search this blog

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health


I've updated my map of pre-Corded Ware culture R1a samples with a couple of new entries from Central and South Asia (the original is still here). However, before any of you get overly excited, please note that these samples aren't older than the Corded Ware culture. The reason I added them to my map is to counter the ongoing absurd claims online that South Asian R1a isn't derived from European R1a.


Just in case the map can't be viewed in all of its glory in some devices, here's what the fine print says:

The oldest example of R1a in ancient DNA from Central Asia is dated to 2132-1940 calBCE (ID I3770, Narasimhan 2019). Moreover, this sequence is closely related to much older R1a samples from Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, and phylogenetically nested within their diversity. Thus, it must surely represent a population expansion from Europe to Central Asia. Indeed, it's also associated with the Bronze Age Andronovo archeological culture, which is usually seen as an offshoot of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) of Late Neolithic Europe. The vast majority of present-day R1a lineages in Central Asia are closely related to that of I3770, and so must also ultimately derive from Europe.

The oldest instance of R1a in ancient DNA from South Asia is dated to just 1044-922 calBCE (ID I12457, Narasimhan 2019). This sequence, as well as the vast majority of present-day South Asian R1a lineages, are closely related to much older R1a samples from Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, and phylogenetically nested within their diversity. Thus, they must surely represent a population expansion from Europe to South Asia via Central Asia, in all likelihood during the Bronze Age. Even if R1a existed in South Asia before the Bronze Age, which is extremely unlikely, because it's found in samples from indigenous European hunter-gatherers, the vast majority of present-day R1a lineages in South Asia must be ultimately from Europe.

The idea that most, if not all, South Asian R1a is derived from European R1a seriously scares a lot of people. This is obvious in many online discussions on the topic. I suspect they're so frightened by it because, in their minds, it has the potential to encourage discrimination and even racism, perhaps by re-defining the colonization of much of the world by European nations in the recent past as the natural order of things?

In any case, clearly we're dealing with some sort of mass phobia here. I've got advice for those of you suffering from this problem: if you're honestly worried that the geographic provenance and expansion history of some Y-haplogroup is going to negatively impact on your life in any meaningful way, then it's time to find yourself a quality mental health professional. All the best with that.

See also...

The mystery of the Sintashta people

The Poltavka outlier

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

192 comments:

jama0112 said...

Interesting....

Samuel Andrews said...

You should do the same thing for R1b.

Ancient DNA makes it clear R1b1a originated in Europe. It was common throughout Mesolithic Europe. There's no R1b from pre-Bronze age ancient DNA in the Middle East. R1b M269, the dominate modern clade, originated in Kurgan pastorlists in Eastern Europe in circa 4000 BC.

I think it'll take a while for geneticists to understand both R1b and R1a originated in Europe and the Kurgan pastorlists had no Middle Eastern Farmer ancestry.

Razib Khan said...

sam andrews is going to convert a lot of indians to OIT just to spite his "it all came from modern europeans, who were around since 5000 years ago" attitude ;)

niraj rai says the indian r1a paper will be out by the end of the year. i will believe it when i see it.

Davidski said...

Apparently, there are some awesome ancient R1a samples on the way, but we have to wait for the papers.

This sh*t's taking too long. No wonder people are losing their minds.

pnuadha said...

I suspect they're so frightened by it because, in their minds, it has the potential to encourage discrimination and even racism, perhaps by re-defining the colonization of much of the world by European nations in the recent past as the natural order of things?

It is the natural order of things; the only change is when whites grew a conscience and declared it to be a bad thing (from a position of power). No other group ended slavery. But the world has viewed this as an opportunity to exploit whites and colonize them. No good deed, especially with naive people, goes unpunished.

Europe has gone through 2 major population shifts since the Mesolithic. No ptsd sympathies were given to whites when they learned about the neolithic migrations from Anatolia that might have sent flashbacks to the 1000 year Muslim Conquest in Southern Europe. Instead, the media rubbed it in the faces of Europeans as if it in any way took away from their unique heritage.

Poland was invaded by Mongols and other Asiatic groups but Poles don't get special consideration from the Asian race whenever they accurately portray history.

You dont have to apologize for being white and you dont have to take blame for the nationalism/ethnocentrism of others. Favoring ones race/ethnicity is very much the natural order and modern whites are too naive and universalist to accept this.

pnuadha said...

@samuel

Its clear that the Yamnaya/EMBA did not have middle eastern farmer heritage (maybe meso). Its also pretty clear that Afanasievo came from Yamnaya/EMBA steppe and if they indeed carried tocharian the first branching of PIE after Anatolian has no recent genetic connection to the middle east.

Archi said...

The fact that those who write about the racism of the white man, themselves suffer from racism. They call opponents of the conquest by Indian/Harappan to Europe (OIT) white people consider themselves black people and preach the hypothesis of the conquests by Harappans to Europe.

In their hypotheses about conquest and division on black/white they racism not see.

zardos said...

The real issue is, that Western "scientists" or better political theorists, which views were influenced by cultural Marxism and some Hindu-nationalists denied some facts known for long for different reasons.

In the West its not just about "Aryans", but also human nature and prehistory in general.

Its "amazing" How elaborated some intellectual constructs were just for distorting the public's view on human history and nature. This whole peaceful interaction and everything economic model for explaining the past is complete nonsense. So are theories of post-Colonialism and Feminism stating how much was later invention and people lived in peaceful equality before. But people put a lot of efforts to establish that nonsense and now they have to deal with facts which directly contradict them and unlike the data from the past its unambigious!
Thats tge real novelty. Not like "oh we didnt know", but more like "damn, how can we keep up our narrative if people realise facts don’t fit and might recognised the fraud".

That's no undeserved conspiration theory, becauseI oersonally spoke with archaeologists and more than once it ended with the political responsibility they have when presenting results. But how can people trust science if they distort facts for political reasons?

Humans act, as a social species, the way they do in competition with foreign groups, especially foreign males, because it makes sense for being genetically successful. Its a feature and not a bug, because otherwise human evolution would have been much slower and even going in a less positive, for human development, direction.

Because the key to our species successful path was male cooperation. Individuals which did not cooperate needed to be punished and successful traits had to spread fast. Individual selection on its own would have never created modern humans in the first place.

What all recent studies seem to show is: Male lineages fought for dominance for many thousands of years. If they spared foreign males or united with another group, it usually happened under pressure or in a very specific situation where there was a very concrete profit from doing so.

All data we get proves that times became more peaceful and less war torn the closer we come to Western modernity. The huge eruptions of violence are rather short lived and not more impactful overall.

I mean there are still people around claiming "war was a bronze age invention" and genocides are "a modern problem" and stuff like that. Its insane and has nothing to do with factual reasoning.

Of course if you rely on such flimsy ideological constructs, no fact which might threaten it will be welcomed.

vAsiSTha said...

The white/black nonsense started when some retarded European translators saw race in the Vedas based on some extremely stupid translations not supported by any traditional school.

And yes, as Niraj Rai said, he just proved 'Harappan invasion of Iran' theory through his paper 😂

Archi said...



On the map it would be nice to add the Sintashta as the oldest sample in Asia.

Sintashta Russia Bulanovo [RISE386] 2298-2045 calBCE (3775±34 BP, OxA-30991) M R1a1a1b2a2



Davidski said...

@Archi

Bulanovo is in West Siberia though. I needed samples from Central and South Asia to make my point.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“I suspect they're so frightened by it because, in their minds, it has the potential to encourage discrimination and even racism, perhaps by re-defining the colonization of much of the world by European nations in the recent past as the natural order of things?”


People link whites and Europeans with discrimination, racism and colonialism. By Europeans they consider Western Europeans, i.e. the people who were real racists and colonialist in their history. But people who migrated to India were not Western Europeans, they had nothing to do with Germanic people. They were Eastern Europeans related to Balto-Slavs. Slavs were also victims of discrimination, of western racism and colonialism, more even so then people of India and Africa (see Hitler and Nazis). Actually the work of Narasimhan et al. will stop many western racists from taking pride in false history they imagined.
Indians should not use the argument of racism and colonialism in discussing history, because in this case it is false.

zardos said...

By the way, one of those guys I talked about refused to work with geneticists at all and condemned those who do some years ago.
Now he is himself involved in papers and tries to rescue his life's work by twisting the genetic data with his "special interpretations" to still promote his old theories.

But even he had at least:
1. Begin to participating
2. Adapt his old theories to the new genetic data
3. Accept the principle value and correctness of it

Considering from where he came from, thats a huge progress for an old man in just one decade.
Still it would have been better if an unbiased author would have done it.

Needless to say that the public and media fully concentrated on his twist as a proof for ancient multiculturalism and tolerance, rather than what was really there.
Funnily another study published roughly the same tine would have been much better for his twists, but he wasnt involved.

But that too just proved to me: Whatever he will gett his hand on, he will just put it in the same scheme.
But ok, thats something everybody has to be careful about, because its a human tendency.

Davidski said...

@zardos

By the way, one of those guys I talked about refused to work with geneticists at all and condemned those who do some years ago.

Who was this?

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha No, accusing white people of being white is the work of black nationalists. The Rigveda simply describes what were the local conquered peoples of the Indus valley, as opposed to newcomers.

rv01.130.08 Indra in battles help his Aryan worshipper, he who hath hundred helps at hand in every fray, in frays that win the light of heaven. Plaguing the lawless he gave up to Manu's seed the dusky skin;

Here dusky is kṛṣṇām "black, der Schwarzen"

rv01.101.01 Stimmet für den Rauschliebenden eine trankbegleitete Rede an, der im Bund mit Rijisvan den mit den Schwarzen Schwangeren die Leibesfrucht abtrieb. Schutzsuchend rufen wir den Bullen mit der Keule in der Rechten - den arutbegleiteten rufen wir zur Freundschaft.

rv02.020.07 Der Vritratöter Indra sprengte die dasischen Burgen, die die Schwarzen in ihrem Schoß bargen, der Burgenbrecher.

rv03.031.21 His kine their Lord hath shown, e'en Vrtra's slayer, through the black hosts he passed with red attendants.

rv06.047.21 Day after day far from their seat he drove them, alike, from place to place, those dark creatures. The Hero slew the meanly-huckstering Dasas, Varcin and Sambara, where the waters gather.

rv07.005.03 For fear of thee forth fled the dark-hued races, scattered abroad, deserting their possessions,
When, glowing, O Vaisvanara, for Puru, thou Agni didst light up and rend their castles.

rv08.073.18 Zerbrich, du Kühner das Gefängnis wie eine Burg, von dem schwarzen Stamme bedrängt!" - Eure Gnade soll gegenwärtig sein!

rv09.041.01 ACTIVE and bright have they come forth, impetuous in speed like bulls, Driving the black skin far away.

rv09.073.05 O'er Sire and Mother they have roared in unison bright with the verse of praise, burning up riteless men, Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.

rv10.116.04 Doppeltstark, ungemindert soll der Bulle Indra mit den Falben zum eingeschenkten Tranke kommen. Von dem auf der Kuhhaut ausgepreßten, vorgesetzten Süßtrank gieß dir als Töter der Schwarzen die schwere Menge auf einmal hinein!

The Rig Veda accurately describes the modern population of India.

And the accusations that the translators of the Rig Veda say racists is wrong, on the contrary, English and German translations of the Rig Veda is very politically correct, they maximal avoided words describing racial characteristics use softer words and syntax than those that are in the Rig Veda carefully avoiding direct description.

Gaska said...

You should all stop considering Africans, Asians or Native-Americans as victims of Western Europeans. We were the first to suffer African, Turkish or Asian invasions (Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy, the Balkans, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland etc). Nobody talks about those genocides, the destruction of cities, churches, monasteries, the murder of innocent people, the slavery of women etc.. What are you talking about?, the Moors caused great destruction in Spain and we had to fight 700 years to expel them. Then we take revenge fighting in Africa, Turkey, Holy Land etc.

Why you believe that 2,000 Spaniards conquered the Aztec Empire?. Simply because it was a civilization of the stone age, bloodthirsty murderers who oppressed their neighbors, practiced cannibalism and made bloodthirsty sacrifices to their horrible Gods. As brave as the Spaniards were, they would not have been able to conquer America without the help of oppressed Indians such as the Tlaxcaltecas, Cempoaleses, etc.

And now we have to feel guilty? No way, that will simply be used for hundreds of thousands of South American immigrants to come to Spain to claim rights they do not have, obviously many of them direct descendants of those conquerors of the sixteenth century.

This is going to be more than a clash of civilizations is a matter of survival of Western civilization and whoever does not want to see it will contribute to our destruction.

@East Pole-

We Westerners may be terrible racists, and the Slavs a kind of oppressed saints, in that case I suppose you will be happy with the possibility that R1a has its origin in India and that from there you conquered Europe. Luckily, BB culture and R1b-P312 took care that you did not conquer Western Europe as well.

Davidski said...

@Gaska

Quit raving on about the destruction of western civilization in the comments here.

You always bring it up no matter what the topic.

zardos said...

I don’t want to publicly name him, but he was involved in this study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06024-4

He still claims ethnicity to be a construct, more often than not unrelated to actual ancestry.

When they found almost "pure Germanics" in the Lombard study's rich burials with typical Germanic artefacts beside different lower level, poor graves in Pannonia and Lombardy, he trouted out thats a prove for the multi-ethnic, fluid identity, unrelated to actual ancestry theories he always promoted since being taught by the first ones to follow that path, which was in the 1960s.

In fact you see the largely unmixed Germanic burials and different regional serves, recruited from the populace they controlled. How's that supposed to support his claims?!

The Goths and on the other hand are still more open to debate, like they always were. Yet even there subunits in an alliance are the best explanation rather than "fluid identity". He didnt just claims that small groups or individuals assimilated. In his most extreme moments he claimed that rather than people a cultural identity migrated. Not as an exception, but as a rule.

Obviously the truth is in between his claims and those of hardcore racists claiming only pure and unmixed people migrated around and purity was always a very big concern of superiour races.

Both is wrong in its extreme, with the truth being more in the middle and a lot of "depends on the case in question" and the profits to gain for the stronger side and its cultural norms.

Davidski said...

@All

I removed some off topic and/or nonsensical posts.

Please keep in mind that this isn't a political discussion, mind your spelling and grammar, and stick to the rules.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
Nazi era racists obviously saw race in everything. That's what defines your worldview even today. Just Sad.

Phrases such as “wrapped in darkness / a dark envelope”
(krishnagarbhā, krishnā tvac, 2.20.7 etc.) are consistent with the
conflict between forces of light and forces of darkness at the centre
of most world mythologies. Sri Aurobindo emphasized the Rig-
Veda’s quest for the light: light of truth (ritasya jyotis), immortal light
(jyotir amritam), Aryan light (jyotir āryam), etc. (1.23.5, 7.76.1, 6.9.4,
10.43.4)
Does the Veda refer to “dark-skinned”,
“stub-nosed” aboriginals living in “forts”?
-
Maria Schetelich: “If ... krsnā tvac is translated with ‘dark cloth, dark
cover’ but not with ‘dark skin’ in the sense of ‘dark complexion’ it fits
better into the habits of thinking of the Rgvedic poets, rather than the
rather trivial translation current till now.” (1990)
-
Thomas R. Trautmann: “The [Dasyus’] image of the ‘dark-skinned
savage’ is only imposed on the Vedic evidence with a considerable
amount of text-torturing. ... Why project an alien [racial] discourse
onto the distant Indian past?” (1997)

George Erdosy: “Evidence for the characterization of Dāsas and
Dasyus as black is tenuous in the extreme. Even apparently clear
indications of historical struggles between dark aborigines and Arya
conquerors turn out to be misleading.... The hymns neither use
language or race as markers of ethnic affiliation, nor refer (explicitly)
to a home outside South Asia. ... Instead of such traits, it is adherence
to social and religious norms which were required of āryas.” (1994)
-
H.H. Hock: “Closer examination suggests an alternative interpretation
of the terms ‘black’ or ‘dark’ as referring to the dark world of the
dāsas / dasyus in contrast with the light world of the āryas, an
interpretation which is in perfect agreement with the contrast between
good / light and evil / dark forces that pervades the Vedas (and has
parallels in many, perhaps most other traditions around the world). ...
The evidence of the Rig-Vedic passages just examined thus does not
establish a difference in race or phenotype between āryas and
dāsas / dasyus.” (2005)

The word anāsa occurs only once (5.29.10) in the Rig-Veda. It has been
interpreted as stub-nosed (a-nāsa, according to Max Müller), and seen
as a reference to South Indians, or as “mouthless” (an-āsa, according
to the Vedic commentator Sāyana). The second meaning is more
consistent with depictions of Dasyus as those who do not utter
mantras correctly (mrdhravācah). The difference between ārya and
dasyu in the Rig-Veda is cultural, as most scholars now accept. In any
case, South Indians are neither “noseless” nor “stub-nosed”.
-
The Dasyus’ so-called purs have been variously interpreted as
massive stone fortresses or cities (T. Burrow) or as small temporary
circular structures made of palisades, mud and stones (H. Zimmer, W.
Rau). Neither view works: gods (Agni, Maruts) and rivers (Sarasvati)
are also invoked as purs, and the Aryans also have purs.
-
A.A. Macdonell & A.B. Keith: “[Pur is] probably only metaphorical”
(Vedic Index). Erdosy: “It is clear that the ‘forts’ belong to the realm of
mythology.” Nicholas Kazanas: “[Pur refers to] a supernatural, occult
or magical protective force or field.”
-
In summary, the Rig-Veda does not support forced colonial and racial
readings of “dark-skinned”, “stub-nosed” aborigines living in “forts”.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

I personally dont see the big dilemna
There was migration out of India & into it; and indo-Aryans formed somwhere close to India.
urrbody wins. Yay science

Davidski said...

@All

No more discussions about skin color in India.

Archi said...

Herodotus is racist.

Davidski said...

Maybe Herodotus was racist, I don't know, but I don't want a discussion here about skin color in India and how it relates to caste status.

That won't end in anything positive for anyone.

The seeker said...

Has anyone looked at this paper on "Ancient cattle genomics, origins, and rapid turnover in the Fertile Crescent"

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6449/173

Abstract: "Verdugo et al. performed genome-wide analysis of 67 ancient Near Eastern Bos taurus DNA samples. Several populations of ancient aurochs were progenitors of domestic cows. These genetic lineages mixed ∼4000 years ago in a region around the Indus Valley. Interestingly, mitochondrial analysis indicated that genetic material likely derived from arid-adapted Bos indicus (zebu) bulls was introduced by introgression."

More:

"This allowed us to look directly into the past and observe genomic changes occurring in time and space, without having to rely on modern cattle genetic variation to infer past population events," said Postdpoctoral Researcher at Trinity,Marta Verdugo, who is first author of the article that has just been published in leading international journal, Science.

The earliest cattle are Bos taurus, with no ancestry from Bos indicus, or zebu—herds which were from a different origin in the Indus Valley.

"However, a dramatic change occurred around 4,000 years ago when we detect a widespread, wholesale influx of zebu genetics from the east," added Verdugo

Professor of Population Genetics at Trinity, Dan Bradley, said: "This was the beginning of the great zebu diaspora that continues to the present day—descendants of ancient Indus Valley cattle are herded in each continental tropics region today."

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-ancient-genomics-rapid-turnover-cattle.amp

"We found that the about 4,000 yrs ago influx of zebu genetics from the East was widespread, profound and (in archaeolgical terms) relatively sudden,” team leader Daniel Bradley from the Trinity College Dublin told DH.

Interestingly the overall genomes of Near Eastern cattle including those from close to the Mediterranean were changed on average by one third by the Indus cow but the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA pool was hardly effected. This points to a male-driven change in the cattle genetics.

This genomic shift occurred after a multi-century drought. The drought-adapted zebu may have been brought into the domesticated cattle populations as a way to keep herds thriving under arid conditions, the researchers say.

The mega-drought, believed to be a key factor underlying the collapse of the Mesopotamian and Indus Valley civilisations changed the society for a while, as their cities gave way to less dense rural settlements. The drought affected some places less where animals and humans survived.

Such animals were transferred from the Far East to Near East for mating. The practice continued through millennia, altering the pattern tropical herding on each continent.

https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/national/indus-valley-bulls-sired-west-asia-stock-746537.html

I think this forms the most crucial evidence for OIT & against AIT/AMT so far

Davidski said...

@The seeker

I think this forms the most crucial evidence for OIT & against AIT/AMT so far.

Cows don't speak languages.

And the Zebu ancestry didn't reach any of the right places at the right times anyway.

Richard Rocca said...

The same mental illness still applies to R-M269. Here is a map of Late Neolithic/Copper Age Y-haplogroups found in Western Europe as per academic published samples and those that some of us have been made privy to but are not yet published:

http://r1b.org/imgs/Lemercier_BB_Map_1.jpg

The seeker said...

Missed this important bit:

"This human-mediated migration of zebu-derived genetics has continued through millennia, altering tropical herding on each continent"

https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aav1002

AIT/AMT - 0
OIT - 1?

A said...

Is anyone ever going to test the skeletons from the grave circles at Mycenae?

Archi said...

@Davidski
"Maybe Herodotus was racist, I don't know, but I don't want a discussion here about skin color in India and how it relates to caste status."

Herodotus described India when there were no castes. Castes in India appeared late. What to do, anyone who mentions what other people look like turns out to be racist. Photographers and movies are also racists, they dare to fix anthropological differences.

But here is modern myths spread it turns out permitted to.

Davidski said...

@The seeker

"Human mediated" doesn't necessarily mean humans accompanied the Zebu out of India. They just facilitated the spread of Zebu genetics, probably mostly via trade.

How do I know? Because human South Asian ancestry isn't widespread where Zebu admixture is found outside of South Asia.

AIT/AMT - 0
OIT - 1?


Yeah, right. Read my blog post above about the spread of the human Y-haplogroup R1a into India.

The seeker said...

@Davidsky

AIT was already dismissed by linguists and archaeologists in the Indological circles over the last 50+ years. Now the genetics are also aligned.

Some sources for those interested:
https://youtu.be/RT4pUJMDV2Y
https://youtu.be/XQw2c5L-LUQ
https://youtu.be/JOSeXBdDI_M
https://www.academia.edu/37026878/A_note_on_PIE_and_Nuclear_Nostratic_NN_preliminary_report
https://www.academia.edu/23185582/Genetics_and_the_Aryan_Issue
https://twitter.com/JoeAgneya/status/936354401035337728?s=20
http://takshasila.wikidot.com/article:sixteen-lands-of-ahuras

Davidski said...

@The seeker

Now the genetics are also aligned.

Obviously not human genetics. Just look at my map above.

zardos said...

"This was the beginning of the great zebu diaspora that continues to the present day—descendants of ancient Indus Valley cattle are herded in each continental tropics region today."

This very interesting,but has little to do with humans, with the exception of those humans which bred the hybrids.

West Eurasians were not well adapted to the more tropical parts of South Asia and neither were there crops and domesticated animals.

Or why do you think the Iranian-related IVC people stood in the North for so long?
Or why the (now estimated smaller, but still) AHG ancestry is so high in tropical South Asia?

Because it was, initially, a very slow and painful process to move deeper into the jungle. Ever controlled for British soldiers morbidity and mortality rates in India?
Even at times of intensive warfare, much more suffered from climate and diseases.

And I'd say the West Eurasians had the same problem. Thats one of the reasons the Indo-Aryan impact was limited and the AHG admixture relatively high.

Obviously the cattle breed will have had similar problems, so they mixed them, more or less consciously, with the local, more resilient breed.

With their intensified milk economy, the European lactase persistence variant, local admixture and the newly introduced rice cultivation both Dravidian elites, under pressure from the Indo-Aryans, accelerated the pace of the colonisation. Indo-Aryans and Dravidians largely used the same successful package and brought higher culture and West Eurasian genes to the tropics.
On the way the continued to mix with locals, which resulted in the Clint we see.
The biggest difference was never between Indo-Aryans and Dravidians,steppe and Iranian-relatedpeople, but those two and the AHG jungle inhabitants.

So I dont wonder they fused their culture and the Indian castes and racial characteristics transgress the ethnolinguistic borders. They both had to adapt their ways the same way while moving deeper into the jungle which was foreign to both.
Without the lucky coincidence of rice introduction from the East Asian colonists at roughly the same time it would have been much harder.
Before the "green revolution" wheat harvests were poor in much of India. IVC was, quite obviously, an Near Eastern derived, or at least inspired irrigation culture.

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca

“Mental illness?- The Kurganists have long had to resort to insult, banishments, mockery and even lies to try to defend a theory that has long been dead and buried. Congratulations you have become the Modern Holy Inquisition. The truth is that it is pathetic to see how you try to hide the debate using R1b-M269, which has nothing to do with Yamnaya, CWC or the BBC- It has been 9 months since you had to try to resuscitate the discredited and obsolete Dutch model to try hide your failure to find R1b-L51 in the steppes. In the end you will make a universal ridicule. By the way it is very fun to see how all your friends are now fervent supporters of the origin of R1b-L51 in CWC. Hahaha-You should talk to the bosses to let me discuss them face to face. If Indian researchers are right (and seem very confident in their claims), the Kurgan theory by Marija Gimbutas will be a funny and sad anecdote at the same time in the history of science. We will see what samples have been analyzed”

vAsiSTha said...

Davidski said "how do I know? Because human South Asian ancestry isn't widespread where Zebu admixture is found outside of South Asia."

This is untrue. Ivc ancestry is found in shahr I sokta and gonur. These were the people who spread Bos indicus genes to the west through zebu bulls post 2200bc.

Anshuman said...

The Problem with Study of sanskrit texts even by Modern so called SANSKRIT experts is that they simply don't get sanskrit can't be studied just like You study Germna through online classes.. audios and writing exercises.
You gotta learn it in a proper way ..the way Brahmins teach it..Orally..why..because Sanskrit is All about context.The old German and western school of learn Sanskrit through crap understanding does not hold Good anywhere .So if anyone wants a proper understanding of sanskrit they will have to work with the old existing Vedic schools.

When you can't even pronounce Sanskrit ..then you can't fix them into your linguistic theories.

That's a pretty basic thing.

Sheldon Pollock..finds it's so very hard to pronounce even basic words ..can't even frame one proper sentence in Sanskrit.
Cant do even one proper Shloka..But Then he is supposedly an authority..It may be ok for others.. but not here..

If you cant pronounce it you cant define how these words came about in being and your linguistics Models fail then and there.
It may be alright for People steeped in Steppes People Conquered the world Theories..but not for long.

The seeker said...

Ponder on these-

"Language families correlated... namely, Dravidian languages correlated to NRYHG L1 dating to 30,000 ybp; Austroasiatic languages spoken in East India with O2a dating to 20,000 ybp; and Indo-European spoken in North India with R1a dating to 15,000 ybp."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124201903000077

Lucotte(2015) dates the Indian R1a origin to 15.5K years ago, thus making India the origin of R1a

https://longdom.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi--haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf

Mirabal, Kivisild & others point to India as the source of R1a.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia#Y_chromosome

Niraj Rai talks about the evidence of R1a originating in India, 38mins into this video ->

https://youtu.be/CUgoCNtldcQ

NB said...

@Davidski, I respect your work but I'm afraid the real mental health issue here is and absurd obsession over a random haplogroup that is causing people to argue and create such toxic discussions.

My advice, just present your case and keep it at that. If the evidence is there then it should speak for itself. You don't need to feed into the fire.

Regards

TLT said...

For a moment I thought that you were going to talk about some kind of a gene which causes femininity or infertility or something like that. I have seen some Finns post about it on 4chan and thought that it was just them talking out of their ass. So far that seems to be the case.

pnuadha said...

@zardos

Male lineages fought for dominance for many thousands of years.

Dude, there was near total autosomal replacement with each migration of highly differentiated people. That means the men and the women "vied" for dominance together. Or you could just call it sticking to your kind.

Remember, nobody could recognize ydna.

@EastPole

By Europeans they consider Western Europeans, i.e. the people who were real racists and colonialist in their history.

They-do-not-care-at-all

You dont understand the dynamics going on here if you think that would even matter.

@vAsiSTha

Dude, India has one of the most caste based systems ever and they are the most extreme country when it comes to aversion of living with a different group. Spare me the fake indignation



Andrzejewski said...

@Sam “I think it'll take a while for geneticists to understand both R1b and R1a originated in Europe and the Kurgan pastorlists had no Middle Eastern Farmer ancestry.”

What about the 18% mostly Anatolian (EEF) in Sredny Stog II and even Yamnaya?

Dita said...

How do we explain that according to Robert Drews, in the South Caucauses (Trialeti) there were swords identical to Type A Rapiers centuries before they appear in Crete (at the beginning of 2nd Millenium BC) They were buried in Kurgans, and not only that, but there are also spearheads, vessels, and cultural artifacts and motifs that would later be found in crete. This movement of material from south caucauses into crete matches chronologically pretty well the arrival of Mycenaeans in Crete, so it poses a problem. Firstly, it is extremely improbable these people did not bring the Greek language into the balkans. Secondly, it is quite unlikely that they belonged to R1a, best candidate is Z2103.

Bronze swords don't appear on the steppe until as early as 1600 BC, so it makes it difficult that this tech came from the steppe, further problematizing R1a connection.

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha
“The white/black nonsense started when some retarded European translators saw race in the Vedas based on some extremely stupid translations not supported by any traditional school.”

It is not the translation but interpretation problem. Rigveda is a religious poetry full of metaphors. Dark people there are not the real people but demons in the heart.
Similar metaphors are used in Christianity which was influenced by metaphoric language of orphic mysteries.

Just an example from Philocalia St Hesychios the Priest On Watchfulness and Holiness 23 writes:

23. Just as someone in the midst of a crowd, holding a mirror and looking at it, sees not only his own face but also the faces of those looking in the mirror with him, so someone who looks into his own heart sees in it not only his own state, but also the black faces of the demons.

http://prawoslawnikatolicy.pl/watchfulness-and-holiness-the-philokalia/

Religion, mythology is to a certain extent a psychology. And eastern Christianity is more aware of it.

Richard Rocca said...

Gaska, mental illness is arguing against obvious data. Look at the map I posted and try to explain away your theories with Y-chromosome ancient DNA data only. No mention of Spanish archaeologist petitions, or mtDNA or any other non relevant data, just the Y-DNA.

Davidski said...

@Dita

How do we explain that according to Robert Drews, in the South Caucauses (Trialeti) there were swords identical to Type A Rapiers centuries before they appear in Crete (at the beginning of 2nd Millenium BC).

They were probably imported or copied.

Successful military innovations spread fast because people are willing to go to great lengths to get them.

vAsiSTha said...

@pnuadha said "dude, India has one of the most caste based systems ever and they are the most extreme country when it comes to aversion of living with a different group. Spare me the fake indignation"

I would not care if you abused and insulted me on my looks/race/religion/language
on a daily basis. I do care if some "scholars" study Sanskrit literature for a few years, without the help of any traditional school where people who do this day in and out, and put out crap in the literary world as 'scholarship'.

Davidski said...

@The seeker

Why are you ignoring ancient human DNA, and instead focusing on ancient cow DNA and modern human DNA?

Is it because ancient human DNA doesn't back up anything you're claiming?

Archi said...

"Dravidian languages correlated to NRYHG L1 dating to 30,000 ybp;"

It's mistake. Dravidian languages correlated to R2.

"Lucotte(2015) dates the Indian R1a origin to 15.5K years ago"
It's full error.

The non-authoritative set of names means nothing.

@pnuadha said...
"@vAsiSTha
Dude, India has one of the most caste based systems ever and they are the most extreme country when it comes to aversion of living with a different group. Spare me the fake indignation"

Yes, the varnas are racism, the jatis are nazi. And these people are constantly claiming that all the other nazis, racists, colonialists and should be shamed.
Therefore Hindus can be nationalists, blame others, not accept information.

@Andrzejewski "What about the 18% mostly Anatolian (EEF) in Sredny Stog II and even Yamnaya?"

It is not Sredny Stog II. In Yamnaya there is no Anatolian.

@Dita said...
"How do we explain that according to Robert Drews, in the South Caucauses (Trialeti) there were swords identical to Type A Rapiers centuries before they appear in Crete (at the beginning of 2nd Millenium BC) They were buried in Kurgans, and not only that, but there are also spearheads, vessels, and cultural artifacts and motifs that would later be found in crete. This movement of material from south caucauses into crete matches chronologically pretty well the arrival of Mycenaeans in Crete, so it poses a problem. Firstly, it is extremely improbable these people did not bring the Greek language into the balkans. Secondly, it is quite unlikely that they belonged to R1a, best candidate is Z2103."

In Crete there were Minoans, not Greece. Kurgans were in Trialeti, but no in Minoan Crete. Mycenaeans were appeared in Greece in 1600 BC, in Create later. At the beginning of 2nd Millenium BC in Greece there lived Luwians.

@EastPole said... "@vAsiSTha
“The white/black nonsense started when some retarded European translators saw race in the Vedas based on some extremely stupid translations not supported by any traditional school.”

It is not the translation but interpretation problem. Rigveda is a religious poetry full of metaphors. Dark people there are not the real people but demons in the heart. "

There there is no metaphors, in RV there directly written (real tribes of Dasa/ Dasiu), as in any other sources.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+3.101.1&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.+3.102.1&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126

vAsiSTha said...

To add to this
"This is untrue. Ivc ancestry is found in shahr I sokta and gonur. These were the people who spread Bos indicus genes to the west through zebu bulls post 2200bc."

This is probably the 1st piece of human genetic evidence showing movement of the people of IVC to west Asia which probably ended up giving Indo Iranian late RV era names to the Kassites and Mitanni between 1750 and 1400 BCE (via elite dominance). As per the hypothesis proposed by Shrikant Talageri. The proper Aryan names found in Mitanni are only attested in late RV books and are completely absent from the old family mandalas, hence they can't be from the pre RV, or old RV period.

Archi said...

Mitanni lived before Vedic Indo-Aryans. The Mitanni were not Vedic Indo-Aryans.

zardos said...

The seeker said...

Ponder on these-

"Language families correlated... namely, Dravidian languages correlated to NRYHG L1 dating to 30,000 ybp; Austroasiatic languages spoken in East India with O2a dating to 20,000 ybp; and Indo-European spoken in North India with R1a dating to 15,000 ybp."

That's all wrong. All these language groups were with near certainty NOT present in South Asia before 10.000 years, Indo-European and Austroasiatic not before 5.000 years. Look at the language groups origins, genetic profile of its carriers and the appearance of these genetic and cultural influences in India. They are all latecomers. The (probably different?) AHG hunter gatherers are the only indigenous people and even they might have exterminated or marginalised other groups of which we just don't know anything right now. Probably the even closer relatives of Andaman islanders for example.

pnuadha said...

"@zardos

Male lineages fought for dominance for many thousands of years.

Dude, there was near total autosomal replacement with each migration of highly differentiated people. That means the men and the women "vied" for dominance together. Or you could just call it sticking to your kind.

Remember, nobody could recognize ydna."

True, nobody knew or cared for his yDNA, BUT they all knew their ancestors! And its about lineages of males, genetically related males, working together in the same ancestral and cultural group. How did they expand? Usually along the lines of their paternal ancestry with their brothers and cousins moving out. So even in a yDNA wise mixed "mother group", chances were high that one particular "daughter group" had, like with general drift, a particular yDNA profile.

So a group expanded, which had, since they had the same paternal ancestry, mostly the same yDNA. Now these potentially successful "settlers" from an expanding group moved sometimes over wide areas, left a lot of their kin and sometimes most if not all females at home. Or some died on the way.

When they met a group of people which they could defeat and dominate, they had the free choice of what to do. If they had a lot of their own females with them and these females had a strong voice in the group, it is probably less likely they would have taken a lot of the foreign women. Especially if those resisted aggressively and would have rather died than to subject to their rule.

If they had some own females, but the foreign females were capable (f.e. weaving, pottery, agriculture and baking) and beautiful, and/or the males had much more to say than the females, then they might have taken a lot of the local females and procreate much faster and spread their genes more successfully in a new environment. This is even more recommended if they would have needed to adapt to a bad environment (for them), like in tropical South Asia.

There are also cases of conquering males which had no females with them at all and so no choice if they wanted some sexual partners than to take locals. Like early Iberian conquistadores or British whale hunters, pirates and prisoners around Australia. In those cases it mattered little how attractive the local females actually were from their point of view, if they were just "attractive enough" for the situation.

Males can easily have, under optimal conditions, more than 20times the offspring of a female, which number of children is usually limited to about 17 on average in Caucasoids according to most studies done in this field. A conquering group of warriors can therefore turn a whole population in just a couple of generations, which would be impossible if their numbers are relatively small without mixture. And of course, when intensive agriculture and simple menial works are plentiful, you might prefer the lesser jobs to be done by those which you subjected to your rule. Even if that can backfire on your groups genetic success in later times.

EastPole said...

@Archi
„There there is no metaphors, in RV there directly written (real tribes of Dasa/ Dasiu), as in any other sources.”

You don’t understand. I am not writing about real tribes Dasa of which we know nothing but about Dasa in Rigveda where they are tribes of demons.


Just referring to Christian example from Philocalia I just quoted:

“23. Just as someone in the midst of a crowd, holding a mirror and looking at it, sees not only his own face but also the faces of those looking in the mirror with him, so someone who looks into his own heart sees in it not only his own state, but also the black faces of the demons.”
The original Greek text refers to black Ethiopians:
βλέπει όμως και τα μαύρα πρόσωπα των νοητών αιθιόπων, δηλαδή των δαιμόνων
“But he also sees the black faces of the imaginary Ethiopians, that is, the demons.”

Surely black Ethiopians existed as people but in Christian metaphors they were demons. Christians in Egypt writing about dark demons were probably dark themselves, but Ethiopians were symbolic demons in their texts.
Rigveda was written in India by Vedic Aryans who were probably dark themselves. You cannot conclude from Rigveda that Vedic Aryans were white skinned, only that their soul was full of light because they followed the Gods.

Archi said...

@EastPole said...
"You don’t understand. I am not writing about real tribes Dasa of which we know nothing but about Dasa in Rigveda where they are tribes of demons."

The Dasa in the Rig Veda have nothing to do with demons, have no attribution of demons, they are absolutely real people and understood only as people. Real men have names ....Dasa. Subsequently, Dasa takes on the meaning of "servant". They never understood as something mystical or demonic, it's just the real enemies who are fighting the real Aryans.

Davidski said...

@All

No more discussions about the meaning of the Rig Veda.

I'll be deleting all such posts from now on.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Archie

''In Crete there were Minoans, not Greece. Kurgans were in Trialeti, but no in Minoan Crete. Mycenaeans were appeared in Greece in 1600 BC''

You're still wrong & living in 1953

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter You're wrong now & living in 19th century.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

Pfft there’s no Babino culture conquest of Greece
It doesn’t even exist on the record
Chariots were brought in by contacts with Indo-Iranians from the steppe; hence linguistic convergences

capra internetensis said...

It's clear that useful plants and animals can spread between societies without accompanying human gene flow - this seems to be the rule rather than the exception - so zebus are not going to be a good proxy.

Can we distinguish this Harappan-associated Iran-Caucasus ancestry from other forms of Iran-Caucasus ancestry when it's not accompanied by Onge-like ancestry?

The seeker said...

Zebu cattle entered the middle east around the same time as Mitanni. Domesticated cattle do not migrate in such a rapid wholesale fashion, thousands of miles on their own.

And I am just gonna leave this right here:

The Recorded History of the Indo-European Migrations - Part 2 of 4 The Chronology and Geography of the Rigveda

http://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-recorded-history-of-indo-european_27.html

zardos said...

Its interesting to read that the Zebus were originally no good milk producers, but had to be bred, also by mixture, in that direction. This really was the work of people which knew what they wanted to achieve I'd say.
But afaik Zebus are never as productive as the better Western cattle, so its really more for the tropics and not beyond.

From the recent studies they claim to be able to distinguish the different Iranian-related ancestral components and if I'm not mistaken, they wrote that the Iranian herders were closer to the Iranian related IVC population than other CHG/Iranian-like populations in question.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi said "Mitanni lived before Vedic Indo-Aryans. The Mitanni were not Vedic Indo-Aryans."

My last reply to your nonsense.

'The major common elements consist of the personal names of the Mitanni kings. As Witzel points out, the common elements "cover the semantic fields of horses, their colors, horse racing, and chariots, some important ‘Vedic’ gods, and a large array of personal names adopted by the ruling class” (WITZEL 2005:361)."

The common names consist of names having the following prefixes and suffixes: -aśva, -ratha, -sena, -bandhu, -uta, vasu-, ṛta-, priya-, and (as per the analysis of the Indologist P.E.Dumont), also bṛhad-, sapta-, abhi-, uru-, citra-, -kṣatra, yam/yami-:

1. NAMES OF COMPOSERS OF THE HYMNS: The following is the distribution of names with these prefixes and suffixes among the composers of hymns in the Rigveda:

In the Non-redacted Hymns in the five Old Books (2,3,4,6,7):
NONE.

In the Redacted Hymns in the five Old Books (2,3,4,6,7):
NONE.

In the five New Books (5,1,8,9,10): 108 hymns:
V. 3-6, 24-26, 46, 47, 52-61, 81-82 (21 hymns).
I. 12-23, 100 (13 hymns).
VIII. 1-5, 23-26, 32-38, 46, 68-69, 87, 89-90, 98-99 (24 hymns).
IX. 2, 27-29, 32, 41-43, 97 (9 hymns).
X. 14-29, 37, 46-47, 54-60, 65-66, 75, 102-103, 118, 120, 122, 132, 134, 135, 144, 154, 174, 179 (41 hymns).

Not a single hymn in the Old Books has a composer with a name with these prefixes or suffixes.'

The Mitanni name prefixes & suffixes are Indo Iranian & from the late RV era. These names cannot be from early or pre RV era. Figure the rest out yourself.

bmdriver said...

Why does migration of mice linked to spread of agriculture spread out of India?......David are you scared of mice?

Migration of mice followed the migration of agriculture.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1929145/figure/F1/

The Muridae family of rodents, which includes both "true" mice and rats, originated in the area across present-day India and Southeast Asia. Phylogenetic and palaeontological data suggest that mice and rats diverged apart from a common ancestor 10-15 myr BP (Jaeger et al., 1986), and by 6 myr BP, the genus Mus was established. The Mus genus has since diverged into a variety of species (listed in Figure 2.2) across the Indian subcontinent, spreading out east and west.

The house mouse could only begin its commensal association with humans after agricultural communities had formed. Once this leap in civilization had occurred, mice from the domesticus group in Pakistan spread into the villages and farms of the fertile crescent as illustrated in Figure 1.2 (Auffray et al., 1990); mice from the musculus group may have spread to a second center of civilization in China (Horiuchi et al., 1992); and finally, bactrianus and castaneus animals went from the fields to nearby communities established in India and Southeast Asia respectively.


Davidski said...

@bmdriver

You're banned here, so obviously you can't post here anymore.

But anyway, I've already commented about the plausibility of using mice as a marker of the Indo-European expansions. See here...

The Out-of-India Theory (OIT) challenge: can we hear a viable argument for once?

The seeker said...

Interesting:

Legacies of domestication, trade and herder mobility shape extant male zebu cattle diversity in South Asia and Africa

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-36444-7

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-spread-of-zebu-cattle-from-south-asia-to-the-east-mediterranean-region-as-a-marker-of-indo-european-population-dispersal

There is also evidence of migration of dogs and sheeps (also associated with the migration of humans) :

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077858

https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2017/170718/ncomms16082/extref/ncomms16082-s2.pdf

So we can see all three domesticated species migrating from a likely origin in India/South Asia. Must be a time of major IE dispersal into further west & central Asia to the Caucasus and the steppe.

Davidski said...

@The seeker

You appear to be seeking in all the wrong places.

Ric Hern said...

@ Dita

Ever heard about the Klady Kurgan Sword ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Mammoth Hunter

Multi-Cordoned Ware Culture aka Babino Culture was from the Steppe and had contact with Sintashta....

The seeker said...

@Davidski

You focus on the appearance but offer no real substance or argument.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Ric

''
Multi-Cordoned Ware Culture aka Babino Culture was from the Steppe and had contact with Sintashta....''

What's the point ?

Davidski said...

@The seeker

You focus on the appearance but offer no real substance or argument.

I'm focusing on Y-haplogroup R1a, which doesn't have an appearance.

And, if you finally care to look, you'll see that my arguments are outlined in the map above.

Ric Hern said...

@ Mammoths Hunter

It seems as if they are the first Culture with Chariots reaching as far West as the Balkans and they could have been Indo-Iranian Speakers or something close to it....so Babino could be relevant regarding the spread of Chariots to Greece...maybe indirectly but still pivotal...

Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Ric
I see what you mean; they would have been important elites...

Ric Hern said...

@ The seeker

Someone mentioned that it was the Male line of Zebu spreading rapidly and not the female lines. Oxen pulling wagons are castrated bulls which can not reproduce. With a full scale migration of people with their animals usually the Male and Females are taken with. This we see with the spread of cattle into Europe. So I would say that Zebu mostly spread by trade. The severe draught which hit the Harrapan area certainly forced people to trade more with Livestock because of failing crops. This could be why we see the sudden boom..etc...

Ric Hern said...

@ Mammoth Hunter

Yes, maybe.

Ric Hern said...

There are crops from different areas around the world which can not be linked to a spread from one point. So agriculture evolved separately in different parts of the World at different times. So we have to be very specific regarding what type of crops spread where from where to show a connection between different areas. The word Agriculture alone just doesn't describe the complexity of it all...

Ric Hern said...

@ The seeker

Most African cattle Motherlines originated from the Hamitic Longhorn which was Bos Taurus...

Gaska said...


@Richard Rocca

Fray Tomás de Torquemada said that only the crazy could oppose the Holy Inquisition. Now you talk about mental illness and Davidski talks about mental health and this seems very aggressive to refer to people who just don't think like you. Why so much verbal violence? Are you afraid? Are you worried?.

This debate is interesting because it can be used to determine the origin of R1a, however our R1b lineage is clearly European (Villabruna-14,000 BC, Iboussieres ...)- The Kurganists are causing a fire that will later be difficult to put out, because while you can demonstrate a completely European origin for R1b-L754, you have been determined to take M269 to the steppes. Technically now the steppes are Eastern Europe, but geographically Europe is a modern convention and the steppes are much more Asian than European. You have already created a serious problem because sooner or later the Indians/Iranians/Turks... will end up proving that the steppe cultures are geographically, culturally and/or genetically Asian.

Regarding my theories and the Y-DNA, I am already more than satisfied,

1-R1b-P312 in Iberia (2.434 BC) oldest in Europe
2-BB migrations from Iberia to other regions (Sicily, Liguria, Morocco, Hungary, Atlantic facade, Occitania)
3-Iberian genetic continuity from the BB culture-Iron Age have been demonstrated

The only pending issue is finding the origin of L51, if it finally turns out to be Central or Western European I will be laughing all my life.

Archi said...

vAsiSTha said...
" @archi said "Mitanni lived before Vedic Indo-Aryans. The Mitanni were not Vedic Indo-Aryans."
My last reply to your nonsense."

Remember, you write here only nonsense, lies and nationalism with racism. You've never known anything on any topic, so don't you dare jump on people much smarter than you and knowing more than you do. You're shameful.

Archi said...

Ric Hern said...
" It seems as if they are the first Culture with Chariots reaching as far West as the Balkans and they could have been Indo-Iranian Speakers or something close to it....so Babino could be relevant regarding the spread of Chariots to Greece...maybe indirectly but still pivotal..."

It's not just chariots, weapons and helmets, which are naturally brought to Greece by Вabinians, just no one else, the Achaeans were charioteers, Вabinians too.
But the similarity is evident in the device of graves, and in the funeral rite, and in the inventory. In principle, close large deep burial pits, sometimes with ledges along the edges. The CMC is known for the stone lining of the walls of burial pits, characteristic of Mycenaean tombs. The manner of overlapping grave pits with logs or stone slabs is similar. In both cases, very common ritual feasts – the burial of animals, particularly horses. The position of those buried on the back is similar to that of the hands on the pelvis, or on the side, with the hands near the face. Among similar equipment, except [discoid] Piliev, – flint arrow with the notch at the base, straightening shafts of arrows, bronze spearheads with a long closed sleeve. A common feature is common in both the CMC and Mycenae plating technique gold. (Berezanskaya)

Babinians were not Indo-Iranians.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

Dickinson suggests that the Shaft Graves are emerge from local antecedents ''If they are local developments, it is not surprising that these particular features are effectively confined to the Shaft Graves; but it is still too rarely recognised that many standard features of the Shaft Graves can be paralleled widely on the mainland. There is evidence for very similar types of burial at several sites in Messenia and also Thebes and Thorikos, though all are in different types of grave from the Shaft Graves. Some are developments of Middle Helladic cists and tumuli, but in Messenia the commonest type is of course the tholos tomb, which whatever its precise origin is surely Aegean in form. But the same types of grave-goods constantly recur, such as Type A swords, cups of the Vapheio
and semiglobular shapes in precious metal, large copper vessels of Cretan types, and gold
plate ornaments, usually decorated with symmetrically arranged patterns of repoussé dots and circles. These are particularly notable, since they seem to represent a specifically mainland development of an old Aegean tradition traceable back to the Early Bronze Age; simple examples occur in late Middle Helladic graves at Argos, Asine and Corinth that must be contemporary with the earlier Circle B graves, and many are found in Messenian contexts.
They must also have been used outside the Peloponnese, where they have been found in the
Late Helladic IIA-B Scopelos grave and as apparently treasured 'heirlooms' later still in
tombs at Medeon in Phocis and near Lamia.34 Messenia has also produced other examples
of gold kantharoi, a characteristically Middle Helladic shape, to parallel that from Shaft
Grave IV,35 and of cutout dress-ornaments in gold like those of Shaft Graves III and IV36
Even the Wellenband or rope-and-pulley style decoration of the bonework has parallels
elsewhere in Greece, some of later date like those from Kakovatos.37
The fact that such typical Shaft Grave features occur in different types of grave at other
sites surely argues against attributing all to the same invading group, as Drews does. The fact that they represent a gradually developing tradition of elaborate burial, which may be considered one of the most important elements of the early Mycenaean culture and which has close links not only with the Middle Helladic past but with general Aegean patterns of
behaviour, argues against any invasion at all. How mainland centres like Mycenae acquired
the wealth to display in this fashion remains a question to which we still do not have a wholly satisfactory answer; but I see no necessity to call in invaders as a deus ex machina''

I think there's been a tendency to downplay migration in the past; so it would be interesting to see what migrations occurred when & what impact they had; with further sampling

Archi said...

Most impressive to the unbelievers that the famous Mycenaean helmets from boar's fangs, so many found in Mycenae, was found in much earlier time in the Northern black sea region in 2000BC. Helmets made of boar tusks is a barbaric ammunition the Mycenaeans characteristic only for Babinians yet, not for anyone.

zardos said...

Sure they downplayed migration, demographic change and ethnicity. Whats even more Greece is one of these cases were a large scale genocide of the invaders, creating a tabula rasa was always out of question.
So who should wonder about some continuity?

Mammoth_Hunter said...

The issue is that there are at least 4 phases which envisioned shifts or migrations in mainland Greece
1. Between 4000 & 3500 BC - end of the Neolithic social order
2. c. 2500 BC - arrival of West Asian bronze age norms
3. 2200 BC - relative collapse of West Asian trade system, internal migrations within Greece; Cetina horizon from West Balkans; Ezero expansion from East Balkans
4. 1600 BC : Shaft Grave horizon ? migrations

Placing the arrival of Greeks c. 1600 BC seems too late.

''Whats even more Greece is one of these cases were a large scale genocide of the invaders, c''
The 'cultured' Hellenes ? Impossible. Refer to the Goths in Constntinople c. 300s & Slavs 1950s

Archi said...

The Greek language appeared in Greece only with Mycenaean civilization, before it was not there, it is an indisputable linguistic fact.

Mycenaean civilization began in c.1600BC, it is an indisputable archaeological fact.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

If it was indisputable; then it’s odd that nobody echoes your view
I refer to scholars familiar in the subject;

- Mallory- favours between 3500 & 2200
- Garrett : “
The
point
is
that

an IE spread into the Balkans and East‑central Europe,

in
the
 late
fourth
 and
 early
third
millennia,
 would

be
a
natural
aspect
of
the
collapse
of
Old
Europe.
“

- I . Aslanis - “The proposal advanced here for how we should understand the 4th millennium BC opens the way for a review of wider issues, such as the descent of the Indo-Europeans into Greece and their relation to the local population.

And so forth.

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter Read carefully, "IE spread" but not "Greeks spread". There is a big difference between "IE" and "Greeks".

vAsiSTha said...

Along with the zebu, Asian elephants (cakirlar, canan 2016) start appearing in Syria in 1800bce during the same time that Indo Aryan starts influencing Kassites (first) and later the mitannis. IVC people are known to have tamed elephants. RV also knew of elephants.

We have human genetic evidence of movement out of IVC to Iran and Central Asia from the beginning of 3rd mil BCE to the end of it.

Pretty good evidence of movement of language from IVC to Kassites/mitanni




Mammoth_Hunter said...

@ Archi

I refer to ''Greeks'' as the IE -speakers of Greek I.E. ; not the pre-IE Neolithic inhabitants, or non-IE Aegean traders, etc
Garrett is a linguist hence I included his view, alongside a western Indo-Europeanologist, & local archaeolgist, just to round it off for you

In any case, your claims are simply dishonest- referring again to previuos thread - 'the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or -at most- two proponents in the discipline.''

So, even if one disagrees with their theories, the summary of views cannot be debated. Your constant dishonesty must simply mean, you're that one left-field scholar that nobody seems to listen to.

Archi said...

vAsiSTha said... "RV also knew of elephants." only in the most later part.

"Pretty good evidence of movement of language from IVC to Kassites/mitanni" hahaha

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter "I refer to ''Greeks'' as the IE -speakers of Greek I.E. ; In any case, your claims are simply that's so dishonest! - referring again to previuos thread - 'the theories of the sudden appearance of a Greek-speaking elite during the shaft grave period have one or-at most - two proponents in the discipline."

So, even if one disagrees with their theories, the summary of views cannot be debated. Your constant dishonesty must simply mean, you're the one that left-field scholar that nobody seems to listen to."

It is you who lie, passing your views for the views of all. Lied that the Mycenaean civilization started in 2300BC and blatantly screaming. Write nonsense, replacing the Balkans BA with its Illyrian and Luwian populations (and others?) on Greece (Peloponnese). He equates Crete with Greece, the Minoan civilization with the Mycenaean, ...

Garvan said...

@zardos,
Rice was cultivated in India starting from about 8000-6000 BC. I think you are confusing cultivation and domestication. Domestication is often easier when you take a crop outside its natural environment. Bellwoods popular book ‘first farmers’ (2005?) also got it wrong. For those interested in the subject, you need to read Fuller’s papers to get up to date. Start with “Consilience of genetics and archaeobotany in the entangled history of rice”.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi noone can be wrong all the time. How do you do it?

Elephant is referenced during all stages of the RV

The references to the elephant in the Rigveda (without counting apsah in VIII.45.56, and sṛṇí in X.106.6) are as follows:

Old Books:
IV.4.1 (íbha-); 16.14 (hastín).
VI.20.8 (íbha-).

New Books:
I.64.7 (hastín); 84.17 (íbha-); 140.2 (vāraṇá).
VIII.33.8 (vāraṇá).
IX.57.3 (íbha-).
X.40.4 (vāraṇá); 49.4 (íbha-).

zardos said...

@Garvan:I rather follow this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316300322

Some remarks:
1. IVC started as a Near Eastern derived irrigation culture in which rice played no significant role while wheat was the base of their diet.
2. Rice cultivation started slowly but was still not adapted to the tropics, which was my main argument.
3. Oryza sativa japonica was introduced later, so was the organised mass cultivation of rice by IVC. Like the study said it started in the Eastern borderlands of the IVC.
4. Japonica was most likely introduced by Austroasiatic colonists coming in at roughly the time in question.
5. So many factors played in:
a) A drought that weakened IVC and made their old settlements less productive.
b) With rice of the japonica variants they started to move "deeper into the jungle" while there was ecological and population pressure because of incoming Indo-Aryans.

So large parts of the Dravidian/IVC elite moved with settlers South, Indo-Aryans followed them until almost the whole of India had West Eurasian genes and higher culture.

But japonica seems to be newly introduced, so was Indian/West Eurasian rice farming at this scale. Indica has Japonica gene flow.
The Zebu just fits in as an adaptation of the West Eurasians and their package to the subtropics and tropics.

Garvan said...

@zardos
"I rather follow this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316300322"

This paper references Fuller 14 times in the first few paragraphs. It is not a problem with the reference, it is your understanding of it. You are confusing cultivation and domestication. I don't want to explain the difference here.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha said... "@archi noone can be wrong all the time. How do you do it?

Elephant is referenced during all stages of the RV

The references to the elephant in the Rigveda (without counting apsah in VIII.45.56, and sṛṇí in X.106.6) are as follows:

Old Books:
IV.4.1 (íbha-); 16.14 (hastín).
VI.20.8 (íbha-).
"

Could you more not lie your mistakes? You do it all the time. There all only in new parts of. In IV.4.1 it is nosing anything the elephant, there is ibhena "with servants, household, attendants". hastí means handy. In VI.20.8 it is name of person Ibhu in sequence names of men, but not the elephant.

zardos said...

@Garvan: What relevance have those details for the general pattern U tried to outline?

I mean I'm ok with being corrected or my rough sketches getting more detailed, but what really matters to me is how West Eurasian settlers, the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan people, became adapted to the tropics and how they adopted rice farming on a grand scale.

Rice was used before in South Asia, but the consumption seem to have going down with IVC, because of their preference of Western crops they planted.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

throughout the entire tradition of Indian Vedic and linguistic tradition, the word íbha- means "elephant": the Uṇādi Sūtra-s (III.147) of Pāṇini (or, according to many authorities, of sources even anterior to him) tell us that the word means hastī "elephant". The same meaning is given by Yāska, Mahīdhara, Sāyaṇa, and all other traditional Indian Vedic scholars, grammarians, etymologists and lexicographers. Many of the western Indologists (Müller, Wilson, Uhlenbeck, Pischel, Geldner) also unambiguously translate the word as "elephant".

Then what is the basis for translating the word as "attendants, servants"? This motif was introduced in the last few hundred years, in defiance of the meaning accepted since thousands of years, and without any basis in either Indo-European or Sanskrit etymology, initially by a motley crowd of Indologists (Ludwig, Grassmann, Roth, Zimmer, etc.), on the basis of the following: the Nirukta of Yāska (6.12) elaborates on the meaning of "yāhi rājevamavāṁ ibhena" (a section of the Rigvedic verse IV.4.1) as follows: "yāhi rājeva/ amātyavān/ abhyamanavān/ svavānvā/ irābhṛtā gaṇena gatamayena/ hastinetivā", i.e. "Go like a king who is accompanied by his minister, or who is the terror of his enemies, or who is followed by his own attendants, i.e. retinue well nourished with food, or (riding) a fearless elephant". The word "attendants" in the above commentary actually refers to the word ama: Wilson, in his footnote to his translation, tells us that "ama has also different interpretations, a minister, for amátya, or ama, an associate". But it has been transferred to the following word íbha and interpreted as the "real" meaning of the word íbha - so the "misinterpretation of an original Vedic text" was done not by ancient Indian grammarians, lexicographers and interpreters of the Rigveda, but by certain early Indologists - and this misinterpretation has been blindly followed by most subsequent Indological scholars.

It may, incidentally, be noted that the word íbha is translated as "attendants, servants" by Griffith, who follows that interpretation, when the context is sufficiently general, eg. "Tugra with his íbha-s", but in IX.57.3, where the reference is to people decking up an íbha, he perforce translates the word as "elephant"!


Hasti means elephant, and not 'handy', even in modern hindi.

vAsiSTha said...

Hasti --->> hatthi (elephant in Marathi) and also haathi (elephant in hindi, Gujarati, etc)

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha said.. "Many of the western Indologists (Müller, Wilson, Uhlenbeck, Pischel, Geldner) also unambiguously translate the word as "elephant".

again is a lie, and even deceiving the authorities. you don't know Sanskrit, and you use Hindi for it.

Find a elephant in IV.4.1
PUT forth like a wide-spreading net thy vigour; go like a mighty King with his attendants. Thou, following thy swift net, shootest arrows: transfix the fiends with darts that burn most fiercely.
Mach deine Gestalt wie eine breite Wurfschlinge, zieh aus wie ein mächtiger König auf dem Elefanten! Deiner gierigen Wurfschlinge nachlaufend - du bist der Schütze - triff die Unholde mit deinen glühendsten Pfeilen.

or in VI.20.8
The crafty Vetasu, the swift Dasni, and Tugra speedily with all his servants, Hath Indra, gladdening with strong assistance, forced near as 'twere to glorify the Mother.
Zu Vetasu mit zehn Listen, mit zehn Armen, dem Angreifer sprach Indra, dessen Gunst
Überlegenheit gibt: "Den Tugra, den Ibha will ich dem Dyotana zutreiben, daß er immer wieder zu ihm komme wie das Kalb zum Euter der Mutter".

zardos said...

Fuller in his abstract:
"Intriguingly, contact-induced hybridisation is indicated for the early development of indica in northern India, ca. 2000 BC."

Now take these two papers together:
IVC led to a reduced rice consumption first, but starting at its Eastern edge rice cultivation increased again.
Roughly at the same time Austroasiatics introduced japonica, resulting in an admixed and more productive domesicated form leading to modern indica.

This process coincided with the Indo-Aryan invasion and additional ecological pressures on IVC. So the timing is perfect.

The real crucial aspect is the introduction of domesticated japonica from the East. Like with the Zebu resulting in a more resilient AND productive local breed used by IVC descendents, Dravidians and Indo-Aryans alike.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi mistranslations by stupid Europeans who disregard the traditional schools. The retort is already given by me above
Explaining the stupidity of ibha translation to mean attendant, going against all old Sanskrit works and commentaries, and in some cases even own translation (Griffith RV 9.57.3)

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/monier/serveimg.pl?file=/scans/MWScan/MWScanjpg/mw0167-indravAh.jpg

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
RV old mandala 4.16.14 mentions mrga hastin (animal/deer with a hand, i.e. elephant)
Griffith translates it as elephant. So let's close this chapter here, the old RV knows about the elephant.

And btw, megasthenes also used 'ibha' for the elephant.

vAsiSTha said...

I see the elephant referenced everywhere for 'ibha' in the dictionary link of yours

Archi said...

This is not the name of the elephant, but a description of an animal unknown to the Indo-Aryans, this is the later shloka, it also includes a lion. It's pretty late mandala with the unusual structure of poems. Lion and elephant for the Vedic Aryans are the most unusual animals, they absolutely do not admire them because they know quite poorly, although they met a lion before an elephant.

Archi said...

ibha "elephant" is characteristic of the later language, Sanskrit, but not of the Vedic.

Garvan said...

zardos said.. "Roughly at the same time Austroasiatics introduced japonica"

Austroasiatics were hilltop vegeculturalists, and are unlikely to have introduce japonica. I don't remember the exact reference for this, but it is from one of Fuller's papers in response to Bellwood 2005.

This is from the other Fuller paper I recommended:

"Whilst direct dispersal from the upper Yangtze via Assam is proposed by some and would fit with hypotheses that derive rice cultivation from the dispersal of farmers in the Austroasiatic language family (e.g. Higham 2003; Bellwood 2005), current archaeobotanical evidence for rice does not provide support for the model."

And:

"The earliest plausible japonica rice grains with short and wide grains is reported from the Swat valley and Baluchistan (see Costantini 1979, 1987), from ca. 1900 BC. In addition, there is a list of other crops of Chinese origin that occur for the first time in South Asia in the northwest, including P. miliaceum (see Jarrige 1985; Fuller and Boivin
2009), apricots, peaches and Cannabis. Also found are the distinctive stone harvesting knives of a form that must have been adopted from China into Northern Pakistan and
Kashmir (Sharma 1982: Stacul 1992). It can therefore be suggested that domesticated japonica followed other crops and tools westward and then south to India, via a precursor
of the Silk Road."

If your post was fundamentally correct, then having correct and updated background information on the spread of agricultural crops will support your position.

Richard Rocca said...

Gaska, again a lot of words with no real meaning. Villabruna is obviously a dead end that is a good 10,000 years older than the time period we are talking about. If it were relevant, we'd already find it in Baden, Remedello, etc. And of course, we don’t.

1. You keep repeating that the oldest P312 is in Iberia in hopes that nobody will call you out on the lie. The oldest P312 is in Bavaria (RISE563).
2. DF27 may have migrated all the way to Sicily but only after it got to Spain from France.
3. The genetic continuity in Iberia from the post Central European Bell Beaker period until the Iron Age is irrelevant. One again you present half-truths to suit your weak narrative. Truth of the matter is that there was a massive genetic change from the Iberian Copper Age Bell Beaker and the Central European Bell Beaker influx into Iberia from both an automsomal and Y-chromosome perspective.

Again, you really have no arguments for the map I put up. Your position is indefensible.

zardos said...

If Fuller is right about that, BMAC and IE might have helped to bring those innovations to the late IVC? What do you think?

vAsiSTha said...

quick question.

how did y haplogroup J2a1-M319 reach the Minoans and Mycenaens circa 1800bc?

The Shahr - i -sokhta individuals from IVC dated 3000BC and 2500BC also have this same Y haplo

natsunoame said...

to Archi and Mammoth_Hunter's dispute


Thracians in Mycenaean society bore titles such as king, governor, commander-in-chief, other Thracians were large landowners… it is clear that the noble class was Thracian. This explains why Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder,Pausanias … claimed that before the Danes seized power, all of Greece was inhabited by barbarians (foreign to the Greek people).

The period of XIII-XII centuries BC was marked by serious climate change, bloody wars and plague epidemics. It was during this period when the mighty Hittite empire fell, and the Mittani’s state perished, and Egypt was for a short time overrun by the sea people seeking the new lands.

The Mycenaeans had a military aristocracy, Thracians were commanders,officers and elite fighters. Most of them were killed in wars, or killed by the plague that resulted from the fighting. At the same time, because of the droughts, it became impossible to feed the population and many of the Thracians/ Pelasgian tribes of Mycenaean Greece /at that time Pelasgia/ moved to the north, where the climate was cooler and there were more rivers. The few surviving nobles depart with the migrants. The remaining Thracians/ Pelasgians in the old places became a minority among the tribes of the Danes (Greeks) who came from Africa. Our grandfathers were mainly cattlemen, and from early spring to late fall, the men grazed the flocks far away, while women, children and the elderly remained in the cities. However, they were easy prey for the Danaous who knew the weak points of the Thracians/ Pelasgians settlements. Without the protection of the military aristocracy, the remaining Thracians/ Pelasgians in the old places were relatively quickly conquered by the Greeks ... and then the complete decline of Mycenaean society came. Linear B sinks into oblivion, no more burial mounds were made, the tradition of making gold funeral masks is forgotten, the Mycenaean /animal/style of authenticity disappears, the population begins to wear other clothes. All these is a clear indication that the Greeks cannot be heirs to the Mycenaeans. The Mycenaean tradition finds continuation in Thrace. It's about art, funeral rituals, clothing, horse breeding, and even weapons. The crooked, complex compound Mycenaean bow is completely unknown to the Greeks, but it is widely used by the Thracians. Thucydides says that in order to protect their cities, Greeks are forced to hire foreigners who can handle bows.

Onto Linear B inscriptions from Mycenaean vessels found in Thebes and Knossos, in both cases, the Thracian Odris (Odrus) was named as Vanakatero (Vanakatelo) - king.

One of the first who published this important epigraphic monument is the Czech linguist Bedrich Hrozni
and the variant of the title *vanak*atero is again encountered in the Thracian tribe of the Phrygians, as Vanakt, documented in the 7th century BC in the dedication of King Midas.

Bedrich Hrozny, pointed out that a special type of early Cretan ceramics was brought to Crete from the Balkans.
Almost no one knows that even J. Chadwick admits that Linear B documents have no typical Greek names with the suffix ides, ades . On the other hand, there are others who do not sound Greek at all. These are Mirul, Pirin, Geta, Perkun, Viamar, Vidumar, Pitak, Sila, Kozar, Kotis…
Who would believe that Greeks are descendants of warlike Mycenaeans, since there is no mention of Mycenaean heritage in Greek society from the 8th century BC and there is a living Mycenaean tradition in the Thracians.

...and Greek language gives an impression of an IE one now, only because of the long contact with Thracians, the autochthonous people here.

Aniasi said...

To be fair, conversations like this veer between flying chariots and tiki torch parades.


The best perspective I've heard on this came from Razib Khan, who makes a good argument for his own view of a more integrationist approach.

Archi said...

@natsunoame What smoke?

" it is clear that the noble class was Thracian. "

Thracians were never on the Peloponnese.

"This explains why Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny the Elder,Pausanias … claimed that before the Danes seized power, all of Greece was inhabited by barbarians (foreign to the Greek people)."

It was about the dark ages of the fall of Mycenae and before the arrival of the Dorians from the North of Doris (Pindus). And we were talking about the coming of the Achaeans and the founding of Mycenae.

"The remaining Thracians/ Pelasgians in the old places became a minority among the tribes of the Danes (Greeks) who came from Africa."

Thracians = Pelasgians! Danae came from Africa! It is necessary to smoke a lot.
The Greeks perfectly knew the Pelasgians and Thracians, they knew their languages, but none of them has bound them, they knew that these languages and people completely unrelated.

".and Greek language gives an impression of an IE one now, only because of the long contact with Thracians, the autochthonous people here."

It is in a fantastic book only.

NeilB said...

Oh come on! Lions were well known from Greece to east of India to all bronze age peoples.according to reports by Ancient Greek writers such as Herodotus and Aristotle, they were common in Greece around 480 BCE. They only went extinct there around 100B.C.E

Karl_K said...

Wait... How did R1a get from South Asia into Europe then? Your facts are confusing me.

Davidski said...

@Matt

If you're lurking here, I just updated my previous blog post with a few qpAdm models featuring Rakhigarhi_BA and Indus_Periphery...

On the surprising genetic origins of the Harappan people

There wasn't much data to work with, but I think it's pretty clear that Rakhigarhi_BA and Indus_Periphery are basically the same.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get reliable G25 coordinates for Rakhigarhi_BA, so Indus_Periphery will have to do for now as a stand in for the IVC population.

Bob Floy said...

*reads most comments in this thread and previous thread*

Hahahahahahaha

Archi said...

Non-Greek names do not mean Thracian. These are not Thracian names. Linear B is not an Indo-European language, and much less Thracian. So that nothing of the fact that the Peloponnese was not the Greeks, to ascribe it to the Thracians. There is nothing to rave that the names are Thracian, in Mycenaean tables were Macedonian-like names (Achaeans were archaically close to Macedonian language). No ancient authors call the Thracians the ancient population of Greece, it's just a hoax.
In General, this is children's funny nonsense.

Archi said...

Indus periphery this does not mean that it comes from IVC. Obviously, the spread of ASI did not coincide with the borders of India, it went beyond the boundaries of the Indian subcontinent in the Paleolithic, so says anthropology, which finds veddoids and outside the subcontinent.

But the hypothesis that the Sumerians were natives of the Indian subcontinent exists.

Matt said...

@Davidski, the tail p's seem pretty low, compared to your fits of the Shirenzigou subjects for'ex, even with a fairly restricted set of ancient southern West Eurasian samples (Iberomaurasian and Barcin_N, no CHG / Levant / Natufian?) and ancient Northern Western Eurasians (no Iron Gates, Kostenki, etc). But thanks for having a go. 23% ENA in Rakhigarhi still doesn't seem too consistent with the PCA and ADMIXTURE by Narasimhan to me though.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
Read the new paper, Indus periphery are migrants from IVC. Their Iran component is deeply diverged from the Iran component of others in the region.

Davidski said...

@Archi

Indus_Periphery is from the IVC.

There's no other explanation why such a population of obvious genetic outliers would exist in the major Central Asian towns.

These people are basically identical to the Rakhigarhi individual and could only have been migrants from the IVC.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha said... "Read the new paper, Indus periphery are migrants from the IVC."

Read carefully, you write what is not, as always. It is clearly written that the authors can't decide if there's any connection with Harappan or not because they don't have samples from Harappan. So now there is no way to decide which of them are natives of Harappan, and which are derived from the ancient substrate that lived there before the arrival of Iranian farmers.

Archi said...

In order to understand who comes from Harappan, and who is an ancient substrate ASI, you need to have several genomes from Harappan, and ancient genomes ASI (pre-Harappan). And check it for each genome.

natsunoame said...

Archi
Macedonian is an artificially made language, learn your lesson, they speak pure Bulgarian. To claim something different is not only a lie but a psychopathy.
The Linear B is not a language, but alphabet and in the parallels found, sound values are the same as in Glagolitic and our runes, of course and the oldest found scripts like Gradeshnica, Karanovo. ..How do you think scientists read them? Through Greek or through Slavic group of languages! This is admitted already by scientists...all the Thracian tribes from before are the same people now, on these particular lands,Wilhelm Obermüller,1872.
Do you think the second by number after Indians disappeared from Earth like a smoke! And you comment a DNA results here?

Archi said...

@natsunoame " Archi Macedonian is an artificially made language, learn your lesson, they speak pure Bulgarian. To claim something different is not only a lie but a psychopathy.
The Linear B is not a language, but alphabet and in the parallels found, sound values are the same as in Glagolitic and our runes, of course and the oldest found scripts like Gradeshnica, Karanovo. ..How do you think scientists read them? Through Greek or through Slavic group of languages! This is admitted already by scientists...all the Thracian tribes from before are the same people now, on these particular lands,Wilhelm Obermüller,1872.
Do you think the second by number after Indians disappeared from Earth like a smoke! And you comment a DNA results here? "

The сhild psychopathy pseudoscientific lied nonsense.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi dont know what you are babbling. But again, these are the facts. There is no ASI substrate in IVC or Iran. The whole area was populated with related iran farmer like people. AASI admixed with them around 4000BC. from the Narsimhan paper

We inferred that the AASI-related admixture occurred 71 ± 15 generations before the average sampling time of our Indus_Periphery_Pool individuals, corresponding to a 95% confidence interval of 5377 - 3697 BCE, assuming an average sampling time of 2549 BCE (range: 3175-2056 BCE) (Fig S 59). As the sampling time of our individuals from Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta sites differ substantially (by ~1000 years), we also ran separate analysis for the 3 individuals from the Gonur site and 8 individuals from Shahr-i-Sokhta sites. The dates obtained are 95 ± 41 generations and 52 ± 6 generations ago respectively, obtaining dates of which 7127 - 2535 BCE and 4483 - 3811 BCE respectively.

Also note, The iran component reached southernmost india only post 1700bc.

In Fig S 57, we show the decay of admixture in one of the populations, Palliyar, that is consistent with direct descent from the ASI. We obtain a date of mixture of between the AASI and Indus Periphery Cline of 107 ± 11 generations, corresponding to a 95% confidence interval of 1700-400 BCE assuming 28 years per generation (47).

Gaska said...

@Rocca

1-Villabruna obviously a dead end?-I suppose you will have some convincing proof, otherwise you should stop saying nonsense because your credibility is below zero-
2-I do not know who has given you the map data, but you are missing a lot of R1b, it does not surprise me because you have to try to square your absurd theories-Again this only shows that you are desperate and scared of the ridicule that awaits you.
3-You mean I5021 Osterhofen?- It is U152 then technically the oldest P312 in mainland Europe is in Spain-EHU002, and nothing makes us think that we will not find older samples. Surely you will not be very happy when we do
3-Of course, Df27 migrated to Sicily from Spain, just as I predicted in dozens of posts. And not only to Sicily but to many other BB regions. DF27 in France rather than in Spain? -You're dreaming or simply provoking because you don't want to accept reality, any geneticist even if he has little experience sees what non-biased people see, that is, a founder effect of this lineage in Iberia. I'm sorry again but you'll also have to accept it sooner or later.
4-The genetic continuity in Iberia from the bb culture to the Iron Age and today is NOT irrelevant, it is very important to try to understand how IE expanded in mainland Europe-I know you don't understand, but it is the only way to solve the IE issue.

I already tell you that I am very satisfied, we only have to wait for you to finally find out the geographical origin of R1b-L51, and we are also on our way to achieving it. Delenda est Yamnaya my friend, remember these words and also that everything you have written these years has been recorded, surely someone will be in charge of reminding you in the future.Why do you no longer think of the steppes and are a fervent supporter of the Dutch model?. I will tell you, it is an express recognition of your failure and a desperate attempt to continue avoiding Iberia. You will know what your motives are, but do not presume to be unbiased because your comments are unfortunate.

@vAsiSTha-"stupid Europeans"?

My education does not allow me to say what I think. You are discussing banalities, when Indian scientists publish their results we will talk, in the meantime you are only speculating and provoking

Matt said...

@David, looking at the stats for fits in the model, InPe as IranN+Onge+TyumenHG, I've sorted the output f4(Base,Fit;pRight,pRight) and f4(Base,Fit;pLeft,pRight) from the output by significance. Here: https://imgur.com/a/ESpfGXu and rearranged into more familiar forms here: https://imgur.com/a/6WOvT3T

(Base is ground truth, Fit is the model).

The pRight:pRight probably tells us more about where the Base and Fit diverge in deep phylogeny. The only that breaches the Z=3 significance level of those is that Base is closer to Devil's_Gate_N than the Fit is. Reflecting probably a higher cut of ENA ancestry? The next most significant is that Base is closer to Anatolia_N than Fit is (only at the Z=2.67 level).

The remaining stats seem to confirm the pattern that Fit probably is slightly lower in ENA ancestry than Base (with Ust Ishim as alternate outgroup and/or South Americans as target).

The pLeft:pRight are pretty high, but those just look to me to be reflecting more things like Onge being only a very deeply diverged proxy for AASI and Tyumen_HG being only a very deeply diverged proxy for the additional "ANE" related ancestry in Indus_Periphery via more southern Central Asian sources. Which we already guessed/know about! (For instance the Z on f4(Base,Fit:Karelia_HG,Tyumen_HG) is really high, but that mostly is going to reflect that the ANE in Indus_Periphery isn't really much more like Tyumen's ANE than Karelia's ANE, while the model estimates that it should be).

Those stats would probably start to drop a bit disintegrate if we were to drop Sarazm and Irula into the groups, for'ex (although the pRight:pRight stats might blow up a bit if the fits couldn't be approximated as well). Just as they're less serious in the models estimating Indus_P with Rakhigarhi. Ganj_Dareh tends to be further from Fit than Reality and and Tyumen_HG+Onge closer to fit than in reality in these, probably reflecting than Ganj_Dareh is a better proxy for whatever stream of ancestry it represents than Tyumen and Onge are.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha You mumble misunderstanding do that, it can be see that you don't understand a word you read.

Our finding, based on the sizes of blocks of
ancestry (13) (fig. S59), that the mixture that
formed the Indus Periphery Cline occurred by
~5400 to 3700 BCE—at least a millennium before
the formation of themature IVC

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

The iran farmer like component has been present in IVC area since 10000bc (shinde paper).

AASI mixed post 5400bc based on all InPe samples from gonur and shahr i sokhta.
Estimate based on 3 Gonur samples is 7127 - 2535 BCE. This is too wide. This is influencing the 5400-3700 overall estimate.
4483 - 3811 BCE Shahr i Sokhta estimate is more precise, is based on 8 samples and has tighter confidence interval

The point however is that AASI is intrusive to N/NW India, as it is to Iran. And that Indus periphery samples are migrants from IVC. Paste the bits of the paper where the authors say otherwise or doubt this conclusion.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

The iran farmer like component has been present in IVC area since 10000bc (shinde paper).

How do you know it didn't arrive in India from some valley in central Iran only 5,000 BC?

Got any proof that it didn't?

Archi said...

vAsiSTha I wrote to you long ago that the Dravidians migrated to India from Turkmenistan/Iran in the days of hunter-gatherers possible, so while it turns out by calculations. You were crying out, what is wrong and lifted me laugh, and now cry that it's so and yet you demand proof from me that it is not.


Through formal modeling,we demonstrate
that it is this contribution of Indus Periphery Cline
people to later South Asians, rather than westward
gene flow bringing an ancestry unique to South
Asia onto the Iranian plateau, that explains the
high degree of shared ancestry between presentday
South Asians and early Holocene Iranians.

The strong correlation between ASI
ancestry and present-day Dravidian languages
suggests that the ASI, which we have shown
formed as groups with ancestry typical of the
Indus Periphery Cline moved south and east
after the decline of the IVC to mix with groups
with more AASI ancestry, most likely spoke an
early Dravidian language. A possible scenario
combining genetic data with archaeology and
linguistics is that proto-Dravidian was spread
by peoples of the IVC along with the Indus
Periphery Cline ancestry component of the ASI.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

"The iran farmer like component has been present in IVC area since 10000bc (shinde paper).
How do you know it didn't arrive in India from some valley in central Iran only 5,000 BC?
Got any proof that it didn't?"

That would mean NW India was empty before 5000BC, or that the central iranians completely replaced an unknown existing pop. Both highly unlikely.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Reflecting probably a higher cut of ENA ancestry?

Probably, but in any case, Rakhigarhi_BA is very similar to the Indus_Periphery average.

I couldn't run Rakhigarhi_BA in the G25 successfully, but I did run some other PCA based on all of the available markers, and they more or less confirmed the qpAdm results.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

That would mean NW India was empty before 5000BC, or that the central Iranians completely replaced an unknown existing pop. Both highly unlikely.

They didn't completely replace the indigenous population. They mixed with it, and that's why Rakhigarhi_BA has 20-30% admixture from a population sort of similar to the Onge.

That's still a lot compared to how much indigenous hunter-gatherer ancestry Southern Europeans have, for example.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

overstating it. the aasi component ranges from 6% to 30% in the 12 samples, with 2 samples over 20%. The older samples have the least aasi. Which means that aasi component was moving north over time. The gonur sample with 30% is also the youngest, dated to 2100BCE.

Also, slim chance that the central asian iran farmer like component existed side by side with zagros farmer without admixing with it.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

There's no evidence that ASI was moving north.

The evidence we have suggests that it was displaced and absorbed in varying amounts by a new population moving into NW India from just east of the Zagros in Iran somewhere, or at best the Iranian/Pakistan border area.

Archi said...

They have no direct genetic evidence of the contacts to the IVC.

Without ancient DNA from individuals
buried in IVC cultural
contexts, we cannot make a definitive statement
that the genetic gradient represented by these
11 outlier individuals, which we call the Indus
Periphery Cline, was also an ancestry profile common
in the IVC.


But there are archaeological.

At both Gonur and Shahr-i-Sokhta there is
archaeological evidence of exchange with the
IVC (45, 46), and all the outlier individuals we
dated directly fall within the time frame of the
mature IVC. (iv) Several outliers at Shahr-i-Sokhta
were buried with artifacts stylistically linked
to Baluchistan in South Asia, whereas burials
associated with the other ancestries did not
have these linkages

vAsiSTha said...

@archi quoted

"Without ancient DNA from individuals
buried in IVC cultural
contexts, we cannot make a definitive statement
that the genetic gradient represented by these
11 outlier individuals, which we call the Indus
Periphery Cline, was also an ancestry profile common
in the IVC."

Just the next line in the paper after what you pasted above.
"Nevertheless, our result provides
six circumstantial lines of evidence for this hypothesis."
hahahahaha

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha Learn to Read!

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

What makes you think that IVC territory wasn't populated by pockets by unadmixed indigenous South Asian foragers who mixed gradually with the rest of the population?

That seems a lot more parsimonious than some migration of ASI from the south. It's what happened in Europe, so why not in India?

It looks like the authors of the paper left their brains at home when they were typing that part of the paper.

Matt said...

Davidski: Probably, but in any case, Rakhigarhi_BA is very similar to the Indus_Periphery average.

They're close enough, within the resolution of Rakhigarhi's SNPs, it turns out. Note in your models that the 01 model with Rakhigarhi only modelling Indus_Periphery (11 samples) passes with 0.2 p, still not a stellar p level, but actually a better p than a two-pop model with Rakhigarhi+Onge, which shows the superiority of using relatives of real ancestors over proxies.

I think there may be some questions about the detail, though, and that Narasimhan's model of "Indus_Periphery_West" plus Steppe_MLBA exactly is probably not quite right.

Davidski said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

I cant speculate much about pre-Harappan India due to lack of samples & even with archaeology its hard to get a picture; at least for a Westerner.

Well, the Indus_Periphery/IVC cline of variable Iran_N/ASI-related ancestries wasn't created during the Paleolithic or Mesolithic, because in that case there'd be no cline.

So ASI foragers had to have been present in NW India just before the IVC, and there's no reason to assume that they went extinct as soon as the IVC appeared, especially considering the wild nature of the IVC territory and surrounds.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

"What makes you think that IVC territory wasn't populated by pockets by unadmixed indigenous South Asian foragers who mixed gradually with the rest of the population?"

that is you sticking on to old biases after your idea of IVC being majorly AASI didnt pan out.

Btw, avg Paliyar height - 151cm
Avg Onge height - 147cm

Rakhigarhi height - 177cm male

average Mesolithic Ganga plain skeleton heights carbon dated to 6500BC at damdama, mahadaha, sarai nahar rai - 180cm for males

figure it out

Davidski said...

Indian hunter-gatherers were tall? So were European hunter-gatherers. Much taller than farmers.

So what?

TLT said...

@David: I have been wondering about this for a while. Modern south Asians with plenty of AASI tend to be fairly short so the tall HG of mesolithic Ganga are weird outliers. What if they weren't AASI at all and were Iran HGs instead? I know that of the 3 adult skeletons in Hotu cave, the Male was estimated to be 5'9, female number 1 was 5'6 (and not very feminine) meanwhile female number 2 was 5'2 (squatter but also more feminine overall). I know that these values are somewhat lower than the Ganga mesolithic skeletons' but that could simply be because Hotu HGs and Iran HGs who migrated to south Asia were genetically differentiated enough to warrant such a phenotypical difference. What if the tall Ganga basic skeletons belonged to early Iran HG incursions into south Asia instead?

Alternatively perhaps there were very tall (like near Gravettian tier tall) AASI in northern India but these guys were probably killed off by Iran HG migrations which is why we see no signs of tall AASI later on.

Are either of these 2 scenarios plausible?

Davidski said...

Height is influenced by diet and other such factors, as opposed to just genetics.

So one of the main reasons why the north Indian hunter-gatherers were tall is probably because they had an awesome diet of large, meaty ungulates.

TLT said...

That is true, height is influenced by diet, but as far as I know, deer hunters tend to not be very tall. WHGs were around 5'6 on average for the males if I am remembering correctly. Their ancestors were much taller when they had to hunt mammoths. When they ran out of mammoths, a larger body that requires more calories to maintain wasn't as good (in terms of survival efficiency) as a smaller body when hunting smaller prey with fewer calories to offer. So, a shorter height was selected for. WHGs must have had a good diet overall and yet they were somewhat short (but they were healthy and robust in all other parameters like cranial capacity and mandible size).

Matt said...

Measured skeletons suggest European mesolithic groups were roughly the same height as neolithic groups - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/690545v2 -

We show that the observed decrease in height between the Early Upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic is qualitatively predicted by genetics. Similarly, both skeletal and genetic height remained constant between the Mesolithic and Neolithic and increased between the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sitting height changes much less than standing height–consistent with genetic predictions–although genetics predicts a small Bronze Age increase that is not observed in skeletal remains. Geographic variation in stature is also qualitatively consistent with genetic predictions, particularly with respect to latitude.

Not that it matters, it's just seems to be what's the case.

(Above paper is linked to a pretty great dataset with about 2000 European samples, about 730 with estimated statures between 9000-2000BP. See - https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/fae/cbr.html. Actually includes the precise cultural affiliation of samples (e.g. Corded Ware, early neolithic, etc.) and many anthropometric measurements.

After standardising female and male heights, see: https://imgur.com/a/VLLeetV . Means are about where the labels are.

Mesolithic hunters tend to be fairly low statured, other than an early series from Romania, including the SHG.

As said before, when you plug the Yamnaya, Poltavka, Potapovka and Srubnaya femur length data available online into a regression based on Ruff's femur length and height, the these groups tend in male stature 172-167 cm, certainly on the tall end of height compared to Ruff's set from Europe, but certainly no 185cm averages or anything.

TLT you are roughly in the right ballpark - WHG hunters tend to be around 5'5" in measured stature. The above spreadsheet includes many of the famous reference samples like Loschbour etc.).

TLT said...

Thank you for the informational post Matt. Will definitely be saving those sources.
With all of this in mind, I sort of find it hard to believe that the tall Ganga skeletons were AASI. Then again... south Asia might have been divided into many different sub-populations that didn't mix much for all we know and thus had different selection processes going on. Tall AASI in the north mixing with moderate/average height Iran HGs producing the IVC population could be a real possibility.

Mammoth_Hunter said...

TLT
I think you’re right . It’s seen through to Siberia
I wonder if brain reduction cost function; or merely concentrated it
The parietal art was certainly less symbolic

vAsiSTha said...

Sri Lanka - dated to 6500bc

Study of morphology, morphometry and mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms of
prehistoric skeletal remains of Potana and urana population in sigiriya,
Sri Lanka

The reconstructed average stature of male and female at Bellan-bandi Palassa was 164.7 cm and 164 cm respectively (Kennedy, 1965). Recalculated stature of male and female of the site was 165.2 cm and 152.3 cm (Deraniyagala, 2002). Kanthilatha (2012) calculated the mean stature of Bellan-bandi Palassa population using fragmented long bones stored at National Museum, Colombo as 140 cm.

Matt said...

No problem @ TLT.

If you or anyone else is interested, here is another set of plots based on Ruff's data but aggregated into Mesolithic, Neolithic, Corded_Ware, Beaker, Pitted_Ware, Bronze, Iron sets: https://i.imgur.com/4qsXkkp.png

(To maximize sample size in categories and provide a less cluttered plot).

epoch said...

@TLT and Mammoth Hunter

Even if corrected for stature brain sizes have decreased. See this Chris Stringer article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/

We also know that the phenotypical diversity of EMH has increased enormously: Hair color is now very divers, Hair can be straight, curly and anything in between. Eyes colour are divers.

Diminished brain size and increased colour and hair type diversity is exactly what is so typical for domesticated animals, next to diminished aggressiveness. Could it be that the process of Neolithization was actually a process of self domestication?

DISCLAIMER: I am only half joking.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

"So one of the main reasons why the north Indian hunter-gatherers were tall is probably because they had an awesome diet of large, meaty ungulates."

Modern Punjabis and haryanvis, current residents of NW India are the most vegetarian pop of India. But they are the tallest. Lot of dairy though.

Archi said...

Well what to say, the EHG were tall, the WHG and near East were stunted. And the reasons are unclear. The difference between the EHG and the WHG could be explained by a lack of vitamin D, the first were light, the other were dark.

capra internetensis said...

The teeth of Neolithic population of Mehrgarh in Pakistan possibly show a relation to Southeast Asians. Then there was a population discontinuity, the Chalcolithic population clustering nearer to Harappans. That could coincide with the Iranian-like + Onge-like admixture. Not that I'd put a lot of trust in this very scanty physical anthropology data, but it *could* mean that there were early ASI *farmers* in the Indus region.

JuanRivera said...

May also have to do with ANE ancestry. Modern people that have higher ANE tend to be taller, for example Russia and Iran compared to Spain and Saudi Arabia. Amerindians too were taller in the past than European colonists, and some tribes are still rather tall. Also, even people in Spain and Iraq (for example) are taller than East Asians on average, which also correlates with the still significant presence of ANE in those peoples (6 to ~8% in Spain and somewhat higher in Iraq, whereas East Asians have none [at least when using Tianyuan as one of the inputs]). Then, better living conditions (such as more available food) have a greater impact, which explains why there are numerous exceptions to that above. Plus there are no data on the Ket, which are the people which today have the highest ANE ancestry in the world (up to 67% ANE), though online photos may help.

JuanRivera said...

Note that Iraqis are taller than Saudi Arabians. Saudi Arabians are as tall as the average Chinese (169.5 cm/5'6.5").

Samuel Andrews said...

"HungaryBA" is one of the biggest discoveries from Bronze age Europe. They formed in Hungary around 2200 BC. Quickly, they expanded and became the main population in Central Europe (Poland, Hungary). From 2200 BC-500 AD, Central Europe can be summed up as "HungaryBA." Then, the Slavs from East Europe "whipped them out" in 500-700 AD.

HungaryBA probably represented an ethno-lingustic group who grew to encompass most of Central Europe during the Bronze age. "HungaryBA" people were on one side of the famous Bronze age battle in Germany. Their language was probably replaced by East Germanic (Goth) in the iron age. But, the Goths were mostly of HungaryBA decent not Germanic decent.

Originally HungaryBA did not speak Germanic. Their original language is not recorded in history. Their language might not have been Indo European (considering they were only 23% Kurgan).

I'd say, HungaryBA proofs that the Slavs origins are strictly in East Europe in Ukraine or further East. Slavs do have HungaryBA ancestry but I don't think it is very significant.

JuanRivera said...

The Neolithic teeth from Mehrgarh have a close relationship to later teeth from Inamgaon and Timargarha. Teeth from Calcholithic Mahrgarh show no relationship to those of Tepe Hissar, which is in line with the Iranian ancestry of IVC being HGs-turned-farmers splitting from other Iranians at a date older than 12000 BP rather than recent Iranian farmers from the fertile crescent.

natsunoame said...

Samuel Andrews
when you dont know nothing about some theme but you are interested, just have to look for some information and read it not to spread ignorance.

The most abnormal thing here is to not remember what you have read a couple months ago in this blog.
None of what is written by you overlap with historical records or well known facts about that area and the people inhabited it.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/04/on-association-between-uralic.html?m=0

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

How do you explain the strong genetic relationship between Baltic_BA and northern Slavs if Slavs came from east of Ukraine after the Bronze Age?

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

Mammoth_Hunter said...

Sam
There’s no such population as “Hungary BA” because it was much too diverse and too many people came & went. Central Europe isn’t like Ireland; for example; where after the BB there wasn’t much large shifts of people (& the rest of history was mostly cultural adaptation).

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

I never said that. I said Slavs Bronze age origins are in East Europe not East of Ukraine. You're right that Baltic states are the main location and I didn't include.

@Matt,
"There’s no such population as “Hungary BA” because it was much too diverse and too many people came & went."

Welzin_BA warriors from 1200 BC, a Beaker sample from Hungary from 2200 BC, a Bronze age sample from Hungary from 2000 Bc are all identical to each other. Later Hungary Hallstatt samples are mostly madeup of the same stuff but have significant Western European admix.

All VisiGoth samples from Spain have significant HungaryBA-like stuff. If you remove their Italian-French admix they are mostly HungaryBA (but also largely Northern European).

An abstract about an upcoming ancient DNA study in Poland described what sounds like HungaryBA living in Poland in the Middle Ages. This unique "group" keeps popping up.

HungaryBA is distinguished by 40% hunter gatherer ancestry. There is no precedent to this from Neolithic farmers in Central-East Europe. But, all later populations in Central Europe have this huge extra amount of hunter gatherer.

In other words, this didn't exist in Neolithic Central Europe then it becomes widespread in the Bronze age. To me, this looks like an ethno-lingustic group rich in WHG and low in Yamnaya emerges in 2000 BC then expands during the Bronze age.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Natsunoame,
"None of what is written by you overlap with historical records or well known facts about that area and the people inhabited it."

Central European history begins with the Goths in 200 AD. The Goths, at least lingustically but maybe not in ancestry, were a foreign group who arrived recently from Scandinavia. Who lived in Central Europe before them? Nothing is known because there are no written records.

Based on a small amount of ancient DNA, I think an unrecorded ethnolingustic group "HungaryBA" did. That isn't so crazy to propose.

JuanRivera said...

Don't forget that Visigoths also have East Asian-like/Baikal-like/Hunnic-like ancestry.

Samuel Andrews said...

Yeah, a few of the Visigoths are 5% Hunnic. But no one today has Hunnic ancestry.

Slumbery said...

@Samuel Andrews

"I never said that.

"I'd say, HungaryBA proofs that the Slavs origins are strictly in East Europe in Ukraine or further East.

Davidski reacted to the part in bold.

BTW, why do you think that Poland as a whole (or mostly) was populated by Hungary_BA-like population? Are there samples from Bronze Age Poland that support this?

natsunoame said...

Andrews
Pls, stop with your lottery here!
Goths have nothing to do with Scandinavia, at least for them there are plenty of information.
And Hungary has nothing to do with European history till the Middle Ages.
Check what is written about Panonia and old maps of Europe at that time /Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, map 20, P. Kos, M. Šašel Kos/. Some old authors are very concrete about the tribes lived there.
Hungarians are a newcomers here and just assimilate them. In general, we are talking about locals with some foreign admixture.

You can check authors like Paulus Orosius, Strabo, Paul the Deacon, Joannes Zonaras, Pliny the Elder gives us toponyms, rivers from that time, even the name of their capital is well known.

Gaska said...

@Juan

The truth is that your last messages are being great, you are not only demonstrating your ignorance but also your anti -iberism. First you say that Darra-i kur was the nail in the coffin of the naysayers of the steppe origin of R1b-L51 when you had not even checked the genome (In the best case is R2), and then you undoubtedly link the proportion of ANE with the height of different populations. The international scientific community is indebted to you.

Regarding the height of Native Americans, I recommend that you carefully read the physical descriptions that the Spanish chroniclers made of the Indians. I remember talking about giants in Patagonia, indigenous people of good stature in some Caribbean islands and in certain regions of Colombia, Chile, Texas and Florida. However they were surprised how small the Mexicans were (including their war captains). A Spaniard was skinned alive and two mexican warriors fit in his skin

The variety of physical characters in Native Americans was very large, even some had skin tones similar to European-The chroniclers also physically describe many adventure companions, Bernal Diaz del Castillo describes Pedro de Alvarado as very tall, blond with blue eyes and Gonzalo de Sandoval, swarthy and short with bowed legs due to the custom of
riding. The variety was as large as it is today, then generalizing about the phenotype is stupid and link it to the proportion of ANE without a doubt a genius of yours.

EastPole said...

I checked some Indian press about new dna discovery. They repeat what was in the papers i.e. that Aryans came from Eastern Europe and were related to Balto-Slavs.

://www.thehindu.com/society/history-and-culture/theres-no-confusion-the-new-reports-clearly-confir-arya-migration-into-india/article29409611.ece

Looking at languages and genes and at the similarity in Vedic, Slavic and Orphic/Thracian religions, it looks very likely now that Hyperboreans living north of Carpathian Mountains and north of the Ukrainian steppe were related to Slavs.

JuanRivera said...

I'm not very experienced, and I admit I jumped too quickly regarding Darra-i-kur. I already have been warned that I'm going to become ignored if I continued to post nonsense.

JuanRivera said...

So I end up unintentionally insulting some peoples.

Gaska said...

Juan not many people are able to recognize their mistakes, that says a lot in your favor.

I was wrong many times, so we have to be cautious. Now we are arguing here because the Indians say they have R1a 10,000 BC or even older? - I believe it when I see it, in the same way when someone shows me L51 / P312 in the steppes I will have to publicly acknowledge my mistake. Meanwhile still playing the game

Un saludo

Ric Hern said...

Wouldn't it be interesting if L51 spread from Northeast Poland via a Maritime Route Westwards...

Archi said...

@Gaska "Now we are arguing here because the Indians say they have R1a 10,000 BC or even older?"

Because they calculated the untyped R1b and P1 as R1a. Now they are combining R1a and English R1b to R1. If we will be computing by this method that R1 originated in general in America, as well as all mankind.

Gaska said...


Really? they seem very confident in what they are saying, if it were as you say they would lose all their credibility. Or maybe they just want to annoy, they don’t seem very friendly to Europeans

Archi said...

@Gaska Nobody believes them.

Davidski said...

@Archi

Because they calculated the untyped R1b and P1 as R1a.

What do you mean by untyped?

Slumbery said...

@natsunoame

This caught my eyes due to mention of Hungarians:

And Hungary has nothing to do with European history till the Middle Ages.
...Hungarians are a newcomers here and just assimilate them. In general, we are talking about locals with some foreign admixture.

You seriously misunderstood what Samuel wrote. He clearly did not mean Hungary as a country, only as a Geographical region. Neither he talked about Hungarians as an ethnic group in any of his comments here.

All he wrote that samples labeled in the Global 25 data-set as Hungary_BA (Bronze Age samples from where Hungary is now) are references for an important population and he elaborated on it.

zardos said...

@Mammoth: Even Ireland was heavily impacted by gene flow, not just cultural influence.

But those coming after BB had a similar genetic profile and a basic population continuity can be seen.

Hungaryon the other hand was one of the most dynamic places with constant change.

But Ireland was bot isolated either.

Mammoth_Hunter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard Rocca said...

Gaska,
1. If Villabruna is not a dead end, then where are all its children from the period of 14000-2500 BC, especially in Western Europe where you claim it survived? PROVIDE DATA PLEASE
2. The map is based on ancient DNA samples from studies. Since you are calling me out, provide the M269 samples I have missed. PROVIDE DATA PLEASE.
3. Since P312 is the parent of U152, then obviously Osterhofen is oldest. You really don't understand DNA basics do you?
4. So DF27 took a boat straight from Iberia to Sicily? Are you that dense? Check all migration maps that have arrows going down the coast from NW Italy to the islands.
5. You made the case that L51 has always been in Iberia because of continuity from Bell Beaker to the Iron Age. When it comes to the arrival of L51 in Iberia, that continuity has nothing to do with the debate, since Iberia was clearly not L51 in the Copper Age Bell Beaker, just with the arrival of Bronze Age Central European Bell Beaker DF27.

Regarding the Dutch model, you are the one saying it, not me. I just offer different options from most probable to least probable. Most of the oldest Central European Bell Beaker samples (by radiocarbon dating) I've painstakingly researched are all in Eastern Germany and have provided the data for everyone to see. The options I don't propose are the absurd ones like you magical fairy tale ones that are clearly based on Basque nationalistic pride. No worries, your fairy tales will be coming to an end very soon. I am so look forward to it.

Gaska said...

Speaking of stature, Spain has won the basketball world championship for the second time. We are going to have to teach those North Europeans so tall to play basketball. Rocca I'm celebrating, I hope you're happy. We will speak later

Gaska said...


Bla bla bla Richard, same empty arguments, excuses, absurd probabilities, accusations of nationalism and racism. Came on, all you have to do is provide evidence, that is, find L51/P312 in the steppes or in the SGC or wherever you want. Meanwhile you will have to rectify many times.

You really believe that Df27 in Sicily comes from northern Italy?. Perhaps you have not read Fernandes' paper or you simply have not understood it because it explains it very clearly. I know it's hard for you to give the right to people who don't think like you, but this time you've lost my friend

And by the way, for a person to be credible, he cannot change his mind every time he writes a post to try to offend his interlocutor. The genetic continuity in Iberia is super important to show that BB culture and Western Europe did not speak IE. I know you don't understand it but you should try, meanwhile you can keep looking for L51 with your friends in Yamnaya, Repin, Catacomb, Sredni-Stog, Khvalynsk, or in the moon.

Arza said...

@ Samuel Andrews
An abstract about an upcoming ancient DNA study in Poland described what sounds like HungaryBA living in Poland in the Middle Ages.

What abstract? Can you cite it or link it?

Slumbery said...

@Davidski

West Siberia N and the Poltavka outlier are both missing from the current Global 25 datasheet. Is that intentional? Or have you renamed them to something I did not recognize?

natsunoame said...

Slumberi
Would you give me a link with these important samples /HungaryBA/ you’re talking about ?

Slumbery said...

@natsunoame

Note that I do not wish to discuss Samuel's theory. It is not my theory and I do not have a strong opinion about it. I was just trying to clear an apparent misunderstanding about what Samuel Andrews said.

The samples Samuel wrote about are I7040, I7042, I7043 (and also probably I7041, but that is not in the Global 25 data, probably because the coverage is too low).
They were published in Olalde et al. 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature, 555(7695), 190-196.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
(There is probably a free version somewhere if you look.)

Note however that what Samuel says is not in the article. He is using multiple samples from multiple sources and says that there is a network of genetically similar samples in later Bronze Age and early Iron Age.

I hope I helped, further discussion should be with Samuel.