search this blog

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Through time AND space?


Ever since the publication of Lazaridis et al. 2016, the comments section here has seen regular debates about the nature and source of steppe-related ancestry in South Asia.

According to mixture models featured in that paper, the populations that brought steppe ancestry to South Asia probably lacked early European farmer (EEF) admixture. In other words, they were more like the samples from Early to Middle Bronze Age (EMBA) cultures Yamnaya, Afanasievo, and Poltavka, than those from Middle to Late Bronze Age (MLBA) cultures Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya.

This of course poses a major dilemma to those of us interested in early Indo-European expansions, because the consensus amongst historical linguists is that Indo-Iranian languages were introduced into South Asia during the Late Bronze Age from the Andronovo horizon.

So how do we reconcile ancient genomics with historical linguistics in this case? Should we assume that the linguists are way off, and posit that Indo-Iranian languages were introduced into South Asia straight from the Poltavka or even Yamnaya culture, much earlier than generally accepted?

Not necessarily.

Lazaridis et al. 2016 identified three post-Poltavka steppe individuals in their dataset that lacked EEF ancestry and were thus more similar to samples from Poltavka than Andronovo: Potapovka I0246, Potapovka I0418 and Srubnaya_outlier I0354. So where did these outliers come from and how is it that their steppe ancestors managed to stay free of EEF admixture?

One possible explanation is that most of the population on the MLBA steppe didn't carry significant levels of EEF admixture, because it was largely limited to the elites. As a result, we might be getting a skewed picture of the genetic structure of the steppe at this time, because for obvious reasons the vast majority of Bronze Age steppe samples being tested are from the best preserved burials, which are usually elite Kurgan burials.

So why would these elites harbor EEF ancestry and the commoners lack it? Perhaps because the former migrated from deep within the European part of the steppe, and imposed their culture on populations derived from, say, Afanasievo, Catacomb, Poltavka and late Yamnaya? Potential evidence of such an expansion exists in the form of chariot burials with similar horse cheek pieces found all the way from the Carpathian Basin to Central Asia (refer to the third map from Allentoft et al. 2015 here).

In any case, one way or another Poltavka-like people managed to survive on the steppe, perhaps in considerable numbers, well into the Andronovo period and probably beyond. So considering that this type of genetic structure was transmitted on the steppe across the millennia, then why not also across space into South Asia?

Interestingly, it's often claimed that some of the rituals described in the early Indo-Aryan Rig Veda hymns are very similar to the Kurgan burial rituals practiced by Potapovka people (see here). This is open to interpretation and impossible to prove, but I can test whether the above mentioned three post-Poltavka steppe outliers, including the two Potapovka individuals, show the right type of genetic structure to be potentially ancestral to modern-day South Asians.

So using the qpAdm algorithm let's test a model in which the descendants or close relatives of these three samples, labeled as Potapovka2-Srubnaya_outlier, move into the Andronovo horizon and then onto South Asia, contributing significantly to the genetic structure of modern-day South Asians.

Balochi

Brahmin

Brahui

Burusho

Gond

Gupta

Kalash

Kapu

Kshatriya

Pathan

Punjabi

These models look fine in terms of the statistical fits. In fact, much more than just fine in most cases. My prediction is that a population like Potapovka2-Srubnaya_outlier will eventually be discovered on the Late Bronze Age steppe, perhaps even at a site linked to the Andronovo horizon, and it'll fit the bill as a main player in the story of the peopling of South Asia.

However, this population might not necessarily be isolated from its EEF-rich neighbors by geography, but rather by culture and even social class. In other words, we should expect significant substructures on the steppe at this late stage of the game, after a couple of millennia of intense mobility, and in a complex way too, not simply defined by geography.

199 comments:

Onur Dinçer said...

Following from the previous thread:

@Simon W

Thanks for the info. FYI, I think the Dutch and Frisian areas should also be a part of the Greater Germany. The Anglo-Saxon areas (England and the Scottish Lowlands) should not be a part of the Greater Germany due to the genetic, cultural and linguistic differences.

@Anthro Survey

Yes, the average Turk of Turkey today is phenotypically indistinguishable from the neighboring peoples and genetically closest to them due to the intensive mixings in the past. You gave Ilhan Mansiz as an example to Turanid Turks from Turkey, but he is fully descended from recent Crimean Tatar immigrants in Turkey so cannot represent Turks of Turkey in terms of phenotype or genetics.

As for your points about the timing of the Oghuz/Turkman migrations to Anatolia and environs, they happened by and large during the 11th through the 13th centuries. But the ratios of the migrations during the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries are open to debate. Some historians attach more importance to the Seljuk-driven migrations during the 11th and 12th centuries, while some others prefer to highlight the Mongolian-triggered migrations of the 13th century instead.

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“However, this population might not necessarily be isolated from its EEF-rich neighbors by geography, but rather by culture and even social class.”

Yes, this is what I suspect could’ve happened.

When R1a-Z645 steppe people migrated west and mixed with Tripolye and TRB farmers, a new Corded Ware culture, new language and a new religion was created. A new religion was a mix of farmer and steppe beliefs. Later this new religion expanded with Corded Ware people into the steppe, into Balkans and into Western Europe. It influenced the religions and languages of Greece, India and Bell Beaker people in Western Europe.

Jingus Jendal said...


@Davidski

So, are you suggesting that today's Indo-European speaking, z93 carrying south Asians might be descended mostly from the Sintashta/Andronovo circle's serfs? And that those lower class folk were more Yamnaya-like(that is, lacking EEF ancestry)?

Davidski said...

So, are you suggesting that today's Indo-European speaking, z93 carrying south Asians might be descended mostly from the Sintashta/Andronovo circle's serfs? And that those lower class folk were more Yamnaya-like(that is, lacking EEF ancestry)?

I think they were a mixture of Andronovo-like and Yamnaya-like groups, possibly with the former having a much bigger impact on Y-HG because of social stratification in their favor and patriarchy, and the latter on genome-wide structure because of sheer numbers.

But that's pure speculation and not the main point of my post. What I'm trying to communicate is that despite the seemingly pervasive nature of the EEF component on the MLBA steppe, it may not have been as important as it seems, with whole populations, or even most of the population there, carrying very little to none of this western influence.

Kurd said...

David

I like Losif's work but I will have to disagree on the EEF in S Asians. We both know deep inside that Pathans and Baloch carry EEF admixture. After all they have been in the contact zone with EEF rich populations like Iranians for a long long time. Not only that, but Baloch are even more W Asian shifted than Pathans, and trace their origins to the NW Iran area within the past 2000 years.

In addition to their linguistic affinity to a NW Iranian language; Kurdish, they are a near clade with Kurds, as shown by tests such as qpAdm (http://www.anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?166-Kurdish). This is also consistent with IBD sharing between Kurds/Iranians and Iranian Baloch. I come from that part of the world and have much more insight than someone from Europe or the US into the historical, cultural, and linguistic ties between Kurds/Iranians and Baloch and Pashtun.

Additionally, Pathans and Baloch, with genetic ties to Afghan Pashtun and Kurds, respectively, have mediated this EEF to NW Indians such as Punjabis, who have been in a contact zone with them for many years. I can go on and on, but you get the idea

Singh said...

Considering historians like Parpola and Wieltz propose two-waves of Indo-European migration to South Asia 1) First wave were non-Vedic Indo-Europeans. 2) second wave were Vedic Indo-Europeans.

Map based on Parpola and others theories of two-waves. Yellow is old-wave and light-orange is Indo-Aryan.

https://sites.google.com/a/sudiptodas.com/www/_/rsrc/1299257215397/thearyantrail/peoples-1000bc.gif

I think there was both Steppe EMBA and Steppe MLBA migration to South Asia but at different time-periods.

Jingus Jendal said...


@Davidski

I see.

And don't Iranian speaking populations tend to have more Sintashta type ancestry, as opposed to IA speakers?

a said...

Jingus Jendal said...

"
@Davidski

So, are you suggesting that today's Indo-European speaking, z93 carrying south Asians might be descended mostly from the Sintashta/Andronovo circle's serfs? And that those lower class folk were more Yamnaya-like(that is, lacking EEF ancestry)? "

Just more wishful thinking. Remember the badass Sintashta warrior caper? There is nothing left of the Sintashta warrior-complex region; it lays in ruins to be reconstructed in archeological myth. The R1a EEF-Natufian hybrid migrant workers brought in to work the mines, and tend the fields. Smelting the ore in their households[fumes=neurological damage much?] They had some success; hiding behind their fortified fortress with moats and using chariots to help their wobbly legs from all smelting fumes- but were eventually over run by stronger powerful EHG/CHG/ANE hybrids. These became known as Scythians and Sarmatians. The Mongols true Steppe warriors- deployed adopted/similar tactics of destroying any settlement in their path. That in a nutshell is why EEF-Natufian are a no show in R1a elite.

Jingus Jendal said...


Genome-wide ancestry, I mean.

Jingus Jendal said...


@a

I'm not so sure about all that.

Davidski said...

@Kurd

Yeah, in ADMIXTURE the EEF cluster does show up in South Central Asia, even sometimes among the Kalasha, depending on the K. So I do think there's some EEF related ancestry there.

@Singh

Probably, but formal models with only Steppe_EMBA work quite well for all South Asians, using Iran_N, Iran_LN and Iran_ChL as the pre-AIT references. So I'd say that Steppe_EMBA is clearly more important in South Asia.

@Jingus

I think so, but even the Eastern Iranians look more Steppe_EMBA than Steppe_MLBA.

Kurd said...

To piggy back off my previous post. Here are 2 ADMIXTURE tests, the 1st using common and rarer alleles with 227K overlapping SNPs, genotype rate 99+%.

The KURD population source consists of 8 Iraqi and Iranian Kurds (Feylis and Kurmanjis). Relatives have been filtered out using BEAGLE.

The CAUCASUS source consists of Georgians, Abkhazians, Ossetians, and Armenians.

SE EUROPEANS include Macedonians, Albanians, and Montenegrans.

NE EUROPEANS include Belarousians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians.


TEST 1- COMMON & RARE ALLELES (mostly associated with more historically distant geneflow);

COMPONENT PUNJABI SIKH – 227K SNPs PATHAN – 227K SNPs
KURD 22.33% 31.33%
NW EUROPEAN 2.32% 0.00%
CAUCASUS 14.03% 11.51%
SE EUROPE 0.00% 6.28%
ALTAIAN 0.00% 0.00%
ARABIAN 0.00% 0.00%
NE EUROPEAN 10.37% 1.86%
SE Asian 0.00% 0.00%
SSA 0.00% 0.00%
FINNO-UGRIC 2.39% 4.26%
INDIAN 48.54% 36.57%
SIBERIAN 0.00% 0.00%
PAPUAN 0.00% 0.00%
C ASIAN 0.00% 8.19%



TEST 2 - RARER ALLELES (testing for a little more recent geneflow than above):

COMPONENT PUNJABI SIKH – RARER ALLELES PATHAN – RARER ALLELES
KURD 18.27% 32.29%
NW EUROPEAN 0.00% 0.00%
CAUCASUS 26.48% 16.94%
SE EUROPE 0.00% 0.00%
ALTAIAN 0.00% 0.00%
ARABIAN 0.00% 0.00%
NE EUROPEAN 0.00% 10.90%
SE Asian 0.00% 0.00%
SSA 0.00% 0.00%
FINNO-UGRIC 6.91% 0.00%
INDIAN 48.33% 33.70%
SIBERIAN 0.00% 5.19%
PAPUAN 0.00% 0.97%
C ASIAN 0.00% 0.00%


This corroborates my previous post with regards to EEF via geneflow between EEF rich W Asians and Pathans and Punjabis

Singh said...

@David
Can you please add South Asia samples you have to your Yamnaya K6 spreadsheet? I can't find any on it

Jingus Jendal said...


@Davidski

I read somewhere a while back that some of the specific burial practices of the Sintashta/Andronovo/Srubnaya cultures seemed more closely related to the Avestan system, than to the Vedic.

Kurd said...

Sorry, forgot to mention:

C ASIAN - Turkmen, Uzbek, and Kazakh

FINNO - Saami, Finns, Karelians

ARABIAN - Saudi, Jordanians, and Israeli Arabs

Singh said...

@Kurd
What is EEF-rich component in West Asians, is it Iran_Chalcolithic?

Kurd said...

@ Singh

It is related to Neolithic European Farmers, Stuttgart et al. They also carry alleles associated with Neolithic Anatolians.

Kurd said...

The Pathan sample is actually non other than our friend Sein :)

a said...

Jingus Jendal said...


" @a

I'm not so sure about all that."

WHG/EHG/ANE hybrid victories over weaker oponents-
Flavian dynasty -Vespesian clan sack Near East take slaves/loot/plunder to build their colloseum and tend their fields, devastated EEF/Natufian regions aka cradle of everything "other than savages" verified by Josephus.
Siege of Baghdad the jewel of EEF/Natufian development civilized world=Steppe coalition[Georgians/Armenians etc...] led by Mongol leadership -again WHG/EHG/ANE devastated -total destruction of EEF/Natufian hybrids and their culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

Coalition led by Mongol Steppe tribes- Defeat and subjigate Yuan and Song dynasty. Only group known to have defeated China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Xiangyang

Same story with the= Medes Steppe derived dynasty=neutered their neighbors.Treated the enslaved EEF/Natufians with freedom and dignity.
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes

If you are smarter/stronger than your opponent; why would you not take advantage of your assets? No sense in labouring in a mine or tilling in a field. Steppe tribes and those associated love freedom.

nizam uddin said...

@a
Probably lessen your own predilictions because it's becoming old. As were are all guilty of our own biases when we are enticed with such captivating information.
As far as, the Yamnayan's only share 25 percent of ANE and a portion of Iranian and possibly Armenian admixture. As far as the remaining percentage is EHG. While the Scythians and Sarmatians have the prospect of even more diluted EHG and ANE genetic components.
Although, I do agree with some of your remarks.

Excerpt taken from the manusmriti. :33. But know me, O most holy among the twice-born, to be the creator of this whole world, whom that male, virag (Hunas), himself produced, having performed austerities."
To note, in this passage Virago was also creator of scheduled caste system.
The term virago in Greek is defined as meaning " a woman who demonstrates exemplary and heroic qualities."
From my own recollection the only culture with this type of behavior found in women is the Sarmatians.
So, this is hinting towards the prospect of Sarmatians population or culturally similar to the Sarmatians may have embed the caste system within India.

Rob said...

@ Kurd
Slightly OT, but relevant to your work; you calculated that the admixture into Armenian chalcolithic came via an EEF source rather than ANF. Can you comment on that ?

a said...

nizam uddin said...

" @a
Probably lessen your own predilictions because it's becoming old. As were are all guilty of our own biases when we are enticed with such captivating information.
As far as, the Yamnayan's only share 25 percent of ANE and a portion of Iranian and possibly Armenian admixture. As far as the remaining percentage is EHG. While the Scythians and Sarmatians have the prospect of even more diluted EHG and ANE genetic components.
Although, I do agree with some of your remarks."
Predilictions because it's becoming old. You have no idea. I do not embarass our gracious host. What is becoming old is the constant push to make EEF/Natufian semi legendary in civilized cultural development and now badass Sintashta warrior, who carries this mark he is parsed in favor of Elite status[while toilin/digging in copper mines and inhaling arsenic fumes from copper smelting], when in fact I show this combination was defeated badly many times. Before your time-maps were created, and theories were put forth constantly of the R1b and its Near Eastern homeland, that was before Villabruna and Khvalynsk Iberian, Estonian samples. Some of us who have a voice make it known, the same tune like a broken record player over and over.Time to move on with these myths.

batman said...

Davidski,

"So how do we reconcile ancient genomics with historical linguistics in this case? Should we assume that the linguists are way off, and posit that Indo-Iranian languages were introduced into South Asia straight from the Poltavka or even Yamnaya culture, much earlier than generally accepted?"

Definitly.

Otherwise you keep continuing an endless discussion, based on a ghost-language that left NO sign of itself - all over again. That's nothing but pseudo-science.

Better trust you own profession and your own results. They've already done MORE for the understanding og proto-IE than the consent you refer to.

IF the spread of the I-E basics happened during the mesolithic you should find some correspondance in the genetics. The massive spread were definitly no later than the mesolithic/neolithic transition - when the first Vana-gar and Bul-gar arose, pretty much simultaniously with Srina-gar, Mehr-gar and Perse-gahr. (Gar/gahr=Farmstead)

Thus you may check - again - how the distribution of the I-E/Uralian language-group fits with the TIME and areas of the first, mesolithic cultures - based on the dynasties y-dna G, I,J, as well as the later R1a/b.

Nirjhar007 said...

Jingus jendal ,

I knew they were closer to that of BMAC ,Gonur and Yaz , with sky burials , ex carnations etc . In Yaz phase its an archaeological possibility also that Andronovo populations were there in BMAC area , perhaps they are referred as the Tuiriyas of north and often the enemies of sedentary airyas .

Anyway, late bronze age movement to S Asia is dis proven .

Nirjhar007 said...

I don't see Andronovo/Srubnaya etc as anything related for aryan genesis .

They were most likely the Proto-Scythians,Proto-Sarmatians etc.

aniasi said...

@davidski

I understand your perspective, but two things:

1) Potapovka is still older than the MLBA cultures you mention

2) The hypergamous patriarchy of IE steppe groups would have diffused elite EEF into the ranks very quickly.

Just looking at point 1, I think you really need to open yourself to the possibility, which I have always supported, of a much earlier arrival of the Indo-Aryans.

Linguists choose a later date because the conventional understanding was the idea of a Vedic corpus that was perfectly transmitted orally, but we know that it was redacted at some point, and the pronunciation has been heavily influenced by classical Sanskrit. The same with Avestan.

North India has been potentially been modified by further movements of peoples over a three thousand year span, so this is where your analysis of South Indian populations comes in. You have pointed out that their steppe ancestry points to an earlier intrusion, and that it is way closer to EMBA than MLBA.

Nirjhar007 said...

North India is not potentially modified but since it faced many intrusions , it may show signs of actual steppe ancestry in some respect or in small but detectable degree , but again its like few drops of glasses in a pond .

Onur Dinçer said...

@aniasi

1) Potapovka is still older than the MLBA cultures you mention

Potapovka is contemporary with Sintashta. It is to Srubnaya what Sintashta is to Andronovo.

Tesmos said...

@Onur Dinçer

Why should The Netherlands and Frisia be part of ''Greater Germany''? Both Frisian and Dutch are not part of the Low German dialects. That's an outdated view.

Jijnasu said...

While definitely a possibility, several aspects of the theory as proposed by linguists is questionable. Andronovo being specifically IA and the attribution of certain loans to BMAC are all doubtful.

Nirjhar007 said...

Jijnasu , what is your opinion on that 2500 BC h2a from Afghanistan?. Given it can be a potential indicator of R1as presence in mature harappan period in SC Asia?.

Rob said...

@ Onur

"
Potapovka is contemporary with Sintashta. It is to Srubnaya what Sintashta is to Andronovo."

The tail end of Potapovka catches Sintashta, otherwise it's 400 years earlier.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

Given that H2a came up in 4th millenium BCE Armenia in a L1a individual, in the prime PIE breakup period, what does that say about L expansion in India, specifically the Indus valley, and also the highly possible presence of R1a?

It must have taken a small group taking a coastal route perhaps, and it must have also been prior to any large scale mixing of R1a and L populations, which is tentatively assumed as a post IVSC event. And H2a is distributed across time and space in rather unconnectable dots to make any sense of it in Afghan.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Tesmos

Why should The Netherlands and Frisia be part of ''Greater Germany''? Both Frisian and Dutch are not part of the Low German dialects. That's an outdated view.

That is a political decision, not a linguistic one. The linguistic continuum from the Dutch areas to the Low German dialects of northern Germany and further east is no more diverse than the High German dialects.

EastPole said...

“Twenty-first century clouds over Indo-European homelands” J. P. Mallory:

“All models cited above acknowledge that the Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed an economy based on domesticated livestock and domestic cereals. […] and despite a considerable number of differences there is still a substantial amount of shared agricultural vocabulary between European and Asian languages”.


The fact that Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya had EEF component agrees with the fact that Indo-Iranians and Tokharians were influenced by people who knew farming. Most likely it was CWC.

Tesmos said...

@Onur Dinçer

Low German was first described by German linguists in the 19th century. They discovered that the dialects in Northern Germany differ from the dialects in the South. Later, they also discovered similarities between between Dutch and Low Saxon dialects in Northern Germany so they classifed Dutch as a Low German dialect, they viewed Low German as the ''ancestor'' of Dutch and Low Saxon dialects.

However, this view is outdated. Modern linguistics has a different idea of the classification of Germanic languages. For example, Dutch is a descendant of Old Low Franconian. Low German is a descendant of Old Saxon/Old Low German.

Folker said...

@Tesmos
I think that nobody will contest the cultural continuity between Low Countries (not limited to modern Kingdom of Netherlands, but including Belgium and North of France) and Northern Germany. Low Frank dialects include French Flanders, Belgium Flanders, a large part of Netherlands and some part of Germany. Low Saxon and Frisian are spoken in Netherlands and Germany. Historically, Low Countries were part of the kingdom of Germany, and specifically to the national duchy of Lothringen (divided in High and Low).

Kurd said...

@ Rob

{ Slightly OT, but relevant to your work; you calculated that the admixture into Armenian chalcolithic came via an EEF source rather than ANF. Can you comment on that ? }

Sure, you are referring to Armenian-Chl showing:

Component Armenia Chl- I1407 Armenia Chl- I1603
Anatolia-N 0.00% 0.00%
Andronovo-Srubnaya 0.00% 0.00%
SE Asian 0.00% 0.00%
NE Asian 0.00% 0.00%
SSA 0.00% 0.00%
Europe-EN 50.05% 41.80%
Iran N/Chl 36.92% 37.86%
Levant N/BA 0.00% 3.53%
Papuan 0.00% 0.00%
Yamnaya-Poltavka 13.02% 16.80%
WHG 0.00% 0.00%

VS Armenia EBA showing:

Component Armenia_EBA-I163 Armenia_EBA-I1635– Armenia_EBA-I1658
Anatolia-N 0.00% 36.36% 32.01%
Andronovo-Srubnaya 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SE Asian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
NE Asian 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SSA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Europe-EN 34.83% 0.00% 0.00%
Iran N/Chl 44.51% 49.05% 41.60%
Levant N/BA 0.00% 0.00% 6.70%
Papuan 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Yamnaya-Poltavka 20.65% 14.58% 19.68%
WHG 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


All I can say that it is not an artifact of ADMIXTURE since the samples were run one at a time. Interestingly, they all are consistent with regards to Iran N/Chl. It is only that some show a preference to ENF whereas others Anatolia-N.

Remember that we can not infer direction of geneflow via ADMIXTURE. I also forget what the seperation in time and space was with the samples. You may remember.

Everything aside though, one has to remember that sequencing is an incredibly fascinating, complicated, and messy affair, and not every facility is as good as BROAD with regards to both sequencing and variant calling errors.

There are so many steps along the way where errors can creep up especially when dealing with ancient DNA where the coverages are so dismal in many cases. This is why most are haploid, where a random good read is used for each base.

So in addition to C→T and G→A transitions in the ancient DNA sequences caused by deamination and contamination, the sequencer output itself is very noisy, meaning that some variants and indels are not real, but noise. That is why we rely on complicated software to sort everything out.

For example, the quality scores assigned by sequencers to bases are biased and inaccurate, and these biases are a major contributor to bad calls. This is where software and statistics step in.Then there are callers which are locus based, and not as accurate as haplotype callers. Here again we have to rely on software and statistics to compare reads with reference genomes, assemble plausible haplotypes, and determine per read likelihoods. After this we rely on more software to assign confidence scores to variant calls, resulting in another recalibration of the variant quality score.........

It would be nice if you or someone can post location information, age, and coverage info for the samples since I don't have time to look it up.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Tesmos

Dutch, Frisian and what is today commonly designated as "Low German" form a linguistic cluster with respect to the High German linguistic cluster. So if northern Germany is a part of the Greater Germany, there is no linguistic reason for excluding the Dutch and Frisian lands from the Greater Germany.

Jijnasu said...

@nirjhar Don't want to comment specifically on that given the limited info available. However I am not aganst some overlap between the IVC and early IA settlements. The oldest undisputed Horse remains in S Asia date to 1700 BCE, so Indo-Aryan occupation is unlikely to have preceded it by more than a couple of centuries. A date in the first half of the 2nd millennium seems also to accommodate the gap between rig vedic and post rigvedic kings as per traditional dynastic lists

Nirjhar007 said...

Onur , what is the frequency of R1a-Z2124 in Turks and what is the most prevalent y-dna of Turks?.

Tesmos said...

@Onur Dinçer

I already explained why the Dutch language can't be part of the Low German dialects. It's outdated view, invented by German linguists in the 19th century. I am not going to repeat myself again.

Nirjhar007 said...

Jijnasu ,

The Issue horse is not significant , horses gained importance after horse chariots invention , but they were part of the IE core mythology like also the Cow. Horses were find in Neolithic Mehrgarh also Mohenjodaro (MS Vats report, also Marshall) and of course Surkotada (2100 BC) and even deep down Hallur of S India in in 2nd millennium BC .

There was no occupation , for occupation you need solid archaeological data , for example for Yaz we have data that Andro. type population reached quite close and probably were there .In absence of data we have mere theories in level of a myth , which is the aryan migration to India .

IMO IEs were already there in India from Early Harappan and there is also evidence of existence of older IE populations presence in India, with also Kentum features .

If you want to account dynastic list , this is what you read before is a robust example of its use :
http://www.academia.edu/7683313/The_Chronology_of_Puranic_Kings_and_Rigvedic_Rishis_in_Comparison_with_the_Phases_of_the_Sindhu_Sarasvati_Civilization

JohnP said...

Hello David, It's my first time commenting in your blog, and I want to say that I support your hypothesis.
Also, the CHG-like, non-Indo-European of origin "Teal" extra on Indians probably is from the Indus Valley Civilisation's Harappans, which I believe being like Iran_LN (Elam being Iran_ChL, Sumeria and its offspring too).
It's speculated that the Harappans were constantly at war, due to their walled cities among other things. This opens for 3 possibilities: They fought each other, South Indians invaded them, Indo-Europeans invaded them. Knowing that there was no continuity in their civilisation, it seems that they were indeed invaded.

On a side note now, I believe that R1b arrived in Western Europe trough the Middle East and then either sailing by the Mediterranean trough the tip of Iberia or by following the North Africa route by foot.
Yes, R1b made a detour.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml

Derek said...

David Anthony on the supposed Potapovka horse head burial:

A horse sacrifice above the Potapovka grave is dated by sample AA 47802 to about 1900-1800 BCE. Although they were almost a thousand years apart, they looked, on excavation, like they were deposited together, with the Potavoka horse skull lying about the shoulders of the decapitated Poltavka human. Before dates were obtained on both the horse and skeleton this deposit was interpreted as a "centaur"-a decapitated human with his head replaced by the head of a horse, an important combination in Indo-Iranian mythology. But Nerissa Russell and Eileen Murphy found that both the horse and the human were female, and the dates show they were buried a thousand years apart.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Nirjhar

In Turks of Turkey R1a-Z2124 is found in no more than a few percent of the male population. The most prevalent Y-DNA among them is J2, taking up about a quarter of all the Y-DNAs.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thanks , is there a list that I can look?. Or a paper which gives some idea of the frequencies in Turks throughout Eurasia?. Certainly J2 didn't come from N Asia did it? :) .

Singh said...

@JohnP

Harrpans/IVC did not have walled cities but BMAC in Central Asia did. BMAC and steppe people were in conflict.

IVC will be closest to people in South Asia who will lack steppe ancestry.

jv said...

Yamnaya & the Veda. This Yamnaya male was MtDNA H6a1b. http://archive.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html

Nirjhar007 said...

But Nerissa Russell and Eileen Murphy found that both the horse and the human were female, and the dates show they were buried a thousand years apart.

ROFL :D

Yamnaya & the Veda. This Yamnaya male was MtDNA H6a1b. http://archive.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha , I am almost crying laughing now, hahahahahaha

jv said...

/Marija Gimbutas mentioned in the 1950's that the Srubnaya Culture involved a back migration from the west. Interesting that she knew this before Archaeogenetics.

Slumbery said...

aniasi

"Potapovka is still older than the MLBA cultures you mention"

The point is that there was still a fitting population post Yamnaya that is not "transformed" by western influences. Also it continues with the Srubnaya Outlayer. These are simply signs that there was still a population that was not like Shintasta/Andronovo/Srubnaya genetically, but remained closer to the Yamnaya roots. It does not mean that on the end of the Potakovka period those people packed and moved straight to India, Potakovka is just a genetically plausible precursor.

Note that the Hungarian language have at least one key Indo-Aryan loanword ("cow") and Potakovka is too early as a source for that. Although the borrowing could have happened a long time after the Aryans moved to India, assuming there were remnant groups slowly melting into Iranians.

Kurti said...

some people here are throwing around with numbers and terms they don't seem to understand wel themselves.

A: you can't name ANE, EHG, CHG in one sentence and compare them. Thats like comparing Apes, Humans and Primates.

Yamnaya is roughly ~50% EHG ~50% CHG/IranNeo. The ANE you guys are talking about is already included in those components above.

Mesopotamia was not Natufian/EEF like, on a sidenote Natufian and Anatolian_NEO are not identical anyways, quite similar but still distinct.

Mesopotamia from the wording of the studies was most likely predominantly Iran__CHL_Neo/CHG like such as Sumerians. Early Semites such as Babylonians and Assyrians brought Levant_Neo(Natufian like) DNA from the southern Levant with them but also were most likely already Iran_Neo and Anatolian_Neo admixed. They must have been Levant_BA like. When they reached Mesopotamia they mixed with the local groups and absorbed even more Iran_Neo admixture what made them at the end quite Levant_Neo and Iran_Neo admixed.

JohnP said...

@Singh
>>Harrpans/IVC did not have walled cities but BMAC in Central Asia did. BMAC and steppe people were in conflict.<<
Yes, the cities were indeed walled and fortified. No continuity also suggest population replacement and this only happens due to war (a civilisation/culture only ends when its peoples disappear/change genetically, this can be seen throughout history).

>>IVC will be closest to people in South Asia who will lack steppe ancestry.<<
I don't think so, as South Indians need a source of Teal/CHG that's not from the Steppes, and the Harappans/IVC would be the only source for such thing. I still maintain my position that they were Iran_LN peoples.
David, Lazaridis and Haak need to get their shit together and sequence the aDNA of so many populations now, and the Harappans/IVC are no exception.
To me, they need to sequence those:
Sumeria
Elam
Akkad
Assyria
Mycenae
Minoan
Egypt (someone did that very recently)
Hellenic Greek (from Lacedaemon, Thebes and Athens)
Hittite
Mitani
Ancient Romans
Middle Romans
Late Romans
The Whole Ancient North Africa
Phoenicians
Ancient Israelis/Jewish Tribes
Ancient Persia
Middle Persia
Late Persia
Ancient South Indians
Harappa/IVS
pre-Islamic Invasions Middle East in general
pre-Turkic Invasions Central Asia in general

Like, it's time to sequence "civilisations" and not only pre-history. Or are they afraid of generating "controversies"? David is a guy who fears being called bad names and avoid the possibility/probability of "offending" (in this matter, those ultra-sensitive), I can tell you that.

Slumbery said...

Just a follow-up thought about the loanword: I wrote that from memory (somebody who is definitely not a Hungarian linguist argued for it on Dienekes' blog) but it looks like the mainstream opinion is that the word is actually an Iranian loanword. The argument for the Aryan loan was based on the comparison of the Avestan and the Sanskrit word for cow, some say the Aryan version is closer to the Hungarian word. However the difference is not so big. Also I just looked at the too words and I don't see why would be the Sanskrit version a more likely source. Not to mention that we do not really know what version of the word was used by Iranian speakers in the time of the borrowing around the South Ural.
So I stand corrected. Now that I actually thought about it (should have done that before commenting) I think the Aryan origin of the word is an implausible speculation, also an unnecessary hypothesis. Sorry for the monologue. :)

Jijnasu said...

@nirjhar
Thanks for the link. I have several reservations with it though. The Date of parikshit's reign was probably closer to 1000 BCE IMO. Firstly his date for the accession of mahapadma nanda is unacceptable. Two variant readings for the length of his reign are ashtaashiti (88) and ashtavimshati(28) and 12 years are assigned to his 8 sons, with 88 + 12 yielding a total of 100 years. Clearly 100 years seems to long a reign for a father and his sons, particularly since the father was an usurper and already an adult at the time of taking the throne. This would mean Mahapadma's reign began around 350 BCE. Secondly how likely is the 1015/50 year interval to be accurate given that society was largely pre-literate? 1000 more likely represented a large number of centuries rather than an exact figure. Studying the dynasties for which we do have data from other sources we observe that the puranas tend to err on the side of longer reign lengths and sometimes makes contemporaries successors instead. all this would mean parikshit likely reigned sometime around 1000 BCE. Parikshit being mentioned in the atharva vedas and brahmanas would mean they were still under composition after this time. This would date the later Vedic period to a not very different era from indological estimates. Dragging the earliest parts of the Rig-Veda to nearly two millenia earlier doesn't seem meaningful. An earlier then mainstream date say around 2000 - 1700 BCE for the earliest Indo-aryan settlers seems reasonable with the earliest Vedic verses being composed a couple of generations later seems meaningful

As for the horse, I specified with the word 'undisputed'.

As for archaeological evidence, there is limited evidence of influences from the north-west but also significant continuity. Is anything else to be expected when early Ind-Aryans married native women and recruited native males into their society particularly craftsmen?

Singh said...

@JohnP

Davidski has already done that for South Asians. IVC is predicted to be mix of Iran Neolithic + ASI. They will be closest to people who will lack steppe ancestry in South Asia.

ASI component is a ghost-population but in Eurogenes Basal-rich K7 calculator it breaks down into 34% East Eurasian + 13% Southeast Asian + 10% Oceanian in 'ASI'-rich tribals, rest of their ancestry is Iran Neolithic with minor steppe.

IVC will lack steppe-Yamnaya component.

South Asians are modeled as Iran Neolithic + ASI (ghost-population) + Steppe EMBA by Lazaridis et al. 2016 I don't expect this model to change much anytime soon.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Nirjhar

You will find this Anthrogenica thread quite useful as it is about the Y-DNA results of genetic studies dealing with various Turkic peoples:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-6852.html

As for J2, from my observation of the J2 subclade results, most of J2 Y-DNAs found in Turks from Turkey come from the native peoples.

nizam uddin said...

@Slumbery
I'm definitely not a linguist and obviously I don't know. Although, I noticed there are two commonly used words for cow in sanskrit.
For example:
dhena-na-milk cow or dhenu-ka-milch cow

the other word for cow is evidently shows smilarities with Slavic languages.
(Sanskrit)gava:cow-now this similar obviously very similar for the (persian) gâv:cow
The only similarities that I've found in the brevity of my research is
(Southern Slavic)krava:cow
The word for cow compared to other nodes of Slavic are similar, but South Slavic shares more grammatical similarities with Sanskrit, Middle Indo-Aryan, and Old Persian speakers.

Whether they are loanwords we would not know. Yet, if they were borrowed it might have occurred around or after the time of Alexander's conquest. To reiterate I don't know but Sanskrit would closer; since the Avestan is much too young to be a cognate word found Indo-Aryan.
I doubt any words for cow in Uralic are close in relation to Ind-Aryan and Indo-Iranian terms. Yet, the possibility of Proto-Balto-Slavic being close in promiximity to development of these languages is our best gambit.

Rami said...

That would not make any sense for admixed Corded ware to form the so called Royalty vs the more Yamnaya/Indo European like . The whole purpose of CW is blending of culture and genetics which occurred when these Yamnaya men started marrying local women. In the same way Yamnaya/Proto IE people were a mix of CHGs and EHGs as oppose to just being EHG/ Karelia types. Potopovka seems quite Iranian just like Sintashta.

Jingus Jendal said...


@nirjhar007

"late bronze age movement to S Asia is dis proven."

In nirjar007 land, yes, we know.

Slumbery said...

nizam uddin

Thank you. Interesting toughs, but you don't know Hungarian and it inevitably shows.

1. This word is Hungarian only, not an Uralic word.
2. The Hungarian language has a lot of clearly Iranic loanwords. Not as much as Turkic, Slavic and Latin, but still an identified loan-layer of the language (and the oldest of such). Also we know that Uralic people lived in close proximity if East Iranian people for extended periods. Hungarian as one of the Southernmost Uralic group especially and a way before any Slav contact (there were no Balto-Slavs around the South Ural in the Iron Age).
3. The word in question is definitely not from Slav. The current Hungarian spelling is "tehén". I can't describe it with international linguistic symbols, because I can't use those, but even from this it should be clear that this is from the dhena (Sanskrit)/dhaenu (Avestan) line, not from the gava/krava line.
(The d->t shift has parallels in Hungarian, while putting a vowel to set apart two neighboring consonants is so typical of Hungarian that some linguists suspect early Hungarians were not able to pronounce consonant congestion at all.)

a said...

Blogger Kurti said...

"some people here are throwing around with numbers and terms they don't seem to understand wel themselves.

A: you can't name ANE, EHG, CHG in one sentence and compare them. Thats like comparing Apes, Humans and Primates.

Yamnaya is roughly ~50% EHG ~50% CHG/IranNeo. The ANE you guys are talking about is already included in those components above.

Mesopotamia was not Natufian/EEF like, on a sidenote Natufian and Anatolian_NEO are not identical anyways, quite similar but still distinct."

Europeans/Yamnaya/Villabruna/Steppe/ANE/CHG/WHG have segments of Neanderthal; introgressive hybridization . As of latest samples not found in Natufian EEF samples. In this case with the available samples movement = North to South or Steppe to Iran[Kurds]L584*is[Dagestan] closer to L754 Khvalynsk than to F38 : )

Grey said...

"So why would these elites harbor EEF ancestry and the commoners lack it? Perhaps because the former migrated from deep within the European part of the steppe, and imposed their culture on populations derived from, say, Afanasievo, Catacomb, Poltavka and late Yamnaya?"

if farmers encroached on the steppe (up to a climatic limit) and in the process catalysed herders on the other side of that limit then it seems plausible that high EEF admixture could just be elite marriage alliances across the border between the farmers and herders and our current understanding is a product of a class/caste difference. Then if the neo-herders adjacent to the farmers expanded over the rest of the steppe that class/caste based scenario could expand with them.

.

"This of course poses a major dilemma to those of us interested in early Indo-European expansions, because the consensus amongst historical linguists is that Indo-Iranian languages were introduced into South Asia during the Late Bronze Age from the Andronovo horizon."

The alternative seems to be a two-stage process - an early wave of infiltration migration, cattle herders without EEF spreading around and through farmer territory on land not suitable for crops and having a significant autosomal effect maybe partly through the farmer population density still being relatively low at the time. The second wave would then need to be more of an elite conquest type event bringing different ydna and modified language?

MaxT said...

@Kurti

There is NO IranNeo admixture in Yamnaya. CHG is way older than IranNeo.

Simon_W said...

@ Onur, Tesmos, Folker

I think it's quite arbitrary to call pure Northern Low German a part of the German language family while Frisian and Dutch not. Because pure Northern Low German isn't really closer to Middle and Upper German dialects than Dutch and Frisian are, that's the point.

However, there is the complicating aspect that Standard German is some kind of Esperanto that was deliberately designed to be easily learnable by Upper, Middle and Low Germans alike, and it includes features from all these dialect areas, also from Low German. This makes Low German partly related to Standard German, as there are some shared features. But Standard German isn't a particular dialect, it's artificial.

The most obvious difference between Low German and High German is the absence of the High German consonant shift in the former. Low German is still in the unshifted state which is closer to primordial West Germanic. And it shares this feature with Dutch and Frisian which aren't shifted either. I agree that differences between Dutch, Frisian and Low German are partly still based on tribal differences between the Franks, the Frisians and the Saxons respectively.

Indeed Low German is derived from Old Saxon, but Old Saxon wasn't any more "German" than Old Frisian or Old Frankish were. There is really no reason to call the old Saxons "Germans" and the Franks and Frisians not. After all, Old Saxon was also part of the ancestry of the Anglo-Saxon language, which is Old English. And there are lots of dialects in Germany that are based on a consonant-shifted variant of Frankish. Moreover the Franks exterted a lot of influence on the continental Saxons, after Charlemagne had subdued them.

Frisian on the other hand is neither Frankish nor Saxon and there are Frisian speaking areas both in the Netherlands and in Germany, so it cannot be particularly associated with either state. Though undeniably the largest still Frisian speaking area is West Frisia in the Netherlands.

Moreover it cannot be stressed enough that large parts of the northeastern Netherlands speak a dialect that is derived from Old Saxon. The Dutch call it Nedersaksisch, but it's the same language as Low German:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nedersaksiese_taalgebied.png

And like I said in the other thread, on the Lower Rhine of Germany there is a small area with Low Frankish dialects, see "Niederfränkisch" in the map:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Dialekte_in_Nordrhein-Westfalen.PNG

They cross the border from the Netherlands and Belgium into Germany.



Onur Dinçer said...

@Simon W

As always, thanks for the elaborate info.

I think it's quite arbitrary to call pure Northern Low German a part of the German language family while Frisian and Dutch not. Because pure Northern Low German isn't really closer to Middle and Upper German dialects than Dutch and Frisian are, that's the point.

That is exactly what I was telling to Tesmos.

Indeed Low German is derived from Old Saxon, but Old Saxon wasn't any more "German" than Old Frisian or Old Frankish were. There is really no reason to call the old Saxons "Germans" and the Franks and Frisians not.

Exactly. All the West Germanic-speaking lands of Europe can be considered in the Greater Germany, except for the Anglo-Saxon-speaking lands for obvious reasons.

nizam uddin said...

@a
Okay, I understand the connection you were attempting to make now. By the way, When you mean "international symbols" are you referring to diacritics that are unique to Turkish script? Actually, you can type in turkish script, but you have to search on google what keys to press. Turkish shows more loadwords from Arabic than Persian. There are only 150 loanwards from Persian that are also associated with Urdu. It's defnitely possible the interculatural connections with Uralic and persian transpired around the transition of the Old Persian and Avestan.
As the dates don't sync up. It doesn't really matter to mention this, but the sanskrit terms I found are Max Mueller transcriptions. So, you might find different spellings on the internet. Ultimately, I didn't state that I knew much about any of the languages. I merely stated that I spent a few minutes researching and comparing specific Sanskrit terms with Slavic terms.

Anthro Survey said...

@Onur Dinçer: The reason I tend to favor the theory positing greater contribution from Mongolian-triggered migrations is graphically illustrated on the heat map displaying EastEurasian ancestry. It is notably elevated in the SouthWest and considerably lower in areas of early Seljuk rule. This argument of course rests on the premise that in both cases, the migrating Turkomans had comparable fractions of EastEurasian:WestEurasian ancestry. Basically, the assumption is that Seljuk Turkomans didn't mix much in Iran before continuing to Anatolia and this is supported by historical records.

The Germinayid mass migration to and settling of SW corner of Anatolia(also associated w/creation of Aydin and Menteşe is also well documented.

batman said...

Eastpole

"When R1a-Z645 steppe people migrated west and mixed with Tripolye and TRB farmers, a new Corded Ware culture, new language and a new religion was created. A new religion was a mix of farmer and steppe beliefs. Later this new religion expanded with Corded Ware people into the steppe, into Balkans and into Western Europe. It influenced the religions and languages of Greece, India and Bell Beaker people in Western Europe."

You forgot that they had to migrate back to the steppe, as well - to "influence" their own origin as well as the surrounding Bactrians, Persians, Pakistanians and Indians.

We're all a result of riders in the dark, meeting at the crossroads of Trans-Caucasia - from where the light of the world could spread across the continent. By chariots, swords and conquest, of course.

In those days the higher culture and the larger civilizations were developed by the most brutal bullies and scrupless massmurders.

All questions solved. Case closed. War is Peace and rape justice.

Ric Hern said...

Did EEF enter Cultures associated with Proposed Early-Indo-Europeans during the Proto-Indo-European phase or only later during Corded Ware ?

So basically, did farming vocabulary enter the Proto-Indo-European phase maybe via Sredny Stog or only Later during Corded Ware ?

Singh said...

@Ric Hern

During Corded Ware.

Early-Middle Yamnaya and Afanasevo cultures - Steppe-EMBA, both lacked EEF admixture. Middle-Late steppe-cultures with EEF admixture is called Steppe-MBLA.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Anthro Survey

Whether Seljuk-driven or Mongolian-triggered, Oghuz/Turkman nomads migrating from the Oghuz/Turkman lands in what is now Kazakhstan (the Oghuz Yabgu State) to the Greater Iran (including what is now Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and Anatolia and environs during the 11th through the 13th centuries were perceived as a foreign and barbaric element during those centuries by the Iranic and Arab peoples in the lands they occupied and very quickly came into territorial conflict with them. For this reason, Seljuk sultans drove Oghuz/Turkmans they had brought from the Oghuz Yabgu State to establish their Great Seljuk Empire towards the peripheries of their Great Seljuk realm (towards the Seljuk-Byzantine border zone in the west and towards the desert lands in what is now Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the east) and thus appeased their Iranic and Arab subjects, who were the majority. This triggered a second Seljuk rise to power via Oghuz/Turkman warrior nomads, but this time in the Byzantine lands in Anatolia, taking their very name from the newly conqured Byzantine Empire: the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. But due to the increasing conflicts between their Oghuz/Turkman subjects and their Greek and Armenian subjects, who were the majority, Seljuk sultans of Rum, too, were forced to drive large numbers of their Oghuz/Turkman subjects towards their borders with the Byzantine Empire in western Anatolia and towards their western border with the Empire of Trebizond in northern Anatolia. This is probably why in modern Turkey East Eurasian ancestry peaks in western Anatolia and in the Giresun area in northern Anatolia. This second Seljuk push in turn triggered the establishment of the Oghuz/Turkman principalities in the peripheries of the Sultanate of Rum lands, especially in western Anatolia, after the weakening of the Seljuk authority in Anatolia following the Mongolian subjugation of their lands. The additional Oghuz/Turkman migrations towards Anatolia and environs triggered by the Mongolian conquests probably also played a role in this.

Onur Dinçer said...

@JohnP

David, Lazaridis and Haak need to get their shit together and sequence the aDNA of so many populations now, and the Harappans/IVC are no exception.
To me, they need to sequence those:
Sumeria
Elam
Akkad
Assyria
Mycenae
Minoan
Egypt (someone did that very recently)
Hellenic Greek (from Lacedaemon, Thebes and Athens)
Hittite
Mitani
Ancient Romans
Middle Romans
Late Romans
The Whole Ancient North Africa
Phoenicians
Ancient Israelis/Jewish Tribes
Ancient Persia
Middle Persia
Late Persia
Ancient South Indians
Harappa/IVS
pre-Islamic Invasions Middle East in general
pre-Turkic Invasions Central Asia in general


Add to that list the early Oghuz/Turkman skeletons found in Anatolia (such as the ones in the 11th century Oluz Hoyuk graveyard) and also the Oghuz/Turkman skeletons found in the Oghuz/Turkman graveyards in the former Oghuz Yabgu State lands in what is now Kazakhstan. They need to sequence them too. This would fully clarify the nature of the Turkification of Anatolia. They have the funds and technological means for that.

Ric Hern said...

@Singh

So what you are saying is that Proto-Indo-European did not have words associated with farming ?

Davidski said...

Why wouldn't Proto-Indo-European have words for farming, when there were farmers on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe well before Yamnaya?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/three-way.html

Davidski said...

@Kurti

Why do you keep claiming that Yamnaya has Neolithic Iranian ancestry when there's no evidence of this? In fact, the evidence that we have from both Y-DNA and mtDNA contradicts this.

Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling from doing this and that's why you can't stop, or what?

@Singh

I can't add more samples to the K6 spreadsheet. I'm not running that test any longer. But there are some South Central Asian pops in there, so maybe you can extrapolate whatever you're looking for from their results?

Onur Dinçer said...

@Davidski

Why wouldn't Proto-Indo-European have words for farming, when there were farmers on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe well before Yamnaya?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/three-way.html


Yes, the three-way! Whenever people begin to forget about the three-way mixture in Proto-Indo-Europeans, we should show them this symbol of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture to remind them about the three-way:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9n4j3PQ81Rcb3U4RERqY2RRV1U/view?usp=sharing

Ric Hern said...

@David

So basically farmer vocabulary reached Yamnaya and Afanasevo without EEF DNA.

I'm trying to figure out if the Western part of the Steppe maybe first acquired the full set of the Proto-Indo-European Vocabulary and spread it towards the East ?

If vocabulary associated with farming were essential for forming Common-Indo-European then it is hard to imagine that Khvalynsk already contained the full vocabulary to form Common-Indo-European where as it will be more likely that Sredny Stog first acquired the full set of words....

Davidski said...

@Ric

The idea that Yamnaya doesn't have EEF-related ancestry is actually wrong. But I'm trying to work here within the current framework.

Yamnaya has to be modeled as EHG, CHG plus something more western, like either Hungary_LN or Anatolia_ChL, and both of these samples have EEF-related ancestry, mostly via Neolithic Anatolia.

Yamnaya can also be modeled successfully as EHG + Iran_ChL, and of course Iran_ChL has a big chunk of EEF-related ancestry from Neolithic Anatolia. This shows up very clearly in ADMIXTURE runs.

So yeah, there were farmers on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe before Yamnaya, and Yamnaya does have some sort of farmer ancestry as part of its southern admixture. It's just that this farmer ancestry doesn't show up in ADMIXTURE, for whatever reason, and so we now have a Meme being repeated in scientific papers that Yamnaya doesn't have EEF-related ancestry, even though it does.

batman said...

Davidski,

"Why wouldn't Proto-Indo-European have words for farming, when there were farmers on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe well before Yamnaya?"

Right. The first to farm these areas were slash-burners, spreading along the woodland/steppes of the Volga - from Narva-Ladoga to Volga-Oka and Volga-Ural.

The "Yamna Horizon" had to (be)come a bit later - via Bug-Dniester and Dvina/Djepr to Don and the lower Volga.

Thus you can find two "waves" of agricultures. The woodlanders/highlanders (with goats, as well as cows and cold-blooded horses) where obviously a branch from the R1a-dynasty - all the way to Sinthasta and Tarim.

The second wave (with the larger cows and oxen) were seemingly a branch of the R1b-lowlanders - all the way to Majkop. In "tribal structures".

Women with high lactase persistence and skills within diary would obviously be popular in both dynasties/tribes.

As the very first agriculture - with goats, sheep, pigs - may be connected with the spread of the pit-graves, we may start the discussion about a glossary connected to farming and diaries.

You'll find 'milk/melch/melk-mlek/mlieko along the southern route of lowlanders, connected to R1b and the Yamna horizon. In the norther climate-zone you find "mjoelk/mjolk" in the west and "molok/moloko" in the east, Both adheres to R1a. The Finnish-Livonian-Carelian boat-people, slash-burners and goat-herders calls it "maito", clearly indicating a relationship with the spread of N1c.

Ric Hern said...

@David

Thanks.

Seinundzeit said...

Kurd wrora,

Thanks for posting that!

Very interesting differences (between the results based on rare alleles vs the results based on common alleles).

David,

I think you'll be proven right.

Even though nMonte with PCA data involves the use of a totally different method (not similar at all to qpAdm), the results are identical (despite the inclusion of Yamnaya, Sintashta, Andronovo, etc).

Kshatriya:

42.0% Iran_Neolithic
29.7% Srubnaya_outlier
28.2% Jarawa

distance=0.8021

Brahmin:

41.5% Iran_Neolithic
33.0% Srubnaya_outlier
25.5% Jarawa

distance=0.7713

Kalash:

43.1% Iran_Neolithic + 6.6% Iran_Chalcolithic
41.6% Srubnaya_outlier
8.7% Jarawa

distance=0.3717

Karlani Pashtun (FATA):

40.85% Iran_Chalcolithic + 11.90% Iran_Neolithic
31.70% Srubnaya_outlier + 4.30% Srubnaya + 3.85% Scythian_ZevakinoChilikta
7.40% Jarawa

distance=0.2075

Very substantial Steppe_EMBA in these populations (always best represented by the Srubnaya_outlier).

So, I think it would make sense to postulate the existence of later steppe populations that lacked substantial European MN-Chal ancestry.

batman said...

Concerning the "origin of agriculture" there's been an important axiom that there was a connection from the 'resources' of the early farmers and the pioneers of the copper-age and bronze-age.

This logic is obviously due. Which is why the age-old theory about an origin of agriculture in the "Fertilce Crescent" has been followed by a claim that the early copper and bronze-age had it's origin in the same area, as well.

With the copper from Kypros as a main argument it's been suggested that the first bronze-welders were from the "Middle East", as well, some 5.300 years ago.

As archeology keep progressing we've learnt that this - also - was a misconception. Today we have to lift the focus from the limited farmland inside the Bay of Iskander and have a look at the wider grasslands of the mild west - where the first, known bronze were welded already 6.500 year ago - uphills central Donau:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0003598X0004984X

It's rather important that the genetic profession avoid mixing their apples with alledged oranges from other professions. Unless you can check and understand their claims to be factual we - as in 'the rest of the world' - can't trust youir end results and "comparative" as 'science'. Duely, from a geneticians point opf view a lingusitical or archaeological theory should never be considered to be anything but mere suggestions - however "prominent" and "consentual" they may be...

Kurti said...

@Davidski

"
Do you get a warm fuzzy feeling from doing this and that's why you can't stop, or what?"

Like you get while calling the Pontic_Caspian Steppes "Eastern Europe :)

As you wrote above Yamnaya can be modeled well as EHG+ Iran_CHL. And what does Iran_CHL include?

On a different sidenote. CHG and EHG both had higher frequency of genes that cause light pigmenation, than Yamnaya. So how did Yamnaya turn out slightly darker than a combination of these two would suggest? You tell me.

Third point you must be crazy to think the Caucasus stayed CHG like without admixture from outside from mesolithic all the way to Late Neolithic, while we have archeologic evidence for southern migration into the Caucasus.

A EHG+Iran_CHL with CHG like admixture is the theory that makes genetically as well archeologically/historically most sense.

Kurti said...

"A EHG+Iran_CHL with CHG like admixture is the theory that makes genetically as well archeologically/historically most sense."

And I thought Lazaridis already tried to explain this to you. But it seems you didn't quite understand him.

Davidski said...

Where are the uniparental markers from the South Caspian on the Bronze Age steppe?

Can you see them there, because no one else can.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/the-story-of-mtdna-haplogroup-u7.html

Samuel Andrews said...

Interesting factoid: In my data European data N1a1a only reachs above 1% in a few locatios....

Romania-Bulgaria.
East Baltic(Lithuania, etc)
Russian Tatars, maybe other non-Slavic Volga pops.

Possibly N1a1a-rich EEF groups of Central Europe probably got overan by groups from the East and West with ancestry from differnt EEFs. The 30-50% MN farmer ancestry in Eastern Europe simply can't be explained by Hungarian farmers who had 5%+ N1a1a.

Nirjhar007 said...

Jijnasu ,

I think you didn't read it carefully , he didn't drag the earliest parts of the Rig-Veda to nearly two millennia before , he dates with the help of Pargiters list RV majorly around 2000 BC to 1500 BC (with some traditional accounts of possibly being of earlier period) , which makes perfect sense as it also goes parallel with the aspects of some archaeological observations and of traditional accounts as suggested there! . If you have objections regarding his method or any questions , you can ask him -
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/

About the horse issue no its not disputed , you can read for example about Rana Ghundai in Baluchistan at the end of 4th mill. BC:
https://books.google.it/books?id=bp6he8Roj_UC&pg=PA53&dq=Rana+Ghundai+horse&hl=it&ei=JWRWTs33IYPt-gbou62QDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Rana%20Ghundai%20horse&f=false

Other important ancient traces of horses were in Anatolia, see Grigoriev p.347:
In Eastern Anatolia the horse is dated to the first half of the 4th millennium BC. (Norşuntepe, Tilki-Tepe, Tepechik, Arslantepe) [Bökönyi, 1987, p. 137]. It is possible that in Iran domesticated horses occur in the late 4th millennium BC [Sherratt, 1997, p. 216].

Also by 4th millennium BC there were domesticated horses in Mesopotamia , though not very popular.

The thing is that unless white researcher makes a claim it remains disputed ;) .

Nirjhar007 said...

Before answering to Jingus.

More on horses :
The book of Gamkrelidze at p.477: https://books.google.it/books?id=M2aqp2n2mKkC&pg=PA477&dq=Norsun+tepe+horse&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ7-X6p4_NAhUGMBoKHUQGACQQ6AEITzAF#v=onepage&q=Norsun%20tepe%20horse&f=false

Important is also to observe that the 'oriental' horses (Arabian,
Turkmen, Caspian) are different from the other horses and adapted to an arid environment. The 34 ribs mentioned in RV are typical of the Arabian and other oriental kinds. You can read about the Horse issue here http://new-indology.blogspot.it/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html

Now Jingus Jindal ,

I think its guys like you who are responsible for destruction of Indology and made a mockery of it , you are a very common breed , which is also very pathetic.

Salden said...

You look sore.

Nirjhar007 said...

It is painful , the amount of 'religious type acceptance' without observing the facts first is almost unfathomable in case of Indology .

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

You have to first accept that there was a massive migration from the steppe to India during the Bronze Age, because this is a fact.

Only after you do that will it be possible for us to consider your arguments about the Indo-Europeanization of South Asia.

At the moment you're excluding yourself from the debate by not operating in the real world.

Nirjhar007 said...

Onur,


You will find this Anthrogenica thread quite useful as it is about the Y-DNA results of genetic studies dealing with various Turkic peoples:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-6852.html

As for J2, from my observation of the J2 subclade results, most of J2 Y-DNAs found in Turks from Turkey come from the native peoples.


Thanks Onur I will look . So what is the ''original' Turkic y-dna(s) which came from Central Asia?.

Nirjhar007 said...

You have to first accept that there was a massive migration from the steppe to India during the Bronze Age, because this is a fact.

See ? . This is what I am talking about , it belongs to the same tone as '' Only Jesus can give you salvation'' , If Dave had a minimum idea about archaeology etc this would have been totally different . The Creationist Ideology to which 75 % of people belong to here. I do not not belong to that fold. I belong to science and some here also do .
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-406b2hd92mg/UP1qDBNV_HI/AAAAAAAAARI/U3TYVqb4LfA/s1600/vignetta+creazionismo.gif

Ric Hern said...

So it will be relatively accurate if I say that Most Proto-Indo-European structure and vocabulary could already have existed before a minor EEF contribution ?

Jingus Jendal said...


@nirjhar007

"its guys like you who are responsible for destruction of Indology and made a mockery of it , you are a very common breed , which is also very pathetic"

Dramatic!
I know you're hurting inside, nirjhar007. But there must be someone who cares. Find that person.

Nirjhar007 said...

Dingus

Perhaps you can be that person for comic relief?.

Jingus Jendal said...


@nirjhar007

"Dingus(first rate joke there)

Perhaps you can be that person for comic relief?"

I don't think it would work out, since I don't care.
But I'm flattered.

Nirjhar007 said...

oh you are so humble Dingus , I was wrong about you , it seems.

Jingus Jendal said...


@nirjhar007

"oh you are so humble Dingus , I was wrong about you , it seems."

You're wrong about a lot of things, as you'll learn within the next few years, no doubt, but I hope you never stop chasing your dream.

Nirjhar007 said...

oh how romantic , anyway I like to live my''dream'' instead of chasing it .

postneo said...

@Rick Hern
Maybe they had some early impact in Anatolia and Europe but EEF were not the only farmers before the bronze age.

Nirjhar007 said...

People,

Its coming :
Title: E-P18.02 - Reconstructing the human population history of the Indian subcontinent using ancient population genomics.
Keywords: Ancient DNA; population Genetics
Authors: N. Rai1, K. Thangaraj1, V. Shinde2;
1Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India, 2Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, Pune, India.
http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=49b3ee97-60b3-43e0-a47b-7670d9defbaa&cKey=d5d0ae6a-8111-4268-b0e5-eecd91d1388a&mKey=%7b15A3630E-7769-4D64-A80A-47F190AC2F4F%7d

postneo said...

On the potapovka burial and Kuzmina's Sati references

http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/1998-May/012567.html

Here is witzels trying to sell the potapovka burial as rig vedic reference to dadhyanc's beheading. He also says there is yama's bone flute at the feet of the buried person as if that were a "thing"

In a rig veda I dont think there is any connection between an isolated ref to flutes played in yama's court and dadhyanc's beheading.

Witzel was also caught by other white sankritists around this time mistranslating and inferring supposed eastward migration implied by the Baudhayana Srauta Sutra. Witzel claimed it was a careless error.

Witzel is not a fool though, He likes to spin yarns ,to garner publications foisting them on the gullible. Kuzmina with her Sati burial seems genuinely ignorant with little anthropological understanding of south asia.

Its like looking for santa claus and reindeer bones in jordan after the advent of christianity.

Davidski said...

Needles to say, I have no confidence in their analysis, but seeing the data will be very useful.

Jijnasu said...

@Nirjhar is the abstract out or just the title ? Interesting times ahead

Davidski said...

The abstract will be posted at this link on Saturday, Copenhagen time.

http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=49b3ee97-60b3-43e0-a47b-7670d9defbaa&cKey=d5d0ae6a-8111-4268-b0e5-eecd91d1388a&mKey=%7b15A3630E-7769-4D64-A80A-47F190AC2F4F%7d

I don't expect much more than damage control in the abstract and paper. I even wouldn't be surprised if they somehow push OIT as a possibility. But the data will be accurate, and it won't leave any doubts as to what really happened when analyzed properly.

Anshuman said...

Quite clear now what will be the content of the paper with David hyperventilating already

Davidski said...

@Anshuman

Quite clear now what will be the content of the paper with David hyperventilating already

There are other papers on ancient DNA from South Asia coming soon. And you'll be the one hyperventilating once you finally grasp what the data shows. Though granted it may take a while for everything to sink in.

Jijnasu said...

@davidski
I fail to understand the reasons for your skepticism when you haven't even seen their abstract

Matt said...

Kurti: On a different sidenote. CHG and EHG both had higher frequency of genes that cause light pigmenation, than Yamnaya. So how did Yamnaya turn out slightly darker than a combination of these two would suggest? You tell me.

I'm not sure that's correct.

Yamnaya genotypes for derived alleles per Mathieson's first preprint were: SLC24A5 - 1, SLC45A2 - 0.4
CHG in Jones et al were: SLC24A5 - 1, SLC45A2 - 0
EHG so far IRC were: SLC24A5 - 1, SLC45A2 - 1 (which is more meaningful now we consider we've got, what, 3-4 samples?).

Seems like what you'd expect. I don't think you can estimate ancestry from those two anyway though, it's just limited locus stuff that is affected by natural selection.

...

On general topic, I think these seem to be improved and more plausible fits compared to what was in Lazaridis 2016, but I'm doubtful that these qpAdm based methods using outgroups and populations we have contain enough information to accurately distinguish MLBA and EMBA ancestry for South Asia. I guess this is why there's not much response of this thread by Sein or Alberto who usually have stuff to say on this, not much new we can say about it, though thanks for trying.

Folker said...

@Kurti
"A EHG+Iran_CHL with CHG like admixture is the theory that makes genetically as well archeologically/historically most sense."

In fact, no. Lazaridis et al (supp 7) explained that it was probably not backed archeologically. That's why they proposed something like 50% EHG + CHG 44% + 6% Iran_ChL.

Obviously, given than Khvalynsk already have some CHG component, prior to Yamna, aN EHG + Iran_ChL is obviously not historically coherent, if you postulate some kind of continuity in the Steppe.

By the way, Broushaki tested Iran_N in various populations, and Northern Europeans are lacking this amdixture, even if they have the higher level of Steppe admixture.

Therefore, it is very unlikely that Yamna did have a sizable Iran_ChL admixture (given that Lazaridis modelised Iran_ChL as 16/17% Iran_N).

Anshuman said...

@david well the only data that is of concern is The genetic make-up n dates.You said L M20,others theorised R1a.its essentially either or situation.if it's L M20 they simply can't make up any OIT.
Instead you have already rubished the paper based on the nationality of the Authors.

So there..classic case of hyperventilation and Racism .So there😉

Samuel Andrews said...

@Nirijhar007,

EEF admixture and R1a Z2124 in Andronovo doesn't exclude the possibility Indo Aryan is from the Steppe.

Arame, the Armenian who posts here, argues that Andronovo-Sintashta were Iranian speakers not Indo Aryan and that Indo Aryans were from a different Steppe culture.

That makes sense to me, R1a experts correct me if I'm wrong, because Iranian speakers carry the same type of R1a Z93 as Andronovo-Sintashta-Srubnaya-etc but Indo Aryans carry a different kind.

Davidski said...

@Anshuman

What does race have to do with it?

Indian population geneticists have by and large ruined their own reputation over the last 10-15 years.

Nothing to do with me. But I can see that you'd prefer if I hadn't noticed.

R1a out of India. Bahaha...

Anshuman said...

@David it's only about L M20..ur prophecy.. ☺

Davidski said...

@Anshuman

It wasn't a prophecy. That's why the post is called "rumors and leaks" not "rumors, leaks and prophecies".

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

Indo-Aryans are not from Kelteminar or any other pre-Andronovo culture. They are surely from Andronovo. Andronovo was huge and we have just samples from northeast Andronovo, where Indo-Aryans anyways never had any presence. We need early Andronovo samples from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. I am sure L657 will be sooner or later found in Andronovo if enough get tested

Anshuman said...

So it was just a Rumour started by you n your friends my friend?

Davidski said...

Yes, we made it all up. But by sheer coincidence we were right, as you might find out on Saturday when that abstract goes up.

Jijnasu said...

That sounds unfair. Not very different from the way OITist reject all the work by western indologists and linguists simply because a lot of it is crap particularly the work by older authors

Davidski said...

@Jijnasu

I guess we'll see whether I reject their work or not after I see it. But if I do reject it, I'll do so on solid grounds, and I'll explain my decision carefully here.

And no, I'm not being unfair. Population genetics papers coming out of India have largely been subpar and clearly biased, especially when it comes to Indo-Aryan and R1a origins. How can this not affect my expectations of this paper?

Nirjhar007 said...

David your eurocentrism is nauseating , that paper is authored by genuine and respected geneticists and archaeologists .


Anshuman,

I will not be surprised if L turns out , but it will not be the only thing that will come...

Davidski said...

I couldn't care less whether these geneticists and archaeologists are real, fake, respected or not.

All I care about is what the data really shows.

Aram said...

I would be surprised and shocked to learn that Indo Aryan L657 was present in Sintashta.

Imho Indo Aryans are not from Sintashta. The topology of Z94 do not favour such a option.

Most probably L657 was already in East Iran Afganistan when Andronovo formed. That is why Kassites had Aryan gods.

------


There is good reason for thinking that the Kassites were once neighbors of Indo-Europeans, in view of some affinities between their pantheon and the Indo-Aryan one (see Bloomfield, 1904; Balkan, 1986, p. 8; Eilers, 1957-58, p. 136 ad sūrya-). J. A. Brinkman (1976-80, p. 465a) and W. De Smet (1990, p. 11) point out that the earliest evidence for Kassites is from northern Babylonia and west of it, viz., the Middle Euphrates and Alalah VII (see Brinkman, 1976-80, p. 466b).

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kassites

Aram said...

Also it is possible that we will see BB scenario in late Harappa.

Two linguistic groups in one culture. So expectations to see R1a in Indus valley are realistic. But not 100% guaranteed.

Ultimate origin of Z94 could be in Abashevo but could be elsewhere. Dense sampling is needed in many cultures from India to East Europe.

Karl_K said...

@Jijnasu

"That sounds unfair. Not very different from the way OITist reject all the work by western indologists and linguists simply because a lot of it is crap particularly the work by older authors."

A lot of older work from many groups has not stood the test of time. For example, we know from many ancient DNA studies across Eurasia that you cannot predict the true history from only modern samples, or from only ancient mtDNA. That was not expected, but is obviously true. And because of the turnovers, we also need multiple timepoints. It has always been more complicated with more ancient data, never simpler.

So, when a group makes a simplistic model based on largely modern samples, for the population of a region that obviously had very major changes in the last 10,000 years, and shares ancestry with other widely dispersed populations, then we should predict that the actual history was complicated.

As of now, there is quite solid evidence for the spread of Indo-European languages and the associated genetics around Europe. And, the modern information from Asia and South Asia appear to complement this, if it is taken into account.

However, many still are excluding and dismissing this actual existing ancient DNA data based only on the fact that we do not have even more data from other times and locations.

That is not a scientific approach. You should take into account all available data, and not give equal weight to imaginary predictions.





Aram said...

And final note. Nirjhar's theory that Mitanni are not real Indo Aryans could be favoured by DNA.
At best they can be called para IA.

This 3500 year old R1a is good candidate to be Mitanni.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-F1345/

Jijnasu said...

@karl
I am not disputing any of this. Just Saying Davidski should wait for the abstract atleast before dismissing the the paper merely based on the nationality of its authors.

Karl_K said...

And please, nobody should start calling me a racist. I would be actually thrilled to see some major disruptions to the current dogma come out from new ancient DNA studies.

I just think that the data is too slow coming for that to be the case.

If they had solid data for something huge? It would be all over the news last year. Nobody would want to get scooped on a big story like that.

Nirjhar007 said...

It will come but what about the BB paper?. Karl , what happened?.

Nirjhar007 said...

And final note. Nirjhar's theory that Mitanni are not real Indo Aryans could be favoured by DNA.
At best they can be called para IA.

This 3500 year old R1a is good candidate to be Mitanni


Yes Aram , Mitanni were not Indo-Aryans but were a separate branch like the Nuristanis , an article on Mitanni is coming very soon . I will link.

Karl_K said...

@Nirjhar007

"what about the BB paper?"

I think in less than 2 weeks, when the actual scheduled public talks will begin.

But again with the BB, not really huge news for the general public. For those of us that care about the details, very interesting. For most people... quite boring, and too complicated.

Nirjhar007 said...

I am certain you are one of the authors then .

Karl_K said...

@Nirjhar007

This Beaker situation has already been known for decades:

'The reader will find it nearly impossible to grasp how they relate to regional cultural developments, for frequent allusions make it clear that Beakers were absorbed by local populations and adapted to suit local circumstances.'

'These are not "Bell Beaker" graves and settlements, but the graves and settlements of whatever local cultural group is involved, which happen to incorporate Beakers and Beaker influence to varying degrees.'

Rob said...

Karl, it's quite understandable IMO.
We just need some more before and afters then the typo-chronology can be matched to population genetics. They need to have asked archaeologists what to sample beforehand, I hope

Karl_K said...

@Rob

But you are an expert, with a deep interest and knowledge.

For the general public, the BB story will be complicated. First spread by mostly pots and few people, then later spread mostly by people.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Nirjhar

So what is the ''original' Turkic y-dna(s) which came from Central Asia?.

I assume you are asking what Y-DNAs Oghuz/Turkmans brought with them in their migrations from Central Asia to Anatolia. There is no way to be certain on the details of this issue based on modern DNA data, but we can at least be certain that they brought almost all of the East Eurasian Y-DNAs found in modern Turks of Turkey (N, C2, O and East Eurasian subclades of Q), and in addition to them, they must have brought some R1a (especially R1a-Z2124), some R1b (especially R1b-M73), some J2 (especially its Central Asian subclades) and likely some other West Eurasian Y-DNAs as well. We will only know the details of this issue when we have ancient Y-DNA data from Oghuz/Turkmans of the Oghuz Yabgu State or early Oghuz/Turkmans in Anatolia and environs (such as the ones buried in the 11th century Oghuz/Turkman graveyard in Oluz Hoyuk, Anatolia).

Davidski said...

I searched that Indian aDNA abstract body for a few key words.

These words are in the abstract.

Indus Valley - Yes
Mesolithic - Yes
migration - Yes
Neolithic - Yes

These are not.

Indo-European - No
R1a - No
Steppe - No
Z93 - No

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave is going nuts in fear .

Onur,

Thanks I think its generally a good summary you provided :) .

Davidski said...

Doesn't look like there will be much detail in that abstract; just probably a bit of background and broad conclusions.

R1a is not in the abstract, which is interesting, because it would be really big news if it was found in ancient Indus Valley remains.

Nirjhar007 said...

LOL . You have no clue..... hahahahahhaha

Davidski said...

About what, searching for words in abstract text? It's easy. Try it yourself.

Nirjhar007 said...

Abstracts are always like that . You are trying to make yourself comfortable please do so , I have no problems.

Gioiello said...

@ Onur Dincer

"some R1b (especially R1b-M73)"

In fact we know that R-M73 was brought to Central Asia and Turkish peoples from Yamnaya migration Eastward, in fact Asia and Eastern Europe have R-M73-M478 but onlyWestern Europe has the oldest R-M73*. Turks had also R-L23-CTS7763 from Yamnaya and rarely found amongst Turks migrated to Anatolia.
That's all. Demonstrate the other way around if you can!

postneo said...

Not correct both carry both

Gioiello said...

These are the two R-M73-M478 subclades of Eastern Europe and Asia

R-M478 Y13204 * Y13208 * Y13202+34 SNPs 11800 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 8600 5900 ybp" formed 13300 ybp, TMRCA 7200 ybp
R-M478*
R-Y14051 Y14051 * Y14062 * L1433+46 SNPs 5900 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 2200 900 ybp"formed 7200 ybp, TMRCA 1450 ybp
⦁ id:YF03179ВінницькаобластьUKR [UA-05]
⦁ id:YF03139
R-Y20747 Y20779 * Y20759 * Y20757+43 SNPs 5900 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 1550 600 ybp"formed 7200 ybp, TMRCA 1050 ybp
R-Y20747*
⦁ id:YF05962
R-Y22195 Y22195 * Y22196 600 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 1450 425 ybp" class="age"formed 1050 ybp, TMRCA 800 ybp
⦁ id:YF06175
⦁ id:YF02940

Wait that the Western European R-M73 is tested and submitted to YFull and you'll understand where it came from.

postneo said...

@sandrews
"R1a experts correct me if I'm wrong, because Iranian speakers carry the same type of R1a Z93 as Andronovo-Sintashta-Srubnaya-etc but Indo Aryans carry a different kind."

No expert but it's well known both Iran and India have both types of z93 and also in the Persian gulf Arabia Sri Lanka Bangladesh etc

Gioiello said...

@ postneo
"Not correct both carry both"

Were you saying to me? Thus explain, and I'll answer you too. I use data and science, not Mahabharata...

Karl_K said...

@Davidski

"R1a is not in the abstract, which is interesting"

Are you sure you spelled it correctly? Try again with the spell checker turned on.

postneo said...

@davidski
"
Indo-European - No
R1a - No
Steppe - No
Z93 - No
"

I greatly hope they don't talk about IE. That would be disgusting when the topic is on genetics. Why emulate stupidity.

postneo said...

No gio not for you I don't use Mahabharata or mein kampf

Karl_K said...

@postneo

But the Indo-European question is the main reason that most people care about these studies.

The genetics of modern South Asians is a known fact. The genetics of the ancient South Asians is also a fact, that will soon start to be illuminated.

The current variety of languages and cultures of the people living in this region is the exact reason why it is interesting to most people.

How did it get this way? That is the real question that people care about.

Karl_K said...

@postneo

And not only Indo-European, but all of the diverse language and religious and cultural groups are of interest. It is only that IE is a 'low-hanging fruit' that should be a relatively answerable question, due to the relationship with other cultures.

Gioiello said...


@ postneo

"No gio not for you I don't use Mahabharata or mein kampf"

I understood later that you were referring to other. I entered the discussion ex abrupto. But perhaps you are more "Aryan" than me...
No Mahabharata?
No Mein Kampf?
But you read some books too!

Karl_K said...

@Davidski / Gioiello

Is it too early to start nominations for dumbest comments of the year?

Gioiello said...

What has to do Karl-K with postneo? Perhaps they read the same books?

Karl_K said...

I read absolutely everything. It seems you only read your own ramblings! Slam! High-5 to myself!

Gioiello said...

But one thing is to read, and another to understand, and above all to believe to what is written. It didn't took well in the past, worst will be the future. Anyway we understood that postneo acts as your stooge...

Rob said...

@ Kurd

Thanks for your reply. I thought your results registering EEF in Armenia chalcolithic odd, becuase intuitively it should be specificaly Anatolian farmer they should have (along with CHG, Iran Neol, etc). But I got the same with PCA nMonte. I'm nost sure it's due to quality issues.
But when i foribly removed LBK or HungaryN from choice, sure enough ANF comes (as expected), but then EHG rises significantly. Given that i cant think of any migration from the LBK culture to Armenia just before 4000 BC, it must mean that an EHG-type population existed in the southern Caucasus, or there was structure, with some local groups even more WHG/WHG shifted than the current sample set of Kotias & Satsurblia (mediated by way of common black sea foraging networks). Maybe that's of relevance for some of the findings elsewhere, but more samples needed....

Karl_K said...

@Gioiello

Your comments are baffling.

I certainly have absolutely no stooginess connection to postneo, or anyone else here. And, I have no idea what you even mean. If I agree with anyone here on anything at all, it is because they happen to also agree with the conclusion I have come to, through my own devices.

velvetgunther said...

Searching for key terms in that abstract on ancient India which is not even uploaded yet is like playing a game of sleuth. Great way to spend the evening.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Gioiello

In fact we know that R-M73 was brought to Central Asia and Turkish peoples from Yamnaya migration Eastward, in fact Asia and Eastern Europe have R-M73-M478 but onlyWestern Europe has the oldest R-M73*. Turks had also R-L23-CTS7763 from Yamnaya and rarely found amongst Turks migrated to Anatolia.
That's all. Demonstrate the other way around if you can!


My comment to Nirjhar was not about so great time depths. He asked me what Y-DNAs Oghuz/Turkman nomads likely brought with them in their migrations to Anatolia 1000 to 800 years ago and I replied to him accordingly. I did not write anything contrary to your points.

Tesmos said...

''I think it's quite arbitrary to call pure Northern Low German a part of the German language family while Frisian and Dutch not. Because pure Northern Low German isn't really closer to Middle and Upper German dialects than Dutch and Frisian are, that's the point.
''


Like is said before, Low German is outdated as being the ancestor of languages like Dutch and Frisian. The relationships between Continental west Germanic languages are more complicated than previously thought. It's problematic to consider The Netherlands and Frisian as part of ''Greater Germany''.

Modern linguists consider Dutch, Frisan and Low German like this:

Istvaeonic>Old Frankish>Old Low Franconian>Early Middle Dutch> Late Middle Dutch> Early Modern Dutch> Dutch varieties

Ingvaeonic> Old Saxon> Middle Low German>Low German varieties

Ingvaeonic>Old Frisian>Middle Frisian>Anglo-Frisian>Frisian varieties


postneo said...

@kk

Sure but imagine if Europe and Asia disappeared could you piece together the trajectory of Spanish English Portuguese French from the scattered colonies in the americas, their relative sizes adjacency. Language is not a low hanging fruit. This is only a start. Tons of more sampling is needed before any language model finds favor.

The y DNA of a small IVC sample hether L, R, H whatever does not tell us anything about language

As for Gio ; all I can say is "the natives are restless".. He is frothing at the mouth even with a late Turkish migration

batman said...

Tesmos,

"The relationships between Continental west Germanic languages are more complicated than previously thought."

So is the relationship between the 'continental', western Germanic and Old English. The latter is obviously not a result of Anglo-Saxon, but an older relationship with the old, northern germanic.

http://anglistika.upol.cz/vikings2014/

batman said...

Samuel,

"Interesting factoid: In my data European data N1a1a only reachs above 1% in a few locatios..."

It seems mito-dna N1a - unlike y-dna N1c I refered to above - is an intresting marker during the mesolithic/nwolithic transition of south-central and aouth-east Europe - as well as Anatolia.

Haak et al (2005) found mito-N1a to peak at 25% along the Donau-cultures of ENE Europe - and used it as a key to interpret the genetic background of the present Europeans:

"The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. 

Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. 

We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type (N1a) and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of mtDNA N1a, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. 

Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans."

Gioiello said...

@ Onur Dincer

I apologize. I entered that discussion ex abrupto, whereas usually I read all the posts before, in fact my writings provoked another misunderstanding with others, but I know that you are a friend. It seems to me that one of these haplogroups was found in a tomb of the Gengys Khan clan. Anyway these two subclades of R-M73-M478, even though separated 7200 years ago, have very recent ancestors and may have come from everywhere, but at least for one subclade of R-M73-M478 (perhaps that with DYS390=19) and for R-CTS7763 to think to the Turkish world is reasonable.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Gioiello

No worries. BTW, that R1b-M73 from medieval Mongolia is probably not from the Genghis Khan clan but from another clan.

Gioiello said...

@ postneo
"As for Gio ; all I can say is "the natives are restless".. He is frothing at the mouth even with a late Turkish migration".

If you knew history, you would shut up. History: I mean Armenians, Kurds, actual war in Syria, and how much of Turkish at a genetic point of view Turks have. I said 5%, and very likely I am not so far from the truth.

velvetgunther said...

@Karl_k
I really didn't get what you were trying to say, but i hope you're enjoying the evening like I am. Cheers! :)

Jijnasu said...

@postneo
While the aDNA from the IVC can't tell us exactly what language its people spoke, if we failed to find r1a and they autosomally differed from modern residents of the region in lacking ancestry from a steppe-like population we can definitely rule out Indo-Aryan as a possibility

Samuel Andrews said...

I've been doing a lot of work on European mtDNA lately. And I just discovered a new type of U2 in Europe.

http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com/2017/05/new-u2-clade-found-in-europe.html

Only four examples exist: Two from Neolithic Hungary and two from modern Bulgaria.

No one has sequenced a full U2f mito genome so there's no way to know for sure how it relates to other forms of U2. Because it carries the 152C mutation I think it is a new clade of the U2c'd'e haplogroup.

If so U2f is a cousin of the two other West Eurasia U2 clades; U2e and U2d.

Kurti said...

@Folker

"in fact, no. Lazaridis et al (supp 7) explained that it was probably not backed archeologically. That's why they proposed something like 50% EHG + CHG 44% + 6% Iran_ChL. "

Folker Lazaridis never proposed something like that you mentioned above.

He proposed something like ~30% Iran_CHL with some CHG mixed with EHG. And yes he did say that this makes logically and historically sense because WE DO HAVE EVIDENCES of migration from the South into the Caucasus during the Ubaid period.

Kurti said...

Ok guys it seems we will not come on terms but don't say I didn't tell you if it comes out something like Iran_Armenia- or even Anatolian Chalcolthic contributed to Yamnaya.

Kurti said...

"in fact, no. Lazaridis et al (supp 7) explained that it was probably not backed archeologically. That's why they proposed something like 50% EHG + CHG 44% + 6% Iran_ChL. "

But even than that would actually include some Iran_CHL so my statement was not so wrong either way. Still I don't remember this figures all I remember are the figures I mentioned above and I remember Lazaridis using it as the most likely scenario.

Kurti said...

Blogger Aram said...

"And final note. Nirjhar's theory that Mitanni are not real Indo Aryans could be favoured by DNA.
At best they can be called para IA.

This 3500 year old R1a is good candidate to be Mitanni."

That is not a theory as I tried to explain years ago, that Mitanni are Indo_Aryans is a theory, a widespred theory but not the only theory. In fact it was my argument that Mitanni are not Indo_Aryans and the only reason some scientists assume they might have been Indo_Aryans is based on few words that resemble Indo_Aryan more than Iranic. And I already explained why this might and is probably the case. The reason is, that Indo_Aryan preserved it's archaic structure better while Iranic went through more loud changes.

This means, any archaic Indo_Iranian language will automatically lean more towards Indo_Aryan than Iranic, while in fact it could simply be (and in case of Mitanni is) a very archaic yet undivided Indo_Iranian language. And this is another big theory among scientists which I agree on.

Mitanni = Archaic Indo_Iranian that has not yet split into the Iranic and Indo Aryan branches.

Arza said...


Lipson (2017)
Bla16 Blätterhöhle Cave R1b1 U5b2a2

Malyarchuk (2010)
The most ancient identified subhaplogroup, U5b2, requires further phylogeographic studies. However the data presented here allow us to suggest that at least subcluster U5b2a is characterized by a predominantly central European distribution, since a large number of U5b samples from Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic fall into this subcluster. For instance, subcluster U5b2a2 is frequent in central Europe (with the highest frequency of its subcluster U5b2a2a1 in Poles) and dated as arising between 12–18 kya, depending on the mutation rate used.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/12/ancient-genomes-from-ireland-point-to.html?showComment=1451413577407#c5358889650728294378
Kristiina said...
Among the three Bronze Age haplogroups, U5b2a2 (Rathlin2) is originally clearly Mesolithic European haplogroup and has been found in the following contexts: Blätterhöhle [BLA 6] U5b2a2 (8796 BC!), Schöningen Neolithic Salzmünde Germany U5b2a2c, Baalberge Middle Neolithic Quedlinburg VII Germany U5b2a2, Farmer Middle Neolithic Blätterhöhle Germany U5b2a2 x2, Fisher-gatherer Middle Neolithic Blätterhöhle Germany U5b2a2, Farmer Middle Neolithic Blätterhöhle Germany U5b2a5.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/u-5b/about/results
U5b2a2 (11,000 ybp) has 38 samples and is more frequent in central Europe (5 Germany, 4 Poland, 3 UK, 2 Netherlands, and 1 each Italy, Czech, Finland, Belarus, and 20 unspecified), and the lack of U5b2a2 in Russia might suggest an ice age refuge for U5b2a in Italy.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U5_mtDNA.shtml
Several U5 subclades other than U5a1a have been found in Central Asia, including U5a2a, U5b1c2, and U5b2a (U5b2a1, U5b2a2, U5b2a4 and U5b2a5). Although these were probably brought by the Indo-Europeans, it remains unclear whether they are linked to R1a or R1b people.


Interesting... not only in the context of upcoming publication, but also medieval Slavic migrations.

Arza said...


Cassidy (2015, SI Appendix)
Of all Neolithic samples tested, Rathlin2 shares it's highest affinity
with Cardial_EN, Rathlin3 with Spanish_MN, and Rathlin1 with the Scandinavian Middle Neolithic
Gok2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardium_pottery
Impressed ware is found in the zone "covering Italy to the Ligurian coast" as distinct from the more western Cardial extending from Provence to western Portugal.


Even more interesting.

aniasi said...

Mitanni is clearly Indo-Aryan. This is not a matter of 'leaning' to Indo-Aryan, but being very clearly Indo-Aryan. They are not preserving some pre-divided language with archaic features. The language is not perfectly attested, because the words are written in an unadopted script by Hurrian speakers, but even then it is clearly in no way a Western Iranian language.

Their pantheon is clearly Indo-Iranian, as are their names. Look at Tushratta/Dashratha, Indara/Indra, Intaruda/Indrauta, Nasatya, and Varuna. There is no attestation of some of these forms of worship in Iranian, and Andra is not likely Indra, missing several of his characteristics.

This is further supported by an Indo-Aryan substratum in Indo-Iranian, evidenced by s-sounds that should have otherwise been h-sounds due to the Iranian sound shift.

Folker said...

@Tesmos
I grant you that in linguistic, Low German means nowadays Low Saxon.
Nevertheless, saying that Low Frankish (with Dutch and Flemish) and Fisian must not be considered as part of a Great Germany is absurd. Not only because it's History, but also because all these languages are still spoken in Germany today, even in a form of dialects.

@Kurti
You should read the supplements:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/extref/nature19310-s4.pdf

Not exactly what I have in my mind (perhaps because of the preprint?), but
"In Table S7.12 we see that when the southern population is CHG, several statistics are underestimated
in the sense that the actual Steppe_EMBA shares more genetic drift with populations like Anatolia_N
(Z=-3.3) than predicted by the fitted model of 0.458EHG+0.542CHG (Table S7.11). While no such
extreme outlier is observed when the southern population is Iran_ChL, we nonetheless noticed that the
opposite trend applies for Iran_ChL: differences between Fitted and actual Steppe_EMBA tend to be
positive.
This led us to try one last model in which we model Steppe_EMBA as a 3-way mix of EHG, CHG,
and Iran_ChL. The P-value for rank=2 is 0.241, so 3 streams of ancestry are consistent with the
quadruple (Steppe_EMBA, EHG, CHG, Iran_ChL) and the fitted mixture proportions are 52.7±2.0%
EHG, 18.1±7.4% CHG, 29.2±5.9% Iran_ChL. We do not want to overemphasize this 3-way mixture
model as the 2-way one is more parsimonious and consistent with the data (Table S7.11). Nonetheless
the 3-way model is also plausible as it suggests an explanation for the shared genetic drift between
Steppe_EMBA and the Anatolian and Levantine Neolithic (underestimated when CHG alone is the
southern population; Table S7.12), and makes geographical sense as admixture from the Near East could have arrived on the steppe via the Caucasian isthmus where an addition of CHG ancestry could
have occurred."

Please note, that the difficulties were about a drift toward Anatolian_N, that Iran_ChL is modelised as CHG (70%) + Levant_N + Iran_N and that uniparental markers are not in favor of an Iran_ChL admixture in Steppe_EMBA. Moreover, and again, Northern Europeans don't have a Iran_N or Levant_N above statistical noise, which is not the case for Southern Europeans, even if Northern Europeans have more Steppe_EMBA than Southern Europeans.

So, if you take into consideration the fact that previous Steppe populations like the Khvalynsk did have already CHG 4000 BC, it means that chronology is not backing a 2 ways admixture, but rather a 3 ways, or a 4 ways admixture, with only limited amount of Iran_N and Levant_N as they are not detectable in the most Steppe EMBA admixed aka Northern Europeans. That is the most parsimonious solution, as, as you pointed yourself, no population remained "pure" at this time.

That's why, any noticeable migration from South Caucasus into the Steppe to form Steppe_EMBA is very unlikely.

postneo said...

@jijnyasu
Not finding steppe in ivc would not rule out IA unless you made an a priori assumption that only steppe can be IE. If you already make such an assumption then there's is no point looking at anything or any discussion

postneo said...

The convergence of data should point to the steppe not an assumption

Kurti said...

@aniasi
"Mitanni is clearly Indo-Aryan. This is not a matter of 'leaning' to Indo-Aryan, but being very clearly Indo-Aryan. They are not preserving some pre-divided language with archaic features. The language is not perfectly attested, because the words are written in an unadopted script by Hurrian speakers, but even then it is clearly in no way a Western Iranian language."

Stop building strawmans. No one said they were West Iranic speakers

Since you are so sure and already include Mitanni among Indo_Aryans you must be miles ahead of any reliable linguist and historians, who still can't agree on that matter, and collected evidences no one has yet seen.

The Indo_Aryan-ness of Mitannis is not crystal clear, contrary it is still a huge debate. And yes the archaic-ness of Indo_Aryan does play a role in archaic Indo_Iranian languages appearing closer to Indo_aryan. Not only that as I mentioned in a post on some other topic. Indo_Aryans preserved much more deities which been almost forgotten among many Iranic speakers due to Zoroastrianism that spred fast. Among these Deitis are such as Mithra, Varuna which however are well attested among the Northwest Iranic tribes.

"The ethnicity of the people of Mitanni is difficult to ascertain. A treatise on the training of chariot horses by Kikkuli contains a number of Indo-Aryan glosses.[9] Kammenhuber (1968) suggested that this vocabulary was derived from the still undivided Indo-Iranian language,[9][10] but Mayrhofer (1974) has shown that specifically Indo-Aryan features are present.[11]"

As explained above Mitanni showing specifically Indo_Aryan features would be absolutely expectable if it is an undivided Indo_Iranian group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni

Doesn't seem so clear as you claim now does it?

Kurti said...

"his is further supported by an Indo-Aryan substratum in Indo-Iranian, evidenced by s-sounds that should have otherwise been h-sounds due to the Iranian sound shift."

As I wrote above it seems like either we have a misunderstanding here or you are building a strawman. No one expects an undivided Indo_Iranian language to be closer to Iranic and no one said Mitanni was Iranic. for example many proto Indo_Iranian K sounds turn into H in early Iranic and later to X. Indo_Aryan however preserved the K sounds. Hope that makes my point clear. A undivided Indo_Iranian language will naturally appear closer to Indo_Aryan. And deities such as Andra, Mithra, Varuna are expected to be proto Indo_Iranian deities however Andra (or Indra) is not known from Iranic tribes at least not attested (still possible since many deities have been forgotten over time, but unlikely), therefore Iranic seems little unlikely however undivided Indo_Iranic does.

Jijnasu said...

@kurti
Which iranic tribe worships varuna please give a link. Indra, rudra/sarva and the ashvins/nasatya have been demonised in the avesta as daevas. Mittani has some decidedly IA characteristics for example aika instead of the expected PII aiva. However given the limited corpus there is still a chance for doubt

Kurti said...


I have mentioned at least a dozen times here on this board, that Zarathustra with the rise of his own religion and Ahura Mazda as the highest deity demonized all the other Iranic deities and therefore many of them were pushed into the background over the time.

In fact just a few comments ago I mentioned that this happened with the rise of Zoroastrianism. If some people are not going to read my comments than please stop addressing me because honestly I feel no desire repeating the same things over and over again.

The issue is related to the question of how Zoroaster's own contribution to Iranian religion might be defined. In the older early/mid 20th-century view (so-called reform hypothesis), in which Zoroaster was perceived to be a revolutionary reformer, it was assumed that the daevas must have been the "national" gods (see comparison with Indic usage, below) of pre-Zoroastrian Iran, which Zoroaster had then rejected.[2] In this scenario, the "rejection of the [daevas] is linked to Zoroaster's reform"[3] and Gershevitch[4] and others following Lommel[5] consider the progression from "national" gods to demons to be attributable to the "genius of Zoroaster."[1]

In the Gathas, the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and credited to Zoroaster himself, the daevas are not yet the demons that they would become in later Zoroastrianism; though their rejection is notable in the Gathas themselves. The Gathas speak of the daevas as a group, and do not mention individual daevas by name. In these ancient texts, the term daevas (also spelled 'daēuuas') occurs 19 times; wherein daevas are a distinct category of "quite genuine gods, who had, however, been rejected."[2] In Yasna 32.3 and 46.1, the daevas are still worshipped by the Iranian peoples. Yasna 32.8 notes that some of the followers of Zoroaster had previously been followers of the daevas; though, the daevas are clearly identified with evil (e.g., Yasna 32.5)."

1. Demonizing something doesn't mean it didn't exist contrary it is an evidence of it's existence.

2. The West Iranic let alone Proto Iranic ethnogenesis doesn't start with the Avesta.

Mithra as example was demonized in the Avesta so was Varuna etc but they were still worshipped even after Zoroastrianism established itself. In fact the figure of Mithra was still so strong up until the Middle Iranic period that the Sassanids put Mithra next to Ahura Mazda as the highest deity to get the Mithraistic Parthians on board and unite the Iranic tribes on the Plateau.


There are the statues of deities on Mount Nemrut which date back to the Medic period. They represent Mazda, Vahagn, Anahita and Mithra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Nemrut

Than we have Varuna being mentioned in the Avesta with Mithra as one of the highest deities and the deity of the truth, despite being considered as a daeva (false deity).

"The mountain lies 40 km (25 mi) north of Kahta, near Adıyaman. In 62 BC, King Antiochus I Theos of Commagene built on the mountain top a tomb-sanctuary flanked by huge statues 8–9-metre-high (26–30 ft) of himself, two lions, two eagles and various Greek, Armenian, and Medes gods, such as Zeus-Aramazd or Oromasdes (associated with Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda), Hercules-Vahagn, Tyche-Bakht, and Apollo-Mihr-Mithras. These statues were once seated, with names of each god inscribed on them. The heads of the statues have at some stage been removed from their bodies, and they are now scattered throughout the site."

I shared all these informations already in the past and you could get access to them just by googling it. However this all is not even important for my argument since I clearly wrote, Mitanni is most likely proto Indo_Iranian not Iranic. So please no Strawmens next time I will not bother to even answer them.

Gioiello said...

@ Arza

Thanks!

batman said...

Folker,

At times it may be highly beneficial to read to reflect, rather than read to react. Tesmos is obviously well versed in these issues.

batman said...

Tesmos,

"Modern linguists consider Dutch, Frisan and Low German like this:

Istvaeonic>Old Frankish>Old Low Franconian>Early Middle Dutch> Late Middle Dutch> Early Modern Dutch> Dutch varieties
Ingvaeonic> Old Saxon> Middle Low German>Low German varieties
Ingvaeonic>Old Frisian>Middle Frisian>Anglo-Frisian>Frisian varieties"

Add the north-western (old norwegian/peninsular/brytonic) and the north-eastern branches (swedish/fenno-swedish) and there's clear indications of where the roots of the larger germanic "sprachbund" were grown.

The term "Ingauones" borrowed from Tacitus may be a relevant term for the south-western line of "proto-Germanic", by some of Grimms collegues called "gottonic".

The reason for the gottonic term is that the old Ostro-gothic and Visi-gothic is clearly "germanic" - basically. same lingustical and geographical origins. Though it's clear that the ostro-goths came to absorb vocalubary the wends with some FU substrates.

The ostrogothic used in Wulfillas bibel (ca. 330 AD) the combination of 'gottonic' and 'wendic' is obvious. The geografic extension of the Ostro-goths/Samo-getic during Roman would follow Vistula-Bug as well as Dvina-Djepr to the Black sea - where the iron-clad goths allied with the indigenous Vends (Vans/Ouans/Huns) and 'Piceni' to resist the Roman agressions.

The gothic influence - from Scandinavia to Crimea - is today clearified by archaeology - which is the land between these river-routes is called "the Gothic Corridor" - refering to the five first centuries after Teutonerburgerwald and Pax Romana.

Between wars the Ostro-gothic became tradepartners with the (post-schytian) Bulgars as well as Konstantinopel. Consequently a new, common "lingua franca" occured in the eastern hemisphere (too), which seems to explain the formation of the 'slavonic'.

A mix similar to Wulfillas ostrogothic is found in the old Frisian dialect - combining Germanic and Wendic (FU). This is absent in the old English (Anglo-Saxon) lawtexts of the 6th century. Which is why we can deduct that there's a pre-roman branching between old Saxon (german) and the old Frisian.

Their common 'proto-language' is obviously close to the language of the "Ingavuones". Which, according ot Tacitus, were close to the "Sueones/Suevi" - who he placed to the north-east of 'Germania' - along the Oder, in front of the "Suevian Sea" - today called the Pommerian Bay. Further he places their mainland and their royal seat "north in the sea", commonly perceived to be Sweden.

Thus we can link the old Danish agriculture directly to the old Saxons/German agriculture, different from an north-eastern branch - that developed into the present Swedish, Gothic and Fenno-Swedish. The specific steps developing the phonetic magnitude of Fenno-Scandia is still not clearified - but its age is confirmed by the fact that the old Orkney/Scottish/Brytonic, besides the lateer Icelandic (the "frisian" of the north) all evolved from the old west-german of West-Goths and Norwegians.

Thanks to modern genetics it seems clear that the Fenno-Scandian penninsula never experienced any language-shift due to immigrational issues. Which lends credence to the old perception of a post-glacial continuation. Implying that the Germanic language-family was a result of paleolithic/mesolithic origins. Based on archaeology a similar, mesoltihic origin have been suggested for the FU language of Finland and Carelia (Nunez 1987).

Duely its been suggested that a "german urheimat" would "have to be" the area where the Baltic Ocean meets the North Sea and the Atlantic facade. In controverse with a gross theos from the 20th century scholars of course. So far, though, the older perception is (still) in the better concordance with a steadily growing body of new facts...

Nirjhar007 said...

As I said Kurti,Jinasu and others, a fine article on Mitanni issue is coming up real soon , you will find it quite revealing .

Folker said...

@Batman

So I am. I am no linguist, but I know enough about Dutch or German languages, and the History of the said region, to assure you that if linguistically Low Frankish and Low Saxon are not anymore considered to hhave originated from the same common language, it's absolutly ridiculous to say that Low Frankish must considered outside studies about Greater Germany.
Just to explain it to you, a map of German dialects before WW I:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DW2D0K/historical-map-of-german-dialects-germany-1894-DW2D0K.jpg
And the kingdom of Germany, with the 5/6 Stem Duchies:
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/962germa.jpg

You can see that both maps are including large parts of Dutch speaking regions. It's peculiarly absurd to consider that High Frankish (Franconian) must be included in a Great Germany, but not Low Frankish, even if this is the dialect of some part of the Bundesrepublik.

Arza said...

@ Batman
Consequently a new, common "lingua franca" occured in the eastern hemisphere (too), which seems to explain the formation of the 'slavonic'.

Rubbish.

batman said...

Arza,

My english isn't what it used to be. I meant "slavic" of course, not the 'slavonic' dialect of the slavic languages, specifically.

As you may know, the first clear-cut trace of A slavic language ('proto-slavic') is attestested first by the 5th century AD. Which corresponds to the new organisations made after the fall of Rome, when the first franco-roman mixes were standarized into a lingua Franca.

Anthro Survey said...

@Onur Dinçer

Btw, I really hope the girl's skeletal remains have not been contaminated! Would be a huge bummer for the archeogenetics community.

Indeed, that theory makes a whole lot of sense and seems to be well-grounded historically. Now that I've thought about it, from the corner of my mind I remembered an article I've encountered once and it essentially delineated what you've generously outlined.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/the-epic-story-of-how-the-turks-migrated-from-central-asia-to-turkey/

I also believe that the Mongol-triggered migrations cannot be understated either and there appears to be a wealth of material as well as textual evidence supporting this. Moreover, those migrations would better explain the rather elevated East Eurasian ancestry that deep inside Ege region and not merely on the peripheries of what was then the Sultanate of Rum. From what I understand, the main sources of those Westward migrations were the following: from the Mugan plain/Arran, from Greater Khorasan/Transoxania, and that of Turkomans from more centrally positioned regions of Anatolia. In fact, Ottoman tradition holds that the founders of the house of Osman hailed from either Marv region or from Arran/Mugan.

So, yeah, the verdict one is forced to come away with is.....both.

The Mongol invasions also triggered another exodus following their devastation of the Khwarezmid Shahdom. These, however, were of a different nature as the refugees were not pastoral Turkic nomads, but sedentary Farsi speakers of Iranic origin collectively referred to as Tājīks in Oriental studies. The other crucial difference was the predominantly elite status of these refugees: illiterate commoners sucked it up. The majority of them trekked across the Khyber into (Muslim) India into centers like Delhi where they were embraced and patronized by the ruling establishment. Others trekked westward into Anatolian cities with Mowlana(from Balkh) himself being the most famous example. There was a strong Sufi element, oddly enough, among them. Given their elite status, I don't believe they made any significant demographic contribution to Anatolia. Yet, their immense influence surely cemented its place in the Farsi-esque Muslim world.

But, if we're ever lucky enough to come across their remains, a relatively higher Iran_Neo and steppe ancestry would be their signature.

ak2014b said...

@jv

Yamnaya & the Veda. This Yamnaya male was MtDNA H6a1b. http://archive.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html


I don't think cudgels are IE specific as ancient Elamites had cudgels too.

I can't find mtDNA H6a1b in the following papers on modern mtDNA from Iran to South Asia.

However, in Derenko et al 2013's Iran mtDNA, there's a H6a1a* in a Gilak sample from Mazandaran in northern Iran. It's the only H6 in over 350 Iranian samples of the paper.

In Farjadian et al 2011's 718 samples from 14 ethnic groups of Iran, there's H6 at 1.6% among Baloch (1 sample out of 61 Balochs) and 1.8% among Turkmen (1 sample of 55).

There is no H6 in Schönberg et al 2011 on Caucasus and West Asian mtDNA. Sampled were Georgians, Armenians, Azeri, Turks and Iranians. Total number of samples was 147.

From 6 papers on Pakistan modern mtDNA (Saraiki, Makrani, Sindh, and 3 papers on Pashtuns), a total of 795 samples, there's 2 instances of H6, both in Pathans.

From the Palanichamy et al 2015 paper on west-Eurasian mtDNA in modern India and Bangladesh, there are 3 samples under H6 out of a total of 14,198. All three instances are in the form of H6a1a, and all three occur in samples from south India and are labelled as Dravidian by language. Two of these are labelled as Middle-Caste and one as Muslim.

In summary, 3 samples under H6 in Iran out of 1217 West Asian and Caucasus samples, one of which was H6a1a*. 2 samples of H6 in Pathans out of 795 Pakistan samples. And 3 samples of H6a1a in southern India out of 14198 Indian and Bangladesh samples. That's all the H6 I can find among the samples in these regions.

It would be interesting to compare all the steppe mtDNA against modern mtDNA from west Asia through to south Asia. Since H2a1a is not all that common in those parts, and H6a1b seems even less common there (if present at all), I think that could be some minor indication that it may have been limited to a male mediated migration from the steppe.

In compiling the above, I've now noticed I'd overlooked some instances of H2 in west and south central Asia, and have to correct a comment I made at an earlier blog item here, if I can find it again.

ak2014b said...

@Derek

David Anthony on the supposed Potapovka horse head burial:

"A horse sacrifice above the Potapovka grave is dated by sample AA 47802 to about 1900-1800 BCE. Although they were almost a thousand years apart, they looked, on excavation, like they were deposited together, with the Potavoka horse skull lying about the shoulders of the decapitated Poltavka human. Before dates were obtained on both the horse and skeleton this deposit was interpreted as a "centaur"-a decapitated human with his head replaced by the head of a horse, an important combination in Indo-Iranian mythology. But Nerissa Russell and Eileen Murphy found that both the horse and the human were female, and the dates show they were buried a thousand years apart."


I had to look this up to understand the relevance of your comment. It took me that long to finally work out that it was connected to David's link to an older write up. So Anthony had concluded a steppe burial as having a striking resemblance to some episode from the Rig Veda, but then the burial turned out to consist of mixed up archeological layers from very different time periods, and now it no longer has any connection to the Rig Veda.

I could only find Anthony's correction in a footnote. It may explain why his correction, despite being several years old now, remains less familiar to the public than the original mistaken conclusion that he and his colleagues drew. Was he more enthusiastic in informing the public about his original conclusion, since it continues to be so popular? But then, I don't understand why he doesn't correct it with the same enthusiasm. If it wasn't for Derek's unassuming comment (thought its immediate relevance was unclear), we'd all have remained convinced that the older, wrong conclusion was still in effect.

As an aside, if it was some Asian or other researchers who made a gaffe like this, I think it's safe to say it would be widely discussed as a deliberate attempt at deceiving the public to promote a pet theory, or for some other agenda, and would be held against future researchers from that nation forever.

Onur Dinçer said...

@Anthro Survey

I agree with all your points about history and genetics in your reply to me. Some months ago I read the thediplomat.com article you linked, I do not find anything to object to in that article either. I should add that the Mongolian-triggered Oghuz/Turkman immigrants to (western) Anatolia had come to their "source" regions in Khwarezm, the Greater Khorasan, Azarbaijan, northern Mesopotamia, northern Syria, Arran, Armenia and central-eastern Anatolia from the Oghuz Yabgu State lands in the Aral steppe region of what is now Kazakhstan with the Seljuk-driven migrations of the 11th and 12th centuries and had had a bad relationship with the local populations in the regions they had occupied and, because of the Islamic prohibition on enslaving Muslims, could not have enslaved the Muslim populations (Iranics and Arabs) later to assimilate and mix with them, they could have done that only to the non-Muslim populations (Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians) as Islam permits and even encourages enslaving non-Muslims (later to assimilate and make them Muslims). Ottomans wrote in their histories that the ultimate source of their migration to Anatolia was Turkistan (also spelled "Turkestan"). Turkistan during those centuries denoted only the steppe pasts of Central Asia (mainly what is now Kazakhstan).

By the way, the skeletons in the Oluz Höyük Oghuz/Turkman cemetery in Anatolia are only about 1000 years old. So we should not expect any morphological contamination and much genetic contamination in them. Geneticists who do sequencing on ancient remains should not have difficulty in sequencing them. And experts who do craionfacial reconstruction can do such reconstructions on them with no difficulty as can be seen from the reconstrcuted girl face.

http://www.izafet.net/attachments/lh302-jpg.50897/

http://www.ntv.com.tr/galeri/sanat/anadoluda-oncu-turklerin-ilk-izleri,a1iG0IWkBEOuJioM9S871w/1mPCuMq3uEa0dkWMQCD7Jw