search this blog

Thursday, September 5, 2019

On the surprising genetic origins of the Harappan people (Shinde et al. 2019)


The long awaited paper with ancient DNA from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) site of Rakhigarhi has finally arrived. Courtesy of Shinde et al. at Current Biology:

An ancient Harappan genome lacks ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or Iranian farmers

The bad news is that the paper features just one low coverage IVC genome, and it belongs to a female, so there's no Y-haplogroup. However, importantly, this individual is very similar to genetic outliers from Bronze Age West and Central Asia known as Indus_Periphery. So much so, in fact, that they could easily be from the same gene pool.

This, of course, gives strong support to the idea that Indus_Periphery is a useful stand-in for the real IVC population (see here).

Surprisingly, despite being largely of West Eurasian origin, the IVC people possibly didn't harbor any ancestry from the Neolithic farmers of the Fertile Crescent or even the Iranian Plateau.

That's because, according to Shinde et al., their West Eurasian ancestors separated genetically from those of the early Holocene populations of what is now western and northern Iran around 12,000 BCE. In other words, well before the advent of agriculture.


This surely complicates matters for those arguing that Indo-European languages may have arrived in the Indian subcontinent with early farmers via the Iranian Plateau. The more widely accepted theory is that Indo-European languages spread into South Asia with Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes. See here...


Update 05/09/2019: I had a quick look at the ancient Rakhigarhi individual with qpAdm, just to confirm for myself that she was indeed largely of West Eurasian origin and practically indistinguishable from Indus_Periphery. The genotype data that I used are freely available here.

IND_Rakhigarhi_BA
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 0.711±0.065
Onge 0.232±0.067
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.057±0.059
chisq 13.251
tail prob 0.0392147
Full output

Indus_Periphery
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 0.674±0.015
Onge 0.237±0.014
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.090±0.012
chisq 14.877
tail prob 0.0212326
Full output

Indus_Periphery
IND_Rakhigarhi_BA 0.946±0.074
Onge 0.054±0.074
chisq 10.358
tail prob 0.169152
Full output

This does appear to be the case, although it's also obvious that my models are missing something important because their statistical fits are rather poor. I'm guessing the main problem is trying to use the Onge people of the Andaman Islands as a proxy for the indigenous foragers of the Indian subcontinent.

See also...

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health

536 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 536 of 536
EastPole said...

@Archi
“Narasimhan et al. continues to be very biased. As always, they in no way use the CWC in analysis virtually ignores the Sintashta. It is also biased focus on only Yamnaya culture ignoring any other European (CWC to Sintashta).
How they hate Europe.
They drawing of migrations do not correspond to any truth.”


The problem with Archi and one of the reasons why he cannot understand Narasimhan at al. paper with its maps describing migrations from Eastern Europe to South Asia and linguistic links between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages is that most likely he does not understand what Eastern Europe is:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe

Historically the boundary between Balto-Slavic R1a dominated Eastern Europe and Celto-Germanic R1b dominated Western Europe was Elbe river. Genetics shows that Eastern European history is fascinating and I don’t understand why but it causes aggression among some people.
Archi, many history books will be rewritten soon and you will have to accept it. It is not because people hate Western Europe but because such are historical facts.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

East Pole

''Celto-Germanic R1b''

= A non-existent category.

Archi said...

@EastPole
"many history books will be rewritten soon and you will have to accept it. It is not because people hate Western Europe but because such are historical facts."

What is about Western Europe? I wrote about Central Europe, Western Europe to the Indo-Europeans has nothing to do.

Look at Narasimhan 2018 Fig.4, there is generally denied any migration that related to the CWC. Now it appeared that much progress, but drawn so as to be invisible from the central border (on Dnieper river) of the Yamnaya in Eastern Europe without mentioning the CWC.
The text also avoids this issue as much as possible.

Matt said...

OK, quick use of the West Eurasia datasheet upthread from Davidski, processing back through PCA, LD analysis : https://imgur.com/a/Ey13Ewe

Note I've merged in some West Eurasia PCA samples that weren't in this but were from previous datasheets, and relabelled some samples according to what I thought were outliers (so a certain code may not correspond to Narasimhan's) and in one case I7489 who is Potapovka in Narasimhan's supplement and is Yamnaya_Samara in latest West Eurasia datasheet, so I recoded them.

Downloadable datasheet for PAST3: https://pastebin.com/4WASJ9ze (no reprocessing on this so should be easy to add populations of your choice).

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha
“Yes because modern idiots understand the Vedas more than the wise people during the age of Mahabharata and puranas.
Tradition carries the Vedas to this day, same way tradition carries the explanation of the story of maharshi dadhichi, his bones and the Vajra.”


“As the American William Dwight Whitney observed, the content of the poems “seems almost more Indo-European than Indian” (1873: 101), and the native commentators were very much at sea. The German linguist Theodor Benfey, writing in 1858, had been clear that “anyone who has carefully studied the Indian interpretations knows that absolutely no continuous tradition between the composition of the Vedas and their explanation by Indian scholars can be assumed; that on the contrary, there must have been a long, uninterrupted break in tradition between the genuine poetic remains of Vedic antiquity and their interpretations””


http://www.rigveda.co.uk/asut1.pdf

vAsiSTha said...

@eastpole said

"@vAsiSTha

„The first description of Lord Indras Vajra in the RV is that it is made out of human bones (of sage dadhichi). Not high tech stuff.”

It is a metaphor, you don’t understand RV."

Yes because modern idiots understand the Vedas more than the wise people during the age of Mahabharata and puranas.
Tradition carries the Vedas to this day, same way tradition carries the explanation of the story of maharshi dadhichi, his bones and the Vajra.

Of course this ait, amt steppe BS wasn't a thing during the age of the mahabharata for them to spin it in any way.

the explanation about vajra and dadhichis bones is also present in the Aitareya Brahmana of the rig veda (commentary and additional details about the rituals of RV, estimated to be 1000BCE) and also in the Brahmanas of the sama veda (Jaiminiya brahmana, Shatyayana Brahmana {quoted by Sayanacharya in 1400s, but now lost}).

So, tradition refutes Ganguly. Also I want to add, Vedas are not all of 'Shruti', most of the explanations for Hindus are already present outside the Vedas - brahmanas, aranyakas, upanishads.

Smritis - itihasa, dharmasutras, dharmasmritis carry information about actual history and actual practices/rites/rituals of common people.

All of these are important to understand the Vedas. in fact, people, including brahmin born, are not even allowed to read or recite the Vedas without understanding all of the other stuff first, leave alone expound. Therefore, the Gita is the book that is seen in Hindu homes, rather than any of the Vedas.

Archi said...

There is no a vajra, just a metaphor for the greatness of Indra, not a word about a vajra.

rv01.084.13 With bones of Dadhyac for his arms, Indra, resistless in attack, Struck nine-and-ninety Vrtras dead.

So another invention from .... It's necessary to close this propaganda nonsense from the nationalists.


vAsiSTha said...

"There is no a vajra, just a metaphor for the greatness of Indra, not a word about a vajra.

rv01.084.13 With bones of Dadhyac for his arms, Indra, resistless in attack, Struck nine-and-ninety Vrtras dead.

So another invention from .... It's necessary to close this propaganda nonsense from the nationalists."

So Vrtra is slayed not by the vajra? right.

How are you sure that 1000BCE brahmin sages were hypernationalists. lol.

as i said, aiteraya brahmana of Rig Veda, jaiminiya brahmana of sama veda, among hundereds of others, tell the same story.


The Mahabharata, Book 1 : Adi Parva: Astika Parva: Section XXXIII

Then Garuda, the lord of birds, struck with thunderbolt, spake laughingly unto Indra engaged in the encounter, in sweet words, saying, 'I shall respect the Rishi (Dadhichi) of whose bone the Vajra hath been made. I shall also respect the Vajra, and thee also of a thousand sacrifices. I cast this feather of mine whose end thou shalt not attain. Struck with thy thunder I have not felt the slightest pain.'

Mahabharata was written by a hypernationalist i guess.


vAsiSTha said...

“As the American William Dwight Whitney observed, the content of the poems “seems almost more Indo-European than Indian” (1873: 101), and the native commentators were very much at sea. The German linguist Theodor Benfey, writing in 1858, had been clear that “anyone who has carefully studied the Indian interpretations knows that absolutely no continuous tradition between the composition of the Vedas and their explanation by Indian scholars can be assumed; that on the contrary, there must have been a long, uninterrupted break in tradition between the genuine poetic remains of Vedic antiquity and their interpretations””

that some american and german who got their hands on a new language can blurt out shit so confidently is astounding.

As compared to non broken lineage of brahmins who still trace their ancestry to the original sages of the vedas to whom the riks were revealed. we still take the name of these sage ancestors in our daily rituals btw, the lineage records of our families still exist on paper in pilgrimage sites. Also, how do you propose the vedas were transmitted flawlessly till today, given your idea of 'break of tradition'?

Balaji said...

@Davidski,

I agree with you that Yamnaya had some middle neolithic European ancestry and therefore could not have been been formed solely by the mixing of the ancestors of Aigryzhal_BA with EEHG. But it is possible that the ancestors of the Yamnaya were formed by such a mixture. These ancestors then mixed with neolithic groups in Europe to create the Yamnaya.

You must have the genomes published by Narasimhan et al. in the 2018 prepint. Would it be possible for you to check the feasibility of modeling a few present-day Indian groups using the following three sources: Shahr_i_Sokhta_BA2, Onge and Gonur1_BA_o? I would propose modeling the following populations: Brahmin_Tiwari, Bhumihar_Bihar, Budagajangam, Vysya, Panta_Kapu. I chose these five populations to span a range of Z-values related to excess “steppe” ancestry.

Archi said...

During Mahabharatha writing time (it is a Classical Sanskrit, not Vedic), no one really understood the Vedas, no one did not know the history told in the Vedas, but they doing a free interpretation, for this and there were a Brahmanas, Samhitas, Upanishadas. Vajra was long gone, this warrior weapon was forgotten.

Nationalism is not about them, but about you.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
"During Mahabharatha writing time (it is a Classical Sanskrit, not Vedic), no one really understood the Vedas, no one did not know the history told in the Vedas, but they doing a free interpretation, for this and there were a Brahmanas, Samhitas, Upanishadas. Vajra was long gone, this warrior weapon was forgotten."

the white man knows best, even if its stuff that we have preserved and developed. hahahahaha

Archi said...

Yes, it is.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Archie

“Learn to read and don't lie liar. About the nature of the burial nothing is written, we do not have the necessary data of the required cultures, you're on the brazen claim that since they do not tested, then there can not be proto-Hittites.
I wrote that the Hittites were egalitarianism in burial places like the Yamnaya culture people and so on. They buried and behaved towards each other as equals, but towards other peoples they behaved like an elitist, but in burials ”

Yep. So the G2a in Vucedol was the elite; the Yamnaya-derives Z2103 was dumped in a ditch
Scientists. can scrutinised; obviously you’re some old Soviet historian/ mythologist; like Zardos; and are completely ignorant to the ways of fact checking

Archi said...

The society of Old Europe was the society of bondservants and masters, it had kings and chiefs and dictators and slavery, it mixed man with filth. The Indo-Europeans came and destroyed this society, Yes. They have no kings and slaves were not. The presence of "elite" graves vs. "commoner" graves and says that they are the ones who will be destroyed, they are the backward cultures, those who do not will have to continue, not Indo-Europeans.

Archi said...

"heres no point in debating with me. Its done."
Of course, it's still unclear what you're babbling about.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Archie

Its okay if you're wrong. Im sure the 2 or 3 people which read you're book are already dead by now. They won't want a refund

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter "I accept your surrender"
Crazy illusions. Why would? you weren't right on any point, you're wrong on everything.

JuanRivera said...

Here are best fitting (so far at least) models of steppe groups:

Progress_En: (Samara_HG+CHG+Ganj_Dareh_N+AfontovaGora3, 4.532, Samara_HG 46.67% CHG 35.67% Ganj_Dareh_N 16.67% AfontovaGora3 9.17%)

Vonyuchka_En: (Karelia_HG+Samara_HG+CHG+Ganj_Dareh_N, 4.206, Karelia_HG 31.67% Samara_HG 15.83% CHG 35% Ganj_Dareh_N 17.5%)

Khvalynsk_En: (Karelia_HG+Progress_En+Samara_HG+Sredny_Stog_II_En, 2.7681, Karelia_HG 51.67% Progress_En 24.17% Samara_HG 12.5% Sredny_Stog_II_En 11.67%)

Sredny_Stog_II_En: (Ukraine_N+Ukraine_N_o+Progress_En+Khvalynsk_En, 3.5229, Ukraine_N 10% Ukraine_N_o 30.83% Progress_En 32.5% Khvalynsk_En 26.67%)

Dereivka_I_En1: (Ukraine_N+Progress_En+POL_TRB+Trypillia, 2.5117, Ukraine_N 60.83% Progress_En 14.17% POL_TRB 15.83% Trypillia 8.33%)

Dereivka_I_En2: (Ukraine_N+Progress_En+Sredny_Stog_II_En+Ukraine_N_o, 3.0603, Ukraine_N 46% Progress_En 14.17% Sredny_Stog_II_En 12.5% Ukraine_N_o 26.67%)

Yamnaya_Samara: (Sredny_Stog_II_En+Dereivka_I_En1+Khvalynsk_En+Progress_En, 2.5803, Sredny_Stog_II_En 22.5% Dereivka_I_En1 3.33% Khvalynsk_En 13.33% Progress_En 60.83%)

Yamnaya_Kalmykia: (Sredny_Stog_II_En+Khvalynsk_En+Progress_En, 2.7763 Sredny_Stog_II_En 30.83% Khvalynsk_En 13.33% Progress_En 55.83%)

Yamnaya_Ukraine: (Sredny_Stog_II_En+Dereivka_I_En1+Khvalynsk_En+Progress_En, 2.9275, Sredny_Stog_II_En 30.83% Dereivka_I_En1 2.5% Khvalynsk_En 10% Progress_En 56.67%)

Yamnaya_Ukraine_Ozera_o: (Yamnaya_Ukraine+Trypillia+Maykop+Progress_En, 1.9016, Yamnaya_Ukraine 42.5% Trypillia 10% Maykop 36.67% Progress_En 10.83%)

Yamnaya_Karagash: (Sredny_Stog_II_En+Khvalynsk_En+Progress_En, 3.4314, Sredny_Stog_II_En 26.67%% Khvalynsk_En 20% Progress_En 53.33%)

Yamnaya_Mereke: (Sredny_Stog_II_En+Khvalynsk_En+Progress_En, 2.9957, Sredny_Stog_II_En 16.67% Khvalynsk_En 14.17% Progress_En 69.17%)

JuanRivera said...

As caution, Karelia_HG and Samara_HG can't be really distinguished. Plus, the "Iranian" admixture needs not to be from Neolithic Iranians, as shown by the Indus cline. And, Piedmont reveals that the best model possible backed up (maybe) by F3 statistics would be Karelia_HG+Samara_HG+CHG+Ganj_Dareh_N+AfontovaGora3. Interesting, though, is that EEF shows up in the Ozera outlier (in addition to the expected Maykop admixture). I had to fix a missing decimal point in the Progress_En proportions of Dereivka_I_En2.

Archi said...

Sredny_Stog_II_En a very bad name because the wrong. The culture of this burial is not defined absolutely, it definitely existed after Sredny_Stog_II culture and it did not belong to one, radiocarbon dating of this burial may be incorrect. Correctly identify this sample Alexandria_En.

JuanRivera said...

I was quoting directly from the G25 files (except for the country tags, unless absolutely necessary), and I have nothing to do with adjusting the G25 files.

vAsiSTha said...

Asking anyone who can answer.

Vagheesh repeatedly confines steppe source into NW india between 1500-2000bc because later steppe samples show high east siberian/asian influence (absent in modern indians).

However, there are 2 Uzbek Kashkarchi_BA samples (both r1a1) under central_steppe_mlba category dated to around 1100bc. These seem to have no east asian ancestry. why is vagheesh ignoring these samples? ID I4153 & I4255

vAsiSTha said...

Seems like Davidski agrees with me in this post of this.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?m=1

Kashkarchi samples are a good fit. Then why is Narsimhan hell-bent upon fixing the window between 2000-1500bc?



Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Kashkarchi samples are a good fit. Then why is Narsimhan hell-bent upon fixing the window between 2000-1500bc?

I can think of two reasons:

- it's extremely unlikely that Kashkarchi_BA were the first people in the region from the steppe, they're just the first people to be sampled

- the oldest samples with R1a and steppe ancestry in the Swat Valley are dated to around the same time as Kashkarchi_BA, so their ancestors moved into South Asia earlier.

Joey said...

I thought Thor riding his chariot in the sky made thunder rumble? Isnt the chariot pretty central to the myth of Thor?

By the way, in Finnish mythology Ukko also wields a hammer, and the Finnish word for it, vasara is a loan from proto-indo-iranian, from the same root as indo-aryan vajra. Another interesting thing that fits the CWC is that ancient stone axes found buried in the ground were called ukonvaaja, again vaaja which means lighting bolt from the same vazra root. They were assumed to have been dropped from the heavens during thunderstorms.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski 1100-1500bc is a non zero probability, given all the data. Narsimhan should not have excluded it. The data he based his conclusion on is itself not true, given the 2 kashkarchi samples.

Entry date can only be refined further with more NW india / Pak ancient samples

Mammoth_Hunter said...

“Kashkarchi samples are a good fit. Then why is Narsimhan hell-bent upon fixing the window between 2000-1500bc?”

I think the data doesn’t support their reasoning there
Kashkarxhi dates to 1400-1200 BC; and that fits an entry into Swat by 1000 BC; although it could be earlier
But perhaps they have a feeling that MLBA ancestry enters during PGW
However my assessment of steppe ancestry they mention in 2000-1500 BC is different to theirs

Simon_W said...

@Sam

"Those Italian samples are modern. David added many new regions in Italy to his G25 PCA."

I know, I already played around with them, check the last thread. I was asking for the age of the first Romans you mentioned.

Simon_W said...

@epoch
"@Simon_W Is that still the case in the Bronze Age samples?"

Very good question.

It is the case for the EBA:

[1] "distance%=1.4216"

BGR_EBA

Barcin_N,66.3
Yamnaya_Samara,16.4
WHG,11.1
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,6.2
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

vs.

[1] "distance%=1.0197"

BGR_EBA

Barcin_N,55.1
UKR_Dereivka_I_En2,16.6
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,13.1
UKR_Dereivka_I_En1,9.6
WHG,4.3
UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En,1.3
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0
Anatolia_Barcin_C:I1584,0
Anatolia_Kumtepe_N:kum6,0

But not for the MLBA:

[1] "distance%=3.4054"

BGR_MLBA

UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En,76.4
UKR_Dereivka_I_En1,16.9
Ganj_Dareh_N,5.8
Han,0.9
Barcin_N,0
WHG,0
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0
Anatolia_Barcin_C:I1584,0
Anatolia_Kumtepe_N:kum6,0
UKR_Dereivka_I_En2,0

[1] "distance%=2.3009"

BGR_MLBA

Yamnaya_Samara,74.3
Barcin_N,17.6
WHG,7.4
Han,0.5
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0.2
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Yoruba,0

So at least at the MLBA we've got plenty of Yamnaya there.

Archi said...

Kashkarchi сontext date is 1200-1000 BCE. similar
earrings were dated by Avanessova N.A. to the same period (13th to 12th centuries BCE).
These burials with red ochre are relating to the Dark ages of barbaric invasion and total destruction which is estimated since 1300BC.

Simon_W said...


For Bulgaria_C, Anatolia_Kumtepe_N:kum6,7.2 + Anatolia_Barcin_C:I1584,0.2 = 7.4% isn't really much of an admixture, I can't see how such a minority could have indoeuropeanised the Balkans. In Bulgaria_EBA we've got 13.1% Anatolia_EBA, it would have to have been a very dominant elite to have been the indoeuropeanising factor…

And consider this: in the Peloponnese Neolithic already around 4000 BC there is 24.5% ABA!

Barcin_N 73.8
Anatolia_EBA 24.5
Ganj_Dareh_N 1.7

A very clear strong ABA admixture was most of the time a Greek and South Italian thing. It's not like that type of admixture is hard to trail, once it really is there. Minoans had 41.3% ABA. Yet we know ancient Crete wasn't exactly an early IE stronghold. So yeah, the only way Chad's theory could work out is with ascribing PIE to Barcin_N like people. The ones who lost so much ground during the Chalcolithic/EBA.


JuanRivera said...

Here's a list of models of steppe-admixed BA Kazakhstan groups:

Maitan_MLBA_Alakul: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 0.8608, Sintashta_MLBA 43.33% Botai 19.17% Afanasievo 15% Steppe_Maykop 22.5%)
Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o: (Maitan_MLBA_Alakul+Steppe_Maykop+Botai+Afanasievo, 1.3073, Maitan_MLBA_Alakul 32.5% Steppe_Maykop 23.33% Botai 17.5% Afanasievo 26.67%)
Bylkyldak_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Steppe_Maykop, 2.01, Sintashta_MLBA 98.33 Steppe_Maykop 1.67%)
Aktogai_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 0.3526, Sintashta_MLBA 94.17% Botai 1.67% Afanasievo 0.83% Steppe_Maykop 3.33%)
Ak_Moustafa_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA, 1.9973, Sintashta_MLBA 100%)
Alpamsa_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Steppe_Maykop+Afanasievo, 2.0282, Sintashta_MLBA 56.67% Baikal_EBA 30% Steppe_Maykop 5% Afanasievo 8.33%)
Chanchar_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo, 1.2368, Sintashta_MLBA 88.33% Botai 2.5% Afanasievo 9.17%)
Chanchar2_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Steppe_Maykop, 2.27, Sintashta_MLBA 57.5% Baikal_EBA 10.83% Steppe_Maykop 31.67%)
Dali_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 1.0252, Sintashta_MLBA 68.33% Botai 11.67% Afanasievo 16.67% Steppe_Maykop 3.33%)
Georgievsky_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo, 1.1538, Sintashta_MLBA 70.83% Botai 7.5% Afanasievo 21.67%)
Georgievsky2_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 2.6651, Sintashta_MLBA 58.33% Baikal_EBA 9.17% Steppe_Maykop 32.5%)
Kairan_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA, 0.8272, Sintashta_MLBA 100%)
Kairan_MLBA_o: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Baikal_EBA+Steppe_Maykop, 2.0201, Sintashta_MLBA 45.83% Botai 7.5% Baikal_EBA 14.17% Steppe_Maykop 32.5%)
Kanai_MBA: (Botai+Baikal_EBA+Steppe_Maykop, 3.5986, Botai 2.5% Baikal_EBA 37.5% Steppe_Maykop 60%)
Karagash_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Afanasievo, 1.2167, Sintashta_MLBA 87.5% Afanasievo 12.5%)
Katon_Karagay_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 3.0074, Sintashta_MLBA 74.17% Steppe_Maykop 25.83%)
Kyzlbulak_MLBA1: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 1.216, Sintashta_MLBA 82.5% Botai 2.5% Afanasievo 12.5% Steppe_Maykop 2.5%)
Kyzlbulak_MLBA2: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 2.2871, Sintashta_MLBA 32.5% Baikal_EBA 2.5% Afanasievo 3.33% Steppe_Maykop 61.67%)
Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul: (Sintashta_MLBA, 1.2871, Sintashta_MLBA 100%)
Mereke_MBA: (Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 1.979, Sintashta_MLBA 82.5% Botai 17.5% Afanasievo 8.33% Steppe_Maykop 74.17%)
Molaly_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Afanasievo+Baikal_EBA, 1.5842, Sintashta_MLBA 42.5% Geoksiur_En 26.67% Afanasievo 8.33% Baikal_EBA 22.5%)

JuanRivera said...

And here's the second part:

Mys_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 0.5435, Sintashta_MLBA 77.5% Baikal_EBA 3.33% Afanasievo 15% Steppe_Maykop 4.17%)
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 0.5706, Sintashta_MLBA 89.17% Baikal_EBA 3.33% Afanasievo 0.83% Steppe_Maykop 6.67%)
Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA_o: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 2.8709, Sintashta_MLBA 20.83% Botai 48.33% Afanasievo 4.17% Steppe_Maykop 26.67%)
Satan_MLBA_Alakul: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo, 2.1552, Sintashta_MLBA 79.17% Botai 15.83% Afanasievo 5%)
Shoendykol_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Baikal_EBA+Kazakh_Steppe_EMBA, 1.216, Sintashta_MLBA 91.67% Botai 4.17% Baikal_EBA 0.83% Kazakh_Steppe_EMBA 3.33%)
Solyanka_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA, 2.3826, Sintashta_MLBA 100%)
Taldysay_MLBA1: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Afanasievo+Steppe_Maykop, 1.1422, Sintashta_MLBA 80.83% Botai 3.33% Afanasievo 9.17% Steppe_Maykop 6.67%)
Taldysay_MLBA2: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Geoksyur_En+Steppe_Maykop, 2.0653, Sintashta_MLBA 60.83% Baikal_EBA 10% Geoksyr_En 25% Steppe_Maykop 4.17%)
Zevakinskiy_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Baikal_EBA+Steppe_Maykop, 1.216, Sintashta_MLBA 88.33% Botai 4.17% Baikal_EBA 5% Steppe_Maykop 2.5%)
Zevakinskiy_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Baikal_EBA+Steppe_Maykop, 1.216, Sintashta_MLBA 50.83% Botai 6.67% Baikal_EBA 17.5% Steppe_Maykop 25%)
Zevakinskiy_MLBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Botai+Baikal_EBA+Steppe_Maykop, 1.5581, Sintashta_MLBA 50.83% Botai 5% Baikal_EBA 13.33% Steppe_Maykop 30.83%)
Kazakh_Steppe_EMBA: (Afanasievo+Botai+Baikal_EBA+Geoksyur_En, 2.2787, Afanasievo 9.17% Botai 56.67% Baikal_EBA 31.67% Geoksyur_En 2.5%)

JuanRivera said...

And here's Dali_EBA:

Dali_EBA: (Afanasievo+Botai+Geoksyur_En, 1.9036, Afanasievo 5.83% Botai 60% Geoksyur_En 9.17% Steppe_Maykop 25%)

Archi said...

All Balkan-Anatolian hypotheses have one drawback - they do not agree with any specific schemes of Indo-European distribution.

No schemes somehow explaining archaeology - cultures compliance is completely zero.
No schemes somehow explaining linguistics - the language compliance is completely zero.

No schemes somehow explaining culture - IE culture compliance is completely zero.

No schemes somehow explaining anthropology - Mediterranean type, it is too abstract, he was everywhere.

No schemes somehow explaining the genetics - EEF, it is too abstract, it is present in was found in ancient Eastern Europe generally since the beginning of the Neolithic, haplogroups however the full discrepancy.

Need a specific diagram for the steps which would explain it all, and they are not even in the abstract, when considering any aspects of these hypotheses arise inherent contradictions, all in the complex even in fantasy doesn't add up.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Simon W

You're statements are pretty dubious


''So at least at the MLBA we've got plenty of Yamnaya there.''

If its MLBA then it's not really Yamnaya (as it didnt exist); and this is an outlier individual which did not make lasting impact

Theres no point in simply fishing for Yamnaya ancestry without understanding the context of samples, but yes, steppe ancestry begins to permates by MLBA; after the Indo-Europeaniszation of SEE


''A very clear strong ABA admixture was most of the time a Greek and South Italian thing. It's not like that type of admixture is hard to trail, once it really is there. Minoans had 41.3% ABA. Yet we know ancient Crete wasn't exactly an early IE stronghold. So yeah, the only way Chad's theory could work out is with ascribing PIE to Barcin_N like people. The ones who lost so much ground during the Chalcolithic/EBA.''

And this is what Chad actually sugested. ''Hard for PIE to be from Russia if no Bronze Age Anatolians have any ancestry from there... Just saying. This isn't really any more solved yet. However, Balkans and Anatolia were pretty connected from 5700-4200BCE, then a rupture with the climate deteriorating. Varna and CT both are about 30% Krepost. Sredny Stog can be modeled as about 40% Varna or CT and even more so for Steppe_MLBA.''

I don't know how you've managed to twist this into IE coming from Bronze Age Anatolia.
BTW your calculations are wrong. Minoans actually have less ABA ancestry than Myceneans

JuanRivera said...

Some notes: inputting EEF to Khvalynsk_En results in an increase in fit (though a very slight one) and a level of 2.5%. Inputting Trypillia results in a larger fit increase than inputting either POL_TRB or Ukraine_N_o. Inputting Ukraine_N results in both a larger increase in fit than inputting EEF and a larger level (7.5%). As such, the reason Khvalynsk displays larger fit increases with Trypillia than with either Ukraine_N_o and POL_TRB is because Trypillia has some Ukraine_N admixture. Inputting both Ukraine_N and EEF (in the form of Sredny_Stog_II) results in the largest fit increase and proportions. On Kazakhstan, those models suggest the presence of (semi-)nomadic peoples of different origins (Botai, Baikal_EBA, Steppe Maykop and Afanasievo) inhabiting the same territory, plus Central Asian farmers advancing from the south. Then Sintashta_MLBA came there and admixed in different proportions with each of the (semi-)nomadic peoples and farmers.

Romulus said...

Who do Beakers prefer, GAC, or Funnelbeakers Saxtorp5158 &
Saxtorp5164?

Simon_W said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

I was well aware that Yamnaya no longer existed at the time of the MLBA of the Balkans. Neither did WHG, Barcin_N, Natufian etc. etc.! In fact, I didn't intend to make a historically accurate model, using the most proximate sources available. The list of populations in my model instead intends to capture the basic variation, the basic components of West Eurasia: WHG, ANF (Barcin_N), Steppe, ABA, Iran (Ganj_Dareh_N), Levant (Natufian) and Northwest Africa (Iberomaurusian), and is complemented by an East Asian population (Han) and a Sub-Saharan population (Yoruba). See, Raveane et al. in their new paper (in Fig. 2D) also worked with a similar list of samples: North Africa, East Asia, WHG, EEN (which is close to ANF), Steppe BA, and ABA. And mind you, it's even possible to calculate the Yamnaya ancestry of modern people, even though Yamnaya no longer exists.

Simon_W said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

"BTW your calculations are wrong. Minoans actually have less ABA ancestry than Myceneans"

No, definitely not according to the Global25/nMonte method:

[1] "distance%=2.0287"

GRC_Minoan_Lassithi

Barcin_N,58.7
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,29.8
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,11.5
Yamnaya_Samara,0
WHG,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

[1] "distance%=1.8477"

GRC_Mycenaean

Barcin_N,51.4
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,20.9
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,13.9
Yamnaya_Samara,11.6
Yoruba,0.9
Ganj_Dareh_N,0.8
Han,0.3
WHG,0.2
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0

Simon_W said...

Only using very "ultimate" sources, Mycenaeans get more CHG than Minoans:

[1] "distance%=2.214"

GRC_Minoan_Lassithi

Barcin_N,86.7
GEO_CHG,13.3
WHG,0
RUS_Samara_HG,0

[1] "distance%=2.5227"

GRC_Mycenaean

Barcin_N,76.4
GEO_CHG,17.2
RUS_Samara_HG,6.4
WHG,0

But this model makes no difference between CHG from the Steppe and actual ABA from Anatolia.

Simon_W said...

But let's take a look at Krepost_N, since that individual figures prominently in Chad's suggestion:

[1] "distance%=3.0276"

BGR_Krepost_N

Barcin_N,53.7
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,33
Yamnaya_Samara,5.6
Ganj_Dareh_N,3.9
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,2.7
Han,1.1
WHG,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Yoruba,0

It's interesting, this individual does have a strong ABA-like admixture. It's not ABA, because there was no Bronze Age at that time, but it's very much like ABA-admixture. But Krepost_N is a single individual, and in general, as I've shown in my previous models, ABA-like ancestry is flimsy to nonexistent in the Balkans prior to the EBA. He or she may have been an unusual exotic foreigner.

Simon_W said...

BGR_N is a sample of 4 dating to the 6th Millennium BC. No ABA, although you might suspect a minimal trace of it in the 0.7% "Yamnaya".

[1] "distance%=1.8604"

BGR_N

Barcin_N,96.8
WHG,2.5
Yamnaya_Samara,0.7
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

Simon_W said...

It's clear that Barcin_N + EHG doesn't produce a Yamnaya-like signal. So if there wasn't enough ABA-like ancestry in early Neolithic SEE, it might have come somewhat later. But it makes sense checking this hypothesis with more or less contemporaneous, late Neolithic or Chalcolithic Northwestern Anatolians instead of using early Bronze Age central and Southwestern Anatolians.

And indeed, the fits I obtain using Kum6, Barcin_C and Dereivka are better than when using ABA and Yamnaya:

[1] "distance%=4.4632"

UKR_Trypillia

Barcin_N,74.5
UKR_Dereivka_I_En1,16.9
WHG,8.6
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0
UKR_Dereivka_I_En2,0
Anatolia_Kumtepe_N:kum6,0
Anatolia_Barcin_C:I1584,0

[1] "distance%=4.8538"

BGR_Varna_En3

UKR_Dereivka_I_En2,62.5
Anatolia_Kumtepe_N:kum6,13
Anatolia_Barcin_C:I1584,10.8
Barcin_N,8.4
UKR_Dereivka_I_En1,5.3
WHG,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

[1] "distance%=1.8895"

BGR_Varna_En2

Barcin_N,79.6
UKR_Dereivka_I_En2,17.8
WHG,2.6
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0
UKR_Dereivka_I_En1,0
Anatolia_Kumtepe_N:kum6,0
Anatolia_Barcin_C:I1584,0

vs.:

[1] "distance%=4.5613"

UKR_Trypillia

Barcin_N,77
WHG,14.9
Yamnaya_Samara,8.1
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

[1] "distance%=5.3034"

BGR_Varna_En3

Yamnaya_Samara,46.4
Barcin_N,42.9
WHG,10.7
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

[1] "distance%=2.1216"

BGR_Varna_En2

Barcin_N,83.9
Yamnaya_Samara,9.1
WHG,7
Anatolia_EBA_Isparta,0
Anatolia_EBA_Ovaoren,0
Ganj_Dareh_N,0
Natufian,0
Morocco_Iberomaurusian,0
Han,0
Yoruba,0

However, only Varna_En3 shows some later Northwest Anatolian ancestry, while the other 2 tested samples just profit from the inclusion of Dereivka instead of Yamnaya.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Simon

Don't blame nMonte. The error lies with you :)
Your set up is problematic - you include no LN Greek samples & no Balkan Eneolithic-like samples; hence your results are too distant-based to show anything relevant

As can be seen, Myceneans pack more ABA ancestry than Minoans; suggesting that Minoans might be predominantly of ''local'' origin.

''But let's take a look at Krepost_N, since that individual figures prominently in Chad's suggestion:''

Again, a poor set up. You're using Anatolia EBA to make inferences about a sample from 5000 BC. The Krepost- & Greece_Pelo Outlier samples actually lie on different clines from Anatolia BA samples. It's wrong to make inferences about each other from them


All in all, this is a highly complex & merging field. You need to ''walk before you can run'' - anyone can clown around with online programmes, but making sense requires deep understanding of multiple factors. Here's to some humility.

vAsiSTha said...

http://www.ijarch.org/Admin/Articles/9-Note%2520on%2520Chariots.pdf

Archaeologist's Notes on the chariot burial in sanauli, N India, for those interested

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

The paper looks like nonsense. There aren't any radiocarbon dates in it, just some claims that chariots were being used in India as early as 2,000 BC.

And your link doesn't work. This is the correct link...

http://www.ijarch.org/Admin/Articles/9-Note on Chariots.pdf

Archi said...

The OCP is a culture of the 2nd Millennium BC, its late stage falls at the end of the 2nd Millennium BC. Its beginning falls at the late Harappan, then it develops independently. Allegedly the "chariot" appear at the end of OCP, that is, at the end of the 2nd Millennium BC.

EastPole said...

David, I am still under the impression of this very clear statement from the Narasimhan et al. paper:

“The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the distinctive features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”

Using your PCA I plotted modern Slavic populations together with MLBA populations:

https://i.postimg.cc/3xkWW9Qr/slav-MLBA-Asia12a.png

Some of those MLBA samples are within modern Slavic range, they intersect especially with Russians. Sintashta has 6 such samples, Srubnaya 1, plus Poltavka_o and Petrovka. Samples from Uzbekistan, Kazachstan and Tajikistan MLBA are also very close.
Ugro-Finnic Vespians and Mordowians are also very close. They most likely also came from CWC. I plotted CWC without outliers.
It is also true in other dimensions:

https://i.postimg.cc/3W54TvWC/slav-MLBA13-Asia.png

https://i.postimg.cc/nhZ8shDd/slav-MLBA23-Asia.png

David, I asked you earlier in this tread about the origin of some words with religious and psychological meaning which Slavs share with Indo-Iranians and which clearly have Slavic etymology. Do you think they went to India or came from India?

JuanRivera said...

Here are models of steppe-admixed samples from the rest of Central Asia:

Bustan_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+IVCp, 2.8327, Sintashta_MLBA 10.83% Geoksyur_En 88.33% IVCp 5.83%)
Bustan_BA_o1: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+MA1+IVCp, 1.9836, Sintashta_MLBA 10.83% Geoksyur_En 68.33% MA1 5.83% IVCp 15%)
Bustan_BA_o2: (Sintashta_MLBA+Baikal_EBA+Geoksyur_En+IVCp, 2.3546, Sintashta_MLBA 15% Baikal_EBA 5% Geoksyur_En 5% IVCp 5%)
Dzhakutan1_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Tepe_Hissar_C+IVCp, 1.0022, Sintashta_MLBA 6.67% Geoksyur_En 33.33% Tepe_Hissar_C 51.67% IVCp 8.33%)
Dzhakutan2_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Tepe_Hissar_C, 7.4776, Sintashta_MLBA 44.17% Tepe_Hissar_C 55.83%)
Kashkarchi_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+MA1+Sosonivoy_HG, 1.9578, Sintashta_MLBA 90% Geoksyur_En 3.33% MA1 2.5% Sosonivoy_HG 4.17%)
Kokcha_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Sosonivoy_HG, 1.2572, Sintashta_MLBA 85% Geoksyur_En 9.17% Sosonivoy_HG 5.83%)
Sappali_Tepe_BA2: (Sintashta_MLBA+Tepe_Hissar_C+Baikal_EBA, 3.2086, Sintashta_MLBA 4.17% Tepe_Hissar_C 94.17% Baikal_EBA 1.67%)
Sappali_Tepe_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Tepe_Hissar_C+Baikal_EBA, 1.3663, Sintashta_MLBA 4.17% Geoksyur_En 21.67% Tepe_Hissar_C 73.33% Baikal_EBA 0.83%)
Sappali_Tepe_BA_o: (Sintashta_MLBA+Tepe_Hissar_C+Baikal_EBA, 3.7691, SINTASHTA_MLBA  39.17% Tepe_Hissar_C 58.33% Baikal_EBA 2.5%)
Gonur_BA_o: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+MA1, 3.4355, Sintashta_MLBA 5.83% Geoksyur_En 55.83% MA1 38.33%)
Parkhai_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Steppe_Maykop+Tepe_Hissar_C, 2.2792, Sintashta_MLBA 3.33% Geoksyur_En 15% Steppe_Maykop 1.67% Tepe_Hissar_C 80%)
Parkhai_LBA_o: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Steppe_Maykop+Tepe_Hissar_C, 1.5229, Sintashta_MLBA 3.33% Geoksyur_En 32.5% Steppe_Maykop 22.5% Tepe_Hissar_C 41.67%)
Sumbar_LBA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Tepe_Hissar_C, 1.7158, Sintashta_MLBA 2.5% Tepe_Hissar_C 97.5%)
Dashti_Kozy_BA: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+MA1+IVCp, 0.6686, Sintashta_MLBA 83.33% Geoksyur_En 10% MA1 5.83% IVCp 0.83%)
Darra_i_Kur_MBA_low_res: (Sintashta_MLBA+Geoksyur_En+Afanasievo+IVCp, 6.5502, Sintashta_MLBA 14.17% Geoksyur_En 47.5% Afanasievo 10.83% IVCp 27.5%)

JuanRivera said...

And of Botai and Steppe_Maykop:

Steppe_Maykop: (Progress_En+Tyumen_HG+Geoksyur_En, 1.2051, Progress_En 45% Tyumen_HG 42.5% Geoksyur_En 12.5%)

Botai: (Tyumen_HG+Shamanka_N+Geoksyur_En+Sosonivoy_HG, 1.9979, Tyumen_HG 70% Shamanka_N 7.5% Geoksyur_En 3.33% Sosonivoy_HG 19.17%)

JuanRivera said...

Steppe_Maykop has significant Central Asian farmer admixture, while Botai has less of it but still has some. Vonyuchka_En and Progress_En don't have any of that admixture since Central Asian samples prefer MA1 as the extra ANE but Vonyuchka_En and Progress_En prefer AfontovaGora3 as the extra ANE. Notable is that populations with significant extra MA1 ancestry outside of the Iran-like component existed as late as the MBA. And, contrary to expectations, West Siberian and Baikal_EBA admixtures are irregular in Central Asia. Steppe_Maykop admixture is mostly confined to Eastern Europe and Western Siberia plus Kazakhstan, but it does show up in BA Turkmenistan.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

Thanks for correcting the link.

Don't worry, the radiocarbon dates will be out soon. Don't expect anything later than 2000bc as all the previous Ochre Coloured pottery artefacts have been carbon dated between 4000 and 2000bc. http://www.ijarch.org/Admin/Articles/4Aligarh%20&%20Hathras.pdf

Archi said...

Nonsense, the OCP culture has moved from the North-West to the Ganges, and the previous burials on the Ganges have nothing to do with the OCP. And there is nothing to fantasize about OCP in the Paleolithic. OCP is replaced by early Iron age cultures. The Indians always have astronomical size dates of Kali Yuga that no one considers scientific. Something similar to a two-wheeled cart was found at the end of the OCP culture.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

".It appears in the
light of the dates of Jhinjhana(TL date 2650 B.C.), Lal Quila, (TL date 2030 B.C.), AtranjikheraTL date
2680B.C.),
56Hulas (six calibrated carbon dates 3318B.C.,3231B.C.,3181B.C.,3159B.C.,3139B.C.,
2468B.C.)
57and Bhagwanpura[TL dates for early phase 4868(± - ±12% ) BP,4141(±12% - ±15%) BP,
5460(± - ±15%) BP,4696(±3% - ±17%) BP],
58that some of the sites of the so-called degenerate phase
predate the M.H., some of them run contemporary to it and some survive them."

All these are places were OCP was excavated. All the dates are using thermoluminescence (TL) on the OCP pottery.

Jhinjhana (thermoluminescense dated to 2650bc) is actually just 50 km north of Sanauli where the chariots were found along with the OCP pottery, coffins and weapons.


Archi said...

Thermoluminescent dating is uncalibrated, their accuracy is unknown. Distances don't matter.
Those early dates on the Upper Ganga are irrelevant to the OCP.

Most importantly, that cart was found at the end of the OCP and may be related to the IA BRW.

vAsiSTha said...

Yeah, the most elaborate warrior burial with the most elaborate and expensive coffin ever found in the region (with copper covering and intricate artwork, etc) along with weapons, dagger, shield, helmet - IS GOING TO BE BURIED NEXT TO 2 CHARIOTS, NOT 2 CARTS.

The OCP site called hulas with OCP has been carbon dated to around 3000bc, not using TL. This site is 90km from sinauli.

Niraj Rai is soon coming out with dna evidence of presence of horses in mature harappa, acc to his Jan tweet. Just give up already.

Archi said...

Don't talk nonsense, they're not chariots at all, they're just carts.

"Its wheels are solid and studded with
triangular pieces of copper
(Fig: 04). The light frame of the carriage has a curved chassis made of
rounded wood. In addition to the chassis being fixed to t
he covering of axel, there was a similar ‘U’
shaped wooden support for the carriage as shown in the figure above. A long shaft was fixed to the
chassis. Joint has been covered with thin copper plate"

This description is exactly the usual carts like Yamnaya cart. The chariots only had spoked wheels, that's its essence, and the carts were solid. How the chariot looked you can see in Fig. 11. Horses could not pull solid wheels.

No one will ever believe the pseudo-scientific speculations of the nationalists. I'm sane.

Davidski said...

Ah, OK, so spoked wheel chariots were invented in India, and Sintashta actually migrated from South Asia to Eastern Europe. Sintashta (aka modern) horses also came from India.

Thanks, it's all clear now.

JuanRivera said...

Here's a model of Levant_MLBA:

Levant_MLBA: (Hajji_Firuz_C+Levant_ISR_C+Levant_JOR_EBA+Kumtepe_N_low_res, 1.9609, Hajji_Firuz_C 36.67% Levant_ISR_C 43.33% Levant_JOR_EBA 14.17% Kumtepe_N_low_res 5.83%)

Models without Kumtepe_N_low_res admixture gave less fit than the models with it.

Archi said...

But all their evidence for the existence of chariots in India are based on the picture related to the 2nd century B.C.. Well, if the Indian chariot 2nd century B.C. came to Sintashta 21nd century B.C., then of course, India is the birthplace of elephants.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
You are a retard. "Horses can't pull solid wheels" hahahahaha

@davidski
Nice strawman

Archi said...

vAsiSTha said...
@archi
You are a retard.

Thank you, from the man who wrote only lies this lie is praise and a full acknowledgment of your delusions.

postneo said...

The Sanauli chariot has solid wheels but its profile is that of a light vehicle/chariot very different from the heavy 2 wheeled cart of rural India unchanged since IVC days. It's probably from btw 2100 to 1900.
Even though it's not spoked, it does not seem to be built for huge loads.

The spoked copper stud design is rather fancy for your average cart. No animal bones were found with it so It can't be confirmed what animal pulled it. Horse bones are being analyzed from IVC not Sanauli.

Nobody is claiming Sintashta chariots or Sanauli are connected. It needs to be analyzed independently without steppe-tard baggage. Its quite different

Matt said...

@postneo, in many ways that seems a fair summary of the content (although I don't know about "nobody suggests" and "steppetards"). Why did these people have a lightly built cart, what animal drew it and what was it for? Why was it buried with people?

Regarding the frame of the vehicle, my understanding from Chechushkov's big review (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-018-9124-0) is that it seems that the superstructures of the chariot basically don't survive (wooden construction) and they are estimating from wheel impressions and the dimensions of chariot burials. How much of the copper construction of the Sanauli vehicle survives? It seems like not very much.

(On a side note, totally off topic but came across this interesting presentation from Mary Bacharova on similarities between Vedic and Greek prayers and at least some of these motifs (probably relating to the sun and wheels) can be traced originally from a shared Mesopotamian origin -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpE61mrs_oA - reflecting a route of borrowing for prestige.

There's a cool note at 12:59 that it seems that the word for wagon in Sumerian, Semitic and Kartvelian was borrowed from the reconstructed proto-Indo-European word for wheel, which suggests that there was some interaction of these peoples at this time specifically around wheeled vehicle terminology (Though they don't borrow the actual word for wheel, just use it to produce a shared word form for wagon!) ).

Archi said...

The lightness of the cart frame is not essential, frames of yamna-catacomb carts were already light. http://annales.info/bronza/war/chariot4.jpg

mzp1 said...

Spoked Wheels and Chariots from 2000BC are a mute point given we already have a Chessboard and Swastika engraived dice from the IVC.

This is all somewhat amateur.

Anybody here think the Chessboard predates the spoked wheel chariot?

Davidski said...

@mzp1

Spoked Wheels and Chariots from 2000BC are a mute point given we already have a Chessboard and Swastika engraived dice from the IVC.

This is one of the comments of the year, but for all the wrong reasons.

a said...

@Archi what's your take on the PIE word for silver? Does it seem that Indo-Iranian,Celtic,Italic, Tocharian might have a common root connected with this precious metals?

JuanRivera said...

Armenian has it too.

mzp1 said...

The invention of chess is attributed to the Indians by the Iranians and occurs late in Iranian and Indian literature.

The swastika engraived dice are even more noteworthy. Both the swastika and gambling/chance games are part of IE culture. The swastikas association with luck in gambling seems specific to Indo Aryans.

Good luck trying to explain these away as some Witzelian 'indigenous', 'para-munda' Bmac/Ivc substrate. Lol.

How to prove the Kurgan theory.

Step 1: Figure out everything which is part of IE culture by looking at history and literature.

Step 2: Find out those things from 1 that match the Kurgan theory.

Step 3: Define *IE by removing everything from 1 not in 2.

Now you have *IE which differs from IE by the absence of planned cities, architecture, chess etc basically most aspects of civilized 'high-culture'. Tell everyone *IEs weres barbaric simpletons who managed to conquer more advanced civilization based of superior European genes, or simple horses and Chariots for the more politically correct audience.

JuanRivera said...

Turkic peoples managed to Turkify not only Iranic-speaking nomads but also Tocharian-speaking Xinjiang and Greek/Armenian-speaking Turkey, among others, despite being nomads themselves.

Archi said...

@a

PIE not knew silver content, for them this was simply white gold. It had the same name among the Aryans, the modern name of silver in Sanskrit came from Prakrit. Likely and the borrowing in Balto-Slavo-Germanic languages of the silver was of the same value of satem language like the Luwian language is close to PIE *gh'elto-bhelh2o- > *luw. sildabauro "gold shiny white."

JuanRivera said...

In fact, Turkified peoples weren't only Indo-Europeans, but also speakers of diverse Caucasian languages, Mongolic peoples, Tungusic peoples and even Yukaghirs. All of those were more numerically dominant, but nevertheless switched to Turkic, and the Turkic peoples who turkified them also left some genetic impact.

JuanRivera said...

And, as the case with PIE, some agricultural terms can be reconstructed in proto-Turkic.

zig zag said...

JuanRivera
Can you please write some turkic agricultural terms here? I am so curious to know some old words invented by a newly formed ethnic group like the turkic one.

Gaska said...

As far as I'm interested, the truth is that these last papers have made it clear that R1b-L51 has nothing to do with Asia and therefore there were no migrations of this lineage in any prehistoric era. This is further proof that it is not related to the Yamnaya culture and of course that it originates in Western/Central Europe. We are going to leave the fight in Asia for our R1a relatives who have a difficult mission not to succumb to the Asian hordes. Good luck because the discussion about the origin of R1b-L51 is a discussion among Europeans, the rest of the struggle (including the origin of the IE language) is a matter of facing different civilizations. Thank God we have the Basque language as proof that in Western Europe IE was never spoken until relatively recent times.

Archi said...

R1b1a1a originates of course in Eastern Europe, see Narva culture 6000 BC R1b1a1a.
The fact that he did not belong to the Proto-Indo-Europeans is another matter, BB switched to the Indo-European language already in Central Europe from the CW.

JuanRivera said...

Here are the proto-Turkic agricultural terms: *ügür 'millet', *burčak 'bean, pea', *darïg 'corn (in the old meaning; not maize)', *arpa 'barley', *bugday 'wheat', *urug 'seed', *ebin 'grain, (seed)', *(y)un 'flour', *sogan 'onion', *or- 'to reap, to harvest (a crop)', *orlag 'sickle', *kētmen 'hoe, mattock', *sa(r)pan 'plough', and *ek 'to sow'. Then there are Common Turkic *Konak 'millet', *tögi 'millet groats', *etmek 'bread', *yasmïk 'lentils', *turmak 'harrow', *kerki 'adze, mattock', and *Tarï 'to cultivate (ground)'. Source is pubman.mpdl.mpg.de › itemPDF Untitled - MPG.PuRe . I added the corn comment because of the semantic shift that happened after the European colonization of the Americas.

Gaska said...


@Archi

The Latvian hunter gatherers of the Narva culture are R1b-P297 and according to the last paper we have commented on Bohemia it is possible that the lineage extended over Central Europe through the Central-European Neolithic cultures. We'll see what happens. We are also waiting for the publication of this paper-"The Bell Beaker Complex in the Lech Valley: a Bioarchaeological Perspective"-Stockhammer et al, which can help us understand the genetic and cultural relationship between CWC and BBC

"The DNA analysis enables us to understand family relations within the burial sites as well as the transformation of the genomic patterns from the Corded Ware to the Bell Beaker Complex and further on to the Early Bronze Age. In the end, we are able to present a new narrative for the genesis as well as the end of the Bell Beaker Complex at least for the Lech Valley south of Augsburg"

Mitochondrial haplogroups from that region have already been studied in another paper published in 2017 and the researchers showed that more than 25% of individuals in BB culture were not from that region but were migrants of one or two generations. I believe that we are going to find many surprises and that the role of the CWC in this story is still to be defined (mainly due to the almost total absence of R1a in Western Europe).


JuanRivera said...

I can't find the Bohemia paper. Anyways, either way, let's hope it doesn't take as long as Rakhigarhi did.

Archi said...

There was never the CWC in Western Europe, it was all taken up by the BBC, so there is no R1a. Indo-Europeans did not penetrate Western Europe before the branches of the Urnfield culture, there were no Indo-Europeans in Western Europe. In Central Europe, during the late the CWC, BB spread along the boundaries of the CWC and mixed with it (resulting in the kentum languages). The first Indo-Europeans who penetrated into Western Europe from the Urnfield culture are Lusitanians and Italiсs, from the Hallstatt culture (Czech territory) - Celts.

JuanRivera said...

Speaking of Bohemia, I'm indeed finding a Narva-like signal in Copper Age Hungary (along with an Ukraine_N-like signal).

Gaska said...

@Archi

This time I have to absolutely agree on everything you've said, because I've been saying the same for a long time

@Juan

Bohemian paper has not yet been published, In any case I hope you don't like it because I don't think it's very favorable to the steppe theory

Gaska said...

what date does that Narva-like signal have in the Hungarian chalcolithic?

JuanRivera said...

I think that Narva-like signal can be linked with the dispersal of pottery from Eastern Europe. And surprisingly, SWE_TRB's HG ancestry is a mixture of Narva-like and WHG, with no SHG admixture.

JuanRivera said...

I used Baden_LCA, which is dated to 3120 BCE.

JuanRivera said...

I'm actually hoping for that paper to be released fast. In any case, we're missing samples from that area.

JuanRivera said...

Found the same Narva-like signal in Lengyel_LN, which is dated to 4650 BCE. No Ukraine_N-like signal was found though. Narva-like admixture seems typical of Northern, Baltic and Southeastern Europe.

zig zag said...

I can not see attested PIE words and their turkic parallels here. Write it properly, in the way everybody can compare.

like here:
I.A.S.T
пяна / piana/ -phena - foam फेन

беда/ beda/ -badha -trouble, pain aबाध

път /put,pat / -patha -way, road पथ

светлина, светъл / svetul/ -sveta -light, bright श्वेत

въпрос /vupros, vapros/ -vipraśna -question of fate विप्रश्न


Trying to associate Turkish with PIE is ridiculous, but you are free to continue...Even if you find something, this doesn't mean this is an original turkic word but a loan one. They convert so many tribes in muslim religion on their path so the original sources can be a lot too.

JuanRivera said...

I was pointing out how their histories are similar. Arabs can be added too, given that they were also nomads (desert nomads in this case) that Arabified people as far as Iberia and Central Asia

JuanRivera said...

Chukotko-Kamchatkan speakers show a similar mechanic, where Chukchi show a higher fraction of Paleosiberian mtDNAs A, C and D, whereas all the other peoples speaking the language group have lower fractions. In contrast, mtDNA G1b is present at low levels among the Chukchi and Y1 is absent, whereas in the others the two are the most frequent mtDNAs. Autosomally, the Chukchi are 33.33% Koryak, which supports the hypothesis that the original Chukchi were a minority and that they heavily assimilated other peoples (which is also mirrored in the Magadan_BA proportions of the Chukchi, which are less than a fourth of those of the Koryak).

Dave Ian said...

Check out the podcast by Dr Niraj Rai today where he says he has proven out of india theory and completely demolised AIT and AMT. and papers on indian horses and chariots from 2200 bc and proof about indian origin of r1a1 is coming before end of this year. You all have a few months to re calibrate your thoughts and speculations.

Dave Ian said...

Ask any neutral India friends of yours to translate the hindi parts, it will shock the living hell out of all of you.

Archi said...

Around the world, these freaks come in for any question, they shout a lot, but actually their words are empty hot air. Such people cannot be convinced by any facts, and they do not realize the pseudoscientific nature of their speculations and manipulations. Nothing will change especially when it comes to nationalism.

Gaska said...

Indian origin of R1a1???

Gaska said...


I hope they have done their job well, because some Y-calls from Narasimhan are a joke. Darra-i Kur-Afghanistan, was reported to be R-L151, causing the euphoria of some blind Kurganists and seems to be BT. Let's see what evidence Dr Niraj Rai have.

Gaska said...

I think Darra-I Kur is R2

AWood said...

@Samuel Andrews
Hammers were not used as weapons until the Middle Ages, let alone by the Norse. However, they were used as a tool, and their most obvious use was through blacksmithing. The placement of the hammer among Nordic pagans is purely ornamental and symbolic.

Archi said...

Darra-i Kur has a poor genome with low coverage contaminate it by archaeologists I1 & R1b. It cannot be taken into account at all.

EastPole said...

@Archi
“borrowing in Balto-Slavo-Germanic languages”

Archi, stop trolling, there are no such languages as Balto-Slavo-Germanic.
Balto-Slavic are grouped with Indo-Iranian and sometimes called Indo-Slavic.

In Narasimhan et al. paper they refer to D. Ringe, T. Warnow & A. Taylor 2002 ‘Indo-European and Computational Cladistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 100/1, 59–129.

https://i.postimg.cc/bJykYydv/screenshot-10.png

https://i.postimg.cc/nzfZqrqH/screenshot-11.png

https://www.academia.edu/38220415/Formation_of_the_Indo-European_Branches_in_the_light_of_the_Archaeogenetic_Revolution

AWood said...

@Gaska

Those aren't the droids you're looking for, although there was probably some mtDNA contribution from Narva and other HG Baltic people, the Y lines are a dead end. (my direct mtDNA line is in Baltic HG)

What the reality is that R1b-L51, or even R1b-L23 who led to L51 were a western steppe group of aggressive foragers who learned copper working from the Balkans from Cucuteni culture and then spread to central and western Europe. We see that they already had copper ornaments either through trade or raiding, but likely lacked the skillset and the resources on the steppes. Perhaps they took advantage of the plague ridden Cucuteni before learning what they could and moved west.

Anshuman said...

It's basically over .Rai clearly said that there is no chance he is ever looking towards AMT camp asks you guys to junk the Term Aryan..why..as he has lot of unpublished data which he will slowly reveal through his forthcoming papers.
Then Henis will show through his paper that R1a1 originated in India..whatever steppe ancestry came here was pretty late basically what they brought was some European HG part .
Even Narsimhan paper gives it away by saying Locals were already admixed when that so called steppe ancestry seems to have seeped in.Most of it came through Scythians Huns etc and some mixing due to trade.

Worst part which Language=Genes guy don't admit is that.. the IVC sample has little AHG and that completely destroys IVC=Dravidian link and put pays to any theory linking languages to genes

Archi said...

EastPole said...
Archi, stop trolling, there are no such languages as Balto-Slavo-Germanic.
Balto-Slavic are grouped with Indo-Iranian and sometimes called Indo-Slavic.

You are insolent, you is Troll, the Baltic-Slavic-Germanic group is considered by some linguists as genetic (see trees), in any case, it is closely related languages in which a lot of common innovations - read Porzig and etc.

In each of the languages of this grouping, this word was borrowed independently and in different forms, because in each of them this word is present in different irreducible variants.

Don't yell if you don't know anything.

Anshuman said...

The Thing which most people hide is this..Steppe=Iran Farmer(Cousin of IVC)+EHG with whatever extra garnishing people want to conjure .So IVC already would have a good number of mutations shared with Steppe.Statistics may be used to.take Steppe as a whole and hiding its components and thus serving certain biases but not for long.

Soon enough different modeling algorithms will come up which may concentrate on individual mutations to identify all ancestral populations that may be contributing to a particular genome and not some masks

Archi said...

@Anshuman said...
"It's basically over .Rai clearly said that there is no chance he is ever looking towards AMT camp asks you guys to junk the Term Aryan..why..as he has lot of unpublished data which he will slowly reveal through his forthcoming papers.
Then Henis will show through his paper that R1a1 originated in India..whatever steppe ancestry came here was pretty late basically what they brought was some European HG part .
Even Narsimhan paper gives it away by saying Locals were already admixed when that so called steppe ancestry seems to have seeped in.Most of it came through Scythians Huns etc and some mixing due to trade."

That is, to lie slowly in order to constantly excite the nationalists. This typical example, nothing has been published yet, there are no data yet, and the nationalists are already shouting about it as an accomplished fact.

mzp1 said...

@Dave Ian, where's the podcast link?

Davidski said...

@Anshuman

There's no "Iranian farmer" in the steppe. See here...

Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India

And by far the oldest R1a is from Eastern Europe. R1a finally showed up in Central Asia during the Bronze Age and then eventually moved into South Asia.

Map of pre-Corded Ware culture (>2900 BCE) instances of Y-haplogroup R1a

Dave Ian said...

Here it is gentlemen, the death bell for aryan invasion and migration theory. Rai jokes that soon it will called harappan invasion of the steppe theory. Happy meltdown all.

https://youtu.be/U__2851gcR4

Anshuman said...

David wait for it :)

Your blog will see lot of excitement in coming months as well as years.

Dave Ian said...

Rai says the indian r1a goes back to 15k BC and horse in rajasthan to 2230 BC. Blame it on nationalism now?? For those not familiar with Hindi, ask any neutral indian friends to do the translation of the hindi parts. I think he deliberately said the most key points in Hindi to keep you guys(non hindi speakers) in dark till the actual paper comes out by the end of this year.

EastPole said...

@Archi

Read modern staff like “The Indo-European languages” Thomas Olander 2018:

https://i.postimg.cc/mk4tbRjr/screenshot-12.png

https://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/roe_sommerskole/The_Indo-European_languages__RoESS_2018__-_slides.pdf

Olander uses Indo-Slavic term. This has nothing to do with Germanic.
This is now confirmed by genetics, read Narasimhan et al 2019:

“The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the unique features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.”

Gaska said...

@Awood said "What the reality is that R1b-L51, or even R1b-L23 who led to L51 were a western steppe group of aggressive foragers who learned copper working from the Balkans from Cucuteni culture and then spread to central and western Europe. We see that they already had copper ornaments either through trade or raiding, but likely lacked the skillset and the resources on the steppes. Perhaps they took advantage of the plague ridden Cucuteni before learning what they could and moved west"

Sometimes I think that imagination has no limits, in your case I think you only say it to provoke, because your knowledge of European chalcolithic is minimal. Stop fantasizing, because the ridicule the Kurganists are doing is going to reach sidereal proportions. It is not worth discussing such silly and simple arguments. And say hello to your friends of anthrogenica, they are so little interested in knowing the truth like you.

Dave Ian said...

@all here is the link to Dr Rai’s podcast from today

https://youtu.be/U__2851gcR4

Archi said...

@EastPole
You don't know what to write, since the 19th century, many linguists draw a tree as

https://i.postimg.cc/nLCXZZ0q/image.png
https://d3tixod1wp885b.cloudfront.net/66/400cd0887d11e3b8442531e7acd3f8/indoeuropean-language-family-tree.jpg

All because the Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic languages are very close, they formed a linguistic Union of close languages that influenced each other and shared common innovations in both grammar and words of cultural vocabulary.
This union is named Balto-Slavo-Germanic languages.
Now this Union can no longer be recognized as a genetic group of languages, but this association still remains and the name for it remains.
I didn't write it is "a group".

EastPole said...

Browncast Episode 66, ancient India and DNA with Vagheesh Narasimhan

https://www.brownpundits.com/2019/09/11/browncast-episode-66-ancient-india-and-dna-with-vagheesh-narasimhan/

vAsiSTha said...

"Check out the podcast by Dr Niraj Rai today where he says he has proven out of india theory and completely demolised AIT and AMT. and papers on indian horses and chariots from 2200 bc and proof about indian origin of r1a1 is coming before end of this year. You all have a few months to re calibrate your thoughts and speculations."

Horse dna from 2300bce binjor, rajasthan is very interesting. that along with the chariots makes the 1500bc steppe ancestry useless to the question of the first vedic ppl.

he further adds that there are a lot of samples for the post harappan period from all over the country, and the dude is going to be quite busy over the next few years piecing together the internal movements of people.

Rai is dating R1a from modern population, unsure how sound that is, or if there are improvements in the process of dating using this method.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

"There's no "Iranian farmer" in the steppe. See here...
Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India"

just pasting relevant bits from the Narsimhan paper

1. The final models show that Khvalynsk_EN can be modeled as a mixture of ~80% EEHG-related and ~20% ancestry related to early Iranian farmers.
2. A second observation is that the individuals from the EMBA are shifted “southward” on both the All Eurasian PCA and West Eurasian PCA toward Anatolian and Iranian farmer populations (7). This observation is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE plots which show additional ancestry components in teal and green in individuals from the western and central Steppe, suggesting that during the BA in contrast with the Neolithic, populations from across the Steppe were admixing with communities from the south.
3. From the HG period to the Eneolithic, we observe that the individuals from
Khvalynsk have an increase in ancestry related to that of Iranian farmers. From the Eneolithic into the BA, we observe that Yamnaya_Samara, Poltavka and Potapovka individuals are all genetically similar to each other and compared to the Eneolithic Khvalynsk individuals have additional ancestry related to both Iranian and Anatolian farmers.
4. In the central Steppe, we analyzed data from multiple locations across Kazakhstan: from the far west on the border with Russia, to Mereke, to Kumsay, to Dali in the southeast. When compared with the HGs from slightly north of Kazakhstan, and individuals from the Botai culture, we see that these individuals have increased allele sharing with Iranian farmers, as reflected in their shift toward the south on both PCA plots and the presence of a green component on the ADMIXTURE plot that is absent in the previous time period. This suggests that peoples of the central Steppe—like those of the western Steppe—experienced
gene flow from agricultural communities from the south.

stopping here, but this can go on & on. I cant analyze all this like others here can, but just putting it out there. Outright rejecting any role of iran farmer related ancestry seems foolhardy and biased to me.

Archi said...

aHahaha means they can't test human aDNA from India 2300BC, but they can test horse aDNA. What noodles on ears.
Rumors from a man that cannot be trusted to discuss it is useless and pointless.

@vAsiSTha You're replacing Paleolithic Caucasus CHG to Neolithic Iran, which is illegal and just a fake.

JuanRivera said...

Piedmont (Vonyuchka and Progress) are the cause of the CHG shift. Also, let's not forget that Sredny_Stog_II and the Dereivka samples show increased relatedness to CHG than the preceding Ukrainian HGs and farmers. And that CHG already shows up autosomally in EHGs as old as Sidelkino and in Ukrainian HGs both Mesolithic and Neolithic, which explains why both HG groups don't perfectly model as WHG+AfontovaGora3 (and which also correlates with Y-DNA J found in EHG samples).

JuanRivera said...

I would suggest for @Archi toning down a bit, as he already jumped at pretty much everyone else (including me) in the thread, and that doesn't pay off nicely to put it nicely.

Archi said...

@JuanRivera @all It is necessary to write not Sredny_Stog_II, but Alexandria, not Dereivka, but Dereivka I - this is a very important distinctions. Because Dereivka means Dereivka II, and has no relation to the Dereivka I. This sample of Alexandria has nothing to do with the Sredny Stog II.

JuanRivera said...

As for the reason I mentioned CHG and not Iran_N is because the latter doesn't fit as good as the former (because Iran_N has too much MA1-like ANE and too little Dzudzuana). Though, one graph in one post at this blog does show some Iran_N admixture in EHG.

JuanRivera said...

Quite interestingly, all the BA Hovsgol samples have both Afanasievo and Sintashta admixtures. Given that Afanasievo burials are known in Mongolia (per the Jeong paper), it gives even more support to the notion that Afanasievo people traveled all the way to the Uda river (the Russian Far East one) valley (and then all the way to Kamchatka, with heavy admixture from the locals) via the steppe instead of staying put in the Altai. What minimized Afanasievo impact in the Eastern Steppe was that it's drier than the Western Steppe, so it couldn't support either enough farming or enough pastoralism, leaving them esentially HGs in wagons outnumbered by local HGs and river farmers. And then wagons don't work well in forests (especially when it has permafrost), which explains the absence or trace amounts of Afanasievo admixture in populations of the maritime and parts north of the Stanovoy range of the Far East.

JuanRivera said...

An exception for that are Yakuts, who are however a relatively recent arrival from the south.

JuanRivera said...

On another note, it's great that there are people of very different perspectives in the thread

Archi said...

I have already said that the text of Narasimhan et al. very biased, throughout the text he never analyzes using CHG, even on this largely unstated, but it is the most ancient samples.

ADMIXTURE and tests are bad. No analysis of gene flows has been made, but elementary analysis of D-statistics shows an increase EHG in Iran coinciding with the spread of wagons.

Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_N -0.026170984 -6.02495 0.0043438
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_LN -0.026942417 -5.41436 0.0049761
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_ChL -0.009127401 -2.64254 0.0034540
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_recent 0.001469850 0.31987 0.0045951
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_LN Iran_N -0.002434149 -0.45196 0.0053857
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_ChL Iran_N -0.016854386 -4.58599 0.0036752
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_ChL Iran_LN -0.014073125 -3.23540 0.0043497
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_N Iran_recent 0.030702635 6.36914 0.0048205
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_LN Iran_recent 0.029722712 5.30181 0.0056061
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_ChL Iran_recent 0.014083963 3.47870 0.0040486

In general, their text should be filtered for bias.

Leron said...

Even if IVC invaded the steppe it would have never carried Indo-European. Logically IE was attested in Anatolia earlier than Southeast Asia.

Dave Ian said...

@leron thats based on an assumption that the rig veda is from post 1500 BC. He’s trying to push that date back. He mentions that in the video as well.

Archi said...

It is perfectly clear that CHG is much closer to Yamnaya than Iranian farmers. Therefore, the use of Iranian farmers in the text about Yamnaya creates a false impression.

Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_N -0.032651761 -9.90778 0.0032956
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_LN -0.030051322 -7.87958 0.0038138
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_HotuIIIb -0.026203181 -4.69495 0.005581
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_ChL -0.017181072 -6.51740 0.0026362
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_recent -0.009159683 -2.52353 0.0036297
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_N -0.031994772 -8.71378 0.0036717
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_LN -0.031571172 -7.70066 0.0040998
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_HotuIIIb -0.023053164 -3.97537 0.0057
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_ChL -0.018901638 -6.61262 0.0028584
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_recent -0.007807957 -2.03964 0.0038281

Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_HotuIIIb -0.009323583 -1.86785 0.0049916
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_LN -0.009754644 -2.87556 0.0033923
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_N -0.016487468 -5.59159 0.0029486
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_recent 0.009338622 2.91241 0.0032065
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_ChL 0.009323583 1.86785 0.0049916
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_HotuIIIb 0.000000000 0.00000 1.0000
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_LN 0.001218970 0.16482 0.0073956
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_N -0.010709445 -1.79306 0.0059727
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_recent 0.017117877 2.54461 0.006727
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_LN Iran_N -0.007067214 -1.67005 0.0042317
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_LN Iran_recent 0.017324644 3.73795 0.0046348
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_N Iran_recent 0.024059571 6.02428 0.0039938
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_recent Iran_N -0.024059571 -6.02428 0.0039938
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_HotuIIIb -0.005512973 -1.05687 0.00521
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_LN -0.011225659 -3.10282 0.0036179
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_N -0.012707461 -3.90331 0.0032556
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_recent 0.012538626 3.79766 0.0033017
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_LN -0.013180332 -1.72185 0.00765
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_N -0.014033094 -2.22286 0.00631
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_recent 0.014916956 2.14297 0.0069
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_LN Iran_HotuIIIb 0.013180332 1.72185 0.00765
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_LN Iran_N -0.002245723 -0.48906 0.0045919
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_LN Iran_recent 0.022585938 4.70698 0.0047984
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_N Iran_recent 0.024235606 5.81438 0.0041682

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera “I think that Narva-like signal can be linked with the dispersal of pottery from Eastern Europe. And surprisingly, SWE_TRB's HG ancestry is a mixture of Narva-like and WHG, with no SHG admixture.”

What happened to SHG? Why did they go extinct?

Does Progress_EN and Vonyuchka_EN preferring AG3 to MA1 indicate that PIE arose with CHG tribes instead of EHG ones?

Larth Ulthes said...

@ Gaska

In the abstract of the Bohemian paper the authors state that the signal is from Lithuanian Narva culture, not the Latvian one.

Karl_K said...

@Archi

"aHahaha means they can't test human aDNA from India 2300BC, but they can test horse aDNA. What noodles on ears."

Horses have much larger and more solid bones than humans. That probably has a huge difference in degradation of DNA.

Davidski said...

It's probably just an Indian wild ass.

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

Matt said...

Quick attempt to project the Indus_Periphery samples that Davidski couldn't get onto West Eurasia 9 onto there:

Images: https://i.imgur.com/Yrl4bZq.png (Black Diamond = Rakhigarhi, Black Stars = Indus Periphery; projected)
Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/QCsqmeBi

(Procedure, take first two PC of Narasimhan online PCA, take Davidski's 9 dimensions, predict from crossover samples present on both using only Indus_Periphery samples)

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 536 of 536   Newer› Newest»