search this blog

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Indian genetic history in three simple graphs


Enjoy, but please, those of you still sore about the passing of the Out of India, Out of Armenia, Out of Your Hat, or indeed, Out of Your Ass Indo-European hypotheses, try not to fill up the comments with the usual inane drivel. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.





225 comments:

1 – 200 of 225   Newer›   Newest»
Rob said...

What happens if you use AG or MA-1 instead of Andronovo etc ?

Davidski said...

Good question. I can put in MA1 for Andronovo and this is what happens.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQRTI5QU1NY05kV2M/view?usp=sharing

Interesting outcome. No idea what it means though.

Rob said...

Hhm not sure either I'm no expert with TreeMix
But looks like (even prior to More recent admixtures) there were multiple events affecting south Central Asia
Eg a central Asian edge to Mal'ta- like groups. But the Srubnaya-> North Indians is still there (?)

Davidski said...

The Andronovo/Srubnaya related edge to high caste northern Indians is easy to reproduce in a variety of topologies. It has to be real, and must be closely linked to the initial spread of Z93 in South Asia.

Rob said...

Yes the question mark wasn't directed at the edge itself, but my interpretation of the graph as a whole

Davidski said...

I don't know how to interpret the MA1 result. It might not be practical to run samples separated by as much as 24K years with this method.

DMXX said...

The 45% migration edge between the Lezgin and the steppe samples is easily explained as an artifact of the methodology (edges limited to two).

The various steppe-derived populations that had a presence in northern India (Kushans, Indo-Parthians, Indo-Scythians, Hephthalites to a lesser degree, even the composers of the Rg Veda) had to pass through an intermediary region (South-Central Asia). Based on multiple forms of genetic evidence, it is abundantly clear that the region is quite rich in CHG.

As such, we're potentially looking at the "sum total" input of a fully West Eurasian signal into northern Indians, likely spanning the period between the early bronze age and well into historical times, which resembles an intermediary between Indo-European steppe populations and something resembling the Lezgin, hence the TreeMix edge.

One confounder here is the potential demic diffusion between IVC and the BMAC coinciding with their trade networks prior to the bronze age, though I don't imagine this would affect the outcomes significantly.

45% is quite substantial, though given the above, not all of it can be ascribed to EBA steppe populations. Whenever we receive BMAC remains, a three-edge tree will resolve that for us. Add in early IVC and extend to four, and we'll have a far more robust estimation. But this is "workable" for the time being.

Bravo, Davidski. Keep up the good work!

Davidski said...

OK, but what are the chances that high caste Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh soaked up new converts in large numbers with each wave from the northwest since the first Indo-Aryan migrations?

Grey said...

Davidski

"OK, but what are the chances that high caste Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh soaked up new converts in large numbers with each wave from the northwest since the first Indo-Aryan migrations?"

I don't know if it fits the data but if there were multiple waves over time from the steppe or near steppe the previous elite might have been pushed down so the current upper castes are mainly from the final wave?

If so then for example if the waves were: CHG, Afanev-spelling, Sintashta you might expect Sintashta to be the current high castes and the previous layers pushed lower down and/or surviving in different nearby refuge regions (e.g. Kalash maybe).

Kinda like the Roman god Vulcan being a degraded god but still married to the fertility goddess which makes no sense (to me) except in the context of an elite conquest where the conqueror's top god becomes the new top god but the majority of women carry on worshiping their old fertility goddess.

If there was a sequence of incomers in India you might expect to see some signs of it in the pantheon.

Davidski said...

This might be true for parts of Pakistan and Tajikistan, where there are high levels of Siberian ancestry probably associated with new waves of invaders from the steppes, but not most of northern India.

Grey said...

I'm thinking about before the IE wave from the steppe - foot herders from near steppe first, mounted steppe herders later.

DMXX said...

It actually looks quite good. From my limited reading, the earlier Sanskrit texts don't espouse the same degree of social rigidity that has historically existed in India. It wasn't until much later on (after Christ) that the caste system had become crystallised. One fairly straightforward read:

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/social-stratification/transformation-of-caste-system-in-india/39160/

The "crystallisation" of the caste system began around the Gupta period, which was founded around the 3rd century AD (Om Prakash's "Cultural History of India", V Bhushan & DR Sachdeva's "Fundamentals of Sociology", KK Reddy's "General Studies History").

Some recent data (Basu et al. 2016) also indicates the caste system as we currently know it was instituted around the time of the Gupta period (3rd century AD):

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/genetic-study-suggests-caste-began-to-dictate-marriage-from-gupta-reign/

This supports the findings from Moorjani et al. 2013:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/

Using the above as a framework, that would mean gene-flow through the Indo-Scythian and Kushan periods may have occurred, as they preceded the Gupta period (Indo-Parthians too potentially, though their territory in modern India extended into Punjab only). Only the Hephthalites can be disregarded as a potential significant source of further steppe input among modern upper caste northern Indians, as they followed the Gupta's.

In conclusion, based on the above, the chances that modern upper caste populations received additional input from steppe groups following the early Indo-Aryan migrations is reasonable and sufficient enough to consider as an alternative to the commonly-repeated trope of "upper castes are the purest descendants of the first Indo-Aryans".

As an aside, seems to be a popular one among Hindus belonging to the higher castes, so I wouldn't consider their subcultural traditions as evidence for that actually being the case for fairly obvious reasons (caste self-aggrandisement), if that has any contribution to your perspective here.

Hope that's been informative.

VOX said...

Looking at Moorjani et al. the highest West Eurasian admixture is 60% ANI among the upper castes. Other groups like the Chenchu, Chamar and Bhils sit at a baseline of about 40%. If the late Harappans were like Chenchus, Charmars etc. and that's not a bad assumption, then there needs to be a 33% contribution from a pure west eurasian population, presumably IEs to bring that level to 60%.

DMXX said...

Hi VOX,

The ANI-ASI model as proposed by Reich et al. in 2009 is most certainly outdated at this point, so proportional reasoning based on modern data probably doesn't represent the actual admixture events that took place in the past.

On that note, I should extend my comments above to state that, in the event both Basu and Moorjani's genetic inferences suffer from "relic" suppositions, the historical evidence plainly indicates clear caste flexibility up until the Gupta period, so the scenario I described above still cannot be dismissed outright.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Looks pretty solid! A range of 30-40% steppe input into SC Asians and North Indians is the most likely number, IMO.

batman said...

Very well.

Now it just remains to find out where the ancient populations of the Caspian plains had their respective origin.

bharatiya said...

One thing that I have doubts about is how r1a occurs at a significant frequency even in nonIA tribal groups. Can anyone provide answers?

Seinundzeit said...

This is very impressive, as we see differentiation between the early CHG-like West Eurasian influx into South Asia versus the later LN/EBA European-related influx from the steppe, on the graph with two admixture edges.

Basically, this boils down to the Brahui-related edge into the base of both Indian populations (34%). On many analyses, the Brahui are quite similar to the Satsurblia/Kotias samples from the ancient Caucasus, and an IBS-based PCA tends to construe the Balochistanis as identical to the ancient Caucasus samples! So clearly that migration edge of 34% is reflective of very ancient CHG-like (anything that is "ANE" + "Basal Eurasian" + something else) ancestry, as also demonstrated by the fact that both southern and northern Indians share it.

But the 45% LN/EBA European migration edge is quite distinct from the Brahui/CHG admixture event into the base of Indian populations, and the LN/EBA European migration edge only affects the upper caste North Indian sample.

All in all, a rather crystal clear/effective analysis.

But with regard to whether upper caste North Indians (especially Brahmins) received their 30%-50% (probably 40%, but it could turn out to go in either direction by 10%) steppe ancestry via only from the original Indo-Aryan influx, or from the multiple later waves into South Asia from the steppe, I think the former is far more plausible.

I'm sure Pashtuns, Pamiri peoples, and the other Central Asian peoples (like Uzbeks, Turkmens, etc, prior to the massive/substantial Turkic admixture they currently possess) have multiple sources for their steppe-ancestry. Scythian ancestry has always been a possibility for Pamiri peoples, which makes sense considering that they are around 60% LN/EBA European. Pashtuns have, in the scholarly literature, been given Hepthalite origins. Whatever the case, Pashtuns are an Iranian people, so it's probable that the Indo-Aryans don't have much of a role in their case (we need to look at later steppe populations), unless much of their genetic ancestry is really Indo-Aryan.

But the Kalash, the Nuristanis, the Kohistanis, and upper caste North Indians are a different story. At least with regard to the Kalash of Pakistan/Nuristanis of Afghanistan, I think it's fairly certain that their LN/EBA European ancestry is almost wholly attributable to the Indo-Aryans, as evidenced by their intense genetic isolation, and as evidenced by the archaic nature of their Indo-Aryan languages.

The same holds for Brahmins in northern India, as they have tended to look down on later steppe invaders as "mleccha", unclean foreigners, and seem to have, in historical accounts, avoided mixture with those groups. Again, by contrast, all the later "mleccha" populations settled in what would eventually become the Pashtun region (eastern Afghanistan/northwestern Pakistan), so we can probably find an association between those later Indo-Iranian groups and modern Pashtuns.

In contrast to North Indian Brahmins, the Jatts of greater Punjab probably have substantial amounts of later steppe ancestry. In a traditional sense, Jatts are not high caste, and in the distant past they seem to have been subjected to discrimination by Brahmins (although now, they are a rather important group in their region, and have been for quite some time). But they are rather European-shifted compared to Brahmins from the same regions! So I can see similar North Indian groups having ancestry from multiple steppe sources, but not Brahmins.

Seinundzeit said...

Side note: that migration edge into MA1 is rather fascinating. I think it shows that a very ancient affinity exists between South Asia and ANE. As has often been discussed, I think there is a layer of West Eurasian admixture prior to both CHG-like and LN/EBA European-like ancestry in South Asia, which is hard to properly explicate/detect due to a lack of aDNA. But whatever it is, it has some sort of relationship with the MA1/Afontova Gora group.

But that graph does lay to the rest the notion that the high estimates of steppe admixture in South Central Asia/South Asia simply involve the often observed ANE-affinity in the region. Mainly, since that graph allows us to take that ancient affinity into account, yet still has the North Indian sample as 48% LN/EBA European.

Rob said...

DMXX

Thanks for your comments
Interesting and probably on the mark

German Dziebel said...

@Seinundzeit

"that migration edge into MA1 is rather fascinating. I think it shows that a very ancient affinity exists between South Asia and ANE."

Notably, Munda-speakers in India are the only South Asian population that have the Earth-Diver myth, and some of its versions have very specific parallels with North American Indian (and not with East Asian) ones that it's hard to dismiss them. The knowledge of the Earth-Diver motif is plausibly attributed to Mal'ta people. http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/10/genes-and-myths-ancient-malta-dna-and-the-earth-diver-mythological-motif/.

Davidski said...

@bharatiya

The R1a in Indian tribals has to be mainly due to male biased gene flow from pioneer Indo-Aryans moving into tribal lands.

This sort of thing happens a lot when men migrate without women. Australian Aboriginal Y-chromosomes include about 50% of European haplogroups.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/aboriginal-australian-y-chromosomes.html

Some older papers on Indian Y-chromosomes reported basal R and R1 in various parts of the country, including among tribals, but most of these results are probably just wrong, caused by insufficient resolution or even lab errors.

Nirjhar007 said...

DMXX,

There is an unpublished study, which finds that the rigidity started couple of centuries earlier , than the Guptas .

Nirjhar007 said...

German,

Nice to see you! . uh.. I have a question :

From 6000 BC , has there been, any notable movements, from N America to Asia. Detectable by archaeology?.

TIA

Gioiello said...


@Davidski
Answer my question and we'll get a great part of our questions about the origin of R1b haplogroup.
Gioiello Tognoni
Which would be the GRC samples added to day (to YFull).
Vadim Urasin Hidden samples. They have been used for a paper. We will show them when the paper(s) will be published. I've deleted news about these samples.
Gioiello Tognoni Of course it will be very interesting to see the paper(s) and these samples. They are all in the R-L23 line found at Samara, thus, if they belong to the aDNA, they should come from the same area or nearby. Interesting to me that no R-L51 has been found, in fact I expect it is found not Eastward Italy.
Gioiello Tognoni Caro Marco, da questo saggio verranno molte risposte. Ci sono le subcladi di R-L23, ma anche L277 nelle due subcladi, e anche CTS7633 e perfino una subclade di CTS7556, cioè CTS1450, antenata di tutti gli orientali CTS9219. Perciò sapere da dove sono venuti questi probabili DNA antichi è molto importante. Io perderei la mia scommessa sulla mia origine (R-Z2110), forse veramente alana o orientale, ma potrei vincere quella sull'origine di R-L51.
Dear Marco, from this paper many answers will come. There are the subclades of R-L23, but also L277 in its two subclades, and also CTS7633 and even a subclade of CTS7556, i.e. CTS1450, ancestress of all eastern CTS9219. So to know where these probable aDNA have come from is very important. I'd lose my bet about my origin (R-Z2110), perhaps really alan or Eastern one, but I could win that about the origin of R-L51.

Gioiello said...

1) These samples are 13 of about 130 samples tested and submitted, thus a country where R-L23 is (or was if it is aDNA) about 10%.

Coming the data from Russian YFull, they could be from modern Bashkirs.

2) More likely Georgia than Bashkortostan.

Davidski said...

It's hard to say how exactly L51 first spread across Europe, because its area of origin has now been narrowed down to between Italy and Samara, which is a pretty small space considering the mobility of ancient people. No point arguing about the details until we see more ancient DNA from Italy, East Central Europe and the steppes.

Gioiello said...

@ Davidski

I agree with you of course, even though I think having carried tons of proofs about an origin in Tuscany/Italy as I did with all the upstream subclades from R-L389 to R-M335 to R-V88 as a sister clade to R-M269, thus the finding of Villabruna astonished everyone except me, but I'd be glad to know something about this new paper of all R-L23 subclades, coming very likely from Caucasus. The samples are submitted with an entry GRC14392017 to GRC14392129 about...

Rob said...

Gio

Sorry , its difficult to follow some of your posts.

Can you Summarise the finds of "basal" R1b clades in Italy (with point forms, and spaces in between sentences); and what 'hidden samples' are you talking of ?

Matt said...

I forget, but have we run the same topology with the Satsurblia cluster included?

That would be worth doing if not. I could see some objection that the intermediate position of the edge between Lezgin and Andronovo relates to an excess of EEF ancestry in Lezgin.

Davidski said...

The migration edge is definitely from a steppe population, but it probably hasn't been sampled yet.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQOU9BcG92R2ZiOFU/view?usp=sharing

I don't think anything points to the Lezgins having excess EEF. They probably have the most Yamnaya admix amongst all modern Caucasians though.

Alberto said...

Definitely looks like a not yet sampled population. Though "not yet sampled" and "from the steppe" look rather incompatible concepts at this point.

Without adding Lezgins, Brahui or Yamnaya to avoid confusion, this model is really good. The putative population looks like ANE-shifted Georgians:

Kalash
"Georgian" 49.1
"South_Indian" 29.3
"MA1" 7.1
"AfontovaGora3" 4.85
"Kotias" 4.1
"Karelia_HG" 3
"Atayal" 2.55
"Esan_Nigeria" 0
"Munda" 0
"Anatolia_Neolithic" 0
"Sintashta" 0
"Andronovo" 0
distance=0.005142

Or adding those 3, a bit more ANE shifted than Lezgins:

Kalash
"Lezgin" 51.95
"South_Indian" 28.1
"Brahui" 7.9
"MA1" 4.65
"Kotias" 3.5
"AfontovaGora3" 2.7
"Atayal" 1.2
"Esan_Nigeria" 0
"Munda" 0
"Anatolia_Neolithic" 0
"Karelia_HG" 0
"Sintashta" 0
"Georgian" 0
"Andronovo" 0
"Yamnaya_Samara" 0
distance=0.003272

I think that everyone by now can more or less guess where could such population be found.

Davidski said...

The reason I said it's not yet sampled is because the edge doesn't come off any specific branch.

However, using modern North Indians might be a problem. An ancient high caste North Indian population might indeed get an edge directly from Andronovo or Srubnaya because it would lack the extra couple thousand years of drift that these modern North Indians have.

Btw, not sure what you're showing there. Clearly Lezgins aren't very similar to Andronovo/Srubnaya, and they don't have much, if any, Z93.

Gioiello said...

@ Rob
These words are written from Vadim Urasin on the YFull page of FB "Vadim Urasin Hidden samples. They have been used for a paper. We will show them when the paper(s) will be published. I've deleted news about these samples".

You will see my samples when they are found in the aDNA from Italy. So far: R1b1a* 14000 years ago at Villabruna, Belluno, Italy.

Nirjhar007 said...

Well Dr. Tognoni, I have no doubt now, that Italy will show R1b from 20,000 YBP. Just that , it will be again funny, to see how ''Steppe Maniacs '' will try to prove its ''steppe origin''.

Rob said...

Gio

Thanks. Im sure it'll be interesting.

What are these "GRC" samples ?

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007
I thank you for your Dr. which is just my title. I got my "laurea magna cum laude" at the Florence University on 1974, but I am a poet and a litterate, nothing to do with genetics, but history, glottology and many other disciplines are mine, and that helped. I call "Mr" and not "Dr" the same Behar, who has a PhD, because titles are useless if there aren't many others things, but to Behar I recognized the honesty when I said he was wrong about the R1a Levites, even though this question, as pretty all the others, we cannot say is definitely resolved.

@ Rob
“Gio
Thanks. Im sure it'll be interesting.
What are these "GRC" samples?“
Rob, I posted that here just for knowing that, hoping that Davidski or others who read and write in this blog did know that. I don't know if I was clear, but 13 samples appeared yesterday on YFull, and, when I asked in their page at FB something about that, that was the answer of Vadim Urasin. After the samples were taken away, and we may only wait for the paper, when it will be published.

Nirjhar007 said...

Dottore ,

I think, fine scale sequencing of SNPs + aDNA is the way to go . And if possible , increasing the sample size . Like you, I don't have much faith on Autosomal Components .

DMXX said...

Rob,

You're welcome, sir. India's history is incredibly multifaceted and entrenched. Plenty to learn about the Subcontinent for us foreigners.

Nirjhar007,

Looking forward to seeing the results once they emerge. I briefly reviewed Moorjani et al. yesterday and noted their admixture estimates could be conflated by the outdated ANI-ASI model, so I'll retrospectively caveat that point. Haven't had the time to review Basu, so there's a potential for accumulative study design error leading us to an erroneous "consistency" in the admixture dates, so to speak.

Seinundzeit,

Your perspective is well taken. That is a reasonable argument based on our current understanding of the region's socio-cultural dynamics and evolution. I would not be particularly surprised if this is confirmed in the coming years.

Assuming Y-DNA R1a-L657 is indeed an early proto-Indo-Aryan marker, that could arguably be used as a guide here. The majority of Indian R1a belongs to this subclade. Some R1a-Z93(xL657) has apparently been found in the northern Subcontinent. I am not aware of the caste affiliations for these (point for further discussion).

Regional stratification may also need to be borne in mind (different Brahmin groups in northern India may have radically different Y-DNA R1a1a subclade profiles). I'd advise caution against readers wholesale characterising "UP Brahmins" as a monolith (there are several distinct castes within UP alone). Further testing may reveal some unexpected diversity along these lines (f.ex. Radha's being exclusively R1a Z93+ Z94+ L657+, Ahivasi's a mixture of the aforementioned with R1a Z93+ Z94+ L657- etc.)

In any case, we require both extensive Y-DNA R1a subclade testing in the Subcontinent (coupled with some aDNA) to substantiate which of those "a priori" positions hold predominance.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Lezgins have a lot of EHG, and Georgians have a good amount too. Arguments here aren't strong at all.

Alberto said...

@Davidski

What that shows is that Treemix and the D-stats based model are picking a similar phenomenon. Basically that North Indian has admixture from a population that it's shifted towards ANE from Georgians and Lezgins.

TreeMix and D-stats don't know about Y-DNA. But in any case, if R1a-Z93 went from Sitashta/Andronovo to North India, that's a different phenomenon that's not being picked up by either TreeMix or by D-stats. I don't know why exactly.

Davidski said...

Alberto, there's no way around this.

Obviously TreeMix is picking up the Z93 migration from the steppe to India. I marked the Y-HGs on the graph so you can see it for yourself.

Alberto said...

@Chad

I don't think Georgians have a a lot of EHG. And not that it really matters.

Georgian
"Anatolia_Neolithic" 50.35
"Kotias" 35.25
"South_Indian" 8.8
"MA1" 5.6
"AfontovaGora3" 0
"Atayal" 0
"Esan_Nigeria" 0
"Munda" 0
"Karelia_HG" 0


Yamnaya_Samara
"Karelia_HG" 51.3
"Georgian" 29.2
"Kotias" 16.35
"Anatolia_Neolithic" 2.05
"Loschbour" 1.1
"Atayal" 0
"Esan_Nigeria" 0

Alberto said...

David, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Are we looking at the same graph? The third one in the post?

Or do you mean that a population yet unsampled, that was somehow similar to Lezgins, is the one that first carried R1a-Z93 and it gave it to both Andronovo and to North Indians?

Atriðr said...

Hi, posted yesterday, but when came to edit, deleted comment in error (new to blogger here).

Gist of my comment a bit similar to DMXX's latest comment. Basically, that entrance of steppe ancestry and R1a-z93 (maybe eventually z94) would have several movements into India including:

Indo-Aryan (Bronze Age)
Indo-Scythians, 2000 BP
Kushans and Yuezhi tribes (Tarim Basin) 1950 BP
White Huns/Hephtalites 1500 BP

The Kushan empire had two capitals, one which was Mathura in Uttar Pradesh.

Also, it is interesting to note that the Kabul Shahi (a.k.a. Brahmin Shahi) that stretched from Aghanistan to North India went through several dynasties, some surmised by medieval historians (Xuanzang, Alberuni) to be Turkics (or Steppe Iranics) who practiced Hinduism (and therefore would have been assigned a high-caste).

Caste known as Varna (four-fold), has many sub-castes (allowing flexibility for entrance for migrants of the past). In addition is the concept of Jati (clan), which is blood lineage. There are thousands of these clans, many of which have alliances with other clans for marriage. Caste marriage rules still apply. All to say that the strict (and intricate) nature of caste, combined with genetics may untangle the provenance of the different steppe migrations into the Indian subcontinent.

Nirjhar007 said...

Indo-Scythians, 2000 BP
Kushans and Yuezhi tribes (Tarim Basin) 1950 BP
White Huns/Hephtalites 1500 BP


Those are the Steppe Migrations , that did actually happen .

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Alberto,

Have you seen the qpAdm and f4's? They are. I'll post them later.

Kristiina said...

Alberto, these statistics I picked up from Davidski's chart (March 11, 2016, D-stats/nMonte open thread) might be relevant here:
Corded Ware Germany: Anatolia Neolithic 21.9%, Caucasus HG 0%, Loschbour WHG 7.25%
Srubnaya: Anatolia Neolithic 22.2%, Caucasus HG 0%, Loschbour WHG 9.3%
Sintashta: Anatolia Neolithic 25.55%, Caucasus HG 12.5%, Loschbour WHG 11.45%
Andronovo: Anatolia Neolithic 18.35%, Caucasus HG 0%, Loschbour WHG 12.8%
Compared to other ancient probable IE speakers, Sintashta are particular in that they carry extra Caucasus HG, which surely makes them closer to Lezgins and other Caucasians.

fz said...

GRC, genome reference consortium

Gioiello said...

@ fz

Many thanks. Can you look at the samples from about 14302017 to 14302129 and who submitted them?

Thanks. I bet on some Caucasian country.

Alberto said...

@Kristiina

I believe that the extra CHG in Sintashta was due to a couple of samples that had a strange behaviour. It seems that in the latest D-stats those samples were removed, because I can't reproduce the results anymore. Maybe Davidski can confirm if this is the case.

@Chad

I haven't seen those qpAdm models, so if you'd post them I'd be glad to check them. But in any case I don't think it matters much. If what you're arguing is that the steppe ancestry in the Kalash is hiding under their 50% Georgian, and you show that Georgian actually have 10% Sintashta, that's ok, I don't see a reason to disagree strongly with that. It would mean 5% Sintashta in Kalash, so it's not a big difference. And besides, the Kalash are not rich in R1a-Z93, if I'm not mistaken, so that's not a problem either. All the models are basically in agreement here, as they should.

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar
"Those are the Steppe Migrations , that did actually happen."

Implying that Siberian and R1a-z93 in India came from those migrations only - elite dominance - and that earlier Vedic peoples (Indo-Aryans) were not from Andronovo/Srubnaya but local (i.e. BMAC; IVC; or Western vector).

I personally keep those as possibilities. However, linguistically (my main strength), and historically, why was there little intrusion in the south of the continent (Dravidian-dominated)? Why do the Vedas contain features that exclude India's tropical weather or equatorial sun patterns? Why are archaic, almost identical, Sanskrit words found in Russian and Lithuanian (to lesser extent)? Why is Sanskrit genetically (lang.) closer to Russian/Lithuanian as opposed to Western Iranian?

Also, more in line with this blog's focus, why is the R1a in India all z-93. Very little z-94 (which should be more present if only source of R1a came from only Steppe migrations of 2000 BC)?

Until these answered otherwise, Indo-Aryans as a migration from Steppes is more likely imo (until new data). Let's see what IVC offers.

Davidski said...

Also, more in line with this blog's focus, why is the R1a in India all z-93. Very little z-94 (which should be more present if only source of R1a came from only Steppe migrations of 2000 BC)?

Looks like there's an issue with your understanding of Indian R1a.

Practically all of the R1a in India is Z94+ when tested accordingly. Read this...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/south-asian-r1a-in-1000-genomes-project_15.html

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Villabruna is 3000 years off from being ancestral to Europeans. He's a stray dead end hunter. 17000ybp for P297, which he didn't even have at 14000ypb. Yamnaya Samara I0443 (L23 xL51,Z2103) is almost 3x closer to the ancestor of Western European R1b.

Then, we have the obvious eastern intrusion to WHG with an R1b present. Shit gets way too deep here sometimes. Moving on...

Rob said...

Atriðr

What major difference do you see with west Iranian cf Sanskrit, in big scheme of things ?

batman said...

@ Nirjhar 007,

""Indo-Scythians, 2000 BP
Kushans and Yuezhi tribes (Tarim Basin) 1950 BP
White Huns/Hephtalites 1500 BP"

Those are the Steppe Migrations , that did actually happen ."


Sure they did. Still the major question remains;

Which migrations went on prior to the "Krishna event" as of 4.000+ yrs BP?

Aren't there any known immigrations into the Indian sub-continent during the mesolithic - when the re-population of arctic Europe and Eurasia went on, between 10 and 12 kyr BP?

When are the first (known) subclades of the Eurasian makrogroup C1/F reach: 1) Northern India? 2) The tropical realms of the Indian subcontinent?

Which y-dna can be traced back to the pre-C/F carried by the ancient natives of the trpoical part of paleolithic India?

German Dziebel said...

@Nirjhar

"From 6000 BC , has there been, any notable movements, from N America to Asia. Detectable by archaeology?."

Not that late. But the only fluted projectile point detected outside of the New World was found in Northeast Asia at 8600 BC. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8662551.

If you read my book and my website, you'll gather that I think of archaeology as a very antiquated way of formulating theories about human prehistory. We had hundreds of thousands of years to leave the stuff behind and only 200 years so far to find it. You can roughly imagine how long it's going to take us to find all the right artifacts to test the hypotheses derived from more complete (modern) samples.

Atriðr said...

@Davidski; yes, I see. That's interesting. Well, this does maintain a hazy origin for the Indo-Aryans. Is there a clear age for the R1a in the subcontinent?

@Rob; Sanskrit like Russian (and Greek) very inflected; syntax very free form; similar sandhi/morphophonological processes). Unlike in Persian for example.

Davidski said...

@Atriðr

The star-like (and thus rapid) expansion of Z93 lineages, including those now in South Asia, started just over 4,000 years ago.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/signals-of-ancient-population.html

So we shouldn't expect to see any Z93 in ancient DNA from South or even Central Asia before 2,000 BC, and probably 1700 BC, which would be in line with the idea that Indo-Iranian languages moved into South Asia from the Adnronovo horizon at around that time.

In Central Asia, the only Copper Age sample we have belongs to Q, and Z93 starts showing up in the ancient DNA record from the Middle Bronze Age with migrants from the west. At that time the Central Asian paternal gene pool becomes a mixture of Q and Z93.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/r1a-z93-from-bronze-age-mongolia.html

Davidski said...

Just a reminder folks, inane drivel will be deleted.

Gioiello said...

@ Davidski
“Just a reminder folks, inane drivel will be deleted”.

You already got it:

“Villabruna is 3000 years off from being ancestral to Europeans. He's a stray dead end hunter. 17000ybp for P297, which he didn't even have at 14000ypb. Yamnaya Samara I0443 (L23 xL51,Z2103) is almost 3x closer to the ancestor of Western European R1b.

Then, we have the obvious eastern intrusion to WHG with an R1b present. Shit gets way too deep here sometimes. Moving on...”


First of all a smart person should say at this point that we need more data from aDNA everywhere (as you actually said), because for saying that Samara is at the origin of all the R1b-L51 subclades, we have still to find it there, and also my question (I apologize having posted it here) was in line to demonstrate that there there are only R-L23 subclades, not the upstream and the downstream ones.
As to Villabruna, to say that it is without any doubt “a stray dead end hunter” is temerarious, because he is low tested, many SNPs are no calls, but he seems having two SNPs at the P297 level, and I never said that he was our ancestor, but that he belonged very likely to that tribe of related R1b1a from which the R-P297* survived and is our ancestor, in fact I sign me as “Gioiello Tognoni del Badia, from clan Villabruna, 10000 years older than Abraham”.

I don't know if this Albionic hates more who ruled him in the past or who will rule him in the future.

Seinundzeit said...

Alberto,

The migration edge into the North Indian sample isn't actually from a spot intermediate between Lezgins and EBA steppe populations. Rather, it's solidly on the branch leading to the other steppe populations. So, I'm not quite sure as to where these ideas are coming from?

Anyway, we have yet to find Indo-Aryan R1a-L657 on the steppe. So there are definitely some "unidentified" steppe populations, ones for which the currently sampled EBA steppe groups might not be exact/perfect matches. For example, it could easily be the case that the 40%-50% EBA steppe ancestry of these upper caste North Indians might be coming from a population which is intermediate between Andronovo and Afanasevo, with perhaps a little more EHG + CHG than that sort of mix would be assumed to entail (if we assume a simple Afanasevo + Andronovo mix that is only based on current samples). In that sort of mildly complex scenario, the 40%-50% migration edge is going to come from a steppe population (as it should, since that is how things happened), but not from any steppe population in particular. Which is exactly what we are seeing now, admixture from right on the branch leading to steppe populations, but not from the exact steppe populations on the tree.

Regardless, it's pretty airtight now. For example, the typology involving MA1 does show a strong relationship between ANE and South Asia, but the North Indian sample still turns out 48% EBA steppe, despite the deeper ancestral connection between ANE and South Asia. So, the ANE confound isn't an argument anymore. In addition, the typology that includes the Satsurblia cluster also presents us with an almost identical result, the North Indian sample turns out to be 49% EBA steppe. In all honesty, there isn't much room for wrangling around this, not anymore.

Just like you mentioned, TreeMix doesn't take haplogroup information into account. But herein lies the immensity of what we're seeing, as there is no way to feed that information into TreeMix, no way to "tell" it that these steppe samples are directly ancestral to millions of Central/South Asians on the paternal line. Yet, it still finds very intense/substantial (directly) shared ancestry among these samples. Basically, it would be a rather impressive coincidence, were it to be merely a fluke. By contrast, the d-stats nMonte results seem much easier to brush off as coincidence, considering the nature of the input, and considering the method itself. Although, we should note that the newer nMonte sheets allow us to model the Kalash as 45% Andronovo + 40% South Indian + 15% CHG, and the model is pretty good in terms of stats. So nMonte output isn't in disagreement with TreeMix (although TreeMix is better, since it actually builds a tree of populations, and looks for violations of pure/clean tree-like divergence).

On a completely different note, I think South Asians don't have CHG ancestry as represented by the ancient Caucasus samples. Rather, I think the agricultural influx into South Asia involved populations which were a mix of ANE and Basal Eurasian (and probably something else), and thus similar to Satsurblia/Kotias, but not identical to Satsurblia/Kotias (perhaps they lacked the Villabruna affinity possessed by Satsurblia/Kotias, perhaps had more ANE than Satsurblia/Kotias, and perhaps had a more basal sort of ANE than Satsurblia/Kotias). If we are looking for good proxies for the CHG-like ancestry in South Asia, the least recently admixed Brahui should do great, as David has done in these graphs (to great affect, it must be added).

Seinundzeit said...

DMXX,

In all honestly, I think you've hit the nail right on the head! Basically, I think you've described the situation in a rather concise/effective manner.

I wonder though, what do the Kalash possess in greater preponderance, L657 (like Indo-Aryan populations) or Z2124 (like Pashtuns and Central Asians)? It would be very interesting to find out.

DMXX said...

Seinundzeit,

As far as I'm aware, the Kalash are reputedly (and exclusively) Z2124+ and L657-. That assessment was made on the basis of STR similarities with confirmed Z2124 and L657 samples from the region through Underhill et al. Although not direct confirmation, the above is an acceptable workaround.

At least one Pakistani Pashtun HGDP sample (HGDP00243) belongs to L657 according to Underhill et al. I am uncertain what the P. Pashtun R1a1a profile looks like, but it's probably little different from that of Afghan Pashtuns (predominantly Z2124, open to correction on this).

In my (now shelved) work on Pashtun Y-DNA after the release of Lacaub et al., I noticed a minority of Afghan Pashtun Y-DNA R1a1a had a rather "different" base haplotype from the majority (if I recall correctly, my STR-mutation-specific MRCA calculation came to around 3100ybp for the "main" Pashtun R1a1a super-cluster). Parasar noted I may have been observing the L657 mutation's bifurcation from Z2124 ahead of time (http://www.anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-1026.html). Coincides with the date for some of the earlier L657 downstream subclade MRCA's according to YFull (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/).

Musings on my historical investigations aside, it is abundantly clear per the Y-SNP data that Afghan Pashtuns (and in all likelihood their Pakistani relatives) belong to various subsets of Z2124, which is upstream of L657. The infrequent L657+ one may find among either group will likely represent incorporation of preceding individuals, likely remnants of the early Indo-Aryan population that eventually expanded into India (Gandhara Grave culture is an accommodating fit, archaeologically speaking).

Returning to the Kalash, confusion has been expressed online regarding their apparent Z2124+ L657-, Indo-Aryan-speaking status. That is readily mitigated by partial decoupling of L657 with the Indo-Aryan language and reorienting the subclade as a drifted Subcontinental extension away from the Gandhara Grave culture. That appears to be precisely what happened with R1a1a-Z93 on the steppes, so there is no reason to dissuade us from attributing this as another example.

On a final note, the status of Nuristani Y-DNA R1a1a remains to be established.

Hope that exhaustive summary has been informative.

Rob said...

DMXX

Can you clarify what you mean by "That appears to be precisely what happened with R1a1a-Z93 on the steppes, so there is no reason to dissuade us from attributing this as another example."

Also, is there any (even if low Res) data on Nuristani ?

Nirjhar007 said...

German,

I do understand well . Perhaps one day your logic, will get the credit! .

Atriðr ,

Most of what you said has no practical value . Anyway , Its Lithuanian , which is the closest, but we have to consider , that its in the periphery and also a quite late attestation .

Now, I am going to link you two articles . On Favors AIT , the other doesn't . You will read them carefully , after that , you will tell me , what you found :

The AIT article :
https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/a-note-on-the-early-expansions-of-the-indo-europeans/

The non AIT article :
https://throneoftruth.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/aryan-invasion-or-migration-theory-and-indo-european-origins-vedic-origins/

I also hope, others (except Davidsky ;) ), will also read them , if they are interested .

About the AIT article, I have to say that , its the best attempt which I have seen so far . The reason is, the mindset there is practical . The non-AIT article , to which I agree more, is of course fabulous!.

Nirjhar007 said...

DMXX,Sein, VOX,

R1a Z2124 is the northern Subclade , which most likely bifurcated from Z-94 in SC Asia.

batman,

What you said went over my head, can you plaese write in less-intellectual language please ?:D .

Seinundzeit said...

DMXX,

More than exhaustive, and very informative. Thank you for providing that survey.

I think your explanation concerning L657 makes complete sense, it's a good fit with the data.

On a personal note, I've found that I'm Z2124+ and L657-. I think I should probably invest in some further tests, in order to drill down to something more specific.

Coldmountains said...

Kalash are different from most Indo-Aryans also in other ways and could represent an once non-Indo-Aryan group which was Indo-Aryanized. Pashtuns are around 10-15% L657 I belong to it and other Pashtuns also. Either it is from a Dardic substrate, Bronze Age Indo-Aryans or of Gedrosian origin. Anyways L657 is present among Tajiks, Uzbeks and Eastern Persians and the ratio of L657/Z2124 is actually higher among them than among Pashtuns but the main reason for this is in my opinion that most of Pashtun R1a-Z2124 is from a (recent) founder effectct what would explain why Pashtuns have much more R1a than most other people including Tajiks/Pamiri despite having lower steppe affinity than Tajiks for example. Pashtuns are mainly CHG with around 30-40% steppe in my opinion. But unlikely with much more of it

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar

"Most of what you said has no practical value"

How kind of you. In fact, if you understood comparative & historical linguistics a bit more, you'd appreciate what I was implying. You also repeat tropes on Lithuanian-Sanskrit; unless you speak Russian and/or Lithuanian, and Sanskrit, I'd suggest speaking with less "authority." At any rate, I don't want to be cluttering the comments section with exasperated linguistic data.

I'm not here to be an authority on genetics (obviously). Rather to contribute in other ways. Between history, archaeology, and linguistics... genetics is pulling out in front of the pack, but in the end, all will align should they account for all data.

I am already familiar with both those links you sent. And as I do respect linguistics, I understood that your impolite (in English speech) imploration to read them was simply a normal syntax structure of a Prakrit.

Manasataramgini is of sounder reason; more along the lines of my own reasoning and current conclusions. I await the IVC data like everyone else. And the Villabruna data was equally exciting for its own reasons.

@Davidski
Thank you for the clarifications and explanations, and links.

Davidski said...

The Manasataramgini narrative relies on a couple of unlikely scenarios, such as the extremely low probability that all of the Neolithic farmers in South Asia were native to South Asia, and that the Proto-Indo-Europeans came from the Caucasus, as opposed to the steppe, with only their maternal ancestry being in large part from the Caucasus.

Also, there are some serious problems with his take on the pigmentation genetics of early Europeans and steppe groups. So at some point he'll have to adjust his narrative to fit reality.

The other blog post is just a complete and utter fail.

postneo said...

Atriðr

vedic is like avestan and comparing with west persian is not productive. modern IA is not highly inflectional so should we infer it has no connection with Vedic?

At an early stage greek, avestan and vedic were highly inflecting. lithuanian is a modern language that retains an archaic feature, similarly other daughter languages retained other archaic features lost in others.

David's assertion that central asia was missing R1a which came from the west and only had Q seems misleading. Has bronze age central asia even been sampled at 3000 BC? xiaohe had R1a at 2400-2500 BC just like the altai middle bronze age.

Davidski said...

@postneo

I said R1a-Z93 moved into Central Asia during the Middle Bronze Age.

The Xiaohe Tarim Basin mummies, as far as we know at the moment, did not belong to Z93, but to some other subclade of R1a. Maybe Z282, same as Corded Ware, since they were probably an offshoot of the Repin Culture from around the Don River.

So how are they relevant to the spread of R1a in Asia and South Asia, which is today 99% Z93? And what relevance do they have to the Indo-Iranian expansion?

Rami said...

Davidski, Indo Aryans were already present in the Swat by 1900-1800 BC.
1700 BC seems too late and this is in step with the latest paper , you posted the link to on your own blog.

Nature Genetics has a massive new paper on human Y-chromosomes based on the latest 1000 Genomes data. I'm still getting my head around the details, but at first glance it looks like a very capable effort. This part basically reads like some of my blog entries in recent years. The emphasis is mine.

In South Asia, we detected eight lineage expansions dating to ~4.0–7.3 kya and involving haplogroups H1-M52, L-M11, and R1a-Z93 (Supplementary Fig. 14b,d,e). The most striking were expansions within R1a-Z93, occurring 4.0–4.5 kya.

Davidski said...

Rami,

The results in that paper suggest that R1a-Z93 started expanding rapidly 4.0–4.5 kya, not that it was in South Asia at that time.

The expansion started in the steppes of Europe. By the Middle Bronze Age R1a-Z93 was all over the Altai region like a rash, but I don't see any evidence that R1a-Z93 was also in South Asia at that time.

We need ancient DNA to prove that it was in South Asia by 1800 BC, since we already know that R1a-Z93 moved from north to south, not the other way around.

Matt said...

@ Davidski, thanks for that graph btw.

Sein: On a completely different note, I think South Asians don't have CHG ancestry as represented by the ancient Caucasus samples. Rather, I think the agricultural influx into South Asia involved populations which were a mix of ANE and Basal Eurasian (and probably something else), and thus similar to Satsurblia/Kotias, but not identical to Satsurblia/Kotias (perhaps they lacked the Villabruna affinity possessed by Satsurblia/Kotias

When I was trying to simulate UHG with the D-stats (and that generated something similar to WHG in all its stats, but with less affinity to European WHG and more affinity to EEF), that did model a population slightly more related to Satsurblia cluster / Kotias / CHG than WHG is. So I wonder if CHG has some low level contribution from UHG.

IRC South-Central Asian seems particularly low in EEF affinity, so I wonder if we will not find an ancestor population for them which is similar to CHG, but is lacking some ancestry particularly from something like UHG (in theory UHG being a more or less WHG-like population with higher relatedness to the Middle East than Villabruna cluster has and lower affinity to Villabruna cluster).

Nirjhar007 said...

Atriðr,
I don't want to be cluttering the comments section with exasperated linguistic data

Because the reality , is that , you don't have anything that can overturn my remark.

Manasataramgini is of sounder reason; more along the lines of my own reasoning and current conclusions

How fascinating to know that, perhaps you are not accustomed in reading long articles, my bad..

Nirjhar007 said...

since they were probably an offshoot of the Repin Culture from around the Don River

lol

Nirjhar007 said...


since we already know that R1a-Z93 moved from north to south, not the other way around.

Exactly! we don't need a single aDNA sample from SC Asia of Bronze age (before 2000 Bc) ! whats the need?, its already settled by David . Probably, we should mail, those researchers of Rakhigarhi , to not test for R1a-Z93 , they will thank us for decreasing the unnecessary cost!.

Rami,

You follow the BMAC origins of Aryans, right?.

postneo said...

@David

"I said R1a-Z93 moved into Central Asia during the Middle Bronze Age."

OK, but what are early bronze age samples from central asia, tarim afanasievo? do you have a list and ages?

Atriðr said...

@postneo

Yes, Avestan (especially the oldest gathic Avestan) is a few phonetic correspondences away from Rg Vedic Sanskrit (e.g. Sanskrit s -> Avestan h).

Avestan traveled East to West, and this is key. I'm not sure what you want to point out by bringing up Avestan. You should realize that Turkic had a significant influence on the languages you bring up (on Russian too). My point was that linguistically, it is highly unlikely that Indo-Iranians (and Indo-Aryans) came via West Asia.

The Indo-Iranians were last together in Central Asian-North Indian (Sapta Sindhu) zones.

In fact, Sintashta imo, contains several distinctly Indo-Iranic features, and the case can be made that it was a smelting base for invasions (in all directions imo).

As far as I am understanding R1a's entrance into the subcontinent, there is a consistency with the linguistic models.

@Nirjhar
Keyboard warrior. Particularly nauseating. Resolve your issues, Man.

Davidski said...

The dates and mtDNA assignments for the Afanasievo samples are here. No Y-HG results yet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/extref/nature16152-s2.xlsx

I have not seen any precise dates for the Tarim Basin mummies, but they're about 500 years younger on average than these Afanasievo samples, and probably an offshoot from late Afanasievo.

Nirjhar007 said...

As far as I am understanding R1a's entrance into the subcontinent

I didn't know you have a time machine! , Well, I can't wait to see your researches.

In fact, Sintashta imo, contains several distinctly Indo-Iranic features

Name three .

Nirjhar007 said...

David,

Afanasievo has nothing to do with Tocharians . It has no farming structure , Xiaohe OTOH, fits well. But both are severely apart, from the first attestation . If the same logic of the Kurgan proponents is applied , then the case of India and Anatolia should be, much more deepened, automatically

aniasi said...

There seems to be a great deal of emphasis on potential upper-caste origins based in classical-era migrations.

A few things on these points:

1) The majority of these invaders were Buddhist, and it is unlikely they had a great impact on the Brahmin population of this time. In addition, with the Indo-Greeks, it is mentioned that large numbers of them became monks and nuns. Their impact was more likely on the warrior-farme/pastoralist castes of the Indian Northwest (Jatts, Rajputs, Gurjars etc) Also, like the Nairs, these castes are very broad designations of numerous group hierarchies.

2) Until the late classical era, the majority of Brahmins still seem to be following a semi-sacrificial religion. However, temple cults did exist (as mentioned by Megasthenes, Heliodoros pillar etc) but they were not associated with Vedic religion. Their priests were likely not Vedic Brahmins, as can still be found in numerous areas of India where other castes hold the position of Pujari. In addition, even amongst the Buddhists, there were likely scholarly families that were later known as Pandits (Kashmir for example) that held a similar station, or even functioned as a caste (Kayashtas still being an example)

3) The Vedic caste system looks nothing like today's Indian caste system. Megasthenes noticed more than four, and even the Laws of Manu are unable to precisely define what groups make up the Brahmins, Kshatriyas etc. The law-code only mentions that there are four main castes, but that there are an unnumbered group of intermediate ones.

The admixture event seen in the classical period was likely formed as groups started dividing and recombining. Sacrificing Brahmins married Pujaris and Pandits, creating the Brahmins we see today in the North. This explains the rise of Vaishanvism, Shaivism etc as organised and dominant worship systems. Similarly, incomers would have been split, spliced, and remixed into the large number of castes spread across North India. This would also explain why some castes show multiple identities, and very variable positions in the hierarchy.

I therefore consider it highly unlikely that Kshatapras, Huns, Scythians and others were the source of steppe ancestry in Brahmins.

aniasi said...

David,

Two questions:

1) Can you do something similar with South Indian Brahmins (including Desastha Maharashtrians)? It would be very interesting to see, considering the South Indian admixture range being much earlier.

2) Do you have any data on highland south indian tribes, like the Todas of the Nilgiris?

batman said...

@ Nirjhar

What part did you miss?

That there was an ancient, tropical population suviving ice-time in the tropical part of India, parallel to the (tropical) popultaitions surviving the same climate-crisis in tropical China, SE Asia, S-America and Africa?

That there was yet a-n-o-t-h-e-r, but arctic population - surviving ice-tiem in the arctic part of northern Eurasia?

Obviously, this northern population bore haplogroups inheritted from their palearctic ancestors, known as "Cro-Magnons" (etc) - which where devoped in a linger isolation from their tropical cousins and thus fenotypically and genetically different from the archaic populations of the southern hemisphere.

After the end of ice-time, some 12.000 years ago - we see the first appearance of the northern people, migrated with their boats, technology, symbols and megalithic masonry to the southern hemisphere. Thus there were early contacts, intearctions and mixing going on within the respective, tropical tribes - such as the south Indian and the African.

Here's some new and rare descriptions of their (fenotypical) appearance, architecture and symbolism:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Turkey_Gobekli_Tepe_003.html
http://www.human-resonance.org/gobekli_tepe.html

Later depictions of similar nature:
https://no.pinterest.com/pin/452611831276642001/
https://no.pinterest.com/pin/391883605048383400/
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/statuettes-of-the-white-gods/
(Pleaase disregard the teosofic terms)

Here's a rare example of the same boat-culture populating and cultivating the islands of the north Atlantic:
http://www.archaeology.org/issues/61-1301/features/327-scotland-orkney-neolithic-brodgar


The isolation between various branches of the human specie were obviously one effect of the massive ice-time that 'rueld' the earth between 25.000 and 12.000 yrs ago. This is why you don't find any descendandts of the 'arctic' makrogroup commonly known as y-dna F - such as hgs H and J - appearing in India before the final end of Younger Dryas - some 11.800 years BP.

Thus my questions;

1) Which ancient y-dna were present in India before the onset of the Younger Dryas?

2) How many migrations across the Hindu Kush are known from the time between 11.800 BP and 4.500 yrs BP - when these popualtions started connected, inter-acting and organizing the first routes and routines of travel and trade between north and south, as ell as east and west...?

batman said...

Tracing the caucasian ('aryan') traits and trails:

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9d/05/8a/9d058a86de13b80bcd011f74a8f44c75.jpg

https://cienciologia.wordpress.com/category/were-the-greeks-blond-and-blue-eyed/

http://humansarefree.com/2014/04/the-origin-of-blue-eyes-ancient-gods.html

capra internetensis said...

@Nirjhar

You are missing that batman is a grade-A, top-shelf crackpot.

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar

How about more than three:

- Oldest spoked-wheel chariot 1700 BC
- Red ocher powder usage; this custom continues in Indian weddings.
- stone-pestle grave goods; soma-pressing
- sacrificial altars/havan
- horse graves/sacred
- dog graves/sacred (Indo-Iranians and then namely Iranians held the dog as well as horse, as a sacred animal).
- Smelting operations
- Fort structures (in Vedas, Aryas as well as their foes build forts; at least a dozen forts ascribed to the Aryans).

BMAC also figures in my lay of the land, but I'd rather leave you with the above first.

Don't get indigestion.

Nirjhar007 said...

Atriðr,

Don't get indigestion.

Already digested years back. Have to say I am disappointed in you! . Please read the non-invasionist article I provided . Most of the aspects are already discussed there.

Capra,

That's a common trait of a Grade A, revolutionary genius right?:D

batman,

Thank you for your clarifications.

About the '' migrations across the Hindu Kush are known from the time between 11.800 BP and 4.500 yrs BP''.

Well archaeology detects, two migration to the Subcontinent, during that period I know of ( or you can say interested of ;) ) . One happened around 6000 BC period , during the 8.2 kyo event and the other around 4500-3800 BC period , started some centuries before the drastic 5.9 kyo event.

Davidski said...

aniasi,

I don't have such samples yet, but I might in the near future.

Rob said...

Yes it's a very interesting question (when people don't get too emotional about it :))

It has to be said, archaeological narratives of the changes in Harappa and for IA invasion have left us wanting for more comprehensive and nuanced treatment of the evidence in an interpretavist light rather than a crude culture -historical approach setting out from a predetermined hypothesis and then looking for "index fossils" - no matter how lax the similarity and non-contextualised the finds .

The issue is even more acute when the Vedas are scanned for "evidence" and then one looks for similarities elsewhere. This is probably a big mistake as such works are not accurate historical resources, but mythologies invented by those that wrote them. Preliterate societies (or Peri-literate) only had all memory going back to to 4 generations, that is 100 to 200 years at best

Sintashta was a metallurgical centre, not a "Military HQ". The people that worked and lived there engaged in a productive but difficult existence, with evidence of physical suffering in the anthropological evidence. Of course this is not to say there was no movement into central Asia /northern India, esp. given the 'crash' or "transformation" of the IVC could have allowed new peoples or factions to move in and take power.

One could see a possible (although much later) with what happened in the Copper age Balkans (but with details YTBD for both events)

bharatiya said...

@rob Vedas were memorized and repeated syllable to syllable like a tape recording for millenia, they were written down very very late.

While I tend to support the mainstream suppositions, it has to be admitted that the archaeological record is not without problems. Sintashta and Srubnaya for example seem to have rared pigs tabooed among Indo-Aryans and most iranic people. Andronovo is far too late to be indo-aryan. Even the BMAC seems far too late to have preceded the Indic-Iranic split. There is evidence of Indo-Aryan words in west asia by the 16th century. Seems reasonable to assume that Indo-Aryan speakers got there atleast a couple of centuries before

Rob said...

@ bharatiya

"Vedas were memorized and repeated syllable to syllable like a tape recording for millenia, they were written down very very late."

This is not what ethnographic evidence would suggest. Significant distortion, "Chinese whispers', occurs. As I said, evidence points to oral memory in preliterate societies isn't as archaic as usually believed.

Davidski said...

Andronovo is far too late to be indo-aryan. Even the BMAC seems far too late to have preceded the Indic-Iranic split.

What's the evidence for this?

bharatiya said...

@Davidski what exactly is wrong with the Manasataramgini blogger's analysis of pigmentation genetics ?

postneo said...

Rob the case of Vedic is a well studied anomaly compared to other oral traditions.

There are well behaved and documented mutations in the oral transmission of Vedic. What is anomalous is that the mutations are so little when you compare far flung communities that have had no historical connection.

Davidski said...

He seems to think that markers associated with light skin were introduced into Europe via Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) admixture into Yamnaya. This is not true. Apart maybe from Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), all other ancient European meta-populations already had these markers.

Another major problem with his article is that he ignores the spread of R1a-rich Corded Ware across Northern Europe, and instead posits that R1a-rich Balto-Slavic came about as a result of elite dominance by Yamnaya males rich in R1b-Z2103.

He also makes a rather bizarre reference to "whites and fellow travelers" when talking about the steppe hypothesis. So he seems like a bit of a fruitcake. Who is he and why should we take note of his version of events?

postneo said...

Andronovo is far too late to be indo-aryan. Even the BMAC seems far too late to have preceded the Indic-Iranic split.

What's the evidence for this?

There's absolutely no hard evidence. I think it's a pointless assertion. Just like there's no hard evidence that z93 spoke indoniranian or moved east to Central Asia

You can't deduce a flow from a n isolated snapshot of a purported source without sampling the target.

Davidski said...

There is hard evidence that Z93 moved east into Central Asia, and then into South Asia.

You need to accept this, instead of wasting your time arguing against it.

Davidski said...

The Manasataramgini blogger also thinks that both the lactose persistence allele and Z93 moved from the Caucasus into the steppe.

He's basically constructed a parallel universe to try and explain away what he doesn't like.

batman said...

@ Ninjar

Tx for the clearification.

Are there any indications available - by archeology or traded memories (chronicles, myths) - that may clearify where the early migrations came from?

Does the written annals from Vedic time, of the old, oral traditions, indicate a period and an area of origin for the Aryans and the Asvinas?

PS: Don't mind the caprentian humor. Someones's just sh scared that the pagan teachings about the human origin shall be revealed. According to the Secret Findings from Pompei, kept in a Secret Cabinet at the Museum of Napoli, our commmon, human genome was the result of a hybridization, known as the "Hieros Gamos".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Museum,_Naples

Eventhough the principle desribed in this (hellenic) myth is incredibly close to the discoveries of Erasmus Darwin and the famous theory of his grandson Charles, the 'caprian element' of the pre-christian myths from pagan Europe is still hard to grasp for any post-graduate catholic.

Blunt sarkasm ad hominem is hardly anything but a failed cover-up of ones own limitations - as of knowledge, insight or concepts.

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar
I am familiar with that link & other OIT theories. I hold some of these arguments myself, but not from an OIT perspective. Last 2-3 years of genetic samples have made the model highly improbable. Also, you need to understand just how little OIT holders know about linguistics, genetics, or any other Indo-European language or history. It's only about India in their paradigm (and Iran by necessity).

That said, more surprises may come from the IVC results; also needs more digging in Afghanistan (complicated by the wars there).

I think you may want to read throneoftruth with more sobriety. He makes his arguments by twisting facts -> i.e. states that "pura" might be something other than city/fort (stating this ONLY to try and ignore that Indra is known as the fort-destroyer in the Vedas).

And look above at those TreeMix runs. What's your answer for the long bright red line?

@Davidski
Manasataramgiri (group of bloggers) have very sharp reasoning imo - though I agree that their discussion of Europeans and "whites" is a chip they need to get off their shoulders. For some reason, many (West and East) seem to equate phenotypes with ancestry as opposed to direct ancestral lineage (regardless of phenotypes). Also, any mention of fair-hair sends some in a frenzy. The 19th century romances did no favor to truth either, but it's a bit ridiculous to not move beyond this.

@Rob
Re: Metallurgy center. I disagree:

- BMAC 2000 BC great fortifications/walls; BMAC 1800BC. sharply diminished fortifications/walls - why?

Now, let's see some of the earliest Indo-European "migrations":

- Mitanni (Indo-Aryan) chariot-riding elite (military conquest)
- Myceneans (military conquest)
- Dorians (military conquest)
- Latini (military conquest)
- Iranics (military conquest into West Asia)
- Indo-Aryans? Read the Mahabharata to see just how war-like they were.

Indo-European earliest records (Vedas, Iliad, Mahabharata, Kikkuli's horse text), huge emphasis on warrior culture.

Language is transmitted via conquest, trade, culture. If Indo-Europeans did not transmit languages by conquest, would you be willing to claim their trade networks or cultural reach were better than some of the more urban civilizations of the Bronze Age? I'm not.

Re: Genetics -> what explains the star-burst pattern best? Exploration? Unlikely, but I'm all ears.

Rob said...

Atior

I did not make an blanket statements that IE did not spread by conquest , so you appear to have misunderstood

Moreover, you appear to have a simplistic understanding of many of your cited examples, which prove nothing about the centrality of Sintashta itself

How does the expansion of the Latins prove anything about 4000 BC, or 2000 BC. What does the Dorian usurpation of former Mycenean power prove ? Do you suppose that only IE groups could conquer ? I suspect not

But let's look at the Mycenean "conquest" you mention. Can you cite any evidence ? Are you even familiar with what changes occurred in Greece, and if so when ? you appear to have just made a series of blanket statements which mean or explain little

Language can spread by meant means; but best of all; full scale migration of "folk".
That's what explains the star burst: population grower had already begun, which is what facilitated expansion into other ecotones and regions; more than any hyperbolic notions of elite conquest; which given the social structure of the place, time and peope we are dealing with, is probably wrong

And the Shintashta settlement Patterns changed because the conditions which sustained them endes

batman said...

@ Rob

Trditions for trading memories from numbers of generations - known as "Our History" or "History", plainly - is a tradition we today know to have existed in several parts of the world - throughout the last 10.000 years.

"When the Ocean grew"
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/tales-of-sea-level-rise-told-for-10000-years-18586

"The scientific world is stunned by research" ;D
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-03/aboriginal-legend-palm-tree-origin-central-australia-research/6369832

"Outback palms: Aboriginal myth meets DNA analysis"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7545/full/520033a.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/sach-aboriginal-map-indigenous-biocultural-knowledge-2705/5479964

http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/usc:14264?queryType=vitalDismax&query=indigenous+australian+stories

Mapping North America - by thorough and stringent oral traditions:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090204112237.htm

Famous stories from witnesses of ancient cataclysms:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.4251.pdf

Traditions of craftsmanship and basic, scientific knowledge:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6204/1609

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2012/07/physicists-study-the-classics-for-hidden-truths/

PS: What humans, exactly, came from the Baltics, as far as you recall?

Atriðr said...

@Rob
"I did not make an blanket statements that IE did not spread by conquest , so you appear to have misunderstood"

My enumeration wasn't to give a simplistic overview; it was to remind that the cultural behaviors of Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age was consistent with military expansionism. In other words, the Sintashta metallurgical operations (for conquest) is in line with this expansion.

This is downplayed. And your comment seemed to me to downplay it. Did I misunderstand?

Where I disagree with you is with Bronze Age population movements. The Bronze Age was a violent age.

Talking about Mycenaeans here is out of place; again, the enumeration of such was only brought up to give a macro view of I-E Bronze Age movements. But out of curiosity, do you hold that Mycenaeans were native to Greece; what do you make of the Iliad; bronze findings?

imam-din said...

I would like to make one point here about the importance of something that is recorded orally to something that is recorded in written so-called literate form in the context of ancient texts, customs, history etc. For some strange reasons, the western scholars tend to blindly believe that anything that comes in a written form automatically becomes a divine truth and is totally beyond any kind of doubts or suspicions while the oral history is all wrong just because it is oral. Well this is totally wrong approach, anyone can write totally baseless and fictitious things just in the same way as someone can narrate false things. This figure of merit for something archaeologically being valuable only if it is in written form needs serious inspection and change.
Just because Vedas were orally transferred generation after generation does not make it anymore doubtful than if it would have been in written form since 1500 BC. Lies can be made both in written as well as in oral form and same goes for the truth irrespective of the time and space because the humanity has its share of liars as much in the ancient times as it has today.

Davidski said...

Atriðr,

Manasataramgiri (group of bloggers) have very sharp reasoning imo

But some of their main points are based on false premises or at best desperate speculation and hope.

A large part of that article reads like propaganda aimed at people who won't be able to pick up on the rather large bits of nonsense strewn throughout the article.

This is not a popularity contest or even a democracy. Lying successfully to enough people is not the aim here.

Atriðr said...

@Davidski

I see what you're saying; for my part, I interpret their incorrect premises as unconscious bias or simply errors, but who knows.

postneo said...

"Just because Vedas were orally transferred generation after generation does not make it anymore doubtful than if it would have been in written form since 1500 BC. Lies can be made .."

The question is not about a lie or truth but the consistency of the lie/truth without mutation. Western scholars have actually taken faithful note of this and have been shocked. Its like discovering a real fossilized dinosaur when you expect a modern lizard.

In fact thats the only reason reconstructed IE linguistics even exists. The problem is that indologists have been so overwhelmed by the anomalous preservation of vedic that they have neglected deeper study of later IA. They have only done such an excercise for european languages. I suspect there are weak signals of extra vedic IE in India but they will never get to it, since vedic holds them in thrall.

Tom Milledge said...

See this article. Follow the dogs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816135/pdf/cr2015147a.pdf

Figure 2D on page 27 should be of particular interest.

Rob said...

@ Atriðr

'My enumeration wasn't to give a simplistic overview; it was to remind that the cultural behaviors of Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age was consistent with military expansionism. In other words, the Sintashta metallurgical operations (for conquest) is in line with this expansion'

I grasp that. I was merely pointing out that the discussion that the expansion of Latins or Dorians has little direct relevance to early - mid Bronze Age phenomena, unless we are going to invoke Dumezil-esque notions of an ineffable and unwavering "IE warrior spirit" ;)

Back to Sintashta, whilst we can certainly argue it was a society with warfare ethos "While Sintashta settlements have been viewed as representative of early complex societies, no clear evidence has been established previously for settlement pattern hierarchies or clear social inequality.. (B Hanks). Which brings me back to who are these people really ? Are they the warriors who conquered south - central Asia ? Perhaps, but I don't think we're quite there yet. The subsequent abandonement of their settlements was most proximately due to exhaustion of local resources (esp. timber for their furnaces), and the dissolution of their mode of productivity. Which brings me back to my original point about them being primarily metallurgists. Let's carefully, then examine south-central Asia in the corresponding period : Still hazy, but no evidence for any post-Sintastha finds have surfaced in the post-BMAC phases. If anything, I expect a shifting of nearby "simple" pastoralists after the BMAC itself collapsed as the Mesopotamian power shifted their trade focus to the west Mediterranean

* "Where I disagree with you is with Bronze Age population movements. The Bronze Age was a violent age. "

I never said it wasn't. But then again, all "Ages" were violent. Even meerkats are violent. In fact, peak violence in Europe appears to have been in the late Neolithic, pre-CWC / pre-BB/ pre-yamnaya. These latter phenomena appear to be a shift toward more 'peaceful' times, odd exceptions such as Eulau.

* 'Talking about Mycenaeans here is out of place; again, the enumeration of such was only brought up to give a macro view of I-E Bronze Age movements. But out of curiosity, do you hold that Mycenaeans were native to Greece; what do you make of the Iliad; bronze findings?"

Yes its in own fascinating topic.
To answer you question : no I don't think Myceneans are "native". I only have semi-formed ideas about this region, as we have barely any aDNA to corroborate various movements suggested by archaeology. There are 2 most notable 'breaks' : Copper Age (c. 4000 - 3500 BC) and EBA I -> II (c. 2200 BC). In either case, we might be left to wonder from whither came new arrivals and under which circumstances. I won't elaborate now, but I doubt it was from where we might expect. And I suspect aDNA will confirm this; so I hope we can revisit this I'm near future ?

Rob said...


PostNeo

How do we know Vedas are so unmutated through its oral transmission if no literary documents preserve their earliest version ?

Davidski said...

@Tom Milledge

See this article. Follow the dogs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816135/pdf/cr2015147a.pdf

I've got a better idea. Let's not follow the dogs, since dog domestication is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

imam-din said...

@Rob

Why you think that if there was a literary document of Vedas then it would be without any flaws, there are many factors that can make a written form of "anything" much worse than its oral form. For example the writer might be a liar, dumb, making a plethora of grammatical and spelling mistakes but for you just like any "western scholar" anything that would be found in written form is "the most authentic form" automatically. Any one can intentionally write a mutated form of any language with intentional or unintentional mistakes of grammar and vocabulary of that language, who will decide that the writer didn't make any mistake.

Nirjhar007 said...

Rob,

Even for staunch AIT proponents like Michael Witzel, Rigveda is perceived as ''a tape recording'' of its composition period. To him its about 1500-1200 BC , for me its 2000-1500 BC.

Atrior,

The article is NOT OIT , you are a buffoon and you have proven it!.

The article says :

So if both Aryan migration or out of India theory does not have any good evidences, then from where did the ancestral proto Indo-Europeans originate and how did the Vedic culture spread into India? We gain most of the information about the proto Indo-European culture mainly from the reconstructed proto Indo-Europen language which is mainly reconstructed from historically attested Indo-European language branches like Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Italic, Anatolian, Tocharian, Germanic etc through comparative analysis. Most authors take this reconstruction for granted, but how much accurate is this reconstruction? In my opinion the current reconstructed proto Indo European mostly serves a good explanation to the connections between the major Indo-European branches. Undoubtedly there once existed a common ancestral language linking all major Indo-European branches during ancient times, but we cannot be sure about the quality of current reconstructions since we have no historical sources to verify it.

Davidski said...

Hehe.

His entire argument rests on the hope that there wasn't a massive invasion of South Asia from the Eurasian Steppe during the late Bronze Age.

So he has no argument.

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar

Look, I've read your posts and read that article too (before making your pleasant acquaintance). It is an OIT theory disguised as a non-OIT. You're just bs-ing this whole time and I don't think you're sincere. My best prognosis, you're looking for some way to salvage your sense of identity.

Even the first phrase of your copy-paste demonstrates this: "So if both Aryan migration or out of India theory does not have any good evidences [...]"

-> trying to paint both models on equal footing; glaringly deceiving.

Or how about this: "Most authors take this reconstruction for granted"

-> False. Here's the subtext of this sentence: "linguistics is a fake science because it does not support our belief"

You clearly have no sense of what I've posted and no sense of proportion.

I've fed you enough.

Go bother some one else.

Nirjhar007 said...

batman,

Are there any indications available - by archeology or traded memories (chronicles, myths) - that may clearify where the early migrations came from?

Archaeologically, those migrations happened from Western Asia. It is concluded on the basis of Anthropology . No memories , which dates back to Rigveda (2000-1500 BC). No there is no such memories , the reason is that they were inhabitants of N India many centuries before the compositions of those archaic texts , Same also goes for Avesta of Iranians .

Does the written annals from Vedic time, of the old, oral traditions, indicate a period and an area of origin for the Aryans and the Asvinas?

The period of Avesta is 1500-1300 BC . for the Gathic version . By combining both Veda and Avesta , the origin of Indo-Iranians is in SC Asia (especially N India +PAK+AFG+E Iran +BACTRIA area)

PS: Don't mind the caprentian humor. Someones's just sh scared that the pagan teachings about the human origin shall be revealed. According to the Secret Findings from Pompei, kept in a Secret Cabinet at the Museum of Napoli, our commmon, human genome was the result of a hybridization, known as the "Hieros Gamos".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Museum,_Naples

Eventhough the principle desribed in this (hellenic) myth is incredibly close to the discoveries of Erasmus Darwin and the famous theory of his grandson Charles, the 'caprian element' of the pre-christian myths from pagan Europe is still hard to grasp for any post-graduate catholic.

Blunt sarkasm ad hominem is hardly anything but a failed cover-up of ones own limitations - as of knowledge, insight or concepts.


OK, will do bud ;)

Nirjhar007 said...

Atrior,

I think you are a teenager in reality and love to bully . You just love to embarrass yourself . The only thing is that, you have lots of goofy supporters.
I just quote another portion :

As for the origins of Vedic culture and dates of Vedic texts, my view is about an early group of Indo-Europeans arriving in India from somewhere else during pre Sarasvati-Sindhu era to lay the foundation of Sarasvati-Sindhu culture by mingling with the non Indo-Europeans of India and thus gradually creating the substratum, retroflex etc through mutual interactions and influences. Of course this is a speculative view from my part, but this scenario would solve many problems faced by current mainstream post Sarasvati-Sindhu dating of the Vedic texts as discussed above. There are also supposed astronomical evidences from Vedic and post Vedic texts like Ramayana and Mahabharata which dates them to mature Sarasvati-Sindhu or even pre Sarasvati-Sindhu phases. However, these astronomical information could have passed down from an earlier tradition and could have been added to the texts later. This seems to be the case especially with the post Vedic texts like Ramayana and Mahabharata which underwent multiple revisions and contains various textual layers.

Atriðr said...

@Rob

"I grasp that. I was merely pointing out that the discussion that the expansion of Latins or Dorians has little direct relevance to early - mid Bronze Age phenomena"

Fair enough; but there was no edit button that I could find after-the-fact. But yes, the gist of cultural heritage à-la-Dumézil was in small part the reason for their inclusion to begin with. ;)

In reply to the continuation of your reply: archaeology conclusions differ from linguistic ones, and as useful as it is to cross the disciplines (especially for commenting in a blog), the risk of ending with a variety of ambiguous, non-committing conclusions without any strong sense of anything is great, and sadly inevitable.

Hence why hard genetic data will likely answer some of these questions before the rest of these non-committing fields.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hence why hard genetic data will likely answer some of these questions

I think you already have, the answers of the major ones, right?.

Nirjhar007 said...

oh I forgot him :

Hehe.

His entire argument rests on the hope that there wasn't a massive invasion of South Asia from the Eurasian Steppe during the late Bronze Age.

So he has no argument.


Very funny .

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar

Yes, Nirjhar, I'm a teenager, I'm a teenager. And of course, a bully too - you know me so well after 4 or 5 postings... Nirjhar, you'd have so much more success in your communications if you avoided starting every one of your postings WITHOUT some form of insult.

What's your goal? You want me to say Shabaash?

Or are you looking for an ally to express ideas which you struggle to do succinctly?

Let me try:

- Textual, astronomical evidence in early Vedic, and/or Classical Sanskrit texts demonstrates a knowledge that would have been impossible prior to [enter year B.C.] since records from [modern-day certified Astronomical Agency] show that [Astronomical event] only occurred between [year B.C.] and [year B.C.].

Just to tie it all up; what do you want me to say? What is your hypothesis that you'd appreciate support for?

Nirjhar007 said...

Atrior,
You propose arguments which are discarded and outdated . You suffer from prejudices . You lack the scientific approach .

I don't have any specific conclusion now. No sane person can have it , concerning the modern state of evidence.

The main indication is that , AIT chronology is outdated , predetermined creationism . You need to follow actual data to come to a more scientific position . People have a tendency to stay in a comfort zone , and build upon that zone which is created . If actual data disregard the predetermined ''comfort zone i.e. theory'' , it becomes subject to ridicule and attacks! .

I was a follower of the AIT model some years back , then I questioned . I found only questions, without any reliable answers! . That's why I have forsaken the notion of theory. I follow patterns now , and try to make suggestions on the basis of those patterns .

So, that strategy , makes me question when people like David say , the massive migration from steppe to S Asia is proven or Mitanni is the proof that IA migrations happened to India in 2nd millennium BC! . We all know that both are silly and idiotic arguments . As we know , that whole region of SC Asia is lacking results of aDNA and for Mitanni , if someone have even have basic linguistic knowledge will find that . It neither belongs to Indic or Iranian, quite like the case of Nuristanis , if I'm not wrong. Linguistically, its closer to Iranian but in religion it can be termed as ''Pre-zoroastrian'' , which is closer to Indic , for obvious reasons. So in reality its a extinct branch of Aryan dialect!. This was already pointed by Gamkralidge and Ivanov , 20 years back! and we all know Mitanni is the proof itself, that elite dominance model, don't work for India .

About Z-93 , its obviously a SC Asian marker , absent in Europe . So without testing the zone of the clade its hogwash to make conclusions about its origin! do you agree?. David years back suggested to me that Z-93 can't be older than 1500 BC , now we have samples dating it to 3000 BC.

Then there is the archaeological and anthropological evidence . But you seems to undermine them! .
At the end I quote what J.P. Mallory suggest :
The problem here, of course, is that over time we have come to know more and more and that our earlier, simpler and more alluring narratives of Indo-European origins and dispersals are all falling victim to our increasing knowledge. We have obviously moved on from the time when Nikolai Merpert first published his analyses of the role of the steppe lands within the context of the Indo-European homeland but it is evident that we still have a very long way to go.

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar

"I think you already have, the answers of the major ones, right?."

Getting there with the Y-haplos.

But still waiting to see aDNA results of more samples. Something from BMAC would be nice. And IVC of course. And if we ever find Alexander's grave and had sample sequenced, yes that would be very fun.

Nirjhar007 said...

Well, we are gonna have Rakhigarhi, BMAC, Swat . They are all tested now...

Atriðr said...

@Nirjhar

"You propose arguments which are discarded and outdated . You suffer from prejudices . You lack the scientific approach."

Every time I'm about to give you the benefit of the doubt, you don't disappoint with some new inane driveling insult. Get a hold of your emotions.

Let's be clear: you have absolutely no idea what paradigm I consider to be the strongest one yet.

Poor Nirjhar; I was about to give you a true gift, alas, it'll have to wait.

Davidski said...

About Z-93 , its obviously a SC Asian marker, absent in Europe.

It's not absent in Europe. There are basal clades of Z93 present in Poland and Russia that don't have a close relationship with any Asian clades of Z93.

And of course Z93 in present in ancient European remains, along with the ancestral Z645 and M459.

Ignoring these facts doesn't make you look smart.

David years back suggested to me that Z-93 can't be older than 1500 BC.

Can't remember saying that. It'd be a strange thing to say though, because it would mean that Z93 popped up just as the Aryans moved into India.

So I don't think I said 1500 BC. I may have said 2000 BC, but that's not that far off from the truth, considering the low quality of the data back in the day.

Nirjhar007 said...

Atrior,

You can learn about ''paradigm'' here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html

Especially focus on Maju's questions. Gift?, well it depends on what it is . If its unpublished research, I am game!...

Nirjhar007 said...

There are basal clades of Z93 present in Poland and Russia that don't have a close relationship with any Asian clades of Z93.

There are also such clades present in Asia , wait few months.


And of course Z93 in present in ancient European remains, along with the ancestral Z645 and M459


There is no reason to think, that they will be not present in Ancient Asian sites.

So I don't think I said 1500 BC. I may have said 2000 BC, but that's not that far off from the truth, considering the low quality of the data back in the day.

2000 Bc ? you didn't say that . its of course far off from the truth . 10000 years far , as per latest samples..

Z94 is itself is 5000 years old now. Proven...
I say Z-93 will be found 6000 years old , I have my bet on it..

Davidski said...

I found what I said about Z93 over two years ago.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/near-eastern-origin-of-ashkenazi-r1a.html?showComment=1387371517674#c3918233796269171048

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/near-eastern-origin-of-ashkenazi-r1a.html?showComment=1387409526876#c9155430878713432226

So my on the record estimate for the age of Z93 back in 2013 was ~6,000 years. I haven't changed my mind since then.

Nirjhar007 said...

Very good .

So we have ''good'' reason that . Z-93 is of 4000 BC . that makes perfect case for the Archaeological data , observed in the Subcontinent!.

Also the CHG intrusion in the Steppes seems related!....

Davidski said...

You're delusional.

The expansion of Z93 was from the steppes, not from the Caucasus.

Rob said...

Even with full sequencing & collateral aDNA, we cannot state with 100 % precision how "old' a haplogroup is (unless of course we have exhaustive aDNA set). Moreover, there is the issue of when it actually began to expand and migrate. Its overall age is often older than its expansion time by up to several hundred years.

So if it is 6000 years old (4000 BC), it could have begun to expand 35000 BC, say, which makes it "late Neolithic'.

This is all rather educated guesswork, but probably not too far off. It still leaves the question of from where to where, exactly..

Nirjhar007 said...

D,

You keep up with that mantra of yours...

Davidski said...

There's no mystery.

Z93 expanded from the steppes during the Bronze Age and its expansion was associated with the spread of early Indo-Iranian languages.

That's what the totality of the evidence shows. It makes no difference what either of you are confused about, or what you wanted to see. It is what it is. Accept it or get another hobby.

Nirjhar007 said...

I have to say , you certainly know, how to write propaganda .

bharatiya said...

Indians needn't be apologetic about an Aryan migration at all, it doesn't imply that early Indo-Aryan literature are in any way European. They are the only ones who have preserved the memories of these ancestors and their gods. Nor should they be defensive about the replacement of various other local cultures. Migration and linguistic change during the Bronze age occurred across Eurasia. Indian tradition Pre-Indo-Aryan cultures have survived as the lesser traditions amidst Great Tradition based on Vedic thought.

Gioiello said...

From the YFull tree there are a few doubts that R1a expanded from Eastern Europe to Southern Asia:
R-Z93 V3664/Z2479/M746/S4582 * Z93/F992/S202 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp info
This cluster is present in India and was born 4800 years ago, but that doesn't mean that it was in India from the, it may have reached India later
R-YP1506 YP1506R-YP1506*id:HG03705 PJL

R-YP1505 YP1505 * YP1507 * YP1508R-YP1505*
R-YP1509 YP1509 * YP1512 * YP1513+6 SNPs
R-YP1518 YP1519 * YP1521 * YP1522+11 SNPs

This cluster expanded 3800 years ago and that could be the date
R-Y37Y38 * Y39/M560 * Y37R-Y37*id:NA20897GIH
id:HG04194 BEB

R-Y41Y42 * Y41 id:HG03926 BEB
id:HG02603 PJL
id:HG02699 PJL

All the other clusters are old in Europe, and I'd say in Western Europe.

The oldest R-M420* separated 12600 years ago and one cluster is in Middle east and anotherin Western Europe
R-YP4141 YP4148 * YP4216 * YP4163+30 SNPs formed 18200 ybp, TMRCA 12600 ybp info R-YP4141*
R-YP5018 YP5019 * YP5063 * YP5027+59 SNPs id:YF04806 QAT

R-YP4131 YP4221 * YP4176 * YP4139+78 SNPs formed 12600 ybp, TMRCA 900 ybp info id:YF04438 GBR [GB-LAN]
id:YF03626 USA [US-SC]

But older is the expansion of R-M459
R-M459 CTS10042/PF6207/M754 * CTS501/PF6152/M604 * CTS11853/PF6227+43 SNPs formed 18200 ybp, TMRCA 14300 ybp info
and everything seems to indicate the Western European hunter-gatherers.
I don't doubt that we'll find a sample of it not far from the R1b1a of Villabruna.

I agree with bharatiya, but not for a Nationalistic proud. I'd ask myself how the language of Vedas formed. It seems to me that it is older than the supposed 3800 years ago when very likely R1a reached India (or that it is a more recent development, very likely).

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alberto said...

Has someone with technical background on the matter been able to "decipher" what those dates for expansions of certain haplogroups could mean? Like what they are detecting exactly, specifically at the dates proposed, etc...?

Taking the R1a-Z93 as debated above, it's said to have expanded in the 2500-2000 BC period. But what would that mean exactly (or at least approximately)?

Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 appeared in the European forest steppe around 3000 BCE, in some eastern Corded Ware area. Then the dates for 2500-2000 BCE would means something like the Abashevo culture and early Sintashta. Considering the population that can be estimated from those cultures, it could mean that it went from being carried by a few hundred men to a few thousand men. Would those numbers be consistent with what is being detected? Because those kind of numbers wouldn't look very abnormal to me, it can happen thousands of times with any haplogroup.

I guess that for the Abashevo/Sintashta scenario, it should make more sense if the expansion was dated at around 1500-1000 BCE (or even later). That would look like the time where it might have gone from a few thousand to maybe a few hundred thousand (which for the time would already be notable figure).

In South Asia, following the same kind of scenario, we would have the mature Harappan period in the IVC. So assuming that H was the predominant haplogroup there, if the population from the IVC could be estimated at around 1 million or a bit more at 3000 BCE, and then it might have reached 5 millions by 2000 BCE, that seems very different from the Abashevo/Sintashta case. Maybe the percentage of growth is quite lower, but the amount of new carriers of a haplogroup much, much higher.

So did someone with a decent understanding of the technical data on that paper could make any sense of what those figures and dates could really mean?

Davidski said...

I laid it out two to three years ago in a series of blog posts here and at my other blog.

The ancient DNA and deep sequence data that we're now seeing (from some of the authors that I criticized in the past because they were a bit slow) is now backing up what I said.

So what is there to discuss, and what sort of technical background and expertise are you looking for? The problem is that some of you aren't really listening to what I'm trying to tell you.

postneo said...

@rob
"How do we know Vedas are so unmutated through its oral transmission if no literary documents preserve their earliest version ?"

I already answered. I will tell try to spell it out more clearly with example. You travel from lets say ghana in africa to tanzania. You find two isolated cultures who don't know of each other and are not historically or linguistically connected. They recite very long poems. To your surprise the poems match syllable for syllable and sequence. Moreover the language of the poems is not intelligible to the reciters.

You also find that the language helps you build an ancient lexicon and morphology that ties languages of europe together in a way thats impossible with their modern versions.

This is not coming from me but what every western indologist and IE linguist from the last few centuries will tell you. So its nothing new.
------------

My 2 cents in all this: The natives who have preserved vedic lack the introspective band width/interest to fill in the gaps between vedic and modern versions of indic languages. Western scholars have done that for their own languages and scratched around a little bit on the indian side with religous texts in MIA.

In general Vedic is more german shifted than NIA(modern indic) in many aspects. But surprisingly many indic languages preserve aspects of IE lost in sanskrit.

Rob said...

PostNeo

Obviously, I understand what the comparative method is and the linguistic significance of texts

Rather, I question the degree of historical reality behind them: as in how much we can reconstruct about the IA invasion from religious texts designed to glorify, mythologize, consolidate, often through use of topoi and half truths
And that is universal to all ancient texts, not just the Vedas.

Nirjhar007 said...

to ''bharatiya''

Indians needn't be apologetic about an Aryan migration at all, it doesn't imply that early Indo-Aryan literature are in any way European

Thats makes no sense..

They are the only ones who have preserved the memories of these ancestors and their gods. Nor should they be defensive about the replacement of various other local cultures.

The first sentence is correct . Indian tradition has great resiliency . The second one comes from ''Colonial Era Brainwash''...

. Migration and linguistic change during the Bronze age occurred across Eurasia. Indian tradition Pre-Indo-Aryan cultures have survived as the lesser traditions amidst Great Tradition based on Vedic thought.

Again the first sentence is theoretically correct . The second one is confusing , we may remember that there is no data of such bronze age intrusion to S Asia.

Nirjhar007 said...

I am almost certain now that, R1a-z93 reached S Asia by 3800 BC . I am willing to bet, all my money on that!.

Can't wait for the aDNA results..

Davidski said...

You'll lose all your money.

Nirjhar007 said...

Wanna bet?.

Gioiello said...

Anyway I said 3800 years ago not 3800 years BC!

Nirjhar007 said...

I know very well what you said Dottore . Just that , in this case, the victory will be mine.

Gioiello said...

I think that the YFull dates are underestimated, but for a 1.17 factor, thus not for a 1.52 one!

Gioiello said...

When the paper with the GRC samples I spoke above is published with many R-L23 samples found also in India, as R-Z2106 etc., I think I'll be able to calculate that date exactly, because very likely those R1b samples arrived in India with the R1a...

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007

You should calculate that date already by looking at the J2 of the Jatts: they arrived in India with those R1a from around the Caucasus.

Nirjhar007 said...

Yes . But as you know, aDNA has the highest authority . And estimates at the end are estimates, bound to change with time .

Nirjhar007 said...

Oh yes, About Jatt folks. They are a late arrival, of around ~2000 YBP , they are suggested to have Scythian origins at large.

Karl_K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mickeydodds1 said...

Just one question David,


If the invading Aryan R1a 93 men came originally from corded ware, or indeed the western steppe, why is it that they never took any I2 men along with them, for the ride, so to speak, to south central Asia?
As we know, I2 has been a diagnostic of eastern European populations long before Yamanya invasion times,presumably the original steppe invaders assimilated and mixed with the I2s during the transition to corded ware.

Karl_K said...

@mickeydodds1

It is probably just multiple founder effects. The groups that made their way back east and then south had many male-line bottlenecks.

bharatiya said...

@Nirjar
What I meant to say it is foolish to think that an event so long ago should have any bearing on our sense of cultural identity. It should be analysed purely on its merits. The absurd views of some 19th & early 20th century historians or its propagation by colonialists is irrelevant to today's debate. Neither should the propaganda of the Mao and Stalin worshipers who populate the Humanities departments at Indian universities nor those of Jesus freaks and those in their pay who claim that the egalitarian socialist aboriginal Republics that worshiped the one true God were over destroyed by the immoral and polytheist Aryans, bother us. Current genetic data strongly seems to support a transmission of IA languages from the steppe in the early second millennium. Yes it is true that there is evidence of cultural continuity in South Asia. But is this unexpected given that the early IA men often took local female partners and likely accepted several local particularly artisans into their society? There is no evidence that the Indo-Aryans razed down the cities or attempted an organized capture of the IVC territory but is it impossible that small bands of IA speakers managed to capture settlements of an already decaying IVC. Would small scale localized conflict appear so evident on the archaeological record. Your own theory of an indo-europeanization of India comes with much larger problems. For example are we to imagine that IIrs possessed chariots for two millenia before it appears on the archaeological record, at a time when the wheeled wagon had just been invented amongst other peoples and that too even prior to the domestication of the horse? Whatever its problems the kurgan model seems to offer the simplest and best model so far and genetics certainly seems set to validate it

postneo said...

"Rather, I question the degree of historical reality behind them: as in how much we can reconstruct about the IA invasion from religious texts designed to glorify, mythologize, consolidate, often through use of topoi and half truths
And that is universal to all ancient texts, not just the Vedas."

There is not much history there at all, no intent to preserve or record history. The theme is seasonal ritual not history. example of the contents: A hero battles a snake like thing. man drinking a stimulant. bizzare 3 wheeled chariots with calendrical number of spokes etc..

Some exceptions:
The battle of 10 kings with victor fighting a western alliance seemingly tied to rivers in panjab. signs of mutual religious animosity with avestan/iranian inferred from comparative studies.

the other history to be inferred: its older than classical sanskrit. its at least as old as the mitanni treaty recorded in Syria.

thats it. the rest is mostly scholarly hubris and subjective work.

aniasi said...

@David,

A shame there are no samples yet, but I look forward to seeing them in the future.

Would you be able to do another treemix for South Indian upper caste populations?

Davidski said...

mickeydodds1,

We already have ancient DNA from western steppe pastoralists from the relevant time period, and there's no I2 among them, just R1a/R1a-Z93.

Corded Ware also didn't carry much, if any I2, so there's no problem linking Corded Ware to the Proto-Indo-Iranians, at least not genetically anyway.

aniasi,

I'll have a look at what's available.

Davidski said...

@aniasi

TreeMix graph with South Indian Brahmins.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQVEJUcDVmOUVNYjQ/view?usp=sharing

Balaji said...

Davidski,

Thanks for your interesting work. You had created similar TreeMix graphs a few months ago.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-real-thing.html

The additional thing that these new graphs show is two kinds of ANI, Baloch like and steppe-like. But it is important to note that the migration edge into Indian_North_R1a-Z93 comes from the base of the node from which stem the steppe populations. The migration edge does not come from Andoronovo_R1a-Z93 which would have strengthened the case for Andoronovo_R1a-Z93 as a putative ancestor of Indian_North_R1a-Z93. Instead it appears that Andronovo_R1a-Z93 shares common ancestry with Indian_North_R1a-Z93. These ancestors could well have originated in the Northwestern part of the Indian Subcontinent. Indian_North_R1a-Z93 would have been formed by the later mixture of these people with ASI.

These graphs do not rule out either OIT or AIT.

Davidski said...

Instead it appears that Andronovo_R1a-Z93 shares common ancestry with Indian_North_R1a-Z93. These ancestors could well have originated in the Northwestern part of the Indian Subcontinent.

These ancestors are Khvalynsk, Poltavka outlier and close relatives, and obviously they didn't come from the Indian Subcontinent.

These graphs do not rule out either OIT or AIT.

OIT is ruled out by the fact that all of the groups contributing to the ancestry of the early steppe pastoralists are native to Eastern Europe and nearby.

There was no migration from South Asia to the Western Steppe.

mickeydodds1 said...

David,
I2 is as native to Poland, and characteristic of Poles as R1a is. Likely it is native to the territory which now comprises Poland from a very ancient date.
I realise that R1a is the steppe marker, so did the corded ware types keep themselves aloof as a distinct ethny from the I2 types for a long course of time, or was there amalgamation right from the start?
As ever, with steppe types, was their distinct patrimony and patrialineage which has obscured male lines of descent?

Davidski said...

It looks like the non-R1 males, and later, among the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the non-R1a-Z93 males, may have been regularly thrown into ditches and whatnot.

On the other hand, sample 10434, the one belonging to haplogroup Q1a, and positioned further east than the other two, appears to have been whacked over the head a few times and simply thrown into a ditch.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/the-khvalynsk-men.html

Don't take this too literally, but it seems like a good example of a regular practice in a broader sense.

DMXX said...

My, you gents have certainly been busy!

Actually, according to David Anthony, the early Indo-Europeans tended towards a stratified society after interacting with non-steppe populations based on their burial practices (in keeping with the guest-host/client-patron system internally confirmed from reconstructed PIE words). The outcome at Khvalynsk cannot be rigidly replicated across the board, particularly with agricultural societies that clearly held some "worth" for the IE's (be it Tripolye and the post-PIE communities or the BMAC with the Indo-Iranians).

Nirjhar,

We have thousands upon thousands of Eurasian samples that paint a very clear picture indeed.

Basal R1a1a-Z93* (xall other subclades) has been found in East Europe only. Another subset of Z93*(xZ2125, M780, which is upstream of L657) was picked up in Iran, South-Central Asia and East-Central Asia. Finally, M780 is effectively restricted to the Indian Subcontinent.

From prior testing, we already knew there is a clear diversity gradient in R1a1a from north to south. One needn't even bother invoking Occam's razor now recent parahaplogroup and subclade data confirm R1a1a expanded into Asia both eastwards and southwards.

The argument from ignorance logical fallacy (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence) can also be dismissed on the grounds of R1a continuity within East Europe, stretching from the Mesolithic through to the Iron Age, with one of them ending up Z93!), whereby the odds of a similar R1a focal development zone occurring anywhere else in Eurasia are rendered so obsolete one would be wasting their time to even begin conceptually framing the statistical odds of it happening.

Davidski is not the only one who's thoroughly perplexed by the constant push-back over this topic. Self-determined ideas impervious to new information are a powerful thing indeed.

Seinundzeit,

You're most welcome. It might be worthwhile holding back until more testing is done on the Z93 node before investing in tests. If you're keen to get plugged in right away, you're best off testing for the immediate downstream SNPs we have so far and then proceeding from there (for the time being, Z2122 and Z2125). Check YFull for the Y-tree as it now stands.

My current guesses based on the SNPs we have:
Z93 - pre-proto-Indo-Iranian
Z94 - early-Indo-Iranian (non-Iranian, Indo-Aryan branches)
L657 - proto-Indo-Aryan
Z2124 - proto-Iranian

You'll note a couple of East Europeans on YFull who are Z2124+. These, I suspect, are the direct descendants of the steppe Iranian back-migration from Central Asia towards Europe.

Your line is clearly derived from the original bearers of the Iranian languages, in my opinion. If you're curious as to which Iranian wave it may be attributed to, that'd be speculative for the time being, but enough testing of modern Afghans and Central Asians should permit us to partially reconstruct the phylogeny and calculate the MRCA with some precision.

Rob,

Certainly. Please see the above, where I've coincidentally elaborated on this.

There's a clear trail of directionality with R1a1a in particular trajectories in Asia, with "relic" parahaplogroups or indications of diversity remaining wherever they may be found. Each subsequent wave basically looks like an "outbudding" from the core population, with diversity decreasing over time (this is basically the genetic drift model, just applied to uniparentals).

I revealed the very few Nurstani samples we had in one of the Afghan papers released after Lacaub et al. (please check my blog for it).

DMXX said...

mickeydodds1,

There actually is some Y-DNA I2 in Central Asia. I've reported on it at Anthrogenica.

Furthermore, Corded Ware exerted its' influence on Sintashta's development through the Abashevo culture, so there is some room for a founder effect (assuming the current samples aren't representative).

As Davidski states, both CW and the peri-Urals steppe cultures appear predominantly Y-DNA R1a1a thus far, so there isn't much cause for academic inquiry just yet regarding this.

Nirjhar007 said...

DMXX,

There is no ''clear picture'' without aDNA from the vital areas.

D,

It looks like the non-R1 males, and later, among the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the non-R1a-Z93 males, may have been regularly thrown into ditches and whatnot.

How interesting indeed. They also did tests for checking the hg's?, I suppose.

''bharatiya'',

I didn't say that Aryans with their chariots started to expand in 3800 BC .They were Indo-Europeans in my suspicion , the spoke a language which later become Indo-Iranian in the SC Asian area.

Earliest depiction of Horse drawn chariots and Spoked wheels are from SC Asian area not the steppes.

Davidski said...

Earliest depiction of Horse drawn chariots and Spoked wheels are from SC Asian area not the steppes.

Which archaeological sites in South Central Asia have older spoked wheel chariots than Sintashta?

Cite sources.

aniasi said...

@David

Many thanks! If you consider posting this, I think it pretty much kills any argument for OIT. South Indian Brahmins are showing steppe admixture, so this isn't some indigenous element from another area of India.

Karl_K said...

@DMXX

"My, you gents have certainly been busy!"

Davidski asks that you please "Do not speculate about the people posting here."

DMXX said...

Nirjhar,

Ordinarily I'd agree, but the several lines of uniparental evidence supporting focal development of R1a1a in Eastern Europe since the Mesolithic through to the Iron Age, the persistence of vital R1a parahaplogroups in that part of the world (i.e. west of Central Asia) and the clear pattern of subclade diversity do indeed present with a clear picture.

You are clinging to the argument from ignorance logical fallacy once more, based on your latest message. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument rests on the potential presence of a host of neatly packaged outcomes that usurp the above picture in every manner described?

Repetition of a logical fallacy in the absence of presenting a strictly population genetics centred counter-argument to suggest why the clear picture described above is false, unfortunately, reveals the strength of said counter-argument (specifically, there is none, other than a literally irrational rejection of the data).

Please present counter-data to support your rejection of the model described above.

Unless you're privy to information the body of current archaeology isn't aware of, wheeled, spoked, horse-driven chariots (NB: not wagons driven by onagers or other ungulates) emerged first in Sintashta circa 2100 B.C. (the steppes) and then among various Near-Eastern societies circa 1600 B.C. (though chariots haven't been found in Iran preceding this point yet, the rest of the features of the Early West Iranian Grey Ware culture support the notion they were proto-Mitanni).

Karl_K,

That comment was a standard expression used in colloquial British English for, well, "people are posting a lot here since I last perused". Any other interpretation is a misinterpretation.

I'm familiar with the behaviour and character you're alluding to, but I'm quite certain Davidski can oversee his own comments section just fine. Thanks for the concern.

Karl_K said...

@DMXX

"That comment was a standard expression used in colloquial British English for, well, "people are posting a lot here since I last perused". Any other interpretation is a misinterpretation.

Misinterpretation or not, you are speculating or implying that either the people who are posting are all men (gents), or that the females have not been busy.

I too am quite familiar with colloquial expressions that are patronizing towards women.

DMXX said...

Ludicrous comments. I've been interacting with most of the people in this discussion for at least two years and know they are men, making your show of authority towards my use of a common English expression all the more asinine.

Kindly refrain from skewing the discussion towards your politically correct deviancy and find a better use for your time instead of playing the sordid "White Knight" role for any ladies reading these comments, who I'm certain are intelligent enough to understand the idiomatic nature of the phrase I used.

I'll assume you're a landscape artist by trade given the mountain you've made from a molehill. ;)

Nirjhar007 said...

Will write a blogpost on it. Next week perhaps . Will link you guys.

there is none, other than a literally irrational rejection of the data

I think you are missing the point . There is no data from India,Stans,Iran etc etc . So, before they come up , it not scientific to conclude on the origins or establish ''models'' .

capra internetensis said...

DMXX, Karl_K is just trolling. He does it all the time, don't take it seriously.

Karl_K said...

@DMXX

capra is correct, I do troll here quite often. Usually because there are people saying hilarious things and I want to emphasize their absurdity. Davidski prefers to just call people idiots or teapots, while I prefer to raise on their idiotic bets.

However, in this case, you are wrong. In fact, you are calling me, a woman, a 'White Knight' for the 'ladies'. You are a sexist, whether you admit to it or not, and are also speculating about the people here. I tried to be subtle about it, but you are the one who started building the mountain from the mole hill.

However

DMXX said...

Nirjhar,

With all due respect, you've missed the point yourself.

We no longer need aDNA from these regions. It will be useful for completion's sake, but the degree of continuity within East Europe, supported by both aDNA and modern DNA vis-a-vis R1a1a, make it painfully clear this is precisely the area from which the subclade accumulated mutations over thousands of years, before migrating westwards and eastwards with the

I look forward to seeing your counter-entry to what has been proposed.

capra,

Appreciate the heads-up; initial guess was a simple language barrier issue (non-native speakers don't always "get" colloquialisms and I'm unaware of this person's background). Not sure now if it's moribund trolling or SJW-level butthurt, which they seem to be confessing to here.

Karl_K,

You managed to let an anonymous person online assume you're a male with an androgynous username. Not exactly the skills MI6 are looking for! I think a good few congratulatory pats somewhere are in order, lul.

For the sake of mitigating your ongoing confusion and sanctimoniousness, scroll above and note my previous back and forths are with Davidski, Seinundzeit, Nirjhar and Rob, all of whom I know are blokes. These were the "gents" I was referring to.

Or, was there a ghostly female presence I've been ignoring the entire time throughout my discourse with these gentlemen, with my non-existent sexism and whatnot?

Some friendly advice; try and at least finish your messages before rushing to sully the discussion with Tumblr-equivalent social warrior drivel.

Karl_K said...

I was finished. The however was with intent. You assume things about people. You talk around the rest of the people in a discussion as if only you matter.

You are clearly not a person with a very high respect for the feelings and opinions of others, so I will just leave it at that. I wasn't and still am not in anyway trying to start a fight or an argument.

Rob said...

Nirj

I would pay attention to DMXXs balanced views

Rob said...


Karl

Stop being passive / aggressive & act like a man, or lady; or gender- neutral human, or cactus, or other well balanced but non-earthly being

Atriðr said...

@bharatiya
Actually, Sanskrit more akin to Balto-Slavic than Germanic (see satem; declension [number of cases]; syntax, etc.) for a start. Also, we only have fragments of Old Prussian, which is a loss for comparison, especially regarding R1a/E. Europe.

Here's a question open to all: @Davidski @DMXX and company

Why is there so little R1a in Western Europe? The distances covered towards the East are huge. And yet, so little R1a in Western Europe. Not majority in Germany either.

R1a association with satem languages is near identical; but the ages of the languages and the R1a sub-clades don't match. They might not have to either, but either way needs explanation.

I would still tend to needing more samples, especially east of Urals.

Davidski said...

Why is there so little R1a in Western Europe? The distances covered towards the East are huge. And yet, so little R1a in Western Europe. Not majority in Germany either.

As per my TreeMix graphs above, it seems that each steppe clan was dominated by one R1 subclade.

R1a association with satem languages is near identical; but the ages of the languages and the R1a sub-clades don't match. They might not have to either, but either way needs explanation.

Dating Y-chromosome lineages and their expansions without a lot of direct evidence from ancient DNA is controversial. Right now, all we can say with any great confidence about R1a-Z93 is that it expanded rapidly into Asia from the European steppes, and this happened after the Neolithic but before the historical era.

Atriðr said...

@Davidski

Dating Y-chromosome lineages and their expansions without a lot of direct evidence from ancient DNA is controversial.

Yeah.

Right now, all we can say with any great confidence about R1a-Z93 is that it expanded rapidly into Asia from the European steppes, and this happened after the Neolithic but before the historical era.

When you say European steppes; Yamnaya? Corded Ware? Srubnaya? Or difficult to pinpoint?

Nirjhar007 said...

I would pay attention to DMXXs balanced views

Rob, his ''balanced'' views are generated from ''imbalanced data '' , even within Europe , there are potential samples, waiting to be published .

As I said before , its rather easy to pounce on, with a ready made theory, than to tackle the uncertainty of reality..

Davidski said...

Aren't Potapovka and Sintashta the generally accepted Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures, with evidences of Vedic-like rituals in their Kurgans?

All of the accordingly tested Potapovka and Sintashta samples to date belong to R1a, and probably Z93 and Z94.

We now have a lot of Z93 samples from the Bronze Age steppes; the earliest from a late Poltavka burial near Samara dated to 4900-4500 ybp.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/the-poltavka-outlier.html

And there's absolutely no evidence that any of this Z93 wound up on the steppes from Iran, let alone from somewhere like Pakistan or India.

Atriðr said...

Aren't Potapovka and Sintashta the generally accepted Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures, with evidences of Vedic-like rituals in their Kurgans?

Yes. All inference, but I for one see match in the Andronovo and Proto-Indo-Iranian cultures, but with a BMAC component too imo.

The paucity of Bronze Age Satem European texts and religion vs. the rich Indo-Iranian heritage is curious. Also, Graeco-Aryan as a language clade is making a comeback, which complicates vectors a bit.

I'd wager were still in for more surprises.

Atriðr said...

*we're.

P.S. Is there no 'edit' button?

Davidski said...

Andronovo looks basically the same as Potapovka, Sintashta and Srubnaya, with the same genome-wide structure and uniparental markers, but with some minor Siberian admixture.

No idea about BMAC yet, but if it was an Indo-Iranian vector with Andronovo influence, then it'll be like the Kalash minus their South Asian admixture.

If some Z93 pops up in Mycenaean remains that are being tested, that'll be your Greco-Aryan link confirmed.

Btw, there's no edit button here.

mickeydodds1 said...

Just why is the very notion of an ultimate 'European' origin of the vedic Aryans so hard for many Indians to stomach?

Is this due to the legacy of British colonialism?, or is it due the the legendary semi-mythical status of the Aryans as the founders of all that is 'good' and 'holy' about mother India?

bharatiya said...

@mickeydodds1 Its because some use it to justify colonialism or islamic fanaticism. Christian Missionaries use it to spread strife amongst local communities and to legitimize indigenous traditions which they say were brought in by the polytheist Aryans who destroyed the indigenous worship of the one true God of Abraham, villified the civillized natives and replaced it with savagery. Unfortunately the Humanities (Decent students are expected to pursue technical courses or grudgingly the pure sciences and the humanities are largely looked down upon) in India are dominated by students of poor ability and hugely politicized. Most of the academia is so delusional that mass murderers like Stalin, Mao and various terrorists are hailed as victors. Rather than condemning this manipulation of History they support it in the name of progressiveness, sometimes even calling for the Banning of Hindu festivals saying they are anti 'aborigine'. This has lead to the rise of a 'Hindu' nationalist thought that seeks to counter their attack.

Rob said...

@ Artior

"Why is there so little R1a in Western Europe? The distances covered towards the East are huge. And yet, so little R1a in Western Europe. Not majority in Germany either."

I can think of a few reasons. First of all, if you look at the map of CWC in previous thread, you'd see that CWC occupied specific areas only. Then we have to consider 4000 years of subsequent history, with expansion of other cultures which might have had a differently weighted mix of haplogroups.
Indeed, the current prevalence of R1a in east central Europe reflects a very recent founder effect from 500 AD onwards.

So, IMO, the tree mix has little to do with it.

* "curious. Also, Graeco-Aryan as a language clade is making a comeback, which complicates vectors a bit. "

I'm in the sceptical camp. I don't think there was ever a true "Greco-Aryan node" . Moreover, I doubt Myceneans had much if any Z93 (given that Z93 is very uncommon in nowadays Greece; and > 90% of their R1a is recent "Slavic' type), but am happy to be surprised

* "I'd wager were still in for more surprises."

So do I. Europe alone has thrown curve balls. I'm sure the NE & central Asia will have some interesting finds.

Balaji said...

Davidski,

You have written that the common ancestors of Indian_North_R1a-Z93 and Andoronovo_R1a-Z93 are “Khvalynsk, Poltavka outlier and close relatives”. Why not generate TeeMix graphs using Khvalynsk and Poltavka outlier. Then we can see if there is a migration edge from them to Indian_North_R1a-Z93?

bharatiya said...

@mickeydodds 1
This is what happened at the leading universities for the Social Sciences in India
http://indiafacts.org/fact-sheet-jnu-mahishasura-day-controversy/

Davidski said...

Balaji,

Let me take a wild stab in the dark here: after you view this graph that you requested you'll claim that Samara Eneolithic (aka Khvalynsk) people migrated to Eastern Europe from North India.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNzFmOXRYZ1hocEU/view?usp=sharing

Karl_K said...

I don't know about the rest of you gents, but when I took a look at this latest graph, I couldn't help thinking that the Samara Eneolithic (aka Khvalynsk) people migrated to Eastern Europe from North India.

Am I right?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 225   Newer› Newest»