search this blog

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Eleven Y-chromosome descent clusters in Asia


Unfortunately, this new Balaresque et al. paper is behind a pay wall, but the figures and tables and supplementary info are freely available.

Out of the 11 descent clusters (DCs) identified among Asian males, DC2 shows the strongest correlation with Indo-European languages. This cluster is based on STR haplotypes within Y-haplogroup R1a1, and is inferred to have expanded from Central Asia around 1300 BCE. In fact, to me DC2 looks like a signal of the Indo-Iranian dispersals, and associated with R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93) rather than R1a1 as a whole.

Here's a spatial map of DC2. The KYK marker in south Siberia represents European-like Kurgan samples from the Bronze Age. Four out of six of these individuals belonged to DC2. You can read more about them here.


Interestingly, Supplementary Figure 1 shows the presence of R*, R1*, R1b* and R1b1b2 lineages among Tajik groups (see here). Any ideas what these might really be?

High-frequency microsatellite haplotypes of the male-specific Y-chromosome can signal past episodes of high reproductive success of particular men and their patrilineal descendants. Previously, two examples of such successful Y-lineages have been described in Asia, both associated with Altaic-speaking pastoral nomadic societies, and putatively linked to dynasties descending, respectively, from Genghis Khan and Giocangga. Here we surveyed a total of 5321 Y-chromosomes from 127 Asian populations, including novel Y-SNP and microsatellite data on 461 Central Asian males, to ask whether additional lineage expansions could be identified. Based on the most frequent eight-microsatellite haplotypes, we objectively defined 11 descent clusters (DCs), each within a specific haplogroup, that represent likely past instances of high male reproductive success, including the two previously identified cases. Analysis of the geographical patterns and ages of these DCs and their associated cultural characteristics showed that the most successful lineages are found both among sedentary agriculturalists and pastoral nomads, and expanded between 2100 BCE and 1100 CE. However, those with recent origins in the historical period are almost exclusively found in Altaic-speaking pastoral nomadic populations, which may reflect a shift in political organisation in pastoralist economies and a greater ease of transmission of Y-chromosomes through time and space facilitated by the use of horses.

Balaresque et al., Y-chromosome descent clusters and male differential reproductive success: young lineage expansions dominate Asian pastoral nomadic populations, European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 14 January 2015; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.285

154 comments:

Krefter said...

"Interestingly, Supplementary Figure 1 shows the presence of R*, R1*, R1b* and R1b1b2 lineages among Tajik groups (see here). Any ideas what these might really be?"

If the SNPs listed in the tree were tested then they're R(xR1, R2a), and R1(xR1a1, R1b). So, there are alot o possibilities there.

R lineages which are absent in west Eurasia seem to be common in central-west Asia.

Mike Thomas said...

I find it a little hard to believe that almost 2 decades after the advent of a new era of genetic anthropology, many haplogroups still remain unresolved. .
Let alone those groups like I and E which have been almost neglected since the early 2000s.

Krefter said...

R1a-Z93 and the DC2 STR haplotype being found in supposedly bronze age Indo Iranians of north Asia, along with Yamna-like mtDNA is all needed to convince me that south-west Asians have Yamna-type ancestry. The autosomal signals are there somewhere.

I'm sure typical Yamna mtDNA such as T2a1b, T1a, U5a1a'g, U4, U4a1, J1b1a1, H2a1, and J2b1 are found in Asia. I would bet money that Reich's mtDNA FMS samples from Samara have close relatives in Asia and Europe.

IR1 was of largely Iron age Indo European steppe origin, and his people were in contact with early Indo Iranians, so that's autosomal evidence that Yamna type people once lived deep in Asia.

This debate should have ended in 2009 when Andronovo DNA was sampled. Anyone who still thinks there's another explanation, obviously has denial issues.

Krefter said...

I suspect that recent Lithuanian and Siberian-type admixture is why present day far-east Europeans are similar but also very different from Yamna?

I know nothing about Iron-middle age history, but my guess would be that Slavic-speaking Russians are mostly from a back migration into the steppe, with central-north European WHG-type admixture. Non-Salvic speaking Russians I think are mostly of Yamna-type origin with some central-north Euro and Siberian admixture.

andrew said...

The arrow going from Iran to South Asia on DC 3 (Y-DNA L) is surprising. You would expect the arrow to go in the other direction for an expansion ca. 1100 CE.

Krefter said...

Davidski, are you able to get ANE K8 results for Ire8, Ajv52, Ajv14, and Ajv19? They all had typical Neolithic farmer mtDNA haplogroups and were PWC hunter gatherers.

Davidski said...

Asians don't have much ancestry from Yamnaya. They have ancestry from Sintashta.

And I'm only able to get K8 results for Motala12 and Ajvide58. Both are around 16% ANE.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

How about Stora Forvar?

Davidski said...

Can't do it, but I can't imagine it would be much different from Motala12.

Same region, same time frame, and very similar PCA position. They're almost the same samples.

Nirjhar007 said...

Guys,
Any Migration from Steppe to SC Asia and Afghanistan is Bogus specially in the 2nd Millennium BC Even David Anthony is of the agreement that the Kurgan Hypothesis is not workable for SC Asia due to the Anthropological and Archaeological Evidences erase that add to that there is the Archaeotextual evidences for example in the Texts of Shatapatha Brahmana we find depictions of Burial Types that are of Mature Harappan Phase(2600-2300 BC)-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
and you guys may take look here in my latest post-
http://njsaryablog.blogspot.in/2015/01/a-critical-approach-to-theories-on.html
There is no doubt that Indus Valley aDNA will provide Y-DNA R1a1a, J2a,R2a,L and H with C and F also and a chance of Y-DNA G2 also....

Davidski said...

R1a arrived in India after 1300 BCE, and it came from the steppe.

It makes no difference whether anyone finds an archeological trail of this migration or not.

Nirjhar007 said...

That date is based on indirect data and all other fields of studies are AGAINST that ''arrival'' The Indo-Europeans were there in SC Asia from Chalcolithic your Biblical date is baseless and two faced as in one side you use archaeology data and when such data discards the hypothesis in case of India and Iran ''it makes no difference''....

Nirjhar007 said...

The most laughable thing is that even when Yuzhis,Huns,Scythians arrived they created archaeological and cultural data.....

Davidski said...

Maybe I'm not getting your Indian sense of humor, but R1a-Z93 is a young post-Neolithic marker that didn't arrive in South Asia until the metal ages.

Someone had to bring it, and it was probably the Indo-Iranians.


Nirjhar007 said...

(Gosh i hate typos!!)
@David
''Maybe I'm not getting your Indian sense of humor, but R1a-Z93 is a young post-Neolithic marker that didn't arrive in South Asia until the metal ages.

Someone had to bring it, and it was probably the Indo-Iranians.''
That is a dud hypothesis on practical grounds you very well know that ACTUAL data has it that IE folks are present their in SC Asia from Chalcolithic and after the aDNA that i confidently predicted above for Indus Valley Civilization The R1a1a will be found in tons! i just wonder what you will say then.....

Nirjhar007 said...

@Guys
I forgot to tell that EVEN the Dorian Invasion of Greece has PRACTICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL traces-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion#Destruction_at_the_end_of_Mycenaean_IIIB.
Cheers....

Mike Thomas said...

Nihar ; the harrapan "archaeotexts" have little to do with the fact that there was an expansion of BMAC into the Indus valley , just like many other subsequent invasions into NW India .
I might disagree with the yamnaya hypothesis in it's pure form, but the AIT is even less likely

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike Thomas
First Correct My Name then i describe....

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike Thomas
Whatever:) On the issue that you correctly asked(BMAC+Others) here is the 8 Paged deep analysis from an academic-
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms

Mike Thomas said...

Sorry !
The evidence of BMAC is clear ; one 'academic' refute won't change it
What does remain a debate is the source of BMAC , beam cause prior to that ur region in which it is found was 'empty".
Now mallory and Anthony would have the source adronovo - although there is no evidence at all apart from a few shards of andronovo-like pottery
Where else ? ?
Hhhmm - where do we have attested Indic of names in the 1800s BC?

Mike Thomas said...

*indic God names*

Davidski said...

Four out of the six Andronovo/Scytho-Siberian Y-chromosomes (KYK) in this study belonged to the DC2 cluster.

You can take a look at the map I posted above where the DC2 cluster peaks and its inferred expansion.

Krefter said...

Nirij,

If there are traces of very old south Asian cultures in early IE ones, that doesn't mean IEs had always been there, it just means they were influenced by the natives. India is very far away from the steppes, and so I doubt when IEs arrived that they were close pure steppe in the genetic and cultural sense.

I don't get why you're so against the mainstream ideas about IE expansion. There's no explaining away Yamna-type people carrying the same type of R1a as south-west Asians, and speaking in the same language family in historical times.

Nirjhar007 said...

Mike.
''The evidence of BMAC is clear''
What evidence you are talking about??
You Should have read the issue of BMAC from BB Lals article which shows SSC and BMAC only had trade relations and also the fact that during 4500-800 BC no mass intrusion happened to SC Asia+ there is the Archaeotextual evidence of Aryan Migration out of SC Asia in the Second millennium BC!! anyway the Indo-Iranian issue with the BMAC and Tazabagyab etc tradition is finely described here as BMAC is also of Indo-European Heritage-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
'' *indic God names*''
Mitanni of course but The use in their names of Arta- instead of Rta is not Indo-Aryan, but typical of Old Persian, the form -masda is Iranian rather than Indo-Aryan (-medha), the horse colours 'parita' and 'pinkara' have an -r- which is typical of Iranian, whereas Indo-Aryan forms are 'pingala' and 'palita', with -l- which is more present in Eastern Indian dialects. Moreover, there is no clear mention of the aspirated consonants, which are lost in Iranian. So, if they were Indo-Aryans they had a dialect closer to Iranian, or maybe they were pre-Avestan Iranians, with a religion and language more similar to the Vedic one.
Actually, also the Mitanni Aryans have been connected with Gorgan, because the Early West Iranian Grey Ware (1500-1000 a.C.), found at Hasanlu near Lake Urmia, to the east of the kingdom of Mitanni, has been derived (by Young) from the Gorgan Grey Ware. And the scenes of the golden bowl there have been interpreted through Iranian myths present in the Avesta, particularly Thraetaona (see here). Actually, in the Bronze Age of Margiana, we find also maces with heads in the shape of an animal head, and this recalls the mace, sculptured in the shape of an ox head, used by Feridun, the Persian name of Thraetaona.
It all seems very concrete....

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
@Krefter
''IEs had always been there, it just means they were influenced by the natives. India is very far away from the steppes''
But not N Iran which was the PIE homeland springing from the Zagros-Zarzian horizon-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
''I don't get why you're so against the mainstream ideas about IE expansion.''
Because it fails in Case of Asia Just see the links and their bases...

Davidski said...

PIE doesn't come from Iran. The early Indo-Iranians packed with R1a-Z93 arrived in Iran from the steppe via central Asia.

You can even see their trail on the DC2 map above. DC2 is just R1a-Z93.

Mike Thomas said...

David, would you mind clarifying :

• Is Z-93, and derivatives; definitely downstream from ‘European’ clades, or a mere ‘sister’

• Is there c clear chronological correlation between the expansion of the former and the latter. If, as you argue, there is evidence for ANE–rich, R1a peoples in Europe during the early Bronze Age (although lacking direct evidence for the latter), then what does this have to do with the expansion of ‘Asian’ Z-93 in 1300 BC. The genetic phenomena two are 3.5 thousand years apart.

Davidski said...

Indo-Iranian R1a-Z93 (which DC2 above belongs to) is the sister clade of Balto-Slavic/Norse R1a-Z282, and all of these fall under R1a-Z645, which is the sister clade of Germanic R1a-CTS4385.

The expansions of these major Indo-European lineages look like they happened during the Copper Age, and R1a-Z93 arrived in India sometime after the that. When exactly doesn't matter, but it was later than the Neolithic.

Where did these expansions take place from exactly? We don't know yet. But they happened at about the same time when European genetic structure by and large shifted from Sardinian-like to Eastern European-like.

A lot of people seem to want this expansion to have started in West Asia. But really, anything but a steppe source (west of the Urals for Europe, mainly east of the Urals for Asia), doesn't make any sense.

Nirjhar007 said...

''PIE doesn't come from Iran. The early Indo-Iranians packed with R1a-Z93 arrived in Iran from the steppe via central Asia.''
No data available in Archaeology for that scenario,
and Z93 is most diverse in Central +SW Asia isn't it?? BTW Beduins also have R1a-Z282 + Z280s are also there in West Asian populations-
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.in/
''The expansions of these major Indo-European lineages look like they happened during the Copper Age, and R1a-Z93 arrived in India sometime after the that. When exactly doesn't matter, but it was later than the Neolithic.''
Yeah right they used UFOs like of here-
http://decodehindumythology.blogspot.in/2013/06/ufos-and-vimanas.html
so no Archaeological+Anthropological data was created add to that the complete Language displacement of N India, looks very scientific!.

m said...

"add to that the complete Language displacement of N India, looks very scientific!"

I agree. It does look very scientific. Clearly this occurred. Just as there were clearly almost complete language replacements in Europe, and the Americas, and Australia, and Africa. This is not an unusual situation. The development of a new technology, a cultural change, or a genetic change can give a small population an advantage over other larger populations. The UFOs, of course, give a very significant advantage, but are not really necessary (more for just showing off).

Nirjhar007 said...

'' Clearly this occurred. Just as there were clearly almost complete language replacements in Europe, and the Americas, and Australia, and Africa. This is not an unusual situation''
First there are historical records for those happenings so your argument is dead from the start, secondly i quote from an academic''There are some strange and quite funny ideas in the 'orthodox' academic theory about Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians. One of these is the idea that Indo-Iranians arrived from the steppes with their horses, substituting the local millenarian civilizations in a mysterious way, imposing a new Indo-European pantheon... If we compare the situation of the Hittites in Anatolia, where they are almost absorbed by the local Hattic and Hurrian and Mesopotamian religions, with many gods with non-Indo-European names, we should be amazed by the strength of Indo-Aryan culture in avoiding any contamination with local Dravidian or Munda gods... It is true that Śiva is regarded as a Dravidian god adopted by the Aryans, but then why does he bear a Sanskrit name (and different Sanskrit epithets starting from the Vedas) and not even a trace of a Dravidian one? And where are non-Indo-European deities in the Avesta? Even the demons (the daevas) are Indo-Iranian there... Another strange idea is that Mitanni Aryans had already Vedic deities and were already Indo-Aryans without ever touching India, as if the Indo-Aryan language and the Vedic religion were not something developed in India, but brought ready-made from a totally different environment, and unchanged when transplanted in South Asia.
And when we look at archaeology, we find that the migrationist/invasionist believers try to forcedly see the arrival of the Aryans in every little trace of steppe pastoralists in Central and South Asia. But how these scanty traces, which just touch the Indus Valley and do not interrupt the continuity of settled civilizations of Margiana and Bactriana, can account for a total change of civilization? This reminds me of a cartoon about creationism compared with the scientific method: ''
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
Please check the cartoon as it perfectly describes the situation of the Steppe Hypothesis.

Michael said...

"First there are historical records for those happenings so your argument is dead from the start"

Excellent point. Clearly only archeological artifacts and written documents should be used to make conclusions about these kinds of things. Genetics and linguistics are way too subjective.

Davidski said...

OK then, so who brought R1a-Z93 to India after the Neolithic?

By the way, just in case you're not aware, this is clearly an Indo-Iranian marker. There's nothing subjective about that statement nor the dating of R1a-Z93. It is what it is, and you'll have to work with it.

So now let's hear your theories.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Michael
''Excellent point. Clearly only archeological artifacts and written documents should be used to make conclusions about these kinds of things. Genetics and linguistics are way too subjective.''
Written Documents fall under the Linguistic criteria don't they? or i'm wrong?
You say there is Linguistic evidence for Iron Age Steppe Migration to India? I PLEAD you to Bring Them.
@Polako,
''OK then, so who brought R1a-Z93 to India after the Neolithic?

By the way, just in case you're not aware, this is clearly an Indo-Iranian marker. There's nothing subjective about that statement nor the dating of R1a-Z93. It is what it is, and you'll have to work with it.''
I'm not disagreeing Z-93 to be Aryan marker:) just that those dates that are 'Calculated' are wrong as ALL other data convinces that Indo-Europeans to be Present there in SC Asia from Chalcolithic.
The N Iran PIE homeland takes the practical data from the Asian side into consideration and also agrees with the European data so practically your objection is Paradoxical.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nirjhar007 said...

@Michael
So Sorry!!:)
BTW you may like this link on Linguistics-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/07/indo-european-linguistics-indo-iranian.html
Cheers!...

Ryan said...

David - "A lot of people seem to want this expansion to have started in West Asia. But really, anything but a steppe source (west of the Urals for Europe, mainly east of the Urals for Asia), doesn't make any sense."

That could just be a previous expansion of people who carried R1* or R1a, but not necessarily Indo-European or a predecessor. Y chromosomes do seem to jump language groups pretty easily at times - R1b is a great example of that. Obviously the evidence for a huge expansion of R1a as part of the expansion of Indo-European expansion is overwhelming, but I think the history of R1a before that is less clear.

One thing I'd be interested in though Davidski is your take on why ANE and R/Q haplotypes we apparently absent (or at least so far undetected) in Western Europe in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic. I think your suggestion that R and ANE are both markers for the mammoth steppe is persuasive, but didn't that biome reach all the way to France? Granted, as the megafauna died out that way of life would have retreated too, but you'd think there'd have been patches of mammoth steppe descendants left strewn about.

Gaspar said...

Does it not seem odd that with all the issues in regards to STR, this paper uses STR's?

Mike Thomas said...

I think it might have a role in sorting out genealogy *if used within well-defined subclades* and does not simply 'lump' all (eg) R1a together. Im not sure what calibration they used, but if used the observed genealogical rate, then it probably underestimates the age by a bit, if it used the evolutionary effective rate then it has prbably over-estimated the age by a long-shot (clearly it hasn't).

Correct me if Im wrong

Mike Thomas said...

Nirjhar - Im not remotely in any knowledge of Indo-Iranian languages. However, your comment about the Mittani being Iranian is contrary to everything I have read on the matter. In fact, that is they very thing which every article I haev read highlights - the God names, colours, etc are Indic rather than nearby Iranian. Hence the rather fascinating connundrum. Iranian appears to be a much later attestation- evolution- which somehow spread to the Pontic region (if we are to entertain a non-Pontic steppe PIE homeland)

Davidski said...

Mike,

We have full Y-chromosome sequences now and even ancient DNA to calibrate dates. So there's no need to play around with STRs any longer.

This paper is probably the last major effort of its kind, but arguably the best, because they focused on very specific lineages.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike Thomas
'' the God names, colours, etc are Indic rather than nearby Iranian. Hence the rather fascinating connundrum. Iranian appears to be a much later attestation- evolution- which somehow spread to the Pontic region (if we are to entertain a non-Pontic steppe PIE homeland)''
Yes you clearly don't have the deep knowledge on that issue and you haven't also read my comment well, BTW The Aryans are divided in Two Groups the Zoroastrians and Vedic, the Vedics reflect the archaic polytheistic pantheon whereas the Zoroastrians reflect the Reformation of the older Spiritual structure the Mitannians can easily pass as the Pre-Zoroastrian Iranian group with pantheon of the original structure hence their god names are as same as in Vedic! BUT if you observe their linguistic structure it is totally Iranian So, if they were 'Indo-Aryans' they had a dialect closer to Iranian, or most likely they were simply pre-Avestan Iranians, with a religion and language more similar to the Vedic one. and i also gave the Archaeological record connected with Gorgan, because the Early West Iranian Grey Ware (1500-1000 a.C.), found at Hasanlu near Lake Urmia, to the east of the kingdom of Mitanni, has been derived (By Young) from the Gorgan Grey Ware. And the scenes of the golden bowl there have been interpreted through Iranian myths present in the Avesta etc.
The Scythians, Parthians etc are post 1000 BC happening and they were Barbarians not Settled as Aryans with sedentary archaeological cultures associated with them though they were the part of the Indo-Iranian sphere.
Even after the Reformation by Zoroaster we find striking presence of older pantheon as Indra,Nasatya,Yama, Sarva,Vaivasvat etc are all present in the Avesta.
Another logical identification that can be derived from the Archaeotextual data in the Avesta is About the Andrnovo Folks As they were the forefathers of the Scythians they are depicted in Avesta as Tuiryas (remained as Turanians in the Iranian tradition), who are nomads (but also bearing Iranian names).
A detailed description is here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''We have full Y-chromosome sequences now and even ancient DNA to calibrate dates. So there's no need to play around with STRs any longer. ''
No Sir there is also no need to ''play around with SNP's any longer'' because as i observe the dates are Garbage and as Dienekes all ways say we need aDNA as the Actual authority for the dating at least in case to describe the Indo-Iranian issue correctly!

Chad Rohlfsen said...

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2023304657/2043671678/mmc1.pdf

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Ancient Viking admixture may not exist in Greenland.

postneo said...

Not very clear but perhaps the paper talks of specific recent expansions and not of all of R1a or L or H. One can see that a majority of densely populated regions are not sampled.

@davidski: z93 migration to south asia is purely theoretical. It must have happened but nobody knows how.

Most likely z93 was became established in harappan culture.

Now for some real physical evidence of migration that actually took place. Its not your kurgan fantasy. In the late bronze age after aridization populations moved from dense urban harappan centers eastwards into India. Prior to that populations from surrounding areas converged to harappan regions, which were a sink.

Nirjhar007 said...

Postneo,
The Relation between the Asian archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranians are very deep and archaic springing from the Neolithic horizon and maturing from the Chalcolithic phase.
The 4.2 KYO Event which was the culprit behind aridization which started to decay the Sindhu Civilization and forced them to shift East wards with time, also probably moved some populations to the West as we get from the depictions of Baudhayana Shrautasutra.
The 4.2 KYO Event also created drastic events in the other parts of Asia and other continents though i think more events from that climatic phase are yet to be recorded!-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event

Davidski said...

I've got a better idea...

Poltavka Culture > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians > Indo-Aryans

See that's why the Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan R1a-Z93 is a sister clade to Balto-Slavic R1a-Z282 (ie. Poltavka culture was located close to the Balto-Slavic homeland).

And this is also why four out of the six Andronovo Y-chromosomes fall into DC2.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
"Poltavka Culture > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians > Indo-Aryans''
Nice imagination BTW can you give a SINGLE data to Show that Poltavka was Aryan? Anyway the Andronovo etc are the classic example that the steppe area was not ideal for the Sedentary lifestyle and hence was populated by nomads like of Scythians Andronovans (Pre-Scythians) etc.
''see that's why the Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan R1a-Z93 is a sister clade to Balto-Slavic R1a-Z282 (ie. Poltavka culture was located close to the Balto-Slavic homeland).

And this is also why four out of the six Andronovo Y-chromosomes fall into DC2.''
The Aryan and Balto-Slavs are both Satem Language groups there are also Mythological similarity and like we see in case of Similarities between Lithuanian and Indo-Aryan.
They Also share the same Y-DNA R1a but that again points to a common origin Which was in Iran but Indo-Aryan just don't have close similarities with Balto-Slavs but also Greeks,Norse, German!
As per Maxmueller-
''“[A]s in his language and in his grammar [the Indian] has preserved something of
what seems peculiar to each of the northern [Indo-european] dialects singly, as he
agrees with the Greek and the German where the Greek and the German seem to
differ from all the rest … no other language has carried off so large a share of the
common Aryan heirloom – whether roots, grammar, words, myths or
legends”
We should also remember that the very person was the Father of the Aryan Invasion Theory also....
In the end it don't matter if Aryan R1a-Z93 is a sister clade to Balto-Slavic R1a-Z282 as Z-93 is most diverse in Asia and all the aDNA from Asia is Z-93 No trace of Z-280s are found BUT in West Asian we have Bedouins with high Z-282 and other pops with Z-280s also.
It is logically impossible+Wishful to imagine that only Z-93 came out of the European area while all the Z-280s took rest! and also that E Europe has traces of Z-93 which supports a migration from Asia most likely by Scythian-Sarmatians carrying it as they moved to the Eastern European Area from the Caspian Steppe area as wiki describes-
''Originating in Central Asia, the Sarmatians started their westward migration around the 6th century bc, coming to dominate the closely related Scythians by the 2nd century bc.[3] The Sarmatians differed from the Scythians in their veneration of the god of fire rather than god of nature, and their women's prominent role in warfare, which possibly served as the inspiration for the Amazons.[3] At their greatest reported extent, around 1st century AD, these tribes ranged from the Vistula River to the mouth of the Danube and eastward to the Volga, bordering the shores of the Black and Caspian seas as well as the Caucasus to the south.[4] Their territory, which was known as Sarmatia to Greco-Roman ethnographers, corresponded to the western part of greater Scythia (mostly modern Ukraine and Southern Russia, also to a smaller extent north eastern Balkans around Moldova)....''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians
So it seems we have actual historical records for why Eastern Europe Has R1a-Z93.....

Grey said...

Coincidentally apples originate from pretty much that exact spot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malus_sieversii

"Malus sieversii is a wild apple native to the mountains of Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, eastern Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Northern Afghanistan and Xinjiang, China. It has recently been shown to be the primary ancestor of most cultivars of the domesticated apple (Malus domestica)."

"Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan, and formerly its capital, derives its name from the Kazakh word for 'apple' (алма), and is often translated as "full of apples" (the region surrounding Almaty is home to forests of Malus sieversii)"

http://www.nomadexpress.be/maps/almaty.gif

Krefter said...

"Poltavka Culture > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians > Indo-Aryans"

Poltavka was near near Samara. So, initially Indo Iranian's ancestors maybe had 30-35% WHG. I doubt there were random very near eastern type pops in-between Samara and Siberia, but who knows. By the time they got to India they may have had far less than 20% WHG, and so they can still be a significant part of modern Indo Iranian speakers ancestry even though WHG is low there.

Krefter said...

Or maybe because ENF has WHG, you need at least 10% WHG or whatever, to score WHG in ANE K8, and so ENF sucks in non-Euro WHG. That's what happened with EEF. Laz confused alot of people because EEF had so much WHG.

Grey said...

This is just me thinking aloud but

say you have a region e.g. Europe where both ancient and modern dna is comprised of two components A & B (in varying amounts) with B appearing intrusive

then say modern dna (but not ancient) from an adjacent region e.g. middle/near east is dominated by B

then the immediately obvious conclusion would be that B was middle/near eastern and went from there to Europe

but if B had come from somewhere else and moved into *both* Europe and the middle/near east, mostly replaced the dna in the middle/near east but only partially replaced it in Europe then the direction of flow might be wrong.

TL;DR

I wonder if ancient near/middle east y dna was E1.

Davidski said...

Krefter,

Yeah, there's a strange bit in Laz et al. where they say that there's no WHG in the Near East because Near Easterners show weaker affinity to Loschbour than Stuttgart does. So they basically ignore the fact that Stuttgart has around 30% WHG.

There is indeed quite a bit of WHG in the Near East and Central Asia, and its frequencies are uneven, which means it arrived there fairly recently. For instance, it's at basically 0% among Iranian Jews, but around 3% among Armenians. In Central and South Asia it ranges from around 7% among Tadjiks to 0% in South India.

Mike Thomas said...

Nirjhar

Mittani was an older form of Indo-Aryan, and not Iranian propper.

Whatever the case, by claiming that you can 'prove' that IE came from northner Iran by talking of 'grey potter' or breeds of horses is to hypocritically employ the same reductionist argumentation that those 'Kurganists' which you wish to deride.

You're going to have to come up with a more sophisticated model than that.

Mike Thomas said...

Nirjhar

Mittani was an older form of Indo-Aryan, and not Iranian propper.

Whatever the case, by claiming that you can 'prove' that IE came from northner Iran by talking of 'grey potter' or breeds of horses is to hypocritically employ the same reductionist argumentation that those 'Kurganists' which you wish to deride.

You're going to have to come up with a more sophisticated model than that.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Aside from that, proto-Indo-Iranian only started about 2200BCE. There's no Centum in South Asia.

Mike Thomas said...

What's yr point, Chad ?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That South Asia has nothing to do with proto-IE.

Mike Thomas said...

Agree, but the issue of Satem-centum is more an non-issue. It is not the major division which linguists initially thought it to be, and was in any case a later phenomenon spreading like a 'wave' from some linguistically innovative centre, perhaps gradually over hundreds of years.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''Poltavka was near near Samara. So, initially Indo Iranian's ancestors maybe had 30-35% WHG. I doubt there were random very near eastern type pops in-between Samara and Siberia, but who knows. By the time they got to India they may have had far less than 20% WHG, and so they can still be a significant part of modern Indo Iranian speakers ancestry even though WHG is low there.''
Goodness gracious on WHICH basis you are saying that Poltavka was Aryan? can you please tell me that please??
@David
'' it's at basically 0% among Iranian Jews, but around 3% among Armenians. In Central and South Asia it ranges from around 7% among Tadjiks to 0% in South India.''
The WHG is mostly from the Mtdna no doubt for Example in case of Kalash they have high West Eurasian Mtdna hence their WHG should be notable Same For the Nuristani folks of Pakistan BUT in ALL cases their Y-DNA is Asian NOT West Eurasian!!
@Mike
''Mittani was an older form of Indo-Aryan, and not Iranian propper.''
I gave you direct linguistic evidence+ Archaeological DATA so what is your problem?? if have doubt please verify yourself with Prof. Benedetti....
''Whatever the case, by claiming that you can 'prove' that IE came from northner Iran by talking of 'grey potter' or breeds of horses is to hypocritically employ the same reductionist argumentation that those 'Kurganists' which you wish to deride. ''
The article of New Indology Gives more reasons than that you should read it again and more scientifically just have a proper discussion there! as leaving with one comment is NOT ENOUGH!!
''You're going to have to come up with a more sophisticated model than that.''
The N Iran homeland is already more sophisticated than Steppe Hypothesis because it takes both the Practical data from Asia and Europe Into Consideration BTW more study from the Professor is coming soon actually he is waiting for the Lazaridis, Reich Papers to come out....
@Chad
''There's no Centum in South Asia.''
Proto Bangani of South Asia is associated with Kentum as it has 'Koto' for hundred instead of 'Sata' BTW more importantly for your info Sanskrit already has Kentum-Satem Sibilants for many words! and It Was N Iran Not South Asia which was the PIE home, We also have Tocharian as Kentum in Central Asia.
BTW ultimately i don't understand how Kentum-Satem be decisive for PIE home ! as it is not a morphological feature On the Other Hand tons of PIE Morphological features such as Voiced-Stops, Laryngeals etc are found In Aryan languages absent in the European ones...

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

A southern homeland for IA? Southern affinities in genetics? Within the realm of possibility. But there is simply no way you can associate the Indus civilisation with the Indo-Aryans.

They attributed great cultural significance to tigers and rhinos. That's about as non-Indo European as you can get.

They didn't depict a single cow or lion in any art forms we've found so far. They seemed to have favoured some unicorn-like creature with a ribbed S-horn.

And the RigVeda didn't have a word for bricks, while the Indus Valley people basically lived in bricks. Later on they got 'iswttakaa' for brick. Doesn't sound very IE does it?

Nirjhar007 said...

@ ryukendo kendow
'' But there is simply no way you can associate the Indus civilisation with the Indo-Aryans.''
Just check this post of mine though there are plenty more-
http://njsaryablog.blogspot.in/2013/10/the-vedic-harappans-disaster-of-witzel.html
''They attributed great cultural significance to tigers and rhinos. That's about as non-Indo European as you can get.''
That argument is nonsense because-
a) Every Indo-European Branch has fauna words for specifically the geographical area they are situated.
b) Aryan don't have flora-fauna words for things that are alien with their geography.
c) Such-Flora and fauna words can be confusing for Example Proto-Slavic has the word *Slon for Elephant but are there elephants in Slavic area?? More interestingly the Kentum Form the word for Elephant is Present in Tocharian as *Klan!.
''They didn't depict a single cow or lion in any art forms we've found so far. They seemed to have favoured some unicorn-like creature with a ribbed S-horn.''
No,The Zebu Cow is depicted in tons and also lions.
About the Unicorn glad you asked here is the full scale analysis-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/03/which-animal-was-unicorn-of-indus-seals.html
''And the RigVeda didn't have a word for bricks, while the Indus Valley people basically lived in bricks. Later on they got 'iswttakaa' for brick. Doesn't sound very IE does it?''
Rigveda also don't have words for Silver,Cotton etc that made the Indian Nationalists and some professors conclude that the Rigveda is Pre-Harappan!! BTW We must know that Rigveda is not full account of total aryan lifestyle and it ranges from 2000-1500 BC for Brick it is already present in Avestan and Tocharian and Hittite springing from PIE root- *is-
Meaning: clay, dough
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&first=1&off=&text_proto=&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&text_meaning=&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&ic_hitt=on&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&ic_tokh=on&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&ic_ind=on&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&ic_avest=on&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&ic_iran=on&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&ic_arm=on&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&ic_greek=on&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&ic_slav=on&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&ic_balt=on&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&ic_germ=on&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&ic_lat=on&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&ic_ital=on&text_celt=&method_celt=substring&ic_celt=on&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&ic_alb=on&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rusmean=on&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&ic_refer=on&text_comment=&method_comment=substring&ic_comment=on&text_any=clay&method_any=substring&sort=proto&ic_any=on
BUT in rigveda fire altars are mentioned which were made of bricks and such sacrificial fire altars are also discovered in Kalibangan and Lothal cities of The Indus Valley Civilization.....

capra internetensis said...

The Mitanni Aryan corpus (a few loanwords and a reasonable number of proper names) has been borrowed into the long-dead and little-understood Hurrian language, then recorded (and recopied) in the obnoxious Sumerian writing system (adapted for Akkadian) by scribes (of uncertain skill and probity) working in some other equally dead language.

You can hardly expect distinctions of retroflexion or aspiration or between syllabic /r/ and boring old /ar/, whether or not originally present, to not only be transmitted through the intervening languages, but then to be distinguished in cuneiform - which is more-or-less the ancient Near Eastern equivalent of the Chinese method of writing foreign languages, by using characters that sound vaguely similar.

And since we have only words, without even their original grammatical endings, we have no morphology or syntax to help us.

Given that some innovation has taken place between the reconstructed Indo-Iranian form (if we have one) and the recorded form, how do we know whether it was a distinguishing feature of the original Mitanni Aryan, or whether it took place in the Hurrian phase, or in the scribal phase?

Now all that said it is clearly *not* Iranian, since it lacks the change *s > h, which *would* be reflected, and wouldn't be reversed. It also isn't Indic as we know it, since it lacks the change *z > h in *mazda > medha, and ai > e in *aika > eka (the last might be reversed, but the first would not).

It is usually classified as Indic on lexical grounds - having the Indic form aika for "one" instead of the Iranian aiva, and having the Vedic rather than the Avestan gods.

So it could be a primitive form of Indic, or a separate branch of Indo-Iranian, but it has no Iranian innovations that I know of.

Krefter said...

Nirj,

Indo-Iranian languages likely came from steppe, and derive from Yamna, they must have had ancestors similar to the Yamna genomes Reich has. Maybe that specific culture wasn't Indo Iranian, but Andronovo and Sycthians were and they're Yamna-like in terms of mtDNA.

India is far away, and so I'm sure the Indo-Iranians who came to India were very diverse culturally and genetically, and nothing close to pure Yamna like the IEs who arrived in central-western Europe.

Also, ENF in ANE K8 can be aborbing WHG ancestry Indo Iranians inherited from the steppe.

ENF has WHG in it. When EEF was used as a proxy for near eastern ancestry in Europe, the same amount of WHG ancestry could be expressed in multiple ways.

For example someone could score 75% EEF and 25% WHG or 45% WHG, 18% ANE, and 37% EEF, and have the same amount of total WHG.

Several Asians score above noise WHG in ANE K8, and I won't be surprised if WHG correlates to something, like geography, language, etc. We can't dispute the possibility that Yamna made a big genetic impact on Asia, and say a lack of WHG means Yamna can't be PIE.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Capra
You also didn't read my comment carefully:)
''And since we have only words, without even their original grammatical endings, we have no morphology or syntax to help us.''
The words structure are all we have yes BUT they show Iranian origin as the form -masda is Iranian rather than Indo-Aryan (-medha), the horse colours 'parita' and 'pinkara' have an -r- which is typical of Iranian, whereas Indo-Aryan forms are 'pingala' and 'palita', with -l- which is more present in Eastern Indian dialects. Moreover, there is no clear mention of the aspirated consonants, which are ALSO lost in Iranian.
''having the Indic form aika for "one" instead of the Iranian aiva,''
I don't remember any Iranian Dialect having that form they all have similar of Eka with -Ka in the end if there are please show me.
BTW in Sanskrit we have also the form *aiva, but with a special meaning. But we also have ena 'this, that' and that is already connected with the western *oi-no- "one, unique" (cognates: Greek oinos "ace (on dice);" Latin unus "one;" Old Persian aivam; Old Church Slavonic -inu, ino.
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
So Sanskrit has all the three forms As eKa,Ena and Aiva/Eva.
Those three forms were used variously to depict the number 'One' in various IE Branches....
At the End the conclusion is Mitanni had a dialect closer to Iranian, or most likely they were simply pre-Avestan Iranians, with a religion and language more similar to the Vedic one. and i also gave the Archaeological records connected to them which show more Iranian affinity....

Chad Rohlfsen said...

European cows have no Zebu ancestry. There was a paper on that recently. There is a couple breeds that it was recently introduced to. If Iranians came from that far south, wouldn't you expect them to have those cattle accompany them?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Based on positioning, relative to Stuttgart and Lochbour, the Near Eastern farmer is close to 40% WHG/WHG like.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''Several Asians score above noise WHG in ANE K8, and I won't be surprised if WHG correlates to something, like geography, language, etc. We can't dispute the possibility that Yamna made a big genetic impact on Asia, and say a lack of WHG means Yamna can't be PIE.''
But i have already described it above......
Yamna was not PIE but Late-European-PIE Not Asian as Asians have very high ANE but negligible WHG which they acquired from West Eurasian Mtdna....
''Indo-Iranian languages likely came from steppe''
Steppe was the refuge of Pre-Scythians,Sarmatians etc depicted and provable from ancient aryan texts, Earliest historical records, anthropology etc..
See the New Indology post on Indo-Iranians.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

"Anyway, the similarities between some Kurdish and Anatolian forms make me think that Luwians and Hittites were simply people from the Zagros who colonized Anatolia from the southeast, where a lot of Kurds live now...."

"Now, Ekaśṛṅga 'having one horn' is a Sanskrit epithet that is found particularly in association with Varāha, the boar as Avatāra of Viṣṇu, as in MBh XII.330.27: ekaśṛṅgaḥ purā bhūtvā varāho divyadarśanaḥ / imām uddhṛtavān bhūmim ekaśṛṅgas tato hy aham. 'Having assumed, in the past, the form of a boar with a single horn, of a divine aspect, I raised this (submerged) Earth. Therefore I am the Unicorn.'
Well, we can be sure that the Indus unicorn is not a boar, and so we must search elsewhere.... And actually there is another Ekaśṛṅga, in an ancient Buddhist text which is presently my main object of study, the Mahāvastu. There, we find a Ṛṣi called Ekaśṛṅga, whose story is a clear variant of the tale of Ṛśyaśṛṅga, which is found in the Mahābhārata and in the Rāmāyaṇa. Now, the name Ṛśyaśṛṅga means 'horn of the ṛśya' or 'having the horn of the ṛśya'. What is the ṛśya? It is the 'white-footed antelope' as Monier-Williams says, the Boselaphus tragocamelus, best known as nilgai or 'blue bull', because of its similarity with a bull and its iron-blue colour...."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gU9fHkNv22k/UxNT3KvV-9I/AAAAAAAAAYQ/V8eQyYCEOk4/s1600/nilgai+5.jpg

So a few words suffice to tie Kurds to Hittites? And Ekasrnga = boar almost all the time, but a single obscure example of ekasrnga in an 0CE text--its not even a central part of the Pali canon--and its tenuous connection to an episode in another epic with no references to ekasrnga whatsoever, suffices to explain artistic expression 1100 years prior?

Such a level of non-sequitur from any academic is just unbelievable. And even after this is raised, no attempt is made to explain it:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8V-nFcgJ6-s/UxCbDXe8kwI/AAAAAAAAAX4/-uPMzpNl9Qc/s1600/unicorno+3D.jpg

Unicorn figurines are found over and over, btw.


I'm sorry, but tying all the evidence in just one direction in a haphazard manner is what people with an agenda try to do. The constant harping on influences from the Zagros extend over a period from the Mesolithic to the Bronze age, over 1000s or even 10000s of years. R1a, R1b, R, agriculture, horse, mesolithic pop movts, neolithic pop movts, stone tools(!), everything. One would think that not just IAs emerged from the Zagros, but that everything emerged in the Zagros, and that the IEs existed since the Mesolithic. And all of the evidence--barley, mesolithic influences, etc. etc., its all circumstantial. Its almost like ancient aliens if you ask me.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
'' If Iranians came from that far south, wouldn't you expect them to have those cattle accompany them?''
Chad Why so childish?? When did i say Iranians came from India??? I referenced that PIE was in N Iran and Indo-Aryans came came from there to SC Asia from the Neolithic horizon and became firmly establishing from Chalcolithic concluded from Archaeological,Archaeotextual,Anthropological data....
Now I must Take A break.....

Davidski said...

The Proto-Indo-European expansion did not start during the Neolithic proper.

It came after the final Neolithic, in other words during the Chalcolithic.

By the way, here are a couple of cool maps. Enjoy.

http://imageshack.com/a/img673/3431/bY7nja.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img540/7373/YBnWyU.jpg

Nirjhar007 said...

@ryukendo kendow
You are from Turkey Aren't you;)
''So a few words suffice to tie Kurds to Hittites?''
No as i said another chapter of the Indo-European Expansions from The Zagros-Zarzian horizon is already been drafted where the author has connected Maykop+Kura-Araxes To the Asian Indo-European cultures with Anthropology and Archaeology for the movements of Pre-Anatolian Languages there From West Asia and he is just waiting for the European aDNA data to come out!
Anyway as it is already noticed the Anatolian branches are heavily mixed with non-European language which shows that Anatolia was not an Indo-European region, but a mix of populations, and Ancient Iranian languages, instead, have a very pure and rich Indo-European vocabulary.
About the Unicorn its obvious you don't have the deep knowledge as you amazingly haven't noticed that the analysis finds-
'' Ṛśyaśṛṅga/Ekaśṛṅga was an anthropomorphization of the original animal nilgai. This animal is regarded as sacred as the cow by Hindu farmers (read here and this article), and it was also the form taken by Prajāpati in the myth of Aitareya Brāhmaṇa III.33, which explains the origin of the constellation Mṛgaśiras, which is part of Orion. In this context, it is maybe significant that α Orionis or Betelgeuse is called ārdrā ‘moist’ in Sanskrit tradition, evidently because it was associated with the rainy season. The deity associated with this star is Rudra, who is the archer himself of that myth and a storm god, and Sirius is also associated with ārdrā, which is often used in the plural or, with the name bāhū, in the dual. In the Zoroastrian Bundahišn (19.1-12) there is a gigantic three-legged ass with one horn living in the world-ocean, helping Tištrya (the star Sirius), the deity of rain, to take the water from the cosmic sea Vourukaša, purifying the water by urinating in it, and making pregnant with his cry all good creatures.''
and about to know the deep relation between the Aryan Texts with the Indu Valley Civilization You have to read his research in this book-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/07/a-new-book-on-debate-about-identity-of.html
'', everything. One would think that not just IAs emerged from the Zagros, but that everything emerged in the Zagros''
I don't know about everything but Indo-Europeans most likely sprang from that area if you think he is wrong just prove it there in his blog why waste time???
@David
''it came after the final Neolithic, in other words during the Chalcolithic''
I wonder is the time around~ 4000 BC can be called Neolithic or Chalcolithic? Do you know?.
''By the way, here are a couple of cool maps. Enjoy.''
Thanks....

Helgenes50 said...

The populations are not the same, but almost always follow the same routes.
History repeats itself
Neolithics arrived in Western Europe via the Danubian Basin and via Mediterrania. The IEs seem to have followed the same route

postneo said...

@chad
European cows have no Zebu ancestry. There was a paper on that recently. If Iranians came from that far south, wouldn't you expect them to have those cattle accompany them?

Why ?? Anatolian and Iranian cows were mostly bos Taurus. Why would they bring exotic breeds? Zebu domestication was from mehargarh eastwards.

@chad
That South Asia has nothing to do with proto-IE

Perhaps it does not. There is no hard proof. I think Iran is a better geographical and demographic locus.

But consider this, Just as there are IE features not easily locatable in South asia, there are also conservative elements that one finds a very hard time placing outside.

1) lexically, gramatically, vedic and avestan(east Iranian) are the most conservative, with dense synonyms within an IE framework itself and very little loans. They are still the frog DNA of PIE.

2) they are the "last to leave/long stay in the homeland" whatever that means... with the least time to spread to the most densely populated areas of the world and still be conservative in key aspects.

3) voiced aspirates in north india are abundant in non IE words and have an easterly spread. perhaps it had a far more north westerly spread than today but theres a limit to such pleading.

4) PIE had dental stops like semitic but clearly they mixed with older substrates that had alveolar or retroflex stops. I suspect some(not all) aspects of these older substrates are commonly preserved at the edges i.e germanic, IA, and dravidian but poorly preserved in IE proper. Needs further exploration.

It is pointless to discuss if the harappan region was specifically IIr or vedic etc. The area is too huge to be a single language family or cult.

Vedic is well preserved but should not be taken as the only IE culture of south asia. Even cryptic aspects of vedic Indra are better elaborated or understood from the Puranas and epics. Clearly Vyasa understood indra better than any of us.

Nirjhar007 said...

''Vyasa understood indra better than any of us.''
Hail Sage Vyasa!;)
I mean seriously postneo just imagine what would have happened if Vyasa wouldn't arranged and shaped the Rigveda etc....

Palisto said...

"Out of the 11 descent clusters (DCs) identified among Asian males, DC2 shows the strongest correlation with Indo-European languages... In fact, to me DC2 looks like a signal of the Indo-Iranian dispersals, and associated with R1a1a1b2 (R1a-Z93) rather than R1a1 as a whole."

DC2 correlates to R1a, end of story.

The paper did not include Europeans, otherwise it would be pretty obvious that DC2 is a mix of R1a clusters from different SNP backgrounds.
In the current "FTDNA R1a1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project" I identified 1792 out of 3418 belonging to DC2 (52.4%). Most of the participants in this project are European that are Z93-.
Thus, DC2 has not one origin but many. The calculation of TMRCA of DC2 and its ancestral location is complete bogus.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you Palisto for scientifically Clarifying the things!.

Davidski said...

More abstracts from another recent conference.

http://www.asia-europe.uni-heidelberg.de/en/research/conferences/appropriating-innovations/abstracts.html

Nirjhar007 said...

David, Is the Samara aDNA paper expected in Any moment now??

Krefter said...

I think the Samara paper is supposed to be out within the next month. He said in 2 months, 3 months ago, and now he says 1 month but that really means 1 millenia. They have a different calender system at Harvard.

He said almost a month ago they're getting the paper ready to post online. I mean co'mon now, how long does it take to proofread?!! This paper is a great gift, but when you say you're going to finish at a certain time period, follow up.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

I'm sorry, but a bull with a striped S-horn becomes a three legged ass? And not just three legged, but six-eyed and nine-mouthed, which is what the Bundahishn says?

And Sogdian pictures of such an ass have been found, they look nothing like what you have in the Indus Valley.

Pulling very tenuous links all in one direction, and ignoring all other, far more straightforward lacks that discount that view--witness the central place of the tiger in Indus Valley art, incl. two-horned tigers which tell us that the single horn on the unicorn is indeed a single horn,and rhinos too, and bulls, but no cows at all(!)--it simply doesn't cut it for me. Tigers and rhinos were simply not culturally important to the early Indo-Aryans by any definition of the word, and unicorns were never the central cultic animal, which they were for the Indus judging from the pre-eminent number of seals with that beast.

And anyone who has spent time on this blog knows I'm not turkish. But, well, its clear to everyone you are Indian.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''I think the Samara paper is supposed to be out within the next month. He said in 2 months, 3 months ago, and now he says 1 month but that really means 1 millenia. They have a different calender system at Harvard.

He said almost a month ago they're getting the paper ready to post online. I mean co'mon now, how long does it take to proofread?!! This paper is a great gift, but when you say you're going to finish at a certain time period, follow up.''
LOL! Well said:))...

Nirjhar007 said...

@ryukendo kendow
''I'm sorry, but a bull with a striped S-horn becomes a three legged ass? And not just three legged, but six-eyed and nine-mouthed, which is what the Bundahishn says?

And Sogdian pictures of such an ass have been found, they look nothing like what you have in the Indus Valley.''
Again you are missing the point the quest was to find mythological figures associated with one-horn which emerged with anthropomorphization in case of Sindhu Civilization from the Animal Nilgai depicted in Sindhu Seals as the Unicorn See the Picture there in the blog and verify yourself!!
The Sogdian one can differ but what difference it makes???
''Pulling very tenuous links all in one direction, and ignoring all other, far more straightforward lacks that discount that view--witness the central place of the tiger in Indus Valley art, incl. two-horned tigers which tell us that the single horn on the unicorn is indeed a single horn''
In Case you didn't notice at the end of that article that another Expert ''Asko Parpola has reached the same conclusions, following essentially the same connections, in a beautiful and very rich article titled "the Harappan unicorn in Eurasian and South Asian perspectives in Current studies of the Indus Civilization, vol.IX, 2012. What is different is the linguistic identification of the Harappan civilization, and I find that these conclusions support rather the linguistic and cultural continuity between the Harappan and the historical civilization reflected in the Vedas, the Epics and Buddhist texts of North India rather than the Dravidian theory.''
Do you get it??
About bulls you don't know In Rigveda Bulls have an important role! For one example see here in this Sukta-
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv08033.htm
About Tigers i already had that discussion in this thread and i don't want to repeat it here.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.in/2014/12/tigers-and-proto-indo-europeans.html
About Rhinos its same as Silver,Cotton,Brick as i described rigveda is NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA of Flora and Fauna+Life Tools of Aryans and the Fact that it mainly dates from 2000-1500 BC means its from a different time and also as Rigveda has ample Mention of Elephants-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastin
which are also depicted in SSC Seals it is virtually impossible to think that they didn't know about Rhinos also! and since SSC civilization is from a little older era it is logical to assume that by the time of Rigveda Rhino if it had any cultural importance before at all was no longer important for the rishis...

Grey said...

"By the way, here are a couple of cool maps. Enjoy."

Yes, cool maps.

Gill said...

Nirjhar, the problem is that WHG spreads in a gradient throughout India and correlates to caste structure. How could that have come with West Eurasian mtDNA?

David did the K8 for HRP0393 from Harappa Project who is a Jatt from Haryana. They had 13.06% WHG in Gedmatch K7 and 7.4%-8% WHG in K8. There were some other Jatt results I've seen, one from Haryana and one from Patiala Punjab who were both at 13.68% WHG in K7. Several individuals in the Harappa Project had higher European numbers too. I have no doubt if a large study was carried out of that group/region they'd find people with probably even higher amounts of WHG, which are already in range of Central Asian/Caucasus people.

This then spreads in a gradient to the rest of India among Brahmins (Jatts are normally outside the official caste structure, but are Hindus in Haryana, Sikh in Indian Punjab). Two Jatts from Rajasthan also scored very high NE-Euro in Harappa project indicating a trend for that general part of North/Northwest India. Then were Nepal Brahmins and then other North Indian Brahmins.

Something "erased" the WHG signal from the west of Haryana/SE-Punjab and northwest of Rajasthan, it's a radically sharp drop off even among the same Jatt ethnic group, complemented by a sharp rise in ANE-rich, WHG-poor Gedrosian/West Asian (so clearly, "Gedrosian" or whatever it represents did that). WHG doesn't rise again until you hit Western Afghan Pashtun (which is also where Gedrosian begins to drop again).

All in all, an Indo-Aryan migration theory has to account for WHG because it's the most noticeable genetic correlation to the caste structure in the subcontinent.

Gill said...

FWIW, the 7.4-8.0% WHG in K8 individual was J2-M172 paternal, HV2 maternal from Haryana.

The five other high-WHG Jatts had:

L1c-M357 / M3a1 (Haryana)
Q1a2 / U5a1a1 (Haryana)
R1a1a / R30a (Rajasthan)
R1a1a / D4e (Rajasthan)
L1c-M357 / M38a (Southeast Punjab)

Looking through Harappa Project's spreadsheet (very mixed up, Zack hasn't been maintaining it), here are some others:

R1a1a / R30a (Haryana)
R2 / M4b (Haryana, Uttar Pradesh)
- / U2b (Haryana)
R1a1a / U7 (Punjab)

Some slightly lower (>11% WHG in K7)

R1a1a / M30 (Punjab)
R1a1a / I1 (Punjab)

(>8-9% K7-WHG Brahmins):
C5a / N1e'I (Nepal)
- / M34b (Nepal)
- / U2a (Nepal)
R1a1a / M34 (Nepal)
J2a1b / M30d1 (Nepal)

Gill said...

I used about 20-25 kits of interrelated Punjab/Haryana individuals with Gedmatch's Lazarus tool.

The K7 results were: ~37% ANE, ~10% ASE, ~19% WHG, ~34% ENF

Although the SNP count was low (20k or less I think).

This would represent common ancestors within the last 2000 years probably.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

http://sarkoboros.com/2015/01/16/oist-ancient-dna-symposium/

Chad Rohlfsen said...

http://sarkoboros.com/2015/01/16/anthropological-society-of-nippon-2014/

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar
FYI, I read that book a year ago.

Asko Parpola happens to be one of the most vocal proponents of a Dravidian indus Valley. He sees the central mythological figure on 70% of Indus seals relegated to a peripheral, obscure position in the Indo-Aryan myth complex and treats that process--rightly--as a sign that only a distant cultural echo of the myths of the Indus existed in the myths of the assimilatory IE elite who supplanted them culturally.

Here, on the other hand, we have people who start with the presumption that they were part of the same civilisation-complex, and so presume that, everywhere there is evidence they were the same, AHA, but everywhere they were different it was because 'the ReigVeda is NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA'? Sounds Helluva like sound scholarship to me.

If you look at all the evidence with a neutral mind, it become incredibly obvious that differences are simply too gigantic to make plausible a direct historical continuity.

In Vedic Sanskrit 'warrior' is ghosu-yudh, 'fighting for cows'. War is Gavisti, 'desire for cows'. Basically life has become war, and war has become a massive cattle-raid, like the Dinka in South Sudan even today, and cows are the wealth and the productivity of society, comparable to rivers and saraswati and whatnot. Cows are the most mentioned animal. And in the culture they derived from, no cows in art at all? That bulls were mentioned is beside the point.

The point is not that rhinos were not known in 'THE ENCYCLOPEDIA', but that the Indus were fixated culturally on Tigers, Rhinos, Zebu bulls, Elephants, while the Vedics lionised cows, horses and lions.

Also, horses are insignificant in indus depictions, and a grand total of 0 seals have them, when horses were the preeminent animal used in sacrifice in the Vedas in ashvamedha. Good luck trying to wriggle out of that.

Krefter said...

Gill, are you suggesting there's evidence via WHG of east-European-like ancestry in India?

I tend to think WHG wasn't very high in proto-Indo Europeans in the first place, and that the IE-derived WHG in Asia is being absorbed into the near eastern component in west Eurasia K8.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Krefter

ADMIXTURE generally detects elevated Northeast-Euro-centered and North-Caucasus-Centered components in upper castes and Kalash in India when run without aDNA. However, this is not reflected in a consistent pattern in the WHG data in the ANE k8.

Either this is an artifact of detection of very small amounts of ancestry, or this tracks ANE much more heavily than WHG or EEF at the level of small percentage differences we are talking about here.

Davidski said...

There are very clear patterns in the frequencies of WHG in Central and South Asia in the K8 analysis.

Indo-Iranians from Afghanistan and Tajikistan clearly score above noise proportions of WHG, while those from Pakistan are usually within the noise margin.

In India WHG is completely missing among South Indians, but reaches the same frequencies as in Tajikistan among North Indians of upper caste origin.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Gill
''David did the K8 for HRP0393 from Harappa Project who is a Jatt from Haryana. They had 13.06% WHG in Gedmatch K7 and 7.4%-8% WHG in K8. There were some other Jatt results I've seen, one from Haryana and one from Patiala Punjab who were both at 13.68% WHG in K7. Several individuals in the Harappa Project had higher European numbers too. I have no doubt if a large study was carried out of that group/region they'd find people with probably even higher amounts of WHG, which are already in range of Central Asian/Caucasus people.''
I'm not surprised at all Jatts are associated to be of Scythian stock who have their origins in Western Eurasia/Central Asia Area as i'm also trying to show that the Pre-Scythian and Sarmatian people are responsible for the Z-93 in Eastern Europe as Historical records agree for them to be penetrative there.
And N india faced many West Eurasian Immigration From the 600 BC period
''This then spreads in a gradient to the rest of India among Brahmins (Jatts are normally outside the official caste structure, but are Hindus in Haryana, Sikh in Indian Punjab). Two Jatts from Rajasthan also scored very high NE-Euro in Harappa project indicating a trend for that general part of North/Northwest India. Then were Nepal Brahmins and then other North Indian Brahmins.''
Yeah but how this is possible that The Scythians entered and retained a Notable WHG where Brahmin Folks rage around say ~4-%??
BTW the scores of Nepali Brahmins are interesting and
Since The Origin of Indo-Europeans was in the North Iran Area i guess they also carry Some WHG can anyone give a reference please??
''Something "erased" the WHG signal from the west of Haryana/SE-Punjab and northwest of Rajasthan, it's a radically sharp drop off even among the same Jatt ethnic group, complemented by a sharp rise in ANE-rich, WHG-poor Gedrosian/West Asian (so clearly, "Gedrosian" or whatever it represents did that). WHG doesn't rise again until you hit Western Afghan Pashtun (which is also where Gedrosian begins to drop again).''
Autosomal components are very relative and sometimes vague thing for example we can't calculate the age of those components in Individuals neither that how much of that component existed in old times without the aDNA BTW about the Gedrosian component which seems to be associated with Mehrgarh and West European Indo-Europeans do carry the Component in quite Notable degree am i right or wrong Gill?
In the end i have to say the Indus Valley Civilization aDNA will Show R1a1a,J2a etc and then there will be not a millimeter of doubt remaining that Indo-Europeans were associated with that culture!

Nirjhar007 said...

@ ryukendo kendow
Are you blind? not right??
''Asko Parpola happens to be one of the most vocal proponents of a Dravidian indus Valley. He sees the central mythological figure on 70% of Indus seals relegated to a peripheral, obscure position in the Indo-Aryan myth complex and treats that process--rightly--as a sign that only a distant cultural echo of the myths of the Indus existed in the myths of the assimilatory IE elite who supplanted them culturally.''
The problem of yours is that you don't know very much READ the Book of whichs Link i gave you then you will understand!!
''The point is not that rhinos were not known in 'THE ENCYCLOPEDIA', but that the Indus were fixated culturally on Tigers, Rhinos, Zebu bulls, Elephants, while the Vedics lionised cows, horses and lions. ''
The RV mentions Tigers-
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/rig/ch4.htm
It also gives importance to Bulls as i linked you from rigveda!! and also ELEPHANTS as HASTIN,IBHA,MRGAVARANA ETC!!!
Rhino falls in the same case as of Cotton,Silver etc and about Horse please see this link-
http://sanscritonline.blogspot.in/2010/12/lardore-e-la-storia-2.html

capra internetensis said...

Nirjhar:

It is you who are not reading people's comments.

Finding mazda instead of medha does not make the language Iranian, because it is a *retention*, not an innovation. It could be Iranian, or an early stage of Indic, or some other branch entirely. But the distinctive Iranian innovation *s > h is clearly absent.

As for pinkara and parita, can you cite the Iranian forms? I'm not familiar with them.

Avestan aêva "one". Supposedly the -k suffix you often find in later Iranian forms has a separate origin from the Indic - I don't know the details. Of course the presence of eva forms in Indic is irrelevant.

Aspiration is not distinguished in Hurrian (as far as we know), nor in cuneiform. So we have no evidence as to whether or not it existed in Mitanni Aryan.

To be clear, I am not claiming that Mitanni Aryan is actually Indic; I am just pointing out that it isn't Iranian. You are not helping your own argument by claiming it is.

(I don't have any problem with a hypothesis that puts the PIE homeland in N Iran either, BTW.)

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar
Who's the blind one here?

If you aren't blind, you would have realised that my point is precisely that 'mentions' is not enough. All the cultic animals are different.

And those 2 images on the website are literally the ONLY horse representations unearthed to date. One of them is not universally considered a horse. Number of horses on seals = 0. This is also not enough.

"The problem of yours is that you don't know very much"
The problem is that I know all the things that you have taken such pains to blind yourself to. It seems all your knowledge comes from Giacomo Benedetti alone. Trying to reduce the significance of horses to the Vedics, seriously? The horse is compared to Indra, Agni, Soma, the Dawn, Dadhikra, etc. etc.--far more than bulls are. The horse is basically the symbol of aristocracy in Vedic society--vanishingly insignificant in Indus valley iconography. There are even a pair of gods, Ashvins, which are basically twin horses. Bias.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Capra
'Finding mazda instead of medha does not make the language Iranian, because it is a *retention*, not an innovation. It could be Iranian, or an early stage of Indic, or some other branch entirely. But the distinctive Iranian innovation *s > h is clearly absent.'
Its Pre-Avestan Iranian dialect with some affinity to Indic End Of Story.
''As for pinkara and parita, can you cite the Iranian forms? I'm not familiar with them.''
The change from l>r is Typical Iranian.
''Avestan aêva "one". Supposedly the -k suffix you often find in later Iranian forms has a separate origin from the Indic - I don't know the details. Of course the presence of eva forms in Indic is irrelevant.''
All the dialects of Iranian has the suffix -K for one as you can see in this very interesting research Capra-
http://bamling-research.de/data/2013-icil5/abstracts/Anonby_Mohebbi%20Bahmani_Shipwrecked%20and%20landlocked%20Discovery%20of%20an%20Indo-Aryan%20language%20in%20southwest%20Iran_ICIL5.pdf
In Sanskrit The Eka,Eva and Ena are all PRESENT!! which shows that the word for 'One' appeared from those three derivatives variously in various branches of Indo-European.
I also discussed that a bit here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/07/indo-european-linguistics-indo-iranian.html
See that link you will learn more...
''Aspiration is not distinguished in Hurrian (as far as we know), nor in cuneiform. So we have no evidence as to whether or not it existed in Mitanni Aryan.''
Don't Iranian have words starting with S? of course they do like in case of Spitamas, anyway the Aspiration is a Basal Feature of PIE Most well preserved in Indic languages still today with some traces left in Greek and Armenian but AGAIN lost in Iranian!!
''I don't have any problem with a hypothesis that puts the PIE homeland in N Iran either, BTW''
Welcome To The Light;))

Nirjhar007 said...

ryukendo kendow
''Who's the blind one here?''
Exactly! lets see-
First how does animals depicted in Seals= Cult??
I mean are you telling The Animals Depicted in the seal all belongs to some kind of Cult associated with them eh? Rigveda Mentions Elephants which are found abundantly in Indus Seals but are not Praised as in Case of Bull or Nilgai your Equation of Seals is equal to Cult is baseless and without any data unless provided in the Aryan Scriptures don't you see that?? I mean do Dravidians Worship Rhinos eh RK???
Secondly, As shown Nilgai of SSC Seals and Bulls have cultural Significance in Aryan as seen in Rigvedic praise where Indra is Avatared as The Bull and as Giacomo showed in case of Ekasringa-Nilgai.
''And those 2 images on the website are literally the ONLY horse representations unearthed to date. One of them is not universally considered a horse. Number of horses on seals = 0. This is also not enough.''
It is shown on that link that Horse was not the Kohinoor of Aryans in culture and Mythology with references from the Rigveda itself!! from the Start and Rigveda was created mostly from 2000-1500 BC period and FYI Horse remains are unearthed from Indus Valley Sites of Surkotada and Banawali from the Same Period....
Now as Yesterday i must take a break.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''Here, on the other hand, we have people who start with the presumption that they were part of the same civilisation-complex, and so presume that, everywhere there is evidence they were the same, AHA, but everywhere they were different it was because 'the ReigVeda is NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA'? Sounds Helluva like sound scholarship to me.''
Its not presumption Just read this book-
http://www.dkprintworld.com/product-detail.php?pid=1280857371
Actually its the Scientific reaction to the dullness of Steppe Theory!
Out of various researches by various scholars some major are:
This monumental research Titled-
1.'' The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rigvedic Rishis in Comparison with the Phases of the Sindhu–Sarasvati Civilization''
— Giacomo Benedetti
2.'' New Perspectives on the Indus Tradition: Contributions from Recent Research at Harappa and Other Sites in Pakistan and India''
— Jonathan Mark Kenoyer
3.''The Debate on Indo-Aryan Origins: Malleability and Circularity''
— Edwin Bryant
4.''The Riverine-Agricultural Argument for the Indo-European Nature of the Indus Valley Civilization''
— Robin Bradley Kar
5. ''Settlement Dynamics in Ancient India: Continuity vs. Discontinuity''
— Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein
6. ''The Sindhu–Sarasvati Civilization alias the Indo-Iranian Civilization''
— Shrikant Talageri
7.'' How Harappans Honoured Death at Dholavira''
— R.S. Bisht
8. ''New Findings in Harappan Town Planning and Metrology''
— Michel Danino
9.''Sarasvati Drowned: Rescuing Her from Scholarly Whirlpools''
— Ashok Aklujkar
10. “Sapta Sindhusu”: The Land of Seven Rivers: A New Interpretation and Its Historical Significance''
— Shiva G. Bajpai
Its The Steppe Theory which suffers from Presumptions and the Dogma of Creationism as it will be proven clearer day by day with new researches and discovery:)....

Gill said...

^ What David said. We don't know what it is (except that it looks like legit WHG) or how it got there, just that a clear pattern is there.

"Yeah but how this is possible that The Scythians entered and retained a Notable WHG where Brahmin Folks rage around say ~4-%??"

Because the source of the WHG was likely the same. The Brahmins near Haryana are getting high European/WHG numbers too. What complicates things is that there's an East Eurasian signal across the Himalayan foothills which competes with both WHG and ENF, otherwise I don't doubt those Brahmins from Nepal, UP, Bihar, etc would have even more.

The Hindu Jatts of North India are more endogamous than any of the traditional castes, even Brahmins. The Jatts of Punjab and other areas also, but they did mix with tribes of similar backgrounds (migrating/invading peoples from the West who settled into an agricultural lifestyle in the Indus region).

This was likely not all from a Scythian source, unless there were two waves, the first Indo-Aryans and then the Scythians coincidentally happening to penetrate straight to ground zero of the first Indo-Aryan migration. Even then, Indo-Scythians can't account for the spread of WHG to the other upper castes, their kingdoms didn't penetrate that far.

Also, it just seems the Scythians came too late in history for that, the Indo-Aryan/Vedic civilization was already there. So should the associated caste structure have been, however there was that study which suggested that intermixing between ANI and ASI stopped around 2000 years ago, so I can't say for certain. Perhaps that's when the caste system really got started, I'm not familiar with the archaelogical evidence in that regard. It's still unlikely that the Indo-Scythians managed to create a caste system across all of India all on their own.

The Indo-Scythians probably melted into the background of the people already there. Being that their reach overlaps with the spread of the WHG-poor Gedrosian component, that leaves a very small window for any late candidates for Gedrosian. Which means if the Scythians had WHG, they left little to no signature of it anywhere and the WHG in North India could be from them, but is probably more linked to an original Indo-Aryan source.

Gill said...

On the other hand, I don't know why there seems to be an autosomal link between Northwest Europe and Northwest Indian subcontinent, and if that is purely because of WHG or something else. Most of our IBS/IBD matches on 23andMe/FTDNA/Gedmatch are Western Europe, some individuals are almost exclusively so.

That "something else" could be the Gedrosian that seems to peak in Northwestern European populations. So if that link is not solely because of WHG, that might be what little trace remains of the Scythians/Sarmatians or similar peoples, the overlap within Gedrosian between South Asians and Europeans.

Although I can't help but feel that Admixture might be "assembling" the components all wrong. Perhaps that overlap in Gedrosian and WHG got there together and not separately.

Have any ancient Scythian remains been genotyped?

postneo said...

@ryukendo kendow
Also, horses are insignificant in indus depictions, and a grand total of 0 seals have them... Good luck trying to wriggle out of that.

If we go a narrow equation of IE with horse/ashvamedha iconography then we conclude IE languages did not exist in India till this painting from 1652 CE, painted by a muslim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha#mediaviewer/File:Asvamedha_ramayana.JPG

The puranas manu smrti and epics are very familiar with ashvamedha but also allude to rhinoceros sacrifice.

A rhino sacrifice(pandav lila) is enacted by the entire village in garwhal. there is no iconographic depiction of this. They paint eyes mouth on a pumpkin and poke a stick where the horn should be.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Gill
Hi!
''Indo-Scythians can't account for the spread of WHG to the other upper castes,''
I agree but as i said its not only Sakas but many other West Eurasian Genome bearers came from the 600 BC period.
'' the Indo-Aryan/Vedic civilization was already there.''
Yes(Indo-European Forefathers of Aryans) from the Chalcolithic period i.e. ~4500 BC atleast-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
'' Perhaps that's when the caste system really got started''
No thats when the strict endogamy started its also close to the time of Manusmriti the advocate of Strict endogamy.
'' Which means if the Scythians had WHG, they left little to no signature of it anywhere and the WHG in North India could be from them,''
The Jatts are of Scythian stock which also has historical records so their Higher WHG is obvious.
But what i am asking to you and others to refer me is the WHG levels of Modern Armenians and Kurds and other N Iranian area folks.....
{@David,
DAVID, DO YOUR K=8 has ARMENIANS AND KURDS??}
''Have any ancient Scythian remains been genotyped?''
David surely knows that but the Andronovans who were the forefathers of the historical Scythians,Sarmatians etc are genotyped but don't know there Autosomal structure is published or not....

Nirjhar007 said...

@Postneo
''A rhino sacrifice(pandav lila) is enacted by the entire village in garwhal. there is no iconographic depiction of this. They paint eyes mouth on a pumpkin and poke a stick where the horn should be''
WOW i didn't know that!! and of course as i said before even in this case the Folks are of Indo-Aryan origin not Dravidian or Munda!!

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

"I mean are you telling The Animals Depicted in the seal all belongs to some kind of Cult associated with them eh? Rigveda Mentions Elephants which are found abundantly in Indus Seals but are not Praised as in Case of Bull or Nilgai your Equation of Seals is equal to Cult is baseless and without any data unless provided in the Aryan Scriptures don't you see that?? I mean do Dravidians Worship Rhinos eh RK???"

What utter confusion.

Firstly, you of all people should know that Dravidians worship Indo-Aryan gods, not dravidian ones, whatever those were. So, no rhinos. Again. Oops.

And well, let me remind you that you were the one who asserted the cultic significance of the bull and the unicorn derived from Indus seals and tied to Aryans, thus trying to tie a thread of continuity according to the animals on seals and in Rigvedic myths, which to you implies identical civilisations. And I'm the one saying that, using your method and taking a neutral look at all of the animals on seals IN PROPORTION with each other vs the animals IN PROPORTION in the Rigveda, there is no way a picture of continuity of mythological worldview can be built, whatever thin connections there are. At least for anyone working in good faith, that is.

As for the papers, wow. What a circlejerk. I suppose that's why these people keep inviting each other to their self-organised conferences, and are not invited to the conferences organised by others, and have been personae non grata for years now? Why they publish--and sometimes even base their interpretations of mythology(!)-- on the likes of 'The Mother' Mirra Alfassa and S Aurobindo and other 'gurus'? Why so many of them aren't even archaeologists? They have to use words like 'the exploded Indo-Aryan invasionist theory' on their covers, for goodness sakes.

Shaffer actually admitted that 70%-80%--I can't remember the exact figure-- of the late harappan settlements showed 'settlement discontinuity' during the transition to later cultures with cremation. Contrast this with Talageri--'irrefutable' this, 'irrefutable' that, 'complete and irrefutable proof!!!' for out of India. Massaging of place names, and using pilgrimage sites for proof--there wasn't even such a thing as pilgrimage in the time of the Vedas. No wonder Witzel classed him with the 'lunatic fringe'.

A hindu group once tried to file a lawsuit in california to get 'their version' of events accepted in world history texbooks. The vast majority of their edits were rejected. If you realise, this places your camp together with 'creationists', not ours.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Postneo

Why should I trust your opinion? You lifted that image from the first page of wikipedia you saw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha

And no, there are earlier depictions, not least in coins.

And I never said that ashvamedha = aryans. I said that an aryan worldview should be reflected in a greater frequency of depiction of horses, cows and lions, and less tigers and rhinos. This is amply borne out.

Puranas are too late.

Nirjhar007 said...

''What utter confusion.

Firstly, you of all people should know that Dravidians worship Indo-Aryan gods, not dravidian ones, whatever those were. So, no rhinos. Again. Oops.''
Is that the thing happened with The Hittites?? and Mitannians???
Dravidians Surely have their own gods
and see this also-
http://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2007/07/who-are-aryans-let-us-see-from.html
The Ancient Dravidian Scriptures themselves agree to that Aryans are native to North and They are of the South So i think nothing after that should be asked at least on the basis of evidence unless YOU are a Dravidian Nationalist!.
''And well, let me remind you that you were the one who asserted the cultic significance of the bull and the unicorn derived from Indus seals and tied to Aryans, thus trying to tie a thread of continuity according to the animals on seals and in Rigvedic myths, which to you implies identical civilisations. And I'm the one saying that, using your method and taking a neutral look at all of the animals on seals IN PROPORTION with each other vs the animals IN PROPORTION in the Rigveda, there is no way a picture of continuity of mythological worldview can be built, whatever thin connections there are. At least for anyone working in good faith, that is. ''
Postneo has given a basal point to you above and i TOLD you that Depiction in Seals IS NOT=Cult which itself is a baseless argument but THAT Some of the Animals have importance in Aryan culture and ONLY in Aryan Culture and Some of the Animals Don't! so whats the Problem?
The Relation of SSC and Aryan is undeniable and also gave you a book on the research.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''As for the papers, wow. What a circlejerk. I suppose that's why these people keep inviting each other to their self-organised conferences, and are not invited to the conferences organised by others, and have been personae non grata for years now? Why they publish--and sometimes even base their interpretations of mythology(!)-- on the likes of 'The Mother' Mirra Alfassa and S Aurobindo and other 'gurus'? Why so many of them aren't even archaeologists? They have to use words like 'the exploded Indo-Aryan invasionist theory' on their covers, for goodness sakes.''
It is clear you are an Idiot! you know why? because what i gave is a book with scholars of Various opinion on the issue and from the researches I listed above Papers 1,2,7,8 and 9 proves the relation between the Aryans and SSC specially paper 1 which is also available in Academia.edu.
Paper 3 gives the ample data of the Aryan Question though he is an Invasionist and of course ACADEMIC SCHOLARS LIKE OF 1,2,7,9!!!
''Shaffer actually admitted that 70%-80%--I can't remember the exact figure-- of the late harappan settlements showed 'settlement discontinuity' during the transition to later cultures with cremation. Contrast this with Talageri--'irrefutable' this, 'irrefutable' that, 'complete and irrefutable proof!!!' for out of India. Massaging of place names, and using pilgrimage sites for proof--there wasn't even such a thing as pilgrimage in the time of the Vedas. No wonder Witzel classed him with the 'lunatic fringe'.''
JM Kenoyer Paper and G Benedetti paper has described the case PLEASE READ THEM FIRST!
About Talageri he may be 'lunatic fringe'.'' but he has also shown why witzel is a Ultra Lune!!
The only issue of Telageri is that he supports OIT but have ridiculed Witzels garbage hypothesis scientifically many times also!
''A hindu group once tried to file a lawsuit in california to get 'their version' of events accepted in world history texbooks. The vast majority of their edits were rejected. If you realise, this places your camp together with 'creationists', not ours.''
We have nothing to do with that group as you have nothing to do with Nazis;) i guess that is right...

Nirjhar007 said...

@rk
''Why should I trust your opinion? You lifted that image from the first page of wikipedia you saw.''
Is the Name Sahib Din Hindu?
''And no, there are earlier depictions, not least in coins.''
Please give the link.
''And I never said that ashvamedha = aryans. I said that an aryan worldview should be reflected in a greater frequency of depiction of horses, cows and lions, and less tigers and rhinos. This is amply borne out.''
Listen as i already told you Rigveda is of the 2000-1500 BC period the time when horses started to became dominant cultural subject with chariot etc, (the Rigveada itself shows presence of mentions where horses didn't had that significance and importance) the Period of 2500-2000 BC was not!! so the lack of depictions in seals is explained and more importantly the first deliberate and conscious attempt of shaping a horse in durable material like stone was witnessed in the art of the Mauryas in India,“The animal world of the punch-marked coins consists of elephant, bull, lion. dog, cat, deer, camel, rhinoceros, rabbit, frog, fish, turtle, ghariyal (fish eater crocodile), scorpion and snake. Among the birds, peacock is very popular. The lion and horse symbols appear to have acquired greater popularity in 3rd century B.C.”
See this important article of Danino-
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/horse-debate.html
About Cows Educate yourself here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2012/04/wonderful-adventures-of-bos-indicus.html

postneo said...

@ryukendo kendow said...
Why should I trust your opinion? You lifted that image from the first page of wikipedia you saw.

Exactly, to make a point, I ignored a fuzzy reference to pushyamitra sunga from 185 BC, a more genuine samudra gupta reference after 385 AD actually commemorated by a horse coin but still DOES NOT DEPICT THE RITUAL. Without textual/ literary sources one would never know that ashvamedha existed till the mughal era.

@ryukendo kendow
And I never said that ashvamedha = aryans.

But you do say horse = aryans/IE. So If you strictly go by iconography as you are doing for Harappa, then the earliest Aryans in India are from 200 BC.

@ryukendo kendow
I said that an aryan worldview should be reflected in a greater frequency of depiction of horses, cows and lions, and less tigers and rhinos.

I completely disagree. You made two assumptions 1) Only vedics = aryans.
2) Vedics were prolific in depicting cultic practices as iconography.

2) is empirically false as I was tried to demonstrate. forget iconography even textual preservation is looked down on.

1) is a fuzzy equation but I agree there is no great evidence either for or against it. But there is this...

Despite poor preservation and interpolations many parts of the puranas are coeval with vedic. This is due to the ease with which vedic myth is treated often revealing more detail than the vedas themselves. Such ease is lost in classical texts.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ postneo

Of course. But the textual/literary sources are all on the side of the vedics. There are no textual/literary sources on the side of the Indus Valley, none that we can use anyway.

" I said that an aryan worldview should be reflected in a greater frequency of depiction of horses, cows and lions, and less tigers and rhinos....
1) Only vedics = aryans.
2) Vedics were prolific in depicting cultic practices as iconography. "

Firstly, neither 1 or 2 directly address what I am saying, and that evolution is empirically true. The animals depicted show discontinuity from the harappan times to times that were discernibly Indo-Aryan. Secondly, well vedics are by definition that population that gave rise to the vedas, and these were the oldest demonstrably indo-Aryan peoples we have access to, and the oldest from which it is possible to trace a connection from present-day cultures from all over India, to. That there might have been so many of them is beside the point. 2 on the other hand is irrelevant. I said cultic animals, cultic as in religious significance, not cultic rituals only. That the pashupati seal shows pahshupati with an erect penis flanked by a tiger, rhino, buffalo and ibexes is evidence to the end that that figure is not pashupati and is not even IA, despite there being no sacrifice. The Vedas were very different in their treatment of animals and the types they sacralized, from later hinduism.

Lastly, I am very interested to see your references to rhinoceros sacrifice, and where they are from in the puranas.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

Useless argumentation, distractions. This is precisely why when the non-AIT people presented at court, they lost.

Danino is not an archaeologist. He based his interpretation of Ashvins and Dasyus on S Aurobindo, who he reveres. That's how credible he is.

“The animal world of the punch-marked coins consists of elephant, bull, lion. dog, cat, deer, camel, rhinoceros, rabbit, frog, fish, turtle, ghariyal (fish eater crocodile), scorpion and snake.

Why should that mean anything? Are elephant, bull, lion, dog, cat, deer, camel, rhinoceros, rabbit, frog, fish, turtle, ghariyal (fish eater crocodile), scorpion and snake all lionised in the Vedas? Or, for that matter, later works coexistent with those coins? Are gods compared to rhinos and tigers with any degree of regularity in that period?

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''Useless argumentation, distractions. This is precisely why when the non-AIT people presented at court, they lost.''
No sir they proposed Nationalistic dogma instead and they lost do you understand that?
''Why should that mean anything? Are elephant, bull, lion, dog, cat, deer, camel, rhinoceros, rabbit, frog, fish, turtle, ghariyal (fish eater crocodile), scorpion and snake all lionised in the Vedas?''
'' The animals depicted show discontinuity from the harappan times to times that were discernibly Indo-Aryan.''
Don't ridicule yourself the point was to show that Depiction is not equal to spiritual cult by time period or by culture the depiction gets the spiritual meaning when attested in scriptures or when rituals are performed like in case of Rhinos in pandav lila which is enacted by the entire village in garwhal of North India by Indo-Aryan people BUT that don't mean it must have to be depicted as we see in case of Ashvamedha!!!.
'' well vedics are by definition that population that gave rise to the vedas, and these were the oldest demonstrably indo-Aryan peoples we have access to, and the oldest from which it is possible to trace a connection from present-day cultures from all over India,''
i ALREADY GAVE A LINK FROM MY BLOG
where the connection between the SSC and Aryan is Shown with the vagueness of Witzels ideas!-
http://njsaryablog.blogspot.in/2013/10/the-vedic-harappans-disaster-of-witzel.html
''Danino is not an archaeologist. He based his interpretation of Ashvins and Dasyus on S Aurobindo, who he reveres. That's how credible he is.''
That makes ZERO sense his References are from experts both in case of Archaeological data and philosophical data btw though Philosophy has importance But the horse is the main issue for example HOW do you describe the fact that Vedic Horses had 34 RIBS!! found only Indigenous Horse Breed!!!! please tell me .
''That the pashupati seal shows pahshupati with an erect penis flanked by a tiger, rhino, buffalo and ibexes is evidence to the end that that figure is not pashupati and is not even IA, despite there being no sacrifice''
That Seal is related pashupati pashu which means animals hence there are animals the title is also of Shiva who is aryan you know why because there is no data to show he is Dravidian or Munda but all his characteristics comes from ARYAN Sources with not a trace in Dravidian!!! Tell me do you understand that also??

Nirjhar007 said...

'' There are no textual/literary sources on the side of the Indus Valley, none that we can use anyway''
What is the Nilgai-Ekasringa connection then?? Dravidian idea??
As i told you I NEVER said that the ALL DEPICTIONS in Seals is Equal to spiritual cult that is something which's study have just started and See My post YOU WILL FIND MANY SSC ARTIFACTS TO BE ALREADY CONNECTED WITH ARYAN CULTURE!! WITH ZERO RELATION TO DRAVIDIAN-MUNDA CULTURE.
and Read the research of G Benedetti 'The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rigvedic Rishis in Comparison with the Phases of the Sindhu–Sarasvati Civilization'
Then you will SEE the Complicated and Deep relation of SSC and Aryan with the data of Archaeotexts of Aryans also read The ''New Perspectives on the Indus Tradition: Contributions from Recent Research at Harappa and Other Sites in Pakistan and India''
by JM Kenoyer which concentrates on the Archaeology and Culture.
The Neolithic and Chalcolithic civilization of Mehrgarh is carried on by the Harappan civilization, as recognized by Shaffer, Possehl and other archaeologists. And the Harappan civ., as remarked by Kenoyer, did not finish in 1900 BC. Signs of continuity there are also in the following Gangetic civilization (see the case of Kampilya which has the same plan as Dholavira, or the punch-marked coins with the same symbols as Harappan seals). I do not see a SINGLE reason why the language of a well rooted civilization lasting for centuries on an enormous surface should have disappeared because of the arrival of mythical invaders in the 2nd mill. BC that are not proved by archaeology. Textual tradition also does not support this invasion, it speaks of movements inside India (and also out of India), although in the past European scholars tried to see all through the lens of the myth of Aryan horsemen fighting with ''the black aborigines''.

postneo said...

@yukendo kendow
The animals depicted show discontinuity from the harappan times to times that were discernibly Indo-Aryan.

What exactly are you referring to here. There is no significant discontinuity. animals of harappan iconography were popular in Mauryan coinage.

Whatever patronage and influence the priests may have had and success they had in preservation, Vedic imagery has never held sway in popular art and culture. Vedics have never really arrived in India if you go by such criteria.


@ryukendo kendow, @Nirjhar
on rhinoceros sacrifice see.
http://tinyurl.com/mxzwdhw

There are only oblique references in the manusmriti and more elaborate description in folk versions of Mahabharata. where rhinoceros flesh/hide is of significance during Shraddha.

I think they are all the more remarkable because even without a sanskrit pedigree, similar to the vedas, they are preserved in far flung regions in very disconnected societies. caste hindus of Garwhal, Jats ? of eastern Rajastgan. Bhil tribals in gujarat.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar
This just gets better and better.

"What is the Nilgai-Ekasringa connection then?? Dravidian idea??"

Yes. A residue in the IAs who displaced them.

FYI, shiva as we know him today did not exist at the time of the RigVeda, but only in the post-Vedic epics, as an outgrowth of one of Rudra's epithets. He became Pashupati only later than that. Rudra was not even a protector of wild animals in the Vedic period, so there isn't even a 'pashupati' Rudra to occupy that position, and rudra was never depicted in texts of that period with three heads, or even multiple heads, ever. 'Pasupati' grew out of hymns to pusan in the RigVeda, and who did pusan protect? Cows and horses (!) in the RigVeda. In the Atharvaveda, pasupati is protects the following list: cows, horses, goats, sheep and men... In other words, domestic animals central to a pastoral economy, not Tigers, Rhinos and whatnot.


FYI, the 'indigenous horse breed' that you are referring to with the requisite number of ribs, Equus sivalensis or the siwalik horse, dates not just to tens of thousands of years ago, but to 2.6 million years ago, and has long died out along with other megafauna in the last ice age. The last time it was found was 75 000 years ago. The authority that introduced this 'indigenous horses!' idea into the Indology field--if he can be called that--is Rajaram, who is known to be a fraud and a hoaxer.

http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf

The 'Anau horse' is indistinguishable from domesticated caballus horses elsewhere, is definitely not a descendant of sivalensis, and does not have 34 ribs. And therefore cannot be counted as an evidence for Indian domestication of horses, any more than Arab breeds are evidence for arab domestication of horses. The evidence for horse bones in harappa is rare, extremely disputed, and zoologists such as bokonyi uniformly take the opposing position of a late development of widespread use of the horse from central asian centres even after work with horse bones from indus.

Aurobindo, Rajaram, Danino, then cited by Benedetti, Frawley, etc. etc. The circularity is making me dizzy.

This is getting stupid and tiring. I'll stop replying at this point.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Postneo

Are 70-90% of the animals depicted by later Indians Unicorns? Are elephants, tigers, rhinos more important than cows and lions?

What happened to the script huh?

Discontinuity.

Last, last reply.

postneo said...

@ryukendo kendow
Are 70-90% of the animals depicted by later Indians Unicorns?

No.

Are elephants, tigers, rhinos more important than cows and lions?

Yes on average they very much are. You need to visit and see. Cows for all their sacredness are not prominent in temple iconography. The lion is the only one that is more popular than tiger.

Buffalo, tiger/lion opposition in the famous harappan cult seal is seen in drifted forms in Ayyappa/harihara and mahishasura. in opposite corners of India. I already pointed out the surprising role of Rhinoceros in Mahabharata cults and ancestral rituals.

We have to

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''Yes. A residue in the IAs who displaced them.''
WOW were you present there in the SSC around 2500 BC when ''Dravidians were Present'' i mean you can teach us many valuable things then!!!
''FYI, shiva as we know him today did not exist at the time of the RigVeda,''
Oh Shut Up! All the things associated with him(Pashupati-Shiva) don't matter from 2500 BC or 500 AD are from the Aryan Sources as per the data is concerned and it doesn't matter if the Seals also have Tigers,Rhinos etc as in that case we don't know what it (The Seal) meant to show but again as evident again and again its divinity( That it reflects a ''proto-type of Shiva/Pashupati'') can be connected ONLY THROUGH AN ARYAN SOURCE AND YOU CAN'T PROVE AN ARGUMENT(THAT SHIVA AND SSC WAS DRAVIDIAN) ON THE BASIS OF ANOTHER ARGUMENT WHICH ALSO HAS ZERO EVIDENE OR DATA ITSELF!!.
Surely you don't know that....
"What happened to the script huh?

Discontinuity.''
First there is a question itself whether its a script or not and if then it was an older form of Brahmi...
''The 'Anau horse' is indistinguishable from domesticated caballus horses elsewhere, is definitely not a descendant of sivalensis, and does not have 34 ribs. And therefore cannot be counted as an evidence for Indian domestication of horses, any more than Arab breeds are evidence for arab domestication of horses. The evidence for horse bones in harappa is rare, extremely disputed, and zoologists such as bokonyi uniformly take the opposing position of a late development of widespread use of the horse from central asian centres even after work with horse bones from indus.''

Bullshit again the Rigvedic horse had 34 ribs a FACT which has riddled scholars for centuries-
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_7/June_1875/A_Curious_Question_of_Horses%27_Ribs
And this one also which i think solves it pretty much-
http://sanscritonline.blogspot.in/2014/03/cavalli-e-indo-europei-le-steppe-non.html
''Aurobindo, Rajaram, Danino, then cited by Benedetti, Frawley, etc. etc. The circularity is making me dizzy.

This is getting stupid and tiring. I'll stop replying at this point.''
Each of them are cited when they have made a PRACTICAL ARGUMENT AND DATA and there is no doubt now that you are nothing but a gigantic dikku head with some 知識 in Genetics.....

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar
Well... If you realise, your own link provides an explanation for why the Vedics referred to the horse as having 34 ribs, despite any such horse having perished 75000 years ago...

As for the rest, yawn. I'll pass.

Nirjhar007 said...

'' If you realise, your own link provides an explanation for why the Vedics referred to the horse as having 34 ribs''
In the Maxmueller Link it is found-
''" It also seems to imply that the horses then offered at the sacrifices had only thirty-four ribs. This statement, however, startled even the orthodox commentators in India, and Sayana remarks in his commentary on this passage, that other animals, such as goats, etc., have only twenty-six ribs, as might be proved by what he considers as far more convincing than ocular evidence, viz., a passage from the "Brahmanas," in which it is said, "Its ribs are twenty-six." In another passage, in his commentary on the "Satapatha brahmanaxiii., 5, 1, 18, Sayana returns to the same subject, but unfortunately that passage, as edited by Prof. Weber, is so corrupt that I at least cannot make sense of it, though it is clear that Sayana says there that their ribs are thirty-six. Another commentator, Mahidhara, explaining the horse-sacrifice, as prescribed in the "Yagurveda," seems to have no anatomical misgivings, but states that the horse has thirty-four, goats and other animals twenty-six ribs.''
''Similar passages occur elsewhere, and establish the fact that the ancient anatomists of India made a point of knowing the exact number of the bones in the different portions of the bodies both of men and animals.

Not being able to find a satisfactory solution of my difficulty, I applied to Prof. Huxley...''
At the end he concludes-
'' Every thing becomes intelligible if we admit that, in cutting open the horse, two ribs were not to be cut, so that they might remain and keep the carcass together. In that case to mention the number of ribs that were to be cut had a purpose, though it is strange that tradition, which in India possesses such extraordinary tenacity in unimportant matters, should not have preserved the original purport of the words of Dirghatamas. I have looked in vain for a passage where the cutting of the thirty-four ribs in the horse-sacrifice is more fully described; but I ought to add that in the oldest descriptions of the sacrifice of other animals, preserved in the Aitareya-Brahmana and the Srauta-Sutras of Alvarayana, NOTHING IT SAID OF LEAVING TWO RIBS UNDIVIDED!!. "Twenty-six are his ribs," we read: "let him take them out in order; let him not spoil any limb."!!!
Its obvious you were too sleepy to detect that Maxmueller himself in the end gave the practical reason to DOUBT AND QUESTION the Speculative baseless Argumentation of Huxley the same kind of that you are doing!!!

Nirjhar007 said...

The other link finds-
''The assumption that domesticated horses came exclusively from the steppes is apparently wrong. Ivanova writes that horse bones have been found at Tepe Zaghe near the Alborz in a level of the 6th mill. BC, then in Ghabristan in the same area in the 4th mill., at Tall-i-Iblis in South-central Iran remains of horses belong to 3500 and 3000 BC (here dated also 4400-4100), and in Godin Tepe IV in the central Zagros to 2900-2400 BC (see here). Also Mundigak in Afghanistan has given ancient traces of domesticated horses in Neolithic levels (see here), and Tepe Siyalk around 5000 BC (see here). And probably many cases of alleged Equus hemionus (onager) are in reality horses, because in Iran there is a special breed, discovered only in 1965 in the Caspian region, which can be confounded with the onager for the slenderness of the metapodials, as observed by Bokonyi. After his study of Caspian horses, he could identify also bones of equids from Neolithic Anau in Turkmenistan (4000 BC) as horses and not onagers. So, also the remarks of this 1974 study of the fauna of the Zarzian Palegawra cave must be reconsidered, suggesting that some of the alleged onagers were actually horses.
Moreover, in a recent excavation in Mazandaran at Gohar Tappeh, remains of the Caspian horse were found in a cemetery dated 3400 BC. All these dates do not match with the mythical arrival of the steppe horsemen in the 2nd mill. BC, but reveal a presence of particular breeds of horses already in Neolithic times in Iran and South Central Asia.

Louise Firouz, the discoverer of the Caspian breed, writes (see here) that there was a tiny wild horse in the Zagros mountains of western Iran, and also possibly south of the Alborz mountains, already during the Ice Age. She also remarks that this horse appears on Sumerian terracotta plaques from the 3rd mill. BC, showing small boys riding the tiny horse. It is known that the Sumerian name of the horse was ANŠE.KU.RA, 'ass of the mountains'. M.J. Shendge notes a cylinder seal from Susa with a scene of horse capture, dated at least 3150-2900 BC. All this suggests that these Zagros horses were known and domesticated at that time, and they appear again on Achaemenian seals like this on the left. Moreover, Herodotus wrote that the horses of the Medes (inhabitants of Western Iran) were particularly small, as is shown also from this Assyrian relief below (from here).




But it is also remarkable that the Caspian horse, according to a genetic study, has the most primitive position in the group of three breeds (the others are Yabou and Turkoman) which represent "the most primitive (ancestral) breeds of the Oriental cluster". What is the Oriental cluster? It is the kind of horse breeds including the Arabian, the Kurd and the Turkmen Akhal Teke: they are slender and fit for dry climates, different in many features from the 'Occidental' horses, and more similar to asses.

We can understand how important this is for the Indo-European question. If horses were already present in Iran in the Neolithic, the name of the horse, so typically Indo-European and found from Sanskrit aśva to Latin equus, could be already present in the Zagros region in the Mesolithic, and the horses found in different Indo-European cultures were not necessarily brought from the Central Asian steppes, but also from Iran. If we look at Anatolian and Greek horses in reliefs and statues, they often belong to the Oriental type. The same probably for Indian horses, which were described in the Rigveda as having 34 ribs as the Arabian horse (and Southeastern Asian breeds like the Timor pony of probable Indian origin, see here), and were also described as particularly small by Herodotus.''
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
SLLEP WELL RK YOUR BRAIN IS AT THE MOMENT DULL AND CHILDISH!!!.
Now i have to go to a fair...
Nighty Night:).....

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

Lol. How utterly predictable, silly, and pointless.

1) Caspian != Indian, Caspian != Indus. So no native horses.
2) 'Provides an explanation', not 'provides the explanation', and definitely not 'provides hoaxed evidence for native horses from 75 kya based on obfuscating indus+modern indian horse and a horse from 75kya'.

No need to cut up men just to see if they really have one less rib like the bible says, btw. Though if you find this to be true, I have no doubt you will proclaim that Jewish people are a different species from the rest of us.

You just called someone a 'gigantic dikku head'. Dull and childish indeed.

Nirjhar007 said...


@ryukendo kendow
''1) Caspian != Indian, Caspian != Indus.
2) 'Provides an explanation', not 'provides the explanation', and definitely not 'provides hoaxed evidence for native horses from 75 kya based on obfuscating indus+modern indian horse and a horse from 75kya'. ''
The 1 is the best neutral+Scientific proposal up to date.
2. Where is that(75 KYO) coming from rk? The Indo-Iranian and Vedic Horse most likely belongs to the Oriental type Tiny,Slender as PROVEN Above from ever sources available!.
''No need to cut up men just to see if they really have one less rib like the bible says, btw. Though if you find this to be true, I have no doubt you will proclaim that Jewish people are a different species from the rest of us.''
What has that to do with the Clear Cut Mentions of Rigveda and Commentaries after that??
''You just called someone a 'gigantic dikku head'. Dull and childish indeed.''
As i call you now as you haven't changed your childish attitude which reflects half-education on the matter......

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

LOL I'm literally laughing while reading. So you switched from Indus with horse to north Iran with horse huh? How conveniently 'scientific'.

75 KYO is for sivalensis, which you brought up with Danino, who cited Rajaran. Benedetti wisely stayed away.

I thought you went to bed? Lol.

Nirjhar007 said...

Danino was the Start and Benedetti is the Scientific Description:)...
BTW What is the Oldest Buddhist Temple In Japan ryukendo? Can You Please Tell Me?

postneo said...

@Ryu K
Are elephants, tigers, rhinos more important than cows and lions?
--------
Absolutely, some more elaboration:

First of all, the lion is not an important vedic animal.

Water buffalo is a cult animal in the vedas too and mahishi(female buffalo) is part of ashvamedha.

the lion depicted in temples are explicitly pauranic/non vedic e.g. narasimha is popular there are even lion elephant hybrids as well etc..

There is no sudden discontinuity or onset of cult animals, just drift and variation. Important vedic cult animals are simply not prominent even today.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi! Postneo,
Check this on Crocodiles also-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makara_%28Hindu_mythology%29

postneo said...

There is no sudden onset of horse bones in India as should be expected. What we have are bones from pre-harappan, harappan and later levels loosely classified as horse.

The older bones are often classified as onager probably to please bwana.

I wonder if the onager was really such a widespread species to explain these bones in moist areas. They seem to have a very specific ecological niche.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Postneo
The Rigveda itself was composed between 2000-1500 BC see Benedettis Research which i consider Monumental and Revolutionary as it is! and Horse remains are also found from Places like of Surkotada from the same period however the Mundigak the Western Colony of Sindhu Civilization has Horse remains from neolithic times!!...

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar
I thought your beloved benedetti was trying to reduce the importance of the horse to the Vedics? Indus Aryans = horse unimportant, Iranian origin of IE and thus Aryans = horse important? Why so important suddenly?

Such inconsistency. Anything to bring the homeland closer to India, I suppose.

When he learns that the deepest genetic branchings in domestic horses are found in North European, Mongolian and Siberian horses, I suppose horses will become insignificant again.

Silliness.

@ Postneo

I suppose we should all please desis now?

"There is no sudden discontinuity or onset of cult animals" is false. There is simply no way you can make this statement.

70-90% of animals on seals in Harappa are unicorns. Insignificant depictions of horses and cows. The Vedas contain a single obscure reference to unicorns and is full of horses and cows. Horses and cows appear in Indian art later but not in Indus art in any significant degree.

Lions were not found in Indus art. Lions = 0. But they are common in Indian art. Kenoyer tried to say that 'simha' actually referred to tiger. Rediculous.

There is no cult of the Buffalo. In Asvamedha Mahishi quite clearly refers to the queen, not a buffalo. One who sings and anoints and who has ritualistic, simulated sex with the dead horse. Mahishi simply means 'the strong'--its original meaning--in this context. Unless there was an interspecies subtext somewhere, something not even the Indocentrists suggest.

Tigers, Rhinos, and elephants were highly significant in a religious sense to the Indus, as seen in their presence on the pashupati seal. There are even horned and half-human tigers. But they were not significant in the Vedas. Tigers and rhinos were not even mentioned in the Vedas.

You cannot draw a line of continuity from later hinduism, with its depictions of multifarious animals, through the Vedas to the indus Valley, because we know that late Hinduism sacralised more and more animals only in the post-Vedic period only, and the RigVeda sacralizes very few. Neither tigers, nor elephants, nor monkeys, nor unicorns are significant in the religious sense in the Vedas. Not even snakes--a quintessentially hindu animal--were sacralized in the Vedas. So they are obviously late readditions. From the pantheon of the aborigines, as Parpola and saner minds would suggest.

The Rig Veda does not mention writing. Scribes. Seals. Sculptures. Baths. Granaries. Water urn burial. Trade with lands from beyond the sea, so extensive as to result in cultural imports. Purs are built in wood and straw, not brick. On the other hand it is obsessed with the desire for cows and marauding cattle raids.

Now lets try some explanation along the lines of 'NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA', shall we.

Signing off.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi kendow !
''I thought your beloved benedetti was trying to reduce the importance of the horse to the Vedics? Indus Aryans = horse unimportant, Iranian origin of IE and thus Aryans = horse important? Why so important suddenly?''

No It Wasn't so important from the start of Rigvda ( as he referenced) Majorly Composed from ~2100 BC and Was when got Finished by 1500 BC But what meant by Iranian origin is that horse was known for the Aryans in Asia going back to Neolithic period and Some Sites also has Evidence that they were domesticated from Chalcolithic like we see in case of a cylinder seal from Susa with a scene of horse capture, dated at least 3150-2900 BC and In India Banawali there is the clay figure of an which has deep cut criss-cross incescions on the back as well on one side of the neck, thereby imparting it an appearance of the horse, as the former may suggest the saddle and the latter the mane is present!! Just Like the Case of Arabian Horse and ''Also Mundigak in Afghanistan has given ancient traces of domesticated horses in Neolithic levels , and Tepe Siyalk around 5000 BC . And probably many cases of alleged Equus hemionus (onager) are in reality horses!!, because in Iran there is a special breed, discovered only in 1965 in the Caspian region,''
And Surkotada already has Horse from the 2100-1700 BC the Period when Rigveda was under development.
The 4.2 KYO Event which Rocked the World Civilization with time contributed to the figure of horse as an Essential Weapon of War from which it got his all major eulogies in Ancient Scriptures and more on that issue is coming soon....
''When he learns that the deepest genetic branchings in domestic horses are found in North European, Mongolian and Siberian horses, I suppose horses will become insignificant again.''
I already referenced the Case of Aryan Horse breeds aka the Oriental-Caspian from the available records! and i think that has nothing to do with those genetically branched horse breeds!.

Nirjhar007 said...

@ryukendo kendow
What you said to Postneo is Laughable anyway though i would love to ridicule the half-education type Reasoning of yours but this time i leave it in Postneo's hands as he also deserves the enjoyment first hand:)...
Then I will give my answers to those hollow suggestions you made to him.

ryukendo kendow said...


This is getting too easy.

Nrijhar uses ridicule! It has no effect!

It is academically dishonest to say that horses are not important in the RigVeda, when so many of the sacrifices have them, and when you have gods who are horses.

FYI, Caspian, Akhal-tepe and Arabian horse breeds are the latest to branch, in a clade of their own. The earliest to branch are European and Siberian/Mongolian horses. Benedetti's argumentation is utterly confused: that on one hand caspian is the most basal of the horses is empirically false, than on the other caspian+Indian horses are separate from 'occidental horses' is of no consequence. The most basal horses are in north eurasia, suggesting a domestication there, and the derivation of caspian+indian horses from the populations there--which is the issue here.

So (European(Siberian(Central Asian(Arabian)(Indian)))). This suggests precisely a movement from central asia to India.

There are only five Y-chromosome lineages in horses all deriving shallowly from an ancestral lineage, suggesting domestication only once.

postneo said...

@RyuK
70-90% of animals on seals in Harappa are unicorns. Insignificant depictions of horses and cows. The Vedas contain a single obscure reference to unicorns and is full of horses and cows.
---

You are comparing seals with oral tradition.

It does not matter how many trillions of horses and cows are mentioned in the vedas. They don't make their way into iconography or horse bones at any time in a significant fashion throughout history.

I am very far from claiming harappa = vedic as you might assume, but hypothetically just like today vedic priests could have been sitting in a corner of the indus muttering about horses but not one made it to a seal.

Even today vedic rituals occur but very few themes make it into temple iconography. adverts, illustrations, festivals. I can think of some, none that are horse related.

@RyuK
Horses and cows appear in Indian art later but not in Indus art in any significant degree.

Yes monumental horses are depicted for example in the 12th century CE konaraka sun temple. In 200 BC buddhist Sanchi, the horse is not dominant but just one among many. None of these are vedic themes. Are these what you mean then?

We must accept Secular and non secular imagery derives from pauranic or folk sources not vedic. It has always been so. Even vedic themes that do get through are always mediated by the puranas.

Its time to consider whether vedic is given undue weightage due to its ANOMALOUSLY PRISTINE STATE OF PRESERVATION and its role in constructing PIE. It is highly oversampled at the expense of other ignored data. Was it just a predilection of a SUBSET of priestly families relating to their early history but otherwise not culturally dominant.



ryukendo kendow said...

@ Postneo
Insignificant? cows=0, horses=0 in Indus. sculptures can be counted on one hand. Can the same be made of India?

Of course not.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi guys and Rk.
''Insignificant? cows=0, horses=0 in Indus. sculptures can be counted on one hand. Can the same be made of India?

Of course not.''
Horses In India and the World came into the highlight from the period 4.2 KY ago BTW In India that horse was different and Oriental which also had 34 Ribs.
End Of Story.
BTW here is a depiction of Cow From Sindhu Civilization Seal...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_WPvHV_pCjc/T32uyUCRENI/AAAAAAAAAMY/Vvo1V1B9RCA/s1600/zebu+harappa.jpg
Horse is Depicted in Banawali Artifact and Mohenjodaro terracotta horses are evident and even in that artifact the horse resembles the Oriental with the length of the neck, the slender figure etc.
End Of Story.

Nirjhar007 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nirjhar007 said...

Now lets enjoy a retard-
''It is academically dishonest to say that horses are not important in the RigVeda, when so many of the sacrifices have them, and when you have gods who are horses.''
As i said you are blind ryukendow i said that from the start of Rigveda (which can be puted from the Late 3rd Millennium BC) horse was not the Center of of The Universe which happened with time rapidly.
There is no need to equate depiction in seals to cult as i said million times unless we find data in the oral tradition (which is all ways aryan) to prove that, depiction is just a depiction for ornamentation in general sense unless proven otherwise as Benedetti proved with the Nilgai and if the depiction is lacking don't also mean a cult is non-existent For Example-Ashvamedha.
Postneo also pointed a fact Vedic is not Equal to SSC theme as Vedic is only the part of Ancient Indian thought system which evidently was very Diverse....
''FYI, Caspian, Akhal-tepe and Arabian horse breeds...''
LOL and Infinite- LOL......
What that has to do with the FACT that there are RECORDED presence of Horses in the Various Archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranians going Back to Neolithic period????
Your Reasoning is just not Retardic but Ultraretardic here......

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

Yawn. 34 RIBS! 34 RIBS! I hear a parrot somewhere. Its pretty clear to everyone on this blog who the 'ultraretardic'--not to mention blind--one is.

"i said that from the start of Rigveda (which can be puted from the Late 3rd Millennium BC) horse was not the Center of of The Universe which happened with time rapidly."

Opinion, not fact. Why don't you ask whether postneo, or any other indologist, agrees with you.

"(which is all ways aryan)"
No doubt you are the most aryan of them all.

Bye.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''Yawn. 34 RIBS! 34 RIBS! I hear a parrot somewhere. Its pretty clear to everyone on this blog who the 'ultraretardic'--not to mention blind--one is.''
By pointing that Vedic Horse had 34 Ribs?
''Opinion, not fact. Why don't you ask whether postneo, or any other indologist, agrees with you.''
Its already proven in conclusive manner in the GB research i linked you from that book.
''No doubt you are the most aryan of them all.''
That's very kind of you:).
Sionara.....

postneo said...

@ryukendo kendow said...

cows=0, horses=0 in Indus. sculptures can be counted on one hand. Can the same be made of India?
---

No sculptures and coins are prolific and statistically significant just like the seals. You can't count only seals and physical objects on one hand and suddenly refuse to count any others except references in oral/literary tradition.

Are you saying that just like the seals the harappans had no word for cows, only bulls or never spoke of them anecdotally.

What about sites with horse bones. Is there a sudden onset around 1500 BC ?

I have to sign off.. anyway the thread has become quite tangential !

misnomer said...

Please read lucotte G paper on r1a1 z93 where he shows that z93 is oldest and most frequent in pak/indian NW area. That is the only marker common with other euradians. Therefore suggesting that there was no central Asian gene inflow into India.

misnomer said...

Lucotte Gs paper puts z93 in india at 15000 years. Other papers put it at 12500 yrs. Proving you wrong.

misnomer said...

lucotte g 2015 paper proves that Punjab in india has the highest frequency and oldest (15000yrs) z93 marker. Proves. Z93 is NW Indian marker.

Davidski said...

Lucotte is an idiot.

misnomer said...

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi--haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiR3pif65DPAhUBzpQKHaP2A74QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNGS4FEMuepXRn8ve6sPXjqi6XWAjw&sig2=1SoRercINTubv4-A_WN_QA lucotte G says that Punjab has 61% Freq of z93 whereas Iran has 29pc. Also Punjab has the highest Freq, and is older.

misnomer said...

OK. Any real criticisms of the paper?

Davidski said...

Are you fucking kidding me?

The dating of the Z93 clade in that paper is based on STR markers.

Dates for Y-haplogroup clades should only be estimated using SNP markers from full Y-chromosome sequences, and then cross checked with available ancient DNA data.
'
See here...

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

misnomer said...

The paper states expansion of z93 in india itself between 7300 and 4000. Nothing about the origins. And what about the highest Freq of z93 in Indo/pak/Punjab?

misnomer said...

The gradient of z93 from north to south India does not imply the origin as external. It could easily imply in situ expansion from NW india itself.

Davidski said...

South Asia was overrun by pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes during the Bronze Age who carried a lot of Z93. Maybe close to 100% Z93. So why are you surprised?