search this blog

Monday, October 16, 2017

Best of Davidski on South Asian population history


Very soon, perhaps even this year, we'll be seeing a major new paper from Harvard on the population history of South Asia. Apparently it'll be mostly based on ancient DNA from Bronze and Iron Age sites in present-day India and Pakistan. And yes, I know for a fact that it'll include Harappan samples from India.

It has to be said, unfortunately, that nearly all academic efforts to date to crack the mystery of the peopling of South Asia using DNA have been way below par, and often quite farcical. That's because ancient DNA relevant to South Asian population history hasn't been available for very long, and learning about ancient migrations and admixture events exclusively from modern-day DNA is really hard.

Also, I feel that many of these efforts have been ruined by politics. I don't want to harp on about that too much here, but it seems to me that the rather far fetched Out-of-India theory (OIT) has gained traction among many population geneticists of late simply because it's politically more palatable in the west than its main rival, the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT). And that's mostly because the Nazis had a thing for Aryans, but also because AIT is seen by many Indians as an outdated concept used by the British during colonial times to legitimize their conquest of India.

Indeed, it's been a frustrating experience for me, and many others I'm sure, watching this nonsense unfold for the past 10-15 years. But on a positive note, it's forced me to look at this issue in more detail and produce a lot of solid work. It might be a good time now to recap this work. Below, sorted more or less in terms of awesomeness, is the best of Davidski on South Asia:

Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts

The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?

The peopling of South Asia: an illustrated guide

Children of the Divine Twins

The pseudo-steppe theory: last line of defense against the inevitable

A moment of clarity

Indian genetic history in three simple graphs

Caste is in the genes

The Poltavka outlier

Through time AND space?

The Indo-Europeanization of South Asia: migration or invasion?

These blog posts have already been read by many thousands of people, and, somewhat surprisingly for me, even made a decent splash on social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. The screen cap below is from a thread at a Desi Reddit community called ABCDesis (see here).


Most of these Desis are highly skeptical of my arguments, which isn't unusual, nor is it surprising, considering the massive amount of anti-AIT/pro-OIT nonsense that has been dumped online in recent years. But I promise, most of my stuff on South Asia will still be relevant after the new Harvard paper touches down.

211 comments:

1 – 200 of 211   Newer›   Newest»
Harry Parihar said...

@Davidski
I'm curious David is the West Asian derived component for South Asians wholly Iranian Neolithic ? I remember you once remarked that the peopling of IVC had at least two waves one more closely related to Iran_N and the other more closely related to Iran_ChL. Does that hold for the rest of South Asia or is it to early tell right now ?

Mike the Jedi said...

Keep up the good work, Dave.

I for one am very excited by the prospects of this paper. The Indian subcontinent has too long been a blind spot in anthropology, reliably engendering confusion about precisely where Indians fall in the scheme of things. I'm glad the days of idle talk about South Asians being "just dark Caucasoids" or "Aryans mixed with Australoid Dravidians" are behind us and that we can finally get serious about what exactly happened there without having to resort to silly 1930s jargon like "Veddoid," "Nordindid," and "Irano-Afghan." Thank the gods for population genetics.

Indo-Aryan expansion into South Asia is such a foregone conclusion that I'll just be glad for the issue to be settled so that we can move on to more interesting questions, having a few laughs at OIT's expense before we do, of course.

I'm crossing my fingers that we get a "pure" ASI Mesolithic South Asian so that we can finally retire the Onge as a reference. I also can't wait to see how much ASI shows up in the Harappans. I don't expect to see hypothesized Elamite connections tested before we get Mesopotamian samples, but anything that might shed light on the origins of Dravidian would also be a godsend.

-----

And as for anti-AIT crowd, one can't help but be perplexed by their obstinacy in the face of the evidence. What is the point of such denial? How does AIT legitimize
European colonialism in any way? How does AIT diminish Indians in any fashion?

Maybe the denialists just don't like the "shame" of India being conquered by Bronze Age Europeans, but they carry the blood of those same conquerors, so why the fear of emasculation? All AIT means is that Indians are descended of at least TWO great peoples instead of just one. Europeans are in the same boat as Indians anyway; they're not just steppe imports; they have ancestry from non-IE Europeans encountered and absorbed along the way. Don't Udmurts have the most Yamnaya ancestry of any modern group? So what? They can't claim India either. Does some group outside of India have more Sintashta ancestry than Indians? Again, who cares? Indian culture is a fusion of IE and pre-IE people and ideas; only Indians can claim it. The denialists' fears are unwarranted.

Everyone on earth is descended of both conquerors and the conquered, of sages and fools, of heroes and cowards, of people of impeccable character as well as loads of rapists, thieves, murderers, and assholes. All of us have forebears with blood on their hands, and all of us have ancestors that made valuable contributions to mankind.

The idea that uncovering ancient migrations somehow legitimizes injustice is preposterous. If Indians are really concerned about racism and injustice directed towards Indians, then they should take a look in the mirror and abolish their loathsome caste system. Last I checked we in the West don't shamelessly market skin bleaching products like "Fair and Handsome" either.

Namaste.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Mike the Jedi,

Nice Comment.

whatbetterway said...

"Most of these Desis are highly skeptical of my arguments, which isn't unusual, nor is it surprising, considering the massive amount of anti-AIT/pro-OIT nonsense that has been dumped online in recent years. But I promise, most of my stuff on South Asia will still be relevant after the new Harvard paper touches down."

Desi checking in here, I know me and I know numerous other desis agree with the actual academic research that you've highlighted Davidski. It's unfortunate thought that it's the naysayers who seem to have more time to post on the internet. I wanted to shed a little light on selection bias that might not seem apparent with who's posting on the internet from the indian american community. First of all alot of the Desi's that tend to post on the ABCD reddits are the "woke" variety, usually uppercaste background North Indian Hindus, who in the american VHP summer camps and reading american hindu "scholars" have been fed a steady stream of hindu supremacist ideology (they invented everything don't you know, Vedic sciences and all) and the world is benefitted just by their existence (because bored new englanders in the social sciences like thoreau and emerson had an interest so all of americas wisdom is thanks to hinduism). This combined with the toxic identity politics in the USA where they can cast themselves as a oppresed ethnic and religious minority who this research can be explained away as some colonialists christian conspiracy (they pick and choose western education and knowledge that most benefits their entititled egos). The rest of us Desis who enjoy reading your's and Razibs latest postings on the amazing archaeogenetic research do not usually post because we agree with the findings and articles, and just enjoy the knowledge being shared. There are both hindu and non-hindu desis who subscribe to the AMT because we agree with real science(Note, indian American religious composition is a bit different than India, i.e. according to Pew study Hindus form 51%, Christians about 18%, I think muslims are 17% and Sikhs and Jains each about 5 percent). Just wanted you to know you have Desi readers who support actual science and not these Indian versions of creationists who unfortunately can give the impression that all desis subscribe to OIT.

V.R. said...

Mike,

Sorry. I didn't realize that Race relations and entrenched poverty weren't problems in the West. Am okay with the rest of your post, however =)

Mike the Jedi said...

I would never say otherwise, but Indians are rarely the aggrieved in such cases. Indians are generally well liked in the West and for good reason. They also do well for themselves, much like East Asians.

Pakistanis in the UK are a different story but that's because of their religion. In the States it's the black population with the most grievances. Hindu, Jain, and Sikh South Asians do very well in the West. If they are targeted it's usually by some moron who mistakes them for Muslims (as if that were an excuse for violence anyway).

Sanuj said...

@whatbetterway The best you could do was type caste people based on their background as if there are is no support for a different understanding among the south indians or other caste group. Just call everyone "North Indian Upper caste" and the argument is over. If the evidence was so pressing, why are we even having the discussion here, just write it in stone and be done with it. If an Indian supports anything other than AIT/AMT(which one is it 1st decide that) hypothesis, then he is just an ignorant fool, prejudiced by his background. That's a great argument.
Coming to the contribution of Indians on wider west, at least the entire Western Philosophy is indebted to Indians, AMT or no AMT. Here's a direct quote from "Florida", a series of talks by Apuleius, a Platonist Roman scribe from 2nd century talking about Pythagoras,

"Not content with these sciences, he next approached the Chaldaeans and the Brahmins, a race of wise men who live in India. Among these Brahmins he sought out the gymnosophists. The Chaldaeans taught him the lore of the stars, the fixed orbits of the wandering lords of heaven, and the influence of each on the births of men. Also they instructed him in the art of healing, and revealed to him remedies in the search for which men have lavished their wealth and wandered far by land and sea. But it was from the Brahmins that he derived the greater part of his philosophy, the arts of teaching the mind and exercising the body, the doctrines as to the parts of the soul and its various transmigrations, the knowledge of the torments and rewards ordained for each man, according to his deserts, in the world of the gods below."
http://www.attalus.org/translate/florida.html
There are other references of Pythagoras, either traveling to/or learning from Indians. And then the Pythagoreans heavily influenced Plato, and from Plato the entire Western philosophy. So, yes, there are major Indian contributions to the west, notwithstanding this debate on ancient historic origins, and don't try to belittle them!

Davidski said...

@Harry Parihar

I'm curious David is the West Asian derived component for South Asians wholly Iranian Neolithic ? I remember you once remarked that the peopling of IVC had at least two waves one more closely related to Iran_N and the other more closely related to Iran_ChL. Does that hold for the rest of South Asia or is it to early tell right now?

I'd say for now that Iran_ChL-related ancestry is found throughout much of India, but if so, it definitely peaks around the Indus Valley and generally close to Iran.

But this is very speculative without ancient DNA from South Asia, because the Neolithic and Chalcolithic farmers who came to South Asia may have come from a variety of places in West Asia, so even though it's a certainty that they'll come out most similar to Iran_N, it's impossible to say how exactly they'll deviate from Iran_N.

a said...

Happy Diwali Davidski ;)

EastPole said...

@Sanuj
„There are other references of Pythagoras, either traveling to/or learning from Indians. And then the Pythagoreans heavily influenced Plato, and from Plato the entire Western philosophy. So, yes, there are major Indian contributions to the west, notwithstanding this debate on ancient historic origins, and don't try to belittle them!”

I am not trying to belittle them. We all know that the greatest philosophical systems were created in India and in Greece. You have something to be proud of, no doubt about it.
But what I find fascinating are many similarities between Greek and Indian philosophies which cannot be explained by direct influence.

As you probably know Pythagoras also was linked with Hyperboreans.
Jamblichus writes that “he was the Hyperborean Apollo”.

Elements of Pythagorean philosophy are present in Rigveda which was written centuries before Pythagoras.
Elements of Pythagorean world view described by Plato, Aristotle and Rigveda are also present in Slavic religion.
The same with what Heraclitus wrote about the One, the Fire etc. It is also present in Slavic religion and in Rigveda.
Interesting that Pythagoras used numerical symbols to explain his ideas and Sanskrit numerals are almost identical to Slavic. Some Greek numerals also look Slavic. They do not look Chaldaean.

Hyperboreans were northern Scythians who fit Slavic homeland in Vistula-Dnieper-Don forest-steppe area.
What I suspect is that Vedic, Greek and Slavic religions had common origin and this may explain many similarities among them as well as many similarities in Greek and Indian philosophies which were mostly commentaries to this religion.
If this is true it would be really remarkable because it would mean that very advanced philosophical religion was formulated 3000-2000 BC because this is the time frame when pre-proto-Indo-Iranians and pre-proto-Greeks left Vistula-Dnieper-Don area and migrated to India and Greece. Slavs remained in this area to this day.

TJ Zuffa said...

Hi everyone,

I'm super new to this entire experience. But, I'm thrilled to learn about South Asian history. I'm South Asian myself and after running my uncles Y-DNA so far I found out he's in the L-haplogroup. I haven't run my own yet. But, I am invested in learning more about this.

One of the things I have the hardest time with is the science. I can't seem to get down and dirty and learn the factual things without stopping every second to familiarize myself with the terms. It's difficult reading. Then they get into graphs and I get lost. Is there a way to ease myself into these papers? Is there a way to learn about South Asian history in a more documentary like format?

What I like is stories. What was really going on during the times of migration. Are there any good websites who break down what Davidski discusses but from a more story perspective that also looks at the culture, the art, etc. Visuals really help me be it from reading about moments in time and it doesn't have to be through pictures.

Sanuj said...

@East Pole I will not comment on anything that is based on anecdotal evidence and not facts. Yes, there is a connection between these cultures, which is very evident to everyone with clear parallels in ancient mythology. But, the most well developed form of philosophy was being done in India in the last BC millennium, with competing philosophies of Buddha & Vedics having intensive debates, and the concept of One in the vedic philosophy is not of any one entity, but one reality, it is a form of monism distinct from the rest.
Elements of RgVeda being present in Pythagorean philosophy is quite expected if he learnt stuff from the Brahmins. BTW he also opened an ashram like school, where vegetarianism was promoted-quite unusual for the time! It is also now evident that the Pythaogras Theorem was already known to Indians, and is attested for in the Sulbha Sutras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulba_Sutras
When Apuleius says "the arts of teaching the mind and exercising the body", he is clearly talking of Yoga-esque techniques, again unique to India, and found on IVC seals too.

Also, RgVeda was composed in the general area of Sapta Sindhu, whether AMT happened or not. It was not carried from elsewhere, so the fully developed form of that philosophy is an Indian creation in any case, and we can't attribute that to nomadic pastorals, even "if" the language came in.

Larger point is that, you can't just call voluminous amounts of work created and developed within the borders of India, as commentaries on some nobadic beliefs, that kind of appropriation will not work. What I am giving is a direct reference to a direct influence, with proof. Also, I don't have much idea about Slavic numerals, but I know that today's numeral system, the decimal numbering system and zero, are all based on the Indian numerals. And, in recent decades we have also established that Indians invented Calculus two centuries before Europe, and it may have transmitted via Jesuit priests to Europe! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_school_of_astronomy_and_mathematics

Arkaim said...

@Davidski
Why are you deleting my comments?
Also, if I may ask you, from which populations the CHG traces acenstry?

@Sanuj
The people you described have heavy Steppe ancestry as aDNA sequecing showed. As an Indian yourself, you might know that India is made of many different peoples, genetically and culturally, and the current unification of the country, an exception in history, is more characteristic of Empires than Nations, an unnatural outcome.

Sanuj said...

@Arkaim India was a unified entity under the Mauryan rule, and then again under Mughals. The borders may have been changing, but there has always been a cultural thread running throughout this piece of geography which has been identified as unique identity even by the outsiders throughout history, so your argument is puerile. Yes, modern borders are new, but the nation's identity is not, otherwise no Italian work is Italian, and no Greek work is Greek!

Davidski said...

@Arkaim

You're not allowed to talk to banned members like xyyman. See here...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/banned-commentators-list.html

And here's an admixture graph showing how CHG fits into the Eurasian picture, more or less.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/07/working-topology-for-eurasian.html

Of course, this tree is unlikely to be perfect, so it's possible that CHG has, for example, some minor direct EHG admixture that isn't shown there.

Open Genomes said...

@David

Will you add the various ancient Sibierians and Alaskans to the Global 10 PCA?
What about the ancient Africans? The Ancient Polynesian Lapita and new Rapanui samples?

The "IAM" North African Hunter Gatherers appear to be your "UHG" population. (But probably not the "Basal Eurasians".)

Please understand that leaving out the Africans (and Ancient Americans and Polynesians) from your Global 10 PCAs does a disservice to the likes of the Minoans and Ancient Greeks, and certainly to any Rakhigarhi results.

We need these outgroups for an accurate assessment of any Central Asian, Siberian, and Basal Eurasian input into the Indus Valley. The IAM results will certainly help clarify the role of what seems to be WHG among present-day Zoroastrians, Ancient Anatolian Neolithic people, and others, because of cross-Mediterranean influence and cross-Sinai input to the Early Neolithic Levantine Farmers. (At certain Ks, we see "Red Sea" influence among the LBK people of Central Europe.)

We'll do the 3-D PCA plot - which takes a lot of work - if you include these other samples. Remember, the Indus Valley also has a clear influence (based on the uniparental markers) directly from the Early Neolithic Farmers of the Near East. We don't yet have Early Neolithic Northern Fertile Crescent autosomal samples (i.e from Tell Halula and Mari on the Middle Eurphrates, and also Tell Ramad and Tell Aswad near Damascus, all of which have mtDNA) and none at all from ancient Mesopotamia.
We need as many proxies as possible for this so-called "Iranian Neolithic" influence, which may turn out to be Pottery-Neolithic Mesopotamian, and certainly will turn up in the Indus Valley. Also we have no ancient ASI samples, and the Polynesians turn out to be on the "further eastern side" of the "Sardinian-Ami continuum", but not all the way at the end, which may draw ancient South Asians a bit away from Europe and Central Asia.

Please consider adding all the available aDNA samples to the Global K10 PCA.

From Davidski:
This is where Tianyuan clusters in the Global 10 PCA (look for the red plus).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQaG9EZlloa25kTjQ/view?usp=sharing

The updated Global 10 datasheets with Sunghir and Tianyuan are here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQd1hLRFl4OUdiME0/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQb0ZjM0pLVmtvTFE/view?usp=sharing

Open Genomes said...

@Davidski, I'll have a look at the latest Global K10 now. :)

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

All currently available ancient genomes that I can get decent genotype data for, including the Africans, Amerindians and the Lapita, are in the Global 10 datasheets.

I'll be adding more genomes as they're released if I can get decent enough genotype data for them.

Open Genomes said...

@David, BTW, you saw the Rapanui study, and the also the Siberians / Alaskan / Athabaskans / Paleo-Eskimos, right? In particular, it seems the Paleo-Eskimos may have had some substantial ANE input, perhaps from a population related to the Yeniseians.

Out today:
Genetic Ancestry of Rapanui before and after European Contact

Data not out yet:
Paleo-Eskimo genetic legacy across North America

Davidski said...

Those ultra low coverage Rapanui genomes won't make it into the Global 10.

But the ancient Paleo-Eskimo data looks pretty good, and should be at the Reich Lab soonish.

Davidski said...

@All

Commentator bmdriver is now also banned.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/banned-commentators-list.html

Bob Floy said...

Consistently great work.
Pretty soon, OIT and it's various watered-down variants(plain OIT itself seems too hard to sustain these days, even for the die-hards)will have to do their bitching from the dustbin of history.

Simon_W said...

@ Mike the Jedi

Ha, long time no see. I remember your posts on the old Dodona forum. Yeah it's certainly a big advantage to use DNA instead of subracial typology, and another big progress to use ancient DNA instead of theorizing on modern patterns... We only have to visualise how misleading the Dinaric concept was with regards to Bell Beaker origins. Who would have expected them to be very similar to Corded Ware people, and to have even less CHG than them? People (including me) have speculated about West Asian migrants somehow sailing to Iberia and turning into Bell Beakers just because of these typological concepts. There may still be some use for multivariate cranial clustering, if a large number of measurements are used, and if very tight clusters show up - at least as long as ancient DNA from certain areas hasn't been published.

Rob said...

I think PA will make a comeback. It'll be curious to explain the old typologies in light of aDNA

Simon_W said...

@ Rob
Yes, it's still interesting to think about it, how different types connect to ancient population movements. But some ideas have been proven wrong, like the idea that Dinaric cranial structure always has to be linked to Southeast European or Middle Eastern admixture. In western/northwestern Europe individuals of this type may be rather direct recurrences of the Bell Beaker type.

And some of the false theories were in fact caused by false knowledge of the facts. For example, the Caucasus reached brachycephalic cranial index means no earlier than the Middle Ages. The western Balkans reached it for the first time in the Roman era. If people had observed this, some false assumptions regarding the Bell Beakers could have been avoided. An early center of the Dinaric type was in fact really Cyprus, where even in Neolithic cranial series are rather Dinaric or Armenoid if you will. But Neolithic to Bronze Age Cyprus was genetically hardly similar to German Bell Beakers.

I've seen individuals from the Southeast European Neolithic Hamangia and Ruse cultures with a similar shape of the neurocranium as Bell Beakers in central and Northwestern Europe had. This may be a link. But these were individuals and the average measurements of the corresponding cultures were different.

Simon_W said...

Re: Indian culture. In my subjective opinion the best of Indian religion, what's really admirable and of which India can be proud of, is in the Upanishads, and these were written after 900 BC, they have nothing to do with the Aryan invasion or immigration, in the same way as the Greek philosophers were not simply recapitulating proto-Greek or Homeric religion. Indian culture evolved and it's not all encapsuled in what was there in 1900 BC or whenever exactly the Aryans mixed with the locals.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Simon_W,
"Indian culture evolved and it's not all encapsuled in what was there in 1900 BC or whenever exactly the Aryans mixed with the locals."

Exactly.

Anthro Survey said...

@Simon

Your sentiments about India re/Upanishads and hybridization of Sintashta-like w/locals mirror mine.

In fact, the same can be said about Europa proper(not just Greece). It is roughly around 2200BC and thereafter when we start to see an exciting cultural transformation take place in Central Europe. By then, an analogous(to India) hybridization of steppe-like areivals from Ukraine and WHG-infused Esperstedt-like EEFs(along w/additional WHGs from the forests?) was well under way.

It is precisely this C.Euro-based synthesis culminating in Celtic, Germanic, Italic and Slavic(to name the influential few) phenomena that came to define Europe---in terms of genetic variation and culture alike.

(Those Samnites were practically Marathas of Europe, come to think of it! :D Better yet, old Sicels can be likened to Sinhalese.)

The steppic groups who remained on the steppe went their separate ways, so to speak. You can see why I take issue with people labeling Yamnaya or later steppe-based groups like Scythians as European. It was Slavic expansion stemming from precursors in that C.Eu. core that brought Western Russia and much of Ukraine into the fold of Europe.

A similar & contemporary defining process was underway in the Middle East as well, albeit less sensational, culminating in some quintessential peoples/cultures like Akkadians and Assyrians.

Anthro Survey said...

@Simon and Rob

I agree---it will make a comeback, hopefully with plenty of objective plastic surgeons and 3D-scanning machines on board.

To be honest, the genomic data from the last 2-3 years explains a lot. Phenotypic overlaps correspond well to more complex ancestral components from the last 4-5 KYA--- like Anatolia_Chl/BA, indigenous Chalcolithic EEF, Europe_MLBA-like, Iran_Chl, etc. I stress this timeframe because people go looking for correlations(fruitlessly) between more basal streams like WHG, CHG, ENF, and ANE.

Regarding Dinarics and others---many of those criteria were a bit general and overlooked soft tissue. The thing is, many Balkan and Italians deemed "Dinarimorphs" overlap with West Asian types. The same can't be said for Basque, French Iberian or German variants to the same extent. I can't quite put a finger on what it is, though. "Ids" and "oids" aside, the striking similarities in general led me to believe strong ties to the Near East a long time ago. Sure enough, we have evidence for post-Neolithic gene flow---from a J-rich, CHG/Iran-shifted BA Anatolia---into those regions.

Ric Hern said...

Wouldn't it be nice to have DNA evidence of individuals like those in Israel who left Africa very early and see how they measure up to our hypotheses ? We have DNA from a lonesome fingerbone of Denisovans etc. yet we do not have Anything AMH related that can Directly be linked to the first out of Africa movements....

So currently we are building the Pyramid from the Top to Bottom......

Acharya Agnimitra said...

@Simon_W
"In my subjective opinion the best of Indian religion, what's really admirable and of which India can be proud of, is in the Upanishads, and these were written after 900 BC"

Now this represents the biggest circularity in Vedic studies. It is true that there are over a hundred extant upanishads. Many are far younger to the Rig Veda and some belong even to the common era. But some, however, are much older, reaching back to even the late Rig Vedic period. Aitareya, Brihadaranyaka etc are good examples of this. (And they are not really religious.They are secular philosophy)

There is no way one can arrive at this date of '800 BC' for the Brhadaranyaka except one- by begging the question- The question of the antiquity of Vedic culture in India, which the present, mainstream narrative places at a beginning of 1500 BC. This was 'adopted' as it was quite conveniently contemporaneous or chronologically connectable to Steppe cultures. Other than this, these dates are absolutely arbitrary.

The true antiquity of the Br Upanishad can be easily demonstrated. The historical sense of the Vedic literature is more acute and detailed when it comes to the sages, philosophers, their families and disciples. Such information is generally better preserved than,say, the names and genealogies of kings and dynasties( quite contrary to other cultures the world over).

Naturally, the Br also gives a long list of teachers and students,every philosopher involved in formulating the Monistic philosophy of the upanishad. If you count this list, there are sixty names. SIXTY GENERATIONS. You get a time span of 1500 years if you assume a generation is 25y.

Forget all this- you can still argue that these names are made up and fake. You would be right to do so too and other than to say that the authors have no motive to make it up, I would come up empty. But look at this- I produce the oldest eleven names in the list-

"The same up to the son of Samjivi. The son of Samjivi from Mandukayani. Mandukayani from Mandavya. He from Kautsa. Kautsa from Mahitthi. He from Vamakaksayana.. He from Sandilya. Sandilya from Vatsya. Vatsya from Kusri. Kusri from Yajnavacas, the son of Rajastamba. He from Tura, the son of Kavasi."
Br 6.5.4

And these, of course, prove nothing and mean nothing. And most of these are matronymics. The actual names of the philosophers are not known. But their maternal names are. Again a curious case. But what strikes someone who is familiar with the literature is the oldest teacher remembered in the list- A man called Tura Kavaseya.

His name appears only in one more place- as a priest to King Janamejaya in the Brahmana literature
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/4049/1/KuruKings_Properes.pdf

A likely grandfather or ancestor of this guy Tura Kavaseya appears, again, only in one more place of note- A man called Kavasa Ailusha, a name in the list of authors of the Rig Veda, the oldest Indo European literature. Check it out yourself
voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch1.htm

You can see the emerging picture- The great ancestral, founding father of philosophy in the Upanishad, who lived 60 generations ago, is a contemporary figure in the Brahmana texts. His own grandfather or maternal ancestor is an author of the Rig Veda(book 10, the youngest book). This guy Kavasa himself belongs to the late Rig Vedic period, which itself is composed by distant descendants of early Rig writers.

All this shows, to push the bare minimum implication, that the whole of the Br cannot have been conposed at 800 BC. But the date is a valid lower limit as the entire Br is anterior to the Buddha.

As you can see, such rigorous depth of understanding has been achieved into the Vedic lit. But it is sad to see people stick to 200 year old arbitrariness.

Arkaim said...

@Simon_W
Post-Vedism, or "Hinduism", is the worst part of the religion, as it went far away from philosophy and started being just empty mysticisms.
If anything, like with any institution, religious or not, it degenerated with time.
https://vedismblog.blogspot.com/

Arkaim said...

@Arkaim
Complementing my post:
Hinduism presents a great infusion of Dravidian culture, and this is expected. From the Vedic people, who were probably much more Steppe-oriented than today, there was a great Dravidian influx into their societies.
This cultural and genetic changes altered the nature of the peoples, who no longer represented Vedism culturally and genetically, their right and followed course of action was to change the religion to suit them again.
An example of this in the West is how Constantine had to champion Christianity after the population of Rome got large influxes of Middle Easterners who changed it culturally and genetically.
These mutations are indeed common and necessary.

Now, about what @Simon_W and @Mike the Jedi said about human classifications.
I think those old models still hold a little ground, in the macro divisions. The Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, Australoids and Amerinoids are valid groups in my opinion.
About the subdivisions, modern genetics can help it a lot. If you open Haak et al (2015) Extended Data Figure, all those colours should have their particular names. Genetiker already does something similar.

@Davidski
Is her interpretation correct?
https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/haak-et-als-full-graph/
If yes, then CHG were a mixture of Basal + ASI in the past, along with some ANE we know it has.
WHG, or before them, would be an ancient mixture of Basal + Chipewyan-related population.

Sanuj said...

@Arkaim It may have degenerated, became shit or whatever other aspersions you may want to lay on it, but the fact remains that the ENTIRETY of Vedas were composed in India over many centuries. I take your theories of "Aryan migration" at face value(though unlikely), and I still say that those incoming nomadic barbarians would have nothing to offer to a FAR MORE SUPERIOR material culture already existing! Maybe they learnt all the philosophy from the IVC dudes and their minds opened and they sang Vedas in their tongue :-) We DO NOT know what the Proto IE people's philosophy was, bring some ancient literature from the "Steppe homeland"(which you have none) to prove anything, otherwise stop appropriating Indian compositions into your hypothetical wonderlands.

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
Every institution degenerates with time, no matter where or when.
About the location of the Vedic scriptures, I really don't doubt it was written in India, and I really believe that the Steppe Aryans entered in contact with the IVC (which was not ASI, but Iran-derived), the time spam is too big for no contact at all.
About them being Steppe beliefs or Steppe+IVC beliefs, I really can't say, and neither you, but it's undeniable that it came from the Steppe - the Persians/Iranians and Mitanni had an identical corpus, without even having influences from India.
Early Pagan Europeans also had the same beliefs, the same philosophies.
And don't take things personally, this is a calm discussion.

Do you know what my nickname means?

Sanuj said...

It's not undeniable that it came from Steppe, the entire debate is still open.
You are saying things with authority about IVC people, even without any sort of results being out?
Persians and Mitanni had Upanishad(Upanishad is technically one part of Vedas per Indian tradition) like corpus, where?
Persians were not influenced by India? How do you know? There are scholars like Nicholas Kazanas who have demonstrated that Avestan is much younger than Vedic. http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Vedic_and_Avestan.pdf
Early Pagan Europeans had Monistic beliefs? Where?
Swastika, the much maligned "Aryan" symbol, Swastika seals in IVC - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IndusValleySeals_swastikas.JPG
Yogic posture on IVC seal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashupati_seal#/media/File:Shiva_Pashupati.jpg

I am very calm, I am just amused at the way you claim things with authority, when even the best minds in the field can't say anything with certainty.

I just looked up your name, so a Steppe archaeology site from 1600 BC, and that tells me what? That it is the IE homeland because Putin says so?

Grey said...

If there were multiple OoA pulses then it seems likely to me that if any of those pulses coincided with low sea levels they might have come up along what was the Atlantic coast at the time (now submerged) and if they had then given the distance between east and west Africa they might have been distinct from eastern populations moving into the Levant.

If there was a major back migration starting from somewhere north of the Himalayas it might have erased a lot of that except in refuge regions along the route.

Arkaim said...

I'll break it in two parts, maybe it's too big.

It's not undeniable that it came from Steppe, the entire debate is still open.
aDNA, yDNA and mtDNA already confirmed it. This thread made by Davidski laid out everything.
The ASI paper will be nice, but just as a confirmation, nothing out of ordinary will happen.

You are saying things with authority about IVC people, even without any sort of results being out?
Their yDNA is already known and it isn't Dravidian. Also, they were more culturally and proximate from early pre-Iranian peoples of today's Iran.

Persians and Mitanni had Upanishad(Upanishad is technically one part of Vedas per Indian tradition) like corpus, where?
The Mitanni treaties.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/595878
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni-Aryan

Persians were not influenced by India? How do you know? There are scholars like Nicholas Kazanas who have demonstrated that Avestan is much younger than Vedic. http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/Vedic_and_Avestan.pdf
It quite doesn't matter who came first, both came from the much older Proto-Indo-European.

Early Pagan Europeans had Monistic beliefs? Where?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
Also, in the figure of Dyeus and the Axis Mundi.

Arkaim said...

Swastika, the much maligned "Aryan" symbol, Swastika seals in IVC - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IndusValleySeals_swastikas.JPG
Swastikas were everywhere:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/e6/ef/e9e6ef78c8f6508c1507f8f6371dc6f3.jpg
I'm starting to believe it was just an astrological sign for the seasons.
https://mesikammen.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/swastika21.jpg?w=1400
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/42/8f/7b/428f7b5aef89944965e2e1aafca7b676.jpg

Yogic posture on IVC seal - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashupati_seal#/media/File:Shiva_Pashupati.jpg
This here is Celtic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundestrup_cauldron
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Gundestrupkarret2.jpg
It's known the similarity between the IVC and the Celtic one, which just reinforces common origin, and as Europeans have no ASI/IVC ancestry, but today Indians have European ancestry, it becomes quite clear.
It can be just a meaningless coincidence as well. Also, the Nordics had a type of Yoga of their own, and so did Iranian peoples, with Bodhidharma as a testament of it diffusing to the East.

I am very calm, I am just amused at the way you claim things with authority, when even the best minds in the field can't say anything with certainty.
The certainty comes from the genetic evidence. Theories of the past were based on cultural and archaeological evidence, but now there's also genetics backing them, since Haak et al (2015).

I just looked up your name, so a Steppe archaeology site from 1600 BC, and that tells me what? That it is the IE homeland because Putin says so?
This has nothing to do with Putin. The Arkaim site sits close to Shintashta and we already have genes for it. There weren't IVC/ASI components there.

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
My source for the Harappan yDNA:
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2017/02/harappan-y-dna-leak.html

Sanuj said...

@Arkaim You missed the whole point. Mitanni has language affinity with Indo-Aryans, and similar names of deities, but I am taking of Upanishadic philosophy. That does not revolve around Vedic gods, infact it has very little to do with any of them, where is that in Mitanni, where's the philosophy?

The earliest European examples of Monism - somewhat far stretched - are all from 500 - 600 BC period, and I have already shown above that Pythagoras from the same time frame had a direct influence from India, so it does not prove anything. As Agnimitra has already shown above, the history of Upanishadic thought goes long in India, and pre-dates these later European examples by centuries.

So, you are basing your views on a "leaks" thread, which itself is uncertain. There are claims from leading archaeologists in India, dealing with Rakhigarhi excavations that the DNA results show that the population living today is a continuation of IVC population, and we can safely assume what the current Haryana population in India would test like. Vasant Shinde, the lead archaelogist has also been throwing subtle hints. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Descendants-of-Harappans-still-living-in-Rakhigarhi/articleshow/53609286.cms

I know Swastikas are common, even found in South America, i just made that point to say that some random symbolism proves nothing.
The yogic posture is more important because it is from IVC(and it has lots of these seals), which is supposed to be Pre-Aryan, whereas the examples you have shown are from very late period of European history. It points to common origin, but from where to where? Be careful, you are drawing iconographic parallels between IVC and Indo-Europeans ;)

In the end, my point still stands, that developments in India, even in an Indo-European language, does not necessarily prove the origin of the ideas elsewhere, and nothing that you have shown can prove it otherwise, not even if we get an attested migration via genetics. Finally, wait for the aDNA results to come out before being so sure of all of history, it is not as simple as has been told.

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
Nothing will convince you until the papers, right?
Well, okay, keep saying that "Hindus" invented everything, when in fact they were probably a population equal or closer to the likes of the Kalash or Tajik_Pamiri, they were essentially Indo-Europeans.
Also, of course there's continuation from the IVC to modern periods: Modern (at least high caste) Indians have 3 ancestries: Steppe, Harappan (from where the extra Iranian dna comes from) and Dravidians. If by continuity these authors are saying that Dravidians and Harappans already lived there before the infusion of the third ancestry, which is Steppe, then of course these words may cause the effect they do.

About the religious divergence, I couldn't care less due to its worthlessness, but the origin remains the same, not India, as genetics already shows.

Davidski said...

@Sanuj

If you're still hoping at this stage that everything I've written about South Asian population history is wrong, then this won't end well for you emotionally.

Vasant Shinde and the other so called leading minds can give all of the subtle hints they like, but in reality there's not much left to debate except a few details of how the Aryans got from the steppe to India.

Sanuj said...

"In the end, my point still stands, that developments in India, even in an Indo-European language, does not necessarily prove the origin of the ideas elsewhere, and nothing that you have shown can prove it otherwise, not even if we get an attested migration via genetics."

This is what I said, the oldest IE literature would still be from India, and formulated and expanded there with n number of other influences which would remain unknown, no matter the genetic flow. So Steppe, or no Steppe, no one can have a claim to any of it, except for a common origin of one family of our languages.

We still will also be claimants to one of the most advanced ancient populations to have ever lived on Earth. Pastoral nomads don't cause me any emotional trauma.

@Arkaim "Hindu" is anyways a geographical construct, the Persians used to call us as we live on the other side of "Sindhu"(Indus). There has never been a uniform, organised belief system in India. So "Hindu" has not given everything, but yes, a major contribution, otherwise perhaps we would be doing our maths like XII*XXIII = LOL

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
You're mistaking Geography with Genetics. Those people living in India weren't today's Indians.
A Chinese can write a book in France, that doesn't make him French, neither the book.
It's the first time I've encountered someone who defended an Indian perspective of it all, I didn't know such people existed.
About the numerals, it could be credited to modern populations of India, or at least close to them. I would say that after the Iron Age the population of the North started to accelerate its change, converging towards the mean of the subcontinent.
But we'll have to wait for the paper, it seems.

Sanuj said...

"A Chinese can write a book in France", It is not a Chinese in France, it is generation after generation of Chinese in France living for centuries, and as per your own theory mingling with locals (How the several centuries it took to migrate, happened without females & procreation is in itself a mystery), does make the entire composition local, with references of only local geography features, and perhaps most of the ideas too.

It does not matter how genetic changes happen, the setting of development is the crucial factor, otherwise all human endeavor should first be checked what the genetic composition is before being attributed to the correct "ethnicity" LOL.

Even for the numerals you are not ready to credit the Indian population because they don't fit your idea of "originality", how many millennium does a human have to spend at a place to belong to that place?

Come on, just leave it.

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
But I credited the numerals?
Again you disregarded the fact that those early Ancient Vedic peoples were genetically from the Steppe, maybe with a little ASI/IVC, like the Tajik_Pamiri and the Kalash.
Now, this here:

how many millennium does a human have to spend at a place to belong to that place?
It really depends from a series of contexts. What you wrote here:
It is not a Chinese in France, it is generation after generation of Chinese in France living for centuries
That will not make them French in any sense, because more than anything, being French is a genetic marker.
Do you know how much different they are genetically? Actually, do you know genetics?
Then you suggests this:
and as per your own theory mingling with locals
How much would this mixing be? If it's 50/50, then it's a new population altogether, if it's disproportionate to the Chinese side, then they will be grouped along with the Chinese, and if it's disproportionate French, they'll be grouped along with the French.
It takes around 11 generations to remove any outside genes from a lineage if said lineage only mates with the inside group.
In the Indo-Aryan case, it seems that, past their waves towards India, as there were no more "outside" genes from them, then the "inside" genes started to revert to dominance due to population mechanics, simple as that.
(How the several centuries it took to migrate, happened without females & procreation is in itself a mystery)
It happened with females and procreation, are you dense? "Centuries to migrate", from where do you take this? The Steppe peoples "took" Central Asia for them and stayed there until for some reason some of them decided to go to India and migrated there, that's the story.

Come on, just leave it.
Leave it? What do you mean? Why should I stand for someone incorrect?

Seinundzeit said...

On the topic of the physical anthropological work which was done prior to the introduction of Livingstone's "cline" concept...

The whole field was drowning in a sea of Platonic fetishization, and the end-result was completely antithetical in spirit to proper Darwinian thinking (I mean, "On the Origin of Species" is the quintessential anti-essentialist handbook).

In addition, there was often a small residue of racism (in the sense of making valuative judgments concerning the merits of different "racial types").

That being said, they often did create descriptive frameworks that are now being validated by aDNA work.

Seinundzeit said...

For example, Carleton Stevens Coon wrote this about South Central Asians:

"In the total face height and the three facial breadths, these Pathans cannot be distinguished from Nordics. The upper face height, however, serves as a means of differentiation, since it is extremely long; and the noses, at the same time, reach the extreme length of 61 mm. Their mean facial index of 94 and upper facial index of 56 place these people in an extremely long- and narrow-faced category, while the nasal index of 61 confirms their extreme leptorrhiny.

If one compares these measurements with those from the Yemen on the one hand and from the eastern provinces of Norway on the other, one sees that the Afghans and Pathans are much closer to the Nordic mean than to that of the normal Mediterraneans. The head dimensions of the Afghans and Pathans are slightly smaller than those of Nordics, and the vault height is lower, but the facial dimensions are essentially similar, except that the upper face and nose heights of the Afghans and Pathans are greater.

The Afghans and Pathans, like the Persians, are usually brunet, and at the same time show a persistent minority of blondism, which in this case reflects Nordic admixture . They are heavy-bearded, and possess heavy body hair. Their facial features show a maximum of bony relief, and, on the whole, their facial skeletons seem much heavier and much more strongly marked than those of the more delicate Arabian Mediterraneans. They possess, in common with the Arabian Mediterranean group, a sharpness in definition of feature which stands in contrast to the coarser lineaments of the average Mesopotamian countenance."

And concerning Scythian remains:

"Unpublished series of living peoples from the mountainous regions of the northern Punjab, and the Northwest Frontier Province, which will be published by Dr. Gordon T. Bowles, conform closely to the metrical and morphological specifications of this type."

So, first he notes that Pashtuns are metrically and morphologically quite similar to modern "Nordic" peoples (pigmentation and hirsuteness are the primary differentiating factors, plus longer/more prominent noses for Pashtuns).

Then, he notes that Scythian remains display a strong affinity towards modern South Central Asians.

In addition, there was Earnest Hooton:

"Indo-Nordic (a mixed Nordic type in the northwestern Himalayan area)

Characters:

a. Hair form: generally straight
b. Skin color: from rosy white to light brown
d. Eye color: minority with gray blue or mixed eyes
e. Body hair: well developed
f. Head form: dolichocephalic, cephalic index averaging 73.1
g. Nasal index: leptorrhine
h. Stature: above medium

Distribution: In purest form in northwest Himalayan tribes: Kaffirs, Pathans, ect. Darker variants among Sikhs of the Punjab."

Looking at this sort of thing, one does have to give them some credit. Even though they lumped South Central Asians with Near Easterners, they understood that South Central Asians deviate rather strongly from Near Easterners in the direction of ancient steppe populations, with a noticeable affinity towards modern Northern Europeans.

Their descriptive framework makes sense now, because we do know that South Central Asians and Northern Europeans have similar amounts of Steppe_EMBA/Eneolithic admixture.

So, in a highly simplified/cookie-cutter sense, the modern "Nordic" phenotype is intermediate between the ancient Steppe_EMBA/Eneolithic and Anatolian_Neolithic-related phenotypes, while the modern "Indo-Nordic/Irano-Afghan" phenotype is intermediate between the ancient Steppe_EMBA/Eneolithic and Iran_N/Chl-related phenotypes.

Basically, South Central Asians are connected to West Asians in the same way that Northern Europeans are connected to Southern Europeans (same basic ancestral streams, but more Steppe_EMBA/Eneolithic and more hunter-gatherer ancestry in South Central Asia and Northern Europe, in relation to West Asia and Southern Europe).

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
And also, that's what the Caste system is all about in the end. "Not mixing with the locals", which happened either way, but India has one of the lowest (close to zero) social mobilities in the world, so it slowed down the process dramatically.

@Seinundzeit
Thank you, someone that agrees with me. There's nothing wrong with classification, but with assigning qualitative values/hierarchies to them.

Matt said...

Anthro Survey: To be honest, the genomic data from the last 2-3 years explains a lot. Phenotypic overlaps correspond well to more complex ancestral components from the last 4-5 KYA--- like Anatolia_Chl/BA, indigenous Chalcolithic EEF, Europe_MLBA-like, Iran_Chl, etc.

I think it'll be interesting to see in time whether variants discovered by GWAS for facial shape will tend to show more correlations with

a) these kind of late groups, and correspondingly with IBD blocks and measures of more recent and less deep ancestry, such as dimensions which emerge when we carry out PCA on restricted subregional only subsets of West Eurasian populations which capture recent ancestry (e.g. run a PCA with only POPRES and the dimensions pretty are reflecting a composite of recent connections and ancient ones - http://petrelharp.github.io/popgen-visualization-course/popres/popres-pca.html).

b) deeper ancestry proportions, like WHG / CHG / AN / EHG

I imagine it'll be six of one and half a dozen of the other, and groups who share more recent ancestry will have more similarities in these variants than you'd expect based on the deep ancestry proportions alone, but the deep ancestry will still have some effect. (And in some cases, there will be some shared effect from similar climate evolution).

Henry said...

@Tj Zuffa you should read Razib Khan's excellent blog : gnxp.nofe.me

andrew said...

@TJ Zuffa I concur that Razib Khan's blog is a good read for a more narrative oriented person. My style is a bit in between but also more narrative and multidisciplinary the Davidski (on the other hand, I do less original research). My posts on South Asia can be found at:

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/search/label/South%20Asia

Sanuj said...

@Arkaim Again, I am not claiming how far they changed genetically. I am saying what the incoming folks created was a local creation, influenced by existing local culture too, it has nothing to do with their genetic makeup. And ultimately, they are the ancestors of modern Indians, in one way or another. What you claim is like saying that the American founding fathers were not American and their achievements were not American because they were genetically Europeans.

The caste system related endogamy is only 2000 years old, as various studies have shown, there is plenty of mix up among all caste groups in varying proportions, as all DNA studies have shown, so?

Whatever you say, ultimately, it was the Indian branch that created that IE literature, it was their and only their descendants who created it, toiled to orally transmit it through ages, and do so even today. I wish the other branches were not so lethargic ;)

What is it that you want to claim, the language, the physical features or the culture? Or all of the above? I am happy that the ones who migrated came this way, because the ones who stayed back must have been weaklings and non-courageous to not venture and explore, and did not even have any significant later achievements.

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
Again, I am not claiming how far they changed genetically.
This is a blog about genetics, so I thought your argument was primarily genetic, which then wouldn't hold.

I am saying what the incoming folks created was a local creation, influenced by existing local culture too, it has nothing to do with their genetic makeup.
We can agree on that. But what local culture? Three populations were in the area, the Steppe, the Harappan and the Dravidians - Archaeology says that Harappan culture is very different from Steppe/Vedic, and Dravidian culture was HG at the time, so the local culture you're referring is just them themselves, as not even the writing system of the Harappans got used by the Aryans, but an imported one from the Middle East, probably from brother/cousin Steppe populations who roamed in the area, probably what came to be the Mitanni and Persians.

And ultimately, they are the ancestors of modern Indians,
Absolutely. But they're not the same genetically, with modern Indians drifting away from them.

in one way or another. What you claim is like saying that the American founding fathers were not American and their achievements were not American because they were genetically Europeans.
Not at all, because the descendants of the Founding Fathers were genetically like them (White Americans). The population didn't change - it would change if core White Americans, which are the bulk of the USA got either replaced or mixed to the point of no resemblance with the founders.

The caste system related endogamy is only 2000 years old,
Not at all, since the Aryans arrival, they made sure to distinguish themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

as various studies have shown, there is plenty of mix up among all caste groups in varying proportions, as all DNA studies have shown, so?
Yes, they ended up mixing either way, as I said too. But it was delayed heavily. I said that in the Iron Age the influx of new Steppe into India probably stopped, and that's because in the Iron Age the Steppe started acquiring East Asian and Siberian admixture, even if little, and that admixture doesn't show in Indians. What this means is that the "outside" population genome, which is the Steppe, from that point on would be condemned to be bred out/diluted/expelled from India's main population.
It's only a matter of time, but again, the Caste system slowed that dramatically, and the Indian society is the most stalled and with less social mobility on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Son_Also_Rises_(book)

1/2

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
Whatever you say, ultimately, it was the Indian branch that created that IE literature,
The people who created it weren't like the people who live the way/where they lived now. I guess I already said that.

it was their and only their descendants who created it, toiled to orally transmit it through ages, and so even today
They created something, their descendants created something else, hence the Vedism vs Hinduism case.

I wish the other branches were not so lethargic ;)
It took long enough for you to show your colours.

What is it that you want to claim, the language, the physical features or the culture? Or all of the above?
Look at your mindset, stop being passive-aggressive. There's no claim but the recognition that the Vedic people weren't genetically like the Indians of today, they came from the Steppe, and everything they carried to India, too.

I am happy that the ones who migrated came this way, because the ones who stayed back must have been weaklings and non-courageous to not venture and explore, and did not even have any significant later achievements.
Are you for real? Do you know anything about history? The sheer amount of civilisations related to the Indo-European peoples is very long, Aryan India was just one among many, and they all share culture, genetics, language and everything else, India is not an exceptional case in the Indo-European history.
Really, this geography-based thinking of yours is really disconnected, it has nothing to do with peoples.

2/2

Sanuj said...

Archaeology says that Harappan culture is very different from Steppe/Vedic No, Archaeology does not say that, archaeologists say that they see a material continuity in the Indian culture. Read up a little https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4773686

not even the writing system of the Harappans got used by the Aryans, but an imported one from the Middle East
The origin of Brahmi - script of IE & non IE Indian languages has been challenged to have been from Semitic languages, there are open debates about an indigenous origin from Indus script, and the issue is still debated. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3087634

Absolutely. But they're not the same genetically, with modern Indians drifting away from them.
Has no bearing on my arguments.

it would change if core White Americans, which are the bulk of the USA got either replaced or mixed to the point of no resemblance with the founders.
So when that finally happens, then the founders no longer remain the valid ancestors of those later Americans and they would be not be associated with America anymore?Absurd logic. BTW, the population is already becoming quite mixed in a few centuries.

Not at all, since the Aryans arrival, they made sure to distinguish themselves.
You have no clue at all. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/tech-gene-data-reveal-two-millenia-of-caste-relations-in-india-081213#2
Nothing was delayed, caste endogamy is only 2000 years old.

The people who created it weren't like the people who live the way/where they lived now. I guess I already said that.
Modern possible does not have to be exactly the same to be inheritor of the heritage, a simple fact you are unable to grasp, there is an unbroken cultural continuity.

They created something, their descendants created something else, hence the Vedism vs Hinduism case.
Vedism vs Hinduism is stupid logic, there are several communities(like Arya Samaj) who just follow the Vedas. There are schools where the oral transmission of Vedas still continue. Expansion of beliefs does not mean death of other. You just want to believe what you want to believe.

It took long enough for you to show your colours
Can't handle a little humor, great temperament.

There's no claim but the recognition that the Vedic people weren't genetically like the Indians of today, they came from the Steppe, and everything they carried to India, too.
Here, you show your colours. Since Steppe has nothing else to show for what they stood for, appropriate whatever Indo-Aryans created as Steppe owned. Not happening.

Are you for real? Do you know anything about history? The sheer amount of civilisations related to the Indo-European peoples is very long
Yes, I know it. The Greek, Italian and other brothers did so well, only the ones remaining in Steppe remained the same old pastorals :-)... Well then, go ahead and appropriate all of Greek and Latin and the entire Indo-European world's history as Steppe history.

Romulus said...

Lets see a best of Davidski on baltic foragers

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
No, Archaeology does not say that, archaeologists say that they see a material continuity in the Indian culture. Read up a little https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4773686
When you haven't read it yourself? Their culture was completely different.
It's actually funny, because when you search it on Google, it only shows Indian perspectives, even ones that completely deny the existence of Aryans. Fascinating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation
They differed from the Aryans in: Language, lLiteracy, Urbanism/Pastoralism, Religion, Genetics, Rituals, Technology, Metal smithing, Building, Political system, an more. Just go read, instead of grasping to straws that comfort your biases.

The origin of Brahmi - script of IE & non IE Indian languages has been challenged to have been from Semitic languages, there are open debates about an indigenous origin from Indus script, and the issue is still debated. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3087634
I know very well about it, but there's not a single compelling argument in favour of an Indigenous script, specially because the only written system there was the Harappan and it was completely and absolutely different from Brahmi, even in the direction of writing, one being abugida and the other glyph.

Has no bearing on my arguments.
Of course it has. Chinese people of today are genetically exactly like the Chinese people that founded Chinese history in the past. Europe has been pretty much the same since the Bronze Age and the Neolithic - Modern Indians aren't like the Steppe Aryans.

So when that finally happens, then the founders no longer remain the valid ancestors of those later Americans and they would be not be associated with America anymore? Absurd logic.
But it's already happening, or did you lost the monument scandal of some time ago?

BTW, the population is already becoming quite mixed in a few centuries.
Yes it is, by 2050 the White population of the USA will be a minority. They already are among the younger population. The culture will not survive and will be replaced by the culture of the new people, exactly like in India, a shifting.

You have no clue at all. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/tech-gene-data-reveal-two-millenia-of-caste-relations-in-india-081213#2
Nothing was delayed, caste endogamy is only 2000 years old.
I said the Aryans made sure to distinguish themselves, they probably practiced an informal endogamy due to that.
In the Gupta period though, it became law.
From your compatriots:
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/Caste-system-has-left-imprints-on-genes-study/article14022623.ece
They cite this paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594.full
This is genetics, you may not know about it or how to read it, as your arguments were always outside of the genetic realm so far.
And yes, there was a delay. The book I showed you before takes on that quite a bit.

1/2

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
Modern possible does not have to be exactly the same to be inheritor of the heritage, a simple fact you are unable to grasp, there is an unbroken cultural continuity.
Why do you claim this when it's not true? Modern India has nothing to do with Vedic India culturally. Specially due to Hinduism.
It's like you're saying that if Jews converted to Christianity or to Islam there would be cultural continuity. These are breaks, they are distinct things.

Vedism vs Hinduism is stupid logic, there are several communities(like Arya Samaj) who just follow the Vedas. There are schools where the oral transmission of Vedas still continue. Expansion of beliefs does not mean death of other. You just want to believe what you want to believe.
I know. There's also people who still speak Sanskrit in India. This would be just Haitians speaking French, are they French because of that?
The Hinduism break is important because it defined the majority, the nation, not sects.

Can't handle a little humor, great temperament.
I really don't care about it, and you know you meant what you said.

Here, you show your colours. Since Steppe has nothing else to show for what they stood for, appropriate whatever Indo-Aryans created as Steppe owned. Not happening.
Steppe has nothing else to show for what they stood for? Are you out of your mind? Do you know archaeology? Have you truly searched what Arkaim is? They brought Iron smithing, their political and religious system, their rural, non-urban lifestyle, their city-state model, their chariots and carts.
Really, you really don't read anything out of your walled garden, right?

Yes, I know it. The Greek, Italian and other brothers did so well, only the ones remaining in Steppe remained the same old pastorals :-)... Well then, go ahead and appropriate all of Greek and Latin and the entire Indo-European world's history as Steppe history.
You clearly don't know the history of Central Asia. There were Merchant Empires there such as the Scythians, Sarmatians and Sogdians. Their writing systems were exclusive and didn't survive, specially after the Turks and Gengis Khan.
Also, not only Greeks and Italians, but Persians, Armenians, Mitanni, Hittite, the Germanic Holy Roman Empire, the French Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - all of which, along with Vedic India, shaped the face of Eurasia and the Americas.

2/2

Davidski said...

@Romulus

You finally understand now that R1a-M417 is from the steppe and not from the East Baltic, right?

Balaji said...

@Davidski

One thing you are completely wrong about is the notion that OIT has any traction whatsoever with scholars in the West whether they are population geneticists or Indologists. The prevailing orthodoxy is AIT/AMT and is subscribed to by almost everyone. For example the high priest of this orthodoxy is Professor Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard. Here is the web page for the Department of South Asian Studies at Harvard.

https://sas.fas.harvard.edu/people?page=2

We can be quite sure that not one of these people, including those of Indian origin believe in OIT. In India itself, many of the most prominent scholars are believers of AIT./AMt.

The Reich lab folk subscribe to AIT. Here is a quote from Moorjani et al. (2013), “The third possibility is that West Eurasian genetic affinities in India owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that Indo-European languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent.”

We can be sure that they would have had no hesitation or compunction in delivering the coup de grace to the OIT heresy if they had the evidence. Nick Patterson gave a talk with the title, “The Ancient Populations forming the Genetics of Modern India” at the Max Planck Institute on March 18, 2017.

It they have not published until now it must be because the stubborn facts do not support the orthodoxy. The Andoronovo have been knocked off from their position as putative ancestors of the “Indo-Iranians” because the Andronovo have too much EEF ancestry.

You have indeed done a lot of great work and thanks for collating them in this post. The best of your best is the following qpGraph that you generated which suggests the feasibility of OIT.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFaGZoMDdCclJ5bkk/view

Sanuj said...

@Arkaim
They differed from the Aryans in: Language, lLiteracy, Urbanism/Pastoralism, Religion, Genetics, Rituals, Technology, Metal smithing, Building, Political system, an more.
We don't know their language. Urbanism/Pastoralism : depends on how you look at it, it would make more sense if you date RV before mature Harappan, so it also fits with drying Saraswati.The later Vedic texts do know urbanism and the rest of it Going with this logic, RV will not fit with Arkaim's description too. They have found fire altars at IVC sites, which match the Vedic fire altar description to the hilt.

Also, why will I not believe a top rated Indian Archaeologist, who headed the Archaeology Institute of India, and won one of the highest civilian awards in India? Because you find that inconvenient?

You were not able to properly refute much of the rest that i wrote, so i'll just skip all of it. You just came up with contrived reasoning, suiting your agenda.

But, I'll comment on the "Hinduism" break. Well, there was also an indigenously formed Buddhism break as well, when much of population was that, and then a fall back to Upanishadic philosophy with Adi Shankara, and then the Bhakti movement with Islamic invasions, and it all happened organically. Vedas are still the primary texts in terms of priority though less read now, but that's because Bhagwad Gita has that same Upanishadic gist in a more easier format, so you don't have to cry so much for that.

As far as Arkaim is concerned, it is nothing ground breaking, Such cities with citadel etc. were there in Harappa a millenium before, and Iron smithing is attested in Uttar Pradesh from early 2nd Millenium BC. So much for the greatness.

Romulus said...

You said over and over that they wouldn't belong to R1b, but they did.

Davidski said...

I was referring to the samples from this study and I was right...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/eaa-2016-abstracts.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/the-genetic-history-of-northern-europe.html

But this wasn't a prediction. I actually knew the results.

Karl_K said...

@Romulus

"You said over and over that they wouldn't belong to R1b, but they did."

"I was referring to the samples from this study and I was right..."

Oh... burn! Dude... What were you thinking? At least try to know your shit before you try to call someone out. Put some ice on it, cause that's gonna hurt tomorrow.

TJ Zuffa said...

@andrew

Thank you. I glanced through your website. I think you're speaking my language. I definitely like the more narrative approach.

My family has a versatile background. And it goes so deep. I've only run my own autosomal DNA test and my uncle's Y-DNA test. But, I don't know where to start digging deeper. Should I stop testing my own family and just wait for the papers to come out? And that would rest any curiosities I have about my own family. Or do I continue testing my family, spending a lot of money?

People never believe that my brother and I are related. He has hazel eyes, and white skin while I am brown/olive. And a lot of the men in my family are tall on average about 6'2-6'4. I ran my maternal grandfathers Y-DNA through my uncle and found he is in the L-haplogroup. It appears that a lot of my grandfathers grandchildren and some of his own children carry blue/hazel eyes including my L-haplogroup uncle (hazel) and brother (hazel). I believe the blue eyes are from my grandfathers second wife who was also Pakistani but not related to me.

Sometimes I ask myself why I should test them. What value would that bring to me? I mean, I feel satisfied knowing what I know, but then I peak into this blog or other blogs and suddenly I convince myself that there's something more to learn about South Asian history. I only learned 6 months ago about the Indo-European migration. But, looking at my family and learning about IE model I said to myself, "hmm...it makes sense." And then I start learning about the IE model then I'm being told about Onge population or ASI vs ANI. Then Iran gets into the mix. I mean what the heck I don't even know where to start understanding all of this.

Anyway, enough of the rambling. @andrew I look forwarding to hopefully learning more.

Davidski said...

@Balaji

If you look at my commentary again, you'll see that I'm specifically referring to many population geneticists, not to historical linguists, when I say that OIT has gained traction.

There are plenty of examples of this in recent scientific literature, including Underhill 2009, in which the authors claim that R1a-M17 may have expanded from the Indus Valley.

The reason the Reich Lab people and co have never really joined the OIT craze is because they're much more prudent than the average team of population geneticists. And that's probably why their new paper is taking so long.

And yes, I'm well aware of Michael Witzel and his work. I expect that he'll be vindicated to a large degree by the upcoming ancient DNA from South Asia. I don't expect that his work will prove to be flawless in all of its detail, but so what?

The only reason OIT ever made a bit of a comeback is because population genetics was still in its infancy. But we're now well past that stage, and there's no longer any hope for OIT. Time to move on.

EastPole said...

@Simon_W
“Re: Indian culture. In my subjective opinion the best of Indian religion, what's really admirable and of which India can be proud of, is in the Upanishads, and these were written after 900 BC, they have nothing to do with the Aryan invasion or immigration, in the same way as the Greek philosophers were not simply recapitulating proto-Greek or Homeric religion. Indian culture evolved and it's not all encapsuled in what was there in 1900 BC or whenever exactly the Aryans mixed with the locals.”

What is proto-Greek or Homeric religion? Do you think Greeks believed or worshiped Homeric gods? I think you may be wrong:

https://s1.postimg.org/9bmbp9g6y7/screenshot_294.png

https://books.google.pl/books?id=Lz7LNak21AQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=snippet&q=%22was%20not%20really%20religion%20at%20all%22&f=false


Greeks had mystery cults which influenced their philosophy very much. Plato’s 'Phaedrus', along with 'Symposium', are linked with Orphic and Eleusinian Mysteries. These mystery cults had northern origin. Eleusinian Mysteries were established 1200 BC by Thracians. Orpheus was also a Thracian.

Pythagoras was linked with Hyperborans and was called the ‘Hyperborean Apollo’. Herodotus described how Hyperboreans brought “offerings” and participated in Apollo cult in Greece.

Upanishads are philosophical treaties and its content clearly indicates that as early as 500 BC Indians didn’t understand Rigveda. There was no continuity of understanding of Rigveda in India, symbols and metaphors used in Rigveda were not understood by Indians. According to specialists Rigveda is more IE than Indian. Similar process occurred in Greece where Pythagorean philosophy/religion was lost because of its symbolic and metaphorical language which was not understood by the Greeks and only some elements of this philosophy/religion survived in Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus etc.

The most simple and most parsimonious explanations of many similarities in Rigveda, Greek religion and philosophy and Slavic religion and folk traditions is that they all came from the same source and can be linked with R1a-expansion. This is also supported by linguistics and great similarity in Slavic and Indo-Iranian religious terminology.

Ritesh said...

The question whether IE languages moved from West to East or vice versa is close to getting solved. Could you put up a table of case scenarios which could conclusively turn the tables on the other especially wrt genetics. That would be super exciting for language enthusiastic people like me. For the sake of it, if r1a1 is found among Harappan genes, then the fact that IE entered India post 1500 bce can be established... Etc... Forgive my naive example please..

ak2014b said...

Arkaim said...

@Sanuj
My source for the Harappan yDNA:
http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2017/02/harappan-y-dna-leak.html
October 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM



Just so you know Arkaim, your source's source is me: dispatchesfromturtleisland quotes my comment on Eurogenes' Rumours and Leaks Thread page, and I was quoting rumours and leaks at anthrogenica by Khanabadoshi and Davidski. Davidski has pointed out that Khanabadoshi's source was someone on reddit. And Khanabadoshi couldn't validate their credentials. So that one doesn't carry much weight, in my view.

Davidski's source is unknown to us, but we may assume it would be more reliable. Bear in mind that months later, Rob here at one point referred to different aDNA results from early South Asia or India in particular, and those results sounded contrary to what Davidski had heard. Rob's source was left unknown too, but Rob is also credible and has sources too.

Be aware that when I wrote my comment, I was merely bringing together the rumours and leaks I had seen at anthrogenica, nothing more. I thought to hear back from others on this blog about whether they had heard anything to further substantiate the rumours that Khanabadoshi had come across.

I wouldn't cite a 5th hand source (dispatchesfromturtleisland) which quotes the 4th hand source that is my comment on eurogenes, itself quoting Khanabadoshi, a 3rd hand source, quoting someone on reddit whom Khanabadoshi has not been able to verify is even involved in the study. Davidski may be a 2nd hand source, and Rob may be too, but if what each of them has come across is not in agreement, then I remain none the wiser until the results are actually out.

As my comment had been solely to collate rumours and to be open to further feedback on them from the knowledgeable people discussing here, I'm certainly not liable for anyone repeating parts of my comment and blindly believing in it. So it's their lookout if they're wrong and whatever consequences may follow.

ak2014b said...

I've been seeing conspiracy theories blackening the reputation of Asian researchers by assigning dubious motivations to them, both here and on anthrogenica. One claim was that the Chinese researchers may be withholding the Y-DNA of Tianyuan as it would disadvantage them in some way. However, no less than the likes of Svante Pääbo are co-authors on that paper, so I'm not sure if he and the other non-Chinese authors are now suspects too or whether accusers think co-authors like Svante need not be held to task if there was indeed a conspiracy as has been floated.

It's instructive that foul play by Chinese should be the first conclusion that some chose to jump to. Davidski has since confirmed there is no conspiracy when he contacted Qiaomei Fu to discover that Tianyuan's Y-DNA is yet to be determined and requires further effort. I'm not convinced the clarification will put an end to certain biased people from leaping to conclusions about Chinese researchers or China again in future, rather than first looking into whether there may be alternative explanations for unexpected (lack of) results in place of suspicions.

The other allegation I saw here recently was that the South Asian paper was being delayed for nefarious purposes too. However, David had earlier linked to http://www.tatkalnews.com/news/110060-Rakhigarhi-gets-scientists-from-Cambridge-Harvard.aspx for our benefit, which says

Rakhigarhi gets scientists from Cambridge, Harvard
August 10, 2016 06:40 AM

The Rakhigarhi research project, an effort to unravel the mysteries surrounding the biggest Harappan site in Hisar, has acquired global dimensions.
Apart from the Pune-based Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, and Seoul National University in South Korea, teams of scientists from Harvard University , Cambridge University and Denmark are also involved in the research.

“The topmost scientists from the field are coming here and working at the DNA lab in Hyderabad. It is a joint effort as well as continuous peer review of the research work,“ says Vasant Shinde, head of the Pune-based university and leader of the research team.

Once the findings are collated, they will be published in international scientific journals of repute. “Once it has be en discussed and accepted by the international scientific community , we will make the results public and inform the media,“ says Shinde, vicechancellor of Deccan College, Post-Graduate and Research Institute, a deemed university .


From the above, it's apparent to me that since early on, when starting their collaboration with South Korean researchers, and later when inviting the Harvard, Cambridge and Denmark geneticists, the Indian researchers were eager to have international labs all working on sequencing and verifying the results themselves, so that the process and results may all be known to be above board. Presumably, they must be used to such anti-Asian accusations and conspiracy theorising as witnessed here and at anthrogenica, in order for them to have anticipated the accusations. Perhaps that's also why the Chinese researchers co-authored their work with Svante Pääbo and other non-Chinese researchers, despite having the experienced Fu on board.

However, when Davidski had already linked to the above news, which revealed the Indians had opened their samples to international researchers, I'm surprised that anyone can still charge the Indian researchers with attempting to foment a conspiracy and somehow hold back the results despite having already shared the samples. Since it further appears they opened access to primary source data, rather than to the secondary or tertiary data sources as are released by the labs we're familiar with, I would rather think that people would understand that this should be anything but suspect.

ak2014b said...

At anthrogenica, some had even been conjecturing that delays of the South Asian paper may be due to "funders" of the Indian lab or labs not being happy with the results. Yet David had already revealed months ago, excerpted below, that National Geographic were supporting/funding the Indian IVC study, so that that conspiracy ought to be buried too (unless the insinuation was that National Geographic is thought to be biased against a steppe homeland for Indo-European, which I wasn't aware of),

On a more positive note, National Geographic is now backing the effort, I'm guessing with funds and/or equipment, which might mean more sophisticated outcomes, like hopefully a few full genomes.

"My lab performed excavation in Rakhigarhi/India for Feb 19 to Mar 8 (Hong JH); Mar 4 to Mar 13 (Shin DH), 2016. The excavation is supported by National Geographic Foundation."


The anti-Asian conspiracy theories doing the rounds say more about the conspiracy theorists throwing suspicions on Asian researchers, than it does about the Asian researchers themselves.

I rather think that since India and South Korea may have little experience with working with and analysing ancient DNA, that this inexperience is the cause of the delay for the Asian research labs in publishing. Also, at one point there was mention that the Indian lab had expanded their paper to include samples beyond the IVC, as something about Mesolithic or Neolithic aDNA was discussed in their abstract earlier this year which David posted. Additional samples, added to lack of prior experience in aDNA research, sound like reasonable causes for such long delays.

I'm assuming Harvard is delaying their paper to avoid publishing the Indian IVC samples ahead of the Asian researchers who had gathered the data for their own paper. Though, that still does not explain them or Cambridge or Denmark leaking the results of the IVC samples gathered by the Indian and South Korean researchers, which is the only unprofessional behaviour I can see going on here. I do wish Harvard would have published the paper on their own South Central Asian samples at that far earlier time when it was originally rumoured to appear, last year or so.


On a happier note, I'm so glad that we're now finally getting ancient genomes from many more parts of the world. Africa and America have been particularly exciting, and Rapanui results were unexpected, though the lack of ancient DNA from large tracts of Asia is still disappointing. I guess this is it for 2017.

Sanuj said...

@ak2014b Thanks for your update!

Getting the South Korean lab involved on the part of Indians was really a great step, before going to the western labs for cross checking. The data will be indisputable.

Also, learning from this experience they are setting up a brand new lab, just for studying ancient genetics.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/ancient-dna-lab-at-bsip-to-unearth-harappan-history/articleshow/60431875.cms

Synome said...

@ak2014b

I was the one who posted the latest conspiratorial comments about the Tianyuan paper on this blog. I've gone back and deleted them because they're not worth anyone seeing and and taking seriously. It was wrong of me to make such a hasty accusation, especially of researchers like Dr. Fu whom I consider one of the best in the field.

Consider this a lesson learned. Maybe if I can be forthright and apologize it will help encourage other commenters to reconsider before posting inflammatory content on this blog. This blog is popular and the subject is too interesting and too important for the conversation to descend into the kind of negative, childish depths that so many other internet fora have fallen to.

Here's to staying on topic and sticking to the science.

Davidski said...

@Ritesh

I honestly can't think of any plausible outcomes from the upcoming aDNA and resulting potential scenarios that would see a movement of IE languages from east to west, as in from South or even Central Asia to the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

At this point, options are very limited, and as far as I can see, include: 1) a PIE homeland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and 2) an Indo-Hittite homeland in or around the Caucasus, and a Late PIE homeland on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Palacista said...

I just don't see how the option 2 could be true without any connection between the Caucasian languages and IE. There just isn't a deep connection in any area of language. At the very least there would need to be areal features in common.

Al Bundy said...

I was under the impression there is a connection and was a feature of Renfrew's early theory which has since been proven wrong because IE languages are too late to be explained by the farmers.The language connection is there though, specifically the areal features.Look at Colarusso's work.I'm leaning more towards Davidski's option 2 because I don't see how the PC steppe explains Anatolian but we'll see what the upcoming papers say.

Al Bundy said...

@Davidski What would be the other options you see at this point?

Al Bundy said...

I would also refer those interested to check out an earlier entry on this blog about Alan Bomhard and his work.It's 2 years old or so but still relevant and interesting.

Davidski said...

I don't see any other options at this stage. And the only thing that remains to be done now is to test a whole bunch of Hittite, Luwian and other Anatolian remains.

If these consistently come back with clear steppe admixture, even low level steppe admixture, then the PIE homeland was on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. If none of them show any steppe ancestry, then the Indo-Hittite homeland was somewhere south of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Al Bundy said...

Right, but if they have low level steppe ancestry and are loaded with CHG, what then? You would think it would have to be a significant amount of steppe admixture to account for language change.I agree overall with what you're saying.

Al Bundy said...

Patterson also said they cremate their dead or something so hopefully they have more than just a few.

Davidski said...

I don't expect a lot of steppe admixture in Hittite remains, since Hittites were probably mostly Hattians who began speaking Hittite due to elite dominance. So maybe around 20% in samples from elite burials.

But I don't think such an outcome will dissuade most people who are familiar with the PIE debate from accepting that the PIE homeland was on the steppe.

Al Bundy said...

Unless it's a significant amount it will not be accepted by some folks as you know, and the timing of the samples is obviously key.PC steppe homeland supporters see a later split from PIE while the Caucasus theory an earlier one.The latest I've seen is 4200 BC but other dates have fallen from the wayside too.

Davidski said...

The idea that language shift must be accompanied by a specific level of admixture is actually very difficult to take seriously. There's just nothing scientific about it.

Considering how complicated the origin of language shifts can be, any amount of admixture is sufficient, especially in the case of the arrival of Hittite in Anatolia, because that was always posited to be a language shift via elite dominance.

Al Bundy said...

20 percent or so is at the low end but as an elite dominance model I guess.Obviously not what we see in Northern Europe.

Davidski said...

I don't know if 20% is low end or high end in the context of language change in Bronze Age Anatolia. It's impossible to say, because there's no way to measure such a thing.

Anatolia isn't Northern Europe, so the comparison between the two isn't valid. It's more valid to compare Antolia to, say, Iran, where there was no massive population turnover, and yet people shifted from Elamite to Iranian.

Al Bundy said...

There's just not much pointing to a preYamnaya steppe group going down to Anatolia.Of course that's what we have DNA labs for.

E. Donovan said...

Do any of you happen to know what the percentages are of EHG vs CHG in the (German) Bell Beaker vs Corded Ware vs Yamnaya groups. I understand Anatolian to bear more similarity to the Beaker derived families as well as Tocharian (Afanasievo?), but that Afanasievo is said to resemble Yamnaya so much as to be virtually identical. Seeing recently that BB sports a lesser percentage of CHG, but not having the numbers myself, I'm tempted nonetheless to envision their recent ancestors being another but closely related group only peripherally participating in the Yamnaya horizon, but from which the CHG still enters via female exogamy. What seems less (theoretically) clear to me is from which direction then do we attribute the Yamnaya/Afanasievo traces in the Rathlin samples as detected by David? Probably some of both but I wonder if such a related "peripheral" group might have remained closer to the EHG sources during the era really in question. Finally they acquire some Neolithic heritage in Central-Western Europe.

Much guesswork above, and please excuse my awkward use of some terminology. Returning to the Anatolian matter, it could follow that an initial elite possessed even less CHG if we're to understand the language family as even more archaic relative to the overall R1b cluster. But again I'm guessing based on percentages I haven't seen yet.

Thanks

E. Donovan said...

Whoops. I don't mean by *both some each of Yamnaya or Afanasievo, although that was obviously possible for a limited time. What I meant was flow in both directions to and from the other group, not to mention all the R1a cousins, who clearly represent their own core interlinked with ours and possibly others.

Davidski said...

The Rathlin samples are genealogically very closely related to Yamnaya Kalmykia and Afanasievo. See here.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/a-bronze-age-dominion-from-atlantic-to.html

So they're from the same big bang on the steppe of very closely related peoples.

I don't think it's all that important what the ratios of CHG vs EHG are in the Bell Beakers and Corded Ware, as they're very similar, and may have shifted around a bit due to minor admixtures, so ultra fine scale differences in this context may not be informative.

A more pertinent question now, after the discovery of that Corded Ware/Yamnaya-like R-M417 sample just west of the Don, is whether there was a Proto-Yamnaya population living around the Sea of Azov sporting R-M417, R-L51 and R-Z2103, which I think is very likely, and if so, what was the ethnic identity of this group: Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog?

This is important, because these are likely to have been the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

E. Donovan said...

Perfect perspective, especially the numbers and putting Sredny Stog right in between some confusion areas. Historically I've tended to favor a greater time depth to the Indo-European story, including the language continuum, but what you're focusing on (not to say you don't understand further prehistoric dynamics) could very well be a very crucial contact and branching period or culture for what we later come to understand as essentially the whole thing.

Thanks for the reply. Long time no see, David. Glad you're still here.

E. Donovan said...

*on the numbers issue

Balaji said...

The recent paper on Tianyuan man is not inconsistent with Out-of-India for both East and West Eurasians. The fact that Tianyuan is closer to GoyetQ116-1 than to Kostenki14 could be because both Tiannyuan and GoyetQ1116 were the result of early Out-of-India migrations and Kostenki14 a later migration. The closer relationship of Tianyuan to Amazonians like Karitiana and Surui which correlates with their closer relationship with the Onge also suggests that Iianyuan had a South Asian origin.

Davidski said...

@Balaji

You're no longer just flirting with fantasy, but enthusiastically embracing it.

Ric Hern said...

@ E. Donovan

At the end of the day we see trade on the Steppe at least since the Mesolithic and where there was trade there could have been linguistic exchange. We see that the Majority Y-DNA Haplogroups found in Indo-Europeans today were also found together on the Pontic Caspian Steppe from +-8000 bC.until at least 3500 bC.

That is a very long time with no significant barriers between those people.....and they surely multiplied significantly during that time to cause migrations of at least a significant amount of individuals between them causing a cobweb of relatedness....

Rob said...

I don't think even Porto- Greeks are cut and dry, even though some claim to be so

Instead of preconceived narratives simply taking any steppe admixture as "proof" of steppe hypothesis, it's worth considering properly the 'dynamics' of admixture events : Mycenaeans have 5% EHG which might translate to 10% 'steppe' (let's say 20% to be generous).
But how did it get there and when ? Gradually trickling in since 4500 Bc ? If so, thats hardly elite dominance
And how would that contrast to the Armenia / Caucasus admixture seen in myceenans. Was the latter also gradual or sudden ? It certainly was more prominent
And how does that match the uniparental tally?

Time will tell

Davidski said...

Mycenaeans are basically Minoans with ~20% Steppe_MLBA, so it doesn't look like a gradual diffusion of a component, but a sudden pulse of admixture into a Minoan carbon copy of a population.

So if Minoans weren't Indo-European, then Steppe_MLBA carried Indo-European languages to the Aegean.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"Mycenaeans are basically Minoans with ~20% Steppe_MLBA, so it doesn't look like a gradual diffusion...""

i think that requires confirmation with data between 4-2000 BC showing no steppe admixture until 1900 Bc, and confirming that admixture is indeed from MBA
As i stated originally when the paper came out, I think that models try to fold into 2D what was something 4D.

Al Bundy said...

Clearly the PC steppe was A late homeland but was it THE late homeland, everything except Anatolian? There is the expectation that future Mycenean samples will show a lot of R1A and more steppe admixture.The timing of that admixture is also important.

Al Bundy said...

The Greek split from PIE is thought to have occurred what around 3500 BC? That doesn't tell us where the split happened though.

Davidski said...

@Rob

Minoans are exactly like the non-steppe part of Mycenaean ancestry. So the date of the steppe admixture can't be much further back than Minoan times.

On the other hand, the Armenian/Caucasus admixture goes back to the formation of Minoans, and probably earlier, because Krepost_Neolithic from Bulgaria has so much CHG that it already clusters with Minoans.

Rob said...

Well there's already steppe admixture in Thrace & west Anatolia by 3500 BC
This is when a major migration wave hit mainland Greece too, which I've outlined before.
The Caucasus / Armenia admixture event most likely took place c.2200 BC, and Mycenaeans have an Armenia EBA signature rather than the archaic 'CHG, of Krepost.
So it might be the other way round to what you suggest

Davidski said...

@Rob

The Caucasus/Armenia admixture event most likely took place c.2200 BC, and Mycenaeans have an Armenia EBA signature rather than the archaic 'CHG, of Krepost.

But why, since Minoans cluster with Krepost_Neolithic from Bulgaria?

How did CHG get to Bulgaria without making it to Greece and Crete first?

Rob said...

I'm sure there was CHG arriving early on, as there was EHG / steppe , so what ?
Plotting together on a PCA doesn't mean the same history.

But just go read any article about Helladic Greece, and you can easily see for yourselves the events I describe. It's one thing if you don't know it, it's another when someone tells you and choose to ignore it 'just because'.

Rob said...

The sources of 'CHG" & CHG-like admixture in Minoans & Myceneans are themselves different, though not mutually exclusive.

For steppe, or 'post-steppe' movements into Greece, it would be interesting to sample the BA mounds in western Macedonia, Epirus and adjacnet Adriatic. They might be R1b-Z2013 in there.

Davidski said...

@Rob

You're asking me to believe that the CHG in Mycenaeans does not come from the same source as that in Minoans, Krepost_Neolithic and Peloponnese_Neolithic.

You're claiming, based on archeology and linguistics (?), that the ancestors of the Mycenaeans somehow remained free from this CHG admixture, and instead acquired CHG admixture much later, and indeed, exactly the same amount of CHG admixture as Krespot_Neolithic and Minoans, from Armenia.

Can you see why it's difficult for me to accept this?

To make it possible to accept it, how do you explain the lack of CHG admixture into the ancestors of the Mycenaeans until around 2200 BC, more than 2000 years after significant CHG had arrived in Bulgaria and Greece?

Anthro Survey said...

@Rob:

In all likelihood, those 3500BC "steppe"-admixed samples from the recent paper which show "steppe" in the ADMIXTURE, and not as separate EHG and CHG signals at a higher K, represent some kind of an earlier wave/offshoot emanating from a Maykop or proto-Maykop core. They would have navigated the black sea coast to reach the Balkans, as opposed to braving the steppe as Yamnayans and descendants did. You hypothesized about this.

Krepost shows a distinct "West_Asian" signal, not this (Maykop?) stuff, and would have reached the Balkans using inner Anatolia prior to crossing the bosporus.

By the way---Kumtepe4 is interesting, too. It can almost be modeled as Anatolia_Neolithic+some CHG-heavy steppe component. A proto-Maykop wave, perhaps. Armenia_Chl and MLBA samples may have had similar influence, as well.

Davidski said...

@Anthro Survey

The minor steppe admixture in the Neolithic samples in the ADMIXTURE bar graph from Mathieson et al. is just CHG.

The reason it's there is because the analysis, which is supervised, is an anachronistic one, in which older Neolithic samples are modeled as the younger Steppe_EMBA, which is obviously part CHG.

Anthro Survey said...

@Davidski

Yes, I realize that. This is the figure to which you are referring to:
https://justpaste.it/1ckgq
The yellow in Neolithic Peloponese is certainly CHG-rich/Armenia and not steppe.

I'm referring to the UNsupervised runs. Look at K=10, for example.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"The minor steppe admixture in the Neolithic samples in the ADMIXTURE bar graph from Mathieson et al. is just CHG."

Anthro and I are referring to genuine steppe signature seen in Balkans and west Anatolia post 4500 Bc.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"You're asking me to believe that the CHG in Mycenaeans does not come from the same source as that in Minoans, Krepost_Neolithic and Peloponnese_Neolithic.

You're claiming, based on archeology and linguistics (?), that the ancestors of the Mycenaeans somehow remained free from this CHG admixture, and instead acquired CHG ....... "

This is what I said "The sources of 'CHG" & CHG-like admixture in Minoans & Myceneans are themselves different, though not mutually exclusive. "

Yes, the difference of minioans and Mycenaeans is one of degree; which can be clarified as

(1) the source of "CHG infusion". Predominantly Tepecik/ south Anatolian + minor Levant for Minoans
Cf a more "Northern"/ Black Sea /? Yet unsampled source for myceneans

(2) nature of ANF ancestry. Minoans largely from "first wave anatolians" cf Myceneans - more 'Balkan EEF'.

(3) with the (1) and (2) above myceneans acquired their minor EHG & WHG, resp.

I admit there's an element of intuitiveness here, and again I highlight no absolute barriers

Davidski said...

@Rob

I'd like to believe you, but you're not giving me any reason to. In fact, what you're suggesting is statistically the proverbial million to one. Think about it:

The non-steppe ancestors of the Mycenaeans were basically identical to Minoans.

So the only CHG that the Mycenaeans have that didn't come from the same source as that in Minoans came from the steppe, along with EHG.


No need for anything from Armenia.

Anthro Survey said...

Regarding Minoans, Krepost, Peloponese Neolithic, and, I'm guessing, Southern Italy(Gaudo culture, etc.)----The way they acquired their West_Asian-like admixture was via an Anatolia_Chl or Anatolia_BA-like intermediary populations. It wasn't through a direct movement from an Iran_Chl-like population residing in the Armenian highlands or Eastern Anatolia. The Tepecik-Ciftlik just doesn't pack adequate CHG and isn't consistent with either 2D or 10D PCA models or, indeed, formal stats from the paper IIRC.

@Rob
With regards to the Mycenaneans---do you think this possible "proto-Maykop" Black Sea wave was significant enough to persist in concentrated pockets until the Mycenean era, though? Imo, it wasn't so huge and fizzled out relatively quickly.

Davidski said...

@Anthro Survey

I think you're seeing too much in those ADMIXTURE runs.

Saying that there's proto-Maykop admixture in the Balkans is highly speculative.

Rob said...

@ Anthro

"With regards to the Mycenaneans---do you think this possible "proto-Maykop" Black Sea wave was significant enough to persist in concentrated pockets until the Mycenean era, though? Imo, it wasn't so huge and fizzled out relatively quickly."

I can't recall a 'proto-Majkop' wave hitting Greece. Can you direct me to that ?
I think it lingered around Black sea region & Thrace, and shifted down. Then more came with individual from Yamnaya, post-Vucedol/ Cetina from west Balkans. I.e. an accretion of steppe ancestry mediated largely via groups relatively light in steppe ancestry.

Rob said...

Taking the 2 best coverage individuals of Minoan & Myceneans, I get this

Mycenaean:I9041
Hungary_CA:I1497 44.75 %
Armenia_EBA 32.45 %
Greece_LN 18.85 %
Anatolia_ChL 2.8 %

Mycenaean:I9006
Anatolia_ChL 52.95 %
Greece_LN 18.85 %
Hungary_CA:I1497 15.65 %
Kumtepe_LN:kum4 12.55 %
Yamnaya_Samara 0 %

Minoan_Lasithi:I0073
Greece_LN 79.85 %
Armenia_EBA 18.8 %
Baalberge_MN 1.35 %

Minoan_Lasithi:I0074
Greece_LN 60.5 %
Anatolia_ChL 33.55 %
Jordan_EBA:I1706 3.65

As I argued above, the main difference is the degree of local continuity - Crete has most continuity with preceding Neolithic, whilst mainland Greece had far less. And the 'northern shift' in Myceneans is relative & multifactorial.
The MLBA steppe -> Minoan model is a construct.

Anthro Survey said...

@Davidski
The "proto-Maykop" scenario and use of Anatolia's Black Sea region as a conduit is speculative, but not impossible and not rejected by the DNA as of yet. Then again, it could be that Varna and Balkans_Chalco_Outlier just have a "fortuitous" combo of local HG and CHG influx that produced such signals in the unsupervised runs.

@Rob
The thing is, how would such a steppe-like population have independently formed in that region mostly escaping/bypassing EEF/ANF-related ancestry?

Rob said...

@ Anthro

I don;t understand what you're suggesting.
What 'indpendent formation' ?

Alberto said...

@Rob

The MLBA steppe -> Minoan model is a construct.

Absolutely, for all the reasons you've stated above. But to add one more, there's the linguistic problem with Greek being from MLBA steppe groups. If those groups spoke proto-Greek, how could the rest of the languages be explained?

Back to reality and looking at the whole picture (instead of focusing in Minoan samples alone), the Mycenaean samples we have show no direct (or even significant) steppe admixture. One can hope that they're just 4 samples and that further ones from male elite graves will be clearly different (autosomally and with high percentage of R1), but that's only hope based on personal preferences.

Another good question regarding a possible PIE (Indo-Hittite??) south of the steppe with a Late PIE in the steppe is how did the language get to the steppe in the first place. From CHG-like population? Through females? That opens too many doors. If you accept that the PIE were autosomally CHG-like and had no R1, and that language is transmitted by females, the whole thing gets extremely complicated for any steppe hypothesis (or any other simple/linear hypothesis at that). Not saying this is not possible, just that if this is the case, unraveling the spread of IE languages will be almost impossible.

Davidski said...

@Alberto

I'm pretty sure that the Mycenaean samples show around 20% Sintashta-like admixture, which is probably related to the Sintashta-like R1a-Z93 sample from around the same period from Bulgaria. If there was one in such a small sample set, there were probably many.

So it would seem that it was very direct admixture indeed, and hardly just a construct.

Of course, you're free to believe that this is not significant compared to the Minoan 0% or close to 0%, and perhaps not even real. But you won't convince me.

Anthro Survey said...

@Rob,
This sketch, in a nutshell, is how you envision the formation of the steppe package around the Black sea/Thrace region, right? This package then expands(not shown)
https://justpaste.it/1ckkb

This is how I explain Varna and Balkans_outlier, on the other hand:
https://justpaste.it/1ckka
Red: a pre-formed package containing CHG and EHG(heavier on the former) makes its way around the coast, contributing to the outliers(minor wave). It also makes its way north and combines with additional EHG to make Yamnaya. It is subsequent waves with Yamna ancestry which ultimately come to constitute the bulk of Bronze Age Balkan steppe-related ancestry(not shown in the sketch).

Davidski said...

@Anthro Survey

On the PCA the Varna and Balkans_Chalcolithic outliers just look like more westerly versions of Ukraine_Eneolithic.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say then, that they came from a more westerly steppe location than Ukraine_Eneolithic, rather than positing complex separate migrations of EHG and CHG around the Black Sea which just happened to produce the same effect?

Anthro Survey said...

@Davidski

Yeah, I've considered this alternative, too, given that eastern Romania and NE of Bulgaria are extensions of the steppe. It seems, though, that the Balkan outliers predate the relevant Ukraine_Eneolithic samples. They also predate the time period when the Pontic steppe dwellers became characteristically mobile. After all, we don't see this kind of signal emerging on the north European plain west of Ukraine until nearly a full millennium later.

On the other hand, a coastal route would have facilitated travel for folks circa 4500 BC, much like the north Mediterranean coastline served as conduit for Cardial Ware. Distance-wise, my hypothesized source is not considerably further from Varna than Dnieper is.

Davidski said...

The Eneolithic steppe is poorly sampled to date. Many more samples from north of the Black Sea will clear up the mystery of where these Balkan outliers came from.

I'm pretty sure they're not the result of an independent admixture event between CHG and EHG in the Balkans parallel to the one on the steppe.

Alberto said...

I hope the samples from the latest Mathieson paper can be available soon to test all these things with them.

My take on those Chalcolithic outliers from Bulgaria is that they can't have EHG proper. At 4600 BCE there was no EHG anywhere near Bulgaria. Not even in Ukraine.

Besides, if they had EHG it looks like there would be no room for any CHG. They have to be a straight mix of AN + EHG.

All that's very complicated. We have a much more simple explanation, with early farmers mixing with local hunter-gatherers (SHG-like) and a small amount of CHG (that we know was present in Bulgaria too). Nothing else is needed from far away.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Ummm... Meso Ukrainians are like EHG... Also the hunter input for Balkan samples is intermediate between SHG and EHG. Sea of Marmara hunters are very similar to Ukraine, culturally. The whole northern half of the Black Sea coast is probably very EHG-like when farmers arrived.

Rob said...

@ Alberto

"My take on those Chalcolithic outliers from Bulgaria is that they can't have EHG proper. At 4600 BCE there was no EHG anywhere near Bulgaria"

What about individual mobility ? Could be people from Caspian or Caucasus moving to Balkan centres. Initial trickle followed by larger movements later on

Rob said...

@ AnthroS

Yes I see what you mean now
To answer your Q: it's not quite what I think, but ? it might be similar to Alberto's thoughts.
I suspect that these Balkan Chalcolithic did have actuall steppe admixture from the actual steppe. As mentioned, these were individuals coming into Balkans ("pull factors" etc). And it crescendo'd in the Yamnaya period, but I don't think Yamnaya or any subsequent steppe cultures played a major role in mycenean formation. Rather, the steppe admixture in Mycenaeans - whilst wholly "genuine" (not pseudo-)- came to Greece from individuals/ families/ groups which had been continually accruing in Thrace / Macedonia/ Troad since 4500 BC until 2000 BC.
I think that is the more likely option than the nothing then sudden MBA steppe elite arrival c 2000 BC, nor is it accurate to class mainland early Helladic Greece as "Minoan".
But I also think groups were coming from the east, via south of Caucasus. There's no doubt about that either.
So as I stated even before the paper came out, it'll show bidirectional movement into SEE.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

So where did Proto-Indo-European originate ? In Armenia the Balkans or the Steppe ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

The reason why I'm asking is because I see most of your arguments seems to circle back to the South Caucasus and CHG. So is that your actual theory about the origin of Proto-Indo-European ?

CHG admixture in the Balkans or CHG admixture involving Maykop ?

So is CHG your marker for Proto-Indo-European ?

Ric Hern said...

So where would you put the epicentre of Proto-Indo-European ?

Rob said...

Before aDNA I thought it could be anywhere between east Carpathians and Central Asia
And even now I'm not entirely secure with what the data is showing.
As I have oft said, I'd like to see data from (more) Mycenaeans, Majkop and India
Still waiting for all that

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Thanks

Hyper500 said...

@Davidski Are you still offering dna analysis for a person raw data?

Ric Hern said...

Who where the Bug-Dniester Culture and who are/were their descendants ? I2a or R1b related ?

Alberto said...

@Chad

Meso Ukrainians are like EHG

Yes, those were closer to EHG, but I don't think they matter much for Chalcolithic Bulgaria. After the Mesolithic there seems to be a migration from the west to Ukraine and the resulting Neolithic Ukrainians are pretty much SHG with a tad more CHG admixture.

Also the hunter input for Balkan samples is intermediate between SHG and EHG.

How do we know that? From the PCA? It's hard to tell. I'm more inclined to think that it's mostly SHG + minor CHG, since we have both of those populations in the area.

Let's see what they look like when they are available. Maybe there was a movement of EHG closer to the coast of the Black Sea that hasn't been detected. It's possible that there were EHG in the North Caucasus too, and that could be the source. After all we see EHG admixture in Armenia Chalcolithic.

Anthro Survey said...

@Alberto

I agree with Chad here regarding EHGs. I've shared this very suspicion with Rob not so long ago and even made a rudimentary map at the time illustrating it. The topography of the region and Chad's bit of info about Marmara HGs in the last comment makes it a very distinct possibility.

https://justpaste.it/1cl1i
The arrow points to the Iron Gates, which has always been a gateway, of sorts. This is where the SHG-like HGs came from. The Romania_HG sample is from Teleorman county, an area between the green and blue "isogenomic" lines and it's more EHG shifted. We don't have other Balkan HGs, unfortunately.

Essentially, HGs living in the habitable zones east of the blue---and especially red---I take to have been very close to Ukranian_HGs. Maybe a hunting-and-fishing complex?
(West of Green---WHG like.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

They modeled them in the paper. IIRC

Jaap said...

Something has been puzzling me for some time, but as it hasn't puzzled anyone else I suppose I must be put straight. It's about R1a - R1b. R1b doesn't seem to be implicated in any of the IE language-spread. Afanasievo? R1b! Corded Ware? 1Ra! Rgveda? 1Ra! Sintashta, Androvono mixed. Taklan Makan mummies: Scottish (hence Irish, down to the sheep). So R1b? But Tocharian!
So R1a and R1b (both present on the Steppe) share the IE-package?? Yamnaya was R1b, no Yamnayan R1a reported so far ... So Corded Ware was 'Yamnaya-like', but not Yamnaya! And Yamnaya had nothing whatsoever to do with Rgveda? Not even Kvalinsk qualifies as a source - as R1a and R1b are both attested there. And that leaves Sredny Stog ...
This doesn't sit well with me somehow. I must have missed something. Can you put me streight here?

Davidski said...

@Jaap

Keep in mind that uniparental markers like Y-haplogroups are susceptible to stochastic factors, like extreme drift, especially in groups practicing patrilocality, clan based social structures, etc. But that's why we also study genome-wide DNA.

I explain the situation on the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe and how it relates to the Indo-European expansions here.

Davidski said...

@Hyper500

Well, there's still this...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/fund-raising-offer-basal-rich-k7-andor.html

And I'll be doing one more IBD run at the end of this month.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/ancient-ibdcm-matrix-analysis-offer.html

Alberto said...

Ah yes, we had those models in the paper (supp. table 4):

Trypillia: 14.6% WHG, 2.4% EHG, 83.1% AN
Malak Preslavets: 13.4% WHG, 4.6% EHG, 82% AN
Varna: 7% EWHG, 9.2% EHG, 83.8% AN
Balkans Chalcolithic: 5.4% WHG, 4% EHG, 90.6% AN
Balkans Neolithic: 2.9% WHG, -1.2% EHG, 98.3% AN
Krepost Neolithic: -3.8% WHG, 0% EHG, 103.8% AN

Alternatively, with CHG instead of EHG:

Varna: 15.6% WHG, 39.3% CHG, 45.1% AN
Krepost Neolithic: 1.3% WHG, 14.2% CHG, 87% AN
Balkans Chalcolithic: 7.4% WHG, 6.7% CHG, 86% AN
Malak Preslavets: 13.3% WHG, -4.7% CHG, 91.4% AN

The admixture mostly looks like SHG + CHG to me.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,

Good to see you finally admit Balkan Chalcolithic got its "Steppe" from the Steppe and not the other way around.

Also, yeah Mycenean Steppe is definitely from a bullet migration straight from the IE Steppe or a IE Steppe rich source just southwest of the Steppe. It isn't from sporadic inter marriage with peoples up north. I can't believe after all the ancient DNA supporting the Steppe/IE, most of which you agree with you, you think Steppe in Myceneans is from sporadic intermarriage, not a rapid bullet migration like we see in LNBA northern Europe.

Samuel Andrews said...

The genetics of PIE Steppe folks is getting more interesting. The considerable differention between Steppe Ukraine HG and Yamnaya indicates "Steppe" and PIE formed a relatively small region/population and only represented some of the genetic diversity which existed in the Neolithic Steppe. My guess would be PIE, "Steppe", R1b L23, and R1a M417 all formed around 4500-5000 BC somewhere near the Black Sea.

Then this PIE population rapidly expanded across the Steppe, then two independent expansions into northern Europe, then into Central Asia. It's migrations into the Balkans occurred earlier than in northern Europe but seem to have made less of a genetic impact. And despite what Rob says, Greece received a late migration directly from the Steppe or a second-hand one from just southwest of the Steppe.

If it turns out PIE, R1b L23, R1a M417 did emerge in a single community in around 5000 BC that would also have big indications for the origins of modern populations. PIE could represent one Neolithic-era ethnolingustic group/tribe with its own specfic genetic drift that everyone contributed signifcantly to loads of people groups.

Rob said...

@ Sam

And yet you're still making straw man arguments , because I never said that steppe came from Balkans, ever. I was highlighting the Fact that it appears very early / as early in Balkans as it appears in the actual steppe.
See the difference ? Probably not I bet


"And yeah steppe in Mycenaeans is definitely from a bullet migration..."
Hhhmm. Possible. Doubtful
But sketch out your hypothesis in terms of origin , timing and character . You seem to think you know what you're talking about

Balaji said...

You wrote, “You're no longer just flirting with fantasy, but enthusiastically embracing it.” Not true. More than a decade ago Prof. Stephen Oppenheimer suggested that the rest of Eurasia was populated by Out-of-India migrations. While some of his ideas are clearly wrong, this one is still viable. If the Out-of-Africa migration was via the Southern coastal route, East Asia and Oceania had to be populated by an Out-of-India movement. As regards, Western Eurasia, the Reich Lab people wrote in Moorjani 2013, “The first hypothesis is that the current geographic distribution of people with West Eurasian genetic affinities is due to migrations that occurred prior to the development of agriculture. Evidence for this comes from mitochondrial DNA studies, which have shown that the mitochondrial haplogroups (hg U2, U7, and W) that are most closely shared between Indians and West Eurasians diverged about 30,000–40,000 years BP”.

Davidski said...

Those dates are inflated. There are some very young mtDNA U and W lineages shared by Europeans and Indians, and they most certainly come from the Eastern European steppe.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"And yet you're still making straw man arguments"

I do that because it's difficult to know what your comments are suggesting. Sometimes I don't know if you're posing a theory or just making an observation. Be more direct.

For example, looks at this comment you made in May.
"the key regions are Balkans and Caucasus which together can explain the entire diversity of BA Europe. The further pull toward the steppe was obviously due to marrying EHG women.”"

So, are you just making an observation here or posing a theory? Are you just observing that EHG, CHG, WHG, and EEF (or more accurately rough approximations of them) existed in the Chalcolithic Balkans and Caucasus? Or are you suggesting all the diversity in BA Europe derives mostly from a Balkan/Caucasus source which picked up EHG women on their way to Europe?

And look at this comment you made...
"So, yeah, the earliest 'steppe ancestry' individual is from the East Balkans, not the steppe, which were still 'EHG" at this stage (4500 BC)."

Yeah, so obviously you're making an observation here but it's a very suggestive observation. First of all, you put 'steppe ancestry' and 'EHG' in sarcastic quotes which is what people do when they are suggesting something isn't real. So, are you suggesting STeppe as we define it isn't real? Are you suggesting it is instead a phenomanon that wasn't restricted to the STeppe but extended to the Balkans?

Why point out that the oldest example of Steppe ancestry is from the Balkans if you believe that that Steppe ancestry orignated in the Steppe and is therefore older on the Steppe? If you believed Steppe ancestry orignated in the Steppe not the Balkans the only significance of Steppe ancestry in the Chalcolithic Balkans to you would be it represents very early Steppe migrations.

I know now you think their Steppe ancestry orignated in the Steppe. My inability to discern this from your comments wasn't because of stupidity on my part but because your comments are indirect and at least seem to make very strong suggestions.

For now on, please directly state what you believe, don't make hard to interprit observations anymore.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel Andrews

Yes however it does not seem if Steppe Admixture equals Proto-Indo-European in Robs books. Maybe he is playing on the knifes edge just for in case....As I see it he is hoping for something from the South.....

Samuel Andrews said...

Rob, allow me to explain what my beef with you is. I now understand that you don't have any serious biases against anything Steppe. I now understand that you're simply someone who wants to know what happened in prehistory.

I still don't like you though because you're a complete douche bag.

Rob said...

@ Sam

Okay so instead of being a smart ass , ask to clarify.

1) '"So, yeah, the earliest 'steppe ancestry' individual is from the East Balkans, not the steppe, which were still 'EHG" at this stage (4500 BC).""

No, using quote marks doesn't imply sarcasm, it infers reference to a terminological name whose meaning might not be entirely obvious, unless the person knows the 'in-group' meaning of it; 'the person' being most people who follow this kind of stuff & have a fair understanding of matters. It also enables distinction between 'steppe' - the genetic component of CHG/ EHG- from the steppe - the eco- geographical entity found from Hungary to Mongolia.

But I do suggest that 'steppe' genetic component isn;t native to the steppe. An you seem to agree here, because you wrote 'all formed around 4500-5000 BC somewhere near the Black Sea. ', which seems what most people also think, because its fairly obvious. What isn.t yet obvious is whether the CHG component had been sitting in a small area of the Black Sea region since Mesolithic, or only arrived in Late Neolithic/ Eneolithic from somewhere else.



(2) "Why point out that the oldest example of Steppe ancestry is from the Balkans if you believe that that Steppe ancestry originated in the Steppe and is therefore older on the Steppe?"

Because it's an extremely important fact, Im not sure how you're not digesting it.
The Varna woman who had some ~ 50% steppe ancestry lived ~ at the same time as as the Khlvanysk haplogroup Q man who also shows the ~ 30 % CHG admixture. It is also important that the Kumtepe IV in Anatolia, also very early on in 3600 BC, had some kind of steppe admixture.
It all means these regions were already linked, and probably part of some larger web of processes.
It's called setting an terminus ante quem.

(3) "
So, are you just making an observation here or posing a theory? Are you just observing that EHG, CHG, WHG, and EEF (or more accurately rough approximations of them) existed in the Chalcolithic Balkans and Caucasus? Or are you suggesting all the diversity in BA Europe derives mostly from a Balkan/Caucasus source which picked up EHG women on their way to Europe?"

I might have made a smart ass comment or two, and probably will again.
But, yes, that is what I see before aDNA and the recent data has confirmed all this. The steppe was a conduit between varna, and later C-T communities, and Caucasus metallurgical centres (and their contacts beyond to central Asia). This not to say that the local steppe communities were just dummies, they had their own agency and innovations, brilliantly so.
But the 'pure steppe' component you're focussing on explains only CWC & offshoots, and BB.
This was a late phase of events, and probably accounts for late / north European IE - as the emerging consensus outlines
The Balkans, Anatolia , Caucasus are different areanas. I'm not suggesting that steppe ancestry just "wafted through", there were definite episodes of admixture, but they were multiple. So when I say people need to read the archaelogy, Im not just putting you down, but its an absolute essential to formulate a 'sanity check' the genetic models.
As it's said, one need to walk before he can run

(4) 'For now on, please directly state what you believe, don't make hard to interprit observations anymore.'

Everyone else seems to understand what I write.
Sometimes, things are really more complex than it seems. It's not me being cute or 'PC'.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Relevant people are all just flesh and blood like most other seemingly non-relevant people.....

Rob said...

Aww that's deep , Ric

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Your relevance will one day be measured in time. The Time people take to reflect upon your life and move on to the next Relevant person....

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"But the 'pure steppe' component you're focussing on explains only CWC & offshoots, and BB. "

They covered half of Europe in 500 years, huge chunks of North Asia within a couple hundred years, went into Iran, and went into SC Asia. And also sprouted IE languages

"he steppe was a conduit between varna, and later C-T communities, and Caucasus metallurgical centres"

In case some don't know here's the definition of conduit...."a channel for conveying water or other fluid."

Rob is suggesting the Steppe served as a pathway between cultures of the Balkans and Caucasu s and therefore isn't as signifcant.

Rob, on this blog we tend to focus on genetics not culture/archeaology. The Steppe folk are the ones who embargoed on "massive" migrations and with whom IE languages spread. On this blog that's what we care about, genetic legacy, not trade networks.

Rob said...

@ Sam

"Rob is suggesting the Steppe served as a pathway between cultures of the Balkans and Caucasu s and therefore isn't as signifcant"

Yep, that's exactly what I meant when I wrote "This not to say that the local steppe communities were just dummies, they had their own agency and innovations, brilliantly so."

2) "The Steppe folk are the ones who embargoed on "massive" migrations and with whom IE languages spread. "

I think you mean to say "embarked"?
Unless the steppe folk actually 'embargoed" their own folk migration ?
Like Chyna ?

Sam, you're what Australians would say - "a few slices short of a loaf"

Ric Hern said...

Looks like it is okay to obfuscate if it serves ones theories....

Ric Hern said...

At the end of the day we do not even know if CHG people had any significant linguistic contribution to the formation of Proto-Indo-European.

They could have adopted the Steppe Language during the more than 1000 years of gradual integration of individuals or small groups of women.

The Dnieper River was a significant barriers for anything migrating from West to East as already shown by many Renowned Archaeologists. So that left the majority of migrations and admixture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe to people already living East of the Dnieper before their eventual migrations to Central Europe....

Why would, anyone of those renowned Archaeologists,have overlooked a Significant West to East Migration that could have brought CHG from the Balkans to East of the Dnieper ?

Ric Hern said...

Wouldn't an Eastern Balkan population have picked up a significant amount of EEF before it migrated and on its way to the Lower Bug and Dnieper, Kemi-Oba and Lower Mikaylovka ?

Ric Hern said...

When we look at that Varna women with the 50% CHG admixture from a different perspective we can also see her as a First Generation admixture and the Haplogroup Q guy as a Second Generation admixture.

That makes the CHG in the Q guy an Older admixture event than the Varna Women.....

Rob said...

@ Alberto

Interesting,. I had forgotten about that table in Supplements.

It was always obvious since even before aDNA that there'd be barely any steppe admixture in Myceneans, simply by looking at Greeks. The explanation offered by steppe-trolls was that there was a migration of Syrians during the ROman empire, or some such nonsense.
This aDNA data has shut that up fast, as it's clear that modern Greeks are north shifted compared to Myceneans - again this was always going to be the case for anyone who has the slightlest knowledge about what happened in the post-Roman period.

So yeah, Myceneans have 5% os something ANE -related

Mycenaean:I9006
Barcin_Neolithic:I1099 71.8 %
Kotias:KK1 21.8 %
AfontovaGora3:I9050.damage 4.2 %
Levant_Neolithic:I1704 1.7 %
Villabruna:I9030 0 %

Given the absence of ;WHG', it seems doubtful much of anything came from the steppe. Instead, it seems to have hitched along with a migration directly from the Caucasus.
Again, no surprises.



Davidski said...

@Rob

Have a look at the differences between the Minoans and Mycenaeans in this ADMIXTURE run I did, in which I split Steppe_EBA-related ancestry from Iran_N-related ancestry.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qYz-SsRykJEnlynp4MnQpjDETr4a0iZAZcAUJ8X2oT4/edit?usp=sharing

Clearly, Mycenaeans have a fair whack of ancestry from the EBA steppe while Minoans do not.

Rob said...

Yep. And clearly Bonkuclu, from preCeramic neolithic 10000BC, also has almost 10 % "steppe"

Davidski said...

@Rob

Nope, it just has some CHG. You can test this with nMonte.

More importantly, Tepecik_Ciftlik_N shows no Steppe/CHG, but it does show Iran_N, like the Minoans.

Interesting.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Barcin folks weren't in Greece. They eat up the WHG in the model.

Rob said...

@ Dave

Yes I know Boncuklu shouldn't have steppe. But they do in your ADMIXTURE table - 7.5%
This could mean things are being overestimated. The average Myceneans score in your table is 10% or so.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Judging by Boncuklu is anachronistic and no more relevant than using Kostenki. Boncuklu was long gone before anything being discussed. Using Barcin to model Greeks and Minoans is going to be inaccurate too. Barcin has more WHG-related ancestry than Greece's first farmers. The admixture is clearly European, rather than Caucasian.

Rob said...

@ Chad

I don;t think Barcin is 'eating up' any WHG. If there is anything 'hyper-basal' in LN Greece it shows up as Levant Neolithic.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It does eat it up. Barcin has less Basal Eu than Greek farmers. Barcin takes 3% more from WHG than Greek farmers in their tree.

Rob said...

@ Chad
I know Barcin is too distant for optimal modelling of Myceneans. The purpose of the above run (using such old sources) was a quick screen of how Myceneans sit in regard to LUP / early Holocene populations.

Using more proximate sources (eg Chalcolithic individuals), I get basically what you're suggesting

Minoan_Lasithi:I0073
LBK_EN:I0056 66.9 %
Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665 24.5 %
Tepecik_Ciftlik_N:Tep006 8.5 %

Mycenaean:I9041
LBK_EN:I0056 69.95 %
Kotias:KK1 21.75 %
Anatolia_Chalcolithic:I1584 4.85 %
Samara_Eneolithic:I0434 2.15 %
..

The Iran Neol - south Anatolia - Minoan link

Vs something distinctive in Myceneans - a different route of CHG introgression.

Alberto said...

But forgetting about Bonçucklu or even Barcin, there's one thing that I think we all agree: Mycenaeans came from the north. But from the north of Greece. Mostly from the east Balkans.

Those much more proximate sources (the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age samples from the Balkans) would score around 1.5x-3x times more "steppe" than Mycenaeans. You can't model Micenaeans as Minoans + Sintashta ignoring everything else. No one ever thought that Minoans came from the north. They're local Neolithic population with a significant input from Anatolia (directly, by sea contacts). Mycenaeans are not local Neolithic Greeks with Anatolians crossing by sea and then MLBA steppe in flying horses.

The period between 2400-2000 BCE saw a big Anatolian influence in the area of Thrace and Macedonia, that clearly was bigger (genetically and culturally) than the few pastoralists from the steppe that moved to the Balkans in the preceding period (3000-2400 BCE).

This is what the DNA of Mycenaeans show, and it was really expected. I'll wait to see if elite male burials from those shaft graves show anything different, though there's no strong reason to think they will.

Ric Hern said...

How about a migration of Steppe into Anatolia from the Balkans and from there over seas into Greece ?

Al Bundy said...

Future samples from those elite graves could show a lot of R1A and more genuine steppe admixture as Alberto says.But to reiterate what Rob said in an earlier comment thread,the Greek split occurred around 4000bc so ProtoGreek can't come from some 2000 bc bullet invasion.You can have a big invasion and the genetic makeup changes but the language is already there so the dna is irrelevant.But as Davidski notes those split dates are just estimates and can't tell us where the split occurred.

Rob said...

@ Al

There definitely were conflagrations and tumults in Greece & Anatolia c. 2200 BC. There's little doubt about that. But if any invaders were the cause of this, they came from Dalmatia & Anatolia, not the Urals.

Davidski said...

@Rob

Yes I know Boncuklu shouldn't have steppe. But they do in your ADMIXTURE table - 7.5%
This could mean things are being overestimated. The average Myceneans score in your table is 10% or so.


That's like saying Andronovo and Srubnaya are only ~65% steppe, when in fact they're 100% steppe. Actually, not even Yamnaya is 100% steppe in that ADMIXTURE test.

But the point is that Mycenaeans show very clear steppe ancestry in that test, while the almost contemporaneous Minoans don't.

And these results can be reproduced with formal stat models, while they can't for Boncuklu. So Mycenaeans do have steppe ancestry, while Boncuklu doesn't.

Davidski said...

The Mycenaeans have 15-20% Steppe_MLBA or European_LNBA admixture.

This is what formal models show and that's what the ADMIXTURE run shows, because the ADMIXTURE steppe component makes up ~65% of the genetic structure of Steppe_MLBA genomes.

That's what the numbers show. So to claim otherwise you'd need different numbers.

Rob said...

That's not what the data suggests to me
Maybe odd individuals from northern Greece will have 20%

Balaji said...

@Davidski

You should add the following post to the “Best of Davidski on South Asian Population History”.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/07/working-topology-for-eurasian.html

This demonstrates that there are two kinds of Basal Eurasian, which you have labeled B1 and B2. The kind of basal found in CHG, Iran_Neolithic and in India today is B2. The basal found in EEF is B1. Present-day Europeans and Middle Easterners have both B1 and B2. But in India B1 is absent. It is likely that B2 has been present in southwestern Pakistan (Baluchistan) since the first arrival of AMH in the Pleistocene. Even today people there have the highest level of B2 anywhere in the world.

Davidski said...

@Rob

Maybe odd individuals from northern Greece will have 20%

The ~20% Steppe_MLBA/Europe_LNBA figure is also shown for Mycenaeans in Lazaridis et al. It's a very robust estimate.

And in Mathieson et al. there are EBA/MBA samples with 30-100% steppe ancestry from Bulgarian sites near the current Greek border. So there's no reason to assume that EBA/MBA samples from northern Greece won't show such figures.

@Balaji

The EEF-related orange ADMIXTURE component is found in South Asia, and in fact at high levels around the Indus Valley. This shouldn't be surprising because Iran_ChL has this type of ancestry. So yes, B1 is present in Indians.

And obviously B2 is not native to South Asia. It arrived there during the Neolithic with Iran_N-related groups.

Al Bundy said...

But that 15-20 percent number with Myceneans-can we tell whether that had been sitting in the Balkans for a while or works for an elite model?I assume we need a lot more samples.

Matt said...

Elite dominance is specifically the idea that a group came in, made other communities speak the same language as they did through elite power, then only later on began to mix with them genetically, after having first culturally converted them through elite power.

Specifically to show that by Steppe_MLBA groups, you'd probably need at least some early status differentiated graves, then show that the people from high status graves are Steppe_MLBA like, systematically, compared to low status graves.

Even having Steppe_MLBA like samples in Greece wouldn't be enough on its own - it would be hard to show that this wasn't just a separate society that picked up admixture over time and grew in size without much of an elite dynamic going on.

(For examples of the a distinction, think of Rome conquering Britain - they more or less impose a Latin speech, at least in their cities, and this is not just because Iron Age Brits are marrying into Roman families.

Now think of Anglo-Saxons moving to Britain. They might have set up a new Anglo-Saxon speaking hierarchy over the post-Roman Romano-Brits and Celtic speaking Brits, and then intermarried later, and that would be elite dominance. Or alternatively, they could have just intermarried with the locals over time at the same time as they expanded, and as wives/husbands (probably wives) joined the group then they and their children spoke AS. Without the Anglo-Saxons ever really forming an elite that required others to speak their language. You could only tell the difference by establishing whether there ever were or weren't settlements in which a genetically isolated AS population ruled over previous folks.)

Al Bundy said...

@Matt Interesting thanks,and obviously this has to be combined with what we know about linguistics and dating which are sometimes very rough estimates.

Jared Knows said...

Interpretation is still clearly plagued by emotional racial bias. Were the Italian migrants to the States not "genetically drifted" from the bulk of the revered founding fathers of the country? Did Washington and his colonial buddies enjoy pizza?

Philippe said...

@Matt But why would people adopt their language and culture if they weren't an elite, especially if they were a minority?

Davidski said...

The idea that proto-Greek was introduced to the Aegean region from the steppe via elite dominance by a Sintashta-related people is not unusual, highly original, or even new.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=x5J9rn8p2-IC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=sacrificing+horses+in+burial+Mycenaean+dynasty&source=bl&ots=VPTlOZbdoy&sig=Z7NuTN2dapRjfE87RsYJ5DLqfiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDpcq9uYXXAhUGUrwKHZoCBCUQ6AEINjAF&authuser=1#v=onepage&q=sacrificing%20horses%20in%20burial%20Mycenaean%20dynasty&f=false

So it's perfectly fine to interpret the Mycenaean ancient DNA results in this context, especially since Sintashta and other Steppe_MLBA samples provide such good fits for the Mycenaeans, and there's a Sintashta clone in nearby Bulgaria dated to the Mycenaean period belonging to R1a-Z93, which potentially could be related to the posited Graeco-Aryan linguistic links.

Point is, whether this becomes the leading hypothesis for Greek origins, or even stays a viable one, is yet to be decided, and it will be decided when a lot more Mycenaean and other ancient Greek samples come in, but right now, at the very least, it's a valid avenue for investigation.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

The problem is no R1a Z93 in modern Greece but lots of Steppe ancestry. Either Steppe Y DNA didn't come to dominate in the Balkans or the Greeks didn't derive from SIntashta.

Davidski said...

There is R1a-Z93 in modern Greece. It's just not very common. But we can't say that it wasn't common among the people who brought most of the steppe admixture to Greece during the Mycenaean period, because we don't have the right samples yet.

That's why I've been saying that it's important to sample the remains from those Mycenaean shaft graves with horse cheek pieces similar to those found in burials on the steppes.

But it's not only the shaft graves that need to be sampled. Obviously, we need DNA from a wide variety of elite and commoner graves from different parts of Mycenaean Greece to get a good idea of what happened there.

By the way, I've got preliminary results from the Bronze Age warriors from the Tollense Valley. I'll be posting a blog entry about that in a few hours.

Matt said...

@Philippe, it depends on if unrelated people actually have adopted the culture and language, or there was a lot of admixture cumulatively into a small expanding group over say 5-15 generations.

It's hard to think of non-elite scenarios that could ever lead to an unrelated group en masse adopting the language of another intrusive group, though I haven't given it much thought.

Rob said...

Ha Dave
And what's the frequency of Z93 in modern Greeks ?
The Z93 elites came then disappeared ?
Your model is called the Hail Mary

Davidski said...

Elites, especially male elites, can be pushed out or even wiped out when new elites come onto the scene.

Look what happened in the Samara when Yamnaya disappeared and Sintashta and Srubnaya rolled in from the west.

Can't imagine why something like this couldn't have happened in ancient Greece several times over. And this is why ancient DNA is so useful.

Balaji said...

@Davidski
I agree that the Balochi people do have some of the EEF-type ancestry. But this is a recent development since they live in a borderland between Pakistan and Iran. In the rest of Pakistan and in India, this type of ancestry is virtually absent.

The connection between India and Iran is quite ancient as shown by the following paper.

https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-5-26

There is U7 in both regions but the U7 in the two regions separated before the LGM. Therefore the U7 in India could not have been brought to India from Iran by any migration of Iran_Neolithic. Simply from demographic considerations, it is much more likely that the movement of people was from India to Iran The Indus is a perennial glacier-fed river and could support a large population in the land where it flows. Iran is an arid land which could not support a high population. Innovations such as agriculture are more likely where there are many people. Therefore, it is likely that Iran_Neolithic is a result of an Out-of-India migration.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"Elites, especially male elites, can be pushed out or even wiped out when new elites come onto the scene.

Look what happened in the Samara when Yamnaya disappeared and Sintashta and Srubnaya rolled in from the west"

Yamnaya weren;t elites. They were an cultural-historical horizon of equal men, heterarchichal perhaps. What happened was a mass exodus, partl climate induced, and wholescale replacement by forest-steppe lines.
That's a non-argument as far as Greece goes.

"Can't imagine why something like this couldn't have happened in ancient Greece several times over. And this is why ancient DNA is so useful.'

It probably did. But that doesnt explain the near absence of Z93 in Greece.
This is how much steppe there is in Myceneans;

Mycenaean:I9041
"Hungary_CA:I1497" 45
"Armenia_EBA" 33.35
"Greece_LN" 19.25
"Anatolia_ChL" 1.25
"Dai" 0.75
"Yamnaya_Samara" 0

And that's being generous

Davidski said...

We'll see how much steppe there is in Mycenaeans when Bulgaria_MLBA and Peloponnese_Neolithic come online.

Rob said...

But go ahead, model Myceneans as 5000 BC Neolithic + 1700 BC Iranic
It'll be good for a laugh

Davidski said...

Do you agree that using older Neolithic samples than Peloponnese_Neolithic (like Greece_LN) isn't the right thing to do, since Peloponnese_Neolithic is younger and hence the most proximate Neolithic population available to the proto-Greek period?

Davidski said...

Dates for the various Greek Neolithic samples...

4230-3995 calBCE Northern_Greece_Final_Neolithic.SG
4452-4350 calBCE Northern_Greece_Late_Neolithic.SG
6438-6264 calBCE Northern_Greece_Early_Neolithic.SG

5479-5338 calBCE Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic
5500-3700 BCE Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic
5000-3200 BC Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic
3990-3804 calBCE Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic
3933-3706 calBCE Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic
4043-3947 calBC Greece_Peloponnese_Neolithic

The youngest Peloponnese_Neolithic should be used to model Mycenaeans.

Rob said...

The second from bottom is the only one valid enough, because the big shift in mainland Greece came after 4000 BC, and really, 3500 BC. But even that might not capture it, would need something from Thessaly.
Which is why HUngary _CA comes into play.
So whoever (also) came into 2200 BC, they were admixing into a baden-Cotofeni-Cernavoda like group (higher WHG, and even some EHG), which is very much the opposite of the Minoan or Peloponessus Neol. model which is hyper-basal / Levant Neol input. To compensate for that, a model which includes them has to find extra steppe - thus calling for MBA steppe input.
But that's a non entity.

Al Bundy said...

@Rob Those big shifts you mention seem to coincide with the estimated split of Greek from II.What is your understanding of when Greek was first spoken in Greece, no way to tell?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 211   Newer› Newest»