottish, & Irish with a little French & Dutch a ways back. I'm an adoptee. My bio father is an adoptee. I know nothing about this line. Records stated he was of Dutch ancestry. From GEDmatch all admixture tools tell me that I am your tool tells me that I am 75-90% NW European & Mediterranean, Caucasian & Baloch figure in but not significantly. But I'm a bit shocked that your tool gives me 22.5% SW Asian on chromosome 21. From my DNA testing, every match that I've been looking at turns out to be maternal, even those I figure didn't match the maternal tree I've drawn. I'm trying to figure out where a paternal line comes in, which obviously is fairly close in nationalities and ethnicities to maternal, but GEDmatch engine states they were not related. It's a fun puzzle. I'm curious about the ancestors on Chromosome 21. Regards.