search this blog

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Indian confirmation bias


In a largely fact free but obfuscation rich comment piece at The Hindu, Indian scientists Gyaneshwer Chaubey and Kumarasamy Thangaraj ask whether it's too early to settle the Aryan migration debate. See here.

No, it's not too early. It's game over chaps, and has been for a while.

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in Eastern European remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from Eastern European hunter-gatherers (or EHG) and totally lacking any sort of South Asian admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, South Asians, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from EHG.

The conclusion from this data is self-evident: during the Bronze Age R1a-Z645 became a very important Y-chromosome lineage in Europe and quickly moved to South Asia, in all likelihood on the back of the Indo-European expansion. Yet, in spite of this, Gyaneshwer and Kumarasamy make the following claim in their article.

Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data).

Potentially powerful stuff, you might say. But hang on, what are Gyaneshwer and Kumarasamy seeing in their data that could possibly reverse the current reality about R1a? Did they find R1a in South Asian remains from the Mesolithic and Neolithic? Or perhaps they've uncovered South Asian Bronze Age remains that belong to R1a-Z645 and lack any signals of ancestry from Eastern Europe?

This is impossible. The ancient DNA from Eastern Europe says so. That's because pre-Indo-European Eastern Europe and South Asia were not the same world; they were world's apart. Thus, you will never read anything like this, no matter how much ancient DNA from South Asia is sequenced:

During the past couple of years ancient DNA has revealed the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a in South Asian remains dated to the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Moreover, the Bronze Age remains, packed in ancestry derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers, and totally lacking any sort of European admixture, belong to R1a-Z645, which is the ancestral clade of by far the most common types of R1a in Europe and South Asia today: R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93, respectively. And on top of that, Europeans, especially those speaking Indo-European languages, show significant admixture derived from South Asian hunter-gatherers.

See also...

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

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

166 comments:

blogspot said...

Out of India is a absurd leftover from the racist 19ths century, and serves the racist agenda of contemporary hindi nationalists and some white useful idiots. There are 3 or even more language families represented in India what is impossible if such an aggressive ethnos originated there.

Al Bundy said...

What do you think we can expect from Reich and the other paper,according to AJ coming out in September or October?If it was an invasion or migration presumably.

Davidski said...

I expect the Harvard paper to be very diplomatic, because that's how they work. However, I also expect the data to suggest very strongly that it was an invasion.

I expect the Indian paper to be a desperate exercise in damage control.

Al Bundy said...

You'll be looking at the data and not the spin.

Davidski said...

The spin in the Indian paper is sure to be very entertaining and definitely worth looking at over a few beers. But then I'll get down to business and check out the data.

epoch2013 said...

@Davidski

The authors don't explain what they have but I suspect from the tone of the article that it will be about present day Indian R1a, and diversity.

Jaydeep said...

Davidski,

You should be the last person in the world accusing someone else of bias. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

It is a testament to your own hypocrisy and double standards that you think that without any aDNA from South Asia at all and without adequate sampling from modern populations of South Asia, representing 1.5 billion of the world population, the issue of Bronze Age migrations into South Asia is already settled. You are entitled to believe whatever rubbish you want to, but when respected geneticists talk of some sobriety in drawing conclusions, the least you can say is "fair enough". But it is a little too much to expect from you.

The one good thing you did was to highlight the part of the article about the unpublished samples. Let us see what it reveals when it is published.

Nirjhar007 said...

Moreover, there is evidence which is consistent with the early presence of several R1a branches in India (our unpublished data)..

uh oh....

Davidski said...

The authors don't explain what they have but I suspect from the tone of the article that it will be about present day Indian R1a, and diversity.

Yep.

Salden said...

Tell me how an environment like India could have evolved individuals seen in the more northern areas while also accounting for the browner ones (being much lighter skinned, at least). You Indian Nationalists accept evolution is a thing, don't you?

Jaydeep said...

Have you been to India or Pakistan ? Have you visited the northern areas of these two nations or Afghanistan ? For your info, the Himalayas straddle the northern boundary of South Asia. Those northern regions get very cold and murky for most of the year. So people do not need to come from the steppe in order to be fair-skinned. Come up with some good argument before calling others names.

Davidski said...

By the way, Chaubey can't even tell the difference between ANI and ANE.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/comic-relief.html

This is what we're dealing with here. But apparently according to Jaydeep that's a respected geneticist, so there you go.

Davidski said...

@Jaydeep

Come up with some good argument before calling others names.

Still waiting for your good argument. Have you found one yet? Let's hear it.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

"By the way, Chaubey can't even tell the difference between ANI and ANE."

What do you think ANI will turn out to be? EHG? Lol lool

The South Asian pseudo steppe Yamnaya affinity is going to resolve into things you won't like.

Davidski said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

South Asians don't have pseudo steppe Yamnaya affinity you total moron.

They have real admixture from Bronze Age Eastern Europe, and that's why they also carry Z93.

Obviously ANI is a mixture of Neolithic Iranian and Bronze Age Eastern European ancestries.

akhil misra said...

Well the blogger is too opinionated. He has no galls to deal with limited,skewed and unrepresentative data set argument of G Chaubey. I don't know the bloggers credentials. Perhaps refeshing Statistical and Mathematical modelling and methodology would do wonders to his genetic argument made here. In science one has to be open to ideas. Some hypothesis which were thought to be right proved wrong over time.Even Eisenstein General theory of relativity needs improvement. Intellectual modesty becomes people generally.

Davidski said...

@akhil misra

Perhaps refeshing Statistical and Mathematical modelling and methodology would do wonders to his genetic argument made here.

But why? Unlike you I don't need to obfuscate. My arguments are simple and strong.

Do you have any coherent counter argument to what I said in my blog post? Anything at all?

Acharya Agnimitra said...

So you refuse to entertain a deep presence of ANE in SA. Instead, whatever there is came down from a bunch of castaway outliers in Poltavka who brought only z93 out of a myriad Steppe lineages but no EEF, astronomical turnover but no trail, complete language shift but with a very contrary literature.

Your solution? An elite group of EEF oozing Ukrainians imposed themselves on the isolated, Yamnaya-like Indo-Iranian throwaways of Poltavka. They somehow warped across to the Indus Valley. Not satisfied with this, you propose an invasion no less. Magic. Pooof.

I'm sorry Dave,though your prowess at Genetic Fantasy fiction is great indeed, you dont seem to understand the basic things about PIE. It was not a Pan Steppe empire of scheming, agenda driven tribes stretching from Europe to the corners of Siberia. It was a compact, contiguous, geographically limited archeological complex with enough internal contacts which can explain the distribution of isoglosses. And this is what the isoglosses say Dave- The indo Iranians were the last two tribes remaining in the homeland even after the Httites, Tocharians,Germanic, Italo Celtic, Balto Slavic and Greek branches had left. The last two. Infact Avestan does not share a single theonym with any branch except Vedic.

Get this into your head. PIE is where the Indo-Iranians were last seen together before they too split up. You sure as hell wont accept Poltavka as PIE would you? So keep these facts in mind before you construct more utter rubbish models. A fallacy oft too repeated by many- Do not clothe language models on a single skeleton.

There is nothing obvious about your equation at this point. Components are usually named after the place they are first sampled and not based on any positive certainty about their actual extent.As more and more localities are sampled, they may seem meaningless.

A scientist involved in the study had just said that aDNA has revealed R1a and that it is very old in SA. He has also said "Currently, CSIR-CCMB and Harvard Medical School are investigating a larger number of samples, which will hopefully throw more light on this debate" Clearly, it is not a secret to the larger community involved and they are working on it. The Harvard folks have been dropping crumbs now and then ,openly disavowing the current Kurgan model and even explicitly saying there are contradictions from India.

So accept the new facts, incorporate them into what we already know and MOVE ON. Remember when you once refused to even hypothetically consider Harappan R1a? Yeah, well, the last laugh is not yours.

Pr V said...

you don't need to have steppe ancestry to be lighter skinned. Iranian neolithic farmers were lighter skinned which is what northern indians mostly are anyway.

Davidski said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

So you refuse to entertain a deep presence of ANE in SA.

I refuse to ignore the evidence, which shows that both EHG and R1a and native to Eastern Europe, and Eastern Europeans and South Asians share a Bronze Age R1a clade.

So obviously there was a migration from Eastern Europe to South Asia during the Bronze Age that brought both EHG and R1a to South Asia.

Do you have a coherent argument against this or not?

Jijnasu said...

The the derived allaele for SLC24A5 has in fact undergone selection within Indian populations and its frequency with many populations is greater than the their expected ANI derived ancestry percentage

Roy King said...

If R1a-M417 were found in the Indus Valley Civilization or earlier then game over. If R1a-M417 were not found in IVC then game over. At this point I'm sure that Thangaraj and Reich know the aDNA results.

epoch2013 said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

"The Harvard folks have been dropping crumbs now and then ,openly disavowing the current Kurgan model and even explicitly saying there are contradictions from India."

Do you have a source for that, with an exact quote and context? And a link?

Davidski said...

@Roy

If R1a-M417 were found in the Indus Valley Civilization or earlier then game over.

But what if it's a minority lineage in late IVC, just before its collapse? Then game over for what?

And R1a is not the only argument. There's also the EHG argument: native to Eastern Europe and intrusive to India.

Unless of course you're suggesting the impossible, that EHG and R1a were native to both Eastern Europe and India. What are the chances of that? Can you give me a rough percentage?

Santosh Rajan said...

I am Indian, not an expert on this subject, and usually don't comment on this subject, though I have been reading Dienekes, Razib Khan, Davidski for years because I have an amateur interest in this subject.

I think @Davidski has a very coherent, logical argument on this subject. I can see clear as daylight that Indo-Europeans originated from the Pontic steppe.

I don't understand why my fellow Indian's above cannot see the 'logic'. And nor do they have a logical counter argument.

This is sad.

Davidski said...

@Roy

The above mentioned percentage is practically zero.

Feel free to pass that on to Chaubey and Thangaraj.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

@Epoch2013

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/04/ancient-dna-suggests-steppe-migrations.html

Try finding a transcript of Reich's speech. The Eurogenes post above seems deleted. I had taken a screen shot back then and it goes like this(egh..you are making me type this) ---" So, often in the story told within the steppe hypothesis, the Yamaya which is this culture that expands over the steppe beginning 5300 years ago...and expands dramatically to the west, and also to the east But we have genetic data from those populations and they're mixed with European First Farmer ancestry, which is not present in India, so it rules out that model.

We also see no evidence of steppe migrations through the Balkans into Anatolia....... and in fact there's contradiction in terms of certain suggestions in India. So those questions are very much up in the air."

@santosh
"I am Indian, not an expert on this subject, and usually don't comment on this subject, though I have been reading Dienekes, Razib Khan, Davidski for years.. "

Well,if this blog is all you have been reading, I am sorry to say your extreme opinion is unbalanced . The fault is not with those who disagree but with you for not trying to understand why they do so.

Santosh Rajan said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

"The fault is not with those who disagree but with you for not trying to understand why they do so. "

As far as I can see, those who agree have clear facts from latest research papers.

Those who disagree do not have any facts from any latest research paper.

Can you point me to any published research papers that bolster your disagreement?

Davidski said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

None of what you just posted backs your idiotic claim that "the Harvard folks have been dropping crumbs now and then, openly disavowing the current Kurgan model and even explicitly saying there are contradictions from India."

E-mail the folks at Harvard and ask them what the latest is on that, and try and avoid such idiotic claims in the future.

Acharya Agnimitra said...



@Santosh
Since you seem to have preferred Eurogenes verified stuff for years, why dont you wait for Reich et al and Thangaraj et al. They have both individually and clearly hinted whats on their papers. It's too late in the game to bother with the logic or lack thereof of your fellows, dont you think?

Davidski said...

Yeah, at least Late PIE from the steppe. Late PIE includes Indo-Aryan.

How'd you miss that?

Roy King said...

@Davidski
You are arguing with your own nuanced supporter. I am convinced that EHG in South Asia is from the steppes. That said, I'm not yet convinced about R1a-M417. If found in IVC, it could reflect the Dravidian immigration to the region perhaps around 5000-6000 ybp. We need to dissociate the R1a argument from the EHG argument, until we learn more about the aDNA findings from India. I do know Chaubey and Thangaraj, who are excellent population geneticists, so we'll see.

Al Bundy said...

Reich and company want to build suspense for their upcoming papers.They're not gonna say it's over you clowns before releasing everything.The early deep split of Anatolian is still a question mark for me even with Yamnaya probably dispersing LPIE.

Acharya Agnimitra said...


" Late PIE includes Indo-Aryan"

You and I both know that "Late PIE" here does not mean what you wish it would.At the time of this European Late PIE , the last branches(Greek- Armenian-Vedic- Iranian) were still in PIE, going by the isoglosses shared between Greek and Vedic.. They were still living together side by side in PIE, separate from the European branches, somewhere NOT Pontic steppe. Cramming them into your Late PIE, would make for a story far, far more complicated than your Poltavka one.

How'd you miss that?

Al Bundy said...

You're saying Yamnaya was LPIE but not all LPIE was Yamnaya?

Acharya Agnimitra said...


I am stating the writing on the wall. LPIE is not PIE. Not in time not in space.

And the simplest most parsimonious way to describe PIE is as the archeological complex where the Indo-Iranians spilt up and went their separate ways (or perhaps one of them never left and still lives in PIE.) It could be somewhere in Iran, could be South Central Asia, could even be the Indus-Saraswathy valley. Or anywhere else if new evidence comes out.

Try finding the last place Indo-Iranians historically lived together,or where they fought wars over their gods(Devas and Asuras)or where there was active trade between them, the last place of their cohabitation and you have found PIE. As simple as that. Genetics or archeology or literature, whatever helps. Surely the Indians or the Iranians remember their Devasura wars somewhere in their voluminous texts. They must mention each other somewhere, right?( They do, actually)

Or you can do it the hard way-- search for the lost trail of the long gone Hittites who left PIE thousands of years before the Indo-Iranians split. Easy or hard, you can choose.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Santosh Rajan,

Thanks for your post. We need that type of stuff calm the hostilities in this debate.

Al Bundy said...

According to the steppe hypothesis Yamnaya got IE from an earlier steppe group.

Al Bundy said...

@Acharya I'm interested in PIE and where it came from.Yamnaya as you say is not PIE.They got IE from an earlier steppe group or from CHG but we don't see anything supporting that yet specifically the Y DNA.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

@AlBundy
I too am waiting to know what the ANI components EXACTLY were. Perhaps if Z93 or even better 417 turns up, I believe, we will have to define a whole new component directly connecting Yamnaya and Bronze age Indians which may have been overlooked in the Yamnaya samples. Regardless,if as you say, an earlier steppe group(Maykop I assume) is PIE , that would directly mean than Greeks, Vedics and Iranians were still living there as contemporaries to Yamnaya. Which is extremely difficult to imagine considering how impenetrable the archaeological record is.

Santosh Rajan said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

Dude! All your arguments are hypothetical. Don't you see that you are getting trolled?

I am sick of your arguments.


epoch2013 said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

You mean the speech named: "Ancient DNA Suggests Steppe Migrations Spread Indo-European Languages"?

https://amphilsoc.org/meetings/program/April2017

I mean, how clear can the man be on where he stands?

Al Bundy said...

We basically knew steppe migrations spread IE languages in early 2015.The question is whether it's all of them or some of them.We need to wait for the upcoming papers and if Reich and company are too diplomatic Davidski can look at the data independently.

Gioiello said...

@ akhil misra
"Even Eisenstein General theory of relativity needs improvement. Intellectual modesty becomes people generally".

First of all: Einstein and not Eisenstein. The "theory of relativity" is one of the most proved ones.
Eisenstein/Ėjzenštejn/Эйзенштейн was the author of the Bronenosec Potëmkin.



Roy King said...

@Davidski
I think one of the arguments that Chaubey may be using is that the TMRCA of L657-R1a is 4700 bp, well before the putative Indo-Aryan invasion. Since L657 is almost exclusive to South Asia--India and Pakistan, its expansion is too early to be a good explanatory factor. The TMRCA suggests that L657 is expanding around 2700 BCE in South Asia.

Davidski said...

@Roy

The TMRCA suggests that L657 is expanding around 2700 BCE in South Asia.

With the population replacements that have taken place on the steppe and in Central and South Asia, it's impossible to say where L657 was expanding 2700 BCE.

There's really nothing that can counter the idea of a steppe origin of South Asian R1a and the Indo-Aryans.

Because the claim that Corded Ware got its M417/Z645 from South Asia is nonsense, and so is the idea that Poltavka and Sintashta got their Z93 from South Asia, or even Iran.

This would entail Eastern Europe, Iran and South Asia being basically the same biogeographical zone and a genetic continuum from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. Impossible.

Razib Khan said...

The Harvard folks have been dropping crumbs now and then ,openly disavowing the current Kurgan model and even explicitly saying there are contradictions from India.

saw iain and pontus at SMBE. had lunch with david reich. i can tell you for a fact that they aren't disavowing the current Kurgan model. either that, or they've gotten really good at lying to me by omission :-) [and tbh, i talked with david reich about india; don't get your hopes out OiT]

Al Bundy said...

Was there a previous Kurgan model? PIE comes from the steppe and all IE languages were dispersed from the steppe,including Anatolian.Was it all massive migrations like CW?Probably not.

Roy King said...

@Davidski
I agree with you that R1a-M417 must originate somewhere and is relatively recent in origin. There, IMO, are three possibilities: Eastern Europe which you propose, Central Asia which Peter Underhill proposed, Iran, and India/Pakistan.

@Razib Khan
You'd be surprised how well we researchers have learned not to drop hints before publication. Not a lie, but maybe circumspection. Again, the issue of EHG in India/Pakistan is conceptually separate from when R1a-M417 entered South Asia and through which route.

Razib Khan said...

You'd be surprised how well we researchers have learned not to drop hints before publication

why would i be surprised? many of my closest friends are still in academia and i go to scientific conferences, i know how the game works.

david reich was very frank actually. yes, he is very diplomatic compared to the other david. most ppl are, again being frank. but my assessment is that the gap between the two david's substantively is very small based on what i've seen/heard both say.

Al Bundy said...

The gap on India or on PIE?

Davidski said...

The gap on India.

In regards to the PIE homeland, I'm almost certainly convinced that it was the steppe, but I don't think DR will make the call until he sees Hittite data.

Al Bundy said...

Yes Anatolian is the key.What steppe group do you think brought IE there, assuming it came from there?

Davidski said...

Don't know. The solution might be something that hasn't been considered much, like a pop movement via the Caucasus.

Coldmountains said...

L657 is not restricted to South Asia . It was found among Russian Tatars and one Ukrainian was tested positive for M780 which is just a bit upstream of L657. L657 is 4700 years old but I don't see how this is disproving the Aryan migration . There were so many population replacements in East European steppe areas that it is not surprising at all that L657 is almost absent there today.

Al Bundy said...

I favor the steppe as PIE homeland but they should get things right,ultimately, if it's not.Even then the Yamnaya would have dispersed most IE languages.If they bungle the PIE homeland then a mostly correct Kurgan theory would be disparaged by the loons,under that conditional scenario.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"The solution might be something that hasn't been considered much, like a pop movement via the Caucasus."

Speak for yourself :)

The other possibility was that Anatolian came from Chalcolithic Balkans; it's a shame we cant do much with Kumtepe IV

Al Bundy said...

What about directly through the Caucasus from Iran,as opposed to from the steppe?

Rob said...

The recent qpGraphs are cementing my feeling that the region between south central Asia, Iran & Anatolia etc are going to be 'hotspots' for west Eurasian lineages prior the LGM.
They subsequently dispersed toward the periphery, esp. north as the climate ameriolorated, whilst the Basals encroached from the southwest.

Al Bundy said...

In a previous post you said PIE must have come from the Balkans or Caucasus Iranian Plateau is that still your view?Rob

Ric Hern said...

I think the delays gives some scientists time to do damage control in order to retain some credibility....after all those that funded the research surely wants something positive in return...? I see hard times for those that made to many assumptions on very little available data....

Davidski said...

@Ric

Why hard times? People can be wrong and they're entitled to change their positions as new data comes in.

I only have a problem with those who refuse to offer any viable arguments based on currently available data.

This is essentially what the OIT position is; anti-Kurgan/steppe, but unable to string two logical sentences together when arguing why.

Rob said...

@ Al

"What about directly through the Caucasus from Iran,as opposed to from the steppe?"

I'm not familiar with much evidence for direct movement from Iran to Anatolia c. 4000 BC, or 3000 BC. I rather think the Caucasus was the prime region impacting Anatolia after 4000 BC (although connections between Iran and Caucasus might have preceded all that, eg some metal work techniques). If iran is involved, it;; be the northernmost aspect only, becuase the Zagros region seems to have had it's own thing going, and during the crucial period 4000 BC it even shifts Levant-ward.

"in a previous post you said PIE must have come from the Balkans or Caucasus Iranian Plateau is that still your view?"

Maybe indo-Hittite, before it split into propper PIE and proto-Anatolian. As I've said before, I think the European IEs to have expanded from the steppe, even Myceneans, or at least from (relative) northerners from neaerer the Black Sea, but they won;t look like they BB / CWC folk, will be predominantly EEF/ CHG, and different Y lineages.
But I imagine complicating factors, such as the possibility of movements from Anatolia also reaching Thrace / Greece, which could be non-IE or a pre-Greek, Anatolian IE which was subsequently overlaid by actual proto-Greeks emerging from 'nuclear PIE'.

So the key theatre & contender has always been groups along the Black Sea region, broadly speaking, mostly the east, north & West sides (because the Anatolian Black sea coasts is mostly all mountains and forests).
Im not sure about central/south Asia yet, but the genetic / Y DNA evidence seems compelling at present, but I won;t be surprised to see some ancient presence of R1a around central Asia.

Samuel Andrews said...

@David, Matt,

Does Natufian have the same psuedo CHG ancestry that Anatolia Neolithic has?

Ric Hern said...

@ Al Bundy

Isn't Hittite a Centum Language ? And if Proto-Tocharians can be linked to Hittites which Archaeological Cultures could you propose as evidence of spread from the East ?

Al Bundy said...

Thanks Rob I appreciate your insight

Al Bundy said...

Hopefully we'll see those Mycenean y lineages soon, by some different lineages you mean E and J?

postneo said...

@David
"Chaubey and Kumarasamy Thangaraj ask whether it's too early to settle the Aryan migration debate"

The sentence is a literal opposite of confirmation bias. It keeps things open including the Steppe hypotheses.

But its too much for David to tolerate. He wants strict compliance nothing else will do. We have to wonder about this shrill psychosis.

@Acharya
I don't think Reich has dropped breadcrumbs. But he is not infallible. Only real authority is data not people and opinions.

Al Bundy said...

Some R1A but more of a mix

Ric Hern said...

I agree. There were no ancient DNA evidence from India till recently and most built their hypothesis on Modern DNA and sticked to this even when Ancient European samples became available. It will be harder for them to turn around their theories and accept reality. In short. Their credibility will suffer because of this...

Rob said...

@ Al

Yes E1b, J, G, R1b-Z2103, even Z93 maybe
It would be great if they have data from, both, shaft graves and "commoners"

Davidski said...

@postneo

I don't think Reich has dropped breadcrumbs. But he is not infallible. Only real authority is data not people and opinions.

The ancient South Asian data shows a big population movement from the steppe to India.

EastPole said...

This hint from David Reich is telling something:

http://s18.postimg.org/wbp2yr71l/tree5.png

I wonder how they work out genetic details to fit this linguistic tree.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

@ Razib khan
"tbh, i talked with david reich about india; don't get your hopes out OiT]"

I wouldn't be as concerned about OIT at the moment as I would be about something far more pressing and consequential. Do I need to remind you what happens if mature Harappan z93 turns up?

It will open a bag of worms for the Kurgan theory, at least the present version. Very unpleasant worms from 2600 BC Rakhigarhi. Even worse worms than Neolithic M417 or Mesolithic R1a.

For one thing, the late bronze age entry you repose faith in will be gone with the winds(some of us already know it didn't happen). It will mean that the IVSC already had Vedic speakers if not entirely Vedic. IE was not introduced in post Harappan period 1900-1400 BCE

That would force the question, when did the IEs enter India? IVSC enjoys unbroken archeological record as far back as at least PIE times. The Kurgan burden of proof to somehow squeeze the IEs into the unforgiving centuries of a full fledged civilization at its peak glory would be next to impossible. Really an unenviable position seeing how it hangs already by a Poltavka thread.

On a positive nore, it will also solve an existential question. It will solve the elusive identity of the IVSC. It will mean that the Vedics stand with the Egyptians and Sumerians in the story of the human race.

Iam curious as to why you seem so confident. Have you seen the results and know for certain that they are z93 -ve?

Davidski said...

@EastPole

It should be added though, that you modified DR's slide by adding the red R1a-Z645, R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z282 markers to the image.

@Acharya Agnimitra

Only way that Z93 turns up in any IVC remains is if the test is done on the cheap with PCR and the outcome is contaminated.

Thankfully, Harvard don't do PCR tests, they do SNP capture enrichment, which I guess means we won't be seeing any Z93 in their IVC results.

Davidski said...

Although the Rakhigarhi site is actually dated to as late as 1900 BC, so some stray R1a or Z93 is possible at around 1900 BC, as IVC was collapsing.

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

Such a result could perhaps qualify as direct evidence for an invasion of IVC.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

Don't worry Dave, they have collected male samples from the Mature phase. You know, they dig a site, mark the layers, then carbon date and stuff..

Davidski said...

I'm not worried because I actually know what to expect. I don't have to rely on imaginary bread crumbs, unlike you.

Funnily enough, for someone who sees bread crumbs at every turn, you're not too good at taking obvious hints.

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“It should be added though, that you modified DR's slide by adding the red R1a-Z645, R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z282 markers to the image.”

Yes, I added red markers to black and white DR’s slide. It is self evident. But is there any other solution which will explain genetic and linguistic kinship between Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs.

We used to think that Slavs came from India or Iran but now genetics tells us that it was the other way round.

I think it is the only link which is truly Indo-European, i.e. links India and Europe.

Rob said...

Lol east pole
Who thought Slavs came from India ??

Davidski said...

Who thought Slavs came from India??

No one who matters, just some crackpots online. But who's that linguist who said Slavs came from Central Asia? Forget her name.

Btw, EastPole, yeah, the association between Z645>Z282 Balto-Slavs and Z645>Z93 Indo-Iranians is now clear, but I don't want to speculate about the details yet, apart from stating the obvious that our ancestors came from the steppe.

EastPole said...

@Rob
“Who thought Slavs came from India ??”

Some linguists and historians, for example Ignacy Pietraszewski:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacy_Pietraszewski

He was a professor at Berlin University, translated works of Zarathustra, showed close relationship between Slavic and Avestan languages and for this Germans in 1858 kicked him out of the university.
He really thought Iran was Slavic homeland. Avestan and Sanskrit are very close so speculation on Iran or India as Slavic homeland were quite common among Slavic researches. They were of course considered as crackpots by western scientists and ‘Polish’ scientists educated by western scientists, who were convinced that Aryans came from Scandinavia.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg/640px-Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg

This has changed after Hitler but many people in the west still think Germanics or Celts are Aryans. See for example “March of the Titans”.

Samuel Andrews said...

@EastPole,

If Slavs have a close kinship to Sintashta, then Western Europeans have a close kinship to Yamnaya. But really it's Bell Beaker vs Corded Ware. And R1b P312 Bell Beaker kicked Corded Ware's butt and made R1a a minority till the Middle Ages.

Simon_W said...

This reminds me of an online discussion I had 14 years ago with a very knowledgeable German theology student. I had pointed out that the reconstructed Proto-Slavic language has a word for "elephant", thereby arguing for some scepticism with regards to arguments using the reconstructed vocabulary as an indicator for the homeland. He objected that the Slavs may well have originated in a land with elephants, which baffled me.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

Yes, the plant and animal names remembered among the IE branches are an unmistakable indicator of the homeland.

The strongest examples noted--(crude spellings)

1. Sanskrit Ibha - Greek El-ephas - Latin ebur for ivory- Hittite Ulu-banta( for camel?)

2. SK Kapi- Germanic or Celtic ape

3. Sk Markara-- Monkey

There are many more examples but this for now. The point is there arenonly 2 places on earth that had apes and elephants. Africa or India.

Jijnasu said...

@acharya agnimitra
Syriac elephants went extinct only around 100 BC

Jaydeep said...

They was no separate species such as the Syrian elephant. There was no elephant in the Near East before the 2nd millennium BC. Search on it, you'll know. It's arrival in Syria co-incides with the arrival of the Mitanni in the 2nd millennium BC. And these elephants are last heard of around 9th century BC.

Later on, the Seleucids received Indian elephants from Chandragupta around 300 BC which they used against the Ptolemies. In response, the Ptolemies managed to get some African Bush elephants from the interior of Africa to counter them. These latter elephants were used by Hannibal. The Indian elephants under the Seleucids also eventually did not survive.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

@Jijnasu
The range of the Syriac elephants seems to extend to south east Anatolia, no further. Alone,it doesn't help much. Do you happen to know the names used for it in the regional, historical languages, at least the Armenian name?

The word Ibha is only one of the many dozens in sanskrit. It seems old and not frequently used in texts. Other names for elephants are more common-Sreni, Hastin, Gaja etc

As for kapi, if it was also preserved in Gaelic Celtic apa, it is rather miraculous. Despite the long isolation they remembered an animal they hadn't had contact with since they left PIE.

Fascinating...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

OIT is dead. Move on.

Jijnasu said...

@jaydeep rathod
Syrian elephants were brought in by the mittani? Can't find any sources for this claim instead sources seem to support a wide range for the asiatic elephant ranging from India to S.E Asia.

@Acharya Agnimitra
Neither the words for monkey nor elephant seem to exhibit expected sound correspondences and their status as cognates is strongly disputed

Acharya Agnimitra said...

Well I know what 'strongly disputed' means. And its flimsy. Because the same principles applied to well known, easily recognized words, definitely inherited from the common PIE heritage, gives you the same result.

The universal kuon (dog)is much disputed, but we know that Latin Cannis and Sanskrit Kukkura are cognate, even though the latin word is a trouble maker.

Even better.....ekwo (horse) has totally obscure roots. Yet we know Sanskrit Ashva are good with equus and hippos.

These hairsplitting objections become blasphemous when applied to the king of the old gods--Varuna. Though his name and his mythical story is unmistakably similar to Greek Ouranos and Teutonic Woden, their cognate nature is rejected by the same folks. Vedic PaNi/VaNi, Greek Pan and Teutonic Vanir, also face the same fate.

It is ludicrous to expect all languages to develop obeying all rules of linguistics. Humans don't, why would their tongues?

Ryan said...

OIT is dead and genetics aren't going convince anyone who believes otherwise, because those beliefs aren't based on actual science but rather on ideology.

Gioiello said...

@ Acharya Agnimitra

"Latin Cannis"

Latin: canis

Jijnasu said...

sanskrit kukkura isn't a cognate to greek kuon, sanskrit shvan is.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

Yeah, but ultimately there are roots(dhatus), something only Sanskrit has, a list of around 2100 dhatus.You can chop down almost all Sanskrit words into component dhatus. They are more authentic than the unverifiable, reconstructed PIE words. PIE roots are not actual roots of an actual attested language.

The Sanskrit dhatus Ku & Kur mean to moan, to sound, to groan etc.

No other IE language has something as archaic and yet sophisticated as that. They have verbs and nouns but not roots. Avestan has roots to some degree too. And yet there are still claims that Hittite is more archaic than Sanskrit.

adinke said...

Does anyone know when the Swat Valey and IVC/Rakhigarhi papers are gonna come out?

Al Bundy said...

@Acharya Old Greek and Sanskrit are very similar, especially the inflections.

Al Bundy said...

Sanskrit and Greek have more inflections and complicated syntax,but that doesn't mean they're older necessarily.

Davidski said...

@adinke

Does anyone know when the Swat Valey and IVC/Rakhigarhi papers are gonna come out?

Not sure, but almost certainly before the end of the year.

@all

In any case, I won't be posting anything on South Asia again until we some ancient DNA from there, because I've finally realized that what I'm trying to say only gets through to the people who already know it anyway. So it's a preaching to the choir type of scenario.

The others either don't understand what I'm saying (possibly because I'm not communicating things well), or they don't want to understand, probably because they don't want to.

So to lighten things up a bit on this blog, I'm going to leave it at that for the time being.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I found a way to make a tree with no Basal Eurasian. It is pretty interesting indeed, but the archaic is a bit high. Only one Z>2. Haha!

outliers:
Ong Ami Kos Nat -0.003020 0.000424 0.003445 0.001636 2.105

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YnMFdtb05nX3NxTDg/view?usp=sharing

Davidski said...

That's pretty crazy, but no Basal may well be the true solution.

How many markers is that based on? Also, you say that the archaic is a bit high. Maybe Basal is being substituted for inflated archaic?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think it is 173K. I've added Karitiana and Oase-1 now. It gets wilder.

Davidski said...

Or they don't want to understand, probably because they don't want to.

lol that was a typo.

Rob said...

Chad, Oase doesn;t screw things up with its arhaic ?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

No. I just add an extra Neandertal edge in there.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It does drop the tree to 45k SNPs though.

Matt said...

@ Chad, cool, does that tree work better or worse with?:

- (edge Chimp Root Chimp, edge a Root a) rather than (edge a Chimp a)
- (edge a2a a2 a2a, admix OoA a2a a1a 93 7) rather than (admix OoA a2 a1a 93 7)
- (admix Oceania West_Asian pOnge 7 95, admix Late_Oceania Oceania a1b 97 3) rather than (admix Oceania pOnge a1b 97 3, admix Late_Oceania Oceania West_Asian 95 5).

Biggest problem stat seems to be (though not big!) Ong Ami Kos Nat, where the model has a negative stat, which I think means Ami+Kos related by geneflow that excludes Natufian and Onge, but actually neutral in real stats?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm going to keep tinkering and adding pops. One thing this way might help explain is stats like Chimp Iran_EN WHG Natufian -0.0191 -3.387.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think what that Z is saying that I need to take the admixture edge from West, rather than West_Asian. West_Asian would go to later groups, like WHG, since they are closer to Natufians. Or, a pNatufian.

epoch2013 said...

@David

Could you do these?

Han, Kostenki14, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, GoyetQ116-1, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, El_Miron, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Vestonice16, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Villabruna, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, MA1, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Bichon, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Loschbour, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, LaBrana1, Karelia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Hungary_HG, Karelia_HG, Mbuti


@Chad

I recall Nick Patterson warning against using Chimps as outgroup.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/05/yamnaya-khvalynsk-extra-chg-maybe.html

"Ancient DNA is tricky and there can be attraction to outgroups from bad DNA. The further the outgroup the worse the problems. So for example in our old Neanderthal work D(Chimp, Altai; Vindija, X) was hard to interpret.

If African gene-flow is implausible I strongly prefer Mbuti as these effects are much less.
Also if a result looks dubious, definitely try with transversions only
"

Davidski said...

result: Han Kostenki14 Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0283 -5.395 44901 47513 782639
result: Han GoyetQ116-1 Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0403 -7.413 32259 34968 574374
result: Han ElMiron Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0615 -11.330 25817 29197 480293
result: Han Vestonice16 Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0448 -8.826 30801 33691 557467
result: Han Villabruna Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0964 -18.710 35529 43110 664580
result: Han MA1 Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.1101 -20.295 30902 38552 590548
result: Han Bichon Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0957 -18.973 44673 54126 830935
result: Han Loschbour Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.1059 -21.101 43892 54292 825479
result: Han Iberia_Mesolithic Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.0963 -18.987 37601 45618 704626
result: Han Hungary_HG Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.1164 -22.973 30825 38943 588457

epoch2013 said...

@David

In Mathieson there is a figure which clearly shows KO1 to be slightly amixed with EHG. But for the rest I'd say Karelia loves Loschbour over other WHG's and GoyetQ116 over K14. Could that mean that the WHG-part of EHG came over the north? Candidates enough there to mob up some remaining Magdalenian. Federmesser/Tjonger-culture, Hamburg, Swiderian etc.

Are some of the Baltic WHG samples available yet?

epoch2013 said...

BTW, Fu et al did those with French instead of EHG with almost similar outcomes, albeit smaller Z-values.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7606/fig_tab/nature17993_ST6.html

Chad Rohlfsen said...

epoch,

I know all about Chimp. No worries. Part of this goes off of Reich & Lipson (2017).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Eastern Europe is layered. You have Kostenki, then Aurignacian, epi-Gravettian with epi-Aurignacian, followed by Swiderian. Lots going on and no samples between 32-10kya.

epoch2013 said...

@Chad

"Lots going on and no samples between 32-10kya."

I'm trying to make sense of the northern half of Europe. The details of Fu et al show that Ranchot88 and Loschbour show GoyetQ116 ancestry but Bichon doesn't. The latter is pre-Laachersee eruption, both other after.

Anyway, culturewise it is.. complicated. Federmesser is supposed to be an offshoot of Azilian (Bichon). It's successor is Hamburgian but has burins that look Magalenian.

http://www.donsmaps.com/hamburgian.html
http://www.aggsbach.de/2013/07/magdalenian-bec-ofnet-cave-nordlinger-riess/

So I think you're absolutely right. Mind you, there are far more knowledgeable ppl aroun here about this subject than me.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I don't think it is quite as some say. I don't see replacement after replacement, but layer on layer. I don't think any of them lack GoyetQ ancestry.

epoch2013 said...

@Chad

If it really were replacement after replacement, how could the resurgence of GoyetQ116 in Magdalenians have happened?

Although the Laacher See eruption could have had a major impact.

Davidski said...

@epoch

Latvia_HG:ZVEJ25 U Latvia_HG
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ27 U Latvia_HG
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32 U Latvia_HG

Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ26 U Latvia_MN1
Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31 U Latvia_MN2

Chad Rohlfsen said...

No Basal Eurasian, with Karitiana. Messing around with GoyetQ116-1 right now.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YnQjMtRGpmbE53U28/view?usp=sharing

Roy King said...

@Davidski,
I agree, let's wait on aDNA from India. That said, Open Genomes just looked at the BAM file of the Z94, Poltavka outlier. He is ancestral for L657 and derived for Z2124. I do think he might reflect the Indo-Aryan culture, but most Indian R1a's are L657. Parsimony would dictate the hypothesis that Z2124 reflects the Indo-Aryans (circa 2700 BCE) while L657 may have a different demography.

Open Genomes said...

FYI everyone, the famous "Poltavka Outlier" I0432 from Potapovka near the Volga River 2925-2536 calBCE buried near "Dadhyañc son of Atharvan", who had is head cut off and replaced by a horse's head to tell the Gods "the secret of the Soma", is Z2121+, which is equivalent to R-Z2124. He was previously reported as R-Z94 which is above both R-Z2124 and R-Y3. He's ancestral for Z2123 which was found in later "Royal Scythian" burials, and also ancestral for Z2122 and S23592, which are sister clades of Z2123.

UCSC Browser screenshot showing I0432 derived read for Z2121

The he's also ancestral for M780, which is equivalent to R-Y3, the immediate parent of "Indo-Aryan" R-L657, and a sister clade of R-Z2124.

As we can see in the YFull R-Z94 tree, the tMRCA of R-Z94 and its immediate subclades is 4700 ybp, which is almost perfect for radiocarbon dates for the "Poltavka outlier" I0432.

YFull R-Z94 tree showing tMRCAs at 4700 ybp

If anyone wants to check these SNPs for themselves, the Y BAM file and the index are here:
http://open-genomes.org/genomes/Mathieson%20(2015)/I0432/Y/

I think that this means that the "Poltavka Outlier" I0432 is not a direct ancestor of the R-L657 Indo-Aryans, but a very close relative of the ancestor in the same few generations. It certainly does look like he could be the "royal" ancestor of the Iranic speakers in R-Z2124.

Samuel Andrews said...

Wow super interesting. Thanks open genomes. I doubted his old radio carbon date, I thought he was from 2000 BC or later. But since he belongs to such an old form of Z93, I guess he could be that old.

Davidski said...

Poltavka_outlier could still be a direct ancestor of many South Central Asians, considering the analysis by OG.

The idea that Z2124 is from the steppe from a population unrelated to South Asians, while L657 is from South Asia, doesn't gel. They're obviously sister clades from the steppe.

And there's no way that M417 is from anywhere near South Asia, because that would mean Corded Ware is in some part from South Asia. This is impossible.

Keep in mind also that L657 might never be found in any ancient steppe remains, but it'll be plenty enough if it's found in an ancient sample from, say, the Swat Valley, that is mostly Yamnaya-like, with a lot of EHG.

Coldmountains said...

@Roy King

L657 reflects Indo-Aryan migration and not 2124. It correlates with Indo-Aryans today and Z2124 is almost in some Indo-Aryan populations in places like Nepal.

@Open Genomes

Thanks, L657 will be found in similar old samples from the region and the existence of M780+/L657- in modern day Ukraine points to an old presence of M780 in the region

epoch2013 said...

@David

OK, the question you could have guessed: Could you do these?

Han, GoyetQ116-1, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, El_Miron, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Vestonice16, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Villabruna, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, MA1, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Bichon, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Loschbour, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, LaBrana1, Latvia_HG, Mbuti
Han, Hungary_HG, Latvia_HG, Mbuti

epoch2013 said...

@David

Sorry, I'll do that without comma's and with proper notation.

Han Kostenki14 Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han GoyetQ116-1 Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han ElMiron Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han Vestonice16 Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han Villabruna Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han MA1 Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han Bichon Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han Loschbour Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han Iberia_Mesolithic Latvia_HG Mbuti
Han Hungary_HG Latvia_HG Mbuti

Davidski said...

result: Han Kostenki14 Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.0419 -6.316 5233 5691 103436
result: Han GoyetQ116-1 Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.0779 -9.841 3588 4194 74725
result: Han ElMiron Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.1401 -18.396 3261 4324 71715
result: Han Vestonice16 Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.0879 -11.438 3917 4671 81084
result: Han Villabruna Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.2066 -30.262 3982 6056 93132
result: Han MA1 Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.0659 -9.228 3802 4339 78456
result: Han Bichon Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.2090 -31.589 4645 7099 109278
result: Han Loschbour Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.2230 -39.750 4539 7145 108789
result: Han Iberia_Mesolithic Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.1842 -27.877 4137 6004 95069
result: Han Hungary_HG Latvia_HG Mbuti -0.2107 -29.627 3268 5012 77716

epoch2013 said...

O, I forgot one:

Han Latvia_HG Karelia_HG Mbuti

Acharya Agnimitra said...

Must have been that damn cheap PCR.Anyways I don't mean to be discourteous to the mourners of the tragic loss of the outlier, but I must point this out...


"Dadhyañc son of Atharvan", who had is head cut off and replaced by a horse's head to tell the Gods "the secret of the Soma",

You can see in the comment section of the link where ak2014b points out that this report is a mistake the correction of which has not received as much fanfare as the advertisement and abuse of it has and still clearly does. And this has continued for years.

The horse and the skeleton were both found to be female and two separate burials close to 1000 years apart. ONE THOUSAND. It has nothing to do with Dadhyanc.And Iam sure not many of you care to know much about the Atharvans other than what is convenient.

Two SERIOUS mistakes on one sample. Intellectual dishonesty and academic condonement. And the public misled with impunity for years. I can't imagine what prize Rai or Thangaraj would have to pay if they made slips half as blunderous as this.

EastPole said...

@Open Genomes
“I think that this means that the "Poltavka Outlier" I0432 is not a direct ancestor of the R-L657 Indo-Aryans, but a very close relative of the ancestor in the same few generations. It certainly does look like he could be the "royal" ancestor of the Iranic speakers in R-Z2124.”

Not Iranic but early Indo-Iranian speakers at best.

He was of Central-Eastern European origin, autosomaly close to Slavs:

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

He was probably an important priest who knew the secret of making Soma juice.
Soma/haoma/hops plant doesn’t grow on Central Asian steppe, in India or Iran, but grows naturally in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian forests.
Soma has Slavic etymology.

Indo-Iranian and Slavic languages share religious vocabulary and the presence of Slavic like Poltavka outlier among very different Yamnaya steppe groups can be a possible explanation of how Slavic religious vocabulary and traditions entered Indo-Iranian languages and traditions.

Jijnasu said...

@Eastpole
How did you come to the conclusion that Soma is Hops? Soma is most likely Ephedra that grows wild in Northern South asia and South central asia

Matt said...

@ Davidski, btw, based on the models from Fu et al 2016 supplement page 50 Figure S6.4, and adding in some extra samples, I put this graph together:

https://pastebin.com/9Z8Z2guE

Could you run, I'd like to see how it turns out? Despite this is not being even their best model, really just to understand what it gets wrong...

Hopefully there are enough overlapping SNPs...

nizam uddin said...

@Eastpole
Ephedra is considered a stimulate, while hops is definitely not. They weren't producing beer from sheeps wool, but possibly something like mescaline; similar to what the Amerindians would drink during there rituals. The correlation your attempting is superfluous.

EastPole said...

Jijnasu
“How did you come to the conclusion that Soma is Hops? Soma is most likely Ephedra that grows wild in Northern South asia and South central asia”

It is not my conclusion, it is a common knowledge among linguists and historians of religion. Now it is also confirmed by the genetics of the plant. You will find it in etymological dictionaries. Histories of religion. It was a necessary ingredient for making mead or beer. Slavs believed that the divine power comes from hops. There are parallels between some Slavic rituals and believes related to hops, Dionysus cult (although later Greeks replaced drinking mead and beer with wine and only used mead for sacrifices) and the descriptions of poetic inspiration coming from wine drinking by poets and philosophers, and Soma cult and Rigvedic descriptions.
How it looks, how it is prepared, what it does to us and why it is worshiped – Slavic, Greek and Vedic religions are almost identical. But Slavic traditions provide the best explanations and etymology of the various names of this god (Soma/Haoma/ xъmelь –Eros/Agni/Cupid) can be explained by Slavic words.
It is a sacred drink which brings poetic inspiration, insight into the nature of beauty, restores love and life. Just drink it and read or write religious poetry, then you will understand. 99% Soma is hops.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mescaline is a hallucinogen, not a stimulant.

Ric Hern said...

What about Amanita Muscaria ?

nizam uddin said...


The juxtaposition of soma mescaline are quite alike. Mescaline is hallucinogen but I clearly stated that ephedra is a stimulate and not mescaline. The issue here as far as the botany is regarded soma is limited, leaving people to presume that it may have been wine or beer. Soma is considered to be a stimulate and hallucinogen according to archaeological findings. If you know of ecofacts that are similar to soma in Europe please let me know.

nizam uddin said...

Ric Hern, you made a good point. Researchers frankly don't know if it was a liquified product of muscaria or some sort of other concoction. In regards to modern day Rig Veda and Manusmriti, these transcriptions have suffered many years of palimpsest. There isn't cogent evidence to base things from but obviously one can be entitled to there own opinion.

Ric Hern said...

True.

EastPole said...

Where does that nonsense that Soma was a hallucinogenic mushroom come from?
Acording to Avesta haoma was a tall plant with yellow flowers. Hops can be 3 m tall and has yellowish flowers. Show me a tall mushroom with yellow flowers.

Ephedra is a shrub.

Everywhere in the south where hops doesn’t grow soma has been replaced by wine.
In Greece and in Iran. Why? Because of similar effects .

https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/07/11/the-sacredness-of-pure-grape-wines-in-the-zoroastrian-religious-rituals/

You can’t control your hallucination. How do you explain similarity between Greek and Vedic culture, poetry, religion, philosophy. Does it come from random hallucinations? Nonsense

Why do Kalash drink wine and not Ephedra?

Hops were used for mead or beer production in Central-Eastern Europe since immemorial times. Hops have an antibiotic effect that favours the activity of yeast over less desirable microorganisms.

Hops and Soma were valued as medicine. What does Ephedra cure?
What does Ephedra have to do with mead production?

I have books written by serious linguists who derive haoma/soma from Slavic xъmel (hops)and now their opinions are confirmed by the genetics of this plant. It grows naturally in Central-Eastern Europe and had to be imported to Asia.
It also fits expansion of R1a-Z645 from Central-Eastern Europe with Corded Ware who had to know hops because they were drinking mead and beer.

MaxT said...

@Chad Rohlfsen
"No Basal Eurasian, with Karitiana. Messing around with GoyetQ116-1 right now.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YnQjMtRGpmbE53U28/view?usp=sharing"

Pretty interesting, Chad.

Karitiana score 45% ANE but looks like without MA1 (ANE) there, most of their ANE is disappearing into East in your graph so Karitiana end up 83% East and 17% West. Their West also appears to have 23% East.

Given how Native Americans, East Eurasians (Asians, Onge, Australiasa), Upper Paleolithic Europeans (Goyet), West Eurasian (WHG) lack Basal Eurasian admixture, this model for Karitiana works fine from Z score.

MaxT said...

Also, considering how K2b and P are deeply rooted in Asia, Q and R having rich-affinity towards East is not surprising.

Davidski said...

@epoch

result: Han Latvia_HG Karelia_HG Mbuti -0.1323 -19.617 4382 5717 95432

@Matt

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFLTRNRWJvckpKclU/view?usp=sharing

Singh said...

@EastPole

That is very unlikely. According to Anthony, Soma as a drink and as a word, was introduced to Indo-Europeans from the BMAC culture.

He says "a syncretic mixture of old Central Asian and new Indo-European elements" which borrowed "distinctive religious beliefs and practices" from the Bactria–Margiana culture. At least 383 non-Indo-European words were borrowed from this culture, including the "god Indra and the ritual drink Soma."

As we can see, the drink and the word "Soma" is late invention. It could have included various things instead of one ingredient.

Yamnaya traded Cannabis across Eurasia, one of the best candidates for main ingredient in "Soma" right now is Cannabises.

Recent archaeological study also shows that they extensively traded Cannabis, introduced to Europe and East Asia at the same time.

"The nomad tribe known as the Yamnaya, may have been the first pot dealers, archaeologists say. Moreover, they were responsible for the first transcontinental trade of cannabis."

"According to a recent analysis, they were also responsible for introducing marijuana and establishing the first transcontinental trade of the herb."

"Carbonized achenes and signs of cannabis burning were discovered at archeological sites which suggests that the Yamnaya brought the practice of cannabis smoking with them as they spread across Eurasia."

In Indic-religions, especially those centered around male-deity- Cannabis are consumed by smoking and in a form of drink.

Jijnasu said...

Soma is definitely not a hallucinogen nor is it cannabis, their psychoactive properties make them unlikely to be soma. This besidesthe fact that mushrooms and cannabis are considered unclean in the vedic tradition. Nor is beer soma, beer is sura a drink used in a few rituals such as sautramani. The use of soma does not involve any sort of fermentation. vedic ritualists in south india use sarcostemma as a substitute which bears a certain morphological resemblances to the somaplant. This besides the fact that word for the ephedra plant in several iranic and some indo-aryan languages derive from soma

Rob said...

@ Matt
Can you include Oase1 in your recentmost graph ?

EastPole said...

In Rigveda soma was mixed with honey, water and milk.
First it was cooked, then pressed and filtered.
In Slavic tradition hops were cooked in a bag, then pressed and filtered. Then the hop juice was mixed with honey, water and grain or milk.

When you mix hops with honey, you will get mead.
When you mix hops with water and grain, you will get beer.
When you mix hops with milk you will get kumis.

Slavs believed that the divine power of intoxication, poetic inspiration and love comes from hop.
In Slavic tradition hop is linked with making marriages and fertility just like Soma in Vedic tradition and Dionysus/Eros in Greek tradition.

What do you get, when you mix ephedra with honey, water and grain or milk?
How is ephedra linked with marriages and love? How is it linked with poetry?

Turkic tribes (R1a-Z93) use similar word for hops like Slavs and make kumis. According to linguists Indo-Iranian haoma/soma came from the same root.

All IE gods from Scandinavia to India drink mead and enjoy poetry.

It correlates with R1a-Z645 Corded Ware expansion.

Matt said...

@ Davidski: Thanks. Messed that up with a couple of errors, so it's pretty uninformative. Could you run: https://pastebin.com/7sNYYkTT ?

@Rob: Which graph would you like it added to? I think normally we don't do that because the level of Neanderthal ancestry in Oase1 is so high.

Rob said...

@ Matt
the very last tree, if feasible

Davidski said...

@Matt

Not looking good.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFbmZBVnBCN1Z4QXc/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFZ05qRGNYUkg2YXM/view?usp=sharing

Nathan said...

"f R1a-M417 were found in the Indus Valley Civilization or earlier then game over. If R1a-M417 were not found in IVC then game over. At this point I'm sure that Thangaraj and Reich know the aDNA results."

If R1a-M417 is found in the IVC, it would not be game over, because Indo-Aryan invaders would have come in at the last phase of IVC, so I expect there to be some Indo-Iranian dna in IVC just before and around the time it collapsed.

The linguistic and philogical evidence is more than enough to rule-out Indo-Aryans being autochthonous or present in South Asia before 2500bc. The Rig Veda describes a rural society, not the city-life of the Indus Valley. There is also no maritime culture mentioned in the R.V. and we know the Indus folks were seafaring and traded with Dilmun and Sumer.

Nathan said...

@Santosh Rajan
Yes the evidence is beyond argument that Indo-Iranians are not native.
As to why soo many Indians are against it; it is just Aryan supremacism.

I am Dravidian. This O.I.T. nonsense and claiming IVC is Aryan is pushed by Brahmins (North and South India) and upper caste Indians from North India.

A segment of White supremacists in America like to claim Whites were here first, and in the same vein these Aryancentric Indians want to claim Aryans are native. Just as White supremacists want to take credit for Sumer, Ancient Egypt and Ancient India, so too these Aryancentric Indians want to claim IVC as Aryan.

The religion of IVC did not disappeat, it is strongly represented in Hinduism. So these upper caste Indians want to claim Aryans were the creators of Indian civilzation and the origin of Indian culture and religion. In this, they are no different to racist Europeans who credited civilization in India to the Aryans. It burns these Aryancentrists up to admit that India was civilized long before the Aryans step foot in South Asia, and when Aryans were semi-nomadic pastoralists (akin to Mongols) the natives of India had already built advanced cities.

Nathan said...

@Acharya
"For one thing, the late bronze age entry you repose faith in will be gone with the winds(some of us already know it didn't happen). It will mean that the IVSC already had Vedic speakers if not entirely Vedic. IE was not introduced in post Harappan period 1900-1400 BCE"


"On a positive nore, it will also solve an existential question. It will solve the elusive identity of the IVSC. It will mean that the Vedics stand with the Egyptians and Sumerians in the story of the human race."

That last paragraph: thanks for admitting that your reason for disputing / throwing doubts on Aryan invasion is motivated by Aryancentric bias. You identify with Vedic Aryan culture so to glorify your culture you want to appropriate IVC and claimng it as Aryan since Aryans created nothing comparable to IVC ,Sumer and Ancient Egypt.


postneo said...

https://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA501&lpg=PA501&dq=poltavka+horse+burial&source=bl&ots=DFHg66AP2k&sig=N22zl9x3yIz0zQZj1lxrErcHQI8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIpaO864_VAhUmw1QKHc0TDkYQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=poltavka%20horse%20burial&f=false

See above, the horse headed burial has been abandoned by David Anthony himself.

Also it could not have been R1a since it is a female. it must be a different sample. So god know what is being talked about.



Hops are not essential in fermentation or beer making. Hops are recorded from 2000 ybp, not from yamnaya.

Soma can be ephedra, hops, cannabis or mushrooms or combinations or none of the above. All of these are pure fantasy. For now the majority opinion lies with ephedra.

Jijnasu said...

@eastpole
You might like to read this https://www.academia.edu/2097761/Soma_I_and_II

@nathan
I think you are mistaken as to the intent of most OITists rather than being Aryan supremacists they largely emphasize Indo-Aryan and Dravidian unity. Indian Historical memory begins with the Era of the Early Indo-Aryans
India itself having traditionally been named after bharata daushanti of the puru clan. Even In southern India Indo-Aryan heroes such as arjuna kartavirya, the five pandavas and their bride panchali, renuka (the mother of rama the bhargava) etc. have been deified. On the other hand the earliest 'dravidian' memories barely go beyond the early centuries of the common era when Indo-Aryan influence had already arrived in the south. There is also reason to believe that the proto-dravidians too were agro-pastoralists. Modern Indians are all descendants of speakers of various linguistic groups many probably extinct today. I don't think we need to condemn one set of them to celebrate an other. (I myself am a dravidian speaker)

Acharya Agnimitra said...

@Nathan

You absolute wacko, I am a Dravidian speaker too. From Kerala if you want to know...

Probably three language families developed, diversified, thrived, coexisted and influenced each other for thousands of years in Bharatavarsha without any of the illusory hatred, racism or conflicts that your petty, colonized mind seems obsessed with. Not a single instance of the content of your paranoia can be found. It is only in the last century that your sort of people have been relentlessly hell bent on creating fault lines and achieving what history itself could not do- To bring the oldest civilization on earth to its knees.

There is more pure, unaltered Sanskrit in the vocabulary of some Dravidian languages (even upto 70%) than there is in ANY northern language which have all been pervaded by prakritisms. Likewise, classical post Vedic Sanskrit has been influenced by Dravidian loan words too. I do not need to hate or demean one thing to appreciate the other. Not do I need to manufacture fake history. That dichotomy is your demon, not mine.

Jijnasu said...

@santosh
R1a occurs at around 10-25% in various Tamil and Malayali middle castes.

Matt said...

@ Davidski:
Not looking good.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFbmZBVnBCN1Z4QXc/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFZ05qRGNYUkg2YXM/view?usp=sharing


Cheers for that. Using the Yoruba outgroup stats as easiest to interpret, biggest problem stats seem to me to involve and to boil down to Barcin in the model being too close to Andamanese, Ust Ishim and the Villabruna clade, relative to being not close enough to the rest of the West Eurasian clade (EHG, MA1, Goyet, Kostenki, El Miron, Vestonice16). (For stats: http://i.imgur.com/YZEQCsv.png)

It seems as if we do need a kind of early divergent "West Eurasian clade" ancestry going into Barcin, and the Villabruna+BEu model doesn't cut it when we have a large number of Upper Paleolithic Europeans on the graph? Works OK when it's just MA-1, WHG and East Asian on the graph, then runs into more problems with relatedness to other members of the West Eurasian clade. Basically like you've got it right in your current working models.

With that in mind, couple of modifications if you wouldn't mind:

A: https://pastebin.com/9D8X6bxG - single layer of early divergent West Eurasian into Barcin
B: https://pastebin.com/0ZAr6aTk - double layer of early divergent West Eurasian and later Villabruna like into Barcin

I expect B should hopefully work better than A.

Kind of interesting in this run, though. Fu's models indicated quite high GoyetQ116-1 continuity in El_Miron, but here El_Miron derives the vast majority of ancestry from an early branch on the Villabruna tree. So I guess, not really GoyetQ116-1 resurgence, and more like Magdalenians mostly derived from a Villabruna group. Conversely, quite high survival of El Miron like ancestry in La Brana 1. Caveat is that the Z is not great, so see if that changes if the modifications improve Z.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Matt,

Here is A

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B962TtPkX1YndDdKRVRmWFJ3SFk/view?usp=sharing

Nathan Paul said...

The topic "Indian Confirmation Bias" is straight out of Fox News. Can not expect more from Davidski.

Science conclusively proved that:

1. Rats spread from South Asia
2. Indian Street Dog
3. Cattle admixture in Middle East and Africa from South Asia.
4. Cotton from South Asia.
5. Horses came from Central Asia.

Admixture from Pontic Steppies may be there. My doubt : is there any upstream markers of P* or K* in Pontic Steppy.

Matt said...

@ Chad, thanks. Essentially no/little change in the stat differences between that A and the model from earlier upthread, except that your model looks to have lower standard error than the one Davidski ran (and therefore stat difference/standard error that drives the Z becomes slightly larger and worse fit!).

So that didn't do anything helpful. I'll see what B does - there may be something I'm just not getting re: these graphs representing the relationship of Barcin to Onge and Ust_Ishim in particular not well...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm fixing A right now

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think that I can one-up Fu et al (2016) on the phylogeny. I'll continue working on it, as I think this makes more sense.

Nathan said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

Just because your are a Dravidian speaker from the South does not mean you are a Dravidian. You could be a Brahmin and thus someone who's culture is anti-Dravidian and identifies with Aryans. Many people outside of India don't know this. Your username suggests a strong affectiton to Sanskrit. You could be a recent North Indian immigrant .

Anyone pushing O.I.T and denying there was an colonization of South Asia by Aryans is pushing an Aryancentric / Aryan supremacist narrative. There is ample evidence that Aryans are not native to South Asia and did not build the Indus Valley civ. Claims to the contrary are akin to White Nationalists claiming Sumer and Ancient Egypt were Europeans.

So if I see Indians trying to claim the Aryans are autochthonous then I am going to assume they are most likely Brahmins or from North Indian upper castes. Due to religious brainwashing , lots of non-Brahmins and non-upper caste Hindus also support Hindutva but Hindutva,BJP, RSS and the architects of this ideology are Brahmins and upper caste Hindus. The other Hindus are just usefull idiots. Coming from a Dravidian 'Hindu' family, I know firshand the power of religious brainwashing and how it prevents people from seeing the truth.

Nathan said...

@Jijnasu
"I think you are mistaken as to the intent of most OITists rather than being Aryan supremacists they largely emphasize Indo-Aryan and Dravidian unity."

Leaving aside the grass-roots Hindu nationalists who come from non-upper caste backgrounds, the reason the upper castes push this Aryancentric narrative is because of Aryan supremacist mindset.

Some of these Hindutva ideologues, like David Frawley/Vamadeva Shastri , try to assimilate Dravidian CULTURE into the Aryan cultural world, even going soo far as to deny that Dravidian and Aryan languages are distinct. They emphasize unity only as a means to further cultural genocide. If they can subsume Dravdian culture into Aryan culture, then they would have succeeded in wiping us out. Just like they did to Dravidians and other non-Aryan speakers in North India.

For many years the Turkish nationalists kept saying Kurds were just Mountain Turks; which was an attempt to deny the unique identity of the Kurds and impose a Turkish identity on them. At one time Turkey banned the teaching of Kurdish. In the same manner , after Independence from Britian, North Indians tried to destroy Dravidians by imposing Hindi on the South.

As we all know, European colonists also tried to eraze the native culture of Amerindians with religious conversion and imposition of language. It was an attempt to gradually wipeout the native peoples, so they wouldn't pose an existential threat. In the same manner, these Hindutva/Aryancentrists are only pushing this faux identity as a means to destroy non-Aryan cultures .

Us Dravidians retaining our ethnocultural identity is an existential threat to these Aryancentrists, cause they fear separatism and constant internal Indian communal jockeying for power between those who identify as Aryans and those who do not.