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:

1 – 200 of 536   Newer›   Newest»
Sofia Aurora said...

@Davidski

David is it going to worth the effort or is it going to have the "same old, same old" cliche on the Indus civilization?

Carlos Aramayo said...


Of course David has his own view about it, and maybe he will comment later on, but to me it would be a very surprising presentation, and be sure it will not be based on "old cliches", and has the potential to even change the way genetical research was going to until now.

epoch said...

@carlos aramayo

Wow. That sounds promising. This is in cooperation with Reich labs, right?

Carlos Aramayo said...

@epoch

Yes, David Reich's team is in it, toguether with qualified Indian researchers, two of which are Niraj Rai and Vageesh Narasimhan himself.

Gaska said...

Gracias Carlos. In any case, I would not have much confidence in the conclusions they may have drawn at Harvard, at least in relation to Iberia they have been absolutely biased. In fact, what Reich has done about Europe is to promote the old cliches (Gimbutas etc), we will see what conclusions he has drawn in Asia.

EastPole said...

An article about this paper:

https://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2019.121

Carlos Aramayo said...


Gracias a ti Gaska, todo dependerá de las interpretaciones posteriores. Everything will depend on future interpretations and later analysis by the rest of the academic community, as hard data will be in the hands of them to check.

epoch said...

@Eastpole

O, that is pretty interesting:

"The analysis by Reich and colleagues also shows that the Iranian-related lineage present in the Indus Valley people split from the natives of Zagros Mountains in Iran before 8000 BCE. This is before crop farming began there around 7000–6000 BCE."

Carlos Aramayo said...

If I'm not wrong, this is the link in which the paper will be placed in two or three hours from now:

https://www.cell.com/cell/newarticles

raj said...

'An ancient Harappan genome lacks ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or Iranian farmers.' Kind of disappointing if only one sample was salvagable

Richard Rocca said...

Gaska, leaks about the upcoming ancient DNA papers from Italy and Switzerland show that there was no M269 nor steppe ancestry before the Early Bronze Age. Add that to the large amounts from Britain, Iberia, Germany etc. That both came to Western Europe during the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age from the steppe is the only logical conclusion and non-biased persons can make. Anything different is not fact based and wishful thinking.

epoch said...

@raj

I think the paper isn't at all that interesting with regard to IE. That is already a done deal with the R1a1a from Sredny Stog. If Eastpole's article is right this paper will be surprising in that it shows how agriculture spread to India. Not by migration.

The method how they established will be pretty interesting.

vahaduo said...

West Eurasia PCA is now online @ https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/

@ Davidski
UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA:MJ08 has no group added in the .dat file and all coordinates are shifted by one column.

music lover said...

The Central and South Asia paper is also coming out in Science in two hours. YUM!

epoch said...

@music lover

So they cooperated to publish it all together. How very nice.

music lover said...

its the same team!

Matt said...

Let's see what "Shinde, V. et al. An ancient Harappan genome lacks ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or Iranian farmers. Cell. 179, 1-7 (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.048", really proves to mean.

Two options: Essentially 'ASI' (or almost) / 'Indus_Periphery like levels of Southern West Eurasian but somehow evolving separately'? Lacking ancestry in a strong sense (little 'West Eurasian' ancestry, and that which they have splits from Iran_N), or in a weaker sense (lots of 'West Eurasian' ancestry but it's somehow distinguishable from Iran_N).

The former seems more probable to me on the basis of what we know (simpler, as helps explain population structure without a fairly massive late admixture introgression event). But who knows?

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca said- "Gaska, leaks about the upcoming ancient DNA papers from Italy and Switzerland show that there was no M269 nor steppe ancestry before the Early Bronze Age. Add that to the large amounts from Britain, Iberia, Germany etc. That both came to Western Europe during the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age from the steppe is the only logical conclusion and non-biased persons can make. Anything different is not fact based and wishful thinking"

The truth is that you never stop surprising me (non-biased persons?????). I really want to read the papers of Italy and Switzerland, and I also really want to see the moment when you finally find our ancestors in the steppes, because so far that is a fantasy. You had to change your thinking and give up looking for R1b-L51 in the steppes, accept that the Eastern Bell Beakers do not descend from Yamnaya or any of its subcultures but from the central European BBs, accept that violent conquests or massive invasions from the steppes never occurred, accept that Df27 did not speak an IE language, and finally you had to hide L51/P312 in the SGC resuscitating the old and discredited Dutch model. And now let's see what happens with U152 and the Etruscans (Do You think U152 spoke IE?)

I have told you many times, the BB culture originated in Iberia, there were Iberian migrations related to this culture (as the last Sicily's paper has shown - At some point you will have to recognize that I was right), P312 originated in The Franco-Cantabrian region and L51 is western (France, Germany).

It doesn't come from the steppes and if so, why don't you provide the evidence and end the discussion?

Would you be so kind as to tell us in which steppe culture do the Kurganists think that L51 / P312 is hidden?

What do you think of Vk531 in Norway without a drop of blood from the steppes (BB culture, 2,400 BC)

We'll see how this whole story is over Richard, I wouldn't answer you if I didn't think your opinion deserves to be taken into account, but I can't understand how you can accept as trip companions the admins trolls of anthrogenica and the gang of stalkers that surround them .who have never been interested in knowing the truth.

In any case I still hope to see you in Ibiza, although I hope that sooner or later you will apologize for the behavior of your anthrogenica friends



Davidski said...

@vahaduo

Nice catch!

By the way, here's another PCA. Three versions would be good for this one, based on PCs 1&2, 1&3 and 1&5.

G25_Africa_scaled

Andrzejewski said...

By “Iranian signal” do they mean 65% Dzudzuana 35% ANE as in Iran_N?

Carlos Aramayo said...

The paper on Rakhigarhi was uploaded here a few minutes ago:

https://tinyurl.com/y33newbf

natsunoame said...

So they have made a radical conclusions about some of the most important historical events based on one sample!? So professional, I'm speachless...

Davidski said...

@natsunoame

Obviously not.

They used many samples, including twelve from the IVC cline, because they come from the same gene pool.

Archi said...

That was to be expected that this article has nothing to expect.
The main thing that it did was to close questions in the absence belong to Harappa to the Indo-Europeans even to the skeptics - proponents OIT. K.O.

Dude Manbro said...

The Darra-i-Kur Cave sample from Afghanistan 2850-2460 BCE is labeled as R1b1a1a2a1a in the spreadsheet. I believe it was R-U106 in the original pre-print, but it is now R-L151.

I think most of us expected this to not even be an actual R1b sample when the pre-print came out with so many errors, much less be R-L151.

Leron said...

Nothing earth-shattering, but confirms more of what we already knew or suspected. The Sumerians described IVC people (Meluhhans) as black skinned, so they were quite different from the typical West Asian phenotype, even than the darker southern Bedouin type. This also supports that Dravidians are the closest descendants to the IVC while the Burusho are more closely linked to the BMAC.

Furthermore, I'm intrigued about a secondary expansion from the Transcaucaus to the BMAC area during the Bronze Age. The traditional belief is Steppe carrying Indo-Aryans conquering the Hurrians to form the Mitanni. But what if it was the other way around, some Hurrian people in north Iran conquering an Indo-Aryan influenced BMAC periphery, and borrowing the chariot and some proto-Vedic terminology and then taking it to the Near East. This would explain why the few Indo-Aryan enumerated from the Mitanni texts were last in order, a place usually reserved for lesser deities and those gods from conquered cities.

Dude Manbro said...

We have two Y-DNA I2a2a1b1b1 samples in the Swat Valley 1000-800 BCE too. R1a1a1b at 1044-922 BCE in the Swat samples too.

Lee said...

unfortunately this paper is not very useful for much. A single sample from the IVC is really too thin to make any sort of conclusions. Even the origin of these peoples. As far a we can tell this person was from Turan and was not local or representative of the local people. This was a long wait for very little return. Oh well

Lvciano said...

@Gaska

How do you explain the great frequency of u152 ( p312 branch ) along Bashkir peoples and other Russian ethnicities like Ugric Mansi? Are these recent introductions, or reflexes of an old origin of these lineagens in PIE territory?

Archi said...

Out-of-India is dead. Game over.

Davidski said...

@Lee

As far a we can tell this person was from Turan and was not local or representative of the local people.

How much would you actually bet on this?

Archi said...

Also this article is another pegs in the coffins of Anatolian and Armenian hypotheses.

Richard Rocca said...

Dude Manbro, where are you seeing the spreadsheet with Y-haplogroup assignments?

Matt said...

Somewhat nonplussed by this paper; Rakhigarhi I6113 both fits on their Fig 2B PC as 2/3rds down the "IVC" cline, yet close to the maximum of "Indus Periphery West related" ancestry in Fig2C...

Hard to get how both could be the case? When other samples show a fairly linear correlation in position on the PC and "AHG" ancestry...

See: https://imgur.com/a/LQeXlKT (with the equivalent figure 4 from Narasimhan's paper for comparison).

If you take it seriously, the PCA still implies that present day people are somehow specifically BMAC shifted on Fig2B PCA relative to Rakhigarhi though, somehow while being more AHG-related as well...?

I was expecting one thing or the other - either I6113 would be shifted towards AHG and away from BMAC (as implied by comparisons to Irula!), or shifted towards BMAC and away from AHG (as you would be expected from the average of the Indus_Diaspora).

But it seems, taking this at face value, somehow she is shifted away from BMAC on PCA in the direction of the end of the South Asia cline while shifted away from AHG when plonked into Narasimhan's model?

The graphical abstract is also pretty confusing - it seems to be implying that "Iranian Herder" (what we've call Zagros farmer) orange is from to 50-98% in the IVC cline, but the image actually shows in its bar plot the IVC cline varying from 50-98% pink Andamanese hunter gatherer related... (How have they got such a basic thing backwards?). And what is the pointer labelled I6113 about?

Dude Manbro said...

@ Rocca,

Download tables S1-S5 here.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/09/04/365.6457.eaat7487.DC1

Dave Ian said...

Quite the contrary.. the case is now building even better with even the iranian agriculturalists out of the picture as per this paper.

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Lee

Shinde et al (2019) shows much more genetical influence from Indus to BMAC than the other way around, and this can be confirmed by other archaeological studies like those of Dennyz Frenez which attest Indus traders moving to Gonur, as seals depicting "Indian" elephants, and even ivory could have moved from South Asia to Turan, at least in middle and later phases of "Mature" Harappan times. So, this influence is not attested only by genetics but also supported by archaeology.

Dave Ian said...

Please pardon my one amaterish question here- does this indicate that both ASI and Iranian agriculturalists were not key in formation of ivc?

Lee said...

@Davidski

How much would I bet? depends on the odds you would give me :)

I also find the "split" time calcs they did--with such a degraded sample to be highly suspicious.

The paper is basically cr@p. They may be correct but the supporting data is very weak in this paper. It absolutely should have been rejected by competent reviewers.

epoch said...

@natsunoame

"So they have made a radical conclusions about some of the most important historical events based on one sample!? So professional, I'm speachless..."

It comes as no surprise that you didn't read the actual paper.

Davidski said...

@Lee

How much would I bet? depends on the odds you would give me.

The chances that this individual is a migrant from Turan are zero. You know this as well as I do.

This is this impossible in the context of the data from Narasimhan et al. 2018/2019.

And you also know as well as I do that more samples from the IVC will back this up.

Gaska said...

@Luciano said-Gaska-How do you explain the great frequency of u152 ( p312 branch ) along Bashkir peoples and other Russian ethnicities like Ugric Mansi? Are these recent introductions, or reflexes of an old origin of these lineagens in PIE territory?


According to your opinion what is the PIE territory?

In any case, my opinion is that if U152 has an oriental origin, I am a Martian. At the moment U152 is German

JuanRivera said...

Curious that Dai are being shown as a sister lineage to AASI.

Al Bundy said...

@Davidski Narasimhan out too, you'll be very busy.

JuanRivera said...

That begs the question as how much Hoabinhian the Dai have.

Samuel Andrews said...

This is how I think Indo European expansion should be broken down.

1: Eastern Europe: 4000 BC.
2: Central Europe & Western Europe: 2800-2000 BC.
3: Central & South Asia: 1800-1500 BC.

1: Proto Indo European. 4000 BC.
2: Late Proto Indo European. 2800-2000 BC.
3: Indo Iranian. 1800-1500 BC.

1: Khavlansky & Srendy Stog.
2: Corded Ware & Bell beaker.
3: Andronovo.

Archi said...

@all

https://scholar.harvard.edu/vagheesh/centralsouthasia
The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia

Dave Ian said...

We also provide an independent line of evidence from Genetics, to support existing archaeological evidence, to suggest that there was substantial migration of people from The Harappan civilization into Eastern Iran and Central Asia.

Niraj Rai, on Twitter.

Ait/amt is hence dead. The era of OIT begins!

Aniasi said...

This is really fascinating. This information means a rewrite of our understanding of pre-IE South Asia. It looks like there was already a Hunter Gatherer cline, and that the present Iranian-related and SE Asia-related components arrived later. I would be interested in seeing if we can figure out what the original HG population of the region looked like.

It also raises some questions on the origin of the Dravidian languages, and structure of ASI and AASI.

@Davidski, any thoughts on these points?

Samuel Andrews said...

Indo Europeans didn't become bronze weilding, chariot riding people until the 3rd phase of Indo European expansion in 1800-1500 BC.

There's a misconception Indo European success was driven by bronze, horses, and chariots. The 2nd phase of Indo European expansion which conquered basically all of Europe involved NO bronze and NO chariots.

Dude Manbro said...

@Dave Ian

I don't remember seeing this Harappan ancestry entering the European gene pool in Bronze/Iron Age, but we are seeing Steppe ancestry enter South Asian during that time period so...

Samuel Andrews said...

I get angry at Polish-centric/Slavic centric posters a lot. But, generally they are right when they say Eastern & Northern Europe was impacted by Indo Europeans most heavily.

They are right when they then say therefore ancient Slavic & Norse mythology should have closer links to Indo European religion than Hinduism or Greek mythology.

Indo Euroepan studies focus on Hittites, Greeks, and India. But, Indo Europeans had much bigger impact on Europe (outside of southeast Europe). However, when Europeans began to write it was 3,000 years after the Indo European expansion & quickly Europe became Christian and changed its social organization in many ways.

Leron said...

@Aniasi

One single sample doesn't mean the entirety of South Asia was devoid of Iran or SEA like groups. It just focuses on a certain area, probably the main IVC core that was mostly native hunter gatherers. It's still possible the elite may have been different genetically from the main population.

Archi said...

Dave Ian said...
"
We also provide an independent line of evidence from Genetics, to support existing archaeological evidence, to suggest that there was substantial migration of people from The Harappan civilization into Eastern Iran and Central Asia.

Niraj Rai, on Twitter.

Ait/amt is hence dead. The era of OIT begins!
"

))))) This is pure trolling. White is black, Black is white.

Davidski said...

@Dave Ian

This is from the Harappan paper...

However, a natural route for Indo-European languages to have spread into South Asia is from Eastern Europe via Central Asia in the first half of the 2 nd millennium BCE, a chain of transmission that did occur as has been documented in detail with ancient DNA. The fact that the Steppe pastoralist ancestry in South Asia matches that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe (but not Western Europe [de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018; Narasimhan et al., 2019]) provides additional evidence for this theory, as it elegantly explains the shared distinctive features of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages (Ringe et al., 2002).

Page 6 of the PDF.

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

natsunoame said...

Or may be I know something more than you and the exact connection brought the agriculture in India.
There are clear language parallels with weapons, instruments and metals, terminology, prototypes of these tools which connect India with Europe,a lot of historical evidence /Philostratus, Euripides, Higinis, Cicero, Seneca, Apolodor, Ovid, Arian, Pliny, Strabo.../ about such a gurney to India.

Dude Manbro said...

@Dave Ian,

They are not making that claim. You are.

From literally the first page of the paper:

"We reveal a parallel series of events leading to the spread of Steppe ancestry to South Asia,there by documenting movements of people that were likely conduits for the spread of Indo-European languages."

It's like we are all looking at a picture of a "6", but you are somehow seeing a "9".

Chad said...

Only 31k SNPs. Gonna have to wait for the next set of Harappan genomes. Anyway, there is evidence of agriculture in Ganj Dareh as early as 8300BCE with two-row barley. Definitely before 7000BCE. No guarantee they aren't mostly from the Zagros region.

Dave Ian said...

I must protest, how’s that trolling, its a logical expression to rai’s statements on Twitter.

Dave Ian said...

One step at a time. That will go too. Read Rai’s tweets that he made few minutes ago.

Dave Ian said...

Apologies for early conclusions , but , its very contradictory with Rai’s tweets. To me it seems people moved out of IVC to central asia, mixed there with steppe people and came back to india?
Wont comment any further and observe how things unfold.

JuanRivera said...

The Dai barely have Hoabinhian ancestry (all the rest is Han-related), so I wonder how the study recovered them as sister lineage to AASI.

Amith Bhat said...

"We also provide an independent line of evidence from Genetics, to support existing archaeological evidence, to suggest that there was substantial migration of people from The Harappan civilization into Eastern Iran and Central Asia.

Niraj Rai, on Twitter.

Ait/amt is hence dead. The era of OIT begins!"

@Dave Ian,

You have missed the earlier tweet about Jiroft culture (represented by Shahr-i-Sokhta) and Oxus (Gonur). This was known for quite some time.

It is wholly consistent with a Steppe MLBA movement into the subcontinent via the BMAC.

Dude Manbro said...

@Dave Ian

His tweet says nothing about Indo-European migrations coming from South Asia. Just because he says Harappan related ancestry flowed to Iran and Central Asia, you are somehow equating that with the spread of IE. This Harappan ancestry is not found in IE speakers from Europe, but Steppe ancestry is found in both European and South Asian IE speakers.

The paper even says IE languages likely flowed the opposite way of what you are inferring from the tweet. Come on, mate, quit taking the piss.

Leron said...

@JuanRivera

AASI is probably being envisioned as a sister to the East Eurasian clade, with Dai as a modern EE stand-in.

Davidski said...

@All

OK, so the oldest R1a in South Asia now is this one...

Loebanr_IA I12457, 1044-922 calBCE

And the once Chalcolithic R1b-Z2103 from Hajji Firuz is now an Iron Age R1b-Z2103. Haha!

Hajji_Firuz_IA I2327, 1193-1019 calBCE

More info here...

Narasimhan et al. Tables S1 to S5

It'll be interesting to see if the R1a is the Indo-Aryan L657+.

Dave Ian said...

But this is what is tweet says
'' Harappan Civilization was a more powerful civilization than was previously admitted in academia, considering that we found influence was higher from Sindhu-Sarasvati area to the Jiroft Culture of Iran & to the Oxus Civilization of Central Asia than the other way around.

I didnt miss it.

JuanRivera said...

The native HGs of India may have spoken Austroasiatic, considering that the Santhal have even more AASI than even the Irula, plus the Irula have almost double the percentage of IVCp (37.5% IVCp in the Irula, compared to 20.83% in the Santhal) and the Burusho are 60.88% IVCp).

EastPole said...


From Narasimhan et al.paper:

"Our results not only provide evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia but also evidence for the theory that these languages spread from the
Steppe. Although ancient DNA has documented westward movements of Steppe pastoralist ancestry providing a likely conduit for the spread of many Indo-European languages to Europe (7, 8), the chain of transmission into South Asia has been unclear because of a lack of relevant ancient DNA. Our observation of the spread of Central_Steppe_MLBA ancestry into South Asia in the first half of the second millennium BCE provides this evidence, which is particularly notable because it provides a plausible genetic explanation for the linguistic similarities between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian subfamilies of Indo-European languages, which despite their vast geographic separation share the “satem” innovation and “ruki” sound laws (62)".

Archi said...

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.

But data are wonderful, they show that in Pakistan the early Iron Age (Iron Age at this time more conventionally, there are the graves still there is no iron things) are Indo-Aryans.

I12457 Grave 65, Individual 2 (A) in a double burial , 594 Pakistan 1044-922 calBCE (2830±20 BP, PSUAMS-5280) M R1a1a1b W3a1 SPGT Loebanr_IA Swat Valley, Loebanr

I12450 Grave unrecorded (25?), Individual 1/?, ID 3542, 587 Pakistan 824-792 calBCE (2630±20 BP, PSUAMS-5279) M R1a1a1 M3a2 SPGT Butkara_IA Swat Valley, Butkara II

Amith Bhat said...

Indeed. Jiroft and Oxus are close to IVC and the time period is prior to the Steppe movement into the South.Andronovo folk moved into Zeravshan, Gonur later on. This study has covered all these aspects. It is not suggestive of an Out of India movement.

Matt said...

Chad: Only 31k SNPs. Gonna have to wait for the next set of Harappan genomes.

Damn, that's low.

There don't seem to be any direct D/f4-stats in Shinde's paper, and instead they've gone straight to Narasimhan's model, without any information about model fit. Lack of direct stats seems very shabby.

Not even at least a f4(Mbuti,Onge;X,Ust_Ishim) / f4(Mbuti,Onge;X,Iran_N stat). That would at least begin to resolve the conflicting sign in Fig2 between their PCA projection and what they do with Narasimhan's model (one suggests far from IranN, the other suggests high levels of IranN related ancestry).

Enough for this to be estimated by anyone else?

(And what has become of I4411, the sample which they were originally discussed publishing, with its Irula affinities?)

Drago said...

Does this mean that the earliest phase of Vedas were written in Turan ?

JuanRivera said...

Some of the oldest mtDNA lineages in India are also found more commonly towards the East. Also, the Jehai, Maniq, Shompen and Nicobarese also speak Austroasiatic. However worth noting is that most of the SE Asian Austroasiatic speakers are genetically mostly Han-related, plus the thing before may not have relevance.

Anthony Hanken said...

Two particularly interesting samples for me.
Kurgan 1, Burial 2 (I11735): Date of 2462-2299 calBCE (3885 ± 20 BP, PSUAMS-4901).
• Kurgan 1, Burial 10 (I11737): Dateof 2195-2032 calBCE (3710 ± 20 BP, PSUAMS-4902).

Both are male with Y haplo N1a and belong to the Poltavka culture (Merke MBA).
Depending on their subclade there may be implications for early Uralic.

Dave Ian said...

@dude manbro, its only but a sign of weak people to get aggressive when confronted with stuff they cant handle. As i said, this is the first nail, wait for more papers to follow after this.

They have event tomorrow in Delhi to discuss in detail the findings of this paper.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

Two particularly interesting samples for me.
Kurgan 1, Burial 2 (I11735): Date of 2462-2299 calBCE (3885 ± 20 BP, PSUAMS-4901).
Kurgan 1, Burial 10 (I11737): Dateof 2195-2032 calBCE (3710 ± 20 BP, PSUAMS-4902).

Both are male with Y haplo N1a and belong to the Poltavka culture (Merke MBA). Depending on their subclade there may be implications for early Uralic.


That's awesome!

Archi said...

What is
Darra.I.Kur Afghanistan 2850-2460 calBCE (3989±31 BP, OxA-31781) M R1b1a1a2a1a H2a Darra_i_kur_MBA Darra_i_kur_MBA Darra-i-Kur Cave Iran / Turan
?

Lee said...

@ Carlos Aramayo @Davidski

I have little doubt that the IVC was very strong civilization. It obviously spanned a very large area. It had trade with ME and Eygpt and probably China(though that is more tenous)

The data is starting to look fairly convincing that they were NOT steppe related (that came later)

It also is possible that they had ancestry similar to the HG in the Zargo mountains. The CHG-like genetics were spread pretty widely-eastern euroupe-Iranian plataue, South Central asia.

When did this ancestry move into the area (Indus Valley and further south? Not certain-long ago enough that it is pretty ubiquitous. But that does not necessarily take very long to happen as we can see from what happened in Western Europe.

It is clear that some people in IVC, at least one person, had ancestry from HG from India and CHG-like peoples. but was this a mixing taking place in the periphery or was it already present? We definitely see people like that in the periphery areas. How widespread was the CHG-like HG-India mix? was it 100% of IVC peoples or 10%?

I don't know. The data at this point can't tell us. One sample in IVC itself is not enough to see how representative the periphereal samples and the one IVC sample are of the population as a whole.

Lee

Dave Ian said...

@Drago, i believe speculation isnt allowed here beyond an extent, but the earliest parts of the rig veda has references to ganga and yamuna, so how can it be written in turan.

Drago said...

Davidski c/ Hanken

“Both are male with Y haplo N1a and belong to the Poltavka culture (Merke MBA).
Depending on their subclade there may be implications for early Uralic.”

I bet Abasevo will have Hg N too

NB
I trust Slumbery is enjoying his humble pie

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.”

I don’t agree with you. It is a very good paper. They are honest and true. They explain the linguistic and cultural links between Indo-Iranians and Balto-Slavs by common origin from Corded Ware:

https://i.postimg.cc/3NMqkgpc/Narasimhan.jpg

Matt said...

Re; Narasimhan 2019 paper, I guess I'm still in the same mode as I was before on this - I don't really believe that they've shown that the samples aren't admixed with locals from Turan, and to be honest, academia has bad form on this after the Afanasievo -> Shirenzigou and other such debacles of missing Anatolian ancestry through inflation of West Siberia N and other such things. It will have to await proper Harappa samples, and a better quality paper than Shinde seems to have given us.

But Narasimhan have elucidated their sex-bias model for South Asia in the supplement on S5.11. Essentially present day Swat shows a mild bias to greater Steppe related on autosomes, but within standard error. (https://imgur.com/a/jTzZDb3)

Present day populations instead show excess of AHG and Steppe_MLBA on X relative to autosomes compared to Indus_Periphery.

So it seems like there is either no bias, or admix into Swat was weakly male biased towards Steppe_MLBA, while admix into present day South Asia as a whole slightly male biased for Iran_N related.

Rather bizarrely though, after running these X:Autosome comparisons, they then go on to make opposite claims in the same section based on y-dna.... Though this is surely complicated by the possibly for y-dna to have could have somewhat switched associated autosomal background etc.

Drago said...

@ David Ian

“believe speculation isnt allowed here beyond an extent, but the earliest parts of the rig veda has references to ganga and yamuna, so how can it be written in turan.”

It’s not something I’ve studied in detail; hence my question to the forum

A said...

So the Sumerians were probably substantially Anatolian farmer?

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Lee

"...I don't know. The data at this point can't tell us. One sample in IVC itself is not enough to see how representative the periphereal samples and the one IVC sample are of the population as a whole..."

Of course one sample is not enough for the "whole population", but Shinde et al. claim it is from a burial of "typical" Mature Harappans due to the way the woman was buried and the pottery around her. They also say that was a "cosmopolitan" culture, if this is so, we would expect other kind of people could have lived there, but as archaeologist Jonathan Mark Kenoyer commented time ago in a lecture, maybe these other people disposed of their dead in other ways, including cremation, from which we can have, of course, no hope to get samples, specially if they were thrown to rivers those days.

JuanRivera said...

Any updates on the Khvalynsk samples mentioned, especially the J and I2 ones? Narasimhan's supplementary data has only the known R1a, R1b and Q1a samples.

Archi said...

@EastPole

Their pictures with the migration routes of the erroneous.
CWC they only mention, and that's only because they have CWC samples.
They don't use anything in the analysis from Europe except the Yamnians.
To explain the connection between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, they use Yamnaya culture (Bronze Steppe), which is a mistake.
Everything is based on the fact that they excluded from the analysis of all data from Europe, except Yamnaya, and it is understandable why - they dream to bring the Yamnaya culture from the South Caucasus.

Aniasi said...

Having read the Narasimhan paper, he also introduces a South Eurasian cline from the Holocene, though his visual places it across the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.

He does not discuss it outside the visual, but it looks like there was a HG cline from the Middle East into South Asia.

Davidski said...

@Lee & Matt

Indus_Periphery is obviously not native to Iran/Turan, and there are more samples on the way from the IVC.

They will show a lot of diversity, but basically only along the Indus_Periphery/IVC cline, so they'll range from almost fully West Eurasian to almost totally Southeast Asian.

Davidski said...

I recall reading somewhere that there's a paper with IVC samples from Farmana coming soonish.

Archi said...

Another proof of aliens from Central Europe at the early Iron Age.

I12471 Grave 61, single burial , 609 Pakistan 1000-800 BCE M I2a2a1b1b1 HV17 SPGT Katelai_IA Swat Valley, Katelai South Asia
I12149 Grave 122, single burial , 568 Pakistan 1000-800 BCE M I2a2a1b1b1 M30c1 SPGT Katelai_IA Swat Valley, Katelai South Asia

EastPole said...

@Archi
„Their pictures with the migration routes of the erroneous.
CWC they only mention, and that's only because they have CWC samples.
They don't use anything in the analysis from Europe except the Yamnians.
To explain the connection between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, they use Yamnaya culture (Bronze Steppe), which is a mistake.
Everything is based on the fact that they excluded from the analysis of all data from Europe, except Yamnaya, and it is understandable why - they dream to bring the Yamnaya culture from the South Caucasus.”

I don’t understand why you think so. Read their paper:

„ A distinctive ancestry profile stretching from Eastern Europe to Kazakhstan in the Bronze Age. We add >100 samples from the previously described Western_Steppe_MLBA genetic cluster, including individuals associated with the Corded Ware, Srubnaya, Petrovka, and Sintashta archaeological complexes, and characterized by a mixture of about two-thirds ancestry related to Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists (from the Caucasus Cline) and European farmers (from the European Cline), suggesting that this population formed at the geographic interface of these two groups In Eastern Europe. Our analysis suggests that in the Central Steppe and Minusinsk Basin in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, Western_Steppe_MLBA ancestry mixed with ~9% ancestry from previously established people from the region carrying WSHG-related ancestry to form a distinctive Central_Steppe_MLBA cluster that was the primary conduit for spreading Yamnaya Steppe pastoralist–derived ancestry to South Asia.”

They describe Western_Steppe_MLBA genetic cluster which consists of Corded Ware, Srubnaya, Petrovka, and Sintashta. Western_Steppe_MLBA formed as a mixture of Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists (from the Caucasus Cline) and European farmers (from the European Cline). It formed at the geographic interface of Yamnaya and European farmers so it had to be somwhere between Dnieper and Vistula. Then Central_Steppe_MLBA cluster which migrated to South Asia is a mixture of Western_Steppe_MLBA with some WSHG-related ancestry. Their maps are correct IMO.

Open Genomes said...

@David

"We therefore pooled data across the 68 libraries for I6113, and found that 208,111 SNPs were covered by at least one sequence."

Is this larger SNP set good enough for Global25?

Open Genomes said...

So according to the Supplementary tables from the Narasimhan Central Asia study
Darra.I.Kur R1b1a1a2a1a automatic [Y haplogroup determination] 4605 2850-2460 calBCE (3989±31 BP, OxA-31781) Darra-i-Kur Cave

Darra.I.Kur would be the earliest instance of R1b-L51 ever seen, contemporary with Late Yamnaya - Corded Ware. Is that correct?

Archi said...

@EastPole
"Their maps are correct IMO."

Read more carefully
"suggesting that this population formed at the geographic interface of these two groups In Eastern Europe."

Their assumptions are fantasy, based on nothing, biased and wrong. Their maps are not correct, they draw the center of all migrations only the Yamnaya culture. It's a fake that contradicts their own data.
This obsession with the Yamnaya culture is clearly visible in their text, and I can see that they are deceiving me and everyone.
Obviously biased obsession the Yamnaya culture with the aim to push us South Caucasian ancestral home.

Lee said...

@davidiski

"Indus_Periphery is obviously not native to Iran/Turan, and there are more samples on the way from the IVC.

They will show a lot of diversity, but basically only along the Indus_Periphery/IVC cline, so they'll range from almost fully West Eurasian to almost totally Southeast Asian."

How do you know that? Or alternatively-how can you be sure the Indus_Periphery formed only in the outskirts of IVC proper and then later moved south. o Possibly in response to pressure from steppe invaders moving southward? What data exists that gives us that? Do we have any data that demonstrates that the IVC had any CHG-like ancestry at all until it expanded into the north? We do not have a time transect in the area do we?

I think the hypothesis may be right. But we do not have enough data either way to confirm it or deny it. These two papers do not do so. More data might, depending on the quality, quantity and time depth

Davidski said...

@All

Anyone here familiar with these I2 lineages from Swat? Might they be from the North Pontic region (Ukraine)?

I12471 Grave 61, single burial , 609 Pakistan 1000-800 BCE M I2a2a1b1b1 HV17 SPGT Katelai_IA Swat Valley, Katelai South Asia

I12149 Grave 122, single burial , 568 Pakistan 1000-800 BCE M I2a2a1b1b1 M30c1 SPGT Katelai_IA Swat Valley, Katelai South Asia

Open Genomes said...

"I2a2a1b1b1" on the ISOGG 2016 tree used by the study is I-L704:

ISOGG 2016 Haplogroup I tree

I-L704 on the YFull tree

Davidski said...

@Lee

How do you know that?

It's the natural conclusion based on an objective appraisal of all of the available data.

You're free to keep hoping that subsequent samples from the IVC will turn all of this around, but you can't expect anyone else to seriously consider such a thing. That'd be really dumb.

EastPole said...

@Archi
Read more carefully
"suggesting that this population formed at the geographic interface of these two groups In Eastern Europe."

This statement is correct. Western_Steppe_MLBA genetic cluster originated from Corded Ware and migrated east to Sintashta and then to India. Oldest Corded Ware was in Poland. Poland and Ukraine are in Eastern Europe.

Archi and Drago, please draw your version of correct map, because I don’t understand you.

mzp1 said...

Most IVC female figurines have elaborate head dress and a larger very downward sloping nose, like contemporary North Indians. The famous 'dancing girl' statue however, seems to have a flatter nose, and no signifiers of status. So it looks this phenotype distinction may have existed prior to any arrival of Aryans from outside the subcontinent.

The Roma are a good example of low-status ASI heavy Indians 'migrating' out of India to the West, like those samples from BMAC.

Drago said...


East Pole
Their maps are problematic in the sense that they reify Repin- Yamnaya as PiE. They don’t really show backing for their convictions. So if they wish to track verifiable IE expansion into Asia - within a steppe vector- then they should simply start with late CWC (early CWC itself can be modelled as Ukraine eneolithic + the extra MNE).

But if their aim is to map out every group which made forays into the central steppe zone during the EMBA; then then that’s fine but they should also have (1)s coming from Siberia; the East & Turan

JuanRivera said...

Darra-i-kur has more than 20% steppe ancestry. That L51 may be the end of the R1b naysayers (and those I2a also prove the South Asia naysayers even wronger).

Davidski said...

Those above mentioned Swat I2 clades look like they're from the steppe, not from Central Europe.

Open Genomes said...

@David

I-L704 is found among families from Ireland and England and Wales, with names like Edge, Long, Wilson, Hall, Duckett, Perry, and Watkins. There is only one Italian named DiLisio, and a single I-L704* is named Lilja, which is a Norse and Finnish surname.

It looks like the British colonized South Asia a bit earlier, in the Iron Age. ;)

Or ... one individual in Gedmatch who is I-L704 matches Romanichal Gypsies:
RD2510842 *RHall U5b1e I-L704

So what's interesting is that there seems to be a possible South Asian connection as well - unless this is pure coincidence.

EastPole said...

@Drago
Drago, please note that on their map they make following statements: „Location of the initial formation of Yamnaya ancestry is uncertain.” and „Path by which this ancestry arrived in South Asia is uncertain.” They didn’t say anything about PIE and only link the spread of IE languages with steppe ancestry (which is called Yamnaya ancestry and which is also present in Corded Ware). It seems to be a generally accepted hypothesis. But PIE problem here is secondary, the most important is their explanation of the origin of Indo-Iranians and their link with Balto-Slavs.

Romulus said...

I12471 Grave 61, single burial , 609 Pakistan 1000-800 BCE M I2a2a1b1b1 HV17 SPGT Katelai_IA Swat Valley, Katelai South Asia
I12149 Grave 122, single burial , 568 Pakistan 1000-800 BCE M I2a2a1b1b1 M30c1 SPGT Katelai_IA Swat Valley, Katelai South Asia


Wow.

Andrzejewski said...

@Aniasi “
This is really fascinating. This information means a rewrite of our understanding of pre-IE South Asia. It looks like there was already a Hunter Gatherer cline, and that the present Iranian-related and SE Asia-related components arrived later. I would be interested in seeing if we can figure out what the original HG population of the region looked like.

It also raises some questions on the origin of the Dravidian languages, and structure of ASI and AASI.”

Would you attribute or link the prevalence of Y-dna Hap H in India to the indigenous HGs?

Davidski said...

@Open Genomes

This clade is also found in Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related samples in the Balkans.

https://yfull.com/tree/I-L699/

Drago said...

@ East Pole

“Drago, please note that on their map they make following statements: „Location of the initial formation of Yamnaya ancestry is uncertain.” and „Path by which this ancestry arrived in South Asia is uncertain.” They didn’t say anything about PIE and only link the spread of IE languages with steppe ancestry (which is called Yamnaya ancestry and which is also present in Corded Ware). It seems to be a generally accepted hypothesis.”

Refer to figure 3B
As scientists; one would expect they can distinguish between association & causation ; but apparently they can’t

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera “The native HGs of India may have spoken Austroasiatic, considering that the Santhal have even more AASI than even the Irula, plus the Irula have almost double the percentage of IVCp (37.5% IVCp in the Irula, compared to 20.83% in the Santhal) and the Burusho are 60.88% IVCp”

So the Burushaki language is the one of IVC?

Where did the Dravidians come from then?

Archi said...

In their strange ADMIXTURE in almost all IA from Swat Valley WHG is present, it is their indicator of admixture of Central Europe.

Romulus said...

Seems like those I2a swat samples are a close cousin of the L801 in GAC and Catacomb. That's pretty black and white for the AIT.

JuanRivera said...

Actually, Dravidian has been hypothesized before to be the IVC language. The Burusho, though, do have some excess of Han-related ancestry that neither Dravidians nor Indo-Aryans have. Given their location, it's most likely Baikal-related.

JuanRivera said...

I confused Burusho with Brahui, which confused you in turn. My bad. I'll be running models on the Brahui, if it's available.

Gill said...

I wonder if ancient South Central Asian HGs are why they find a more ancient branching point with Iranian agriculturalists. Sarazm Eneolithic and similar pops are better fits for South Asia

Archi said...

models for Darra-i-kur_MBA
Ganj_Dareh_N EEHG 0.88 0.12 P=0.31
BMAC Khvalynsk_EN 0.839 0.161 P=0.124
BMAC Central_Steppe_EMBA 0.825 0.175 P=0.294
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 Central_Steppe_EMBA 0.859 0.141 P=0.272

Darra.I.Kur Afghanistan 2850-2460 calBCE (3989±31 BP, OxA-31781) M R1b1a1a2a1a H2a Darra_i_kur_MBA Darra_i_kur_MBA Darra-i-Kur Cave Iran / Turan

Carlos Aramayo said...

@Davidski

I heard the individual Loebanr_IA I12457 is R1a1a1b-Z645, is this correct?

Davidski said...

@Carlos

I heard the individual Loebanr_IA I12457 is R1a1a1b-Z645, is this correct?

Let's wait and see what the BAM file shows when it's released.

L657 would be really nice too.

JuanRivera said...

I do see that. What I was referring to was the controversy over the origins of L51 (and other R1b(xV88)) in Western Europe.

Archi said...

Darra-i-kur_MBA is another candidate for the proto-Tocharians. ;)

JuanRivera said...

On another note, the Brahui have more IVCp than the Burusho (though only slightly); and surprisingly Burusho's Han-related affinity models better as Han than as Baikal_EBA (though I haven't tried Tibetans).

Samuel Andrews said...

@Open Genomes,
"Darra.I.Kur would be the earliest instance of R1b-L51 ever seen, contemporary with Late Yamnaya - Corded Ware. Is that correct?"

When, there isn't a lot of data/evidence to look at then one should consider many different possibilities equally. But, when there's lots of evidence pointing in one direction one should not be as open minded to other possibilities.

Ancient DNA evidence points to R1b L151 originating in Russia in 4th millenium BC and expanding/becoming a popular lineage in Western Europe in 3rd millenium BC. So, there is a really lo wchance that R1b L51 call from 3rd millenium BC Asia is real. To be open minded in this situation is irrational.

Andrzejewski said...

@JuanRivera ok, but who are the Burusho? Are they from BMAC or Botai? And if not from Iran, where did possibly the Dravidian languages come from?

Andrzejewski said...

@Baikal HG? Like in Ulchi or Uralic?

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “In their strange ADMIXTURE in almost all IA from Swat Valley WHG is present, it is their indicator of admixture of Central Europe.”

Likely GAC via CWC?

Andrzejewski said...

@Gill “
I wonder if ancient South Central Asian HGs are why they find a more ancient branching point with Iranian agriculturalists. Sarazm Eneolithic and similar pops are better fits for South Asia”

Sarazm = WSHG

Leron said...

A bit of WHG in Asia seems to be a IE expansion marker.

Aniasi said...

It depends on the timefrane for "indigenous" to apply. I'd say it makes increasing sense for a population that diverged from the Iranian farmers 12 kya.

That said, it's increasingly apparent that holocene India's population was a cline of these Iranian hhunter-gatherers and AHG/Southeast Asian populations.

This leaves the question of what population was present during South Asia's pleistocene.

Leron said...

@Andrewjewski

Dravidian is clearly linked to IVC people, Brahui is a northern Dravidian group.

The Burusho should have closer relation to BMAC. And their affinity to Han might be due to the cultural interactions between BMAC and Qijia culture in China (bringing in metal technology).

Drago said...

We should not forget to mention that, in addition to early foray of Yamnaya-types to central Eurasia there were Dali-EBA / Siberia cline people & Turan (e.g. J2a1); and the very east shifted Kazakh steppe MBA
But, for some reason, during the MLBA period, Andronovo seems to have acquired the major role.

TLT said...

So uh its like close to 75% Iran-HG-like right? And it has less AASI than most modern Indians do, correct?

AWood said...

There are some new CWC genomes from Czech Republic that are R1a1, which puts the nail in the coffin even further that R1b had anything to do with this culture. That said, R1b may have sprung from Yamnaya, but for whatever reason, CWC was not the vector west responsible for the spread (in my humble opinion, and I think we have enough genomes now from Germany, BAC Scandinavia and the Baltic to deduce this)

In terms of the Afghan L151, it is a low quality genome, but hopefully someone can check the BAM when it becomes available. I would argue this is possible, as this SNP is approximately the same level as L11+, and there are some moderns from Ossetia, Turkey, Armenia who fall into this lineage, even if it is rare. If the I2-L704 is authentic and is found in Pakistani moderns, why would this be all that strange? Also keep in mind that 2800 BC is before the eastern spread of Andronovo/Sintashta and R1a1, so if the admixture shows Steppe, then it could be legit.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel

L51 or L151 ? Your kinda confusing me by jumping between the two as if they are the same....

Davidski said...

Czech Corded Ware was never going to be the key to finding out how L51 expanded.

Samuel Andrews said...

David you do have to remember Kurgan people (and many Neolithic farmers) lived in patrilineal groups. R1a M417 & R1b L151 represent two separate peoples. Just as Sintashta & Yamnaya represent two different peoples. If R1b L151 is from Corded Ware that means Corded Ware housed multiple Kurgan groups not a single group.

That's why I still have doubts R1b L151 is from Northwest Corded Ware. But, it is the theory which makes the most sense as Netherlands Beaker folk are so similar to Corded Ware genetically.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

David you do have to remember Kurgan people (and many Neolithic farmers) lived in patrilineal groups.

I do remember, but some of the people we're discussing seem to have forgotten from time to time, considering that R1b-Z2103 shows a correlation with I2-L699 in Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related Balkan samples, rather than with its sister clade R1b-L51.

So we need to keep that in mind, instead of thinking that there might be a 1:1 correlation between Y-chromosome phylogeny and relationships between archeological cultures.

Drago said...

The strong correlation remains because were dealing with different subgroups of groups within & adjacent to the steppe
Your statement of “strong association” between I2a2a1b and Z2103 isn’t quite true- I2a2 is in Bulgarian groups; Z2013 in Hungary ; Z645 in Northern Europe and L51 Central Europe . And hence Bohemian CWC/ BB transition still remains the key to discerning L51 expansion
Catacomb is M269; Andronovo Z93
The odd crossover doesn’t really invalidate that

Davidski said...

In my mind the Single Grave culture is still the key to discerning the L51 expansion.

Drago said...

Perhaps. It’s a shame that soils from Jutland & Netherlands have generally been poorly preserving. Anyhow; back to central & South Asia ..

velvetgunther said...

I really don't get what Vasant Shinde is up to here:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rakhigarhi-dna-study-questions-aryan-invasion-theory-claims-author/articleshow/71001985.cms

The Economic Times is a respectable, mainstream newspaper so is he just lying or is he deliberately being misquoted?

Davidski said...

@velvetgunther

The authors of a paper don't always agree on all of the conclusions of their paper.

But it's definitely unusual for a lead author to question one of the major points of his paper.

Davidski said...

Central_Steppe_EMBA looks like a Steppe Maykop-related pop to me.

Can't wait to look at the genotype data.

Davidski said...

Interestingly, despite all of the new samples from Central Asia and Iran the map here is still accurate.

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

Simon_W said...

@Davidski

Off-topic, but you forgot to add the samples from Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna (from Raveane et al.) to the Global25.

Davidski said...

I added all of the 135 Albanian and Italian samples that were in the data files. But I renamed some of them to Italian_Northeast because the original population label was too long.

Gaska said...


I see some euphoric Kurganists with the appearance of a sample of R1b-L151 in a cave in Afghanistan (2,655 BC). I suppose some guys will analyze his genome carefully. We have to keep in mind that at that time we already have R1b-M343 (and probably L51) in Germany and therefore the age and the geographic localization of Darra-I-Kur does not contribute anything to the expansion of this Haplogroup in Western Europe.

Of course, if the case is confirmed, it is intriguing because it could certainly be an emigrant from the steppes (Late Yamnaya) on their way to India. But did R1b-L51-P312 arrive in South Asia? What the hell is this gentleman doing in a cave in northern Afghanistan?

Regarding the few European genomes that have been analyzed, the truth is that the CWC in the Czech Republic is R1a although with another sample of I2a, we have a case of the Baalberge culture with hapY-H2 and another coincident mitochondrial lineage between CWC and BBs in the British Isles.

Davidski said...

Darra-I-Kur is meaningless for now because it doesn't have enough data.

If a higher quality genome becomes available at some point for this individual then we can discuss its potential implications.

Matt said...

@Davidski: "Indus_Periphery is obviously not native to Iran/Turan, and there are more samples on the way from the IVC.

They will show a lot of diversity, but basically only along the Indus_Periphery/IVC cline, so they'll range from almost fully West Eurasian to almost totally Southeast Asian."


It's not really a question of purely native or non-native, but degree of Iran/Turan admix and how this biases attempts to use Indus_Periphery in a model. I do think that they haven't really eliminated that this admix could be quite substantial (they attempt to do so by failing models of BMAC+generic East Eurasian Table S 83, but I don't think that really works, since it excludes them to be BMAC+ASI(including the IranN component of that).) The hope was that I6113 would this clear this up, but doesn't seem to.

Re; Harappa samples, I'm not optimistic for this to be shown to be the case on the basis of Shinde's paper - one sample, low quality, conflicting signals in PCA and two way models with no direct D-stats or information on model fit, graphical abstract doesn't agree witht the conclusions of the paper... A paper that I'm surprised Reich lab put their names to, unless it was a sweetener to gain access to more Harappa dna.

That said, my confidence in their previous statement that I4411 was Irula like (heavily ASI) would actually mean something has dropped quite a bit, judging by the quality of this paper. I still think the formation of ASI before IVC collapse makes most sense though.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Considering the links that the IVC had to the cultures of West and Central Asia, as well as the West Eurasian-related skeletal traits of its population, it was actually a shock for me to hear that an IVC sample might be mostly of ASI origin.

So I shook it off as an artifact of it being from an eastern IVC site, as well as the result of possibly significant substructure in the IVC population along the West Asian > ASI cline.

The conclusions in this paper are somewhat surprising, but overall they're much more realistic than the idea that the IVC was by and large populated by mostly ASI people.

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski
"Likely GAC via CWC?"

More likely from the TRB. IE in the CWC received the WHG as part of EEF.



Bad that there is no quality ADMIXTUREs with K = 2-20.

EastPole said...

„One new line of evidence in favor of a steppe origin for Indo-European languages is the detection of genetic patterns that connect speakers of the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic branches of Indo-European. The researchers found that present-day speakers of both branches descend from a subgroup of steppe pastoralists who moved west toward Europe almost 5,000 years ago and then spread back eastward into Central and South Asia in the following 1,500 years.
"This provides a simple explanation in terms of ancient movements of people for the otherwise puzzling shared linguistic features of these two branches of Indo-European, which today are separated by vast geographic distances," said Reich.”

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-largest-ever-ancient-dna-illuminates-millennia-south.html

Groo Salugg said...

@Awood

The CWC burial are elite.
Commoners were likely cremated.
R1b might be popping up whenever the burial diverged from cremation.
Like due to change/loss of the tradition in Scandinavia, or usurping high status in BBs.
See the previous post.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zardos said...

@Drago: When looking at the earlist CW sites, those places weren't steppe like before. So a Yamnaya related group had to colonise these regions in the forest steppe. The archaeological context shows a back migration of CW-related groups to the East like Fatyanovo-Balanovo.
However, Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related must not be the same and BB are a different thing.

Archi said...

"We ran ADMIXTURE (36) with 10 replicates, reporting
the replicate with the highest likelihood. We
show results for K = 5 in (13), as we found that
this provides good resolution for disambiguating
the sources of pre-Copper Age ancestry in
the ancient individuals."

What to put ADMIXTUREs with K = 4-16 in this Supplementary bytes is not enough? Is there a limit to the number of bytes?

Matt said...

@Davidski: I'd heard some phys anthropology that tended to present the reverse. I do really think the papers unfortunately haven't cleared that up as much between them as we'd want.

Case in point, note where I6113 is positioned on Narasimhan's interactive PCA: https://imgur.com/a/su5l2Vp

Pretty far down the IVC->AASI cline on the basis of the PCA. But then Shinde's paper claims that plugging her into Narasimhan's model shows little AHG ancestry, so hard to why both are the case.

Btw, for matching the 3 Indus Periphery samples which Narasimhan 2019 final print has relabelled from the initial print, a few graphics: https://imgur.com/a/BtKOeTS

InPe: 1=Gonur2BA, 4=SIS2, 9=SISBA3

(probably easier to do just by downloading the spreadsheet and matching sample IDs, in hindsight ;) )

Again I6113 is pretty close to InPe9 on the PCA, so I don't think it was an off prediction that she's SIS3 like, since she's pretty close to that (closer than the average of InPe1, InPe4, InPe9). But the number of SNPs is very low and there's this conflicting sign.

Finally her level of the redpink East Eurasia component in their interactive ADMIXTURE is 0.2, against InPe9: 0.2678, InPe4: 0.1047, InPe1: 0.1469. (That's totally consistent with how all the Eurogenes PCA show the rank order of AHG level in these three samples!).

Suggests she should have AHG at between the levels of InPe9 and InPe1 (almost exactly their average), not the fairly low levels that Shinde has seems to imply by plugging her into Narasimhan's triangle model.

The "most ASI" InPe sample on PCA and ADMIXTURE is InPe3 from Gonur. Value of 0.3136 (Should be close to ASI, judging by Reich's previous graphics).

I6113's position on Narasimhan's West Eurasia PCA is also really odd - https://imgur.com/a/NwC63Vg . She seems to basically not cluster with IranN and InPe at all, rather to be strongly shifted in Hotu+Haji Firuz Chl direction in that PCA.

Finally, on Narasimhan's interactive Eurasia PCA as well, finally I guess one reason that I would guess that the samples *do* have local admix from BMAC/Iran is that they don't seem to form a cline exactly, but have quite a bit of variation in shift in direction to WSHG:IranN. InPe1, 4, 5 seem to be more WSHG:IranN than the others.

I'm going to have a look later to see if they have done a qpWave analysis of the Indus Periphery with AnatoliaN, IranN, WSHG and Irula as outgroups, (and they really should have!). Also gonna have a look at correlating some of the values that they've provided in interactive models and supplements and see what happens.

(Though I'm a bit skeptical of many of Narasimhan's conclusions I'm glad they've taken open data to a new height, whereas Shinde seems to have taken closed data to a new height!).

Drago said...

@ Zardos
“When looking at the earlist CW sites, those places weren't steppe like before. So a Yamnaya related group had to colonise these regions in the forest steppe. The archaeological context shows a back migration of CW-related groups to the East ”

You seem to have missed the point ; but in any case; your point makes little sense
If CWC was new to the eastern forest steppe; then how was it “back-migrating”?

zardos said...

The Yamnaya related ancestry was most likely new to the forest steppe and Western, more farmer influenced groups migrated with new impulses back. They renewed the Eastern CW groups and pushed on to replace the most likely origin of the Yamnaya related ancestry, including Yamnaya itself.

Archi said...

Reverse migration is because there has been migration from the forest steppes of Eastern Europe at post Sredniy Stog/Dereivka time into Central Europe (the CWC). Then the CWC migrated back from Central Europe to East Europe (Fatyanovo/Balanovo and Abashevo/Babyno/Sintasha).

Drago said...

@ Zardos
Nope. Yamnaya didn’t move into the forest steppe; “eastern CWC” did de novo
We’re seeing different groups Criss -crossing paths of migration; not “U-turns”.
The problem is; there has been a tendency to make false -dichotomies which blur detail; and this is why archaeologists have not responded to any of Harvard’s models (apart from Kristiansen; whose models echo the same errors).

zardos said...

And thats not new from genetics but was known for long from archaeological and anthropological records. I'm just still not sure about the exact genesis of early CW.

zardos said...

But this new CW forest steppe culture was predominantly of Yamnaya-related ancestry and had steppe cultural influences. Thats what the fuss is about.

Gaska said...


What is urgent is that we have just understood the archeological, cultural and genetic relations of the CWC and the BBC because that is the key to solving the enigma of L51 and the expansion in Europe of IE. Obviously we need more ancient genomes although some things we can take for granted;

The mitochondrial lineages of the BBculture are a mixture of European Neolithic lineages (even a good proportion of WHG), lineages of the Iberian BB culture and lineages of the CWC (some of them coinciding with the Yamnaya culture, and others also acquired in the expansion of the CWC from the Baltic Countries to Switzerland), Therefore,from my point of view, exogamy is fully demonstrated and also the loss of autosomal steppe component in its progress towards the West.

This genetic relationship had to have cultural consequences (pottery, ideology, weaponry, crops), but we do not know the role played by the different male lineages in this process because unfortunately this is the only aspect where both cultures are so far absolutely divergent.

The westernmost point reached by the Yamnaya culture itself is Hungary, and I hope that the papers that have to be published in Italy, Switzerland and also France help clarify the situation.

.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Zardos

It depends on the vantage time frame - there might be not have been a back-migration per se. For example https://imgur.com/tT8DbdV

zardos said...

Sure the CW were no Yamnaya proper back migration, but otherwise I get the feeling we talk past each other.

Inside of the wider CW zone of influence there was first a migration wave West to Central-Northern Europe. Then influences from the West led to an Eastern expansion along the line Fatyanovo-Balanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta-Andronovo.
Then again influences from the Eastwen Sintashta related groups came back with mobile warfare with chariots and improved horseback riding.
Just as a general outline. You disagree?

zardos said...

Also, nothing of that really explains the emergence of early CW with Yamnaya-related ancestry and cultural influences. The direct ancestral line is still open to debate and there is no smoking gun for the direct genealogical predecessor.

Archi said...

A back migration is a concept not archaeological cultural, but is geographical.

I.e. Eastern Europe -> Central Europe -> Eastern Europe is the back migration.

zardos said...

@Archi: Sometimes the cultural-archaeological direction is clear, sometimes the genetic-anthropological. Oftentimes these go hand in hand, but they dont have to.

What is your position on the direct ancestors of early CW?

music lover said...

The PCA's on the visualizer were done with only 15,000 SNPs (because of the projection). The noise in the estimates at this level of resolution is extremely high. The authors also had to damage restrict the sample (due to contamination) further adding to the complications.

Archi said...

@zardos After the collapse of the Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province and, accordingly, disintegration of the Sredniy Stog/Dereivka/Khvalynsk cultures, a lot of small cultures came on the spaces Eastern Europe before the emergence Circumpontic metallurgical province and the Yamnaya culture in its composition.

One thing is clear, the CWC and PIE did not belong Circumpontic metallurgical province (except Fatyanovo), and has kept the tradition of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province, so cannot be the derivative of the Yamnaya culture. What pre-Yamnaya culture belonged to the natives of the CWC is now unclear.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Zardos

''Also, nothing of that really explains the emergence of early CW with Yamnaya-related ancestry and cultural influences.''

it does not attempt to, but it should be evident; because there data is there,

zardos said...

But they cant "explode" that fast and homogeneous without a period of consolidation and demographic build up. Too much is still missing.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

The explosion scenario is yours :)

zardos said...

The Corded Ware expansion was drastic in every respect and has few parallels European prehistory since the advent of farming which was more complete but also much slower in comparison.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

The advent of farming occurred c. 5500 BC. That's not really relevant for the current discussion.

zardos said...

It's a reference and fact is we cant agree on a concrete predecessor, but when CW appears it has a fairly unique mix of cultural steppe and farmer characteristics, is homogeneous, expansive, adapted to the forest steppe and in a full demographic build up and competitive success.
That cant pop up in 2 generations from some minor splitter group. But nobody can really tell the prehistory to the CW emergence or can you?

Ryukendo K said...

It is virtually certain that modern Indo-Aryan populations are not direct descendants of the Swat culture. They are almost completely off-cline, when compared to the modern Indian cline reaching up towards a theoretical ANI in PCA space.

The ancestry of the post-Iron Age inhabitants of the Swat Valley (tan color shapes close to the grey colors in the PCA) does not normalize into the rest of the Indian cline until the Medieval period.

The sex-bias is also wrong. Its likely that India in the Iron Age may have been a complex ethnolinguistic mosaic, and the modern shape of the Indian cline was established in the protohistoric period with the tribes of the RgVeda expanding from a secondary centre in Punjab, Haryana and the Ganga-Yamuna.

The Indian Iron Age is long and covers multiple cultures, and the light of protohistory fades into a long dawn. The question of where the Vedic tribes, and presumably the Steppe-rich progenitor population at one end of the Indian cline, can be found, is the next big question.

This leads us to a next question: were the steppe-rich outliers in Swat treated differently from the rest of the population? Was there some social distinction at this early period already, from the archaeology? Were these people "just passing through" in some sense? There are both arguments in favour and against: in favour, that the outliers did not appear to change the composition of the main population at Swat at all (which did not change until the medieval period), so, wherever they came from--from the local social group or otherwise--their contribution to the locals was insignificant for some reason or another. Against--there just doesnt seem to be corroborating archaeology that I know of.

The last question is, how the steppe-rich population bypassed the Swat region and left its composition intact until the medieval period, while their impact was maximised further south in the great plains of the Indus and Ganges.

JuanRivera said...

On another note, the presence of U2b2 in IVC gives support to the hypothesis that U2a, U2b and U2c (which are collectively referred as "U2i") were introduced to South Asia by IVC populations, which in turn got it from Iran-like populations, in turn from MA1-like ANE. Fits with the presence of U2* in both Europe and Asia and that U2c's closest relative U2d and the U2e clade both peak in both diversity and frequency in ancient and modern Eastern Europe and Western Siberia/Central Asia. U2a and U2c (together with U2b) are also seen in ancient DNA in IA Swat Valley.

Archi said...

Of course, in inhumations of Swat Valley there are not buried Vedic Indo-Aryans, because they only cremated. These burials belong to Dasa, Dasyu, Shudras, various half-breeds and bastards - Vratya.

The Vedic Indo-Aryans were there, just their burials are cremation.


Archi said...

BAM files for Narasimhan paper are available in: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB32466

Ycalls file from Narasimhan has Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a 0 1 only and nothing else. What is in BAM file?

vAsiSTha said...

The new component needs to be given an Indian name - Iran farmer like doesn't cut it.
It's now quite clear that north/NW India was full of people with major ancestry related to Iran farmer cousins
Hopefully calculations can be redone to see if this new ancestry was ancestral to Central Asia and Europe in the chalcolithic & bronze age

Romulus said...

R1b1a1a2a1a is L151 according to isogg 2018.

matthayichen said...

@velvetgunther
"I really don't get what Vasant Shinde is up to here: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rakhigarhi-dna-study-questions-aryan-invasion-theory-claims-author/articleshow/71001985.cms"

You clearly need some context to understand this. A rightwing "Hindutva" ideology dominates in India right now. They have the government. They are focused on the supremacy, the indigenous nature, and the subsuming of all possible regional cultural variation under a single Vedic Hindu identity. They are trying to rename IVC to "Indus-Saraswati Civilization" to reflect their dogma that IVC was Vedic. Saraswati was the name of an unknown mighty Vedic river they recently identified as a dried up branch of the Indus. They even deny that Indo-European exists separately from the Dravidian languages of south India.

Aryans bringing Vedic Sanskrit from Eastern Europe a mere 3500 years ago is unspeakable under this worldview. Those who do say it are accused of spreading discredited old colonial propaganda or of being Marxists or other groups allegedly trying to undermine Hinduism.

Vasant Shinde is a pro-Hindutva ideologue and his explicitly stated aim is to find evidence of Sanskrit in IVC. Niraj Rai on the other hand gives the impression of someone not willing to sabotage his career for unpopular truths. Rai has vacillated in interviews between towing the Hindutva line and being honest.

But they do need to cooperate with foreign researchers, so the blatant lies they usually reserve for the press. This has been going on for at least a decade now with Indian researchers, Kumaraswami Thankaraj and Lalji Singh being memorable from before. The ordinary man in India believes that research after research has been proving the Aryan Migration Theory wrong. The propaganda machine currently shouts "no steppe migrants in IVC" triumphantly and confidently so it sounds like there have never been any steppe migrants in India whatsoever.

zardos said...

It's quite obvious that the IVC/Dravidian culture had its fair share of modern Indian culture. A lot is coming from that side also.

vAsiSTha said...

"They deny that Indo-European exists separately from the Dravidian languages of south India."

Not a single pro OIT in India believes this.

No r1a in swat valley males, chariot burial excavated from sanauli with weapons, helmets etc (sintashta doesn't have monopoly here anymore), no arch proof of any invasion, and now proof that IVC was likely not majority AASI, rather majority Iran like but distinct (what happens to the Iran brought dravidian into india theory now btw?)

One would hope that people rethink their theories and models and look at the newfound Iran like IVC component with some morec

vAsiSTha said...

That there was no break in culture from IVC times in the archaeological data is a mainstream thought in the literature.

JuanRivera said...

Has anyone noticed that PIE's t and s pronouns has an alternation between *i~y and *u~w? It can be seen in different reflexes, and even in the same language (latin tū vs tibi).

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha
"No r1a in swat valley males"

It's not true.

I12457 Pakistan 1044-922 calBCE (2830±20 BP, PSUAMS-5280) M R1a1a1b W3a1 SPGT Loebanr_IA Swat Valley, Loebanr Grave 65, Individual 2 (A) in a double burial , 594

I12450 Pakistan 824-792 calBCE (2630±20 BP, PSUAMS-5279) M R1a1a1 M3a2 SPGT Butkara_IA Swat Valley, Butkara II Grave unrecorded (25?), Individual 1/?, ID 3542, 587

"chariot burial excavated from sanauli with weapons, helmets"

It is impossible for cremation. Vedic Arians cremated only.

"That there was no break in culture from IVC times in the archaeological data"
It's not true.

JuanRivera said...

Doubtful that there was East Iranian HG ancestry in Europe or Northern Central Asia before the BA (or at all in the case of Europe outside the steppe and forest-steppe). CHG and Iran are indeed present in Neolithic/Chalcolithic Europe and the steppe, however, the ancestries of both split in the Paleolithic (and of course earlier from the Iran HGs), and CHG can be seen in Europe as early as Sidelkino EHG (~5%) and as far north as Karelia EHG (~3%), plus it increases in Samara EHG (~6/7%) relative to Sidelkino EHG (even before the main CHG pulses creating Khvalynsk and Ukrainian Eneolithic cultures). Plus, West_Siberia_N, Botai, Steppe Maykop and Khvalynsk (if it has West_Siberia_N) all lack East Iran HG. What they all share however is ANE, however even the ANE ancestry is different, being MA1-like south of the Caucasus, Karakum and Kyzylkum (approximately; and in Amerindians and Eastern Siberia) and mostly AG3-like north of them (except in Amerindians and Eastern Siberians).

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha "Then I posit that no r1a will be found in pre bronze age"

Of course, the Arians invaded Hindustan after the death of IVC (after 1300 BC) to 1000 BC.

vAsiSTha said...

"it is impossible for cremation. Vedic Arians cremated only."

Then I posit that no r1a will be found in pre bronze age even though it existed as all 'aryans' cremated. Works both ways.

R1a in swat? Maybe new paper says so. Then how can they be Aryan as there were cremated, by your own logic. Lol

Vedic funeral practices also mention burial as a method, not in much Vogue today. Many caste Hindus still practise burial. You should read up rather than spew ignorance.

TLT said...

>That there was no break in culture from IVC times in the archaeological data

At best you could argue that late Vedic era (1100 BC onwards) culture is a combination of IVC and early Vedic/Andronovo cultures (like the Upanishads being a culmination of the mixture of the 2 cultures for example), but to outright say that there was no interruption between the IVC culture and the late Vedic culture is being either disingenuous or delusional.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha You have before you write nonsense read about it, there are in all of your silliness already answered many times. But you came to just write nonsense without reading anything at all.

"Many caste Hindus still practise burial. You should read up rather than spew ignorance."

Where does caste? Castes emerged after the establishment of Buddhism which denied the cremation, and we're talking about RigVedism.

You should read out the topic before you write anything else, because it is a repetition of what has been written many times.

Simon_W said...

@Davidski

"I added all of the 135 Albanian and Italian samples that were in the data files. But I renamed some of them to Italian_Northeast because the original population label was too long."

Ah yes, you're right, I checked it now. Raveane et al. also worked with samples from the Emila-Romagna and Piedmont, but these were the only regions where they didn't collect their own new samples, and that's why they aren't available for download, at least not on the data site linked to the paper. A pity! Apparently the bulk of the data from these two regions that they worked with comes from Fiorito et al. 2015, and since you never added these to the Global25 I suppose they are not public.

Simon_W said...

OK, according to Fiorito et al. 2015 the data is available upon request:

The list of all the genetic and epigenetic data sets are accessible upon request at the HuGeF repository, and information to request data download authorization are available at the following web link: http://www.hugef-torino.org/site/index.php?id=286&t=articolo_secondo_livello&m=extra

But the linked page is in Italian… And neither me nor Davidski speak Italian. At the very Bottom they write:

Per la richiesta di accesso ai dati prodotti dal consorzio, contattare la signora Maria Grazia D'Ardes mariagrazia.dardes@hugef-torino.org

That's easy, it means for the request for accessing the data you have to write to that signora Maria Grazia D'Ardes. Well, maybe she'd reply even on requests written in English. :D Complicated!:-/

Samuel Andrews said...

The njew Albian & Italian samples will be interesting. Albania has the least Slavic ancestry in eastern Europe. Might be some EEF-rich isolates in Albania. MAYBE.

Samuel Andrews said...

Looks like the Indo European phenomenon is pretty much figured out. PIE originated in 4500 BC in Russia (Eatsern Europe).

There were two main IE expansions from 2800 to 1500 BC.
2800-2000 BC: Eastern, Central, Western Europe.
2000-1500 BC: Central Asia, South Asia.

That's it. It all now makes sense.

Samuel Andrews said...

Thor & Pernun look like Corded Ware gods of war because they use axes/hammers which was the main weapon of Corded Ware.

They didn't use more advanced weapons like swords or chariots because those didn't exist in the Corded Ware period.

The main god of the Rig Veda, Indra, then looks like a Bronze age version of Thor/Pernun. He had more advanced weapons: Chariot.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 536   Newer› Newest»