search this blog

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Graeco-Aryan parallels


The clearly non-local admixture in the geographically and genetically disparate, but Indo-European-speaking, ancient Mycenaeans and present-day North Indian Brahmins is very similar. So similar, in fact, that it could derive from practically the same population in space and time. The most plausible source for this admixture are the Bronze Age herders of the Pontic-Caspian steppe and their immediate descendants, such as those belonging to the Sintashta and other closely related archaeological cultures.

To prove and simultaneously illustrate this point, below are a couple of Admixture graph or qpGraph analyses. Note that I was also able to add Balkans_BA I2163 to the Mycenaean model. This is an Srubnaya-like ancient sample from the southern Balkans dating to the early Mycenaean period. Not only does Balkans_BA I2163 help to further constrain the model, but it also suggests a proximate source of steppe-related admixture into the population that potentially gave rise to the Mycenaeans. The relevant graph files are available here.

Considering that the Bronze Age peoples of the Pontic-Caspian steppe are the only obvious and direct, and, hence, most plausible link between the Mycenaeans and Brahmins, it follows that they are also the most likely vector for the spread of Indo-European speech to ancient Greece and South Asia. Or not? But if not, then what are the alternatives, and I mean real alternatives, not just excuses? If you think that you can offer a genuine alternative then feel free to do so in the comments below. However, be warned, stupid sh*t won't be tolerated.

See also...

Main candidates for the precursors of the proto-Greeks in the ancient DNA record to date

On the doorstep of India

Steppe admixture in Mycenaeans, lots of Caucasus admixture already in Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017)

378 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 378 of 378
Simon_W said...

Regarding Hallstat Bylany, I was curious how much the Germanic Baiuvars had inherited from these Bohemianc Celts and modeled Germany_Medieval with a few plausible source populations:

[1] "distance%=1.6616 / distance=0.016616"


Germany_Medieval
"Nordic_IA" 43
"HallstattBylany" 30.15
"Halberstadt_LBA" 26.85

There appears to be some continuity from the Celtic to the Germanic era in Bohemia, but not a massive one.

Rob said...

@ Simon

No !
Poprad is from North Carpathian Culture of hillforts
Sort of "Suebic"
R-U106 c/o Ted.

Rob said...

@ SimonW

"There appears to be some continuity from the Celtic to the Germanic era in Bohemia, but not a massive one"

Not so. There is NO direct continuity from La Tene era to medieval Bavaria, esp. after the collapse of Roman rule.
The area saw several population shifts. The "continuity" you're detecting is jsut shared west-central European met-population ancestry

Simon_W said...

@ Rob

Re: Poprad

But the town called Poprad is in Slovakia according to Wikipedia. That's contiguous with the Northern Carpathians. But thanks for the details, otherwise we might have mistaken it for early Slavic.

Rob said...

Yes I know Poprad is in SLovakia. You asked what it is. It's an archaeological horizon called the "north Carpathian group". Im not talking about proximity to mountains
The medieval Hungarian is a misdated Scythian from Hungary

Simon_W said...

@ Rob

Re: Celtic-Germanic Continuity

I wasn't speaking of (some limited) continuity in Bavaria, but in Bohemia! After all, the Baiuvars migrated to Bavaria from Bohemia mostly. So when their Germanic ancestors, the Markomanni most of all, entered Bohemia, they may have mixed with the Celtic Boii. And this is what my nMonte model suggests. Anyway I wasn't speaking of cultural continuity, but of some genetic one, which is a different thing. But to my (limited) knowledge the early Germanic culture in Bohemia (I forgot its name) even looks like a mix of Celtic and Germanic elements.

Simon_W said...

@ Rob

I wasn't asking what the Poprad sample is, but what the Hungarian_Med sample is - if it happens to be the Poprad sample from Slovakia. OK I see, it isn't the Poprad sample, it's a misdated Scythian. That answers my question.

Rob said...

@ Simon
Yes, there is Celtic - Markomannic continuity, you're right.
The rupture comes after the collapse of Rome and its satellite Germanic clients across the Danube. The Halstatt ancestry of medieval Bavarians largely comes from north of the Danube, not from the original Halstattians of (what was known as) medieval 'Old Bavaria' (south of the Danube).

Anonymous said...

@Chad

"Remember, EHG penetrated West Asia in the Mesolithic. This is not necessarily Steppe, at all... Anatolian pre-dates any Yamnaya or Srubnaya, or anything else you can input."

But if the 1/16th is mesolithic, then why don't the other samples share it? Such an old ancestry would be evenly distributed by that time.

I reckon 8% is above noise level, which is an assumption.

Aram said...

Botai R1b is M73+ according Smal.

Anonymous said...

Another thing: If we are to put the PIE Urheimat south of the Caucasus, which culture was spreading it? And another aspect: Do we have any other piece of evidence apart from genetics that this culture could have been the source of the IE languages?

Because what I miss from this south of Caucasus is that feeling that the piece of puzzle all of a sudden fall together. There is only this genetic result (Correct me if I'm wrong).

old europe said...


@rob and simon

relationship between what is celtic and germanic is quite complicated because of the fake assumption that the Rhine and later the danube were a clear cut border between the two. It was not. Cesar AFAIK had a mandate to fight the gauls but when on the rhine he realized the task was complicated. So he "invented" ( more or less" ) that the rhine was a clear cut border so to say to the senate "mission accomplished". In reality germanic speaking ( always remember germanic is a linguistic concept. They even did not have a name to define themselves other than their own particular tribe It is not a coincidence that arminius was killed by his german brothers) people were at the time of cesar well inside Gaul and southern germany ( otherwise how could the roman writers write that the Elvezi were always fighting the germans) and probably even eastern england . reversely a sizable presence of celtic people is to be assumed everywhere east of the rhine ( cimbri and teutoni maybe but I do not know the update research about this heavily debated issue) , Cotini and the lugi federation in poland. So probably it was roman geopolitical interest and the defeat of teutoburg that " created" a clear cut border rather that the other way round. Celts east of the rhine became germanic speaking and viceversa with germans absorbed in the roman-gallic world.
I would'n be surprised if among the cisalpine gauls fighting the germans in 3/4 century BC there was already a sizable presence of germanic mercenary. In the Fasti triumphales that remembered the victory of the romans upon the insubres ( the gallic speaking inhabitants of today Lombardy) among other people are remembered also germans ( insubres germanosque..). Many historian believe is a fake but as I said before could turn out to be an accurate description of the event.

Rob said...

@ old Europe
In compete agreement
Celts also lived well east of the Rhine, into northern Yugoslavia , Bulgaria etc
Indeed east Central Europe was the celtic heartland, but sshhhh , because bell Beaker in Ireland or something b

old europe said...


as for the relationship between the roman borders and the ethnogenesis of people in late antiquity and early medieval europe I recommend reading the book of Florin Kurta " The making of the Slavs" that investigate and correctly debunk the myth of slavs migrating en masse westward from the Prjpiet swamp.

Rob said...

@ Epoch
You mean after all these years you still aren’t aware of all the expansions from the Caucasus through to the steppe, Anatolia & Greece ?
Amazing .

Rob said...

@ Old Europe
I disagree there - there certainly was a Slavic migration. It’s demonstrable at all levels of evidence
But youre right- they didn’t come from the Pripets- but the fertile soils of west Ukraine, Podolia, Bukovina etc

Aram said...

Chad

Imho EHG entered into West Asia via Caucasus in Neolithic not in Mesolithic. The EHG in Areni is not very old.


Aram said...

Wooow. I2c2 y dna from LBA Armenia. DA31.

Can someone model it please.

EastPole said...

@old europe

“relationship between what is celtic and germanic is quite complicated”

Relationship between what is Germanic and Slavic is also quite complicated:

http://www.jassa.org/?p=12094

How is this possible that the Cesar’s 'Germanics' had Slavic religion and Tacitus’ Germanics had Celtic religion?

Lets hope aDNA will help us solve this puzzle.

old europe said...

East Pole

Interesting ...thank you.
what the article says reinforce my take that the borders between slavic celtic and germanic were already very close to the modern ones at the end of the 1st century BC. So form of slavic language was already present from the baltic to the balkans and germanic was well inside the future boundary of the roman empire ( especially in england austria switzerland and northern france). Slavs were probably mixed with celts in the balkans and in poland . Maybe dacian and thracian were protoslavs.

Anonymous said...

@Rob

"You mean after all these years you still aren’t aware of all the expansions from the Caucasus through to the steppe, Anatolia & Greece ?"

So? What culture is that?

Grey said...

Al Bundy said...
"How is Myceneans having a few percent EHG and loaded with J2 and CHG consistent with the steppe hypothesis?"

i guess that depends on how the steppe hypothesis is defined, personally two phases:

not conquest -> conquest

never made any sense to me as if the conquest phase was founded on a military advantage given by horses then that advantage would likely have built up over time so instead of two phases i'd suggest three:

not conquest -> major nuisance -> conquest

and in that (potentially very long) "major nuisance" phase there are many possibilities.

#

1) domino effect: populations originally adjacent to the steppe move away to the south either as migrants or invaders (maybe pushing the original natives further south in turn) so maybe Myceneans, Hyksos, Sea Peoples etc are all examples of some aspect of that long process - instead of Aryan biker gangs invading Egypt and building the pyramids maybe the Aryan biker gangs displaced Cucuteni who displaced some other dudes who displaced some other dudes who invaded Egypt and built the pyramids.

2) infiltration migration: IIRC at the beginning of "Gallic War" Caesar massacres a tribe who were allowed to pass through another tribe's territory i.e. that second tribe could have fought the first but it was easier to let them pass through - so a lack of contiguous expansion during the "major nuisance" phase isn't necessarily a problem for this version of steppe hypothesis (especially if migrating herder tiebes wanted land the farmers couldn't use).

3) invitation migration: some king offering a steppe tribe some good horse breeding land inside his territory to get a good supply of horses.

(2) and (3) are variations on the same thing - one is simply more voluntary than the other.

4) mercenaries: if the steppe raiders were known as a major nuisance that would advertise them as valuable mercenaries and we know from later history e.g. Egypt how often that leads to the mercenaries becoming the ruling elite (but not necessarily for long).

(3) and (4) are variations on the same thing i.e. a small, initially non-elite population eventually becoming an elite by internal coup rather than by external conquest - i'd imagine a situation like this could lead to the most jumbled up language mix.

#

this version of steppe hypothesis might potentially explain some of the seeming anomalies:
- near-steppe populations invading or migrating away from the steppe
- non contiguous steppe expansion
- small steppe populations that became an elite through a coup rather than conquest

Cpk said...

Anyone knows how can it be possible that pre-yamnaya steppe people come to North Syria in 2500bc to live as non-elite average guys?

EastPole said...

@old europe

Don’t you think that elements of religion common to Indo-Iranians, Slavs and Germanics but absent among other IE came to Indo-Iranians and Germanics from Slavs?
And similarly that elements of religion common to Indo-Iranians, Slavs and Greeks but absent among other IE come to Indo-Iranians and Greeks from Slavs?

Not only words can correlate with genes but also religions:

https://s17.postimg.cc/71fgzkv4v/screenshot_388.png

Anonymous said...

@Cpk

They didn't. Read Kroonen's article. There is evidence in the archives of the Syrian city Ebla of people with Hittite names coming from a state called Amri. The location of that state is not very sure, the names look very Hittite. Ebla traded with south Anatolia.

Jaydeep said...

The Central Asian hypothesis is not tenable either because from the BMAC outliers, the WSHG and Botai, we see that the entirety of Central Asia, including Kelteminar in all probability, is extremely heavily WSHG and neither these Anatolian samples nor the Yamnaya themselves show any trace of this type of ancestry. In fact it looks very marginal, it looks like a substrate in some Eastern Uralics in Siberia and and as a minor contributor in some South Central Asians. So there is even more that is unexplained here. If WSHG in fact exists in Yamnaya or the Anatolians it is very subtle and the same kind of tests used to prove it might as well prove that a slice of EHG existed (in fact EHG is probably more likely just due to geography).


This is a very confused argument. Neither here nor there. How exactly is the above disproving Central Asia as a source for the EHG like admixture in Armenia Chalcolithic & Anatolia Chalcolithic ?

We do not know whether the EHG/ANE like ancestry found among South Central Asians is EHG or WSHG or ANE. Most commemtators seem to agree that it is closer to ANE. At any rate it surely cannot be WSHG because WSHG had East Asian which is lacking in Chalcolithic Central Asians.

But if it is ANE related, it means it is a very diverged steppe related component that is residing in South Central Asia since the late Pliestocene atleast and therefore it is really its own thing. EHG or WSHG are only imperfect proxies used to describe it.

--------------------------

Therefore this is not good enough to deny a Central Asian source for the EHG like admixture in Chalcolithic Armenia & Anatolia.

After all, if not from South Central Asia, where does the y-dna L1a in Chalcolithic Armenia come from ? Can anyone explain ?

We have archaeological evidence of Central Asian influence on Maykop as shown from Mariya Ivanova and we also have the linguistic argument proposed by Johanna Nichols.

And lest we forget, we also have an undeniably Indian mtDNA M52 among one of the Maikop burials, don't we ?

old europe said...

east pole

I think it all depends on the meaning of slavs. Now this term is not associated with a race because if you look to the slavic nation they do not resemble each other. Remember not to apply to ancient history concept and definition linked to european nation state of modern era ( one language one race one nation).
Slav is a linguistic concept ( see the book of kurta) it was a supra regional lingua franca that impose himself to diverse ethnicities ( illyrian celts and germans besides the native population of est central europe). It stem from a satemlike language coming out from the encounter between steppe people and IE farmers.
But you are right.... that was in the future to be the slavic speaking world is a major crossroad of influence both going east and west so I can agree with you.
both manzura and gimbutas would agree that slavs are the indoueropean that never left their historical homeland. At least they can agree on that!

old europe said...


eastpole


I think that the less satemlike aspect of slavic in respect to IA and Iranian stem from two movement that entered their territory from centum speaking IE

1) Bell Beaker in poland hungary and the balkans ( I heard even of BBC findings as far east as belarussia and moldavia)

2) The Celts moving east bringing La Tene culture all over eastern central europe ( as far as crimea and western ukraine)

What do you think

Grey said...

ryukendo kendow said...
"The Anatolians from Ebla in SE Anatolia were not elites but a noncentral "ethnic" population in some hinterland ("Armi") managed by Semitics in the city..."

Cpk said...
"Anyone knows how can it be possible that pre-yamnaya steppe people come to North Syria in 2500bc to live as non-elite average guys?"

#

miners need food

iirc there's a theory that Zimbabwe was built by gold miners from outside who paid local herders to feed them

if a mining settlement was started up in some infertile mountains somewhere then maybe they'd need to import some herders to feed them?

or if an intrusive population were mining shiny metal in some region they might need some hired security to stop the locals com tek it?

#

ryukendo kendow said...
"...and they had this status ~5-7 centuries before Hittites proper, so the "late conquest model from the Steppe" for Anatolian already cannot be correct."

a variation on that model might be a coup staged by a long time native but originally steppe population (endogamous?)

Anonymous said...

@epoch2013

Read original Archi, A. 2011. In Search of Armi. then it becomes clear that the hypothesis that these Anatolian names are very illusory. In their structure they do not differ from other is certainly not of Anatolian names, the difference there is literally one syllable. Nothing in common with Hittite names in them there is not exist.

Grey said...

ryukendo kendow said...
"Surely it cannot be the case that complete endogamy lasted for 5-7 centuries straight?"

different religion?

Alberto said...

@Aram

What kind of signal should I look for in that LBA sample from Lchasen? Here's a quick test to have a rough idea:

LchashenMetsamor:DA31
Armenia_EBA 47.9%
Yamnaya_Samara 23.1%
Hajji_Firuz_ChL 18.6%
Levant_N 5.4%
Xibo 3.6%
Srubnaya 1.4%
Barcin_N 0%
Armenia_ChL 0%
Tisza_LN 0%

Distance 2.142%

Let me know what kind of populations you would be interested in seeing as sources.

Chetan said...

Prehistorical events which require urgent attention by geneticists

1. The Austro-Asiatic expansion into India from the east. If dated appropriately, this will give us a much better picture of the linguistic environment of northern India before the Indo-Aryan migration.

2. Seima-Turbino phenomenon of 2nd M BCE. Important not just for the origin and spread of Uralic, but also for several so called trans-Eurasian language families (previously called Altaic)

3. Paleolithic/Mesolithic genomes from South India (if possible), may give clues about the first wave of modern humans.

Alberto said...

@Jaydeep

Armenia_ChL does have a clear signal of Central Asian ancestry, in addition to some steppe and Balkans ancestry. An interesting mix. But the signal dilutes already in Armenia_EBA and Anatolia_ChL, and is hardly visible in Anatolia_BA. Also L1a supports the Central Asian origin, but it doesn't seems to have been an important marker since we have no further evidence of it in the area.

I do think, however, that probably Maykop will show a similar pattern to Armenia_ChL, as a bridge between East and West (SC Asia/North Iran and North Balkans/Ukraine), and it's cultural impact is clearly important in all subsequent cultures. I don't think the genetic impact will be very visible, though. We'll have to wait for the samples to really know.

Ric Hern said...

How do those so called "Hittite samples" compare with Minoans ?

Matt said...

@Davidski, still looking at the XiongNu samples. Could you run these D-stats: https://pastebin.com/ra1h7RML

Explanation for why I'm interested in them: It has been suggested that as DA43 and DA45, the Han_NChinese like Xiongnu samples, were from a mass grave (labeled Omnogobi, mass grave in the supplement), they then may have been Northern Han Chinese who were caught up in a battle.

(On the mass grave: "Judging from how these bones were arranged and how complete these skeletons were in this grave, we concluded that these people were victims of a fierce battle and had been killed by swords or other weapons. This find represented the first of its kind, providing clues about the material cultures that were found in the vicinity of this settled area in the Xiongnu period. It is also the only mass grave of the people from that time period.")

Of course, it's not like it would be unimaginable for Han to have entered into the Xiongnu confederation, so we can't really test this genetically, but it would be interesting to me to see if there is any measurable substructure between them and present-day Han_China in relationships to other fine scale groups in East Asia, that may not be present in G25.

If there's none, then that adds weight to the idea that they may have been Han Chinese and that Northern Han have changed very little in autosomal composition since this time (around 100 BCE).

In contrast to these two are the other three samples:

DA39: XiongNu: XiongNu_92 - Arkhangai, Grave #1, “aristocrat” ("artifacts that clearly suggest a burial ritual for kings of the Xiongnu period"... "the largest burial structure ever found in Central Asia, the largest burial site with accompanying sacrificial graves (31 accompanying sacrificial graves arranged in an arc to the east of the main grave), as well as the deepest grave yet reported (at 23 m)"), male. Clusters as outgroup to clade with Xibo, Mongola, Hezhen, Daur averages (Tungusic/Mongolic groups from NE China).

DA38: XiongNu_WE: XiongNu 91 - Hovsgol, Grave #18, female. Clusters with TianShan Hun DA54 and CentralSaka DA16.

DA41: XiongNu_WE: XiongNu 94 - Hovsgol, Grave #14, male. Clusters with Karluk:DA222 and Altai_IA.

Arza said...

@ Ric Hern

Minoans can be modelled as a two-way mix between "Hittites" and Peloponnese_N:

Minoan_Lasithi
Peloponnese_N 69.2%
Anatolia_EBA_av 30.6%
Balkans_N 0.2%
Barcin_N 0%
Koros_EN 0%
Distance 1.7885%

Minoan_Lasithi
Peloponnese_N 68.6%
Anatolia_MLBA_av_excl_2203 31.4%
Barcin_N 0%
Balkans_N 0%
Koros_EN 0%
Distance 1.5207%

Anonymous said...

@Davidski @All

Where are the data from the last two papers in EIGENSTRAT or PED format?

I looked through all the forums and database, but have not seen a link to them.

Anonymous said...

@Matt

We should als look if those (or any of those) XiongNu samples are the source for the Asian part of the elongated skull burials in Germanic graves. We can be pretty sure the latter are Huns and we would thus proof the long suspected link between Xiongnu and Huns.

Ric Hern said...

@ Arza

Thank you.

Davidski said...

@supernord

E-mail the authors and ask them.

@Matt

I didn't merge those samples with my main dataset, because I wasn't expecting to analyze them in any great depth, but I can include them next time I update, and run those D-stats.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

Did you try to rerun the D-stat in the paper disproving EHG in Hittites with only MA2203?

D(MA2203, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, Anatolia_MLBA)

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

Sorry, that was skewed. The paper had:

D(EHG, Mbuti; Anatalia_EBA, Anatolia_MLBA)

which with only MA2203 would be

D(EHG, Mbuti; Anatolia_EBA, MA2203)

Ric Hern said...

I get the feeling that those Hittites spoke Minoan....

Matt said...

@Davidski, OK, cheers.

@epoch, what kind of test do you propose? Remember DA43 and DA45 are basically pretty close to Northern Han Chinese in G25 (my doubts here are about if there's some difference that isn't showing up in G25, hence D-stats) while the DA41, the Xiongnu "king", is basically Daur type.

If the Northern Han Chinese previously didn't fit as the sole source of East Asian ancestry in the ACD skulls, then DA43 and DA45 wouldn't.

Not done any nMonte just quick simulations in proportions Hungarian_Scythian95:X5, and it looks at least like the Xiongnu aristocrat is a better match than the Han_NChina likes. But I don't know if this is actually a good fit; it's probably not. Comparing these quick sims to the real Germany_Medieval_ACD shows has significant offsets to CHG / Yamnaya / Sarazm_Eneolithic related populations compared to Hungarian_Scythian+"Xiongnu", and it is unlikely that any combination would involve a straight mix without any ancestry from Central Asia intermediate.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Jaydeep

Jaydeep, if there is anything that I cannot bear, it is people who come onto this site to spread explicitly false ideas or ideas that directly contradict the data.

The West Eurasian ancestry ever since the time of SPGT in South Asia does not consist solely of MA-1 or WSHG. This is amply clear already by Davidski's previous post! In fact the contribution of WSHG or MA-1 is incredibly minor compared to the contribution of EHG from Eastern Europe. The introduction of EHG is needed to produce anything like a proper relationship to current populations!

If WSHG and EHG cannot be distinguished how on earth could the Authors say this in the supplement regarding the late BMAC indviduals:
" Our second observation is that while there are subtle albeit significant differences in
the proportions of Anatolian agriculturalist and West Siberian hunter-gatherer related
ancestry between the BMAC individuals and those of the previous period, there are no
statistics that are consistently significant across all comparisons with Karelian HGs compared
to our previous sample set, suggesting that if there was movement from the Steppe into the
3708 region during the mature BMAC period, i.e., by the migration of Steppe EMBA pastoralists,
it impacted most BMAC individuals only minimally."

Similarly, the authors have very good basis for the claim that the incoming group into SPGT is not WSHG! For the qpAdm first presented in Narasimhan et al at for the SPGT in pg 172, if we use Okunevo, who are extremely WSHG, get a P-value of 0.000009828, Steppe MLBA East (which carries extra WSHG ancestry). but also carries EEF and CHG (which you accept arrived in C Asia and India separately from ANE), gives a P-value of 0.0729, Steppe MLBA West (pure EHG in addition to CHG and EEF) is the only thing that comes close to anything that provides an acceptable p-value (0.474)!

Davidski and all other posters have already shown that when EHG-rich Sintastha is allowed to appear it completely displaces all other Central Asian sources, including Dali_EBA, in fact extra WSHG or ANE does not even need to appear at all, it is completely displaced by the input of Sintashta except in a few Central Asian groups speaking Dardic languages or Burusho where a small slice appears!

The patterns in the PCA-based nMonte data and the CoA and fst Matrices provided by Matt already make things extremely clear. If you do not believe me, why don't you ask David to perform the necessary qpAdm fits or someone to run the nMonte fits, and look at the p-values and the tail probs. There is still the fact that the only Steppe group tested so far sharing long IBD with Indians is Srubnaya, how do you explain that? The hypothesis that the "steppe related component" in the Indians is "Pleistocene and deeply diverged" will be summarily rejected!

ryukendo kendow said...

The statistics that show any amount of WSHG ancestry in Anatolia and surrounds will, in all likelihood, show an even stronger contribution of EHG ancestry in them. WSHG ancestry is just not a major contributor for most populations alive today excepting some populations from the edges of Central Asia (Dardics, Burusho, "Periphery Turks" like Azeris and Turkmens) and Central and Eastern Siberians and Uralics!

Anonymous said...

@Matt

Maybe D-stats where the choice is between any Xiongnu and Daur and Han. If there is enough to make a difference?

Davidski said...

@epoch

There's not enough power in these D-stats to prove anything one way or the other. We'd need five times more markers to be sure. But my qpGraph models do suggest that MA2203 has steppe ancestry. I'll blog about that tomorrow.

result: EHG Mbuti Anatolia_EBA Anatolia_MLBA_MA2203 -0.0101 -1.961 139765
result: Mbuti EHG Anatolia_EBA Anatolia_MLBA_MA2203 0.0101 1.961 139765

postneo said...

@jaydeep
"We do not know whether the EHG/ANE like ancestry found among South Central Asians is EHG or WSHG or ANE."

It seems more EHG like since Namazga 2900 BCE can already be modeled as EHG vs WSHG. Now whether its a 3rd branch splitting of from ANE just like EHG, WSHG ? I don't know remains to be seen.

EHG is well travelled and there seem to be enough "folks" scrounging/groveling for it in Anatolia.

Shaikorth said...

@Ryukendo
Chad's qpAdm testing does indicate Dali_EBA/WSHG ancestry in South Asia proper with good p-values, but it exists in addition to Steppe_MLBA, not as a replacement. That Brahmins would get the more ANE Dali over Malayans is easily explained if we assume something like Dali/WSHG type ancestry being a pre-metal age but not too ancient intrusion to South Asia and South India always having less of it. The preprint mentioned Juang have too much AASI even accounting for Southeast Asian ancestry to explain with just "ASI" or modern Dravidian tribes, and this means WSHG and Iran_N levels have been very low in pre-AA times.

left pops:
Brahmin
Malayan
Sappali_Tepe_BA
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
Dali_EBA

right pops:
Mota
Ust_Ishim
Kostenki14
MA1
GoyetQ116-1
Vestonice16
Villabruna
ElMiron
Iron_Gates
EHG
Ganj_Dareh_N
Anatolia_N
Hajji_Firuz_ChL
Ami
West_Siberia_N
Onge

best coefficients: 0.508 0.364 0.043 0.085
std. errors: 0.028 0.038 0.042 0.031

fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
0000 0 12 8.008 0.784502 0.508 0.364 0.043 0.085
0001 1 13 15.695 0.26602 0.548 0.334 0.119 0.000
0010 1 13 9.086 0.766445 0.503 0.392 0.000 0.105

ryukendo kendow said...

Namazga CA does not contain EHG! The only reason why it was modeled that way is because the Willerslev team did not have access to WSHG samples, which were from Harvard. Their current PCA positions make them no different from other BMAC individuals in the main cluster, none of whom have EHG.

Davidski said...

@postneo

There's plenty of EHG in South Asia, and it was brought there by Steppe_MLBA, along with R1a-Z93.

You can't squirm away from this no matter how much you'd like to.

ryukendo kendow said...

@Shaik Thanks for the new fits. Which thread is this in? Appearance of WSHG seems to force BMAC numbers to increase as well for a mixed WSHG+MLBA+BMAC intrusion.

postneo said...

From what I read so far, these papers are vastly better written vs Harvard. The Harvard one was a hasty wrapper around samples and fits... just getting the data out there

In the European papers, the linguistic case is well argued. They also differentiate between hypothesis and emperical data... a lesson still not learnt by the steppe crowd and pure linguists. For genetic data they try to provide time transect for the regions covered.

Even if not absolutely conclusive, the arguments for Hittite at 2500 BC and Mitanni IA at 1800 BC are quite solid. The names show cultural continuity at the very least. and are a far cry from retarded ones like "haplogroup xyzzy smells very satem".

Davidski said...

@postneo

Both the Harvard and Copenhagen papers argue for the steppe origin of Indo-Iranians.

Shaikorth said...

@RK
Chad posted the fits here, in the Sintashta post's comments.

Rakhigarhi should suffice for checking if the WSHG stuff is pre-IE, if that's just AASI+Iran_N Kashkarchi, Krasnoyarsk_MLBA and other regular Steppe_MLBA_East samples might be too unmixed to work as a proxy for the actual steppe arrivals in India.

Anonymous said...

@David

Thanks

@Matt

Maybe looking at the ADMIXTURE run and lumping together the most East-Asian admixted germanic samples, such as AED_1108 and VIM_2 and even PR_10 would increase coverage enough to eke out a score.

Richard Rocca said...

Contrary to Iberian Bell Beaker, P312+ Steppe Bell Beaker in Central Europe was already IE from its inception (~2600 BC). The question is weather the Urnfield/Hallastatt/La Tene groups produced late language shifts in Gaul and Britain (P-Celtic) and Italy (P-Italic).

TruthPrevails said...


The problem with Harvard paper is the below quote from Daamgard et al

"Rather than invoking varying degrees of relative contribution of "Iran Neolithic" and Yamnaya ancestries, we explain the two western genetic components with two seperate admixtures."

The problem with Daamgard et al is they have no access to BMAC samples.

Putting both together the picture is pretty clear now, with Namazga Tepe like/related people contributing the first admixture, the second contribution should fit well with BMAC. There seems to be no reason to pull in Steppe MLBA for the additional EHG/CHG and Anatolian/EEF components.

Infact there is a very high probability that IVC aDNA would look like Namazga_CA, based on all that has been read in the papers and heard till now from appropriate sources.

TruthPrevails said...

In addition the BMAC and Swat uniparentals also square up which fails for Steppe MLBA.

Matt said...

? Namazga Tepe comfortably fits within range of BMAC variation from Harvard's work. Not a "new" source of ancestry deeply divergent that can combine with BMAC; just another BMAC sample. Can no more model South Asia today with Namazga Tepe+BMAC than BMAC+BMAC.

@epoch, which ADMIXTURE run?

TruthPrevails said...

Namazga_CA is copper age, does not have Anatolian/EEF component which makes it much much different from BMAC which has Anatolian/EEF and which is more than 1000 years later.

And there is no sample like Namazga_CA in Harvards work. Only Sarazm_EN from Vagheesh et al comes close. Which also happens to be the closest location to IVC and from the same period as Namazga_CA sample.

Matt said...

Pretty close in Global25. Compared to BMAC population averages, Namazda:DA381 clusters with Tepe_Hissar_Chl and Sappali_Tepe_BA, Namazga:DA380 clusters with Sarazm_Eneolithic and Namazga:DA383 clusters with Parkhai_LBA_outlier. Among BMAC variation. Don't cluster separately.

I suspect that you will choose not to believe this though. It's open data though, so perhaps Harvard will update it into their preprint.

TruthPrevails said...

Sarazm_EN clusters in the same quadrant as much as Gonur1_BA_o2 which is the steppe outlier ( you can check the Harvards PCA with all samples). Which just indicates clustering is only useful for identifying overlap of maximum variation.

But at the same time it also means you cannot get similar fits from all the clustering samples due to the variation which does not overlap within the cluster quadrant.

Samuel Andrews said...

Looks like Iranian-speakers introduced BMAC/IranN-rich ancestry to much of Kazakhstan. It was originally like Botai, mostly ANE with some ENA. Then, Andronovo came. Then, Andronovo-decendants from the southeast who aquired BMAC admixture came. Then Turks came.

Anonymous said...

@Matt

"which ADMIXTURE run?"

O sorry, I should have made that clear: I mean the one in the Bavarian paper. There were a number of samples that showed East-Asian affinity there.

Roy King said...

@Matt
"? Namazga Tepe comfortably fits within range of BMAC variation from Harvard's work. Not a "new" source of ancestry deeply divergent that can combine with BMAC; just another BMAC sample. Can no more model South Asia today with Namazga Tepe+BMAC than BMAC+BMAC."

The problem with your model is that Namazga-CA is archaeologically a likely source for BMAC. BMAC is younger and a successor to Namazga Tepe. So Namazga Tepe or Tepe-Hissar Chalcolithic could be a source for IVC as well.

Matt said...

@Roy, whose or what model are you talking about and what do you believe it to be? Topic you're commenting on is whether Namazga_Tepe+later BMAC can model South Asians (the ironically named TruthPrevails idea), which I believe to be false, not whether or not Namazga_Tepe could be source population for IVC plus admix from AASI.

Sanuj said...

"Looks like Iranian-speakers introduced BMAC/IranN-rich ancestry to much of Kazakhstan. It was originally like Botai, mostly ANE with some ENA. Then, Andronovo came. Then, Andronovo-decendants from the southeast who aquired BMAC admixture came. Then Turks came."

Yes, exactly.

Rob said...

@ ROcca

"Contrary to Iberian Bell Beaker, P312+ Steppe Bell Beaker in Central Europe was already IE from its inception (~2600 BC)"

Provide proof

Roy King said...

@Matt
Here is OGF analysis of a Namazga sample;
Sample ID: Namazga:DA381
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Source data table: Global25

Total number of samples compared: 3692

Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%

Restricted nMonte distance: 0.71430

36.4% Sappali_Tepe_BA
19.0% Tepe_Hissar_ChL
14.8% Gonur1_BA
12.2% Dzharkutan1_BA
 8.4% Sarazm_Eneolithic
 5.8% Parkhai_MBA
 3.4% Parkhai_Eneolithic

Nearest Item Distances:
1.4217 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7542
1.6847 Bustan_BA:I5604
1.6873 Dzharkutan1_BA:I4312
1.7644 Parkhai_MBA:I6674
1.8351 Dzharkutan1_BA:I4161
1.9008 Gonur1_BA:I2116
1.9029 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I4285
1.9077 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7419

Full nMonte distance: 0.73540

25.8% Sappali_Tepe_BA
16.0% Gonur1_BA
15.4% Tepe_Hissar_ChL
 9.0% Parkhai_MBA
 8.6% Dzharkutan1_BA
 5.8% Sarazm_Eneolithic
 4.6% Parkhai_Eneolithic
 3.2% Geoksiur_Eneolithic
 1.8% Iranian_Mazandarani
 1.8% Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
 1.6% Kalash
 1.2% Parkhai_LBA_o
 0.8% Brahui
 0.8% Bustan_BA
 0.4% Abdul_Hosein_N
 0.4% Ganj_Dareh_N
 0.4% Seh_Gabi_ChL
 0.4% Tepe_Anau_Eneolithic
 0.2% Abkhasian
 0.2% Afanasievo
 0.2% Azeri
 0.2% Balochi
 0.2% CHG
 0.2% Georgian_Imer
 0.2% Greek_Trabzon
 0.2% Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o
 0.2% Pashtun
 0.2% Saidu_Sharif_IA

Roy King said...

Sample ID: Namazga:DA381
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Source data table: Global25

Total number of samples compared: 3692

Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%

Restricted nMonte distance: 0.71430

36.4% Sappali_Tepe_BA
19.0% Tepe_Hissar_ChL
14.8% Gonur1_BA
12.2% Dzharkutan1_BA
 8.4% Sarazm_Eneolithic
 5.8% Parkhai_MBA
 3.4% Parkhai_Eneolithic

Nearest Item Distances:
1.4217 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7542
1.6847 Bustan_BA:I5604
1.6873 Dzharkutan1_BA:I4312
1.7644 Parkhai_MBA:I6674
1.8351 Dzharkutan1_BA:I4161
1.9008 Gonur1_BA:I2116
1.9029 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I4285
1.9077 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7419

Full nMonte distance: 0.73540

25.8% Sappali_Tepe_BA
16.0% Gonur1_BA
15.4% Tepe_Hissar_ChL
 9.0% Parkhai_MBA
 8.6% Dzharkutan1_BA
 5.8% Sarazm_Eneolithic
 4.6% Parkhai_Eneolithic
 3.2% Geoksiur_Eneolithic
 1.8% Iranian_Mazandarani
 1.8% Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
 1.6% Kalash
 1.2% Parkhai_LBA_o
 0.8% Brahui
 0.8% Bustan_BA
 0.4% Abdul_Hosein_N
 0.4% Ganj_Dareh_N
 0.4% Seh_Gabi_ChL
 0.4% Tepe_Anau_Eneolithic
 0.2% Abkhasian
 0.2% Afanasievo
 0.2% Azeri
 0.2% Balochi
 0.2% CHG
 0.2% Georgian_Imer
 0.2% Greek_Trabzon
 0.2% Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o
 0.2% Pashtun
 0.2% Saidu_Sharif_IA

Roy King said...

Restricted nMonte distance: 0.71430

36.4% Sappali_Tepe_BA
19.0% Tepe_Hissar_ChL
14.8% Gonur1_BA
12.2% Dzharkutan1_BA
 8.4% Sarazm_Eneolithic
 5.8% Parkhai_MBA
 3.4% Parkhai_Eneolithic

Nearest Item Distances:
1.4217 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7542
1.6847 Bustan_BA:I5604
1.6873 Dzharkutan1_BA:I4312
1.7644 Parkhai_MBA:I6674
1.8351 Dzharkutan1_BA:I4161
1.9008 Gonur1_BA:I2116
1.9029 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I4285
1.9077 Sappali_Tepe_BA:I7419

Sanuj said...

Away from the migrations debate, I found this two minute segment in this documentary very illuminating, and it might be of some interest for all Indo-European speakers, and perhaps for the beginnings of all of human speech. The Brahmin's bird songs,

https://youtu.be/MZVVFSiSl1s?t=4m32s

A little difficult to fathom them running and fighting around Eurasia, and still passing it through the generations...

Rob said...

Okunevo:RISE667
West_Siberia_N:I1960 60.8 %
Han_NChina:HGDP01291 32 %
CHG 6.3 %
Ganj_Dareh_N 0 %
Afanasievo:I3387 0 %

Afansievo the extinct people. Tocharians, thousands of years later, obviously can;t descend from them

More Kurganist rubbish dispoven ! :)

Davidski said...

@TruthPrevails

Change your nick to ComedyFails.

Seinundzeit said...

Roy King,

You're proving Matt's point; Namazga is virtually identical to its BMAC descendants (in fact, a tad bit more West Asian), and thus much too genetically "western" to be the ancestral West Eurasian contributor to IVC (at least in a huge way; Shahr_I_Soktha_BA2 might be 5%-10% Namazga-related).

Sarazm_Eneolithic is far better, but even that is still too "western".

I think the best West Eurasian reference for IVC and South Indian Dravidians will be found in Mesolithic southeastern Afghanistan or Iran.

TruthPrevails said...

@davidski
Good luck man, with just a few samples outside steppe the whole steppe show is already becoming comedy central.


In the meanwhile

Steppe = Iran Farmer + Anatolia + EHG

Which component speaks IE?

Anthro Survey said...

@East Pole

"Let’s start from the proper definition of IE as languages and cultures common to Europe and India.
We should answer some questions then."

How far back are you talking when you say "common cultures"? I'm not against using this approach per se, but extricating and attributing cultural motifs to some ancestral node is not without massive confounds and risks for false positives unless we go far back enouch in time. Even then, things can get quite tricky since cultures don't really work like SNPs;there are no convenient, relatively constant "customs mutation rates" to guide us.
Things like convergent evolution(traits developnig independently under somewhat different circumstaces---this happens a lot) can really muddy the waters, too. Old Europe made a fair share of points about this here before re/cremation, for example. Also, I'm not saying you forgot about it, but it's always a good idea to stress the *Anatolian* branch of IE speakers in all of this. Whatever hypothesis we may formulate, they must be accounted for.

"You cannot find PIE by looking at genetic components."

You misunderstood a bit. When I say "EHG", I'm not making generalizations about the entire EHG genetic horizon existing at a given point in time, but merely speculating about the *Macro*-ancestry that would have been initially associated with PIE. Best to think of nodes and edges/sub-edges rather than those technicolor components because, indeed, I expect there to have been considerable drift distance(both genetic and cultural) between, say, northern EHGs of Karelia and the para-Azov people involved in Repin's genesis. nMonte models seem to support this, btw.

"It was the area where CHG, EHG, EEF and WHG components mixed, but not all members of the PIE population had to have the same autosomal profile."

Clearly so. No quarrel here: quite well aware of the interaction zone encompassing the territory from Dobruja to pre-Repin. It's still reasonable to suspect, though, that PIE's *dominant* contribution came from a group of people originally maximized for a certain macro-ancestry as opposed to an even creole scenario.
Take the Semitic languages, for example. It's very hard to see pre-proto-Semitic speakers not bearing a strong affinity to Natufians and Iberomaurisians' West Eurasian channel of ancestry.

"You should also look at Y-DNA and mtDNA."

Of course, and, if I didn't imply it earlier, the outcome(if the data ever allows strong consensus on PIE?) may turn out to be pretty counter-intuitive. Again, I think those ancient populations modal for R1a and R1b represent a reduction and/or reversal of the original haplogroup diversity in PIE speakers.

Anthro Survey said...

@Seinundzeit

Btw, if you check out Turkmens and compare their non-ENA component to that of the Iron Age guy from Turkmenistan you'll find it to be a lot more shifted towards the "ANF/Levant" pole than towards "Iran/CHG" side of things. What can this mean?
a)either that the guy was from Khorazm/Oxus area and not representative of the greater Merv region
or
b)The shift represents Timurid and post-Timurid(but pre-Safavid due to a change in religious landscape) re-population waves to the area, south of the Kopet Dag or even west of the Kavir, after Mongol devastation.

Oh, and re/the comment I wrote for you in the other thread shortly after this entry was posted, I'd like to see the same ADMIXTURE output from Narasimhan et al, but at lower Ks. Maybe it will prove to be more intuitively in line with what you're getting with formal models.

Anthro Survey said...

@Davidski

Are you sure the Nomad_His:DA117 really corresponds to that 19th century Kyrgyz genome? Maybe it was mislabeled in the original file you've used to generate the PCA? It doesn't exhibit nearly the same ENA affinity in monte as it does in the paper and/or as would befit a Kyrgyz individual.

Nomad_His:DA117
Sintashta_MLBA 40.2%
Gonur1_BA 38.8%
Shamanka_EN_Average 15.8%
XiongNu:DA45 5.2%
Sintashta_MLBA_o3 0%

Distance 2.4599%

Nomad_His:DA117
Kyrgyz 100%

Distance 26.8535%

Open Genomes said...

Here is the Hellenistic Era woman from Kalehoyuk. Notice that she has 11% Yamnaya Ukraine "outlier" and 10.8% Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul (Andronovo):

Sample ID: Anatolia_IA:MA2198
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Source data table: Global25

Total number of samples compared: 290

Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%

Restricted nMonte distance: 1.56210

Restricted nMonte percentages:
31.8% Sidon_BA
13.6% LchashenMetsamor
12.8% Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o
12.2% Armenia_ChL
11.0% Yamnaya_Ukraine_o
10.8% Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul

 7.8% Anatolia_EBA

Nearest Item Distances:
2.8769 Armenia_ChL:I1632
2.9573 Armenia_ChL:I1407
3.1773 LchashenMetsamor:DA31
3.3007 Armenia_ChL:I1634
3.3853 LchashenMetsamor:DA35
3.5127 Sidon_BA:ERS1790733
3.5623 Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o:I2327
3.6748 Armenia_MLBA:I1656

Full nMonte distance: 1.36040

Full nMonte percentages:
24.2% Sidon_BA
17.2% LchashenMetsamor
10.8% Armenia_ChL
 8.4% Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o
 6.2% Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
 4.0% Barcin_N
 3.0% Anatolia_EBA
 2.4% Zevakinskiy_LBA
 2.2% Yamnaya_Ukraine_o
 2.0% Mycenaean
 1.6% Karasuk_o
 1.6% Maitan_MLBA_Alakul
 1.4% Kairan_MLBA
 1.4% Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
 1.4% Sintashta_MLBA
 1.2% Srubnaya_MLBA
 1.0% Armenia_MLBA
 1.0% Hajji_Firuz_ChL
 1.0% Levant_BA
 0.8% Molaly_MLBA
 0.8% Ukraine_Eneolithic
 0.6% Ukraine_Mesolithic
 0.4% Afanasievo
 0.4% Anatolia_MLBA
 0.4% Karasuk
 0.4% Kazakh_Mys_MLBA
 0.4% Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_o
 0.4% Natufian
 0.4% Taldysay_MLBA2
 0.4% Ukraine_N_o
 0.2% Aktogai_MLBA
 0.2% Andronovo
 0.2% Boncuklu_N
 0.2% EBA_Steppe
 0.2% Kanai_MBA
 0.2% Levant_N
 0.2% Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul
 0.2% Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o
 0.2% Mentese_N
 0.2% Minoan_Lasithi
 0.2% Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA
 0.2% Poltavka
 0.2% Ukraine_N

Source populations:

Abdul_Hosein_N
Afanasievo
Aktogai_MLBA
Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
Anatolia_BA
Anatolia_ChL
Armenia_ChL
Armenia_EBA
Armenia_MLBA
Barcin_N
Boncuklu_N
CHG
England_LBA
Ganj_Dareh_N
Hajji_Firuz_BA
Hajji_Firuz_ChL
Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o
Kairan_MLBA
Kairan_MLBA_o
Kanai_MBA
Karagash_MLBA
Karasuk
Karasuk_o
Kashkarchi_BA
Kazakh_Mys_MLBA
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_o
Kyzlbulak_MLBA1
Kyzlbulak_MLBA2
Levant_BA
Levant_N
Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o
Mentese_N
Minoan_Lasithi
Molaly_MLBA
Mycenaean
Natufian
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o2
Petrovka_MLBA
Poltavka
Poltavka_o
Potapovka_MLBA
Satan_MLBA_Alakul
Seh_Gabi_ChL
Seh_Gabi_LN
Sintashta_MLBA
Sintashta_MLBA_o1
Sintashta_MLBA_o2
Sintashta_MLBA_o3
Solyanka_MLBA
Srubnaya_MLBA
Srubnaya_MLBA_o
Taldysay_MLBA1
Taldysay_MLBA2
Tepe_Hissar_ChL
Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
Ukraine_Eneolithic
Ukraine_Mesolithic
Ukraine_N
Ukraine_N_o
Unknown_MLBA
Wezmeh_Cave_N
Yamnaya_Kalmykia
Yamnaya_Samara
Yamnaya_Ukraine
Yamnaya_Ukraine_o
Zevakinskiy_BA
Zevakinskiy_LBA
Zevakinskiy_MLBA
Sidon_BA
Anatolia_EBA
Anatolia_MLBA
Andronovo
EBA_Steppe
LchashenMetsamor
Sidelkino
Yamnaya_Karagash

Open Genomes said...

@David @Roy King and all:

Here is the Old Hittite era Y J2a (J-Z6271)
Notice that he has no Yamnaya or any later steppe ancestry, but he has 11.2% Ukraine Neolithic "outlier".
Ukraine Neolithic of course predates Yamnaya.
Could this be the elusive pre-Yamnaya Proto-Anatolians of the Pontic Caspian Steppe?

Sample ID: Anatolia_MLBA:MA2200
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Source data table: Global25

Total number of samples compared: 289

Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%

Restricted nMonte distance: 0.75920

Restricted nMonte percentages:
36.8% Anatolia_EBA
15.8% Anatolia_BA
11.2% Ukraine_N_o
 9.4% Anatolia_MLBA
 8.4% Anatolia_ChL
 7.0% Armenia_EBA
 6.2% Hajji_Firuz_ChL
 5.2% Mycenaean

Nearest Item Distances:
1.4702 Anatolia_BA:I2683
1.6003 Anatolia_EBA:MA2210
1.6853 Anatolia_EBA:MA2213
1.7992 Anatolia_MLBA:MA2206
1.8550 Anatolia_MLBA:MA2205
1.8819 Anatolia_ChL:I1584
2.5583 Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203
2.6776 Anatolia_BA:I2495

Full nMonte distance: 0.80960

Full nMonte percentages:
34.4% Anatolia_EBA
27.2% Anatolia_BA
10.2% Anatolia_ChL
 6.0% Anatolia_MLBA
 5.0% Armenia_EBA
 4.0% Minoan_Lasithi
 3.2% Barcin_N
 3.2% Hajji_Firuz_ChL
 3.2% Ukraine_N_o
 2.4% Mycenaean
 0.6% Armenia_ChL
 0.4% CHG
 0.2% Armenia_MLBA

Source populations:

Abdul_Hosein_N
Afanasievo
Aktogai_MLBA
Alpamsa_MLBA_Alakul
Anatolia_BA
Anatolia_ChL
Armenia_ChL
Armenia_EBA
Armenia_MLBA
Barcin_N
Boncuklu_N
CHG
England_LBA
Ganj_Dareh_N
Hajji_Firuz_BA
Hajji_Firuz_ChL
Hajji_Firuz_ChL_o
Kairan_MLBA
Kairan_MLBA_o
Kanai_MBA
Karagash_MLBA
Karasuk
Karasuk_o
Kashkarchi_BA
Kazakh_Mys_MLBA
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_o
Kyzlbulak_MLBA1
Kyzlbulak_MLBA2
Levant_BA
Levant_N
Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o
Mentese_N
Minoan_Lasithi
Molaly_MLBA
Mycenaean
Natufian
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o1
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o2
Petrovka_MLBA
Poltavka
Poltavka_o
Potapovka_MLBA
Satan_MLBA_Alakul
Seh_Gabi_ChL
Seh_Gabi_LN
Sintashta_MLBA
Sintashta_MLBA_o1
Sintashta_MLBA_o2
Sintashta_MLBA_o3
Solyanka_MLBA
Srubnaya_MLBA
Srubnaya_MLBA_o
Taldysay_MLBA1
Taldysay_MLBA2
Tepe_Hissar_ChL
Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
Ukraine_Eneolithic
Ukraine_Mesolithic
Ukraine_N
Ukraine_N_o
Unknown_MLBA
Wezmeh_Cave_N
Yamnaya_Kalmykia
Yamnaya_Samara
Yamnaya_Ukraine
Yamnaya_Ukraine_o
Zevakinskiy_BA
Zevakinskiy_LBA
Zevakinskiy_MLBA
Sidon_BA
Anatolia_EBA
Anatolia_MLBA
Andronovo
EBA_Steppe
LchashenMetsamor
Sidelkino
Yamnaya_Karagash

Davidski said...

@TruthPrevails

Either you didn't read the paper and the supplements, or you did, and you didn't understand anything that the authors were communicating.

You sure as hell don't understand the data and your grasp of PCA output is nonexistent.

Davidski said...

@Roy King and Open Genomes

You're both overfitting your models.

You need to limit the number of plausible reference samples to around 5, and make sure the distance doesn't drop to below 1 (the idea is probably 2-3).

You might find this post useful...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html

Jaydeep said...

Ryukendo,

I think you've completely misunderstood my point. I said the following,

We do not know whether the EHG/ANE like ancestry found among South Central Asians is EHG or WSHG or ANE. Most commemtators seem to agree that it is closer to ANE. At any rate it surely cannot be WSHG because WSHG had East Asian which is lacking in Chalcolithic Central Asians.

But if it is ANE related, it means it is a very diverged steppe related component that is residing in South Central Asia since the late Pliestocene atleast and therefore it is really its own thing. EHG or WSHG are only imperfect proxies used to describe it.

--------------------------

Therefore this is not good enough to deny a Central Asian source for the EHG like admixture in Chalcolithic Armenia & Anatolia.


Well I should have said Chalcolithic South Central Asians to remove any ambiguity but if you read my comment in its entirety it becomes clear that I have talking about Chalcolithic SC Asians making an impact on Chalcolithic Armenia & Anatolia. So I was not talking about SPGT or present day South Asians.

--------------------------------------

You raised some interesting points about steppe_mlba intrusion in latter South Asians which I want to address later on.

But for now, do tell me how the EHG-like admixture in Aremenia Chalcolithic cannot be from Central Asia ? Where does ydna L1a in Armenia Chalcolithic come from ? Is that also now coming from the steppe ?

And what makes you think that Chalcolthic SC Asians' steppe-like ancestry could not have contributed to these above mentioned groups ?

It is you said the following :-

As Sein points out, and its true that the most negative f3 statistics for Eastern Iranian Neolithics and in the Indus Periphery is for ANE and not even for WSHG, i.e, there is no evidence for EHG, or even WSHG in India and surrounds, and I shouldn't have conflated the two

And I have only stated the same thing for Chalcolithic SC Asians if you pay attention. So my point was simply that there is every likelihood that the EHG-related admixture in Armenia Chalcolithic is coming from Central Asia from places such as Namazga_CA or Sarazm_EN.

Jaydeep said...

Alberto,

Armenia_ChL does have a clear signal of Central Asian ancestry, in addition to some steppe and Balkans ancestry. An interesting mix. But the signal dilutes already in Armenia_EBA and Anatolia_ChL, and is hardly visible in Anatolia_BA. Also L1a supports the Central Asian origin, but it doesn't seems to have been an important marker since we have no further evidence of it in the area.

Can you show me how you infer that there is a clear signal of Central Asian ancestry in Armenia_Chl ? I don't disagree but merely wanted to know what is your method.

From the admixture graph (figure 3) in this present paper by Daamgard et al, there is something interesting. The Pink component maximises among South Asians and is also present in Namazga_CA. The Namazga_CA consists of Green Iran_N/CHG component majorly + EHG Blue + ASI-like Pink. This combination of 3 components appears in Anatolian_Chl and is present in EBA, MLBA right upto Anatolia_IA. So why do you think it dilutes in Anatolia_BA ?

y-dna L1a is merely a diagnostic marker that suggests the likely place of origin. I think there must have been other y-dna markers too that would have travelled from Central Asia to the Near East. For example, the Namazga y-dna is J2a1 which is also found in Anatolian_MLBA.

Though L1a is very peripheral in modern West Asia, it is found at a frequency of 42 % among the Laz population.

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s00439-017-1770-2


I do think, however, that probably Maykop will show a similar pattern to Armenia_ChL, as a bridge between East and West (SC Asia/North Iran and North Balkans/Ukraine), and it's cultural impact is clearly important in all subsequent cultures. I don't think the genetic impact will be very visible, though. We'll have to wait for the samples to really know.


I mostly agree with all of the above. Let us wait for the samples but I think the genetic impact will be visible.

We may also remember that among a few mtDNA samples published from a Maykop site, one of them turned out to be mtDNA M52 which is clearly from South Asia.

Anonymous said...

@Rob

So, what was the name of the culture associated with the PIE homeland south of the Caucasus? Kura-Araxes? Sioni? Shulaveri-Shomu?

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Arza said:

Minoans can be modelled as a two-way mix between "Hittites" and Peloponnese_N:

Minoan_Lasithi
Peloponnese_N 69.2%
Anatolia_EBA_av 30.6%
Balkans_N 0.2%
Barcin_N 0%
Koros_EN 0%
Distance 1.7885%

Minoan_Lasithi
Peloponnese_N 68.6%
Anatolia_MLBA_av_excl_2203 31.4%
Barcin_N 0%
Balkans_N 0%
Koros_EN 0%
Distance 1.5207%

What is your take on this ?
Could those Hittites actually be relatives of Minoans and maybe Minoan speakers ?

Anonymous said...

@Ric Hern

Considering that the EBA samples also work pretty well I would consider them Hattic. The area was Hattic, right? Or maybe Hurrians and Liniar A is a Hurrian-Uartian language?

Aram said...

Alberto

Thanks. Well I2c2 is ultimatly from Europe and most probably it is a EEF admix in Steppe, thus I expect it to come to Armenia from Sintashta/MCWC like place. But Your model preferred Yamna. Which is interesting. Also I2c2 was found in Unetice culture.

Alberto said...

@Jaydeep

I posted a model for Armenia_ChL some threads back. It's an interesting population that shows a signal from Europe (probably Northern Balkans, through the North Pontic region, with some steppe) and from SC Asia. Here's a similar one:

Armenia_ChL
Sarazm_Eneolithic 31.7%
Tisza_LN 28.3%
CHG 12.5%
Levant_N 10.6%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 8.7%
Barcin_N 8.1%
Yamnaya_Samara 0.1%
Ganj_Dareh_N 0%
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 0%
Balkans_ChL 0%
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic 0%
Xibo 0%
Yoruba 0%

Distance 2.6334%

The signal persists in Anatolia_ChL (which usually picks Armenia_ChL when in the source populations), so using the same ones as above:

Anatolia_ChL
Barcin_N 56.3%
Sarazm_Eneolithic 18.8%
CHG 17.3%
Levant_N 6.5%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 1%
Tisza_LN 0.1%
...

Distance 2.6976%

Also in Armenia_EBA:

Armenia_EBA
CHG 32.8%
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 29.7%
Barcin_N 26.4%
Levant_N 11.1%
...

Distance 2.7497%

Though here picking Geoksiur_En instead. This signal is much weaker in the BA Anatolian samples, but going through it again with the same sources as above in all individuals, it seems that the one that was picking some steppe actually prefers Geoksiur too. Though that sample looks a bit noisy. I added this to Sheet3 in the spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SWEhuykZsnX6aRw89GfRTGoIKKIQluvfaq52V4691Ws/edit?usp=sharing

Yes, re: L1a I agree that it's a good marker to verify the origin of the Armenia_ChL samples, but not necessarily the only (or even the most important one) that could come with this population. Much more interesting is J2a1, but we'd need more samples and better resolution to check younger clades.

Ric Hern said...

@ epoch2013

Thank you. So maybe Hattic or Hurrian are related to Minoan...

Shaikorth said...

Namazga probably has WSHG ancestry like Sarazm but no AASI. nMonte picks up Dali_EBA and Yamnaya or preferredly a Potapovka outlier who looks half WSHG.

Potapovka_MLBA_o:I0244 "distance%=2.5454 / distance=0.025454"

West_Siberia_N 45.70
Yamnaya_Samara 41.80
CHG 7.25
Abdul_Hosein 5.25
EHG 0.00
Barcin_N 0.00
Han 0.00

Jaydeep said...

Postneo,

It seems more EHG like since Namazga 2900 BCE can already be modeled as EHG vs WSHG. Now whether its a 3rd branch splitting of from ANE just like EHG, WSHG ? I don't know remains to be seen.

Yes, it is most likely that it is a 3rd branch with a very basal split from ANE. I do not think that ANE is even an ancestor. ANE is more likely a cousin of the steppe-like ancestry in SC Asians.

Anonymous said...

@Ric Hern

There have been such proposals.

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.nl/2011/06/case-for-minoan-as-greater-hurrian.html

@Alberto

Also there is the mtDNA H52 in a Maykop burial.

Anthro Survey said...

@Alberto and Matt

For what it's worth, here's a PCA.
https://justpaste.it/3pcb8

I plotted all the Bronze Age Anatolian samples(unlabeled) together with other labeled samples like Varna and Remedello(deviating towards EHG-like and WHG-like poles from the Greece-Mentese cluster, respectively).

When we restrict their source of eastern ancestry to mostly HF, there seems to be a subtle shift, just like we see with the Yamnaya cluster if we draw a line connecting Khvalynsk to CHG.

2203 is the one that juts out the most(predictably).

Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203
Hajji_Firuz_ChL 46.6%
Barcin_N 41.1%
Varna_o 12.3%
CHG 0%
Levant_N 0%
Varna:ANI159-ANI181 0%

Distance 3.0744%

Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203
Hajji_Firuz_ChL 49.6%
Varna:ANI159-ANI181 29.7%
Barcin_N 16.8%
Ukraine_N_o 3.8%
CHG 0.1%
Levant_N 0%

Distance 3.3353%

If Hittites were a product of an EEF-rich "backflow" event from the Balkans, we might be looking at about 20% *Paleo*-Hittite overall ancestry in this individual and so maybe closer to 40% when only you consider the substrate sans any Hajji Firuz-like layer.

Matt said...

@Anthro, that's quite interesting. It does look like the variaton in those samples that isn't simply trading off variability in HFvMentese is pointing in a WHG direction and considering the cline of three samples pointing at the Varna_o specifically.

Though if you consider those 3 as admixed with the rest instead, not really pointing at Varna_o? Or pointing at Varna? Perhaps higher dimensions or cline extension will sort out?

I could try some stuff with Fst scores once Davidski integrates those, though these are less helpful for heterogenous groupings.

...

Slightly off topic (really just because this is the active thread), re: West Siberia N, doing some quick experiments with trying to analyse its ancestry with West Siberia N using Fst PCoA (should avoid any orientation towards rep' moderns in G25).

Fst PCoA: https://imgur.com/a/FmwNBVc

Using a subset of ENA, Africans as outgroup and ancient West Eurasians.

It looks to me like West Siberia N can't really be fit in any of the models with the EHG samples we have, AG3-MA1 and any East Eurasian group. It's off cline for any combination of AG3-MA1+EHG with any East Eurasian group, and if anything shifted towards the WHG on the East Eurasian->Iron Gates HG axis compared to AG3-MA1.

Best fitting way to get to West Siberia N with any present day East Eurasian population in the Fst panel looks to be to extrapolate beyond Ukraine_Mesolithic->EHG by about 100% again, then about 5-10% Eskimo: https://imgur.com/a/4GUcg2U

However, this does seem to imply quite a bit less than 20% East Eurasian ancestry relative to EHG+AG3, given Eskimos probably not 100% East Eurasian ancestry. This is probably well short of Namasimran's "~20% related to present-day East Asians", and possibly more in the range of 7-8%.

Without cline extension, you can't do anything to get a "good" fit for West Siberia N. Native American samples might or might not help in this context, though.

Few Fst coplots as well: https://imgur.com/a/WBxRgOM

Also, as method of looking at Basal Eurasian affinities, I've looked at the residual in Fst between African groups and Ust Ishim. Does this before, but we've got many more HG groups now. In theory, this should only be driven by real affinity to Ust Ishim, with no admixture between Africans and Eurasian groups, and this should only be driven by Basal Eurasian levels: https://imgur.com/a/jnanmbg

Looking at this, it looks European HG have a higher residual distance from Ust Ishim relative to their distance from Africans, compared to East Eurasian groups. Only the case for more recent European HG; Sunghir doesn't show this. This looks more peaking in more Central HG, like Latvia_HG, Iron_Gates_HG and Ukraine_N, and less so in West_Siberia_N and WHG. Perhaps this is a signal that these HG populations who are in closer proximity to Near East actually do have some Basal Eurasian ancestry?

Arza said...

_Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203
Greece_N 43.6%
Wezmeh_Cave 25%
Starcevo_EN 20.6%
Petrovka:I0945 10.8%
Distance 2.3094%

_Anatolia_MLBA:MA2203
Greece_N 35.2%
Anatolia_MLBA_av_excl_2203 28%
Wezmeh_Cave 15.8%
Petrovka:I0945 10.6%
Starcevo_EN 10.4%
Distance 1.9006%

Shaikorth said...

@Matt

Narasimhan's actual qpAdm fit for WSHG was 0.360 EHG 0.107 Han 0.534 AG3, ENA figures closer to 20% aren't backed by tests in the main paper or the supplements. At the moment it's anyone's guess why they went with it in the text.

Matt said...

@Shaikorth, interesting, that's relatively more consistent, especially from the perspective of outgroups, where the within group divergences which are prominent in my Fst analysis wouldn't be detectable. Mysterious as to why the 20% figure appeared in the text; perhaps they'll revise it.

Open Genomes said...

Actually, the Ukraine Neolithic outlier that seemingly contributed to the Old Hittite Era MA2200 looks just like your run of the mill European Neolithic individual, and seems to have nothing to do with the Steppe or EHG at all:

Sample ID: Ukraine_N_o:I3719
nMonte3 with restricted nMonte3
Source data table: Global25

Total number of samples compared: 3694

Number of cycles: 1000
Batch size: 500
Distance penalty: 0.001
Restricted nMonte minimum percent limit 1%

Full nMonte populations >= 1% limit: 12

Restricted nMonte distance: 2.19970

Restricted nMonte percentages:
44.4% Balkans_N
18.2% Peloponnese_N
12.8% Vinca_MN
 6.8% TDLN
 5.8% Czech_MN
 5.4% Tisza_LN
 4.2% LBK_EN
 2.4% Lepenski_Vir

Nearest Item Distances:
2.4861 Balkans_N:I3948
2.7194 Peloponnese_N:I2937
2.7473 LBK_EN:I0659
2.7833 Balkans_N:I0698
2.7959 Balkans_N:I2532
2.8103 Balkans_N:I5077
2.8397 Vinca_MN:I1887
2.8529 LBK_EN:I2036

Carlos Aramayo said...

Davidski,

You wrote:

"Both the Harvard and Copenhagen papers argue for the steppe origin of Indo-Iranians".

I would say "provenience" rather than origin.

Matt said...

@Davidski, by the way, it may be interesting to put the Hungarian Scythians on your North European PCA.

It seems like their autosomal structure (average similar to Beaker Hungary in G25) offers an interesting possibility in terms of resolving why Balto-Slavic languages show connections to Indo-Iranians without any autosomal connection of Balto-Slavs to Sarmatian or Scythian samples. Especially without any need to invoke notions of Balto-Slavic languages as particularly highly conservative to late-pIE.

(Ideally we'd know if they were R1a as well, but supplement only shows us R1!)

Dmytro said...

Who are these Hungarian "Scythians"? Kindly enlighten me (with thanks aforehand) since I don't know of any Scythians in Hungary in prehistoric times or actually at any time for that matter.

Vara said...

@Chetan & Aniasi

I'm no longer the only one who pushes an early date for the Mitanni. So what do you guys think now?

Arza said...

DA197 (~2500 BP C14 uncal) has ~25% Baltic_BA.

@ Matt
without any autosomal connection of Balto-Slavs to Sarmatian or Scythian samples

Why there should be any special connection to Sarmatian and Scythian (especially non-Hungarian) samples?

Brahmin
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3 73%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 27%
Distance 1.5777%

Polish
Baltic_BA 54.6%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 28.4%
Starcevo_EN 17%
Distance 1.4813%

Simon_W said...

Old Europe said
"at the end of the 1st century BC. So form of slavic language was already present from the baltic to the balkans and germanic was well inside the future boundary of the roman empire ( especially in england austria switzerland and northern france)"

That's far from the academic consensus, and there definitely were no Germanic people in what is now Switzerland at the end of the 1st century BC. There were various Gaulish Celtic tribes like the Raurici and the Helvetii, the Celtic Lepontii in Ticino and possibly some Raetic tribes. Nor do I buy it that there were Germanic tribes in Austria, that's wishful thinking of some Germanocentrists. As for northern France and England, it depends on the affiliation of the Belgae. They claimed a Germanic origin for themselves, but what we know about them - personal names, place names, culture - looks Celtic. Maybe by Germanic origins they just meant roots east of the Rhine.

Chetan said...

@Vara As the date of the early Mittani IA terminology is pushed back earlier, so are the dates for Sintashta-Andronovo. It's doubtful whether Anthony had access to some of the radiocarbon dates that have been made available later for the Andronovo culture.

I now believe that the earliest Andronovo migrations may have taken place before Sintashta was even constructed. That also explains the absence of certain z93 subclades in Sintashta.

Just reread Anthony's 2007 masterpiece and he says this on page 452

"By about 1900 BCE Petrovka migrants had started to mine copper in the Zeravshan valley at Tugai. Th ey were followed by larger contingents of Andronovo people who mined tin at Karnab and Mushiston. After 1800 BCE, Andronovo mining camps, kurgan cemeteries, and pastoral camps spread into the middle and upper Zeravshan valley. Other Andronovo groups
moved into the lower Zeravshan and the delta of the lower Amu Darya (now located in the desert east of the modern delta) and became settled irrigation farmers, known as the Tazabagyab variant of the Andronovo culture."


"About 1800 BCE the walled BMAC centers decreased sharply in size,each oasis developed its own types of pottery and other objects, and Andronovo- Tazabagyab pottery appeared widely in the Bactrian and Margian countryside."

So even without the revised C14 dates which further push back the chronology, Anthony suggested a date of 1800 BCE for the first wave of Andronovo immigrants in the BMAC region. BMAC had long standing trade contacts with the civilizations of Mesopotamia. That explains how Indo-Aryan words and people got there in a short time after that.

It's very impressive to say the least, how Anthony was able to predict most of this in 2007 itself.

Arza said...

Continuing the topic of Baltic_BA presence in the South:

Bulgaria_Varna_Eneolithic3 Varna_outlier .. Varna
4711-4542 calBCE [4711-4550 calBCE (5787±30 BP, OxA-13688); 4686-4542 calBCE (5755±24 BP, MAMS-30944)]

Varna_o:ANI163
Tisza_LN 34%
Baltic_BA 26.8%
Petrovka 18.2%
CWC_Baltic_early 12.4%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 5%
CHG 3.6%

Distance 2.5668%

Can anyone explain this?

Anonymous said...

@Chetan

What such revised C14 dates you write? There were no revised dates.

Samuel Andrews said...

Ottoman:MA2195 might be a Turk straight out of Central Asia. He has 50% East Asian ancestry. His Asian ancestry is most similar to ShamankaEN. Plus, he has a decent Sintashta signal. So, yeah he looks like someone straight from Central Asia.

The early Turk genomes are such a diverse bunch it's hard to determine what exactly is coming from the real Turks or Iranians they mixed with. The Huns in Tian Shan are really similar to the Iranians who lived their earlier. But, the "Hun-Sarmatians" oddly are basically 100% East Asian and similar to ShamankaEN.

Hard to know exactly what's going on.

Anonymous said...

@Arza

That outlier already was modeled with steppe ancestry?

From Mathieson:

"However, in two directly dated individuals from
southeastern Europe, we find far-earlier evidence of steppe-related
ancestry (Fig. 1b, d). One (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery was
dated to 4711–4550 bc and another (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo
was dated to 4550–4450 bc. These findings push back the first evidence
for steppe-related ancestry this far west in Europe by almost
2,000 years, but it must have been sporadic because other Copper Age
(approximately 5000–4000 bc) individuals from the Balkans have no
evidence for such ancestry.
"

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

In your mtDNA database, what do the two old kingdom Hittites do? mtDNA's J1c and K1a+150 are given in the paper.

Chetan said...

I posted an article, a few threads before titled 'New evidence for Andronovo in Xinjiang'. In it, it's clearly mentioned that the trend is towards earlier datings for the Andronovo culture in Central Asia.

But even 1800 BC proposed by Anthony is good enough to explain the origin of both Vedic Aryans and Mittani Aryans.

Anonymous said...

@Chetan

Sintashta has dates ca. 2200-2100BC.

Earliest Mitanni has date 1600-1500 BC. Mitanni is not earlier Sintashta. Another is impossible.

I have no idea what such a revision. Couple of decades.

Vara said...

@Chetan

"I now believe that the earliest Andronovo migrations may have taken place before Sintashta was even constructed. That also explains the absence of certain z93 subclades in Sintashta."

Andronovo derives from Sintashta so Andronovo cannot be older than Sintashta.

""About 1800 BCE the walled BMAC centers decreased sharply in size,each oasis developed its own types of pottery and other objects"

Mostly milk pottery ie. trading items.

"BMAC had long standing trade contacts with the civilizations of Mesopotamia. That explains how Indo-Aryan words and people got there in a short time after that. "

It can explain BMAC Indo-Aryans going there but it doesn't explain how Andronovo Indo-Aryans got there. There isn't a single Andronovo artifact in all of Iran not even in the sites associated with the Mitanni movement.

old europe said...


Simon W

as for austria have you ever heard of the negau inscription. it is attested form of germanic sound shift. it has been found in tday slovenia even south of austria .

According to linguistic analysis, it contains the Germanic name *Harigasti(z), which consists of two parts: hari = army, host (found in Old Norse herjan – to make war, to plunder, hernað – warfare; or in German Heer – army) and gasti(z) = guest. The second part of the inscription has been interpreted as *teiwa(z) = god. Thus the inscription would read: “Harigasti, [the priest of] the god” (Markey 2001). If such analysis is correct, this would represent the earliest recorded Germanic inscription.

at the latest this is 50 BC inscription so my theory is not out of thin air

As for england these tribes ( belgae that occupied eastern england) named themselves of germanic origin. Also this interpretation could give some light to the debate regarding language change in britain after the anglo saxon invasion. AFAIK no historians mention a language change. So it is not again out of thin air to think that at least in eastern engand there was already a sizeable presence of people that spoke germanic.

As for the Elvezi they were fighting the neighboring germans. So they were messing around at the border of today swizterland and baden wurttemberg.

not to mention the epic invasion of the cimbri and teutoni in the late 2th century and early 1st century BC.

academic consensus is a good thing but facts are better.

Chetan said...

@Vara Are you just trying to wriggle out of the arguments Anthony gives?

Andronovo pottery appears in Bactria-Margiana from 1800 BC and in isolated finds, further to the south. Obviously after the nomadic Andronovans started interacting with BMAC, their culture changed. So you can't find the same coarse Tazagyab variety in Iran and in India. Instead, you find hand-made "Gray-ware" in Iran and painted ware in Bactria.

This is clearly an intrusive element in Iran associated with the shift to pastoralism in LBA.

Arza said...

@ epoch2013

Cool, but vanilla steppe is a completely different beast than Baltic_BA.

Baltic_BA has started as just some shared drift between Balto-Slavs. Later it evolved into admixture from a ghost population, then Baltic_BA was discovered and the conclusion was that the WHG part came from a local Narva admixture.

When the paper was finally published David has added them to the G10 and DoHA spreadsheets and... it became clear that you still can't model Baltic_BA using existing samples. I didn't raise this issue before, because one sample from Narva - Kretuonas1 showed a slight drift in the desired direction.

But then G25 and Mathieson et al. came. In G25 Baltic_BA is again very distinct, just like in DoHA, yet Kretuonas1 looks like a plain Narva/WHG and this desired drift has disappeared. Additionally Varna outlier, dated to ~4600 BCE, shows ~25% of Baltic_BA ancestry which is against both, geography and chronology.

IMHO Baltic_BA/Spiginas2, or rather a specific type of WHG ancestry that has created them is non local in the Baltics and this kind of WHG has played a major role in the formation of Eastern European populations. I'll add later more details as this is directly connected to the topic that Matt has started.

BTW I've checked STR_328, AED_1108 and Gepid and only the last one takes ~10% of Naxi which is close to Xiongnu, but still quite distinct. Other Asian ancestry in these samples is all over the place, tiny bits of everything - Korean, Tubalar, Mari, Ulchi, some new Nomad close to Buryats etc. Zero consistency.

Anonymous said...

The archaeological arguments against Mitanni (both Iranians and Indo-Aryans) do not work because the approach is wrong. Archaeology is extremely limited in funds. For example, texts from Hurrian state of Mitanni know how to look its charioteer warrior with weapons, and his weapon was typically of early Andronovo (but not West Asian!), but archaeology still has not found a single sample of those warriors, their weapons. The text is, the description is, Aryan words themselves is, but these soldiers and their weapons archaeology can not find. That is not enough mass, the archaeology can not find.

Rob said...

@ Epoch
O yes the expansion Patha are clear
It’s all over for the steppe hypothesis
Yamnaya wasn’t even late IE

Vara said...

Two wheeled chariots were used in Iran as early as 2000BCE. See Hissar IIIC.

Chetan said...

"Two wheeled chariots were used in Iran as early as 2000BCE. See Hissar IIIC."

I though there is only a depiction of a chariot on a cylinder seal?

Mr. Kulkarni said...

@arza

"Brahmin
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3 73%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 27%
Distance 1.5777%"

what is the dating of that Ukraine_Eneolithic skeleton?

mzp1 said...

Chetan,

You and the steppists are so dishonest.

Anthony states in his 'masterpiece' that Hissar was 'infiltrated' by Andronovo, to explain the chariot symbolism as being steppe derived.

The same argument was used with the BMAC.

So much for 'masterpiece' lol. You guys can never admit when your arguments don't stack, just try and move the goalposts further back.

Anthony is not a real scientist, just a fake out to make a quick buck. His book is just a poor version of real scholarship, neatly laid out for the gullible western 'Consumer', just likea toxic, yet convenient, microwave meal from your local western supermarket.

Anonymous said...

Hissar IIIC is after 2000BC.

In common, there were not chariots, it were two wheeled carts. No horses, no spokes, the solid (or late cross-bar) wheel is rigidly fixed to the axle, it is not chariot, but is cart. On such carts it is impossible to be at war.

Davidski said...

@mpz1 and Vara

There weren't any spoked wheel horse chariots south of the steppe before the Sintashta and related expansions.

There were only wagons and carts pulled by donkeys. Haha.



Davidski said...

@Matt

@Davidski, by the way, it may be interesting to put the Hungarian Scythians on your North European PCA.

It seems like their autosomal structure (average similar to Beaker Hungary in G25) offers an interesting possibility in terms of resolving why Balto-Slavic languages show connections to Indo-Iranians without any autosomal connection of Balto-Slavs to Sarmatian or Scythian samples. Especially without any need to invoke notions of Balto-Slavic languages as particularly highly conservative to late-pIE.


This doesn't work for two reasons:

- Trzciniec people (Baltic_BA), who were descendants of Corded Ware, and apparently ancestors of Balto-Slavs, show a close paternal relationship to Indo-Iranians (and especially Indo-Aryans) via R1a-Z645, well before Scythians ever appeared on the horizon

- Balto-Slavic languages don't show a special relationship with Iranian relative to Indo-Aryan languages

Vara said...

@Chetan

"I though there is only a depiction of a chariot on a cylinder seal?"

Yes. It depicts a man riding a two wheeled chariot pulled by two horses. We cannot tell if it's spoked or not thanks to the quality, and it doesn't matter as chariots were not used for warfare till much later. Maybe I'll take a good look when I visit UPenn's museum one day.

Singh said...


@Davidski

I agree that there were no horse*-drawn chariots.

But, spoked wheel chariots were used for bull-racing in IVC, this game is still pretty in South Asia.

Here is a bronze IVC figure, probably represents male fertility deity.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Coach_driver_Indus_01.jpg

Vara said...

@Davidski

"There weren't any spoked wheel horse chariots south of the steppe before the Sintashta and related expansions."

And it seems Indo-Iranian influence reached the Zagros before even Sintashta and related expansions somehow. Time controlling mantras maybes?

"It is probable that this move was preceded by successive
spearheading forays of (non-IIr. speaking) mountain peoples into
Mesopotamia, such as the Guti, Lullubi, and Kassites3 (c. 2250-1750
BCE), who were as yet only marginally influenced by IIr. languages and
customs." -Witzel

mzp1 said...

Do we have any evidence of Sintashta-Andronovo actually using chariots in war? Or any evidence of internal warfare?

Sintashta chariots look to me to represent a ritualistic elements rather than purely practical items.

Chariots should be invented shortly after carts, if the need arises,as the craftsmanship required is not much more advanced.

Both of these well before large centrally planned industrial complexes like Sintashta.

And obviously Sintashta-Petrovka can never be considered Pre-Vedic.

The whole theory is absurd and we are in this mess because of major methodological issues in IE studies.

IE studies produced value when they compared real data from real IE literature and attested history. More recently scholarship has tended in the direction of subjective and theoretical constructs. Reconstructed PIE is a good example, a theory with no 'a' vowel, probably the most common sound in the world.


People like Molyneux know all about the degenerative and ideologically-possessed elements in modern culture, but ironically cannot see it when they are consumed by the very same thing.

Sanuj said...

So this paper already locates the Proto-Bulgarian homeland in SC Asia in 2013,

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779#pone.0056779-Dobrev1
"The initial homeland of the proto-Bulgarians, called Balhara by Indians and Bactria by Greeks, was situated in the foothills of Pamir and Hindu Kush Mountains. In antiquity and the early Middle Ages, proto-Bulgarians founded three large and stable states in Europe..."

It further says,

"Haplogroup J-M241 shows a network with the central and most frequent haplotype being widespread in the Southern Balkans - a likely consequence of a rapid expansion probably started in Neolithic times in Asia Minor [34]. Since the periphery of the network is mainly occupied by haplotypes found outside this region (Apulians, Indians and Nepalese) the present results do not provide any useful evidence for the identification of the J-M241 homeland."

Singh said...

@Chetan

I have to point out that fire-cult traditions in South Asia probably has some roots in Mesolithic Ganga valley as well, which has been pointed out by various archaeological studies.

They did not seem to have any deity based on lack of figurines but every house hold had two fire-pit both indoor and outdoor.

"The importance of fire in their belief may be inferred by the association of pit-hearths with the graves and the offerings" - Ganga Valley Mesolithic, Department of Ancient History, Culture, and Archaeology, University of Allahabad

Vara said...

@Chetan

I did not see that comment. But how about you answer how the Indo-Iranians influenced the Zagros folk before Sintashta and Andronvo?

There is absolutely no evidence the Median Grey Ware Cultures are from the Steppe. In fact they have evolved from the Gurgan Grey Ware culture which is related to the cultures of Tureng Tepe and Hissar.

Chetan said...

@mzp

"Sintashta chariots look to me to represent a ritualistic elements rather than purely practical items."

They built chariots just to bury them? lol

@singh

"I have to point out that fire-cult traditions in South Asia probably has some roots in Mesolithic Ganga valley as well, which has been pointed out by various archaeological studies."

The "fire cult" could have developed independently in these different areas for all we know. It's very difficult to trace migrations based on this alone.



mzp1 said...

Regarding an Iranian and Balto-Slavic-Germanic similarities..

Grassmans Law - Only shared by India and Greek

Balto-Slavic Bog = Iranian word for God IE Bagdad. Baga is also in Vedic as A god but is a generic word meaning God in Iranian.

Devil = Iranian deva

Garden = Iranian Garodman

Arthurian legend.

Story of Rapunzel is also found in Shahnama.

Finding linguistic similarities that apply is difficult due to the use of the tree model and lack of attested Iranian languages from the Pontiac Caspian steppe. These languages would have diverged from Avestab which is the usual source for comparisons between Iranian and IA.

There is huge corpus of IE items shared by northern Europe and Iranian and not included in Indo Aryan, and these items are too late to be PIE or LPIE or whatever Yamna is called these days.

mzp1 said...

@Chetan,

"They built chariots just to bury them? lol"

Go and learn basic IE history before making a fool out of yourself here.

IEs have a history of ritualistic and processionary Chariot use well after they had ceased being used in war.

So who were they fighting? Clearly not the BMAC by the looks of it.

Chetan said...

@mzp Look, I agree that carts may had transportation uses before being put to use for warfare, but it's pretty stupid to suggest that they were built just for "ritualistic purposes"

postneo said...

@chetan
do you have any inscriptions, names, even a single word cuniform or otherwise to back up any claimed andronovo language?

Anonymous said...

Do you realize that the spread of Indo-Aryans into India occurs at the end of the 2nd Millennium BC, and Iranians into Iran at the beginning of the 1st Millennium BC? So, classical Andronovo culture at that time already did not exist, and to Iran and India have come to the people who had Cordoned ceramics borrowed from Europe.


@Singh

It's Late Harappa, is not precisely dated, but the craft is very late.

@mzp1 @Rob...

What you write is ridiculous.

Vara said...

You do realize that the Median Culture is the Late Western Grey Ware Culture? It's origin is in the Gurgan Grey Ware Culture and Hissar. It has nothing to do with the Steppes or even Yaz.

mzp1 said...

Is it equally ridiculous to suggest Romans were building Chariots just for processionary purposes?

Early Vedic peoples did not use horses riualistically. The Ashvamedha appears later on in the brahmanical period. This would be contemporary with Sintashta.

As with horses in Vedic, and chariot use in rome, these items become symbolic long after their original use.

Early IEs did not bury horse of chariots, because they needed them, nor are early IE so far from their original world-view that they would need to use overly-symbolic though impractical rituals like horse sacrifice or chariot burial.

Also, like I said, PIE did not have large Sintashta like Settlements, and Vedic, and only Vedic, is at the level of PIE in terms of material and societal development.



Anonymous said...

@Vara

You use meaningless set of words without essence.


European Cordoned pottery is in Iran and India in necessary Aryan invasion time.


@mz1

You have no knowledge, but only faith to promote you sect. What you write is ridiculous. Even Yamnaya people buried with wagons and animals!

mzp1 said...

@Superman

"Even Yamnaya people buried with wagons and animals!"

..yet these burial customs are not included in the shared culture of early IEs and thus do not form part of reconstructed PIE religion.

mzp1 said...

I think chariot burial might be more common in Germanic, but they are not attested in Greco-Arya.

Vara said...

@superdork

No it is not. I guess this is going to be another one of your asspulls like the amazing 'Uzboy is the Sarasvati and it dried 1500CBE'.

Anonymous said...

@mzp1

What about PIE is? When you talk about Indo-Iranians!
And by the way, burying with animals is a common Proto-Indo-European custom.

daran b said...

@supernerd

Your in fantasy land boy, the Aryans had nothing to do with Eastern Europeans, even if they shared a common ancestor, the Aryans and Slavs have equally diverged from them.

Anonymous said...

Both Greeks and Hittites buried with horses.


@daran b
"Your in fantasy land boy, the Aryans had nothing to do with Eastern Europeans, even if they shared a common ancestor, the Aryans and Slavs have equally diverged from them. "

stupid set of words. you at least have understood what you wrote?

mzp1 said...

@supernord,

Vedic is by far the most important element in IE studies, it is the closet to PIE, followed by Greek, distantly.

Vedic social structure is the only one attested at PIE level.Reconstructed PIE religion and society are not meaningfully different from Vedic.

This is what PIE is. You cannot swap it for your favourite mound on the ground.

Anonymous said...

Indo-Aryans cremated, cremation does not use any chariots. And burials of Indo-Aryans with horses were found in Hathala, Katelai, Loebner, Aligrama, Bit-Kor-ghwandari...

@mzp1

"Vedic social structure is the only one attested at PIE level.Reconstructed PIE religion and society are not meaningfully different from Vedic.

This is what PIE is. You cannot swap it for your favourite mound on the ground."

No, It is full fantasy. You are fantasy.

Singh said...

@Chetan

I think its possible those Mesolithic Ganga valley maybe on AASI-ANE-hg cline based on some skeleton pathology studies but we will have to wait and see. I'm more included to believe they will turn out to be AASI-hg's instead.

Comparison with Western European, Eastern European and Indian Mesolithics.

Mesolithic sites near Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) have yielded abundant well-preserved human skeletons permitting a bioarchaeological approach to past life-ways. Prior research on human remains from Sarai Nahar Rai and Mahadaha is supplemented by this analysis of human skeletal variation in 47 specimens from Damdama...Collectively, Indian Mesolithic groups are significantly taller than Eastern or Western European Mesolithic samples. Long lower limbs may be an adaptation to locomotor efficiency, but may also reflect adaptation to high seasonal temperatures. Indices of distal to proximal limb segments for both upper and lower extremities conform to physiological principles of thermoregulation and suggest biological adaptation to a hot arid environment. Lukacs 2003

The difference in stature between Mesolithic European and South Asian samples is striking. That European Mesolithic display linear enamel hypoplasia and short stature while the Ganatic plains people exhibit hypoplasia and tall stature suggests that these two variables reflect different sterssors operating in dissimilar ways on the mesolithic people of Europe and South Asia.Lukacs/Pal 1993

Mesolithic Indians are similar to Mesolithic Europeans in the types and prevalence of dental affiliations but are considerably taller and larger-toothed than their European counterparts. These findings suggest fundamental similarities in dietary pattern and development. Further research is essential if the distinctions and resemblances between Mesolithic India and Europe are to be fully explained.Lukacs/Pal 1993

"The pattern that emerges from these data involves an apparent association between large bodies, as indicated by tall stature. Mesolithic people of the Ukraine are similar to Mesolithic Indians in stature but intermediate between Western European and Indian Mesolithic in tooth size." Jacobs 1993

Stature chart of Western Euro Mesolithics, Eastern Euro Mesolithic, Ganga Indian Mesolithics :

chart 1 https://i.imgur.com/ehpmDQ0.jpg

chart 2 https://i.imgur.com/UiOJcmR.jpg

Singh said...

@Supernord

Lets distinguish between bull-drawn chariots used for sports, and horse-drawn chariots used for warfare in MLBA steppes. Both evolved for different reasons and in different societies.

TruthPrevails said...

@kulkarni
The I6561 individual from Ukraine is extremely interesting to say the least.


" We also note that the Ukrainian Eneolithic
individual I6561 dated to ~4000 BCE that we report is the is oldest known individual with
UDG-treated genome-wide data that carried a copy the persistence allele."



As per a scan from yfull he is supposed to be Y3+. Davidski can tell you more about it.(best only to pay attention to the veracity of the scan)

Y3 happens to be just one branch upstream to Indian L657. In ancient DNA this is the first time we have a link this close,
and it also happens to be the oldest.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3/

He is from ~4000BC. which makes the L-657 approximately that old as well, which also makes the Indian line older than the European Z283.

This is what the arch report says for him.

"Based on craniometric analysis (I.Potekhina 1999) it was suggested that the Eneolithic inhabitants of Alexandria were not
homogeneous and resulted from admixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers and early farmers, possibly Trypillian groups."

So he definitely is not a local hunter gatherer as that clade is not found anywhere else in that region.

Davidski said...

@TruthPrevails

To date, there's no R1a in the now ample Asian aDNA record before the steppe peoples get there from Eastern Europe. And there never will be any R1a-M417.

I can assure you that this is one truth that will prevail, and you will have to accept it.

postneo said...

@all
ritual warfare has great utility in low density populations subject to intermittent skirmishes. It allows conflict resolution without risking exogamous links and loss of man power. The asvamedha and rajasuya are ways of asserting hegemony with minimal conflict. They do seem a good fit for steppe cultures but their appeal could have been wider. Paleolithic cultures indulge in mock conflicts as well.

TruthPrevails said...

@davidski

What you are saying is absence of proof is proof of absence.

Majority ancient specimens from Asia belong to Bronze and post period with spotty sampling. Does not tell us anything about the underlying structure. Infact from the Bronze age period onwards the Y-DNA distribution has been same till date in Europe as well as Asia.

Since we want to understand what was happening before that, we lack sufficient sampling from pre-bronze age Asia. Infact there are zero samples from India.

Also majority Ukraine Neolithic and Mesolithic genomes belong mostly to R1b and I2a, so this specimen does look like an anomaly or outlier. Even more so if he is considered Y3+.

As well as I6561 is before any steppe people were in existence.

I do not deny that basal R1a has been found in some hunter gatherers from Eastern Europe but R1a has been in existence for the past 20,000+ years and we do not have a clear idea what was its distribution in the past due to no ancient specimens of Mesolithic or earlier periods from Asia or India.

P1 from South East Asia to R1a in Eurasia, most likely path being a hunter gatherer is through South Asia.

Chetan said...

@Vara "I did not see that comment. But how about you answer how the Indo-Iranians influenced the Zagros folk before Sintashta and Andronvo?"

I did not get this. Before Sintashta? Sintashta started at 2100 BCE and Petrovka reached the Oxus by at least 1800 BCE.

"There is absolutely no evidence the Median Grey Ware Cultures are from the Steppe. In fact they have evolved from the Gurgan Grey Ware culture which is related to the cultures of Tureng Tepe and Hissar."

Anthony says this

"Between about 1800 and 1600 BCE, control over the trade in minerals
(copper, tin, turquoise) and pastoral products (horses, dairy, leather) gave
the Andronovo- Tazabagyab pastoralists great economic power in the old BMAC oasis towns and strongholds, and chariot warfare gave them military control. Social, po liti cal, and even military integration probably followed. Eventually the simple incised pottery of the steppes gave way to new ceramic traditions, principally gray polished wares in Margiana and the Kopet Dag, and painted wares in Bactria and eastward into Tajikistan."


But I would be interested in seeing any sources that say this was a local development.

Chetan said...

"painted wares in Bactria and eastward into Tajikistan"

In fact, has anyone thought of a relation between this and the Painted Grey Ware in Northern India? The timing seems to match roughly.

Mr. Kulkarni said...

@truthprevails

the dating of that sample I6561 (4000bc) fits with the dating of the RV people i agree with (between 4000-3000bc)

postneo said...

@chetan
Pots in a place change with time. It does tell us whether it’s local or due to migrating people or the direction of migration. PGW is older than 1800 bc at various sites. One can argue it spread northwest.

Without written history it’s easy to concoct anything. We thus have a “Vedic” trinket factory.
A lot of the andronovo Vedic relationship sounds like one of those tourist guides you encounter in India at historic sites.

Vara said...

@Chetan

"I did not get this. Before Sintashta? Sintashta started at 2100 BCE and Petrovka reached the Oxus by at least 1800 BCE."

The Zagros not the Oxus. And now that the Mitanni have been officially pushed back we have to look at other words with non Semetic etymology like Baghdadu as IA as well.

"It is probable that this move was preceded by successive
spearheading forays of (non-IIr. speaking) mountain peoples into
Mesopotamia, such as the Guti, Lullubi, and Kassites3 (c. 2250-1750
BCE), who were as yet only marginally influenced by IIr. languages and
customs." -Witzel

"But I would be interested in seeing any sources that say this was a local development."

Please take a look at Hissar IIIC. It's culture is the Gurgan/Eastern Grey Ware culture found in Tureng Tepe and other related sites. See Ghirshman for the Mitanni movement from the Gurgan Grey Ware and Cuyler Young on Early West Iranian Grey Ware and Gurgan Grey Ware. If I remember correctly they both argue for pottery as well as metallurgy.

Also, why are you surprised the Andronovo people took over 1700-1500BCE BMAC? We know that's how the hybrid steppe cultures like Yaz formed and no Iranian Grey Ware culture can be traced to Yaz. At best Hissar IIIC can be traced to Early BMAC due to the contacts between them.

Chetan said...

@Vara Kassites are contemporary with the Mittani, we've been through this before. The status of the Guti is far from certain, but if they were Indo-Europeans, they were certainly the centum variety originating from Yamna/Afanasievo, not the later MLBA satem variety.

"Also, why are you surprised the Andronovo people took over 1700-1500BCE BMAC? We know that's how the hybrid steppe cultures like Yaz formed and no Iranian Grey Ware culture can be traced to Yaz."

Well Anthony thinks they did. And you haven't provided references to any other archaeologist who says otherwise.

Chetan said...

I'm quoting what Anthony said again,

"Between about 1800 and 1600 BCE, control over the trade in minerals (copper, tin, turquoise) and pastoral products (horses, dairy, leather) gave the Andronovo-Tazabagyab pastoralists great economic power in the old BMAC oasis towns and strongholds, and chariot warfare gave them military control. Social, political, and even military integration probably followed. Eventually the simple incised pottery of the steppes gave way to new ceramic traditions, principally gray polished wares in Margiana and the Kopet Dag, and painted wares in Bactria and eastward into Tajikistan.""

Certainly a new culture in the area. Perhaps a mixture of native and foreign elements?

Vara said...

@Chetan


"The status of the Guti is far from certain,"

"Only some initial guesses are possible, for example about the ethnic nature of the Tukriš (see above n. 102) which might be connected with Ved. tugra, tugrya (both personal names), Iran. tuγr-. If true, we would have continuing RV (and later Vedic, BŚS) links with Bolan, Aratta, and Shahdad"


"Well Anthony thinks they did. And you haven't provided references to any other archaeologist who says otherwise."

Are you okay?

"See Ghirshman for the Mitanni movement from the Gurgan Grey Ware and Cuyler Young on Early West Iranian Grey Ware and Gurgan Grey Ware. If I remember correctly they both argue for pottery as well as metallurgy."


"Eventually the simple incised pottery of the steppes gave way to new ceramic traditions, principally gray polished wares in Margiana and the Kopet Dag, and painted wares in Bactria and eastward into Tajikistan"

Is Tajikistan in the Zagros? Were the Mitanni in Tajikistan? The group that made it into India did not go through BMAC.

"Certainly a new culture in the area. Perhaps a mixture of native and foreign elements?"

Yes. Yaz and Tazabgyab basically a steppe-BMAC hybrid.

Chetan said...

You expect me to find the reference from the names of archaeologists? At least post the links to the relevant publication, if not the exact quotes, like I have done for you.

Here: This is quoted from Witzel (2003), Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. A query.

""Only some initial guesses are possible, for example about the ethnic nature of the Tukriš (see above n. 102) which might be connected with Ved. tugra, tugrya (both personal names), Iran. tuγr-. If true, we would have continuing RV (and later Vedic, BŚS) links with Bolan, Aratta, and Shahdad""

Witzel makes a wild guess, that's it. He doesn't present a strong case for why Tukriš = tugra

OTH, W.B Henning (1978) in "The first Indo-Europeans in history" connects the same name Tukriš with twyry, which is a Turkish ethnonym for Tocharians

Now I think both of them are wrong since they use phonological fallacies.

But W.B Henning also says this about the supposed Gutian words

"(…) Comparativists have asserted that, in spite of its late appearance, Tokharian is a relatively archaic form of Indo-European.3 This claim implies that the speakers of this group separated from their Indo-European brethren at a comparatively early date. They (Tocharians) should accordingly have set out on their migrations rather early, and should have appeared within the Babylonian sphere of influence also rather early. Earlier, at any rate, than the Indo-Iranians, who spoke a highly developed (therefore probably later) form of Indo-European. Moreover, as some of the Indo-Iranians after their division into Iranians and Indo-Aryans4 appeared in Mesopotamia about 1500 B.C., we should expect the Proto-Tokharians about 2000 B.C. or even earlier.

If, armed with these assumptions as our working hypothesis, we look through the pages of history, we find one nation – one nation only – that perfectly fulfills all three conditions, which, therefore, entitles us to recognize it as the “Proto-Tokharians”. Tis name was Guti; the intial is also spelled with q (a voiceless back velar or pharyngeal), but the spelling with g is the original one. The closing -i is part of the name, for the Akkadian case-endings are added to it, nom. Gutium etc. Guti (or Gutium, as some scholars prefer) was valid for the nation, considered as an entity, but also for the territory it occupied."


Now some Sintashta IIr contact with the South Caspian can't be ruled out in 2100 BCE, but still it's extremely unlikely. If there is an IE substrate, it's most probably not Indo-Iranian

You said:

"Is Tajikistan in the Zagros? Were the Mitanni in Tajikistan? The group that made it into India did not go through BMAC."

What Zagros group are you talking about? The Guti? Their status, even as IEs is far from established and even if they were, they were centum IEs.

Vara said...

@Chetan

https://books.google.com/books?id=OZ0gAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=gurgan+grey+ware+culture&source=bl&ots=SUIsR2Hg7I&sig=r3N2rAEdmbN-ezyCyRk7Oq3AjP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6w4Lu64XbAhXOuFMKHbh2ABUQ6AEIfjAN#v=onepage&q=gurgan%20grey%20ware%20culture&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=FF5-7JVj4jYC&pg=PA690&lpg=PA690&dq=gurgan+grey+ware+culture&source=bl&ots=Gel9VbfiiL&sig=DCyqay3sj5pRW1vwzoAomJ8ikaY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6w4Lu64XbAhXOuFMKHbh2ABUQ6AEIiwEwEA#v=onepage&q=gurgan%20grey%20ware%20culture&f=false

"Moreover, as some of the Indo-Iranians after their division into Iranians and Indo-Aryans4 appeared in Mesopotamia about 1500 B.C."

Yeah sure let's connect this name from an area known to have been influenced by the Indo-Iranians since an early date to a name from the 7th century. This is the old preconcieved notion that Indo-Aryans appeared 1500BCE. We know that they appeared earlier. We see cities with clear Indo-Iranian etymologies like Baghdadu not being accepted as Indo-Iranians because Indo-Iranians only made it 1500BCE or whatever. Tugrish is not the only one with an IIr like name there is also Tirigan.

"What Zagros group are you talking about? The Guti? Their status, even as IEs is far from established and even if they were, they were centum IEs. "

I'm talking about the Mitanni and their Gurgan Grey Ware culture and how it does not derive from the steppes. At best Gurgan Grey Ware culture can be derived from contacts with Early BMAC 2300-1900BCE but archaeologists argue that it is a local development.

This all falls down into the same old argument of steppe nomads adopting BMAC and keeping the language as if that ever happened with the Indo-Iranians.

Chetan said...

@Vara "We see cities with clear Indo-Iranian etymologies like Baghdadu not being accepted as Indo-Iranians because Indo-Iranians only made it 1500BCE or whatever. "

It's clear to no one except you. I don't agree with Henning's etymology wither, but it's only as bad as Witzel's

If Tukriš = tugra, I don't see why Tukriš = tukharoi either. Huge claims much never be made on such poorly attested phonological resemblences.

"This is the old preconcieved notion that Indo-Aryans appeared 1500BCE. We know that they appeared earlier. "

No we know almost certainly that Indo-Iranians spread south with the Andronovo culture (now we have genetic evidence as well).

PS: I will look into the sources you have provided and reply later

Vara said...

@Chetan

Sure cities from Georgia all the way to India that start with Bag, eg. Baghdati, Baghdad, Bagram....etc.

Also, one more thing I forgot to mention is the dating of Tepe Hissar IIIC is 2170-1900 cal BCE (Erich Schmidt) and 2200-1800 BC (Gursan-Salzmann) so there is no Andronovo ninjas sneaking here.

Chetan said...

Bagh is an Iranian (Persian) root, Vara. They can't even be Indo-Aryan place names. No such Indo-Aryan etymologies exist anywhere.

But you are right, there are some contesting older etymologies. But guess what, they are all Babylonian/Aramaic etymologies, not Iranian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad#Etymology



Vara said...

@Chetan

Bag is Indo-Iranian. See Bhaga.

"and the Babylonian Talmudic name of a place called "Baghdatha"

Since when is Talmudic and Aramaic older than Iranian? We have a very similar name Mithradata anyways. Baghdadu which appears during Hammurabi's era is too old for Aramaic.

Chetan said...

@Vara Your own quoted source contradicts your claims on closer reading.

The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p.359

"The Mitanni empire was predominantly Human speaking. The ruling elite of A ryan
nobles constituted a minority of external origin. Ghirshman (1977) thought
that the Mitanni Aryans had come to Syria from the southeast corner of the
Caspian Sea. One of his main arguments was the similarity between the dark
luxury ceramics of the Mitanni palaces and the Gurgan Grey Ware of the Hissar
Die horizon, now dated to c. 1900-1700 B.C.. This similarity is not very close,
however, and Ghirshman's derivation has not been generally accepted.


Another leading authority on early Iran has linked the Mitanni Aryans with the Early
West Iranian Grey Ware that suddenly appears in great quantities all along the
Elburz mountains, in Azerbaijan and around Lake Urmia c. 1500 B.C. (Young
1985. As he points out, this ware represents a major break in the archaeological
record of Iran, and hence appears to signal the arrival of new people.


The latter cannot yet be the Medes or the Persians, who are first mentioned as being in the Zagros area in Neo-Assyrian textual sources c. 850 B.C.. Their coming is linked
with the appearance of Late West Iranian Buff Ware, an entirely new pottery in
every respect, which is clearly ancestral to Achaemenid ceramics and appears to
be derived from the buff wares that appear in the Gurgan region around the 11th
century B.C.. The Mitanni Aryans would have followed the same route, for
Young is inclined to see the Early West Iranian Grey Ware as an evolved form
of the earlier Gurgan Grey Ware
, which is dated at Tureng Tepe as late as
c. 1700-1600 B.C.; in addition, there are linkages in metallurgy."

So Early West Iranian Grey Ware show similarities to Gurgan Grey Ware, but clearly represents a break in local traditions. Not surprising at all. Just like Sintashta shows some Poltavka and Abshevo motifs, but is clearly a new phenomenon.

Chetan said...

And there is also the possibility that Gurgan Grey Ware (1900-1700 BCE) could aleady have been associated with the ancestors of Indo-Aryans. These people could have been likely present all over Southern Central Asia by 1900 BCE. They certainly were in Xinjiang and Zeravshan-Oxus by that time.

Nomadic expansions can take place very quickly, within the span of a generation or two. We saw this played out again in the example of Turkic nomads in the Medieval Age. They spread from Egypt to India during the course of a century or two.

Vara said...

@Chetan

I know what I have quoted.

1. You asked for sources that show that the Grey Ware existed in Iran before it did with the steppe movement in BMAC and I did.

2. Cuyler Young's hypothesis is no longer correct but even he admits that the Grey Ware is a local development. The Mitanni did not enter 1500 BCE so Ghirshman was actually right.

3. The newest dating for Hissar IIIC is actually 2000-1800 BC (Gursan-Salzmann), while the old calibrated dates are 2170-1900 cal BCE (Erich Schmidt). Andronovo people showing up at such an early date is very unlikely and there is no proof of it anyways.

4. Hissar is not in Zerafshan. Just because there are nomads in Zeravshan does not mean they made it to Hissar. If we go back 2500 years ago we'll find Scythian nomads ruling Tajikistan but not Parthia.

5. Hissar IIIC is usually attributed to early BMAC because of the earlier contacts between Hissar IIIB and BMAC. If memory serves me right this was Parpola's argument. If you have any sources for Steppe nomads appearing in Hissar IIIC then kindly share them.

6. According to David Iranian Mazandaranians are better modeled as Yamnaya rather than Steppe MLBA. Mazandaran, where most of the Grey Ware is found, was considered a Daeva country which according to some is due to it's Indo-Aryan population. If Andronovo folk brought such languages shouldn't MLBA steppe be a better fit?

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/zoroastrian-genetic-origins-revisited.html

Chetan said...

@Vara

"Hissar is not in Zerafshan. Just because there are nomads in Zeravshan does not mean they made it to Hissar."

Never claimed they were. I just said it can't be ruled out that Indo-Aryan people already occupied a large territory from Mesopotamia to the Punjab by 1700 BCE.

That they were present in Bactria-Margiana lands by 1700 BCE is a fact attested by the presence of Andronovan artifacts and settlements. From there, they could have used the established trade networks to infiltrate into Mesopotamia.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 378 of 378   Newer› Newest»