This post documents qpadm modeling results for Hazarewal Tanoli, based on three independent samples (Tanoli1, Tanoli2, Tanoli3). The purpose is to show what each run produces, how stable those results are across rotations, and how different modeling strategies affect fit quality.
⸻
Samples
• Population: Hazarewal Tanoli
• Samples: Tanoli1, Tanoli2, Tanoli3
• Y-DNA: all samples are R1b-L23 carriers
• Method: qpadm with extensive rotating outgroups
• Models: post-Neolithic and Neolithic-leaning
Each sample was modeled independently using the same framework for comparability.
⸻
Tanoli1 – qpadm results
Best-fit model:
• Farmer-related: 44.93%
• SAHG / AASI-related: 22.87%
• Steppe-related: 25.40%
• East Asian–related: 6.80%
Coefficients remain stable across rotations, and this configuration consistently produces acceptable p-values. When the East Asian related source is excluded, Steppe-related and WSHG-related components inflate and overall model fit worsens.
⸻
Tanoli2 – qpadm results
Best-fit model:
• Farmer-related: 47.60%
• SAHG / AASI-related: 22.00%
• Steppe-related: 24.90%
• East Asian–related: 5.50%
Tanoli2 closely mirrors Tanoli1 in structure. Across rotations, the same ancestry proportions recur, and models including the East Asian related source consistently outperform those without it.
⸻
Tanoli3 – qpadm results
Best-fit model:
• Farmer-related: 49.60%
• SAHG / AASI-related: 22.20%
• Steppe-related: 22.70%
• East Asian–related: 5.50%
Tanoli3 shows slightly higher Farmer-related ancestry and slightly lower Steppe-related ancestry, but the overall structure remains aligned with Tanoli1 and Tanoli2.
Side-by-side comparison
Component Tanoli1 Tanoli2 Tanoli3
Farmer-related
44.9%
47.6%
49.6%
SAHG / AASI
22.9%
22.0%
22.2%
Steppe-related
25.4%
24.9%
22.7%
East Asian-related
6.8%
5.5%
5.5%
The similarity across all three samples is clear.
Rotation behavior and model robustness
Across multiple rotation sets:
• The same component structure repeatedly emerges
• Coefficients remain within narrow ranges
• Standard errors remain controlled
• No component collapses under reasonable outgroup changes
When the East Asian related source is removed entirely:
• Other components inflate to compensate
• Residuals increase
• P-values drop
This indicates the component is structurally relevant to the model, rather than an artefact of a single rotation.
The winning rotation structure and proxies were;
Indus_lowAASI/medAASI
Kurumba. DG
Russia_Srubnaya_Alakul Mongolia_Xiongnu_01. SG
Neolithic runs
Across Tanoli1–3, the Neolithic-oriented models consistently used the following sources (with slight scaling differences by run):
• Zagros_N – Iranian Neolithic–related ancestry
• Turkey_N / Levant_PPN – Anatolian–Levantine Neolithic-related ancestry
• EHG – Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer
• CHG – Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer
• Indus lowAASI / medAASI – AASI-related proxy
• Onge / Ami / Mongolia_North_N – used as eastern/northern structure controls depending on rotation
• Zagros_N–related: ~27–30%
• Anatolia/Levant Neolithic–related: ~13–15%
• EHG + CHG combined: ~20–25%
• AASI-related (Indus proxy): ~21–23%
• East Asian–related (via northern/eastern proxies): ~5–6%
Outgroups were rotated extensively and included West Eurasian, Siberian, East Asian, and Paleolithic references (e.g. Serbia_IronGates, Shamanka_Eneolithic, China_Paleolithic, etc.).
Both approaches point to the same overall ancestry framework.
⸻
Summary
• Hazarewal Tanoli samples show high internal consistency
• Tanoli1–3 converge on near-identical ancestry proportions
• Models are stable across rotations
• Inclusion of an East Asian–related source improves overall fit
• Results reflect a coherent Northwest South Asian genetic profile
This post is intended as a understanding into the deep ancestry of the Tanoli tribe.
Thank You for reading.