search this blog

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Indian smoke and mirrors


On January 4 this year Hindi newspaper Dainik Jagran published a so called special feature on Indo-European languages. In fact, the article claimed to be giving its readers a sneak peak at the results from the upcoming and much anticipated archaeogenetics paper on the northern Indian Harappan site of Rakhigarhi. [LINK]

I knew about this article when it first came out, because it was mentioned in a few off topic comments on this blog, like this one by commentator Sanuj.

Latest news on the Rakhigarhi results, published in a prominent Hindi paper, also quoting Niraj Rai, the lead geneticist working on it. It is essentially saying that researchers, both foreign and Indian have established that India is home of the Indo-European family and that the aDNA from Rakhigarhi is a close match to North Indian Brahmins. The results are to be published in a leading journal soon.

I deleted these comments soon after I saw them, not only because they were off topic, but also because they made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Why? For one, because over the past year or so I've managed to gather a little bit of intel on the Rakhigarhi paper from very reliable sources, and all indications were that the results would show significant ancient population movements from West Asia and Eastern Europe to India, and not the other way around.

Moreover, thanks to already published ancient DNA from outside of South Asia, it's obvious that there were significant population movements from West Asia and Eastern Europe to India, and not the other way around. The one exception to this rule is the migration of the Romani (Gypsy) people from northern India to Europe, but this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, because it didn't have much of an impact on the genetic structure or linguistics of Europeans.

So why have I now decided to give Dainik Jagran my full attention? Well, because commentator Sanuj recently resurfaced in another comment thread and said this...

They have been hinting at the outcome, you are just not ready to listen to what they are hinting at, this Jagran article is a case in point. By the way Jagran is the most widely read newspaper in India, and is one of the most credible - rated by Reuters-BBC.

Yep, he's correct: Dainik Jagran is a huge and well respected newspaper.

Please note, however, that the chances of India being confirmed the Indo-European homeland thanks to the ancient DNA from Rakhigarhi are zero; not just low, not almost zero, but zero. Anyone with a generally healthy mind and the ability to be more or less objective in this matter has to admit that this is indeed the case. So why would one of the biggest and most respected Indian newspapers publish such utter crud?

It's an intriguing question to say the least. Moreover, was Niraj Rai actually interviewed by the reporter from Dainik Jagran? If he was, did he really say what he's claimed to have said, or was he grossly misrepresented? If the latter, has he sought a correction? If not, why not? Have the western scientists who are collaborating with Rai asked him what the fig is going on, and have they sought a correction? If not, why not?

Does anyone know if Dainik Jagran has since published a correction, or at least a letter from Rai straighting things out?

Admittedly, I have no idea what's going on now with the Rakhigarhi study and paper; the trail went cold months ago. But whatever it is, it's something peculiar. That's because I find it extremely unlikely that any newspaper, let alone one of the top newspapers in India, would be allowed to get away with misrepresenting and indeed inverting, either by design or mistake, the outcome of such a major international project.

See also...

Best of Davidski on South Asian population history

317 comments:

1 – 200 of 317   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

Needless to say chaps, this comment thread is going to be moderated thoroughly.

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave,

Mail Dr. Rai ...

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

He can post here and tell us what's going on. Pretty sure he'll read this sooner rather than later.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope the three labs involved won't mean results will be published in three different paper with one of 'm highly different.

"The archeologists said the DNA samples would be analysed at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad; Howard University, USA; and the Seoul National University, South Korea."

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/haryana/community/15-skeletons-found-at-harappan-site-in-hisar-s-rakhigarhi-village/221923.html

Davidski said...

Pretty sure that's Harvard not Howard.

Sofia Aurora said...

FRESH NEWS FOLKS!

Just published about an hour ago in Nature a Max Plank paper on Northern European populations' ancient genomics!

Take a look the paper is open access:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9

Anthro Survey said...

David, if/when this paper does get published, how many samples from India---ballpark estimate---do you think we'll be looking at?

I'd don't at all mind waiting an extra 3-4 months if a behemoth is in the making.

Davidski said...

@Sofia Aurora

Yep, we already discussed the preprint here. The authors changed their title though. :p

The genetic history of Northern Europe (or rather the South Baltic)

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

Davidski said...

@Anthro Survey

Don't know.

It should have Harappa, Swat, maybe some other stuff from South Asia, and probably also BMAC and Maykop.

Matt said...

@Davidski, think there may be a few changes in the published Mittnik. At a glance, includes Ukrainian HG and Ukraine N samples that I think wern't there before, so may be some other new samples.

Baltic_BA and Narva are pretty relevant for modern day NE Europe, so should be useful if the data are published.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Yep, saw that just now.

The data are already available, but it's sort of raw data. I'll wait for the genotypes to be uploaded somewhere. They will be eventually.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@epoch2013 I'm pretty sure they will be published separately, at least the Harvard and Indian ones.

@Davidski How confident are you that we will see BMAC and Swat samples in this study?

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Yeah, I'm pretty confident that BMAC and Swat will be in the Harvard paper.

I haven't heard anything about the effort splitting, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Alright, thanks mate. Appreciate it!

Nirjhar007 said...

He can post here and tell us what's going on. Pretty sure he'll read this sooner rather than later.

The thing is you have no idea about what is going on . And the reporter in that article got excited , the reason is it is exciting news! . But that don't erase the main points Rai told i.e. about IE DNA and the sites strong affinity to the modern population .It will be unbelievable ,to suggest that the article is a lie or the interview never happened or he totally misunderstood what he said, they get notified about the draft of an article before publication and also after publication! .

You very well know geneticists keep an eye on blogs when they can , so they also have pretty good knowledge of what people are talking and thinking .

Anthro Survey said...

@Nirjhar

Nobody has any doubts that modern Indians in the area(especially mid and lower castes) *as a whole* should show a strong affinity to those samples. After all, even northern Brahmins derive only ~20% of their ancestry from the steppe/North-Central Asia.

Anonymous said...

"Admittedly, I have no idea what's going on now with the Rakhigarhi study and paper; the trail went cold months ago."

Probably it was forbidden to publish. Given the fact that in India, the Minister of education denies evolution and intends to cancel her teaching http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/21/indian-education-minister-dismisses-theory-evolution-no-one/, you can expect anything.

Nirjhar007 said...

We will see Anthro , if they were strongly related to modern Brahmans of North and had 'IE clades ' , it should be doubted, that any of such ancestry will be there, after comparison in modern .

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey

"Nobody has any doubts that modern Indians in the area(especially mid and lower castes) *as a whole* should show a strong affinity to those samples. After all, even northern Brahmins derive only ~20% of their ancestry from the steppe/North-Central Asia."

No, you are highly mistaken, it is actually 40 to 43% for Brahmins, 43 to 45% for Jatts, 38% for Sindhis, and 40% for Gujjars. 20% is too low, and you are completely off with that estimate, and Dave can confirm this for me. It's Steppe EMBA not MLBA.

Anthro Survey said...

@supernord

Little wonder, because he has connections to this party which, in turn, is affiliated with the Hindutva movement known for taking a chauvinist position on things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party

Nirjhar007 said...

supernord,

politics have zero influnce in those studies . I directly have experience , so stay assured .

Anthro Survey said...

@SOP

This is one of Dave's old runs. It's quite similar to results myself and others have been getting. 40% is too high for Brahmins in the Hindi core zone.

" distance%=0.997/distance=0.00997
Brahmin_Uttar_Pradesh
Paniya 54
Yamnaya_Samara:I0357 24.55
Iran_Neolithic:I1945 21.45
Afanasievo:RISE509 0
Andronovo:RISE505 0
Iran_Hotu:I1293 0
Iran_Late_Neolithic:I1671 0 "

Nirjhar007 said...

Do we have any Kashmiri Pandit for runs? That will be ideal, but IINW they are not available.

Anonymous said...

"Nirjhar007 said...

supernord,

politics have zero influnce in those studies . I directly have experience , so stay assured .
"

Politics and ideology have 100% influence for this study concretely. That you can look in the publications around this study.

Proud farmer said...

I am total novice here but have you ever thought of a migration from an afanasievo type group. They left the steppe in 3300 bc itself if not earlier. An earlier group may have come into India before the BMAC and either settled in with the Indus Valley folks or just crossed the area cleared forests in the gangetic valley and settled there. There may have been a second migration after the Indus Valley declined. There is attestation for two types of indo Aryana languages and indo aryans fighting indo Aryana in the rig Veda. Just a suggestion for geneticists to maybe explore. Tocharians were afanasievo like if I remember rightly.

mzp1 said...

"No, you are highly mistaken, it is actually 40 to 43% for Brahmins, 43 to 45% for Jatts, 38% for Sindhis, and 40% for Gujjars."

I don't follow the argument that Brahmins are 'special' with noteworthy genetic traits in South Asia. Brahmins are only differentiated outside of the Vedic Homeland (Greater Punjab region).

The data is consistent with a Brahmin ethnogenesis from unstructured a North Indian population that would include groups such as gujjars. Other contemporary Punjabi populations may have diverged to some extent due to mixing with southern immigrants during the IVC.

Anthro Survey said...

@Nirjhar

Not afaik but we do have Kalash and Kho runs and they're the next best thing considering location and Dardic speech.

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

No one's anxious on this side of the fence, because we basically know what the results are.

We're just sick of waiting for the official release, which won't change anything, because there are no surprises in the data, but it'll certainly shut a few people up, that's for sure.

Nirjhar007 said...

Politics and ideology have 100% influence for this study concretely. That you can look in the publications around this study.

You want to see things in imaginary way to reduce your anxiety.
.............................................................................

Not afaik but we do have Kalash and Kho runs and they're the next best thing considering location and Dardic speech.

But they are of a bit different evolution .

Matt said...

@Proud farmer:Tocharians were afanasievo like if I remember rightly.

We have no Tocharian ancient dna so no one knows.

Some people assume that they should be like Afanasievo because a) A were probably Indo-European speaking and lived in East Asia, b) the Tocharian language looks really divergent from other IE languages, so this is taken to argue they must have separated from other IE early in the Bronze Age.

Detractors of that would say that the Afanasievo live in a totally different place than the Tarim Basin, and that it's much more likely that the Tocharian were some totally different IE group from Afanasievo with substantial ancestry for Central Asian groups (more like the Scythian-Samartian samples we have with fairly appreciable Iran_N and Siberian related ancestry), and that the language maybe isn't really that much more divergent than Indo-Aryan, etc.

Nirjhar007 said...

No one's anxious on this side of the fence, because we basically know what the results are.

Fence?.

We're just sick of waiting for the official release, which won't change anything, because there are no surprises in the data, but it'll certainly shut a few people up, that's for sure.

I think you worry too much .

khana said...

@Nirjhar007: I think there are Kashmiri Pandits in a Reich study, because they are used for Gedmatch Oracles. So they However, I don't know where to find them. Does anyone know?

Nirjhar007 said...

We have no Tocharian ancient dna so no one knows.

We do have Xiaohe , though not complete data.

Nirjhar007 said...

I think there are Kashmiri Pandits in a Reich study, because they are used for Gedmatch Oracles. So they However, I don't know where to find them. Does anyone know?

oh yes, I was also thinking of it .

Jaydeep said...

David,

The problem really is with the fact that you are so self-assured without a single aDNA sample from South or Central Asia, a vast region which was already quite advanced materially than the steppe nomads. To think that this vast region would miraculously undergo such a linguistic and religious change at the hands of these steppe nomads over the entire swathe of this urbanised area, even in remote mountain areas, is quite frankly extraordinary. To theorise such an extraordinary turn of events you need extraordinary evidence.

Even in terms of aDNA, you do not even want to wait for the data from South Asia to come before pronouncing your judgement. The fact is that from Europe we have the HG data and the EEF data based on which we can argue for a steppe migration into Europ. Do we have such data from South Asia - a region with twice the population of Europe ? Infact we do not have a single aDNA so far.

Davidski said...

@Jaydeep

The evidence is already available. You just have to try and understand it and accept reality.

It's been game over for years.

Nirjhar007 said...

The 'game' hasn't even started yet David :) . But soon I hope.

Matt said...

Roughly agreement with Anthro Survey's run:

Best fitting model with the Ancient 67 World PCA without any projected samples for Brahmin UP and allowing only ancients from anywhere and modern day populations from the end of the India cline, using nMonte is:

Brahmin_UP:Average
Paniya,32.6, Yamnaya_Kalmykia,24.8, Santhal,19.2, Satsurblia,18.2, Portugal_LNCA,2.6, Bichon,2.2, Roman_Britain_outlier,0.4

So depends on how much Steppe_EMBA you would see as plausible Paniya and Santhal. If they have only 10% Steppe_EMBA, then 30% of Brahmin_UP ancestry is probably an OK estimate.

If Paniya and Santhal have 50% Steppe_EMBA then 50% would also be found in Brahmin_UP, but this would have the downside that it makes not much sense if you think about it for half a second.

(Model of Iranian:Average under same conditions
Roman_Britain_outlier,44.6, Satsurblia,34.8, Yamnaya_Kalmykia,7, Santhal,6.4, Portugal_LNCA,3.2, Bichon,2, Ket,1.8, Amerindian_North,0.2

Need more ancient dna of the quality from Martiniano et al to sort it out properly IMO.

Turkish:TurkishAverage - Roman_Britain_outlier,27, Kotias,19.2, Hungary_IA,15.8, Greece_LN,15.4, Satsurblia,10, Buryat,3.8, Yamnaya_Kalmykia,3, Hungary_N,2.8, Paniya,1.2, Tamang,1, Amerindian_North,0.2, Eskimo,0.2, Karitiana,0.2,Ket,0.2

Italian_South:Italian_SouthAverage - Greece_LN,28.6, Roman_Britain_outlier,26, Kotias,12.2, Hungary_CA,11.4, Yamnaya_Kalmykia,10, Hungary_BA,5.6, Afanasievo,2.2, Ireland_MN,2, Hungary_N,1, Ethiopian_Jew,0.6, Portugal_MBA,0.4

Roma:RomaAverage - Paniya,25.4, Roman_Britain_outlier,19, Anatolia_N,13, Ireland_EBA,11.4, Hungary_BA,11, Kotias,8.2, Satsurblia,8.2 Yamnaya_Kalmykia,3.8

Pashtun_Afghanistan:Average - Satsurblia,33, Yamnaya_Kalmykia,20.4, Santhal,18.8, Roman_Britain_outlier,13, Bichon,5, Buryat,3.2, Ket,3, Portugal_LNCA,1.6, Tamang,1.6 Colla,0.4)

Nirjhar007 said...

BTW If allowed , I would like to ask an interesting question to Samuel ,Ak2014b and Kristiina regarding the topic of ''Steppe Mtdna' here .

I am just asking ,that according to the data in hands , what is the % of ''Steppe+Anatolian'' related Mtdna in Brahman group ?.

Salden said...

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-02825-9/MediaObjects/41467_2018_2825_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9/figures/2

As shown here Eastern to Northern European populations are genomically the closest to the Yamnaya and similar groups. These groups being recognized as the Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Kristiina said...

@Nirjhar
I am not able to answer your question, but according to the Palanichamy paper, Brahmin-specific west Eurasian haplogroups are the following:
H2b, H5a1, H7b, H13a1a, H15a1a1, HV2, R0a2, V2a, U2e3, R1a1a, W1c, W3a2

H2b has been found in Yamnaya and Srubnaya Samara.
H5a1 has been found several times in the Corded Ware context, in particur in Estonia.
H13a1a1 has been found in Yamnaya Samara.
H15a1a1 has been found in Neolithic and LBA Armenia.
HV2 was detected in Iran Hotullib I1293 Hotu Cave.
R0a2 has been detected in Levant_Neolithic ''Ain Ghazal Jordania.
R1a1a has been detected in EBA Armenia Kura Araxes and EIA Armenia Lchashen-Metsamor Kanagegh.
W1c has been detected in Neolithic Europe and one Iron Age Alan from Ossetia.

H7b, V2, U2e3 and W3a2 are not so far attested in the ancient samples.

The problem is that we cannot distinguish between the haplotype that came to India from the steppe and the haplotype that came directly via southern route Caucasus - Iran.

H5 and H13 may have originated somewhere between Caucasus and the Balkans, H7 may have arisen in Europe, H15 seems to be from Caucasus, HV2 is from Iran, R0 is from the Near East, R1a1a could be from South Russia and W1 could be of Anatolian origin.

I find H2b particularly interesting as it looks like a steppe haplogroup. W3a is also very interesting from the IE point of view. V2 and U2e3 could somehow be related to EHG or similar northern component.

The amount of the above listed west Eurasian haplogroups in the IE upper caste is c. 15 %. However, I have excluded for example J, T and U7 which are very old in Iran.

Many haplotypes may have been introduced only during the past 2000 years.

Proud farmer said...

Thanks Matt. We need more Dana then to make things clearer. From Central Asia and Siberia.

Richard Rocca said...

@Jaydeep said...

"The problem really is with the fact that you are so self-assured without a single aDNA sample from South or Central Asia, a vast region which was already quite advanced materially than the steppe nomads. To think that this vast region would miraculously undergo such a linguistic and religious change at the hands of these steppe nomads over the entire swathe of this urbanised area, even in remote mountain areas, is quite frankly extraordinary. To theorise such an extraordinary turn of events you need extraordinary evidence."

Don't act so surprised. Exactly that scenario happened during the Copper Age in what is now called "Old Europe".

Jijnasu said...

Its pretty unlikely that R1a is native to the Indian Subcontinent and probably got there only in the bronze age most likely from the steppes. That said the current data doesn't entirely support the leading hypothesis that Andronovo represents the proto-Indo-Aryans and perhaps linguists have been mistaken in identifying the chronology and processes involved in the Indo-Aryanization of India.

Most of the conspiracy theories on these threads though are ridiculous. Caste riots have little to do with genetics, most rural folk couldn't care less about the genetics of rakhigarhi. Even in Tamil Nadu where the 'Aryan invasion' is occassionally brought up in political speeches - genetics and linguistics have little influence. Tamil Nationalists are usually far more interested in discussing the glories of a supposed Tamil speaking atlantis a hundred thousand years ago than the genetic makeup of their actual ancestors. If the paper is being held up it is quite likely for technical reasons.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

"To theorise such an extraordinary turn of events you need extraordinary evidence."
Jaydeep,
Some folks here find it very hard to understand just how extraordinary their pet scenario is. Let's break it down with analogy and colours to help them.

Let us take Egypt for comparison. It's position in history is comparable to the Indus civilization. Around the same time as this proposed male dominated invasion of the Indus valley, a similar event was unfolding in around the 17th century BCE Egypt. The Hyksos came down heavy on the Egyptian thirteenth dynasty,conquering it and forming what is known as the fifteenth dynasty.This period is unique because around this time the middle east was also coming under an Indo-Aryan invasion.

The Hyksos spoke, by majority opinion, a Semitic tongue. Their invasion is well attested in archaeological and literary records. They introduced significant new technology, traditions and weaponry into Egypt. Maybe even loanwords. They were eventually thrown out in a couple of centuries.
All cool. So far..

Now, for educational purposes, let us conjure a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, if the far more cultured and advanced Egyptians felt such awe and reverence for the barbaric invaders, imagine if the Hyksos domination of Egypt was so utterly absolute, that the Egyptians completely, unsparingly and most scrupulously imbibed and adopted the Hyksos language, gods and rituals. And by 'complete', I mean exactly that. Every living Egyptian took the extraordinary effort to learn the difficult foreign language thoroughly. They took an even greater effort to wipe out all traces of their former Egyptian language and culture. Every name of every man, woman, child, city, river, animal, fruit and thing was changed to the Hyksos tongue. Even the nile. Even exclusively Egyptian phenomenon, flora and fauna! Even the Egyptian swear words weren't spared! So complete, that a century later, there is not a single trace of the Egypt that once was, not in the language nor the accents of the next generation, not a faintest hint that their ancestors a century ago spoke Egyptian! Not a single memory or even a single Egyptian word in testimony of such a cataclysmic event appears in any papyrus that was written after that.

Sounds ludicrous?Impossible! Right? Such a thing has never happened and never can.

Now amplify the idiocy of the above fantasy by 10. That is the extent of the extraordinariness when you propose something even remotely close to AIT.Because the population of the Indus civilization was ~5 million, anywhere circling 40 % of humanity in 2000 BC. And everything that happened to Egypt in the above scenario is being propagated as having happened in North India by the mainstream narrative. Not to mention the astronomical Hg turnover.

Thank you.

Chetan said...

@Davidski Pretty pointless if you ask me. Long before genetics, we knew from linguistic arguments alone that the Indo-European language family is not native to India. The best that any genetic study will do is to push back the dates of Indo-Aryan migration and seriously challenge the current understanding of IE language dispersion.

Anonymous said...

@Nirjhar007

"You want to see things in imaginary way to reduce your anxiety."

What anxiety?

Suppose the article is right. How should that scare him? It would massively surprising. But then again, you keep hinting at massive surprises. But anxiety?

The fact that you use these terms is evidence enough for your bias.

Anonymous said...

Even if it isn't actual government pressure, publishing the wrong results could stop archaeological study, biological sampling, or even lead to an angry mob attacking the site. The BJP/Hindutva crowd are no Swantantra, and often play up "Ancient mystical/magical India" as what they think India's identity should be. The Congress Party will likewise dislike these studies, since as Davidski pointed out, caste is based on genetic stratification, and that flies in the face of their conception of India's identity.

On the other side, Tamil/Dravidian Nationalists desperately want to claim the IVC for their own, since it ties into their view that Brahmanism was tied to the decline and fall of Dravidian civilisation. I'm surprised they haven't forced a release of the results, since they would love nothing more than to prove that Brahmins are steppe invaders.

In the meantime, I don't get to find out about my ancestry, though Davidski has kindly done a few models/runs for me.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey No, it's much higher than 24%. Have you seen Dave's Steppe EBA K7? That's not the best estimate because most of the steppe on trapped in the other components. In all of his other estimates, Brahmins have around 40 to 42% Steppe EMBA.

@mzp1 They are though, for the most part.

@Matt That's a flawed model. If you do not know what you're doing, I suggest all of you let David handle the modelling. Modelling Iranians as 44% Arab, makes no sense, especially considering that Iranians cluster with all other Iranians, especially the Iron Age one. Further evidence for the continuity is found in the supplementary information of the article linked by Sofia.



Romulus said...

I think it's possible that the CHG component found in Yamnaya started out in India/Iran, but I doubt the Y DNA did. Which part carried PIE will probably be answered elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

@Agnimitra

There is often a transitional period between the first arrival of a group, and the period in which they obtain dominance. Such groups are often only able to take control once the existing power is in collapse, chaos, or otherwise unable to maintain order.

Two key differences between Egypt and the IVC. First, while Egypt was loosing centralised authority, local power structures were intact, and there was no sign of social and economic disruption.

The IVC was already beginning to collapse by 2000 bc, with trade networks diminished by 1900 bc, and urban abandonment by 1800 bc. Poorer cemeteries of 2000bc already show signs of tuberculosis, leprosy, and violence amongst the lower classes.

The population was emptying the cities, and only a few survived as much diminished towns and villages, and migrating east. The Indo-Aryans would easily have been able to achieve dominance in this situation.

Matt said...

@Shahenshah, what an abrasive response. think I will actually take suggestions from Davidski as the blog owner, or anyone else on here that I actually respect.

Bob Floy said...

@nirjhar
"You want to see things in imaginary way to reduce your anxiety."

Just endless projection from you.

Sanuj said...

@Bob Floy, @@epoch2013

Nirjhar said...
"You want to see things in imaginary way to reduce your anxiety."

In reply to Supernord's...
"Politics and ideology have 100% influence for this study concretely. That you can look in the publications around this study."

But, you don't see supernord's statement as baseless projection, as if all academics are doing it for politics. That's what i call bias.

MomOfZoha said...

@Matt:

Could you do a similar run for Kurds, such as Iraqi Kurds or Syrian Kurds?

The Roman Britain Outlier is most interesting in his Samaritan and Druze affinities. Although his Y hg was J2b, my feeling is that he would be related to either T1a populations or Isaurians or both as well...

(And, don't let rabid anti-Semites bother you in the least.)

Nathan said...

There is no 'evidence' the Indian upper castes, specifically Brahmins, can marshal to prove I.E. originated in India and or that IVC was Indo-European. The evidence pointing to I.E. originating outside South Asia, and more specifically in the Pontic Caspian Steppes, is overwhelming and settled.

Nothing can change the fact that IVC was non Indo-European, claims to the contrary are the abode of upper caste Hindus (especially Brahmins), because they are casteist. Hindutva is a movement started by Brahmins. Their reason for claiming IVC as Aryan is because they claim Aryan descent and identity, so they want to claim IVC was built by their Aryan ancestors. It is no different to White Supremacists claiming Jesus was a European, or that Europeans built Sumer and Egypt.

Witzel has said in the past how Indian media and even geneticists mislead in their analysis of DNA studies.

OIT or claiming IVC was Aryan = We wuz Priest Kangz and Sheet.

Folks use the term "Afrocentrism" to deride claims that seeks to credit black people for ancient civilizations outside of SSA. We should use the term " Aryancentrism " for those claims that promote OIT and claim IVC as Aryan.

Bob Floy said...

@sanuj
"you don't see supernord's statement as baseless projection"

It's not baseless projection, there is very good reason to think that it has to do with politics and ideology. "Baseless" means there's no basis for thinking something, and that's not the case here. I've yet to hear an alternate explanation that makes sense, in fact. Would you happen to have one?

Eren said...

@Matt:

Regarding the automation of the projecting procedure you touched upon in the last thread; I wrote a short R script that does that. You can find it here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OTIcqPtdP-RkMcOGc_fYiOUH4dawRzBN

It uses the same MANOVA function used in PAST3. I haven't really done many tests, it's super alpha. I tried projecting the ancient67 onto the basal-rich K7. Produces the same results as doing it manually.

The command works like this:
projected_results <- projection("file with dependend vars", "file with independent vars")
Input file formats should be like those for nMonte. Appropos, I since I didn't want to reinvent the wheel, I copy-pasted nMonte's aggregate pops sub-function. Will rewrite that part later, though, as we don't wanna upset Hjuibregts :D
It's an optional parameter anyway, if you wanna use averages instead of individual results, use aggr=T.

Davidski said...

@All

I've got the Mittnik 2018 genotype data. I'll blog about it in a day or so. Curious to see where those Baltic_LN Yamnaya clones land in my PCA; right on top of Yamnaya, or slightly west?

Sanuj said...

@Bob Floy

What he basically meant was to cast aspersions on these particular researchers, their credentials etc. and that is "completely" "baseless".
Also I don't know what is meant by "Politics and ideology have 100% influence for this study concretely." 100% influence - so there is no objectivity involved, everybody can just go home.

Finally, more than the limited leak on hand, people are more interested in "Brahman conspiracies", "Aryancentrism", "Bharatiya Janta Party", "Dravidian nativism", "Biased Researchers", "Hindutva Crowd", "Congress Party", "Caste tensions"(Ha! biggest joke after this news item is already out there and no one even sneezed.)

I can see who's objective here, and who's just filled with imaginary notions in their head. I have nothing more to say.

Bob Floy said...

@sanuj
You still haven't suggested an alternate reason for why they're sitting on the paper, you can dance around that issue all you please, but it's obvious that you're dancing.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Make sure to include the Iranian samples in your analysis and highlight them on your PCA for all of the frauds and doubters to see, including the Zoroastrian ones. Thanks!

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Nathan

"There is no 'evidence' the Indian upper castes, specifically Brahmins, can marshal to prove I.E. originated in India and or that IVC was Indo-European. The evidence pointing to I.E. originating outside South Asia, and more specifically in the Pontic Caspian Steppes, is overwhelming and settled.

Nothing can change the fact that IVC was non Indo-European, claims to the contrary are the abode of upper caste Hindus (especially Brahmins), because they are casteist. Hindutva is a movement started by Brahmins. Their reason for claiming IVC as Aryan is because they claim Aryan descent and identity, so they want to claim IVC was built by their Aryan ancestors. It is no different to White Supremacists claiming Jesus was a European, or that Europeans built Sumer and Egypt.

Witzel has said in the past how Indian media and even geneticists mislead in their analysis of DNA studies.

OIT or claiming IVC was Aryan = We wuz Priest Kangz and Sheet.

Folks use the term "Afrocentrism" to deride claims that seeks to credit black people for ancient civilizations outside of SSA. We should use the term " Aryancentrism " for those claims that promote OIT and claim IVC as Aryan."

Well said, looks like they wuz not priest kangz n shieet!

@Acharya Agnimitra What you said makes no sense whatsoever. Your analogy was severely flawed, and if you understood Vedic history and the history of the Indus Valley Civilization you would realize just how preposterous it is.

Samuel Andrews said...

Guys, I forgot to include this in my post.

I have another mHG which directly links Tajik(s) to ancient Indo Iranians.

J2b1a2a: Sintashta, Srubnaya, Tajik=3.

Also in....
Portugal & Norway & an Ashkenazi Jew.

Samuel Andrews said...

Btw, other than in SC Asia & Siberia, I only have one example of J2b1a from outside of Europe. J2b1a is an EEF lineage. It is non-existent in the Middle East, including iran which I have about 700 samples from.

Kalash carry their own unique J2b1a clade. Tajik have the same J2b1a clade Sintashta & Srubnaya did. Pathan also have a decent amount of J2b1a. I also have two examples of J2b1a from India.

Scythians had a lot of J2b1a. So it seems for some reason, early Indo Iranians must had a lot of J2b1a.

Seinundzeit said...

aniasi,

"The IVC was already beginning to collapse by 2000 bc, with trade networks diminished by 1900 bc, and urban abandonment by 1800 bc. Poorer cemeteries of 2000bc already show signs of tuberculosis, leprosy, and violence amongst the lower classes.

The population was emptying the cities, and only a few survived as much diminished towns and villages, and migrating east. The Indo-Aryans would easily have been able to achieve dominance in this situation."

People often seem to forget this; the Indo-Aryans didn't meet a vibrant civilizational complex in the Indo-Gangetic plain.

Which probably explains why the Indo-Aryans were able to transform the linguistic, cultural, and genetic landscape of northern India.

Nathan,

"There is no 'evidence' the Indian upper castes, specifically Brahmins, can marshal to prove I.E. originated in India and or that IVC was Indo-European. The evidence pointing to I.E. originating outside South Asia, and more specifically in the Pontic Caspian Steppes, is overwhelming and settled."

Exactly; Indo-Iranian languages are intrusive to southern Central Asia, South Asia, and Iran.

In this regard, there is nothing new or exciting to be found in the upcoming aDNA paper on Central Asia/South Asia.

Rather, what'll be exciting about this forever deferred paper are the possibilities of being able to finally nail down the proportions, of figuring out the relative influence of Iran_N-related streams versus Iran_Chl-related streams, of seeing how Central Asian and South Asian Iran_Chl and Iran_N-related ancestries differ from the samples that we currently have from the western end of the Iranian plateau, of seeing if ANE-rich groups like Iran_Hotu left any genetic signatures among southern Indians and "Sceduled Caste" northerners, and of finding out whether the Gandhara Grave Culture people were more similar to Steppe_EMBA, or Steppe_MLBA, or perhaps to the more "exotic" (terrible use of the term on my part, but couldn't resist) samples (like the ANE-like Srubnaya_outlier).

Samuel Andrews said...

Scratch that, the J2b1a clade in Kalash has been found in Neolithic Hungary. It also present in several samples from Italy.

Anonymous said...

@Seinundzeit

Exactly on both points. The IVC that the Indo-Aryans encountered was more Detroit than New York City.

On the Iran-Hotu point, I didn't know that it was ANE rich. I thought ANE was the Malta component that also made up EHG. I never realised it came so far South. Any more information on the remains?

Seinundzeit said...

aniasi,

ANE is a rather elusive concept; we need many more samples across a much broader spatio-temporal band, in order to properly "define" it and its relationship to other ancestral streams.

That being said, something ANE-related is found in CHG/Iran_N-related populations, and this ANE-like element is even more prominent with the Iran_Hotu sample.

Considering that Iran_Hotu is the closest thing we have to an ancient South Central Asian sample, it's probably reasonable to assume that this ANE-related "population X", which played a big role in the genetic ancestry of CHG/Iran_N/Iran_Hotu, was probably an ancient Central Asian population.

In many ways, southern Central Asia is to the Iranian plateau what southeastern Europe is to the Anatolian plateau.

All,

With regard to North Indian Brahmins, the methods are fairly equivocal.

Certain things suggest 45% steppe-related genetic ancestry, while other analyses can have it as low as 30%.

In my personal view, until that paper is released (if it is ever released, lol), this is going to be the most sensible model.

Brahmin_UP:

38% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic (combined Iran_Hotu and Iran_N)
33% Srubnaya_outlier
29% ASI

So, like Matt, I tend to consider around 30%-35% more sensible in comparison to 45%-50%.

For comparison, Kshatriya from Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Brahmins.

Kshatriya:

38.5% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
31.6% ASI
29.9% Srubnaya_outlier

Brahmin_TN:

42.0% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
33.0% ASI
24.9% Srubnaya_outlier

Compared to non-"Upper caste" people in northern and southern India.

Dharkar (North India):

41.0% ASI
35.0% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
24.1% Srubnaya_outlier

Piramalai (South India):

47.6% ASI
38.5% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
13.8% Srubnaya_outlier

Also, Chamar from North India, and Pulliyar from South India, for representation of Scheduled Caste people.

Chamar:

51.20% ASI
30.90% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic + 1.75% ANE
16.15% Srubnaya_outlier

Pulliyar:

65.7% ASI
21.8% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
12.5% Srubnaya_outlier

Just to flesh things out, southern Central Asians.

South Central Asians of the Indo-Aryan variety:

Kalash

35.6% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic + 15.6% Iran_Chl
38.0% Srubnaya_outlier
10.6% ASI

Kho_Singanali

28.3% Iran_Chl + 15.7% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
40.0% Srubnaya_outlier
12.9% ASI
3.1% Mongola

South Central Asians of the Iranian variety:

Ghilzai Pashtun

37.0% Iran_Chl + 16.9% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
35.4% Srubnaya_outlier
10.3% ASI
0.4% Mongola

Karlani Pashtun, Central Highlands

46.85% Iran_Chl + 3.85% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
38.20% Srubnaya_outlier
11.10% ASI

Tajik_Ishkashim

46.15% Srubnaya_outlier
41.05% Iran_Chl + 1.05% Iran_Mesolithic/Neolithic
9.75% ASI
2.00% Mongola

Tajik_Shugnan

47.85% Srubnaya_outlier + 5.45% Baalberge_MN
37.70% Iran_Chl + 1.25% CHG
6.30% ASI
1.45% Mongola

Tajik_Yaghnobi

42.85% Iran_Chl + 7.00% CHG
36.15% Srubnaya_outlier + 9.75% Baalberge_MN
3.60% Mongola
0.65% ASI

Finally, just out of interest, a population from northwestern Iran.

Iranian_Mazandarani

74.25% Iran_Chl + 5.85% CHG
12.65% Srubnaya_outlier + 5.55% Baalberge_MN
1.30% ASI
0.40% Mongola

Again, as far as I'm concerned, until we see some Central Asian/South Asian aDNA, this is the best we can do.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Seinundzat Excellent work, Sein! Some of the best models I have seen, apart from David's, of course. You nailed it with that Mazandarani there. Could you do all of the Iranian populations with Steppe MLBA instead of EMBA? Thanks mate.

Anonymous said...

@Seinundzeit

Thanks! If these results don't come back soon, I wonder if someone will attempt to test the Megalithic burial sites of South India.

Davidski said...

@All

PCA datasheet with the Mittnik 2018 Baltic samples (right at the end there)...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pGB3sskCmq_X-Sx2cqh20UrwuiZ-vjQL/view?usp=sharing

Anthro Survey said...

@MomOfZoha

Can you please get back to me on the question I left for you on the mtDNA thread? :-) Since it would be off-topic there, find me on Anthrogenica. Thanks!

MomOfZoha said...

@AnthroSurvey:

Very sorry, Anthro: Once a thread craps out, I just don't look at it again (and sometime I engage in predictive avoidance based on the pattern of certain users too). I am sorry that I won't be looking again at that one, though I did indicate that that time.

I am not really acquainted with Anthrogenica. I would be happy to communicate with you via email: zohaninannesi AT gmail dot com.

Anthro Survey said...

@Seinundzeit

From earlier: Can you share the Jarawa eigenvalues please?

You know, 30% in your formal models does sound sensible for Brahmins, after all. I completely forgot that south Indian tribals(Pulliyar, Paniya, etc.) routinely used in nMonte actually got non-zero R1a(~10% iirc), hence the possible "hidden" steppe in them. So, per your Pulliyar numbers, if we take 12% of the ~57% Pulliar gotten in Monte runs, the Brahmins wind up with 30% total steppe.

Just out of curiosity---how do the Eneolithic Samara(434) and that Yamna I0357 samples fare if you've tried? I ask since they are relatively similar to the Srubna outlier and work just as well if no scaling is implemented on Monte.

Anthro Survey said...

@Seinundzeit

I modeled that Srubna outlier as a mixture of some steppe_MLBA alongside other samples just to get a gist of things because it's really hard for me not to see steppe_MLBA-like people comprising ancestry of Indo-Iranians.
For one, Andronovo/Sintashta samples--strongly associated with early Indo-Iranian cultures---look rather EEF-shifted. 2 of the Sintashta samples are R1a. MLBA-shifted Potapovka samples also come out R1a.

Not sure what it means, but wound up with ~40% MLBA. The remainder may correspond to some combo of steppe-EMBA and Kelteminar-related(?) mystery admixture.

Srubnaya_outlier: AfontovaGora3:I9050.damage 32.6 Corded_Ware_Germany:I1538 24.8 MA1:MA1 18.6 Potapovka:I0418 14.4 Iran_N:I1945 9.3. (distance%=0.9542)

Then again, perhaps a small amount of R1a and EEF-related mtDNA infiltrated an originally R1b-dominant steppe_EMBA-like group in Russia(like Poltavka) and proliferated over time somehow?

Anthro Survey said...

@Matt

Yeah, despite limited samples in the run, the same basic pattern showed in your World 67 PCA Monte analysis. Did you run the models with all 20 dimensions, btw, or you tweaked things?

Davidski said...

@Jijnasu said...

If the paper is being held up it is quite likely for technical reasons.

Probably the same technical reasons that inspired the publication of this nonsense OIT article in Jagran.

postneo said...

@shah
so these Ferghana chariots you speaks of. Do they predate or post date the Sintashta chariot?
What do current archeology and genetic studies say about this region.

Anonymous said...

@jijnasu

"Caste riots have little to do with genetics, most rural folk couldn't care less about the genetics of rakhigarhi."

I don't disagree, but what happens when the news says "Caste X related to lower class burial" or "Caste X not native to this area." The issue isn't the genetics of Rakhigarhi, but what the reported implications could be for caste relations in the area.

"Even in Tamil Nadu where the 'Aryan invasion' is occassionally brought up in political speeches - genetics and linguistics have little influence. Tamil Nationalists are usually far more interested in discussing the glories of a supposed Tamil speaking atlantis a hundred thousand years ago than the genetic makeup of their actual ancestors."

Again, this isn't so much about genetics, as the ability to lay claim to something. There are a lot of Tamils who firmly believe that the IVC was some kind of ancient glorious Tamil civilisation, and they desperately want it to be older than Sanskrit or any neighbouring cultures. They desperately want to be able to say that the IVC people were their ancestors (and Tamil speakers). Also, it isn't Tamil Atlantis.... it's Tamil Lemuria, where Tamil was spoken since 1 million bc, and everyone rode around in flying chariots.

postneo said...

@Aniasi

you have no clue about caste dynamics. The people of rakhigarhi are agitating for higher compensation from ASI(archeological society of India) for being displaced by the dig. They care more about their house and water buffaloes. Meanwhiile some caste clashes did take place far away in a different state on some completely unrelated issue. In other unrelated incidents, buses are being burned over a movie. I doubt rakhigarhi will command any attention. It might make some momentary headline in a paper but attention span is very small.

posters here live in a different world and have lost touch with regular folk.

Nathan said...

@ Jijnasu said...

"Most of the conspiracy theories on these threads though are ridiculous. Caste riots have little to do with genetics, most rural folk couldn't care less about the genetics of rakhigarhi. Even in Tamil Nadu where the 'Aryan invasion' is occassionally brought up in political speeches - genetics and linguistics have little influence. Tamil Nationalists are usually far more interested in discussing the glories of a supposed Tamil speaking atlantis a hundred thousand years ago than the genetic makeup of their actual ancestors. If the paper is being held up it is quite likely for technical reasons."

Caste and caste considerations has everything to do with OIT and Hindutva/upper caste revisionism. These Indian nationalist 'academics' and ideologues routinely state how the European 'racist' AIT has created conflict and bad-blood between South India and North India.They routinely claim the British had malicious motives when they wrote about Aryans and Dravidians.

It is no coincidence that it is Brahmins and upper caste North Indians who are peddling OIT. NS Rajaram who created the Harappa horse fraud is a Brahmin from South India. Tamil Nadu Hindutva politician Subramanian Swamy who excoriates the British for creating the 'Aryan-Dravidian' divide is also a Brahmin.

Caste and genetics are related, as anyone in this blog knows. Linguistics and genetics are also related.

The common person on the street may not consider genetics and archaeology, but the common person in India is subject to popular and mainstream narratives on caste, and language in the case of South India. The narrative is influenced and created by history and those who can rewrite history to suit their agenda. So if the OIT proponents were to actually convince everyone IVC was Aryan and they were to convince everyone there is no difference between Dravidian and Aryan languages and they were to convince everyone that caste wasn't that bad and that it was merit based instead of lineage based, then it radically changes the narrative. When the narrative changes, the man on the street who is protesting or voting a certain way is also going to rethink his positions. Hindutva ideologues have stated that Dravidian parties would not have a need to exist if the Hindutva version of history was to be embraced.

Balaji said...

@Shahanshah of Persia, @Anthro Survey, @Matt, @Seinundzeit, @Davidski,

There has been much discussion of modeling Indians as combinations of Iran Neolithic and various steppe populations together with ASI.

Reich Lab published some results in the following paper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/

See Supplemenatary Information, Section 9. They were able to model using Iran_LN and Steppe_Eneolithic, Iran_LN and EHG and Iran_LN and Steppe_EMBA. Most significantly, a model involving Steppe_LMBA was obviously not feasible. This rules out Andronovo as “proto-Indo-Iranians” and suggests that if indeed there was AIT, it was much earlier than 1500 B.C.

Here is a link to Davidski's own earlier modeling efforts.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/bring-it-on.html

That reasonable people (Anthro Survey, Matt, Seinundzeit, Davidski and Reich Lab) using reasonable methods have got such different results goes to show the fog of uncertainty that surrounds this subject. It is devoutly to be hoped that this fog will soon lift.

Seinundzeit said...

aniasi,

"Thanks! If these results don't come back soon, I wonder if someone will attempt to test the Megalithic burial sites of South India."

No problem.

And, considering the wait that we've endured (and continue to endure), they better have some additional aDNA samples from inside India (in addition to the samples of IVC provenance). I am looking forward to seeing an actual "ASI" sample.

Anthro Survey,

Ah, I almost forgot.

Here are the Jarawa values:

Jarawa,-0.008,-0.045225,-0.030975,0.007825,0.0106,-0.0386,0.02825,-0.0012,-0.042975,-0.0034

But, just as a heads up; without eigenvalue scaling, the results will be quite odd.

Also, in the models above, I didn't use the Jarawa.

"Just out of curiosity---how do the Eneolithic Samara(434) and that Yamna I0357 samples fare if you've tried? I ask since they are relatively similar to the Srubna outlier and work just as well if no scaling is implemented on Monte."

In a few days, I'll be playing around with qpGraph and qpAdm, so I'll report what I find.

"Not sure what it means, but wound up with ~40% MLBA. The remainder may correspond to some combo of steppe-EMBA and Kelteminar-related(?) mystery admixture."

For what it's worth, when the data is scaled, the Srubna outlier only takes ANE, EHG, and CHG.

So, she seems to be very ANE-shifted on the European to Siberian hunter-gatherer cline. Additionally, her CHG admixture is lower than Yamnaya.

In my estimation, her existence (that late in the game) is of considerable importance.

Her presence, all things considered, is suggestive of the possibility that we don't have a full picture of genetic structure on the Bronze Age steppe.

I mean, there must have been whole populations like her (in genetic terms, steppe populations that were mostly ANE). Who knows, perhaps these populations also had R1a-Z93?

It's all speculation, and rather up in the air, until we see those Swat valley samples.

In fact, the lack of Steppe_MLBA could be an artifact, due to a need for proper West Asian and ASI references, or perhaps due to problems with our methodologies?

Again, it's all speculation; but based on the current aDNA, Steppe_MLBA is not the right fit, and ANE-rich samples like the Srubna outlier are a great fit.

Nathan said...

@ aniasi said...
"Again, this isn't so much about genetics, as the ability to lay claim to something. There are a lot of Tamils who firmly believe that the IVC was some kind of ancient glorious Tamil civilisation, and they desperately want it to be older than Sanskrit or any neighbouring cultures. They desperately want to be able to say that the IVC people were their ancestors (and Tamil speakers). Also, it isn't Tamil Atlantis.... it's Tamil Lemuria, where Tamil was spoken since 1 million bc, and everyone rode around in flying chariots."

Genetics is related to caste, language and history. If the OIT crowd can somehow show IVC skeletons were Indo-Iranian, they have a powerful propaganda tool to advance their agenda. So how can you divorce genetics from the conversation?
Dravidians tend to see the IVC as Dravidian because Western academics have said so or strongly implied so, for decades. It wasn't Tamils or other Dravidians who came up with the theory that IVC spoke a Dravidian language. Indian history books for many years stuck to the claims of Western experts. These books taught that Dravidians used to live in the North and built IVC, and were pushed South by invading Aryans. The OIT revisionists want to totally demolish this narrative, genetics is one avenue for them to try.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you Kristiina .


.............................................................................
all,
my suggestion is simple , instead of throwing all kinds of allegations , it is rather more smart or mature to simply contact the related authorities , if the ''frustration'' is too much to bear .



Nathan said...

Here's another food for thought:

Lets assume Indo-European languages emerged in South Asia.

I.E. was able to impose itself in:

South-West Asia (Iran)
Parts of Anatolia in the past(Hittite domination of Hattic)
Almost all of Eastern and Western Europe
Central Asia (before Turkic invasions)
Northern Mesopotamia, parts of Anatolia and the Caucasus region Kurdish areas and Armenia)
The Americas, Australia and New Zealand

Yet I.E. was not able to dominate South India, which is in South Asia.

How does this make sense??


Bogdan said...

Andranovo + Yaz/BMAC into India 2000-1500BC theory. This is not rocket science folks...

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@postneo

"so these Ferghana chariots you speaks of. Do they predate or post date the Sintashta chariot?
What do current archeology and genetic studies say about this region."

They post date the Sintashta chariot, since the Indo-Aryans were derived from an Andronovo/Sintashta population, most likely, read:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/05/through-time-and-space.html

Also, it's ironic how the acronym for the Archaeological Society of India is ASI.

@Nathan

"NS Rajaram who created the Harappa horse fraud is a Brahmin from South India. Tamil Nadu Hindutva politician Subramanian Swamy who excoriates the British for creating the 'Aryan-Dravidian' divide is also a Brahmin."

I am not going to say anything about NS Rajaram, but you and everyone else should watch this joke of a video if you have not done so already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPaCUJsZyPU&t=

I hope no one laughs themselves to death.

@Balaji

"See Supplemenatary Information, Section 9. They were able to model using Iran_LN and Steppe_Eneolithic, Iran_LN and EHG and Iran_LN and Steppe_EMBA. Most significantly, a model involving Steppe_LMBA was obviously not feasible. This rules out Andronovo as “proto-Indo-Iranians” and suggests that if indeed there was AIT, it was much earlier than 1500 B.C."

Unfortunately for you, it really doesn't:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/05/through-time-and-space.html

So, the Proto-Indo-Iranian theory is still alive and well.

@Bogdan

"Andranovo + Yaz/BMAC into India 2000-1500BC theory. This is not rocket science folks..."

Not really, it's more likely a combination of Andronovo peasant classes+Iran Neolithic influenced BMAC.

That's all we can say for now.

postneo said...

@ aniasi said...
"Again, this isn't so much about genetics, as the ability to lay claim to something. There are a lot of Tamils who firmly believe that the IVC was some kind of ancient glorious Tamil civilisation"

No Tamilians are not waiting for DNA to invade Pakistan and reclaim Mohenjodaro. Not many have heard of IVC. Even the recent genocide of tamils in Srilanka has not drawn much attention.

Bogdan said...

@shah

Splitting hairs boyo.

Modern genetics cannot conclusively tell the difference between a Frenchman and a German...

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Bogdan

"Modern genetics cannot conclusively tell the difference between a Frenchman and a German..."

They can. Anyway, Steppe EMBA and MLBA were a bit distinct, and South Asians can only be modeled as EMBA not MLBA, so...

You need to read that time and space article by David that I previously linked.

Nathan said...

@Bogdan

"Modern genetics cannot conclusively tell the difference between a Frenchman and a German."

Typically non-Brahmin South Indians do not have the North-East European component. So one can spot the difference.

The Irula have something like 70%-90% ASI, so if you had a batch of Brahmin and Irula samples, you can make an accurate guess as to which is which.

Kristiina said...

@Samuel

Yes, J2b1a looks very old in Europe. The first J2b1 is from the Mesolithic Sardinia Su Carroppu CARH7 c. 8000 BCE.

There is only one J2b1a in the Palanichamy paper and it is detected in a Tibeto-Burman Ladakhi. God knows how that haplotype got there.

The most frequent J haplotypes in India are J1b1b and J1b1a1, and J1b1 is with all probability from Iran and nearby.

Karl_K said...

I would like to nominate this comment thread for best drama. And special thanks to Davidski for all the editing work. I can only imagine what kind of stuff ends up on the cutting room floor.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Kristinia,
"Yes, J2b1a looks very old in Europe. The first J2b1 is from the Mesolithic Sardinia Su Carroppu CARH7 c. 8000 BCE"

Well, it depends what you consider old. J2b1a & J2b1 in general in Europe is a farmer-lineage. It came with farmers from Anatiolia. J2b1a dates 8,000 years old, the same time Anatolians first made it deep into Europe.

Those Mesolithic Sardinians were probably immigrants from SW Asia. Basically, all Mesolithic Europeans carried U5 or U4 or K1.

A big chunk, maybe over 50% of all European pops have EEF mtDNA. HUngary scored 34% EEF mtDNA. The British, Irish, and German data is incomplete stuff from FTDNA (60% of samples are mHG H. Unrepresentative of each pop's mtDNA) so I need more data to confirm EEF mtDNA reaches 50% across Europe.

http://mtdnawiki.com/2018/01/21/most-european-mtdna-is-from-neolithic-anatolia/

"There is only one J2b1a in the Palanichamy paper and it is detected in a Tibeto-Burman Ladakhi. God knows how that haplotype got there.
"

There's also several from North India. And Pathans have a decent layer of J2b1a as well, unlike people in nearby Iran or further west in Iraq or Syria or etc. J2b1a got to Central Asia from Europe, no doubt about it. The mtDNA links between Kalash & Tajik with Srubnaya & Sintashta are undeniable. Steppe European ancestry, including mtDNA, is also in India just at a much smaller amount.

"The most frequent J haplotypes in India are J1b1b and J1b1a1, and J1b1 is with all probability from Iran and nearby."

I'm aware of that. J1b1a1 though is from Europe. J1b1a1 went from CHG>European Steppe>South Asia.

Aram said...

R1b V88 is found in Baltic BA. Few years ago that would be a sensation. :)

Davidski

If You have time can You do a PCA image of Mittnik samples? Thanks in advance.





Chetan said...

@Nathan I don't think it's right to blame the Brahmins as a group for holding up the study findings. I know many Brahmins who aren't outraged by the idea that the Sanskrit language could have had an external origin and many who couldn't care less about the whole thing. If the study is indeed being held up, it is likely due to political pressure from the Hindutva fundamentalists who can't handle the idea of an external origin of anything Indian. Well tough luck for them since science is going to prove them wrong again and again in 2018 and beyond.

Anonymous said...

@Samuel

I still wonder if these samples aren't misdated, conform Nick Pattersons suggesting to mistrust outliers.

Nathan said...

@chetan
I am not saying all Brahmins are invested in lying about Indian history, but the Hindutva movement and revisionism of history , to glorify Aryans as the bringers of civilization to South Asia, is mostly a Brahmin thing. It is not a coincidence that OIT ideologues and Hindutva's intellectual architects are Brahmins.

Chetan said...

@Shahanshah Lol Shah! I just read your imagined scenario for South Asian prehistory over at the mtDNA thread. Sounds like quite the script for an epic movie in India. Realistically though, I doubt there were wars between the IVC and Indo-Aryan nations. It's doubtful if the Indus valley people even had a military and the Aryans at that stage were only tribal chiefdoms. So expect a lot of horse-raids on the belly of a collapsing IV culture but not any wars as such. The incoming "commoner" folk probably assimilated fast to the existing populations riding on the back of the chariot-horse enforced military superiority and any memory of distinct culture was only preserved through the oral poetry of the Vedas preserved by the priest class.

Karl_K said...

...

Davidski said...

@All

Please note that the Mittnik et al. Baltic paper now has a comment thread of its own at my other blog.

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2018/01/modern-day-poles-vs-bronze-age-peoples.html

Rob said...

@ Aram

R1b is getting interesting.
V88 links Mesolithic - early Neo Ukraine with Mesolithic Balkans
P297 Italy - Latvia - EHG.
V1636 Khvalynsk Eneolithic - Kavalan cave EBA

Anonymous said...

@Nirjhar
"I am just asking ,that according to the data in hands , what is the % of ''Steppe+Anatolian'' related Mtdna in Brahman group ?."

I actually looked at this for myself, to see if the steppe figures were higher for the samples marked Upper-Caste compared with those marked as other Caste or marked Tribe. I didn't find the results spectacular enough to report, but since you're interested, I'll provide them.

The Palanichamy et al 2015 paper only provides total sample sizes for regions, such as "Punjab", "Bangladesh". However, the paper does not provide the total sample sizes of each other kind of subdivision, such as language, caste or religion.

The only relevant count I can get is that out of an unknown total number of Upper-Caste samples, 360 Upper-Caste samples had West-Eurasian mtDNA. It's important to understand that percentages are calculated using this, though I've also attempted guesstimates percentages for steppe and AF out of overall Upper-Caste mtDNA.

Samples labelled "Upper-Caste" are sometimes further marked as "Kshatriya", "Brahmin", "Jat Singh". Often, however, which of these the sample belongs to isn't indicated. So I've just counted matches with steppe and Anatolian Farmer Hgs (identified by Sam's blog) for samples marked "Upper-Caste" and can't give totals for specific subdivisions like "Brahmin".

H2a1: 4
H5a1: 9
H7b: 2
HV6: 1 x HV6b
U5a1b: 9 (1 of which is U5a1b1f)
U4a1: 1
U2e1b: 1
T1a1: 4 (1 of which is T1a1b1)
J1b1a1: 7
W3a1: 9 x W3a1b. (W3a1 itself occurred in 7 samples India wide. Of these, 1 Middle-Caste IE East India sample and 6 in Dravidian, South India samples of which 5 Middle-Caste and 1 Muslim. W3a1b has a wider distribution, occurring in Upper-Caste and Tribe, not just Middle-Caste and more frequently among IE speakers, but also occuring in Tibeto Burman speakers.)
W4: 6
W1c: 11

0 matches marked Upper-Caste for steppe mtDNA H6a1, H13a1a1, H41, HV9, U5a1a, U5a1d2b, U5a1g, U5a2a1, U5a2b, K1b1a1, K1b2, U4a2, U4b1a1a1, U4b1a4, U4b1b1, U2e1a, U2e1h, U2e2a1, J1c1b1a, J2b1a, W3b, I1a1, I3a, I4a, N1a1a1a1

A total of 64 steppe mtDNA samples, constituting 17.7% (or a little less than 1/5th) of all the West-Eurasian mtDNA in the Upper-Caste samples, it's not out of total Upper-Caste mtDNA.

Sam described CHG/Iran Neo origins for W3a1. If W3a1 was already present from Iran Neolithic, then between 15.2% - 17.7% of the West-Eurasian mtDNA in the Upper-Caste samples would be from the steppe. And, as discussed earlier, H2a1 may have entered South Asia directly from the Caucasus or another route than the steppe. Excluding H2a1 and W3a1, a total of 51 samples match steppe mtDNA.

In that case, 14.2-17.7% of the total West-Eurasian mtDNA found in Upper-Caste samples being from the steppe would mean less than 6% (between 4.7%-5.8%) of their total mtDNA was from the steppe.

Sam listed the Anatolian farmer mtDNA in India as "H3g, H5a1, HV6, V2a, J1c1b1a, J1c8a, J1c5, J1c8, K1a1b2a, K2a5, N1a1a1a1."

Some of these Hgs were already in his list of steppe mtDNA Hgs above. Counting incidences of those not already included,
H3g: 3
V2a: 9
K1a1b2a: 1
K2a5: 1

An additional 14 samples means between 65 and 78 samples (without or W3a1 and H2a1) out of 360 West-Eurasian mtDNA in Upper-Caste samples are from either the steppe or Anatolia Farmer = 18.1%-21.7% of all the West Eurasian mtDNA found in sampled Upper-Caste matches steppe or Anatolian Farmer mtDNA.. Beware again, it's not 18.1%-21.7% of total mtDNA in Upper-Caste, but 18.1%-21.7% out of all the West-Eurasian mtDNA in Upper-Caste.

Anonymous said...

There's no reason to assume that the entirety of Upper-Caste mtDNA would be West-Eurasian. For one thing, they have a good chunk of ASI too, as others have shown (recently again). And this ASI has to come from some part of their remaining ancestry, if a high proportion of their Y-DNA is from the steppe. I'm deciding to guesstimate that the overall West-Eurasian mtDNA in Upper-Caste samples need not be higher than in Punjab: since the value may be lower than the Punjab average in South India Dravidian Upper-Caste or in East India IE Upper-Caste, even if the value were potentially higher than the Punjab average in North India or West India Indo-European Upper-Caste, I assume things may average out. Because the west-Eurasian mtDNA constituted 33% of Punjab's overall mtDNA in the paper's data, I'll tentatively assume 33% of South Asia Upper-Caste mtDNA is West-Eurasian. In that case, between around 6% and 7% of Upper-Caste mtDNA could be from either steppe or Anatolian Farmer. The remaining 93%-94% of their mtDNA is from other sources.

For comparison, 80 out of the 360 West Eurasian mtDNA samples labelled Upper-Caste are U7 or derived. At 22.2% of West-Eurasian mtDNA in Upper-Caste (or at a tentatively estimated 7.3% of all mtDNA in Upper-Caste), this is slightly higher than steppe and Anatolian Farmer mtDNA combined. Once again, U7's not all the non steppe/AF West-Eurasian mtDNA Hgs in the group.


Kristiina included H13a1a which is upstream of the H13a1a1 found in the steppe. I haven't included it for the following reasons.
There are 0 samples of the steppe Hg H13a1a1 in the paper's India and Bangladesh samples, which finds only the upstream H13a1a as well as H13a2a, both of which only occur in North India "Uttar Pradesh" and not elsewhere and which may be a founder effect. But this Hg is not, unlike U4 and U5, from Yamna's EHG ancestry, and would therefore be from Yamna's CHG ancestors. (David has repeatedly written that CHG contributed next to no paternal lines and as CHG makes up about 50% of Yamna's ancestry, that would mean many of the maternal lineages of the steppe came through the CHG part of Yamna's ancestry, specifically the lineages not found associated with EHG.) Taken together with the fact that the downstream H13a1a1 Sam's identified as a steppe Hg does not itself occur at all in the 14198 Indian samples, despite both H13a2a and the upstream H13a1a occurring, it may indicate that H13a1 and H13a2 derived Hgs in modern South Asia possibly entered the area from a region other than the steppe, such as more directly from the Caucasus or West Asia. Also, were I to include H13a1a (or also H13a2a) above, despite being upstream of the H13a1a1 in Sam's steppe mtDNA list, then many other upstream Hgs not found in the steppe yet should be taken into account in my tallies too. But there's also no certainty in assuming everything upstream of Sam's list of steppe mtDNAs should be regarded as steppe, also for the reason that mtDNA Hgs can take an unknown or even very long period of time before mutating. Unless we were to find them actually attested in Yamna, upstream clades related to CHG/Iran need not have been present in Yamna itself, but only in Yamna's CHG ancestry, which is another reason why I excluded H13a1a and H13a2a.

As another observation, there are several instances of possible founder effects once again. As with H2a1 being found exclusively among Dravidian South India Upper-Caste, it appears Anatolian Farmer V2a occurs exclusively in IE "Uttar Pradesh" Upper-Caste North India. Another possible founder effect could be W1c, occuring only in samples labelled "Uttar Pradesh" where Upper-Caste samples are concerned.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ak2014b,

Almost all those mHGs require mitogenome sequenced to be identified. You can't measure Steppe mtDNA frequencies using normal low coverage data.

Matt said...

@MomofZoha: There's only one Kurdish population in the datasheet to work from but this is the fit they have with the same set of populations:
Kurdish - Roman_Britain_outlier,39.2, Satsurblia,36.8, Iberia_EN,9.8, Yamnaya_Kalmykia,8, Hungary_IA,3.2, Santhal,2.2, Ket,0.6, Pima,0.2

@Anthro Survey, used all 20 dimensions in those models.

@Eren, thanks, that should be useful.

Kristiina said...

@ak2014b

Generally I do agree with you, but I would like to ask why you write that there are "0 matches marked Upper-Caste for steppe mtDNA H13a1a1".

In the Excel file there are 23 H13a1a samples and all are upper caste Indo-European speakers from North India.

In the text they say that "The H13 haplogroup carrying individuals from India (Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh) represent mainly the H13a1a and H13a2a subclades. Amongst these, the H13a1a lineage has predominantly been found only in the Uttar Pradesh Brahmin (Bhargava and Chauturvedi) populations, which is likely to be the result of founder effects. The Indian H13a1a lineage is shown to share an ancestry with the populations from Europe, the Caucasus and the Near East, whereas the ancestry of H13a2a is shared exclusively by the Pakistani and the Near Eastern (Iran and Iraq) populations".

Kristiina said...

Sorry ak2014b. I noticed your reply too late. IMO, the general problem here is that we cannot be sure if many originally CHG looking haplotypes arrived to India from the Steppe or from Caucasus - Iran.

Anonymous said...

"In that case, 14.2-17.7% of the total West-Eurasian mtDNA found in Upper-Caste samples being from the steppe would mean less than 6% (between 4.7%-5.8%) of their total mtDNA was from the steppe." This statement was taking into account my guesstimate, but when reordering my discussion as legible comments, it got shifted up.

Data still from Palanichamy et al 2015.

All samples marked "Tribe", N = 223

H2a1: 1 x H2a1a
U5a1a: 5 x U5a1a1
U5a1b: 7
U4a1: 2
U2e1b: 7
T1a1: 3
J1b1a1: 1
W3a1: 3 x W3a1b
W4: 3 (1 W4, 2 W4a)
N1a1a1a1: 1

No matches for: H5a1, H6a1, H7b, H13a1a1, H41, HV6, HV9, U5a1d2b, U5a1g, U5a2a1, U5a2b, K1b1a1, K1b2, U4a2, U4b1a1a1, U4b1a4, U4b1b1, U2e1a, U2e1h, U2e2a1, J1c1b1a, J2b1a, W3b, W1c, I1a1, I3a, I4a. Nor for any Anatolian Farmer mtDNA in Sam's list not already accounted for above.

Total steppe and Anatolian Farmer mtDNA for samples labelled Tribe: depending on without or with H2a1 and W3a1, there's 30 to 33 out of 223 West-Eurasian mtDNA in the Tribe samples. Steppe and AF accounts for between 13.5 to 14.8% of the West-Eurasian mtDNA in the paper's Tribe samples. (0 of the matches with steppe and Anatolian Farmer were with Bangladesh samples labelled Tribe.)

This is slightly lower than the 15.2% to 17.7% of steppe/AF mtDNA among all the West-Eurasian mtDNA in the Upper-Caste samples.


All samples marked "Caste" other than "Upper-Caste", N = 394:

H5a1: 1
H6a1: 2 x H6a1a
HV6: 2 x HV6b
U5a1a: 5 x U5a1a1
U5a1b: 6 (1 of which U5a1b1)
U4a1: 4
U2e1a: 1 x U2e1a1
U2e1b: 2
T1a1: 6
J1b1a1: 7
J1c1b1a: 1
W3a1: 13 (6 x W3a1, 7 x W3a1b)
W4: 7

No instances of H2a1, H7b, H13a1a1, H41, HV9, U5a1d2b, U5a1g, U5a2a1, U5a2b, K1b1a1, K1b2, U4a2, U4b1a1a1, U4b1a4, U4b1b1, U2e1h, U2e2a1, J2b1a, W3b, W1c, I1a1, I3a, I4a, N1a1a1a1

K2a5: x 1 as well, from the additional Hgs in Sam's blog listed under "India, Anatolian farmer mtDNA".


Between 45 and 58 (when W3a1 is included) out of 394 = 11.5% to 14.8% steppe and AF mtDNA out of all the West-Eurasian mtDNA for all samples marked "Caste" but not marked "Upper-Caste".


Again, it's somewhat lower than the 15.2% to 17.7% steppe/AF mtDNA out of all the West-Eurasian mtDNA in the Upper-Caste samples. It's around or possible also lower than the equivalent for Tribe samples. The difference is less drastic than I would have anticipated, if it were not that it's expected to have been a male dominated invasion rather than a folk migration.

Reminder that these percentages are once more calculated out of all the West-Eurasian mtDNA in the groups specified, not out of total mtDNA.


Kristiina's already made something like this next observation for certain West-Eurasian mtDNA Hgs in the paper. I noticed that some steppe mtDNA, like U5a1a and H6a1, occur in certain groups like Tribe or different Castes to the exclusion of the samples labelled Upper-Caste. Maybe future studies can shed light on the historical routes these Hgs took into South Asia, in case these were related to different historical migration events.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you ak2014b,Kristiina, Sam !.

Anonymous said...

@Kristiina
"IMO, the general problem here is that we cannot be sure if many originally CHG looking haplotypes arrived to India from the Steppe or from Caucasus - Iran."

Yes, it is quite hard to make out subtler cases when we don't have enough data from the Caucasus or Iran. Or any from South and SC Asia for that matter, such as to help determine when or how certain Hg edge-cases made it to their destinations. That's why I'm on the fence about H2a1. And now also W3a1, after Sam described it as CHG/Iran Neo, and since CHG/Iran Neolithic may explain its South Asia distribution in the Palanichamy 2015 paper's samples better.


Regarding H13. All but 1 of the 7 H13a2a samples is marked North India, Indo-European, Upper-Caste "Uttar Pradesh". The singleton is marked South India, Dravidian, Upper-Caste. Both H13a1a and H13a2a appear concentrated together for the most part, and that makes me contemplate they may be associated in some way, so they may have arrived together.


@Sam
"Almost all those mHGs require mitogenome sequenced to be identified. You can't measure Steppe mtDNA frequencies using normal low coverage data."

The Palanichamy 2015 paper's conclusions, about certain specific subclades and South Asian communities being connected with Iranians or the Caucasus, is based on identifying exact matches in subclades. If in their paper, the authors were to only have resolved some instances of U7 or U5, for instance, down to to specific subclades, but not the other instances thereof, then their comparisons and their conclusions which make connections between certain specific South Asian groups with the Near East or the steppe/Europe, to the exclusion of other South Asian groups, become very meaningless if some of the excluded groups' upstream-looking Hgs remain unresolved.

However, you seem convinced that they've not resolved every Hg properly or equally. Could you tell me how you confirmed which ones are low quality? (Or perhaps you requested their samples to re-analyse them yourself? I should make it clear that this is not something I did, as I merely worked with the spreadsheets of the published mtDNA data, as also for the Pakistan and Iran mtDNA papers, reading off Hgs and their counts.)


On the other matter, Sam, will you make all your data sources public, as you intended, so that the public can check it if need be? I don't actually think I'll feel the need to check your findings, though having it can't hurt, but generally speaking, transparency is a requirement for everyone.

Anonymous said...

'All but 1 of the 7 H13a2a samples is marked North India, Indo-European, Upper-Caste "Uttar Pradesh". The singleton is marked South India, Dravidian, Upper-Caste.'

This was a mistake. Rather than checking the full spreadsheet, I looked in my summary sheet from which I got the earlier data for samples marked "Upper-Caste". The full sheet shows there are more H13a2a (marked South India, Dravidian, Middle-Caste).
I'll stop now before I start to see double.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Chetan

I think it was an invasion but a small one. Most of the IVC was probably empty at that point. Another thing, I exaggerated the details and added my own flavour to give it a feeling of epicness. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Lol!

Acharya Agnimitra said...

aniasi
The population was emptying the cities, and only a few survived as much diminished towns and villages, and migrating east. The Indo-Aryans would easily have been able to achieve dominance in this situation.

The only thing more extraordinary than the 'Hyksos scenario'(I can name it right?) is someone actually insisting that such a thing is possible. Such a thing- where a linguistic successor of a suppressed culture completely failed to preserve any trace of the preceding- has not been documented anywhere at any time in history. Let me remind you of what the HS demands-that not even a single loan word is allowed- before you try to give examples. Not even the Indo Aryan Mittani could replicate it.

Let me also remind you, just as you have emphatically agreed and the Hyksos scenario requires, that only an invasion and absolute domination can bring about such an absolute change. Such a ravaging event, naturally, has to show in the record. Not only is there a complete lack of evidence in the language and lexicon of the Rig Vedic Aryans that that the territory they violently acquired less than a century ago once belonged to the Harappans, there is also no record of such a clash of cultures on the ground or in the literature. ZIP! NILL!

While you assume that the collapse of urban IVC made the Indo-Europeanizaton of North India easier, it is the other way around. The late Harappan culture actually spread to wider untouched areas and continued well past the middle of the second millenium BCE. A much wider area to Indo-Europeanize and much lesser time! Even if you cherry pick the Ochre coloured pottery as some "Early Indo Aryan" and the 17th-16th century BCE as the century of Arya-entrée, there is an unacceptable and highly anomalous overlap of territories. The Harappans and the IAs are literally on top of each other. Look at Sanauli just north of Delhi for instance. The Harappans were burying their dead in the old cemetery even as the Aryans are supposedly entering, burning altars and pondering over the Rig veda in the same territory.
https://www.academia.edu/35255340/Welcome_to_Sanauli

The greatest anomaly and the vortex of the overlap is Haryana- The smack center of Rig vedic activitie, where Rakhigarhi is situated and where the largest concentration of Harappan sites ever were. How is possible that the IAs who just entered Haryana, conquered and linguistically transformed the largest numbers of Late Harappans there and composed their magnum opus the Rig Veda in the same century, failed to mention their victories, victims or atleast a single word/name/place/god of the Harappans?.

The Hyksosian conundrum! There has to have been an invasion and domination! A thorough and unreplicable one too!Or North India could never have been turned IE! There just has!But why is something so straight forward, so unevidenced? Why does the damned Vedic Aryans make themselves look like Harappans!(oops)

Now an insurance question, just for future reference- if the coming aDNA from mature phase Rakhigarhi shows Harappans could not possibly have been IE speakers, naturally, we will have to be satisfied with the lack of evidence for the invasion while still accepting that it happened. Because, as we know, only a male dominated invasion could possibly do the trick of turning a whole million bunch of peeps into IE so quickly. But if the results show the opposite, I wonder, how would you still push the Hyksos scenario for North India? Because as hard and implausible as it is now, it is only going to get harder and impossible then. Think about it. You may need it.

Poorer cemeteries of 2000bc already show signs of tuberculosis, leprosy, and violence amongst the lower classes.

Of all the special pleads there is, leprosy and those few ad nauseum dangled skeletons again?Take a look at the ancient history of disease and see where partial informations are... pointless?
http://datavizproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Sk%C3%A6rmbillede-2017-02-23-kl.-11.00.06.png

Palacista said...

@Acharya Agnimitra

If I read you correctly AIT didn't happen because something different didn't happen somewhere else.

Davidski said...

@supernord

It seems like you're using Google translate to write posts here.

Please take some time to write your posts in easier to understand English, because it's difficult to know what you're trying to say and to interpret your tone.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

No no Palacista, the same thing that happens everywhere without exception failed to happened in North India. The most drastic of all possible scenarios has left not the slightest word in its memory. Literally.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Palacista

"If I read you correctly AIT didn't happen because something different didn't happen somewhere else."

Yeah, that's basically what he's saying. He's trying to use the Hyksos invasion of Egypt to justify that the IVC was not invaded by Vedic Aryans. It's a completely absurd analogy, and one without merit.

@supernord You made some good points, though, take David's advice. Thanks, mate.

Anonymous said...

@Agnimitra

Despite that very long post, I cannot make out what you are trying to say. You are literally firing off in every direction and throwing in the kitchen sink for good measure.

Co-occupation of the same sites does not mean violence did not occur. It just means that there was no overall conquest and disruption. The presence of two cultures in the same region implies a transitory period of cultural shift.

Collapsing central authority and urban emptying tend to pile up with local violence. The same climactic and environmental factors that bring down cities also affect agriculture and increase competition for the same resources (food, water, habitable land etc). Increased competition leads to low levels of endemic violence and poor health that primarily leads to mortality for local men. In these situations, at Chetan pointed out, people tend to follow strongmen, and assimilate into surivalist cultures.

A simple scenario: Harappan cities are shrinking and declining, along with the population as a whole. Survivors are moving out and to the east, and before you know it conflict is springing up between urban remnants, roving gangs, and survivor groups. Think Walking Dead. Plenty of men are dying in conflicts, and the Indo-Aryans have probably been on the perifery, but soon find themselves drawn in. Living with livestock on the move creates a bit of a tougher culture, (Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South) and they are either drawn in as mercenaries by urban remnants, or find themselves in an advantageous position with migrating survivor groups. They easily attain dominance since they now have power, and through marriage and assimilation are able to spread their language and culture rapidly.

Look at the expansion of Hindi languages into Madhya Pradesh during the historic period. Between the 15th and 18th centuries, you can see how various Rajput, Muslim, and Maratha adventurers/rulers/invaders managed to rule over predominantly Gondi kingdoms or principalities, and impose a largely Hindi based culture upon them. At present, less than 20% of the Gonds can speak Gondi, and it the language is endangered. Even then, there was


MomOfZoha said...

@Matt:
Thank you! I was curious about non-Anatolian Kurds as "representative" only because every one of my Anatolian Kurdish friends has an Armenian grandmother. Then again, Kurdish-Armenian relations are also deeper than the past century in Anatolia...

@aniasi:
I think that the source of Agnimitra's frustration is valid even if his scientific conclusion is not. He is expressing the very real phenomenon of white European attempts to claim every south-easterly civilizational achievement by darker folks. The horrid "We Wuz Priest Kangz and Sheet" comment above is actually illustrative of this. The underlying mentality is clear: Dark folks could not have possibly come up with that stuff. Note also how that "Priest Kangz" comment tries to link Indian attempts at claiming *their own damn culture that has been continuously theirs for uninterrupted millennia* with some "Afrocentrist" attempts at claiming a long bygone civilization outside of the African heartland. And, they speak of logic.

Regardless of what ancient genetics shall show, this desperate northern European attempt to claim everything Hindu, Zoroastrian, and even occasionally pre-Christian ("Nordic" Amorites and German Jesus!) has had several hilarious consequences. It would take a lengthy essay to elaborate on all such attempts. But, here let me just leave you with one most recent attempt:

Ynglism.

Yes, Ynglism. (Google is your friend.)

This most ludicrous attempt at unifying every pseudo-"Aryan" wet-dream from Vikings to Vedas within an explicitly racist framework continues to gain *quite* the following in pan-Slavic circles. This is not just another "cult" but one of the most "logical" manifestations of a flood of related European attempts for more than a century. Any Indian would be wise to look deeply into this particular manifestation, for it does express the underlying psychology very well.

Ynglism is nothing more the "logical" conclusion of deriving Vedic culture from Balto-Slavic genetics. Given the well-known Varangian Rus genetic contribution to the Balto-Slavs (Ibn-Fadlan is a great read on the "glorious" Rus culture by the way -- not that he had anything at all flattering to say about the Turks either), of course it makes sense to link Eddas to Vedas. :)

Anyway, I would google this to death if I were you. It's quite a laugh!

(And, btw, I'm not rechecking this thread.)

Sanuj said...

@aniasi Gonds are not a valid example because Gonds have not been erased out of history. The "Old European" hydronomy still survives, but that's not the case in India, there is no trace of any underlying layer below Indo European.

@MomofZoha Also, these white supremacist claims on Indian heritage is getting beyond ridiculous. All these Northern European ideas of a mythical "Hyperborea" etc. which people speak of here often are sprouting from there. A recent reportage happened on this in India -
(and this is a very leftist publication) -> http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/unholy-alliance-india-white-supremacy

Davidski said...

@Sanuj

What you and many other Indians, including journalists and even scientists, aren't getting is that this isn't only about India, and about who has the best political intentions and can shout the loudest in the media and on the internet to get them across.

It's about what actually happened across much of Eurasia during the Bronze Age.

And since this has already happened, then there can be no compromise, certainly not about the points that can be empirically proven, like the large scale population movements from the steppes to India during the Bronze Age.

There's nothing you can do to make this go away, because science is moving fast in this area, and it will flesh it all out in superb detail sooner rather than later.

Unknown said...

@momofzoha

I have a problem with those people as well, and I have told them off for being blatantly racist. They claim they are doing it in response to unscientific provocation, but that doesn't justify it any more than me using a racial slur against someone because they cut me off in traffic.

@Sanuj

That is because we are in the midst of the historic era, instead of a period when there were no written records. The Bhils are a similar Adivasi tribe that has assimilated to an Indo-Aryan language and culture within the historic period. We can just see it better in our era.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

"What you and many other Indians, including journalists and even scientists, aren't getting is that this isn't only about India, and about who has the best political intentions and can shout the loudest in the media and on the internet to get them across."

Good point!

"It's about what actually happened across much of Eurasia during the Bronze Age."

Exactly.

"And since this has already happened, then there can be no compromise, certainly not about the points that can be empirically proven, like the large scale population movements from the steppes to India during the Bronze Age."

Certainly!

"There's nothing you can do to make this go away, because science is moving fast in this area, and it will flesh it all out in superb detail sooner rather than later."

Bravo, couldn't have put it better myself.

Only question now is whether or not Indians will hesitate or not to release this information and spill the beans once and for all.

Sanuj said...

@David

No one wants to get into any shouting match. Although the "genetic" evidence at this point is tilted on one side, the evidence is incomplete, and no one can shout out or "humiliate" into submission, as you once wrote, till we have it all.

Secondly, it was the Aryan "Invasion" Theory, up until 1995, when it was changed to a migration theory(in small waves) by the mainstream for very specific scientific reasons, i.e, a complete lack of evidence for anything otherwise. Now, people want to have a migration, with the effects of a grand invasion all for convenience, without any evidence is not done.

Yes, Science is moving fast, and science will give us the answers, it just hasn't given it yet.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Sanuj

"Secondly, it was the Aryan "Invasion" Theory, up until 1995, when it was changed to a migration theory(in small waves) by the mainstream for very specific scientific reasons, i.e, a complete lack of evidence for anything otherwise. Now, people want to have a migration, with the effects of a grand invasion all for convenience, without any evidence is not done."

It was an invasion, though, see here: http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-indo-europeanization-of-south-asia.html

Sanuj said...

@SOP

Yeah sure, send out the link to all the mainstream researchers who won't look at evidence beyond genetic similarity to claim a massive "invasion". They'll be enthralled.

Rob said...

@ RRocca

“Don't act so surprised. Exactly that scenario happened during the Copper Age in what is now called "Old Europe".”


Be careful what you wish for.
For if we learn from the evidence from “old Europe”, and duly separate it into SEE vs temperate Central- North Europe; it would mean that a much older layer of “steppe” - Central- South Asia interaction exists, with the MBA phase being more circumscribed and limited, whose main effects in andronovo etc horizon, being the analogous “spillover” seen in CWC - BB

In other words, a possible reformulation of the PIE question itself

(Shah no need for you to reply here. Just breathe into a brown paper bag).

Davidski said...

@Rob

Isn't Iran Hotu related to the Zarzian culture?

If so, this is clearly not the explanation for the Yamnaya-related signal in South Asia, because even though Iran Hotu is less basal than Iran Neolithic, it doesn't show this signal at above noise level.

And obviously it's very unlikely that R1a-Z93 derives from this culture.

Rob said...

Yes I don’t think Z93 is from the Zarzian or similar Epipaleo sites, nor a source of any significant steppe ancestry, because they’re too far southwest

Nirjhar007 said...

To who are interested :

Early Middle Palaeolithic culture in India around 385–172 ka reframes Out of Africa models
Kumar Akhilesh, Shanti Pappu, Haresh M. Rajapara, Yanni Gunnell, Anil D. Shukla & Ashok K. Singhvi
Abstract
Luminescence dating at the stratified prehistoric site of Attirampakkam, India, has shown that processes signifying the end of the Acheulian culture and the emergence of a Middle Palaeolithic culture occurred at 385 ± 64 thousand years ago (ka), much earlier than conventionally presumed for South Asia1. The Middle Palaeolithic continued at Attirampakkam until 172 ± 41 ka. Chronologies of Middle Palaeolithic technologies in regions distant from Africa and Europe are crucial for testing theories about the origins and early evolution of these cultures, and for understanding their association with modern humans or archaic hominins, their links with preceding Acheulian cultures and the spread of Levallois lithic technologies2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20. The geographic location of India and its rich Middle Palaeolithic record are ideally suited to addressing these issues, but progress has been limited by the paucity of excavated sites and hominin fossils as well as by geochronological constraints1,8. At Attirampakkam, the gradual disuse of bifaces, the predominance of small tools, the appearance of distinctive and diverse Levallois flake and point strategies, and the blade component all highlight a notable shift away from the preceding Acheulian large-flake technologies9. These findings document a process of substantial behavioural change that occurred in India at 385 ± 64 ka and establish its contemporaneity with similar processes recorded in Africa and Europe2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13. This suggests complex interactions between local developments and ongoing global transformations. Together, these observations call for a re-evaluation of models that restrict the origins of Indian Middle Palaeolithic culture to the incidence of modern human dispersals after approximately 125 ka19,21.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25444

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Probably Neanderthal. No way it's modern human at 385ka in India and Europe.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Anyway, early OoA groups likely died out. We came from a group that bred 50-60kya w Neandertal. DNA seems pretty clear on that. Little to no contribution from anything earlier.

niraj rai said...

Just now saw this blog and comments. Who the hell is managing this blog. It is so disgusting and filthy. I warn you to not mention my name in such a bullshit.

Ric Hern said...

@ Nirjhar007

Maybe this is from where Denisovans migrated...

Ric Hern said...

@ Nirjhar007

Isn't there a lack of fossils between early Neanderthal/Proto-Neanderthal and Late Neanderthal in Europe ? Maybe this was the period when most migrated East into India ?

Davidski said...

@niraj rai

Just now saw this blog and comments. Who the hell is managing this blog. It is so disgusting and filthy. I warn you to not mention my name in such a bullshit.

[Please note that my reply assumes that this is Rai, though it might not be]

This blog post and discussion aren't about you, they're about an article on a Hindi website, which mentioned your name and posted your photo. See here...

https://m.jagran.com/news/national-jagran-special-on-indo-european-languages-17304852.html

What are you warning about exactly? Are you saying we're not allowed to discuss the newspaper article because it mentioned your name?

If the website used your name and photo without permission, you should take it up with the relevant editors.

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave,

The interview is indeed genuine , I talked . Dr. Rai did comment .

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

The interview is indeed genuine, I talked. Dr. Rai did comment.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Very strange and rude comment here by Rai in that case.

Nirjhar007 said...

Strage and rude? good joke Dave...

Chetan said...

@Nirjhar Thanks. I will read it and get back

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

I see, so judging by the Jagran article and Rai's (yep, most likely him, but I'd have to check the IP to be sure) response, we're soon likely to see a paper in a leading journal authored by international scientists arguing, based on the Rakhgarhi DNA, that India was the Indo-European homeland?

Seriously? You think this is what's going to happen?

Anthro Survey said...

@Sein

"For what it's worth, when the data is scaled, the Srubna outlier only takes ANE, EHG, and CHG."

Ah, I forgot to mention that I had to remove EHGs from my input when I was doing this because even if things aren't scaled, it still prefers EHG, ANE, CHG and some Iran_N. Ignores the MLBA samples.
Yeah, as you can see, the CHG also comes out effectively lower than it is in Yamnaya when MLBA is forced in its modeling.

Btw, you've mentioned that eastern Scythians lack this Srubna-outlier modeling preference, right? Haven't looked into it, but, if that's true, maybe the phenomenon was just restricted to southern steppe regions that were ultimately pivotal in migrations to India and Greater Iran.

So, to be honest, I'm more excited Kazakhstan than I am about India. Didn't Reich mention there were major projects planned in that region of the steppe? If so, hope they didn't reconsider. Wouldn't be one bit surprised to discover more people like our Srubna outlier(perhaps being products of hybridization with northerly MLBA-like people?) lurking out there.

Karl_K said...

@Chad

"Anyway, early OoA groups likely died out. We came from a group that bred 50-60kya w Neandertal. DNA seems pretty clear on that. Little to no contribution from anything earlier."

What are you talking about? What about the Basal Eurasians that contributed significant ancestry to Europe and South and West Asian populations during the Neolithic?

They didn't have Neanderthal ancestry.

Karl_K said...

@Niraj

"It is so disgusting and filthy. I warn you to not mention my name in such a bullshit."

Wow. Quote of the year. Great professional response to valid scientific criticism.

Definitely no bias going on...

Anonymous said...

@Karl_K

And those words from a man that contributed in 2016 to a talk suggesting that migration was one factor in the differences in skin pigmentation between Indian groups.

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2016/session23/iliescu-2016-unravelling-the-evolutionary-forces-driving-skin-color-diversity-in-india.html

"In this context, the already established complex patterning of the SLC24A5 light skin allele across India and the significant effect of this genetic variant on pigmentation variation in some, but not all, of the Indian populations studied, points to the presence of phenotypic “overprinting” due to successive population migrations and the action of both natural selection and demographic forces."

Anonymous said...

Oddly enough the Times of India - I have no idea on the respect-worthiness of this news outlet but it uses moderate language - printed this article two weeks before the aforementioned Dainik Jagran article.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Descendants-of-Harappans-still-living-in-Rakhigarhi/articleshow/53609286.cms?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C1177004029&from=mdr

While it gives the impression of continuity the details are somewhat more explanatory.

"We took DNA samples from skeletons recovered from the archeological dig as well as residents of Rakhigarhi village of today. The initial results have thrown up scientific evidence proving that even as the civilization faded away, some people adapted to the changes and continued to live here," the official added, requesting anonymity as the full results of the research project are not out yet.

postneo said...

David and commentators on this blog have been denigrating Indians and accusing Indian scientists long before the Jagran article.

postneo said...

I think the Jagran article is a mistake but it pales in comparison to the drivel here

Davidski said...

@postneo

David and commentators on this blog have been denigrating Indians and accusing Indian scientists long before the Jagran article.

I don't believe I denigrated any Indians. Criticism, even severe criticism, is not necessarily denigration.

There were other Indian newspaper articles and scientific papers published before the Jagran article that made it clear that there were very serious problems with the interpretation of reality by the media and scientific community in India. And by people like you postneo.

The Jagran article was just the last in a long line and the proverbial cherry on top.

Anonymous said...

I think the area knows a rather large Jat population and they have a high amount of Y-DNA L-M20, round a third. It might be they hinted at that, considering the only rumours that substantiated were about Y-DNA L.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/rumors-leaks-thread.html

Palacista said...

@Davidski
do you really believe that it will be all over when the facts come out?
The denial runs deeper that mere facts.

André de Vasconcelos said...

Rai might be referring to the less-than-proper racial slurs that a few members regularly post, which tarnish the blog's reputation, rather than actually most people here being pro-AIT/AMT(depending on how you view it)

postneo said...

@epoch
Times of India is the largest English newspaper in the world. You have a problem with the article ? Seems rather measured to me.

Also is there a problem if scientist gives a talk on skin pigment mutations? I fail to get the point.

postneo said...

@andre
Being pro ait/amt is fine. There’s a different psychosis at play here. The Jagran article while silly has played an unintended function. It has got David, mini me and mini me jr ...so forth all riled up

Sanuj said...

@epoch2013

The TOI article is from 2016 August, not two weeks before jagran article... as far as i remember more skeletons were dug out from various layers after that...

Anonymous said...

@Sanuj

You're right, I mixed it up with another article. But L-M20 would be a good explanation for suggestions of continuity.

Acharya Agnimitra said...

aniasi,
Despite that very long post, I cannot make out what you are trying to say. You are literally firing off in every direction

Be at peace. I'll break it down to even tinier, semi-solid pieces for you. Though I can only spend an hour a day for this, I'll make sure you understand, even if you claim otherwise. Of course, a bit of sincerity is required of you too.

The presence of two cultures in the same region implies a transitory period of cultural shift.

Don't be silly. When two cultures meet, they influence each other Especially so if two different language families or two unequal material cultures are involved. That is universal. The cross pollination may be as basic as loanwords or it may be as significant as technology transfers. But it is unavoidable. It is an unwritten rule.

-When the Hyksos invaded Egypt, they brought in so many tangible and discernable things- new techniques of bronze metallurgy, many loanwords, new breeds, even new crops. Even new weaponry. You don't even need literary records of the invasion.
-When the colonialists reached the new world, they did not rename the new rivers they came across as the "Rhine" or the "Thames". They adopted the "Mississippi" & the "Potomac" An overwhelmingly sizeable number of modern names of places and water bodies in N America were adopted by invasive migrants from the native languages. This is despite the fact that there was serious violence, disease and conflict involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_place_names_of_Native_American_origin_in_the_United_States
-Even the British lexicon expanded with South Asian words during their rule.

Now, let's come to the Harappans who seem to have been totally disillusioned with their own language and too much in awe of Sanskrit.
When pastoralists come down to conquer an agricultural and densely populated Haryana, we expect a certain natural chain of events.
-The IAs learn agriculture. What are the Harappan agricultural terminology, the names of Harappan cereals, pulses and implements preserved in the RV?(Mind you, RV Arya are not cow herders like your average Kurgan)
-The IAs certainly came across a lot of new animal and plant species. What are the non-Sanskrit flora and fauna names preserved in the Rig Veda?
- There were a lot of new rivers and places. Can you name a single river or place name in the Rig Veda which is not sanskrit?
- Did the IAs bring in any new breed of cattle or other central Asian animal or crop with them? The cow is the most important PIE animal. Yet the semitic word Taurus along with the species Bos Taurus entered most western IE branches, while Indo-Iranians, Tocharians etc are spared of this influence. Why does "Taurus" not appear in India either in word nor body in Vedic times?
- Did the IAs bring in any new central Asian technology....anything at all...like the generous Hyksos bestowed on Egypt or any intruder ever? (Please don't say spoked wheels and horses, that will not make you look smart)

The answer to the above existential questions is NO/NONE. They took absolutely nothing from the Harappans. And the Harappans took nothing from them. It's like the IAs and Harappans never even met. Forget a clash, forget a cultural diffusion, it looks like the preceding culture magically vanished and the new one snapped into existence even as they were temporally and geographically contemporaneous.

It's like the storm gods rained z93 mutagens and vectors coated with Sanskrit all over North India.(if you still wanna believe in the Hyksos scenario)

(cont)

Acharya Agnimitra said...

"Collapsing central authority and urban emptying tend to pile up with local violence. The same climactic and environmental factors that bring down "

I am impressed. Your rhetorical skills and limitless imagination would put old RMartin to shame. But I must say the solution to one unsubstantiated theory is not heaps and heaps of more unsubstantiated stories.

You must note, that despite the extraordinariness of the Hyksos scenario you support for North India, the standard of evidence I request of you is bare minimal and depressingly rudimentary. I am not asking you for the archaeological evidence of invasion or complicated linguistic evidence( which I know does not exist). I am asking for such simple subsistent evidence as mere words, names and 'things'.
Are you going to continue quoting more of some creationist's fantasy you read earlier?

I'll even help you a bit. The word for cardamom in sanskrit(ela) is borrowed from Dravidian. Naturally, because the spice comes from the south. Too bad such borrowings come too late to help us with our our Hyksos problem.

@MomofZoha,

Thank you for your concern, but I haven't the slightest frustration. In fact, this is such fun. But I'll say, people who believe in fairies are going to be disappointed. But they'll soon grow up.

Chetan said...

@Everyone Don't stress too much. We know, yes we have known that India is not the home of the IE language family for decades, on linguistic, anthropological and historical grounds alone. We can also say with a greater than 50% certainty that IEs were originally from the steppes. The evidence is staring us in the face if we know where to look. It's funny because in the case of these IE migrations, we have a close historic parallel- the Turkic expansions which took place in the early centuries AD, and which were clearly attested in historical records. That was a smaller replay of the Bronze Age IE expansions.

So don't read the genetic studies hoping to find any major surprises. There is only the question of how and when the migration(s) took place. And with some luck, I am sure this great question will be fully solved within our lifetimes.

Chetan said...

"Can you name a single river or place name in the Rig Veda which is not sanskrit?"

KubhA, Sindhu are clearly not Indo-Aryan and river names like DrsadvatI and SarasvatI seem to have a semi-mythological etymology. The IA would have carried it along in their migrations. Any of M.Witzel's writings will offer a much more elaborate discussion of these matters. He concludes that a substantial portion of Sanskrit vocabulary, even in the Vedic stage, is borrowed from earlier substrate languages. They cannot exist otherwise by IE phonological or morphological rules.

Also, it is not always true that the new occupiers of a region should adopt the geographical terms from the earlier inhabitants. Case in point : the river name Brahmaputra is Indo-Aryan although their presence is the region is very late.

Anonymous said...

@Chetan

You said it perfectly for me. You can also see the transition happen through layers in a given site. Bhagvanpur, Rajdi, and Pirak show changing cultures through a rather long period.

Sanuj said...

@Chetan

Witzel is not the best of sources to quote, he is known to be economical with truth. Here, Prof Kazanas had some good anecdotes to tell about him here https://youtu.be/JOxIfPt_mvc?t=19m23s

Also Brahmaputra's other names are still preserved.

Rob said...

@ KarlK

What do you deem to represent valid scientific criticism ?
Smearing and character assasination before the paper is even out doesnt seem to resonate as such.


Davidski said...

@Rob

You must have a unique view of what smearing and character assassination is.

Clearly, the Jagran article and the comments in it attributed to Rai are very unusual, to say the least, because Out-of-India is not a mainstream theory.

Media articles are obviously fair game for discussion and can be questioned. They're not protected from fair criticism until what's being discussed in them is settled within academia.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Basal Eurasian is still hypothetical deal until found. It also doesn't have to have no Neanderthal, just pre-Ust-Ishim, post SSA.. Natufians are more basal and Neanderthal than Iran N. Food for thought.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

"And no, the general atmosphere here is that the Jagran article is nonsense and out of line. This is a very reasonable view considering that what it purports is highly unusual in the context of mainstream academic theories."

Yes, this was our main criticism and nothing else. No one really said anything conspiratorial here.

On a side note, David, how much longer do you think we will have to wait for the study?

Chetan said...

@Sanus Kazanas doesn't seem to have many fans in the academic community. A quick Google Scholar search will confirm it for you. On what basis do we trust his theories?

In his final reply "Indo-European Deities and the Rgveda", he seeks to show that the Rigveda contains more of shared IE deities than any other branch of mythology. Very bad argument given the Rigveda is attested centuries earlier than the mythology of any other IE language.

Sanuj said...

@Chetan

Trust him or not, he did not tell any deliberate lie like Witzel - that bit is certain.

I don't think it's a bad argument at all. That RV preserves the more numerous deities of all branches, even though it was 'supposedly' composed in the last phase of migration is worth thinking about.

In my personal opinion he is one of the world's paramount scholar on Vedic.

Davidski said...

@postneo

How exactly are your extreme views (for instance, extreme denial against mainstream academic theories about the Indo-European expansion) more special and worthy of being featured here than the extreme views opposite to your views?

In other words, on what grounds do you suppose that I should only allow extreme views from one end of the spectrum in the comments here, and moderate the extreme views from the other end of the spectrum?

If I moderate and delete the extreme comments opposite to your comments, shouldn't I also delete your comments?

Martin Clifford Styan said...

I was going to comment on Acharya Agnimitra's view that Sanskrit is an entirely pure language with no foreign influence, but now I see that several others have already done it. I will add that there is a wikipedia article on this subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_the_Vedic_language
Linguists have suggested that some of the non-Indo-European elements in Sankrit come from the languages of the Indus Valley Civilization or the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.
The non-Indo-European substratum in Sanskrit and even in Vedic was considered strong evidence against the out of India theory long before DNA testing was developed.

Salden said...

Where's the South Asian DNA (in the Western Steppes)?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@postneo David has a point. Why should he allow the extreme views of the likes of you, Nirjhar, Jaydeep, etc., and censor our "extreme" views? There should be a standard here and something's got to give. Either it's the both of ours' views or neither...

Davidski said...

@All

By the way, if anyone has any illusions that scientists working on publicly funded projects are protected by civil or criminal laws from being discussed and criticized in public in countries with free media, then you seriously need to update yourself.

And if a newspaper, whether big or small, promotes a fringe theory like Out-of-India on the back of a major international and publicly funded scientific project, using the name and image of one of the scientists involved, then this is not a private matter, it's fair game for public discussion.

I wonder how the western scientific institutions and scientists involved in this project feel about being implicated, even indirectly, in promoting Out-of-India by Jagran? How will their funders who provide them with grants feel if they find out?

Someone should look into this.

Karl_K said...

@Rob

You can at least use Google translate, which is built into the chrome browser and translates reasonably well for Hindi automatically.

Rob said...

All it suggests is that genetic data implies some continuity with Brahmins and therefore those buried there might already have been speakers of IE. So it might shift upward the time of arrival of PIE.
Not sure what is just so crazy there .

@ Salden

How familiar are you with archaeogenetics of Paleolithic Eurasia ?

postneo said...

@David
"How exactly are your extreme views (for instance, extreme denial against mainstream academic theories about the Indo-European expansion) more special and worthy of being featured here than the extreme views opposite to your views?"

Your extreme support and my extreme counter of mainstream theories is not a problem neither is their censorship. But I did not dehumanize nationals from western countries or European scientists carrying out their work. I have not called them religious nuts or said that there is a white conspiracy in unearthing remains from Europe or making delays. But Similar anti-Indian themes have been a staple on your blog long before the Jagaran article. There's a frenzy..


Davidski said...

@postneo

You're ridiculous.

Davidski said...

@Rob

All it suggests is that genetic data implies some continuity with Brahmins and therefore those buried there might already have been speakers of IE. So it might shift upward the time of arrival of PIE.
Not sure what is just so crazy there.


The Jagran article implies that Out-of-India will be confirmed by the Rakhigarhi paper.

That's pretty crazy alright.

Balaji said...

@Shahanshah of Persia, @Davidski,

You brought up Davidski's attempt to explain how Andronovo could somehow have been ancestral to Indians even though all the Andronovo found so far have too much EEF to have been so.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2017/05/through-time-and-space.html

His hypothesis is that all the Andronovo found so far are elite ones. He suggests that only the elites had EEF and not the commoners. This is of course just an ad hoc hypothesis meant to preserve the viability of the Andronovo as “proto-Indo-Iranian”. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of this hypothesis. In fact as I pointed out earlier it is extremely unlikely. Nomadic pastoral groups do not have much hierarchy and moreover have high social mobility. Therefore their chiefs are genetically the same as their commoners.

I would like to also point out that qpAdm models that fit do not automatically mean that we have found the actual ancestral populations. For example, Lazaridis et al. fit Indian populations using Steppe_Eneolithic, EHG and Steppe_MLBA. So were the “Aryans” who invaded EHG, Steppe_Eneolithic, Steppe_MLBA or Srubnaya_Outlier?

Here is a quote from Lazaridis et al. “The demographic impact of steppe related populations on South Asia was substantial, as the Mala, a south Indian population with minimal ANI along the ‘Indian Cline’ of such ancestry is inferred to have ~18% steppe-related ancestry, while the Kalash of Pakistan are inferred to have ~50%, similar to present-day northern Europeans.”

Let me add that the Mala are a non-Indo-European speaking low caste group from South India. This suggests that “steppe related” ancestry has long been present in the Indian Subcontinent and is not the result of an invasion in 1500 B.C.

postneo said...

@N, theres no way DNA can confirm anything about language. language could have changed in India even if the genetics did not change much. Conversely its also possible there was a population turnover but the language of the immigrants did not survive.

Hopefully we get decipherable inscriptions someday from new places.

Nirjhar007 said...

Hopefully we get decipherable inscriptions someday from new places.

I agree .

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"Let me add that the Mala are a non-Indo-European speaking low caste group from South India".
Very similar percentage of steppe ancestry present in Basques, who preserved their language in the sea of Indo-Europeans.

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

Can you translate these parts of the Jagran article for us as accurately as you can, word for word?

Rob would you also like to have a go using an online translator of your choice?

लगभग एक वर्ष पूर्व सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता के स्थानों पर हुई नवीनतम खुदाई के बाद मिले अवशेषों की डीएनए जांच के बाद इस रहस्य पर से पर्दा उठने लगा है कि इस भाषा परिवार के वक्ताओं का मूल निवास स्थान भारत था और यहीं से उनका संपूर्ण विश्व में प्रसार

अंतरराष्ट्रीय जर्नलों में प्रकाशित होने वाला शोध सामने आते ही पूरे विश्व में चर्चा, बहस और मंथन का नया दौर तो शुरू होगा ही मानव सभ्यता के वैश्विक इतिहास में बहुत बड़ा परिवर्तन हो जाएगा।

डॉ. राय की टीम में देश-विदेश के अन्य वैज्ञानिकों ने मिलकर जो शोध हासिल किया, उससे पता चला कि राखीगढ़ी में मिले ये कंकाल उन प्रजातियों के पूर्वजों के हैं जो इंडो-यूरोपियन भाषा परिवार की भाषाओं के वक्ता हैं और दुनिया में स्वयं को सर्वश्रेष्ठ प्रजाति के रूप में घोषित करने का दावा करते रहे हैं।

Nathan said...

@ Nirjhar007

"I am not a supporter of OIT , but if indeed the results support it, what will be wrong about it ?. OIT was the original theory , its not a creation of a political group or whatever..."

Why would it be surprising to find Brahmins show some affinity to the Rakhigarhi skeletons? Brahmins do share genetic affinity to low caste and Dalit groups. But what would be a bit surprising is to find Yamnaya steppe ancestry. Mestizos in Mexico do share genetic affinity with unmixed Amerindians, but no one assumes Mestizos built the pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilizations.

You have changed from many years back to now not supporting OIT, but you claim Aryans were present in the early Harappan phase, so like the OIT proponents you are still trying to credit Aryans for IVC. The problem for you is that the Rigveda talks of a rural society, not the urban mercantilist maritime society of the IVC.

Davidski said...

Can a native Hindi speaker please help out Nirjhar with the translation of these three lines?

लगभग एक वर्ष पूर्व सिंधु घाटी सभ्यता के स्थानों पर हुई नवीनतम खुदाई के बाद मिले अवशेषों की डीएनए जांच के बाद इस रहस्य पर से पर्दा उठने लगा है कि इस भाषा परिवार के वक्ताओं का मूल निवास स्थान भारत था और यहीं से उनका संपूर्ण विश्व में प्रसार

अंतरराष्ट्रीय जर्नलों में प्रकाशित होने वाला शोध सामने आते ही पूरे विश्व में चर्चा, बहस और मंथन का नया दौर तो शुरू होगा ही मानव सभ्यता के वैश्विक इतिहास में बहुत बड़ा परिवर्तन हो जाएगा।

डॉ. राय की टीम में देश-विदेश के अन्य वैज्ञानिकों ने मिलकर जो शोध हासिल किया, उससे पता चला कि राखीगढ़ी में मिले ये कंकाल उन प्रजातियों के पूर्वजों के हैं जो इंडो-यूरोपियन भाषा परिवार की भाषाओं के वक्ता हैं और दुनिया में स्वयं को सर्वश्रेष्ठ प्रजाति के रूप में घोषित करने का दावा करते रहे हैं।

Chetan said...

@Davidski It does say that the Rakhigarhi DNA is going to show India was the "root home" of the Indo-European language family and that it spread from here. But it doesn't include quotes from any of the researchers or any backing up of the claims.

Davidski said...

@Chetan

But it doesn't include quotes from any of the researchers or any backing up of the claims.

Yes, I know, but the article uses the name and image of one of these researchers to add authority to its claims.

Hence, this is why I'm asking in my blog post why none of the researchers have come out to criticize the article, and seek a correction, if they were misrepresented? Note that I personally use the word misrepresented in my blog post, not misquoted.

I can think of two reasons why no one is seeking a correction:

- they don't care that Jagran is peddling OIT on the back of their research (and if so, they should)

- they really believe or want to believe that the Rakhigarhi aDNA supports OIT (which is practically insane)

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321672156_Iron_Age_Italic_population_genetics_the_Piceni_from_Novilara_8th-7th_century_BC

Here's the full Italian paper. Haplogroups:

H
J1
K
HV1
H1

Rob said...

@ Dave
So it does ! So it’s either a misunderstanding or correct (which would be a huge surprise tbh)
Whatever the case, it wouldn’t affect me whether PiE came from Ireland or India
Too many people have militant stances instead of an open mind . That’s all I’ll say for now
Btw; can you help Salden with the question I posed to him ?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski

Here's a translation I have gotten from someone I know personally who can read this script:

DNA remains tested at Rakhigarhi has proven had the first speakers of the Indo-European languages originated here, and then spread to the rest of the world. This study was conducted about a year or so ago.

As soon as the study is published in global journals, it will lead to a huge transformation across the world in regards to the global history of the world.

The research conducted by Dr. Rai’s team has conclusively proven that these languages originated in India, and that the remains found at Rakhigarhi are those of the first speakers of the Indo-European languages. It was from here that these languages spread across the world. These have been claimed by many to have been the best nation (something like that, she couldn’t make it out).

So it is hinting at OIT.

@Balaji Let's wait for the genetic study from Rakhigarhi and see what it has to say. But thus far, all evidence points to OIT being unlikely, and the Indo-European languages do not seem to have originated from there, since the Indo-Iranian branch is a recent branch. Thus far, neither the genetic, nor the linguistic evidence supports OIT or a native origin for the Indo-Aryan languages in India.

postneo said...

The line of interest is this:

कि राखीगढ़ी में मिले ये कंकाल उन प्रजातियों के पूर्वजों के हैं जो इंडो-यूरोपियन भाषा परिवार की भाषाओं के वक्ता हैं और दुनिया में स्वयं को सर्वश्रेष्ठ प्रजाति के रूप में घोषित करने का दावा करते रहे हैं

that pakhigarhi skeletons are ancestral to the ethnic groups of today, that claim to be the pre-eminent speakers of into-european family of languages.

it seems more measured than I thought. I had not read this carefully.

Davidski said...

@Rob

Yes, it looks like a misunderstanding, with a good dose of wishful thinking from the Jagran reporter and editors.

And I also have a problem with Rai and the other scientists working on the paper for apparently not seeking a correction from Jagran.

Instead, we have someone with that name in the comments here raging about something or other and using vulgar and nasty language.

Disappointing to say the least.

And I don't know what you want me to help Salden with? He seems to be off topic, posting about some Italian paper of all things.

postneo said...

but still such statements are avoidable and too speculative.

The only things thats really on the table with these results are whether there was an andronovo mediated turnover in northern India. Thats it other projections are futile. For that you need more extensive sampling.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@postneo It actually seems to say it like this:

DNA remains tested at Rakhigarhi has proven had the first speakers of the Indo-European languages originated here, and then spread to the rest of the world.

Both what you said and what this translation I got from a friend of mine seem to suggest Out of India as opposed to Aryan Invasion of India.

Jaydeep said...

Well let me attempt a word for word translation -

Since the DNA investigation/analysis of samples found after the latest excavations at sites of Indus Valley Civilization about a year ago, the curtain is getting raised over this mystery that the original dwelling place of the speakers of this language family was India and that it is from here that they spread across the whole world.

As soon as this discovery is published in International Journals, not only will there be a start of a new era of discussion, debate and brainstorming across the whole world but there is also going to come about a great change in the global history of human civilization.

From the discovery that has been achieved by the other scientists from different countries in Dr Rai's team, it has been found that the skeletons discovered from Rakhigarhi are the ancestors of those races who are the speakers of languages of the Indo-European language family and who keep making the claim of being the greatest race in the world.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Jaydeep Thanks for the translation, it's much better than the one I got. So, the article does suggest OIT as opposed to AIT? Appreciate the work you've done on translating this.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 317   Newer› Newest»