search this blog

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Global distributions of lactase persistence alleles (Liebert et al. 2017)


The series of maps below is from a new paper by Liebert et al. at Human Genetics. Almost certainly, any population with a sizable level of the 13910*T allele has relatively recent (post-Mesolithic) ancestry from Europe. In that context, note the presence of 13910*T in South Asia and North Central Africa. Populations in these regions also show high frequencies of two Y-chromosome haplogroups that are present in samples from Mesolithic Eastern Europe: R1a and R1b-V88, respectively. It's hard to imagine that this is a coincidence.


Liebert, A., López, S., Jones, B.L. et al., World-wide distributions of lactase persistence alleles and the complex effects of recombination and selection, Hum Genet (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-017-1847-y

See also...

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

R1b-V88: out of the Balkans and into Africa?

88 comments:

Salden said...

Anybody seriously saying that there were no significant migrations from Eastern Europe to the Western Steppes toawrds Central to Southern Asia is just blinded by Anti-European ideology.

EastPole said...

@Salden
“Anybody seriously saying that there were no significant migrations from Eastern Europe to the Western Steppes toawrds Central to Southern Asia is just blinded by Anti-European ideology.”

Yes, but I am not sure now whether the original R1a migration which reached Southern Asia started from Eastern European steppe. Maybe it came from Central Europe where steppe pastoralists mixed first with Neolithic farmers possessing the lactase persistence allele and after this turned East, entered the steppe and went to India.
It may be that PIE pastoralists on the steppe didn’t have this allele and Indo-Iranians, Balts, and Slavs didn’t split from PIE but separated later expanding from Central Europe.

History of R1a and how it acquired lactase persistence allele will be very interesting.

Karl_K said...

No, no. These alleles were independently selected culturally from independently domesticated dairy producing animals. Just an amazing coincidence. Enough with these simple explanations. Simple and obvious is obviously wrong.

Nirjhar007 said...

Yes independently , actually S Asia is a center of Cattle domestication :

''Archeozoological and genetic data indicate that cattle were first domesticated from wild aurochs (Bos primigenius) approximately 10,500 years ago. There were two major areas of domestication: one in the area that is now Turkey, giving rise to the taurine line, and a second in the area that is now Pakistan, resulting in the indicine line''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Domestication_and_husbandry
With perhaps an independent origin in Africa as well .But Hg's and alleles do not have independent origins , so aDNA will be decisive .

Davidski said...

13910*T is a European allele.

Karl_K said...

"13910*T is a European allele."

Not exactly. The same point mutation could and will occur more than once.

However, this particular allele carried with it a surrounding haplotype in a strong selective sweep that has a single 'recent' origin.

This haplotype definitely made it to South Asia from Europe. The origin of the cattle themselves in South Asia is irrelevant.

Ric Hern said...

When we look at Harappan Seals you see both Taurus and Indicus cattle so it is not totally impossible that cattle domestication was introduced into India and then the Indians independently domesticated the Indicus type.

Karl_K said...

@Ric

The climate in South Asia was probably a major factor in adding Indicus cattle to the domesticated breeding pool.

Ric Hern said...

Yes Karl Taurus Cattle suffer in tropical conditions however they do not do too bad in dryer semi-desert climates like Northwest India and the Kalahari desert.

Rami said...

Wow lot of ignorant comments here. People in South Asia get most of their dairy not from taurine cattle but water buffaloes, which has been exported to Mesopotamia in the late Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age, so highly likely Indus people were getting their dairy from them, SI tribals like Todas (completely dependent on dairy), Vellamas, Bondas do the same . This gene was tested from Taurine cattles, not Auroch derived breeds or Buffalos. Also R1b Mesolithic hunter gatherers from Europe were not cattle farmers and lactose intolerant, so inferring they brought lactose tolerance to North Africans is idiotic. Taurine cattle have never been used in the South Asia, also the cattles in SSA Africa also are related to Auroch derived breeds.

Matt said...

@Rami, not necessarily, you may be exactly wrong here (I won't call you ignorant though ;) ). Earliest identified of the European LP haplotype in NGS samples seems to be be Ibousierres-25, so WHG. See Mathieson 2017, supplement page 50.

Certainly looks like a similar haplotype and they claim to have identied the derived SNP rs4988235.

Yes, I know it doesn't make sense that a HG individual would have this when they hardly ate dairy, but there may be some weird pleiotropic thing going on where the allele has some other benefit sufficient to maintain it at low frequency.

"The observation of this allele, long before domestication and dairying, would be surprising, but might be consistent with observation of lactase persistence in early Neolithic populations in Iberia and Sweden** – observations that were themselves surprising based on the absence of persistence in large samples of Anatolian Neolithic and LBK individuals***"

Possibly European LP variant is an "Atlantic Neolithic" thing and travels to both North Africa and the MLBA steppe from there.... It'd be pretty cool for this allele to make its way from some humble mesolithic hunter-gatherer from Spain all the way to Northwest India...

**
Plantinga, T. S. et al. Low prevalence of lactase persistence in Neolithic South-West Europe. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 20, 778-782 (2012).
Malmstrom, H. et al. High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric huntergatherer population in northern Europe. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 89 (2010).
*** Burger, J., Kirchner, M., Bramanti, B., Haak, W. & Thomas, M. G. Absence of the lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic Europeans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104, 3736-3741 (2007)

Ric Hern said...

@ Rami

Who said Taurine Cattle were used or found in Southern India ?

Ric Hern said...

R1b probably spread to Eastern Anatolia during the Mesolithic and from there with cattle into Northern Africa during the Early Sahara Subpluvial.

Looks like they Spread from Northern Egypt in an West-Southwest direction as the dates of Rockart and other evidence show and eventually ended up near the Aïr Mountains 4600 bC. To the Northeast of the Tenerians the evidence of cattle herding in Libya is as early as 5500 bC. etc...

mzp1 said...

13910 distribution is interesting. Similarly with IE I wonder why it never made it into the Middle East?

It would seem that if you can IndoEuropeamize India from Europe you can do the same to Egypt (it is closer and had a smaller population to resist). Doesn't make any sense. A complete domination and religio-cultural overthrow in India but no change in Egypt (or mespotamia).

On the other hand groups leaving India would have been pushed west due to the high population in Central Asia and would naturally end up in Europe - a little developed and sparsely populated region.

Matt said...

@mzp1, though why do you think Egypt would've had a smaller or at least less concentrated population than India?

The civilization of Egypt was a fertile river valley, pretty close to where most of the agriculture used across West Eurasia was developed and had the climate that the crops were adapted to, and so farming probably had pretty high yields early in history.

India, at large, really had none of these features.

We can't project current population of very populous regions today like India back and assume that the same population density was present in the past. There is much change in the proportion of the world's population that live in, say, Northern Europe, Southern China and Southeast Asia, and yes, probably India, relative to what was the case in the era we are talking about. A population density map of the world in 2000BC or 1000BC even would not look much like today.

The Indus Valley probably did have a comparably good farming environment, and it did have the Harappan civilization, but this civilization shows not much evidence of armies or kings, in an intensive way, the way that was more common in the broader Near East region by the time of the Indo-Europeans. There is no Akkadian Empire equivalent in India, no equivalent of military campaigns of Ramesses in Harappa. This is one of its most endearing features to scholars but it may have also been a *bit* of a problem for them, in the end (or it might not, if this civilization had already declined to a much lower population well before encounters with Indo-European cultures).

Jaydeep said...

Matt,

The Indus civilization is not so well researched as the ancient Bronze Age civilizations of Egypt & Mesopotamia. The theory of the Indus civilization people not having armies is just a romantic notion with no real basis in fact. Such notions exist due to the poor knowledge we have of the Indus civilization.

No archaeologist, however, has ever argued that the Indus civilization was sparsely populated. It is considered mostly to be the largest Bronze Age civilization of the Old world, with its spread greater than the combined spread of ancient Egypt & Mesopotamia.

Moreover, it might be worthwhile for people to know that in terms of trade, there is little evidence of Mesopotamian artifacts in the Indus sites in contrast to the significant presence of Indus artefacts like seals etc in Mesopotamian sites. There is evidence of presence of Indus colonies in Mesopotamia, Central Asia, the Arabian coast. We also know that the South Asian Zebu cattle spread from the Indus to Central Asian and Eastern Iran at least by around 3000 BC and later on it is also found in Mesopotamia and by the early second millennium BC in Turkey among Hittites and also in Egypt.

All indications are that the Indus civilization people were quite an enterprising lot and were hugely influential to the civilizations it came in contact with. The earliest evidence of lost wax casting is also found among the Indus people and the earliest known object that was made by lost wax casting is intact in the shape of a spoked wheel . So also do we find the evidence of wheeled vehicles in the Indus by atleast 3500 BC.

Such a civilization is unlikely to somehow lie prostrate and allow the numerically inferior steppe groups to walk all over them. Therefore, the theory of Bronze Age steppe migrations into South Asia is very difficult to sustain archaeologically.

Davidski said...

@mzp1

You're a funny guy. But...

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

Matt said...

Jaydeep: The theory of the Indus civilization people not having armies is just a romantic notion with no real basis in fact.

Er... Well, maybe they'll find the chariots and armies one day, I guess. I mean, I don't think that this is a question of sparse evidence.

Also how can there be this vast wealth of evidence of Indus colonies sites that you describe, that you've launch into, and at the same time there is not enough evidence to go on for these other aspects? It seems to be contradictory.

I can't comment on the population density of the Harappan civilization sites vs contemporary Egypt and Mesopotamia (though I would welcome a direct academic reference making comparisons if you have one); main point is my understanding is that the evidence for dense settlement is not very high in India in general, or even just along the Indo-Gangetic plain, outside of the established Harappa settlements.

India as a whole is not necessarily this hugely populated region at this point in time, in a way that simple back projection of today's population density might suggest. Rather it may have been a thinly populated "backwater" compared with the major centres of domestication in the Near East, only to see population rises later in history (much akin to Europe of the time, really).

bellbeakerblogger said...

I guess theoretically you could milk a glyptodon, but obviously we're talking about secondary products of Near Eastern Neolithic domestics, not people sucking on zebra udders or the underside of a platypus.
The timescale in this paper makes that fairly clear.

BTW, some percentage of any mammal could have defective lactase shutoff machinery. It's only when strong selection is present that it is noteworthy. That is only demonstrated in some humans, unsurprisingly in herding cultures.

Davidski said...

Take it easy on Rami guys. He's very angry at reality, and this clouds his ability to think logically.

Ryan said...

Why does it have to be post-Neolithic? I'd think R1b could have entered North Africa a bit before the Neolithic, and I'm not sure what information you could have against that.

Davidski said...

R1b-V88 and 13910*T are found in pastoralist populations of North Central Africa.

Pretty sure they didn't just become pastoralists in North Central Africa.

Joshua Jonathan said...

Wikipedia: According to Gallego Romero et al. (2011), their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that "the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Iran and the Middle East."[38] Gallego Romero notes that Indians who are lactose-tolerant show a genetic pattern regarding this tolerance which is "characteristic of the common European mutation."[web 3] According to Gallego Romero, this suggests that "the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found."[web 3] In contrast, Allentoft et al. (2015) found that lactose-tolerance was absent in the Yamnaya culture, noting that while "the Yamnaya and these other Bronze Age cultures herded cattle, goats, and sheep, they couldn’t digest raw milk as adults. Lactose tolerance was still rare among Europeans and Asians at the end of the Bronze Age, just 2000 years ago."[web 16][101]

mansamusa said...

So Africa accounts for the greatest diversity of lactase persistence alleles? In Europe, this seems to be restricted to just 13910*T.

Philippe said...

Davidski, what is the image in your profile picture?

Ryan said...

@David - "Pretty sure they didn't just become pastoralists in North Central Africa."

But why not in North Africa or the Green Sahara? R1b had to enter Africa somewhere, and I don't think it should be taken for granted that that entry came with the whole Neolithic package.

Davidski said...

@Joshua Jonathan

What that crappy Wikipedia entry doesn't mention is that 13910*T has been reported from the MLBA Pontic-Caspian steppe, along with R1a-Z93.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/lactase-persistence-and-ancient-dna.html

@Philippe

A bust of a Yuezhi man. At your own risk a Wikipedia entry on the Yuezhi.

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

MomOfZoha said...

Making a major genetic-linguistic-cultural connection between "European" [proto]-Indo-Europeans and Indians by totally stepping over not only the Iranians in general but also the Zoroastrians specifically is pretty amazing. Not that I think that some Iranics were the "ones" who "invaded" India as I am not looking to fit anything into some "Aryan Invasion" framework. However, the linguistic connection between Farsi and Sanskrit is unmistakable -- one need not even resort to comparing the Avesta to the Vedas to claim this (poetry is not meant to be compared). At least as importantly, some Iranic languages also bear striking similarity to certain Slavic languages (at least I was struck by some of the similarities between the Croatian and Kurmanji renderings of a particular phrase as well as grammatical similarities between Farsi and Croatian). It is really hard to imagine that Iranians played no role in whatever transfers transpired between the Europeans (especially of the proto-Slavic variety) and the Indians.

Yet, the J is pretty strong in not only present-day Iranians but also more general Iranics, from Ossetians to Kurds, as well as Zoroastrians, including Parsis in India, even the priesthood.

In all honesty, having no Y-chromosome myself and no real "stake" in the matter, it does kind of surprise me that there is such a deep distinction in the Y haplogroups of the Iranic peoples from West to East, if we were to consider what once was "Eastern Iranian lands" to include Tajikistan and much else in Central Asia. Perhaps this is a situation in which aspects of language and culture are not homologous to the underlying genetics. Perhaps the "steppe people" represented recent admixtures due to their variant maternal origins, were multi-lingual, and adopted whichever language was more convenient at a given time. (There is nothing disadvantageous about being multi-lingual or recently admixed -- in fact, I would say it is unconditionally advantageous no matter what the admixture and languages in question.) At any rate, a people may easily be the "carriers" of a language and culture which is not predominantly that of their grandparents.

*Despite* all of that, it still surprises me that the divergence between R and J is so deep.

Having said that, I just recalculated my Iranian Azeri family member's Y-haplogroup, and he comes up as "most likely J" in Morley's experimental yet "most likely R1a1" in Morley's ISOGG 2013 calculator... I hope to find time and money to do a Y-Full on his son (my husband), as well as think of improving the algorithm by which the phylogenetic tree topology was determined in the first place.

Davidski said...

@MomOfZoha

You should know by now that Western Iranics played no role whatsoever in Indo-Europeanizing India. Stick that into your head and keep it there.

A few more points that you might want to memorize for future reference:

- Indo-Aryans came to India from the steppe via Central Asia, not Iran

- East Iranics came to South Central Asia from the steppe via Central Asia, not Iran

- a couple of West Iranic ethnic groups like the Zoroastrians and Balochs eventually moved into South Asia from Iran during historic times

- in all likelihood Y-haplogroup J was in India before the Indo-Aryans got there from the steppe

Seinundzeit said...

This is probably a good place to post this...

I've been revisiting Matt's idea of running PCoA on an Fst matrix.

For what it’s worth, the results have been pretty interesting.

With transparency in mind (so that others can make their own attempts):

I used an Fst matrix which David had provided to me (a few months back). Eleven dimensions were utilized. The reference populations are listed below.

Corded_Ware
Bell_Beaker_CE
SHG
WHG
Kostenki
Europe_MNChL
Anatolia_Neolithic
Levant_Neolithic
Israel_Natufian
AG3-MA1
CHG
Iran_Neolithic
Iran_Chalcolithic
Steppe_Eneolithic
Steppe_EMBA
Steppe_MLBA
Sarmatian-Scythian
Scythian_East
Xibo
Vietnamese
ASI (I constructed this simulation by examining the behavior of the Paniya and Bonda in relation to ENA population structure, in all 11 of the dimensions used)
Papuan
Ust_Ishim
Yoruba

These reference populations were used for every test population.

In order to increase confidence in the Central/South Asian output, I'm first posting a few European and West Asian examples.

In my mind, since everything makes sense for the other West Eurasian populations (and I tried them all), I think we can be quite confident of the patterns seen with South Central Asians and South Asians.

Europeans (to be clear, these models aren’t meant to be taken literally; again, their purpose is simply to demonstrate the power/accuracy of this method):

Udmurd

51.2% Scythian_East
43.5% Corded_Ware
5.2% Steppe_EMBA
0.1% Xibo

Distance=3.951

Tatar

34.20% Corded_Ware
33.85% Bell_Beaker
24.55% Scythian_East
7.40% Xibo

Distance=3.8236

Latvian

62.5% Corded_Ware
30.1% Bell_Beaker
6.8% WHG
0.6% Xibo

Distance=5.1115

Lithuanian

48.35% Corded_Ware
45.90% Bell_Beaker
5.30% WHG
0.45% Xibo

Distance=4.8032

English

98.35% Bell_Beaker
0.65% Europe_MNChl
0.60% Vietnamese
0.20% ASI
0.20% Anatolia_Neolithic

Distance=3.9105

Sardinian

47.2% Anatolia_Neolithic + 19.3% Europe_MNChl
32.5% Bell_Beaker
1% Yoruba

Distance=4.7715

West Asia:

Iranian

63.75% Iran_Chalcolithic + 0.90% Natufian
26.80% Steppe_MLBA + 1.10% Steppe_EMBA
3.55% ASI
2.30% Xibo
1.60% Yoruba

Distance=3.8945

Iranian_Jew

64.00% Iran_Chalcolithic + 13.40% Levant_Neolithic + 4.10% Anatolia_Neolithic
15.90% Steppe_MLBA
1.95% ASI
0.65% Yoruba

Distance=5.0866

Honestly, everything looks pretty good, so the Central/South Asian results should be of great interest.

To be continued…

Seinundzeit said...

Continuing from where we left off…

South Asia

Austroasiatic Indian:

Bonda

60.95% ASI
17.3% Vietnamese
12.75% Steppe_EMBA
5.40% Iran_Neolithic + 3.60% AG3-MA1

South India:

Paniya

59.35% ASI
17.20% Iran_Neolithic + 6.45% AG3-MA1
17.00% Steppe_EMBA

Hakkipikki

48.00% ASI
29.10% Steppe_EMBA
22.45% Iran_Neolithic + 0.45% AG3-MA1

Sakilli

46.9 ASI
28.6 Steppe_EMBA
24.5% Iran_Neolithic

North_Kannadi

45.1% ASI
33.6% Steppe_EMBA
21.2% Iran_Neolithic

Piramalai

43.0% ASI
29.3% Steppe_EMBA
27.7% Iran_Neolithic

Seinundzeit said...

North India:

Chamar

45.0% ASI
33.0% Steppe_EMBA
21.9% Iran_Neolithic

Dusadh

41.9% ASI
33.5% Steppe_EMBA
24.6% Iran_Neolithic

Dharkar

39.3% Steppe_EMBA
37.9% ASI
22.8% Iran_Neolithic

Kanjar

39.5% Steppe_EMBA
38.4% ASI
22.2% Iran_Neolithic

Kshatriya

43.90% Steppe_EMBA
31.10% ASI
21.35% Iran_Neolithic
3.65% Iran_Chalcolithic

Brahmin_UP

47.0% Steppe_EMBA
29.2% ASI
20.6% Iran_Neolithic
3.3% Iran_Chalcolithic

Nirjhar007 said...


Matt,

I think Jaydeep is very correct while suggesting that N India in that time also had a huge population , according to Jane McIntosh :
''The enormous potential of the greater Indus region offered scope for huge population increase; by the end of the Mature Harappan period, the Harappans are estimated to have numbered somewhere between 1 and 5 million, probably well below the region’s
carrying capacity.''
McIntosh, Jane (2008), The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives, ABC-CLIO, p. 387

So around 3 million we can suggest, some also suggest a larger population . I am not sure if ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia had such bigger population. According to some archaeologists sites like Rakhigarhi in India had a population of about no less than 50000 :
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/community/14-harappan-generations-had-lived-in-rakhigarhi/234742.html

But an accurate estimate is I think not possible , but as Jaydeep mention ,experts of IVC/SSVC agree that it had a big population .

And very few % of IVC/SSVC sites are actually recovered so far , so the estimates will only go up with time.

Seinundzeit said...

Southern Central Asia

Linguistic isolate:

Burusho

40.20% Steppe_EMBA + 5.55% Scythian_East
16.35% Iran_Neolithic + 13.80% Iran_Chalcolithic
17.65% ASI
6.45% Xibo

Distance=5.2838

“Indian” population:

Kalash

49.45% Steppe_EMBA + 5.30% CHG
16.20% Iran_Neolithic + 16.05% Iran_Chalcolithic
13.00% ASI

Distance=4.8508

Iranian populations:

Sarbani Pashtun, from Punjabi-Pashtun ethnic frontier

41.25% Steppe_EMBA
29.70% Iran_Chalcolithic + 10.65% Iran_Neolithic
16.10% ASI
2.30% Xibo

Distance=5.8017

Me

35.10% Steppe_EMBA + 11.1% Scythian_East
33.15% Iran_Chalcolithic + 8.85% Iran_Neolithic
11.80% ASI

Distance=5.2613

Karlani Pashtun, central highlands

48.05% Steppe_EMBA
38.25% Iran_Chalcolithic
9.95% ASI
3.75% Xibo

Distance=4.2706

Sarbani Pashtun, southwestern plateau

43.30% Iran_Chalcolithic + 4.25% Iran_Neolithic
39.25% Steppe_EMBA
6.85% ASI
6.35% Xibo

Distance=4.258

Tajik_Pomiri

51.45% Steppe_EMBA + 2.65% Scythian_East
33.45% Iran_Chalcolithic
6.35% Xibo
6.10% ASI

Distance=3.6366

Observations:

Sensible stuff, as far as I can see.

In South India, the populations are (nearly) equal parts West Eurasian and ASI, with the West Eurasian half being a mixture between Steppe_EMBA and Iran_N-related streams of ancestry (with hints of enriched ANE ancestry for the Paniya and some other tribal populations).

In North India, the ASI range is more 40%-35%, with the exception of upper caste populations.

In South Central Asia, the ASI range is more like 15%-5%, with most populations hovering around 10%.

In West Asia, Iranians do show around 3% ASI, so we come full circle.

Also, the peoples of South Asia prefer Iran_N, with no noticable affinity towards Iran_Chal, while the peoples of southern Central Asia do prefer Iran_Chal, with variable affinity towards Iran_N.

Finally, South Central Asians and South Asians are the only living populations that receive Steppe_EMBA admixture, and that too such heavy dosages. I mean, South Central Asians and North Indian Brahmins are basically 50% Steppe_EMBA in this analysis, putting them in the same range as Northern/Eastern Europeans.

Looking at other West Eurasian groups, Europeans work with Corded_Ware and Bell_Beaker, and West Asians/Caucasians prefer Steppe_MLBA.

Without aDNA from Central and Southern Asia, we can’t be sure if this unique preference for Steppe_EMBA is real, but my money is on the affirmative.

Nirjhar007 said...

As I have been arguing for years , ASI in N India is most like a post-de-urbanization phenomenon . I don't reckon there will be much ASI in IVC/SSVC sites , but we will need aDNA.

Davidski said...

It makes no difference whether there's a little or a lot of ASI in IVC samples. They'll be mostly like Iran_N and there's no way that they'll resemble Bronze Age Eastern Europeans.

Also, R1a, especially R1a-M417, cannot be native to both Eastern Europe and South Asia, and we already know that it's native to Eastern Europe.

Ric Hern said...

When we look at those maps it surely looks as if the European Lactose persistent people spread from Iberia into Northwest Africa however when we look at the Middle Eastern and Northeast African groups it looks as if they pushed the European related groups Westwards.

Sofar the lack of R1b (V88) in Northwestern Africa during the Neolithic seems not to support that route into Africa yet so I still think that it spread from Southeastern Anatolia near where cattle were first domesticated and got totally replaced by later expansions of E1b,G2a and J2a after 8000 bC.

There were times when Egypts population dropped significantly providing windows for migration from the Levant through it that is why we see cattle domestication in Southern Egypt at roundabout 7000 bC.

However I think the Main Route of R1b(V88) was in the North near the Mediterranean Coast and then a dispersal when they reached the Mountainous areas of Central North Africa.

The Hausa are Autosomaly closer to Nilotic people but they carry a big percentage of R1b(V88). It seems as if some Nilotic people migrated to their current majority areas from the West maybe South Central Sahara.

It is interesting that the Hausa adopted Horse Riding while others around them did not... Maybe a Genetic Love for horses ?

Nirjhar007 said...

It makes no difference whether there's a little or a lot of ASI in IVC samples. They'll be mostly like Iran_N and there's no way that they'll resemble Bronze Age Eastern Europeans.

This is same old vomitus argumentation from you Dave , chances are practical that the IVC/SSVC people will resemble modern N Indians with insignificant amount of ASI .

Also, R1a, especially R1a-M417, cannot be native to both Eastern Europe and South Asia, and we already know that it's native to Eastern Europe. .

If you remember , the scientists in India already mentioned, that they have unpublished data , to point an older presence of R1a in S Asia,older than what is theorized nowadays .

Davidski said...

Those so called scientists from India are as delusional as you are, if not more so in private.

They have nothing special, I can assure you of that.

Henry said...

@davidski are there genome wide analysis of yuezhi and tocharians?

Davidski said...

No idea, but there are plenty of genomes from the Silk Road coming soon apparently.

Slumbery said...

Seinundzeit

"Udmurd

51.2% Scythian_East
43.5% Corded_Ware
5.2% Steppe_EMBA
0.1% Xibo"

How is that Udmurts take specifically Scytian_East over three steppe themed references? If that means a direct connection it just historically weird, but it can mean that Udmurds have the same kind of Siberian ancestry the Eastern Scytians had and that ancestry is totally different from the Xibo. And that is not good for the accuracy of this model, because it shows that unaccounted ghost populations can effect it very strongly. (And India can be a nest of unaccounted ghost populations, due to the lack of aDNA.)

Nirjhar007 said...

hose so called scientists from India are as delusional as you are, if not more so in private.

They have nothing special, I can assure you of that.


You are assuring the wrong person...

Matt said...

Nirjhar: So around 3 million we can suggest, some also suggest a larger population . I am not sure if ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia had such bigger population.

Maybe, though estimates of Egyptian population during the contemporaneous Middle Kingdom reach 2 million. Harappan civilization is also spread over larger area, so for Egypt, a denser population overall, and one that shows more direct archaeological, representational art evidence of military capacity able to resist foreign invasion.

Surely, there was also a decline in population size during the late Harappan phase, which is really what would proceed Indo-Aryan intrusion in theory.

Plus, note, the Indo-Aryans may not themselves have come as a small population, fresh from steppe, but after absorbing the BMAC complex with a relatively higher population count.

Situation may not be really like interaction between a small steppe population and a large mature Harappan civilization, but a clash between cultures of relatively similar population size, with one being much more militarized due to experience with more intense military conflicts back on the steppe and in the Near East.

Though, I'm really more interested in whether there was any / much neolithic food producing settlement outside the regions identified with the Harappan civilization, or whether India as a whole was sparsely and thinly populated. How much evidence is there really for widespread settlement in the region?

(I've not just got an interest in this last question from the perspective of Indo-European languages, but what it tells us about the rise of civilization in general. If India were heavily populated outside the Harappan region, why no incipient urbanisation or signs of proto-civilization? This would lead us to think a "special ingredient" is required for civilization beyond merely high population. While if there's no high population, then not as much of a problem to explain...).

Matt said...

@Sein, interesting exercise.

As with all methods, problems are really about choosing the cutoff for dimensions and selecting right populations for panel. But then this doesn't make it clearly any worse than other means to do it!

Slight technical detour, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this to you before, I would say that for these proportions between fairly diverged populations, it may be worth using Transformation Exponent c=2 on the Fst matrix. I've noticed that seems far better for preserving relative distances between populations with fairly large Fst (e.g. IRC something like 0.02 - 0.03 and anything upwards).

Using Transformation Exponent c=1 did seem to me to mean that very fine distances of 0.001 - 0.005 were not totally lost, hence why I think I may have said to use this back when I was trying to use it to model European fine structure, but seems like it may deform distances between populations.

Basically I found this out by compared neighbour joining structure on the c=2 output and c=1 output, and IRC the c=2 tended to be a much better match, and when detransformed, produced the right distances, while c=1 had problems and deformed distances to be more even.

C=2 actually tends to look worse, visually, when applied to these matrices, but when you carry out the Euclidean distance index function on C=2 matrix, it reproduces a matrix very similar to the original
I think as dimensions go under this method, the algorithm has increaseing difficulty at isolating real dimensions and placing populations on them, so stopping at dimension 11 seems a fairly sensible implementation.

Anyway, long story short, if I haven't mentioned before, I'd advise after you use this method and produce a PCoA for nMonte, it would be worth copying the PCoA output back into PAST3 and check that the euclidean distances still have a match to the original matrix you put in, at least for the long range populations you've using to try and model others.
All this said, whether distance are preserved or not may not always have as much impact on the nMonte as the dimensional structure, as Alberto found Global10 tended to not vary so much when he weighted or did not weight the dimensions according to eigenvectors.

Nirjhar007 said...

Maybe, though estimates of Egyptian population during the contemporaneous Middle Kingdom reach 2 million. Harappan civilization is also spread over larger area, so for Egypt, a denser population overall, and one that shows more direct archaeological, representational art evidence of military capacity able to resist foreign invasion. .

I am not sure about this . The Mature period was highly centralized. Meaning there were firm interactions between the sites . The density of sites were generally besides and close to the the Rivers like Sindhu and Ghaggar-Hakra (which is also identified with Vedic Sarasvati) . Researchers have proposed that Ghaggar-Hakra had a denser concentration of sites compared to Sindhu(Indus) .I don't think there is any evidence of a foreign military invasion during say 1900 BC , materialistic data wise , pretty confident aDNA will also agree .

Surely, there was also a decline in population size during the late Harappan phase, which is really what would proceed Indo-Aryan intrusion in theory.

I think what happened during the de-urbanization period is that localized cultures emerged , population started shifting to east . There is no data to suggest any minimization or something like that. Or even if logically happened , there was nothing drastic .
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170418/jsp/bihar/story_146863.jsp#.WPX2KEV97IU
Plus, note, the Indo-Aryans may not themselves have come as a small population, fresh from steppe, but after absorbing the BMAC complex with a relatively higher population count. .

That is just a theory or better say story . Nothing of actual value.

Situation may not be really like interaction between a small steppe population and a large mature Harappan civilization, but a clash between cultures of relatively similar population size, with one being much more militarized due to experience with more intense military conflicts back on the steppe and in the Near East.

And this is a theory based on another previous assumption :) .

If India were heavily populated outside the Harappan region, why no incipient urbanisation or signs of proto-civilization?.

The Harappan region is quite vast as you know . But obviously the population boost started to happen around 2600 BC , during mature phase . The Early Harappan Phases and Neolithic Phases didn't have such big population of course . During de-urbanization the Harappans migrated .



Matt said...

Interesting way to look at it. Maybe the population of the Harappan civilization didn't decline so much then, as abandon the region due to aridification, and then the Indo-Aryan invasion was at first simply them taking over a now more sparsely populated region, and cultural and linguistic dominance took longer. Whether the population changed residence, or actually declined, it wouldn't have been there in the same region. Either way it does not support the idea of a massive population in the Harappa region preventing entry by Indo-Aryans from outside.

Nirjhar007 said...

Matt, the Civilization by around say 2100 BC had population in Millions and when de-urbanization started to happen , the huge population didn't have resources to maintain , so obviously migrations happened. But they didn't abandoned everything ,Harappa itself was not abandoned in the late Harappan period, and there was an increase of sites in the area of present Haryana, because the Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra) river became dry more to the west.
Then, we have the spread of the Painted Grey Ware, that was also contemporary with Late Harappan in sites of Haryana like Bhagwanpura, around 1400 BC and later. The Painted Grey Ware has been identified with the Aryans, but it is a material culture centered in the Yamuna-Ganges plain and it cannot be derived from the west.People adapted more rural way of lifestyle. So Hard data of archaeology does not support a bronze age invasion of India, because there is a continuous evolution from the Chalcolithic to the Harappan period and beyond, as recognized by Gregory Possehl or Jim Shaffer. Even from the Neolithic Mehrgarh there is continuity for many aspects, but there is a change with the Chalcolithic Mehrgarh, a change involving also burials and anthropological features of the skeletons. After that, as remarked by Kennedy,there is not a significant anthropological change until Iron age Sarai Khola after 800 BC, of course too late for the Aryan invasion and not involving the whole of the subcontinent.
Here some remarks from the book of Possehl:


https://books.google.it/books?id=pmAuAsi4ePIC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=iron+age+sarai+khola+discontinuity&source=bl&ots=8z5evY6wGZ&sig=wV_dTde6vBVO7hMREsgUOjbKhvM&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_vKKntY_SAhVBqiwKHaCjC6wQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=iron%20age%20sarai%20khola%20discontinuity&f=false


And also from the important book of Bryant and Patton:
https://books.google.it/books?id=fHYnGde4BS4C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=iron+age+sarai+khola+discontinuity&source=bl&ots=qD_kHDbvH_&sig=51eA7vRXOT56AxidbwIeNWb0Og8&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzpvfot4_SAhWHZCwKHc1aC5EQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=iron%20age%20sarai%20khola%20discontinuity&f=false

And it is impractical to imagine a massive impact from steppe , as some here suggest based on autosomal data for such a big population , with no outside trail of destruction and massacre etc , forcing majority of AIT scholars to shelter on elite dominance !.

Linguistically, I think we should consider that the Harappan civilization must have used a common language,and that the language of this civilization, lasting for centuries and spread in a huge area, cannot have been cancelled by any invasion. At least, if the Harappan civilization was non-Indo-European, many terms connected with civilization should have been non-Indo-European, which is not true. Sanskrit is a very pure! Indo-European language, and using Indo-European words for the domain of politics, economy, and so on.

If we compare with Mesopotamia, where Sumerian lasted for centuries together with Akkadian and Sumerian words were used even by Hittite scribes, there is something clearly wrong in the assumption of a complete linguistic change.And from the Indian textual tradition, we must admit that there is no mention of a migration from the west in Vedic times, the times of the alleged invasion!.
The center of the culture was the Sarasvati river, to the east of the Indus, identified with the Ghaggar/Hakra as said before, the drying of which influenced the shift of sites of the late Harappan period (after 1900 BC).


So, the Aryan invasion theory in the 2nd mill. BC appears to be an artificial myth, that was created in the 19th century before knowing the Harappan civilization. Unfortunately, it has been repeated by many scholars, and so it is not easy to get rid of it! but aDNA may help to some degree.

supernord said...

Of course, these maps show that the Aryan invasion theory is definitely true. Here is a sample way of spreading:

Eastern Europe of the Сopper age -> Central Europe CWC with lactose tolerance addition from Neolithic farmers with WHG admixture -> the Andronovo (Sintashta) -> the Fedorovo (Andronovo) -> the Indus Valley.

Nirjhar007 said...

Magnificent story , I will be really proud if it comes out to be true , lol .

M & M said...

Czy Twoj wpis Dawidzie ma zwiazek z tym?
http://archeowiesci.pl/2015/06/11/skad-ten-allel/

http://archeowiesci.pl/2012/12/13/najstarsze-sery-swiata-z-polski/

Dzieki za odp. :)

Davidski said...

Czy Twoj wpis Dawidzie ma zwiazek z tym?
http://archeowiesci.pl/2015/06/11/skad-ten-allel/


Nie. Z tym...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-017-1847-y

supernord said...

@Nirjhar007
"Sarasvati (Ghaggar-Hakra) river"

Sarasvati = Ghaggar-Hakra is fairy talу.

"dry more to the west." is Uzboy river at Aral lake/Sea part of Amu Darya river. Saras means lake. Sarasvati means lacustrine. Saras on Iranian is *Harah -> Ara+ -> Aral.


"we have the spread of the Painted Grey Ware .... and it cannot be derived from the west." - unscientific subjectivity.


"So Hard data of archaeology does not support a bronze age invasion of India"
It is not true.


"there is not a significant anthropological change until Iron age Sarai Khola after 800 BC, of course too late for the Aryan invasion"

It is not true. Until that time, do a little anthropological materials because Indo-Arians was cremated. However, among the graves is a typical Andronovo (Fedorovo) people. After 800 years, it was Buddhism, which bad belonged to cremation and therefore began to bury in different ways. So, just got better stats, it was added to the Indo-Arians which previously cremated.

"Sanskrit is a very pure! Indo-European language"

It is not true! Already in the Vedic language has loanwords from substrate languages, but still not enough. And in Sanskrit they are generally already very much. What linguistic evidence clearly shows the categorical impossibility of its origin from Indus valley.

Haplogroup L belong to the Harappan also claims it.

mzp1 said...

The IVC consists of Urban centers of craftmanship, that is all the urban centers were created for. The IVC living standards were good for the average worker, hence they would have chosen to give-up their rural existence and go work in one of the urban centers. The entire urbanisation would have been sustained by earlier indiginous farmers and pastoralists. The IVC urban centers are only a small part of the population of the larger area. Most people would have been rural even then, therefore the main culture and religion would of been of a rural nature.

Assuming the IVC people were non-violent or non-warlike is assuming a great deal. No one can go from India to Middle East and trade in goods and not be versed in warfare, security, culture and ideas of elite dominance. IVC people would have known all this.

Take, for example Lapiz Lazuli, massively in demand in Egypt from the earliest record. It came from Afghanistan and was sold to the elites in Egypt. The trade is about power. We have something you want and you will pay us good money for it, and you can show your people how great your are because you have so much Lapiz in your temple, house, death mask etc. Much if this early trade consisted of status defining objects and this is related to your favourite idea, 'Elite Dominance'.

Indo Europeans from the earliest literature we have were big on craftmanship and trade.The Hittites, the Mycenenians, the Kassites, Mittani, Skythians etc were all about dominating trade. The idea that IEs were as late as 3000BC just pastoral nomads is absurd. Axles are hard to make and the Kurgan/Andronovo/Sintashta cultures do not seem to have the sufficiently high culture of craftmanship to be able to produce it themselves. According to your theory these guys were simple pastoralists who made very little else but jumped straight into making spoked wheel chariots and yet the IVC who made great cities never got that stage! That makes no sense. We have found no chariots in IVC because IVC people were simply craftsmen and did not do chariot burials. IN the steppe we only see horses and chariots from burials, it only requires that the IVC did not do horse/chariot burials for us not to find any, and that is expected of an urban environment.

idurar said...

Not going against the conclusion but R1b-V88 is pretty uncommon in the Maghreb today (R1b-M269 is actually more common), so it's not a clear connection (E-M81 might have replaced a lot of the y-dna diversity early on) . In Subsaharan Africa, Fulanis too (high European LP + substantial Berber-like ancestry) don't have R1b-V88 (except in Sudan and near Chadic-speakers in Cameroon).
Anyway, another interesting point is NW Africa has higher frequencies of the European LP allele than neighbouring Italy, Sardinia and Southeastern Europe.

supernord said...

"Axles are hard to make and the Kurgan/Andronovo/Sintashta cultures do not seem to have the sufficiently high culture of craftmanship to be able to produce it themselves."

LOL: LOL: LOL: LOL:

What level of ignorance need to roll to write this?

Jijnasu said...

@supernord
While I don't agree with everything Nirjhar says. Your arguments are ridiculous. No serious scholar considers the Amu Darya to be the saraswati. There is very little doubt that the saraswati of the 'later' rig Vedic period and the following later Vedic period is the ghaggar-hakra system. That the Saraswati flowed in the kuru country was known well into classical times. The present day ghaggar has an upstream tributary called the Sarasuti. It is only the identity of the saraswati mentioned in early books of the rig Veda that is doubted. The Helmand river (the Haraxvaiti) of the avesta being suggested as an alternative. To anyone with any knowledge of the Vedic tradition it is clear that it was centred on what is now Haryana and western UP with its horizons extending upto what is now KP in Pakistan

Also archaeological evidence of an invasion is limited (Though this does not really rule out a migration) Also Rig Vedic people knew of both burial and cremation

Jijnasu said...

@Nirjhar
What is the chronology of the Vedic texts that you assume in your IVC = IA hypothesis

supernord said...

@Jijnasu Your arguments are ridiculous.

Sarasvati name is the usual name of the river. Sarasvati rivers were many. It is a regular transfer of the names of rivers, well known to all. Sarasvati is in Afghanistan Haraxvati, Greek Arachosia, and even Araх is Sarasvati, Volga river in the Avesta also was called Arax sometimes.

Vedic Sarasvati dried up in the desert, this is important. An Indus river is not in desert.

I wrote Uzboy and not the Amu Darya, but Amu Darya in Avesta is called Vakhsh, that is name of Avestan goddess Sarasvati.

The drying of the Uzboy there is a geographical fact, so no connection with Harappa not needed - they have nothing to prove and argument to support this hypothesis are not.

Matt said...

@Nirjhar: The consensus does seem to be that these cities were mostly abandoned. It seems more likely that surely there was a massive reduction in population, at least in this region, from this 3 million peak, if you have large migrations to the east and the cities are mostly abandoned.

I do ultimately think these assumptions about very large relative population size differences in South Asia are not based on very much at all, just as when they were invoked for the impossibility of significant hunter gatherer introgression in Europe (population size differences were supposed in theory to mean that never happened; real data was different work).

Re: the linguistic argument you mention, though I can't comment on the veracity of your comment, there are cultural reasons why a language might adopt words against adopting formations and calques derived from their own word roots.

This is all getting well into the deep weeds of physical anthropology and of detecting a population change in material culture, though, which has often not proven to be very useful in the past, and really I think it'll be more easy to discuss this when we have ancient dna. I can't say about the degree of population change, but certainly think you'll be surprised at what you find and will change your thinking. Very nearly certain, people from the IVC will not be equivalent to present day South Asian people sans (or with less) ASI, and you will not be able to model the Yamnaya with this population plus EHG.

Chris Davies said...

The LP haplotypes which include 13910*T and are the least derived from the ancestral haplotype are found outside of Europe: Fulani Sudanese (derived at 6 positions from ancestral haplotype); Pakistan Baluch (derived at 7 positions); Morocco (derived at 10 positions). The form of the haplotype found in Europeans (with 13910*T in linkage disequilibrium with 22018*A) is found in Iranians (derived at 16 positions from ancestral haplotype) and Europeans (derived at 17 positions).

Sofia Aurora said...

It seems that not even the Khazars were Mongoloid or at least genetically, not to mention their "popular" jewish roots or what so ever!
They were Scythians genetically.
Here is the paper:

https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=73563

Slumbery said...

Sofia Aurora:
Isn't the "popular Jewish roots" part a strawman? I never heard (or saw) anybody saying that Khazars had Jewish _roots_. It seems to be a common understanding that their Judaism was adopted (as apolitical move), not inherited.
What the Khazar-Jew theorist actually say is that a significant group of modern East European Jews have Khazar origin. That is completely different statement, they do not say the Khazars had Jewish origin. (To be clear, I personally do not believe in the Khazar origin of modern Jewish groups either, but at least that is an existing theory.)

Vara said...

@supernord

>>"dry more to the west." is Uzboy river at Aral lake/Sea part of Amu Darya river. Saras means lake. Sarasvati means lacustrine. Saras on Iranian is *Harah -> Ara+ -> Aral.

Aral is a Kazakh word. There is no Avestan equivalent to it.


>>Sarasvati name is the usual name of the river. Sarasvati rivers were many. It is a regular transfer of the names of rivers, well known to all.

There are only two rivers that match the Sarasvati description; Arachosia River in Afghanistan, which vanishes in the later texts, and the Ghaggar-Hakra.


>>Volga river in the Avesta also was called Arax sometimes.

LOL! Is that version of the Avesta written by Putin?


>>Vedic Sarasvati dried up in the desert, this is important. An Indus river is not in desert.

It is in the Thar desert.


>>I wrote Uzboy and not the Amu Darya, but Amu Darya in Avesta is called Vakhsh, that is name of Avestan goddess Sarasvati.

Uzboy river drying up could not make it into the Vedas unless they were written in the CE. Vakhshu is not an Avestan name and there is no Avestan goddess named Sarasvati, there's only Anahita.


Balaji said...

Others have already ably made the case for the origination of the 13910*T lactase persistence gene in the Indian Subcontinent and the subsequent spread outside. Similarly genes involved in pigmentation such as SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 may also have originated in the Indian Subcontinent. All these genes were subjected to intense positive selection in Europe and hence are more prevalent there than in the land of their origin.

supernord said...

@Vara LOL!

"Aral is a Kazakh word."
Now. It is hypotheses only, only hypothesis and nothing more. The origin is ancient.


"There are only two rivers "
- No. Greek historians Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, Strabo, Ptolemy in his writings, the Amu Darya was called the "Araks", so think many, that is Sarasvati.


"Uzboy river drying up could not make it into the Vedas unless they were written in the CE."
- NO. You don't know the climate of Central Asia 2 Millennium BC. Tubelsky аride was as dry as the Termez phase and then Uzboy dried up. The drying of the Uzboy river, it's a really great event, because this river stretched for 500 km and was very influenced on the cross. But in addition to her dry then huge number of small rivers and ponds in Central Asia, the so-called "hair of the Sarasvati". This was Lavlakansky pluvial - raw, rough, with many rivers and swamps.


Uzboi is a proven drying up, and the Indian is only hypothetical.


"Vakhshu is not an Avestan name"
Vakhsh is Avestan Zoroastrian name. Name of this goddess is Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā "All the shores of the sea Vouru-kasha are boiling over, all the middle of it is boiling over, when she runs down there, when she streams down there, she, Ardvi Sura Anahita, who has a thousand cells and a thousand channels; the extent of each of those cells, of each of those channels, is as much as a man can ride in forty days, riding on a good horse."

About Sarasvati all came to know this from supporters of the OIT, but they tell only the propaganda, not informing about the state of the river systems of Central Asia and otherwise. About names. About the archeological cultures and pottery of the time. They report only what suits them and remain silent about everything else.
At know these issue people, their arguments cause only a smile.

Sofia Aurora said...

@Slumbery

I have heard many times from the Jews themselves that the Khazars had Judaic ancestry at least their core and that's why the accepted Judaism over Islam or Christianity!
Some Hasidim Jews even proclaim that Khazars were one of the twelve races of Israel that were lost and that God revealed them to the World so they can be joined with their kin!

According to the Jewish religion you can not become a Jew but you have to descend from the blood of Abraham!!
Anyway my point was that Khazars were not Jews but they were not Turks either!!
They were Indoeuropeans and specifically Scythians who became Turkicized (as in so many cases the so called Turks or Hunns, etc. were just a minority that managed to take the upper hand politically and nothing more)!
That comes as an answer to the ASHG abstracts and the...Fingolians case that Davidski succesfully exposed!!!

Vara said...

@supernord

>>No. Greek historians Herodotus, Xenophon, Polybius, Strabo, Ptolemy in his writings, the Amu Darya was called the "Araks", so think many, that is Sarasvati.

The Araxes of Herodotus flows into the Caspian sea. Many attribute the mixing of the Oxus and Araxes to Herodotus' bad geography.

>>Uzboi is a proven drying up, and the Indian is only hypothetical.

Uzboy dried way after the Vedas were compiled. Dahae people were still living around it in the Classical Era.


>>Vakhsh is Avestan Zoroastrian name. Name of this goddess is Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā "All the shores of the sea Vouru-kasha are boiling over, all the middle of it is boiling over, when she runs down there, when she streams down there, she, Ardvi Sura Anahita, who has a thousand cells and a thousand channels; the extent of each of those cells, of each of those channels, is as much as a man can ride in forty days, riding on a good horse."

Vakhsh is not Vouru-Kasha. Vouru-Kasha is Varkash or Frakhvkard and it was always considered the southern ocean. Rivers and seas aren't the same.

You also ignored this part of the description: " 'The large river, known afar, that is as large as the whole of the waters that run along the earth; that runs powerfully from the height Hukairya down to the sea Vouru-Kasha."

Uzboy doesn't flow from a mountain while Arachosia's river does and flows into Lake Hamun. Which also makes sense since it flows from Hukairya which is in the real Alborz or Hindu Kush that encircled the world, that was considered the borders of Iran even in the Shahnameh.

>>About Sarasvati all came to know this from supporters of the OIT, but they tell only the propaganda, not informing about the state of the river systems of Central Asia and otherwise. About names. About the archeological cultures and pottery of the time. They report only what suits them and remain silent about everything else.
At know these issue people, their arguments cause only a smile.

Yet, you also do the same. You come up with stuff out of thin air as well. The word Araxes was never mentioned in the Avesta let alone used to describe the Volga river.

Also, I'm sorry to tell you that unless you can prove the existence of camels north of the Oxus Pre-1200BCE, Indo-Iranians couldn't have split anywhere north of BMAC. So even Uzboy is a no no, the Vedas were compiled in the south.

Salden said...

The Khazar Theory is rejected by every source that doesn't have an axe to grind against Israel and/or modern Judaism. Those who peddle it are linked to Ethnic Nationalism and/or Islamic Radicalism.

Studies of modern Jewish populations (namely Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews) repeatedly fail to find anything more than minor affilations with Caucasus populations. With the European admixture in AJs and SJs being largely Northern Mediterrean (Greeks, Italians).

Seinundzeit said...

Matt,

"Anyway, long story short, if I haven't mentioned before, I'd advise after you use this method and produce a PCoA for nMonte, it would be worth copying the PCoA output back into PAST3 and check that the euclidean distances still have a match to the original matrix you put in, at least for the long range populations you've using to try and model others."

I'm glad you mentioned this; once I find some time, I'll give this a spin.

Balaji,

"Others have already ably made the case for the origination of the 13910*T lactase persistence gene in the Indian Subcontinent and the subsequent spread outside. Similarly genes involved in pigmentation such as SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 may also have originated in the Indian Subcontinent. All these genes were subjected to intense positive selection in Europe and hence are more prevalent there than in the land of their origin."

On what basis does one infer this sort of thing?

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Does the Black areas represent populations that were not sampled ?

Looks like the Highest European variant is found where R1b L21 people are/were found.

Anatolia looks very much devoid of Lactose Persistence. Wonder what this implies regarding the Hittites ?

Sofia Aurora said...

Dear Ric

Could you please cite the articles or texts, etc. that you refer in your post so i may read them?
Especially about the dates of Rockart and 4600 BC arrival in the Air Mountains.
The cattle breeding northeastern of the Tenerians concerns me very much!!!

Salden said...

>The LP haplotypes which include 13910*T and are the least derived from the ancestral haplotype are found outside of Europe: Fulani Sudanese (derived at 6 positions from ancestral haplotype); Pakistan Baluch (derived at 7 positions); Morocco (derived at 10 positions). The form of the haplotype found in Europeans (with 13910*T in linkage disequilibrium with 22018*A) is found in Iranians (derived at 16 positions from ancestral haplotype) and Europeans (derived at 17 positions).

Is this supposed to demonstrate the 13910*T found in NW Africa, India, and Central Africa isn't from migrations from Euro populations or ones within the overall area? Fulani are admixtured with non-Subharan Africans, Moroccans have European ancestry, and Iranians also had ancient migration.

>Others have already ably made the case for the origination of the 13910*T lactase persistence gene in the Indian Subcontinent and the subsequent spread outside. Similarly genes involved in pigmentation such as SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 may also have originated in the Indian Subcontinent. All these genes were subjected to intense positive selection in Europe and hence are more prevalent there than in the land of their origin.


Ryan said...

@Rami - "Taurine cattle have never been used in the South Asia, also the cattles in SSA Africa also are related to Auroch derived breeds."

SSA cattle are hybrids between Aurochs, Indus and local bovines actually, just FYI.

Ric Hern said...

Yes Indicus cattle arrived in Africa around 1500 bC. and mixed with the humpless Taurus in East Africa. Cushetic peoples spread this mix Southwards....the Khoi-Khoi people originated due to this mix between Cushetic and Khoi-San around +-1000 AD.

Ric Hern said...

Interesting also is the small amount of Lactose Persistence in Turkey, Greece, Italy and Portugal...

Balaji said...

2Seinundzeit

What I have written is admittedly somewhat speculative and subject to empirical refutation. Nevertheless all indications are that the orthodox AIT involving invaders from the steppe coming around 1500 B.C. is wrong. For example your own interesting work above shows South Asians can only be modeled with Steppe_EMBA and not Steppe_MLBA. But in 1500 B.C. there were no Steppe_EMBA left in the steppe. They had long been replaced by Steppe_MLBA. Reich has also noted that Indians cannot be modeled with Andronovo.

If AIT is wrong then OIT must be right. Genes shared by Indians and Europeans must have originated in India.

Q.E.D.

Cossue said...

According to the supplementary table, in Portugal LP is +40% in genotype and +60% in phenotype. Is on par with most of Central Europe.

supernord said...

"Uzboy dried way after the Vedas were compiled."

It is not true! Don't write what you don't know. Uzboy dried up until 15 century BC. It is fact. And hypothetical Indus river do not know when, at least 10 thousand years ago or at any other time.

"Dahae people were still living around it in the Classical Era."
It is your fantasy.

"Uzboy doesn't flow from a mountain"
And then the mountains? If you for some reason need the mountains, the Amu Darya flows from the mountains. Part of the ancient Uzboy river system associated with the Amu Darya.


"The word Araxes was never mentioned in the Avesta let alone used to describe the Volga river."
It is described. Avestan Araŋha, where aŋ is nasal a.


"Also, I'm sorry to tell you that unless you can prove the existence of camels north"
Well, I'm not going to prove anything, because you write your fantasy without knowing anything.

Vara said...

@supernord

>>It is not true! Don't write what you don't know. Uzboy dried up until 15 century BC. It is fact. And hypothetical Indus river do not know when, at least 10 thousand years ago or at any other time.
>>It is your fantasy.


https://books.google.com/books?id=yglkwD7pKV8C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=uzboy+river&source=bl&ots=i6oYJqb4rM&sig=YOlZASNNhe_5T7PFb98zygTBbWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAx9Hl8JfXAhXEyoMKHehEBHE4ChDoAQgzMAQ#v=onepage&q=uzboy%20river&f=false

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


>>It is described. Avestan Araŋha, where aŋ is nasal a.

They're not even the same. Araxes has the same root as Rakhsh (swift).

>>Well, I'm not going to prove anything, because you write your fantasy without knowing anything.

Well, I'm gonna quote you here; "you do not understand what you write" or was it read? Go live your fantasies were the Volga is the Araxes in the Avesta written by Gorbachev and yell:"We wuz kangz". I'm off to sleep it's very late here.

Ric Hern said...

@ Cossue

Thanks. Didn't see that. So only Italy, Greece and Anatolia then...

supernord said...

@vara

You cite non-professional sources which are written the legends. There is a legend that Uzboi functioned in our era. But the geologists have proved its dryness, of course, hypothetically it could be re-flooded in our era during the Sajar micropluvial, which was between Tubelesky Arida and Termez phase (now).
But geologists believe that it is all a myth, just Uzboi looks like it was only yesterday ceased to leak water, from all of these tales and legends.

Read the legend further, goodby.

Davidski said...

@Balaji

Even an objective 12-year-old reading this discussion would say you're pretty darn crazy for claiming that Steppe_EMBA is from South Asia.

Of course, we all know where it's from, don't we, even you really do.

Chris Davies said...

@ Salden -

>The LP haplotypes which include 13910*T and are the least derived from the ancestral haplotype are found outside of Europe: Fulani Sudanese (derived at 6 positions from ancestral haplotype); Pakistan Baluch (derived at 7 positions); Morocco (derived at 10 positions). The form of the haplotype found in Europeans (with 13910*T in linkage disequilibrium with 22018*A) is found in Iranians (derived at 16 positions from ancestral haplotype) and Europeans (derived at 17 positions).

"Is this supposed to demonstrate the 13910*T found in NW Africa, India, and Central Africa isn't from migrations from Euro populations or ones within the overall area? Fulani are admixtured with non-Subharan Africans, Moroccans have European ancestry, and Iranians also had ancient migration."

Massive sample sizes in Europeans vs. non-Euros ought to have picked up these earlier, less-derived forms of the haplotype. But they haven't so far.

Moreover 13910*T shares the same allele background as East African 13907*G, ie. alleles share a common origin.

Indian LP haplotypes containing 13910*T and 22018*A *might* have a 'European'/steppe origin but African ones don't. Need a closer look at Basques / Iberians but still not convincing.

Salden said...

It was already found in Ancient Moroccan samples that from the Bronze Age at the latest that Moroccans (and by by extension other NW Africans who aren't carrying overly SSA admixture) have European admixtue.

Chris Davies said...

@ Salden -

African (human) mtDNA 'L' types have been found in ancient DNA from Chalcolithic contexts in southern Iberia.

African cattle mtDNA types have been found in cattle bones in Neolithic and Bronze Age contexts in Iberia.

Evidence for migration in both directions in prehistory.

Sofia Aurora said...

@Salden

The Khazars had to choose between three religions:
Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
They selected the last!
Also all three religions had representatives including the Jews.
Now why a people who does not descend from the "blood of Abraham" is offered to be included to the Jewish nation?
Only Jews can be members of Judaism. Non-Jews can not!
Even nowadays there is a need to prove that at least one of your parents is a Jew (even via DNA tests) to become an Israeli citizen!
The Jews promoted that Khazars were one of the lost tribes of Israel.
And Salden just because you disagree with an opinion please avoid being insulting, provocative and disrespectfull!!!
Who is "having an axe to grind against Israel or modern Judaism"?
Me?
Because you wrote that ANYBODY and every source that refers to the Khazar Theory is either an ethnic Nationalist or a radical Islamist!
Sycofantic biggotries and personal insults don't answer the issue!
WERE THE KHAZARS RELIGIOUS JEWISH, YES OR NO?
WERE THERE REPRESENTATIVES OF JUDAISN I.E RABBIS IN THE KHAZAR KHAN'S COURT ALONG WITH CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM PRIESTS, YES OR NO?
What did the Rabbis wanted there?
Finally was Cyrus the Persian Emperor who delivered the Jews from the Babylonians acknowledged as a Messiah, Yes or No?
How can a gentile be christened as a Messiah?
Please try to answer opinions with opinions and not accusations which hide a derogative and underestimating feature!
Anyone is entitled to believe and express what he thinks!
You on the other side wrote a post full of insults and not a single counter-argument and addressed a post of mine which has a Historical base with...genetics!!
Nobody said that the Khazars were "ethnic" Jews.
Read my first post again.
The thing that i wrote was that like the "Finngolians" people perceive Khazars sometimes as Turks or Jews for different reasons!
I believe that your problem is that i reffered to the Jewish religion of the Khazars!
Well that's not my fault!
Blame it on the Rabbis who taught them their Religious beliefs!

Vara said...

@supernord

Yet you cite nothing. You get etymologies all mixed up based on wishful thinking and horrible understanding of the texts. It is enough that you didn't bother to look up an Indus river that flows through a desert. Go read Gandalf's version of the Avesta, learn the basics and then come back and have a proper discussion.