In lieu of a prologue, Herodotus and Arrian on the two groups inhabiting ancient India:
The Indians wore cotton dresses, and carried bows of cane, and arrows also of cane with iron at the point. Such was the equipment of the Indians, and they marched under the command of Pharnazathres the son of Artabates. [...] The eastern Ethiopians- for two nations of this name served in the army- were marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.
The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
The paper establishes a number of different facts, that have been hinted at in previous autosomal studies, and studies based on Y chromosomes and mtDNA:
- Modern Indians are derived from two ancestral populations. The first one, termed Ancestral North Indians (ANI) were Caucasoids, the other, Ancestral South Indians (ASI) were distinct from both Caucasoids and Mongoloids in a Eurasian context.
- The ASI no longer exist in non-admixed form, but in various degrees of admixtures with ANI; the closest living population to the ASI are the Andaman Islanders.
- Upper castes are higher in ANI ancestry than middle and lower castes. ANI percentages of ancestry are correlated with Western Eurasian Y chromosomes (P=0.04) and mtDNA (P=0.08).
- Indo-European speakers are higher in ANI ancestry than Dravidian speakers.
This paper does seem to imply that Indians are a mixture of Western Eurasians and indigenous Indians. However,
we should not conclude that they are a simple 2-way mix of invading Indo-Aryans and indigenous Dravidians: for example, the ANI component could be a palimpsest of different Caucasoid populations who came to the subcontinent over time. For example, we do know that
South Americans are composed of Amerindians, Caucasoids, and Negroids in different proportions of admixture, but this does not mean that there was a simple mix between the three, but rather
a continuous process of migration that brought (and continues to bring) people into the New World. It remains to be seen which groups participated in the diffusion of the ANI component in India.
However, the fact that ANI is correlated with caste status and language does suggest that the Indo-Aryan migration who brought Indo-European languages to India has not been totally wiped out genetically. Indo-European populations have maintained a higher degree of ancestry from the ANI component, and upper caste Indo-Europeans have maintained an even higher degree of such ancestry.
The beauty of this study is that
it does not consider either a simple mixture model (like STRUCTURE does) in which populations are derived from 2 or more ancestral ones,
or a simple branching model, in which populations are derived tree-like from a common root with no admixture between them. Rather, they consider both
tree-like divergence of populations followed by admixture. The following figure from the paper illustrates this:

We can see that (i) the relationship between Andaman Islanders and ASI is not particularly close, although they do form a clade in relation to the other populations, (ii) the relationship between CEU and ANI is fairly close (in this context). The authors further determine (in the supplement) that
CEU and ANI do form a clade separate from the non-IE speaking Adygei from the Caucasus.
What is now needed is to calculate the genetic distances between ANI and a wide assortment of Western Eurasian populations. Indeed, as these populations have undergone their own processes of admixture (e.g., Near Eastern populations with Arabs, Turks with Central Asians, Russians with Finns, Central Asian Iranians with Turks and Mongols, and so on), we cannot generally infer that the source population(s) of the ANI component are extant in non-admixed form. Nonetheless, the discovery of a strong relationship of ANI with a West Eurasian population may help us pinpoint the geographical origin of ANI outside India.
The paper does demolish some theories that have been popular in some circles:
There is no evidence of caste as simply social division of labor. This thesis is inconsistent with differential ANI admixture (and distance from Western Eurasians) across the caste hierarchy.
There is no evidence that Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers differ only in language. It is now clear that they are different from each other genetically as well, and this difference is not an "internal affair" of India, but is related to populations outside it. Indo-Aryan speakers differ precisely in having a larger ANI component.
There is no evidence that Indo-European languages originated in India. Let us consider what this would entail:
- Suppose postulated ancient Indian PIE speakers had a similar genetic makeup as modern Indians (i.e., a mix of ANI and ASI). Then, the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia cannot be explained.
- If ancient Indian PIE speakers had a purely ANI makeup, then the absence of the ASI component outside South Asia -as in (1)- can be explained. However, this would entail that sharply differentiated populations (ANI and ASI) co-existed in India without mixing for thousands of years; ANI-like PIEs spread from India with their languages; ANI and ASI admixed afterwards. To say that this scenario is not parsimonious would be charitable.
- The only way in which PIE languages may have originated in India would be if they spread without the spread of people. However, before the advent of writing and modern means of transportation and communication, the only way to spread languages was by migration of people.
From a related
Nature story:
The researchers also found that Indian populations were much more highly subdivided than European populations. But whereas European ancestry is mostly carved up by geography, Indian segregation was driven largely by caste. "There are populations that have lived in the same town and same village for thousands of years without exchanging genes," says Reich.
The paper has plentiful (and free) supplementary
information.
Nature 461, 489-494 doi:10.1038/nature08365
Reconstructing Indian population historyDavid Reich et al.
AbstractIndia has been underrepresented in genome-wide surveys of human variation.
We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for
two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One,
the 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other,
the 'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other. By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that
ANI ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers. Groups with only ASI ancestry may no longer exist in mainland India. However, the indigenous Andaman Islanders are unique in being ASI-related groups without ANI ancestry. Allele frequency differences between groups in India are larger than in Europe, reflecting strong founder effects whose signatures have been maintained for thousands of years owing to endogamy. We therefore predict that there will be an excess of recessive diseases in India, which should be possible to screen and map genetically.
Link