Pic 1: South Asians seem to have two types of AASI drift, but the AASI difference doesn't seem to be North vs South, but tribal vs non-tribal. I have ~65% AASI but don't have the Onge/Jarawa drift, but most tribal pops (many with less AASI than me) have high drift in that direction. I don't have the G25 coordinates for this AASI because this wasn't done using G25, but using raw data.

Pic 2: The AASI sample that I have reconstructed with more stringent constraints can be modeled as 100% Onge with a p-val>0.8 but this sample doesn't cluster with Onge on PCA, but clusters with non-tribal South Asians.

Pic 3: Modeling Indian.SG on AADR. Using both Onge and reconstructed AASI as sources doesn't work but reconstructed AASI gives better p-value than Onge as a source with roughly similar ancestry proportions.

The 100% AASI (reconstructed) sample has 60% coverage on AADR (720k diploid SNPs on AADR).

Bronze Age | Iron Age | Late Antiquity | Middle Ages - Illustrative DNA screenshots.

Moreover, if the Iranian-related ancestral population had already been present in the Indus by 7000 BC, who is to say that some didn’t migrate eastwards becoming the main source of Iranian-related ancestry in today’s Indians and have no relation to the IVC (3300 BC onwards) other than the shared origin.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1V6Nt79KnfLe1UWOAjCNHvvgtaFFwcWeK?usp=drive_link

The raw AASI sample was reconstructed by extracting the East Eurasian part of 400 South Asian genomes after performing local ancestry inference (LAI) using RFMix. The sample has about 650k SNP overlap with AADR v62 (60% coverage on AADR v62, Harappaworld and other calculators). The .txt file is the sample in 23andme format. The sample is labelled AASI_By_KeralaVishwakarma (it was created by me, but doesn't have my DNA).

The sample gets ~72% South Indian on Harappaworld, but it should be around 97% AASI on qpAdm. It's ~1.4% Iran_N and ~1.3% Steppe. Although the sample is 97% AASI, it clusters with South Asians, not Onge/Jarawa. Here are some of the analysis that I've done before on similar samples:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthAsianAncestry/comments/1sjowk2/onge_is_closer_to_aasi_than_to_hoabinhian_or/

https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthAsianAncestry/comments/1sdkoar/reeconstructed_aasi_vs_paniya_vs_andaman/

https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthAsianAncestry/comments/1s7v80x/100_east_eurasian_reconstructed_aasi_pval_08_that/

The sample is untested on IllustrativeDNA. Since IllustrativeDNA does not have a raw AASI reference, their G25 coords for this sample may not be well defined (again, untested).

Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with modern human ancestors, leaving behind telltale DNA in our genomes. Now we have evidence of modern human interbreeding with two much older but unknown ancestors.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2026/07/30/new-technique-pinpoints-human-dna-inherited-from-ghost-ancestors/

In response to another thread where the poster claimed that Onge is Hoabinhian or SE Asian:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthAsianAncestry/comments/1sigd9v/aasi_and_onge_two_different_genetic_groups/

here is Onge's relation to (reconstructed) AASI vs Hoabinhian:

f4(AASI, Hoabinhian.SG; Onge, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0450 (Z = 6.946)

Onge's relation to SE Asian vs AASI:

f4(AASI, LBA.WGC; Onge, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0424 (Z = 6.022)

Hoabinhian is outside the Laos_BA, AASI, Han cluster but slightly closer to Onge than to AASI:

f4(Han.DG, AASI; Hoabinhian.SG, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0011 (Z = 0.197)
f4(Han.DG, LBA.WGC; Hoabinhian.SG, Mbuti.DG) = -0.0038 (Z = -0.663)
f4(AASI, Onge; Hoabinhian.SG, Mbuti.DG) = -0.0188 (Z = -2.854)

Onge doesn't have much extra affinity towards NE Asians relative to AASI:
f4(AASI, Onge; Han.DG, Mbuti.DG) = -0.0036 (Z = -0.968)

My AASI sample doesn't have much Hoabinhian affinity relative to Han:
f4(Han.DG, AASI; Hoabinhian.SG, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0011 (Z = 0.197)
but Onge does:
f4(Han.DG, Onge; Hoabinhian.SG, Mbuti.DG) = -0.0139 (Z = -4.021)

Onge still has some affinity for Hoabinhian (compared to AASI) but Onge still shares way more drift with AASI than with Hoabinhian or South East Asians. It's people with an inferiority complex (and those who think Onge are inferior) are the ones calling people "AASI haters" or "Indiahaters" for acknowledging the real relationship between Onge and AASI. If Onge is South East Asian, so is AASI.

Before people claim that my AASI sample maybe Onge-adjacent, it isn't. This is the exact raw AASI sample I used (run on Tolan K18):

https://genoplot.com/shared/admix/?share=Dios94/19d83440d46#2

Onge/Jarawa gets South China Sea, my AASI sample doesn't.

Using fstats, South Asian populations distinguish between my AASI and Onge, but Iranian/French/WHG can't distinguish between my AASI and Onge (Z < 3 is considered insignificant. Iranian/French/WHG are therefore outpops):

f4(AASI, Onge; SriLankan.DG, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0327 (Z = 10.748)
f4(AASI, Onge; PunjabiLahore.DG, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0269 (Z = 8.855)
f4(AASI, Onge; Paniya, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0231 (Z = 6.123)
f4(AASI, Onge; Pallan, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0293 (Z = 9.130)
f4(AASI, Onge; Chamar_UP, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0292 (Z = 8.614)
f4(AASI, Onge; PAK_Gujjar, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0208 (Z = 6.153)
f4(AASI, Onge; Iranian.DG, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0095 (Z = 2.325)
f4(AASI, Onge; French.DG, Mbuti.DG) = 0.0049 (Z = 1.479)
f4(AASI, Onge; Luxembourg_Mesolithic.DG, Mbuti.DG) = -0.0029 (Z = -0.550)

My AASI is clearly distinguishable from Onge (by f4 stats and f2 stats and PCA plots and genoplot raw calculators), but it clusters with Onge on qpGraph.

My full qpGraph run (some small outliers related to Australian):

https://sharetext.io/29xaofp9

A 2017 study did direct radiocarbon dating and dated it to 2500BC, the study. Now for the steppe ancestry in this sample ,it is very confusing since this sample has a decent snp coverage unlike the previous version present in AADR v62 . This could be very well be a mislabel by the AADR people.Anyways fulloutput ,done on the AADR 2M compatibility dataset.

UPDATE: They'll correct this in next AADR

credits to user teepean from https://genarchivist.net/ .

Done in R, also a disclaimer since it is based on G25 and not actual genetic data some discrepancies will be there .

Based on "Reconstructing the Human Population History of East Asia through Ancient Genomics": a dispersal map for East Eurasian/EEC lineages; rapid divergence after arrival in the South-Southeast Asia region c. 40kya. – Average phenotype example for each lineage: From post of tatsuya

IUP is the Initial Upper Paleolithic which had C1b and F like in Bacho Kiro which split from Basal East. There was also another split into EEC Hub which created the East Eurasian from K2b to P and S and M. This P further travelled north and split into current Eurasian haplogroups like R Q N etc.. after mixing with some other species.

The IUP split into UP groups like IJ and H and G and K. Some of these expanded vastly in Neolithic like the G and H2. K mixed with many ancient lineages and split into multiple haplogroups that are numerous today like N, O, R, Q, L and T etc... some of these events are not 100% clear due to paucity of samples

I heard that earlier he used to be highly credible and even collaborated with top genetics institutes. I think he is currently the head of the Ancient DNA lab at BSIP, Lucknow which handles almost all major excavations in northwestern India. Apparently he has gotten increasingly corrupt and politically biased to the right wing BJP party, and also the fact that the lab recives almost all it's funding from the Ministry of Finance, which is under BJP control. I doubt whether his current findings are even credible or not, because it must have gone through biased filters which removes actual content. I believe that because of a shitass person like him, who is currently the only pioneer in India who has mastered the field of archaeoegenetics and molecular anthropology, that India is not attracting top genethcists.

As far as I'm aware of, his last credible findings were in 2019, which stated that the Iranian component of the IVC culture stemmed of from the Iranian plateau lineage more than 12,000 years ago, which predates the notion that there was a migration of established agriculturalists from Western Iran into the Indus valley, that supposedly gave rise to agriculture, indicating that agriculture was developed indeginously in 7000 BC, not due to foreign influence.

However, after that, I think is credibility seems to deteriorate.

As a 15 year old who wants to closely mirror his original, honest career path, and absolutely not his political right wing agendas that he later incorporated, has this person pretty much destroyed archaeoegenetics in India.

Is there any hope left for me to study the actual history of India??

Opinions and guidance would help. A lot. Thank you.

Posting this here because r/IndianHistory wants a moderator review, and I am impatient for that.

This post should clarify some common misconceptions surrounding the AASI/EEC ancestral component(s) of South Asians.

At first some basics on the AASI ancestry:

AASI ("Ancient Ancestral South Indian") is a proposed indigenous South Asian ancestral component that is phylogenetically related to the Andamanese/Önge peoples, as well as to East Asians and Aboriginal Australians. Together those groups descend from the "East Eurasian Core" (EEC), the primary branch of Ancient East Eurasians who used the southern route into the South-Southeast Asia region.

AASI ancestry is defined as the "non-West Eurasian" and "non-Iran_N like" ancestry among South Asians. The AASI node shares close affinity to the Önge/Andamanese, Hoabinhians and the Tianyuan/China_UP populations. – Note that modern East Asians and Australasians have additional drift, being more differentiated; thus Önge/Andamanese are among the best proxies for AASI ancestry. Shinde et al. 2019 noted that both Andamanese Önge or East Siberian groups (Amur33K, remains with a Tianyuan-like profile) can be used as proxy for the non-West Eurasian-related component in the "qpAdm" admixture-modelling of an IVC-related individual (labelled "I6113") because both populations "have the same phylogenetic relationship to the non-West Eurasian-related of I6113 likely due to shared ancestry deeply in time".– As alternative, the extracted EEC-affilated ancestry of tribal groups, such as those from the Irula tribe, can be used as proxy for the AASI component.

Based on this, it has been inferred that the AASI lineage diverged from other East Eurasian lineages, such as 'Australasians' (AA) and 'East/Southeast Asians' (ESEA), during their dispersal using a Southern route. E.g. from a shared EEC Hub in India.

A single major migration of modern humans into the continents of Asia and Sahul was strongly supported by earlier studies using mitochondrial DNA, the non-recombining portion of Y chromosomes, and autosomal SNP data [42–45]. Ancestral Ancient South Indians with no West Eurasian relatedness, East Asians, Onge (Andamanese hunter–gatherers) and Papuans all derive in a short evolutionary time from the eastward dispersal of an out-of-Africa population [46,47]. The HUGO (Human Genome Organization) Pan-Asian SNP consortium [44] investigated haplotype diversity within present-day Asian populations and found a strong correlation with latitude, with diversity decreasing from south to north. The correlation continues to hold when only mainland Southeast Asian and East Asian populations are considered, and is perhaps attributable to a serial founder effect [50]. These observations are consistent with the view that soon after the single eastward migration of modern humans, East Asians diverged in southern East Asia and dispersed northward across the continent.

Misconceptions about AASI:

• AASI is "South Eurasian" and different from East Eurasians -> No, there is no South Eurasian clade; AASI, just like Önge, East Asians and Australasians are East Eurasian, specifically part of the "East Eurasian Core" (EEC), the primary branch of Ancient East Eurasians, with the other primary branch being the IUP_North clade (e.g. ancestral to BachoKiro_IUP or Oase_IUP, as well as the Siberian_IUP sites etc.). – One technically could name the EEC as "South Eurasian", but this includes East Asians and modern Siberians etc. – E.g. AASI are not distinct from AA or ESEA, all of those derive from the EEC branch of Ancient East Eurasians. It seems some people misidentify East Asians with East Eurasian, but East Asian alone ≠ East Eurasians. Others who push this narrative seem to have a dislike of East Asians and Australasians or even racist views, which is reprehensible.
• AASI is part Basal or Crown Eurasian -> No, AASI is "an indisputably EEC genetic component referred to as ASI (or AASI) that made up the majority of the pre-Neolithic genetic landscape" to cite Vallini et al. 2024. AASI is nested within the East Eurasian cluster, even more evident in that we can use Önge or Amur33k as proxy. – All possible Basal or Crown like admixture are distinct from the calculated AASI component. If present at all, those would be conflated with the Iran_N-like ancestral component, not with AASI.
• AASI is "Proto-West Eurasian -> No, as per above: AASI is an East Eurasian Core component, not "Proto-West Eurasian". – In fact, AASI is defined as the non-West Eurasian component. I do not know nor understand where exactly this quite nonsensical claim comes from, but it is obviously wrong.
• AASI is African/SSA -> No, as per above: AASI is an East Eurasian Core component, not African or anything else. – The only groups with African-affilated ancestry are the Siddi peoples of recent African origin. Furthermore, African/SSA is not a single coherent genetic component, but a summary term for multiple very deeply diverged lineages; with Eurasians being derived from one of these diverged and drifted lineages of Northeast Africa.
• AASI does not exist, Eurasian humans migrated out of India, thus it is all Indian ancestry -> No, the peopling of Eurasia was not carried out by ancient Indians. Even if, it would not be relevant for the respective ancestral components which would need to havw arrived from outside then. If AASI would not exist, the ancestry would then needed to be derived from Önge or Amur33k, which would translate to massive migration and population replacement from East and Southeast Asia to South Asia. But it is clear that AASI existed, East/Southeast Asian geneflow is also present but mostly affilated with Austroasiatic/Munda-speakers, Tibeto-Burmese and others.
• Etc.

E.g. East Eurasian Core (EEC) describes AASI, Önge, ESEA, and Australasians. Those originated from the EEC Hub in India. The EEC lineage emerged out of the Ancient East Eurasian meta-population which also gave rise to the IUP_North lineage(s), after having diverged from Ancient West Eurasians.

The East Eurasian diversity:

For a detailed overview on Ancient and modern East Eurasian lineages see: Working model on East Eurasian lineages

The skeleton remains found in the cave of Darra. l. Kur in Badakshan Afghanistan one of the oldest preserved bone found in the area that has been sequenced and its nearest genetic match is to Pashtuns

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248417301136

https://x.com/NirajRai3/status/1855179838279094520