Over at
bioRxiv at this
LINK. Note that the Andronovo samples that are shown to be the best fit for the steppe ancestry in South Asians are labeled Steppe_MLBA_East (ie. Middle to Late Bronze Age eastern steppe). Below is the abstract and a couple of key quotes from the paper and its supp info PDF. Emphasis is mine:
The genetic formation of Central and South Asian populations has been unclear because of an absence of ancient DNA. To address this gap, we generated genome-wide data from 362 ancient individuals, including the first from eastern Iran, Turan (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan), Bronze Age Kazakhstan, and South Asia. Our data reveal a complex set of genetic sources that ultimately combined to form the ancestry of South Asians today. We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers. We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.
...
Third, between 3100-2200 BCE we observe an outlier at the BMAC site of Gonur, as well as two outliers from the eastern Iranian site of Shahr-i-Sokhta, all with an ancestry profile similar to 41 ancient individuals from northern Pakistan who lived approximately a millennium later in the isolated Swat region of the northern Indus Valley (1200-800 BCE). These individuals had between 14-42% of their ancestry related to the AASI and the rest related to early Iranian agriculturalists and West_Siberian_HG. Like contemporary and earlier samples from Iran/Turan we find no evidence of Steppe-pastoralist-related ancestry in these samples. In contrast to all other Iran/Turan samples, we find that these individuals also had negligible Anatolian agriculturalist-related admixture, suggesting that they might be migrants from a population further east along the cline of decreasing Anatolian agriculturalist ancestry. While we do not have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), based on (a) archaeological evidence of material culture exchange between the IVC and both BMAC to its north and Shahr-i-Sokhta to its east (27), (b) the similarity of these outlier individuals to post-IVC Swat Valley individuals described in the next section (27), (c) the presence of substantial AASI admixture in these samples suggesting that they are migrants from South Asia, and (d) the fact that these individuals fit as ancestral populations for present-day Indian groups in qpAdm modeling, we hypothesize that these outliers were recent migrants from the IVC. Without ancient DNA from individuals buried in IVC cultural contexts, we cannot rule out the possibility that the group represented by these outlier individuals, which we call Indus_Periphery, was limited to the northern fringe and not representative of the ancestry of the entire Indus Valley Civilization population. In fact, it was certainly the case that the peoples of the Indus Valley were genetically heterogeneous as we observe one of the Indus_Periphery individuals having ~42% AASI ancestry and the other two individuals having ~14-18% AASI ancestry (but always mixes of the same two proximal sources of AASI and Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry). Nevertheless, these results show that Indus_Periphery were part of an important ancestry cline in the wider Indus region in the 3 rd millennium and early 2 nd millennium BCE. As we show in what follows, peoples related to this group had a pivotal role in the formation of subsequent populations in South Asia.
...
These results—leveraging our rich data from ancient samples closer in time to the Bronze Age—show that the group(s) that contributed Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry to South Asia shared more genetic drift with the Iranian agriculturalist-related groups in our dataset that are temporally and geographically closest, compared to Caucasus HGs (CHG) or early Zagros related agriculturalists previously shown to be related to source populations for South Asians (11, 81). We are not only able to exclude these early farming and hunter-gathering groups, but also Copper and Bronze Age groups in western Iran (Seh_Gabi_C and Hajji_Firuz_C), and even in eastern Iran and Turan (Tepe_Hissar_C, Gioksiur_EN, and BMAC). Our detailed analyses in Text S3 indicate that what is driving the failure of these models is an excess of Anatolian agriculturalist-related ancestry in all of these groups, suggesting that the Iranian agriculturalist-related population that mixed into South Asia had less Anatolian agriculturalist-related ancestry than all of these. However, we find that mixtures using the Indus_Periphery sample (a pool of three outlier individuals from the BMAC site of Gonur and from Shahr-i-Sokhta), provides an excellent source population for the Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry in South Asia when combined with any individuals in the Steppe_MLBA cluster (Srubnaya, Sintashta_MLBA, Steppe_MLBA_West or Steppe_MLBA_East).
Narasimhan et al,
The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia, Posted March 31, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/292581
Update 12/04/2018: The dataset from the prerprint has been made available early at the Reich Lab website
here. I've already started analyzing it. You can see the results in several new threads, for instance
here,
here and
here.
See also...
Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...
Central Asia as the PIE urheimat? Forget it
Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts
868 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 868 Newer› Newest»No, because the main conflict in the Rigveda is between Aryans and Dasas. Dasas are (somewhat) associated with mountains and forts, which suggest they are placed to the North of the Vedic geography, which itself is generally the region of what is now Pakistan.
Dasa are clearly the Iranian Daha who we later see migrating North-Westward into the Pontic-Caspian steppe as a major element of the Scythian confederation.
The Migraton theory makes little sense. What makes more sense is
Rigvedic Culture - 3000C Punjab, pushing North and Westward, pre-urban.
Avestan Culture/Kayanid Dynasty - Urban, 2000BC BMAC, Sharh-Sukteh and upto Caspian Sea (Mazandaran etc). We know pre-avestan religion was very similar to Vedic.
"Could I ask someone to do a test on whether the Seh_Gabi_C populations can be modelled as deriving not from Neolithic Iranian and Anatolian populations but from Neolithic Iranian and Eastern Balkan farmer populations?..."
I've just found page 112, fig F3.4 of the supplement, which seems to have done something like what I was looking for. Yes, Romania_EN is a better fit than Anatolia (if anyone's interested).
@mzp1
Well I agree that there is clearly no invasion in either case.
But the Dasa/Daha could have been the tribe that arrives at the BMAC first and then take it over. The Arya arrive later and are on the outskirts and who else is also there at the outskirts but the IVC migrants.
The arya and the ivc migrants (indus_periphery) merge - and the tribe now adopts the IVC religion and their deities (Indra being the first one) - who is known as a liberator of waters. Liberation of waters is a key issue in the IVC and BMAC around this time as we know since both places are drying up rapidly. So its easy to imagine that the IVC migrants had a strong belief in him.
The Arya/Indus_periphery gang call themselves the Devas (proto-ANI in my view as they believe in IVC gods/religion but keep their IE language).
This is why in Avestan/Zoroastrian history, Devas are bad people and Indra is held in contempt. Asuras on the other hand and Dasa/dahas are the good guys in their history.
The big religious conflict happens and thus begins the schism between avestan and vedic. The losers move west and start the yaz culture.
And when the BMAC becomes completely dry, the proto-ANI devas move south of the hindu kush. Their chariots and steppe ways aren't that useful in these new lands and they meld together with the ASI with whom their share a religion.
And of course because the melding of the indus_periphery and the IE speakers happened already at the BMAC - the two groups probably don't even look that different. Maybe just the difference you see in most indian villages today.
Anyways... in either case, I do agree that invasion or even mass migration is a stupid suggestion.
I'm also completely open to your theory, but need evidence. If rakhigarhi comes back r1a, then i would modify my view completely.
Sorry Thorin, there are too many issues in your post so I can will only give a brief response.
Dasa are not the 'good guys' in Zorastrianism. Infact, Zoroastrianism is an 'Aryan' religion and in many Iranian dialects Daha has the same prejorative meaning as in Vedic.
"This appears to be cognate with nouns in other Eastern Iranian languages, such as a Persian word for "servant", dāh and the Sogdian dʾyh or dʾy, meaning "slave woman".[4]"
Also, there is no evidence of non-IE divinities in Rigveda, this is mostly speculation. You call Indra non-IE even though he is the most well-elaborated IE dragon-slayer god. His name may be exclusive to IA, just like Mitra, but that does not mean he is not IE.
Do we call Thor a non-IE god because his name is exlusive to Nordic Paganism?
@Salden
">the main conflict in the Rigveda is between Aryans and Dasas.
Tell us more on how the writings of denizens of a superstitous society should be taken seriously compared to the findings of actual science."
Using textual evidence to derive historical correlations is i guess superstition only in the books of those coming from your neighborhood.
Entire articles have been published on this topic,
"The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the Cultural and Ethnic Identity of the Dāsas by Parpola" https://www.jstor.org/stable/25182273?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://crossasia-repository.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/118/
by Witzel , among others.
@Salden,
" the main conflict in the Rigveda is between Aryans and Dasas.
Tell us more on how the writings of denizens of a superstitous society should be taken seriously compared to the findings of actual science.
Because these writings are the basis of IE studies. I suppose it is "superstitous" for you when it is not consistent with your agenda. Selective reading is a powerful tool for the foolhardy.
There would be no IE studies without literature, I thought I made that point clear. If you have reason to dispute literary evidence then present it otherwise the evidence from literature stands.
Either way, the literature does not yet conflict with science, only your interpretation of it.
@salden
Reminder: There is no significant amount of South Asian DNA past areas like BMAC. While there is a significant amount of Hyperborean DNA in South Asia.
So what? If we assume 10% South Asian in BMAC and 10% BMAC into Western Central Asia it will leave us with 1% South Asian DNA of which the exclusive South Asian component would only be 30%.
The domestication of the horse is proposed as the reason for the expansion of the steppe population that may have taken place on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the 5th millennium BC (according to Anthony 2007: 200). With horses providing unprecedented mobility, these populations supposedly gained a decisive military advantage over their neighbours allowing them to expand in all directions, both into the Asian steppe but also to the west into Europe, not stopping at the edge of the steppe but somehow managing to implant their language also in the central and north European populations.
There are some problems with this scenario. Evidence for early domestication of horses is scanty and, in many ways, remains problematic (for a concise overview of this debate, see Darden 2001: 193-195; for a perceptive discussion of the evidence see Levine 1999). The full domestication of the horse may have been a long drawn out process that not only involved the development of horse harness and handling techniques but also the physical and behavioural transformation of a skittish wild animal (see Dietz: 2003). Anthony and others have pointed to what they claim to be evidence of early riding gear but this evidence seems far from conclusive (Anthony 2007: 193-224). Even if it did turn out to be valid, there would still be room for doubt as to how effective, useful or common this horsemanship was (see Kohl 2007: 137-144).
The emphasis on the horse obviously involves an analogy drawn from later horseback conquerors from the steppe. The nomadic warriors from the steppes have time and again put the surrounding civilizations severely to the test, using their horses to significantly increase their military effectiveness. It may seem straightforward to simply assume something similar for the 4th millennium BC – but it’s not. The steppe nomads only became such fearsome warriors from around 1000 BC when they adopted more effective riding gear and developed new breeds of horses. In fact, it is only from this time onwards that we find extensive evidence of horseback warriors (e.g. Drews 1993: 165-166). Certainly horses were sometimes used for riding before that time but there seems to be good reason to doubt the effectiveness or even the existence of any earlier cavalry force.
Indeed, had effective horseback warriors already existed in the 3rd millennium there would have been n
need to develop the light and complex war chariots that emerged around 2000 BC (see Kuz’mina 2007: 109-115; Anthony 2007: 397-405). The predominance of chariots during the 2nd millennium BC would have been inconceivable had there already existed usable cavalry forces, much larger, more cost effective and versatile than chariots. It was only the emergence of true cavalry, about a thousand years later, that spelled the end of chariotry.3 If horseback warfare already existed before that time, why wasn’t it preferred over chariotry? If a society already knows how to mass-produce repeating rifles why would it equip its army only with handmade bows and arrows?
Just a quote from the study of Kristinson. I recommend especially the part in which he stress the importance of the ratlins between mounted warriors and war chariots.
Here's the link to the full article.
https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnju-0kKHaAhUDshQKHQ0OAn4QFghdMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.axelkrist.com%2Fdocs%2FIndo-European_Expansion_Cycles.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3m4R1awHwbxHrvbDTfToYs
Another quote from the same study:
Chariotry itself appeared much too late to explain anything about the original IE expansion. It is even highly questionable that chariotry could explain any such expansion because the chariots were intricate constructions and expensive. Therefore, no polity could possibly equip but a small proportion of its population with chariots even if horses were plentiful (Drews 1993: 106- 113). Chariot warfare was for elite warriors only and the relevant technology and skill was easily copied between competing elites so that no elite-dominated polity gained but the most temporary advantage through use of its new chariot force. Where large-scale conquests were effected by chariotry they would typically result in a small foreign elite of chariot users lording it over a much larger number of locals whose indigenous language would prevail in the long run. Therefore, chariots are not the kind of technology that can explain large-scale linguistic change.
Even if we were to accept the early adoption of horseback riding proposed by Anthony and others, a problem still remains. The analogy with the later nomadic conquerors doesn’t really suffice to explain any language displacement in Europe, outside the steppe environment. Europe has suffered numerous such invasions from peoples such as the Scyths, Sarmatians, Alans, Huns, Avars, Magyars and Mongols to name but a few. Even if many of these invasions were quite successful, not a single one of these
peoples managed to implant their language significantly outside the steppe environment. Most of these have left no or trivial linguistic evidence in Europe and only one, the Magyars, have managed to preserve their language at all in Europe west of the steppe. The fact that they established the Hungarian state around a small steppe core on the Hungarian Plain and then became a ‘normal’ European nation is probably the reason why their language alone survived. The Turks of Anatolia and Iranians of the Iranian Plateau managed this but they, like the Magyars, had the benefit of operating from steppe environments at the core of their realms and they established effective states to consolidate their conquests. But states did not exist in 4th millennium Europe and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that an invasion of horsemen from the steppe simply isn’t sufficient to explain the diffusion of IE languages in settled agricultural communities.
@Salden
Hyperborean DNA? Oh I see you mean Iranic DNA, which is of course the most significant contributor to European DNA and language, as the evidence is now clearly pointing to.
And you already know that's the main topic in the next dna paper the reich lab puts out. Enjoy your hyperborean phase till then!
@Suyindik
You have fictitious information. In Leyla-Tepe culture the oldest kurgans belong to the beginning of the 4th Millennium BC. In Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk culture to 4800-4500 BC.
@supernord
Do you have a link for those very old Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk tumuli?
PS: What I found interesting is that non-tumulus burials in Sredny Stog were crouched, women on one side and men on the other. Maykop burials were crouched but Leyla-Tepe were stretched.
epoch
If you read the work of manzura in the non tumuli burials this kind of corpse disposal is called THE FARMERS POSITION....also the difference between man and woman is and OLD EUROPE FARMERS cultural trait.....the steppist call it the corded ware burial (LOL)
Davidski: If so, it'd be hard to estimate how much total admixture from South Asia there was at BMAC, but as you say, any figure around 30% is hard to justify without any mental gymnastics.
Hmmm... I actually don't think think it's unreasonable to guess at 20-30% IVC ancestry in BMAC, following the similar assumptions as the paper, that the Indus_Periphery samples are a reasonable proxy for Indus Valley Culture (and which seem somewhat necessary if ANI and ASI can in fact be modelled as Indus_Periphery plus Steppe_MLBA / AASI).
There's no particular reason why populations shouldn't in general have migrated out of the IVC, after all, particularly to another early urban-agricultural culture. There's no mysterious barrier preventing migration north.
That doesn't mean it's likely that they a) were responsible for language in the BMAC (and of course we know nothing about languages IVC or BMAC spoke) or b) that "Out of IVC" migrations had anything to do with the origins of Indo-European languages.
@oldeurope,
Dragoons. Read wiki's article on mounted infantry. They don't even mention that medieval knights/serjeants often fought dismounted, this after thousands of years of cavalry tech/breeding/training/culture/institutions. Note the Han campaign against the steppe Xiongnu.
But I don't think it's an accident that the Balkans (Mathieson) and now SC Asia see the real steppe splash in the Bronze Age, nor that the Bronze Age saw god-kings and crazy expansion of a few y-haplos.
Iron brought back an infantry age and the Littoral civs had the upperhand for a while, then the steppe responded with the horse archer confederacies, then gunpowder and transoceanic voyages brought things back to the Littorals.
@Davidski
"via Srubnaya."
There is no way Srubnaya can explain the West Iranians in early Iron Age Hasanlu nor does it explain Hissar Tepe's IIIB (2400-2000BCE) two-wheeled chariot and IIIC (2000-1700BCE) elite burials. The Iranian Grey and Buff Ware cultures derive from native northern Iranian Plateau BA cultures with some BMAC influence and not from BMAC-steppe hybrid cultures.
The argument that the Medes made it into Iran in the 9th Century BCE shouldn't be taken seriously because it is only the first attestation of the Mada and even that is disputed as there is a mention of Madani, next to a region where the Assyrian kings got their horses, in 12th cBCE.
@Epoch
"wouldn't it either be very noticeable in the surrounding languages"
See Sumerian, Elamite, Gutian and Kassites.
Taymas
I think the steppe is good only to understand the birth of the satem languages. I don't question the sintashta/andronovo big push to south central asia and the satemization of the eastern part of the european continent. In this respect the steppe nomads are important for IE history and expansion. But I'm firmly convinced that they were not original IE. Just like the US was a key factor in making English the lingua franca of today ( till the II World war it was french) but english is not born in north america.
Also remember this: nomadic cultures in general can be warlike ( in most case they are) but normally are interested in plundering and make booty. They're rarely interested in imposing culture, language or religion. Just think at the mongolian empire the most great in history that left no linguistic trace whatsoever.
The tremendous impact of indoeuropean language, the refined principles of their religion ( the cremation rite is connected with the cult of the soul, so unlike other cultures the indoeuropean worshipped above all the invisible and immaterial ) Chances are really few that the steppe people, who were lectured on everything by everyone....as archeology demonstrate, are the responsible for such a major change in world history.
http://www.academia.edu/11290617/Egalitäre_Hirtengesellschaft_versus_Nomadenkrieger_Rekonstruktion_einer_Sozialstruktur_der_Jamnaja-_und_Katakombengrabkulturen_3._Jt._v._Chr._
I posted this study many days ago. Looks like a bombshell for the mainstream. Here a quote from the conclusion:
starting around 2500BC the catacomb culture shows certain changes. regarding the burials the number and variability of grave goods increased, but there are no weapons referring especially to warriors. Altough in the course of the 20th century scholars often evoked mounted warriors attacking people in the balkan carpathian basin. there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM, NEITHER IN THE YAMNA CULTURE NOR IN THE CATACOMB CULTURE.
Most of you talk about PIE without have any clue whatsoever about updated archeological research.
Calm down Old_Europe, this paper is about Central and South Asia, not Europe. You still need an IE migration into South Asia for Europe to be a contender for the title of Urheimat.
@old europe
Are you joking? Look at how pastoralists of Arabia changed the world with Islam.
Or how Turks did the same, or how the Bantu did the same.
The Mongol empire wasn't made of Mongols, they used local forces and it was very short lived, stop cherry picking.
And by the Indo-European times, the Andronovo times, the technology difference between them and City dwellers was basically non existent.
So yeah, lots of butthurt about Steppe_MLBA being the Aryans, full blown denialism and even disrespect.
Indians here, it seems, would prefer the Aryans being from anywhere but Europe.
namedguest
My argument are made of studies and archeology . You are right by the way that in referring to analogies I can make mistake and inaccuracies which you rightly pointed out especially mentioning the arab example.
But that doesn't change the overall picture. Also is funny seeing a debate about IE origin without mentioning even a single time strategic factor like:
the tripartite ideology ( never mentioned)
the priestly character of IE religion which connects both the east ( Brahmins) and the west ( Druids in the celtic society and Pontifices in roman religion).
we need to broaden our mind set.
@old europe
Genetics demonstrates that steppe ancestry expanded beyond the steppe rather suddenly. Separate line of evidence strongly suggests the steppe is also the site of horse domestication. You argued that hypothetical cavalry warfare wasn't a good connection. I agree. But I see no reason to rule out dragoon warfare.
(Semi+)Nomads: indeed. I mean we only have Corded Ware, at least three waves of Bronze/Iron Semites, Indo-Aryans (regardless of potential steppe-origin, they were non-sedentary), Medes and Persians, Germans, Slavs, Arabs, another wave of Turks every couple centuries, Sioux, Comanche... all with long-term dominance of varying degrees and most with documented language shift. Have I left out one or two?
@old europe
the tripartite ideology ( never mentioned)
the priestly character of IE religion which connects both the east ( Brahmins) and the west ( Druids in the celtic society and Pontifices in roman religion).
we need to broaden our mind set.
Nothing wrong with broadening one's mindset, but considering that you just mentioned Druids and Brahmins in the same breath, you clearly need to catch up on some reading.
There was a large scale population replacement in much of Western Europe during the Bronze Age by a people largely of steppe ancestry, and closely related to the steppe ancestors of Brahmins.
Migration of the Bell Beakers—but not from Iberia (Olalde et al. 2018)
Who did they replace? Old Europeans. What sorts of languages did they speak? Satem Indo-European?
@ Taymas
Please don’t generalise to other areas what you deem true for your Atlantic backyard
And Slavs weren’t semi-nomads.
@ namedguest
Indians here, it seems, would prefer the Aryans being from anywhere but Europe.
Maybe they are right? I don't see here any arrow going from Europe to Asia:
https://s6.postimg.org/khx4hh28h/Aryans_Are_From_Asia.jpg
And when it comes to the ancestry from Europe - CWC barely works in the stats. And only thanks to a lucky coincidence. Without a set that in 1/3 consists of purely farmer samples (I7272, a lot of ancestry from a place close to Iran!) probably it wouldn't work at all.
I have great respect for the work of the Reich Lab. But this is one that will not stand the test of time. Below is what I posted on Bioarxiv.
"Your model supports Kuzmina's identification of the Andronovo as the progenitors of the “Indo-Iranians” and Max Mueller's date of around 1500 BC. for the Aryans to enter India.
You have stated, “we do not have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC)”. But surely such aDNA results are in the pipeline. If they show significant “steppe-related” ancestry in 2500 BC. Harappan sites, then your model of Andronovo-mediated steppe ancestry entering the Indian Subcontinent around 1500 BC. will no longer be tenable.
I urge you to also consider alternate models. One such is the following qpGraph generated by “Davidski” of the Eurogenes Blog at my request.
https://drive.google.com/fi...
The idea of this model is that populations represented by nodes A, B, C and D were all resident in different parts of the Indian Subcontinent and diverged by isolation by distance. Population C was from the Eastern part and Populations B and D in the western part (what is now Pakistan). Out-of-India migrations at different times in the Mesolithic gave rise to EHG, CHG and Iran_Neolithic. Bronze-age migration of a population related to ANI gave rise to Yamnaya and the spread of Indo-European languages out of India and into Europe."
@supernord
"Sredniy Stog" and "Khvalynsk" cultures are NOT really kurgan cultures(are related to Cucuteni–Trypillia culture), they are the natives of the Steppe before the occurrence of the Kurgan culture in that region.
The chronology is as following:
1. Developed forms of kurgans are found in the Tell Halaf culture(6000-5300 BCE) which is located in the Mesopotamia. Also the kurgan stelae was found in the Tell Halaf culture. If we go back further we see the Gobekli-Tepe culture(PPNB) in Mesopotamia which has similar above mentioned stelae's.
2. The Ubaid(6500-3800 BCE) are the ancestors of the Leyla-Tepe which originate in Mesopotamia(and also associated to Iran and South Central Asia) ===>
3. Leyla-Tepe is the first fully kurgan culture ===>
4. Out of Leyla-Tepe occurs Maykop and Kura Araxes ===>
5. During Maykop and Kura Araxes periods the Mesopotamian root component of these cultures mixes with the Steppe people ===>
6. Because of this mixing the Yamna culture(=Kurgan) occurs in the steppe.
Dave
You are digging your own grave . If the corded ware was expanding satem languages ( and we know they do because the corded ware culture and its offshoot are baltic and indo-iranic). ) how it is possible that the same source population quite at the same time was spreading a centum language in the west ( the shift can only be from centum to satem) So the centum languages cannot be from the steppe.
Also it is not scientifically proved that R1b in western europe has a steppe origin. Why no R1bP312 or U106 in ukraine?
@balaji
I am quite prepared to admit I can be wrong, but
at least our paper makes a very clear prediction:
In the 3rd millennium we do not expect to see any considerable
amount of Steppe ancestry in South Asia.
But modern South Asia has lots.
Therefore it follows that the Steppe ancestry must have arrived
after 2000 B.C.
If ancient DNA falsifies this then OK I was wrong.
I personally have no strong view about how
it arrived (gradually or suddenly).
@ old europe
Even according to the flawed so called PIE reconstruction there was no shift from centum to satem, but a parallel development from an earlier stage.
So now, when thanks to West_Siberia samples Indo-Iranians can be derived from Steppe_MLBA/Europe_LNBA, there is no need to explain anything, as "satemization" could've take place after the migrations towards Western Europe have started. Theoretically one can insist that e.g. German CWC was still in an earlier stage, or even centum, while in the East everyone spoke satem already.
Can Swat IA with steppe ancestry be modeled with Kashkarchi 1100BC & any of Indus periphery samples?
I found this on another forum
Previously steppe ancestry in Asia had been mis-modelled and exaggerated, because steppe people are EHG+CHG and EHG are mostly ANE. To account for the high ANE among Kalash people and Brahmins etc their steppe ancestry was modelled as Steppe_EMBA Now we know that they got their ANE from BMAC not from the steppe, and so their actual steppe ancestry is way lower than we thought (average Indian maybe 5% Aryan)
Is that correct? Because that is not what Nick above is saying.
@mzp1
No, Steppe_MLBA_East ancestry can't be confused for BMAC ancestry to any large degree.
It's a fact that many populations in South Asia have significant ancestry from the Bronze Age steppe, and this is especially true of isolated Indo-Aryan groups of the Hindu Kush like the Kalasha people and upper caste Indo-European speaking Indians.
So nothing fundamental has changed.
Read the paper carefully and try to understand why the authors reached the conclusions that they did, instead of paying attention to random comments online, probably made by someone who hasn't even read the paper properly.
ok thanks a lot. I do find the genetic papers hard to understand. The guy who posted it is the leading Youtube authority (50K subs) on IE and has even posted here before.
@ Suyindik
You're still avoiding the fact that what can *at least* be termed proto-kurgans (cromlechs, cists and mounds) are found in the Black Sea region hundreds of years before Majkop & Leyla Tepe. These are influenced by C-T, but are not in any way C-T cultures themselves.
Where are you seeing kurgans in Halaf culture ? Any sources on that ?
lastly, care to comment why the earliest kurgan (Arslantepe) in the south only appears in 3000 BC, where everyone in the latest conference agreed shows remarkable paralles to the north ?
@Nick Patterson (Broad)
Great paper! Your probably very busy but a few people have raised some interesting points. Would it be possible to briefly provide some comments on the following (copied Sein's comments he summed it up well):
"3. At one point, they say that the "Indus_Periphery" samples are the only ancient Central Asians which display Onge-related admixture.
Yet, they detect "AASI" for Turkmenistan_Gonur1_BA (4%-5%), Sappali_Tepe_BA (3%-5%), Dzharkutan1_BA (3%-6%), Bustan_BA (7%-8%), and Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 (7%).
So, the primary differentiating factor between these native Central Asians and those outliers isn't necessarily AASI. Rather, it's the total lack of Anatolian_N-related admixture in the outliers/IVC migrant samples.
Interestingly, the IVC migrant samples range from 13%-8% West_Siberian_N. Surprising that this West_Siberian_N (well, ANE) stream of ancestry has a noticeable presence in samples with roots in the Indus valley and beyond (I mean, the sample that seems to be 40% Onge-related is probably from beyond the Indus valley, yet still has West_Siberian_N).
4. Speaking of which, good that we finally have adequate ANE representatives; the West_Siberian_N samples are just what we needed.
I wonder though, is the West_Siberian_N (essentially ANE) ancestry in ancient Turan and the Swat Valley also admixed with East Asians? I think not, as this sort of ancestry in Central Asia isn't actually from the steppe/west Siberia.
Rather, it's just local HG ancestry, so perhaps missing the 10% ENA (as per supplementary materials, 11% Han) seen with the Siberian ANE samples. Or not (lol).
5. As Arza noted, Botai comes up in the strongest f3 stat for SPGT. I knew they had Botai samples (and I was quite disappointed that these were not presented), so this is kinda funny.
I wonder how the models will look with those samples?"
Azra
your theory doesn't hold
The steppist are the guys who say that suddenly a super R1aM417 population was expanding very rapidly both east and west ( corded ware and sintashta andronovo). RIGHT?
You say that this migration was the source also of western europe centum languages but then I'm confused why we western european are not R1a m417?????.
or people in the steppe went to genetic laboratory, tested themselves and then decided that the R1a should go east and northwest and the R1ab west.
Division between genes ( R1band R1a) and centum- satem is too clear cut to have happened randomly.
Now that we know that tocharian could be the result of migrations from atlantic france ( remember the kovalev papers?)
Not to mention the case of germanic
it is an hybrid of centum and satem and......INCREDIBLE...INCREDIBLE It formed quite near the overlapping zone between R1a and R1b.......
I don't know if Nick will want to make off the cuff comments here in regards to those points above.
If they are valid and worth considering, and they might well be, then we'll probably see them tackled in new versions of the preprint.
In regards to BMAC, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to page 20 in the paper, which shows the "summary of key findings", and says this...
The primary population of the BMAC was largely derived from preceding local Chalcolithic peoples and had little if any Steppe pastoralist ancestry of the type that is ubiquitous in South Asia today. Instead of being a source for South Asia, the BMAC received admixture from South Asia.
After exploring a wide range of models of present-day and ancient South Asia, we identify a unique class of models that fits geographically and temporally South Asians: a mixture of AASI, Indus_Periphery, and Steppe_MLBA. We reject BMAC as a primary source of ancestry in South Asians.
By the way, I'm not sure if Botai would've made any significant difference to the models in the paper, because a couple of those West_Siberia_N samples come from very close to Botai country...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Nick Patterson,
Just an additional question (as Stefan noted, we know that you're a busy man, so we appreciate you taking the time to read the comments here, and for taking the time to engage)...
The Indus_periphery samples are exceedingly variable in terms of AASI. I mean, two of them are essentially West Eurasian (almost completely Iran_N + West_Siberian_N, with only 14%-18% AASI), while one is nearly a West Eurasian/AASI hybrid (40% AASI). The ratio of Iran_N to West_Siberian_N also seems to vary.
So, if these samples are variable mixtures of Iran_N, West_Siberian_N, and AASI, why model northwestern Pakistanis (Kalash and Pashtun) and South Asians proper using these samples? Rather, wouldn't it be more transparent and informative to model populations along the "Indian Cline" as Steppe_MLBA_East, Iran_N, West_Siberian_N, BMAC (your Indian samples don't have this sort of ancestry, but the Kalash have trace levels, while your Pashtun samples might have 10%-15%), and Onge?
Any insight on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Oh, I posted that before reading Dave's comment above...
We can try modeling Indians as part West_Siberia_N when the dataset from the paper is released.
But I don't see any way around using the Indus_Periphery samples in such models, because they're surely the closest thing we have to Neolithic farmers from India.
I suppose I can try them individually alongside West_Siberia_N to see what happens.
@Vara
"See Sumerian, Elamite, Gutian and Kassites."
Care to back that up with papers? Not with blog posts.
Alright, I'm seeing comments about where basal Y-haplogroup clades like P arose. This is not relevant to the discussion, so I'll be deleting these comments. Please get back on topic.
Dave,
"But I don't see any way around using the Indus_Periphery samples in such models, because they're surely the closest thing we have to Neolithic farmers from India."
I completely agree; these samples are very important, and totally essential.
Honestly, if we had decent sampling of various IVC sites from Sindh/Punjab all the way to Gujarat and Haryana, I think it would make sense to use those samples in the modelling of contemporary South Central Asians (to account for gene-flow from neighboring South Asia, like the sort we see with BMAC) and South Asians.
At the moment though, we only have these three samples, found far away from "home". Considering the immense differentiation seen between the samples in question (two are basically West Eurasians, while one is nearly a hybrid), it's possible that these people had roots in separate/distinct regions of the IVC (I mean, it was a massive civilization). So, we aren't looking at a single population.
In a way, it would be like combining LBK or Starcevo_EN with those WHG-rich Baltic samples (I forget, was it Baltic_BA?), and using this combined population to model contemporary Europeans.
Even then, the situation isn't totally comparable, since no European population (after the Neolithic transformation) has ever been found to have 40% WHG admixture, when compared to Anatolia_N (I might be wrong about this, as I'm just going off memory).
Basically,
1. We don't know the clines at play with the IVC population (looking at the whole civilization).
2. We don't know which of these three samples is closer to the average.
3. And it's only three samples.
So, if these samples are Iran_N, West_Siberian_N, and AASI, why not model contemporary Indians as Steppe_MLBA_East + Iran_N + West_Siberian_N + AASI.
For South Central Asians (Tajikistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/northern Pakistan), Steppe_MLBA_East + Iran_N + West_Siberian + BMAC + AASI + recent East Asian would be accurate, although perhaps way too complex for formal methods.
Frankly though, I can't wait to see you try some analyses with these samples. I'm sure you already have a bunch of ideas you could explore with various methods. I think you could clarify many questions.
Hopefully, the release of the data-set isn't months away.
@david@mzp
“No, Steppe_MLBA_East ancestry can't be confused for BMAC ancestry to any large degree.”
No bmac is too Iranian and Anatolian. But the extra Anatolia in bmac can be a proxy for steppe mlba since all other components were presumably in s Asia already.
postneo,
One can easily tell apart Europe_MN (which is what Steppe_MLBA_East has) from Iran_Chl (which is probably what BMAC has).
So no, BMAC can't proxy for Steppe_MLBA_East.
There isn't much (if any) BMAC-related ancestry in India. Although, there might be trace levels in the Greater Punjab and Kashmir.
Going by Iran_Chl-related percentages, BMAC-related ancestry starts to become an important component once you hit contemporary northwestern Pakistan, and from there it gradually increases as you move further west across the Pashtun highlands, and it probably becomes the primary ancestral stream once you hit northern Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan.
@postneo
No bmac is too Iranian and Anatolian. But the extra Anatolia in bmac can be a proxy for steppe mlba since all other components were presumably in s Asia already.
I don't see how because Steppe_MLBA has ancestry from Middle Neolithic European farmers, with an excess of Western European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry compared to the Anatolian-related farmers who contributed to BMAC.
So you're claiming that Neolithic or even Mesolithic South Asians made up this shortfall in WHG in BMAC to make it look like present-day South Asians have Steppe_MLBA ancestry.
A likely story.
In Fig 2. C they apparently estimated admixture proportions using qpAdm but why there isn't any EHG-related ancestry in Turan-BA and SouthAsia IA and Historic?
What does it mean?
Are they sure this elevated ANE-related ancestry isn't from Western Siberian HG-related populations?
@Vara Indo-Aryan like groups are known to have been present in the region you mentioned before the Iranians came. Also the Indo Aryan-Iranian distinction was very vague in these earliest times.
Yeah, scratch what I just said about BMAC being the primary ancestral stream in Tajikistan.
Based on some modelling I just did, it's Steppe_MLBA.
All of the Tajikistani populations which David has in the Global_25 spreadsheet are around 40%-45% Steppe_MLBA (it's the biggest single component of their genetic ancestry).
My Pashtun samples (from both Pakistan and Afghanistan) are around 35% Steppe_MLBA (range is 33% to 38%). In their case as well, Steppe_MLBA is the single largest component of their genetic ancestry (these aren't the HGDP Pashtuns; just data I have from some friends, as well as some files that were passed along to me).
Under this same setup, the Kalasha are 28% Steppe_MLBA, which (if my memory is serving me right) matches the paper.
For Indians, I'm getting the same Steppe_MLBA percentages as the paper. So, the percentages for Tajiks and Pashtuns are going to match up with what one finds using qpAdm.
And this is using our current Steppe_MLBA samples. With Steppe_MLBA_East, I'm sure all the Tajikistanis will be between 45%-55%, my Pashtun samples will be around 40%, and the Kalasha will be close to 35%. No doubt that Indians will see an increase as well.
So, even though 50% Steppe_EMBA was wrong (due to the presence of native ANE/West_Siberian-related admixture), the Kalash still have some very serious ancient European ancestry via the steppe (around 30%, and probably around 35%, if we take into account extra West_Siberian_N/ANE in Steppe_MLBA_East).
For these results, I went about things in a different way (it's a new strategy), and it works pretty nicely. Until we see samples from this paper, this system will do just fine.
I'll post the results tomorrow night. I think you folks will find the output to be, at the very least, mildly interesting.
(If Nick finds a chance to read what I post tomorrow, perhaps he could see some merit in trying this sort of thing with qpAdm)
@ Sein
Wouldn’t it be worth waiting for the new data, so we don’t have to guess ?
@David@Sein
"I don't see how because Steppe_MLBA has ancestry from Middle Neolithic European farmers, with an excess of Western European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry compared to the Anatolian-related farmers who contributed to BMAC"
steppe MLBA east is modeled as only 10% Iron gates,
Older samples from Haji Firuz and BA Afghanistan have almost similar levels of iron gates as later steppe-MLBA-east
From what I understand WHG in modern india is close to noise level and amplified in random endogamous groups.
No, have a more careful look at the stats in the paper. First of all, there's no evidence of any sort of population similar to Steppe_MLBA or Steppe_EMBA in South Central Asia prior to 1500 BCE.
And Steppe_MLBA is the best source of steppe ancestry in South Asians. In large part this must be because of its European ancestry that is missing in the groups native to the Near East and Central Asia. Then there's also the R1a-Z93 connection.
There aren't any coincidences here.
When the data is out, I will attempt to compile a full tree to look for whatever you want there, Sein.
Matt,
Sorry to make a reply so late.
There is no reason to assume so much genetic influence of Mesopotamia on the BMAC people.
BMAC was far more influenced by the Eastern Iranian civilizations of Helmand and Halil Rud (Jiroft). Shahr i Sokhta was one of the major centers of the Helmand civilization. So if the Anatolian N admixture came into the BMAC, it was mostly likely through those ancient residents of eastern Iranian civilizations.
As far as IVC is concerned, it not only influenced the BMAC very significantly but the Eastern Iranian civilizations of Helmand and Jiroft. It could well be that some AASI admixture came into BMAC directly through IVC migrants while some came indirectly via Eastern Iran. This would also mean that there was likely a significant AASI admixture into Eastern Iran as well. If I am not wrong, all sampled Shahr i Sokhta individuals show AASI admixture.
The fact of the matter is that the native cattle of Central Asia and Eastern Iran, even to this very day is the Zebu cattle which was introduced into both these regions from the IVC most likely around 3000 BC. If the native cattle of these regions itself came from South Asia, the IVC influence on these emerging urban civilizations has to be quite prominent.
Infact, even the wheeled vehicles technology could have reached Eastern Iran and Central Asia from IVC. Read through this paper
https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer2004_Wheeled%20Vehicles%20of%20the%20Indus%20Valley%20Civilizatio.pdf
Moreover, the IVC influence extended even beyond Eastern Iran and Central Asia. There are Bronze Age colonies of the IVC on the Arabian Peninsula.
https://www.harappa.com/content/bronze-age-salut-st1-and-indus-civilization
There were IVC colonies within Mesopotamian cities as well
https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/201402/Vidale-Indus-Mesopotamia.pdf
Infact there is indirect evidence of IVC influence even on Sumerians. The Sumerians were definitely in trade with the Meluhhans who are considered by archaeologists to be none other than IVC. The Sumerians were doing rice farming ans using water buffalo, both being imports from South Asia.
------------------------------
So it is very plausible that South Asian genes were spreading in a vast region that included Central Asia, Eastern Iran, Arabian Peninsula & Mesopotamia itself.
------------------------------
So the genetic evidence is merely putting a stamp of verification on the IVC influence on BMAC as well as to a limited extent also the IVC influence on the Helmand civilization. But we need more samples from the latter.
Coming to the Anatolia N influence in BMAC, it maybe noted that it was already present in Chalcolithic Central Asia. It did not come all at once during the Bronze Age. While Eastern Iran had about 33 % Anatolia N ancestry, the Central Asians seem to have it at an average of about 15 %. (tables S3.6 to S3.9). This definitely increases in the Bronze Age and according to the authors of the paper, it goes upto 21 % inspite of about 30 % IVC admixture which would have had no Anatolia N.
But if one assumes that the extra Anatolia N admixed into Central Asians from a Eastern source with no IVC influence, it would be unrealistic to look beyond Eastern Iran for that source. Yet Eastern Iran only had 33 % Anatolia N. So for the BMAC ANF ancestry to go upto 21 % would mean it receives more than 50 % admixture from Eastern Iran coupled with 30 % admixture from IVC leaving merely 15 % of the native Central Asian stock of the Chalcolithic era. This is a very dramatic scenario and looks rather improbable.
@Chetan
"Indo-Aryan like groups are known to have been present in the region you mentioned before the Iranians came. Also the Indo Aryan-Iranian distinction was very vague in these earliest times."
Doesn't change the fact that you can't trace the West Iranian iron age cultures to the steppes. One can distinguish Iranians and Indo-Aryans from the Hasanlu bowl where you see a three headed man-snake Azi Dahaka figure. There's also an EBA cylinder seal with the same story but closer to the Shahnameh version.
@epoch2014
https://books.google.com/books/about/Indo_European_and_the_Indo_Europeans.html?id=M2aqp2n2mKkC
http://www.academia.edu/1869616/The_Case_for_Euphratic
I don't remember the rest but a lot of it has been linked in the comment sections of previous posts.
@Vara
That theory is met with huge scepticism and is considered debunked.
@Jaydeep: There is no reason to assume so much genetic influence of Mesopotamia on the BMAC people.
Yes, the whole point is that if you have some migration from IVC that lacked Anatolian ancestry into BMAC, then the other side population would have to be richer in Anatolian ancestry to compensate. And since the proximal immediately western sources all have relatively low levels of Anatolian ancestry, migration would have to be quite large.
Tell you what, I'll test my intuition with the proportions from the paper:
https://imgur.com/a/SpUth
Proportions of BMAC and Indus_P are from paper's Fig 2C, and the predicted BMAC_Non_I_P is the estimated other population that would be needed besides the I_P proportion.
So, the resultant outcome is more like Tepe_Hissar from NE Iran with some more West Siberian ancestry, and less like Seh_Gabi, having about the same amount of Anatolian as Tepe_Hissar, but losing some Iran_N for West Siberian ancestry. My intuition that the required pop would be more like Seh_Gabi was off, because I was underestimating the West Siberian influence.
I think it's still likely that migration from the west into BMAC was at least as predominant as from IVC... but this data does not distinguish ancestry in a way that makes that would give a signal for that. Other than that if the "non I_P" ancestry of BMAC were simply Tepe_Hissar plus West Siberian, it wouldn't be Anatolian like enough.
@all
I'm planning a trip to ukraine and south russia next week . I would have the chance to honor my ancestors. Is there someone that can indicate me where burials with
R1b L-51 , R1b P312 or U106 or S116 or U152 have been found in that regions so that I can pray for their souls and build a state of the art kurgan for them. Thank you in advance!
@Vara
The point is that you confidently showed a list of languages that you supposed were showing clear IE influences and when pressed to show papers you come up with one fringe theory.
Take the IE-Uralic connection. There is a group of linguists considering the link between the two genealogic, i.e. they both originated from one language super family. There is also a group of linguists vehemently opposing that. But all these linguists confirm a close relationship between the two.
If some IE language existed in Iran previously to Persian a relic of it should be found, and a lot of linguists should recognize it.
Mind you, I like the fact that an attempt has been made to link "Euphratic" to IE. Just as I like Theo Vennemans attempts. We tend not to laude failed attempts but we should. It is important that this is tried, attempts are made and laid out to discuss.
@Old Europe
"Also it is not scientifically proved that R1b in western europe has a steppe origin. Why no R1bP312 or U106 in ukraine?"
That's an often heard argument, at least in online discussions. But it's incredibly weak! These haplogroups are young clades. According to yfull U106 is 4700/4800 years old and P312 4500/4800 years. So when the steppe ancestors of modern R1b-P312/U106 people had still been on the steppe, these clades might not have existed yet - or if they existed they may still have been extremely rare, maybe just one single clan. Hence the chances to find these haplogroups in actual Yamnaya graves are in any case extremely low - and the chances to find these in modern Ukrainians are not exactly higher either.
Also you have to deal with the undeniable autosomal steppe admixture in northern and eastern Bell Beaker people and in modern western Europeans as well. It's really not low. Otherwise modern western Europeans would be Sardinian-like, lol.
And some minor corrections about what you said about craniometric stuff... Bell Beaker brachycephals are not Alpine, they are classified as Dinaric. Their heads are shorter and higher than Alpine skulls, their occiputs are flatter, and the faces tend to be longer. And I haven't seen a lot about Remedello skulls, but the few I've seen had a mesocephalic cranial index of 76.4 combined with a rather low skull with a height-length index of 71.5. That's far from Alpine means.
@Vara They were probably separate by the Iron Age (1000 BCE -), so that was not my point. When you say the Iranian Iron Age can't be traced back to the steppe, I agree. Because Iron Age would probably have been a development from the local traditions rather than something brought from the steppe.
But if there wasn't a steppe influx, how do you explain the presence of Iranian languages in the region?
@epoch
neither Uralic or euphratic are failed or successful... With euphratic although the alleged connections are not morphological we atleast have ancient inscriptions on the other hand with Uralic we mostly have modern languages with scant evidence to localize the proto-language connection geographically or in time.
@epoch2013
"The point is that you confidently showed a list of languages that you supposed were showing clear IE influences and when pressed to show papers you come up with one fringe theory."
A paper and an entire book. I do not have strong views on any linguistic theory but Ivanov and Gamkrelidze show that IE influence is noticeable in the south and basically the main theme of the entire theory. If it was one fringe theory how come now Reich, who has been a strong proponent of the steppe theory, is in favor of that theory? In fact it is almost mainstream now.
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf
While I disagree with the steppes being Altaic, it makes a strong argument for a mountainous homeland as old europe suggests. Besides, Mithra and Zeus did not sit on steppe mound did they?
Also, I think Caucasus was PIE. Neolithic/Chalcolithic Iran could've been pre-PIE.
Vara
I agree
Steppe was some para-Uralic groups of languages and others extinct Hunter-gatherers languages
@Vara
"If it was one fringe theory how come now Reich, who has been a strong proponent of the steppe theory, is in favor of that theory? In fact it is almost mainstream now."
It's not mainstream among linguists. Reich is basically overplaying his hand. If IE was south of the Caucasus at its inception we should see evidence - CLEAR evidence - in its neighbouring languages. OR, if IE was an insignificant language at its start we should see clear evidence of its neighbours in IE.
We don't.
@epoch
"It's not mainstream among linguists."
Because as of pre-2017 the steppe theory was the mainstream theory hence why linguists with preconceived notions would always support it.
" If IE was south of the Caucasus at its inception we should see evidence - CLEAR evidence - in its neighbouring languages."
I'm not sure what evidence is not clear for you. There are pages of clear evidence that I can't show here. You can find the book for free online. Check out 11.3.2 and 11.3.5.
Simon_W
The dinaric type was born at the time of the bell beaker expansion in the balkans. Remind you that remedello is nearly 700/800 years BEFORE the bell beakers so they clearly show the trend towards the brachycephalization of skulls that later came all over the continent.
Vara
Thank you for the link to the paper....it is really big stuff.....at least for people searching the truth.
@Vara
ONE theory by one man. See my previous reaction on Uralic-IE relations on what constitutes as a clear connection.
What you propose is nothing.
@epoch
You asked for a paper and I gave you a book. Now you're asking me to force every linguist to unite in proving that the South Caucasus is the homeland and claiming it's one theory by one man. It's actually two though, still better than Copernicus I guess. Besides, what I propose is what Krause and Reich propose. Besides, it's clear you've never read the book and never will change your preconceived beliefs.
@old europe
No problem. The religious significance of mountains to Indo-Europeans alone is clear.
Yeah, Indo-Europeans came from the Iranian Plateau. Awesome theory. Quite revolutionary though. Not sure if it'll catch on in our lifetimes, despite it's awesomeness.
Well, Reich's book was about ancient DNA, not about the Indo-European homeland problem, so he was focusing on what ancient DNA was showing, rather than synthesizing all of the multidisciplinary evidence.
So what's ancient DNA showing? The spread of southern ancestry onto the steppe before a big bang on the steppe that resulted in population movements in almost all directions across Eurasia.
Hence, based on this picture alone, it's fair to say that Proto-Indo-European came to the steppe with the southern population, and then Late Proto-Indo-European expanded out of the steppe.
Of course, once other types of evidence are introduced, things become more complicated. For one, it's rather unlikely that a homeland south of the steppe will ever become the consensus amongst historical linguists.
Are historical linguists just stubborn? Maybe, but on top of that we also have horse domestication as a major piece of the puzzle to deal with, and again, it's rather unlikely that Indo-European horses, in other words, the main domestic horse clade, came from the Caucasus or Iran, rather than from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
@Rob
The mounds(pre tumulus/kurgan) of the Halaf culture are earlier than the ones you are referring to.
An example is the "Tilkitepe tumulus". The skeletal remains of the burial mound in Tilkitepe are from the 6th millenium BCE and belong to the Halaf culture(6100-5400BCE).
1:
AN ARCHAEOMETRIC STUDY OF PROVENANCE AND FIRING TECHNOLOGY OF HALAF POTTERY FROM TİLKİTEPE (EASTERN TURKEY)
http://maajournal.com/Issues/2017/Vol17-2/Kilic%20et%20al.%2017(2).pdf
"The first excavations conducted in 1899 by Belck, who considered the mound a tumulus because of many skeletal remains;"
"The results show that the Halaf type ceramic piece from the mound is most probably made using local clay sources in the region and fired at temperatures below 800 °C under oxidation conditions."
"At the end of the 6th millennium B.C.E., Tilkitepe is the most extreme point in the northeast corner of the Halaf culture area, which is located in North Iraq, North Syria and Southeast Turkey."
2:
https://www.academia.edu/21769929/VAN_2006_K%C3%9CLT%C3%9CR_ve_TUR%C4%B0ZM_ENVANTER%C4%B0_I_TAR%C4%B0HSEL_DE%C4%9EERLER
3: (A description)
https://books.google.nl/books?id=NEOqCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=tell+halaf+kurgans&source=bl&ots=MiMzlh-bv6&sig=1xPE0gfM7qpWvRnvWxbI_7zNJMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ1dHw1aHaAhWN2KQKHfhMDXQQ6AEIXzAI#v=onepage&q=tell%20halaf%20kurgans&f=false
"since the ancient forms of kurgan (mounds) are found in Samara, whereas in the post-5000 BC Khvalynsk culture or in Tell Halaf, more developed forms of kurgan are found."
4.
Also, the Stelae is an important piece of the kurgan culture. See below two images to compare a figure of the Halaf culture and the stelae found at Scythian kurgans. As you can see, the Halaf figure is identical to the kurgan stelae. (See the position of the hands and the dagger)
Halaf:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/53/47/c5/5347c52a44a4cdee45e2c765b4418452.jpg
Scythians:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Scythian_stelae_01.jpg/1024px-Scythian_stelae_01.jpg
5.
And finally, the ceramics/pottery define the origin of the people of an archaeological culture. The ceramics/pottery of the Leyla-Tepe, Maykop and Kura-Araxes obviously shows that their origin is within the Uruk/Ubaid culture. And the Tell Halaf culture is the predecessor of the Uruk/Ubaid cultures, which points the place of origin(of the mentioned Caucasus cultures) to Mesopotamia/Eastern Anatolia.
@Davidski Yes I agree.What Reich said in the book and what you note.I'm not saying the Earth is flat.Hopefully we'll find out soon enough.Like I said the steppe theory minus Anatolian is my favored theory, PIE south of the Caucasus steppe people did most of the the work.Make sense?
@ Suyindik
Thanks ! I’ll look into those
@ Al
Not following - what memo did you miss ?
@ Dave
Linguistics is like psychology - it has its golden years in 1930s, when people used reconstructed words for *monkey to try prove wjere PIE came from :)
If you read “the IE controversy..” by Perestvailg one can summarily go through it and see that nothing in the South Caucasus or north Iran (hypothetically) will violate their linguistic preconditions (once I address her false assumption that- say- NW Caucasian is native to the present day Caucasus. At least she admits that the FU homeland is itself not known with certainty .
Which is why I’m take some of the views above as nothing but rants of passive-aggressive zealots wedded to a simple kurgan narrative out their own Ego massage rather than sober analysis of all possible evidence.
I have to admit, unlike many posters in anthrogenica, Davidski is showing alot of class by not totally brushing off the south of the Caucasus PIE homeland, he is showing that he goes where the data goes. Kudos to you my friend.
What are next papers in line?
Anything about Maykop? Kura-Araxes? do they even have aDNA from there yet?
Like I already said, I'm not perturbed by an Anatolian/Late PIE split south of the Caucasus, if that's what the data end up showing.
But first of all, I need to have a look at this supposedly R1b-Z2103 sample from Hajji Firuz, and then move from there.
Davidski said...
"Well, Reich's book was about ancient DNA, not about the Indo-European homeland problem, so he was focusing on what ancient DNA was showing, rather than synthesizing all of the multidisciplinary evidence.
So what's ancient DNA showing? The spread of southern ancestry onto the steppe before a big bang on the steppe that resulted in population movements in almost all directions across Eurasia........."
Prior to that we have the spread of ---Ancestral North Eurasian (ANE)[: Upper-Paleolithic genomes from the Lake Baikal region of Siberia, identified as Malta, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3, dated to 17 to 24 kya, when Mammoths roamed the area, form the ANE cluster]. into Iran.
I1293, Mesolithic(?), 9100-8600 BC+/-
WC1, 7500-7000 BC+/-
AH1, AH2, AH4, Early Neolithic, 8200-7700 BC+/-
I1290 = GD13a , I1945, Early Neolithic, 8200-7700 BC+/-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I1293 Iran Mesolithic [9100-8600 BC] HV2 J2a-M410> CTS1085
Population
Ancestral_North_Eurasian 53.44
Ancestral_South_Eurasian 2.80
East_Asian -
West_European_Hunter_Gartherer 6.78
Natufian 35.58
Sub_Saharan 1.40
Yes Dave is at least considering other ideas. Well done
I’m sure he’ll cry no tears if they turn out to be nothing. :)
@Rob
Contrary to you, who has been a shape-shifting contrarian, looking for anything to debunk the steppe theory while failing every single time.
When have you ever been right, I wonder? I think never, every single time you came up with something new it was debunked immediately.
Now the new fad among contrarians is to falsely claim that:
1. "Oh, Iran_N + West_Siberian_HG is just like Yamnaya!"
2. "Oh, Iran_N + West_Siberian_HG can be used instead of Steppe_MLBA!"
3. "Oh, David Reich said that the IE homeland was in Iran!"
Point 1 and 2 have already been debunked. Point 3 depends on what basis Reich claim that - is it because of the dubious yDNA results in this study? Is it because of some samples who still have to be released? Is it just because the "Teal People" got branded as Iranian recently?
We have to know exactly what he's talking about, if the R1b gets confirmed to be from there and has no contemporary elsewhere, if it's just because R likes to model Yamnaya with Armenians or any other reasons who could might as well be just a mistake.
I did little livestream on youtube where I talked a little about the Indo-European topic. You can check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hokPcjzjCAs (Video where I talk about IE stuff)
It was just introductory stuff but I expect to be posting more IE stuff on my own channel.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCUTlemkm2kTRjxiD3spoHg/ (My Channel, where I will at some point talk about IE cultural stuff, not using it to push any particular urheimat theory, subscribe to be notified of new IE videos, there is vid there about current political situation but just ignore that.
The funniest part is the whole proto-languages where people can basically just invent whatever connection they want…
I recently went on a trip to Japan and loved their culture, especially the Samurai stuff. If you do a proto-sino-reconstruction, Samurai cognates to Damubai in Chinese which cognates to Danibai in Mongolian which then through steppe related genetics cognates to Danni bai in the proto-historic volga region and that cognates to Danny Boy where i live in Scotland now.
Ergo ipso facto…. I, Danny Boy, am the greatest Samurai warlord that ever lived! I just don’t get why the Japanese people don’t understand this basic science.
Its the exact same thing happening with Sanskrit and elements of the hindu religion today. Tracing all this back to the "steppe" so people can claim credit for others accomplishments.
@namedguest
"3."
I'm guessing this is a jab at me. I do not care what Reich thinks but you guys are so blind to the evidence that I like reminding you that the biggest steppe hero is now a mountain hero.
You can keep on believing that the IE warrior culture came from Khvalynsk semi hunter gatherers side rather than Maykop sword using warriors. Yamnaya could've been 80% EHG and 20% CHG and it still won't change the fact that the warrior culture is from the south. I've said this before and I'll say it again: in terms of culture Khvalynsk is as IE as Keltiminar.
@thorin23
Tracing all this back to the "steppe" so people can claim credit for others accomplishments.
I've seen this straw man wheeled out over and over again in online debates. It's the lamest argument against the steppe hypothesis ever.
Clearly, you underestimate plain simple truth as a major motivation in this debate for many people, because it's obvious now that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was the launching pad for large scale population movements during the Bronze Age deep into Europe and Asia, and this is the most recent and significant link between the Indo-European speakers in both continents, with Indians not being exempt.
So as things stand now, the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the last known Indo-European homeland.
@Vara
I've said this before and I'll say it again: in terms of culture Khvalynsk is as IE as Keltiminar.
Well, you might want to stop saying it for the time being, until we actually see human DNA from Maykop and horse DNA from Khvalynsk.
There's no guarantee that Maykop will fit the bill as the southern ancestors of Yamnaya, but there's a good chance that modern horses came from the Eneolithic Pontic-Caspian steppe.
@Davidski
So you admit it. You are taking credit.
And the plain simple truth is that Iran is the actual PIE homeland. David Reich (who has more dna info than anyone here) has already said it in his book.
@thorin23
Actually, my main motivation has always been to prove wrong the kooky idea that European R1a came from India, and to demonstrate that in fact Indian R1a came from Eastern Europe. Needless to say, I'm very happy how things are turning out in this regard.
I couldn't care less about claiming this or that. You can keep whatever you think is yours.
But in any case, even if the PIE homeland was in Iran, then it still looks like Iranian languages arrived in Iran from the steppe only during the Iron Age. So the steppe is a linguistic, and to some degree genetic, homeland for Iranians no matter how things turn out. Fascinating stuff, don't you think?
@Davidski
Absolutely riveting I would say. Knowing that core European DNA and language come from the Iranian plateau is indeed very fascinating to me.
To think that modern Europeans owe so much of their genes and language to the ancient Iranian peoples. Just so incredible the twists and turns of ancient DNA analysis.
As a side note, thank you for hosting this wonderful site for all of us. Its been very useful.
@Vara
I have no problem with IE being from the Caucasus, or even Armenia, although unlikely - my personal theory is that Uralic and Indo-European were sister languages derived specially from the ANE-like peoples, such as EHG and the new West_Siberian_HG and that the language of the ANE was something like Nostratic, with Dravidian coming from them as well and signalling in those Iranian samples.
But Iran for IE is just too much, it's better Reich come up with something really good to back this up, and until that, I consider his statement some sort of mistake.
Also, I didn't jab you, if you understood that way.
@thorin23
Your language comparison is fallacious. You have many instances of direct cognates in all of Indo-European languages, not false-cognates.
Please, learn about the linguistics of the matter before spouting such nonsense.
@davidski
I dont know about the European R1a however the Indian R1a is 5,500 years old.
And after scavenging all available aDNA from North Eurasia from Neolithic to Iron Age not a single L-657 specimen has been found anywhere outside Modern India.
So it is delusional to think that the Indian R1a came from European R1a.
And this paper makes it clear as day and night that there were no L-657 hidden in central asia and hence there is no co-relation of steppe like ancestry in Indians with R1a, although it makes a confused attempt in combining the two.
And its altogether a different issue and topic where is the STEPPE LIKE ancestry coming from, this paper just makes a distal and proximal assumption that it must be from Steppe MLBA east, and thats because they do not have any more samples close in space and time other that those.
And not to forget that most of the samples used in this study for pre copper and post copper age are from Norther Eurasia. Knowing that Eurasian populations were mixing all across the land mass since the copper age the bias for SOURCE POPULATION tilts in the favor of more older and newer samples spanning time and space from North Eurasia and the places like South Asia end up looking like a destination precisely because of having only few and very late samples from late bronze and Iron age.
@ROB-Player
And after scavenging all available aDNA from North Eurasia from Neolithic to Iron Age not a single L-657 specimen has been found anywhere outside Modern India.
You should check the BAM file of Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561. His R1a line looks directly ancestral to L657.
And I'm pretty sure that when the BAM files from these Steppe_MLBA_East samples become available there will be a few L657 lineages there.
And till date there is only one large scale scientific study on R1a origins and further diversification by underhill et al 2014 which say:
"we conclude that the initial episodes of haplogroup R1a diversification likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day Iran"
So there goes..rest is just conjectures and speculation by bloggers.
@ROB-Player
2014 was before the start of Reich and co. ancient genomics papers in 2015. Underhill was just speculating, just like a blogger - now we know that the oldest R1a is from Europe (geographically and genetically, no Iranian input there), just like the oldest R1b.
@ROB-Player
There are now many prehistoric samples from Eastern Europe from peer reviewed papers packing all sorts of R1a lineages closely related to Indian R1a, including three key samples.
Check this out. No speculation here. Just the bare facts from ancient DNA. And it's still current.
The beast among Y-haplogroups
@davidski
yes precisely the older date for L-657 is based on that sample.
However it is just one lonely sample, I am not sure why it was not called a outlier or a migrant, or may be a fourth or fifth generation migrant.
You tell me.
@namedguest
Finding something does not grant patent rights to the haplogroup, like you are implying.
Based on all the haplogroups found in Europe in prehistory, with your logic it can be claimed that the whole humanity started from there.
The relevant R1b-M269 is found in Iran, even though some guys are waiting for C14 on it. Which perfectly goes with Iranian teal component in the steppes.
@ROB-Player
If you don't understand by now that almost all, and perhaps all, Indian R1a derives from the Bronze Age Pontic-Caspian steppe then clearly you're not someone who can be reasoned with.
@ROB-Player
But you see, Underhill's wild guess was due to Iran's middle position between Europe and India, it didn't have any scientific basis.
Now we know that since Hunter Gatherer times in Europe there were R1b and R1a unadmixed - of course, R* is from the ANE, so every R there are comes indirectly from them, but speaking about specific R clades, such as the R1a Steppe ones, which participated in the Indo-European expansions, they were all primordially European.
About that R1b-M269, you already know the gist, we're waiting for better data and some sort of Reich's pronouncement - and this is serious, the paper has severe haplogroup problems.
That Iranian sample is probably wrong, it's undersampled, most likely, or is a result of simulation, we have R1b-M269 in European Hunter Gatherers with no Iranian admixture.
And actually, what you said about "every haplogroup would be from Europe" due to the lack of samples elsewhere is not true, precisely because we can look at the branching lines.
@David,
Do you plan to update your D-stat spreadsheets. Would it be beneficial at all or is Global25 good enough.
I think Global25 is definitely better at identifying the sources of ancestry but D-stats are better at getting the right percentages.
Chad,
Thanks! I very much appreciate that, and look forward to seeing what you can find.
Rob,
You make a very fair point.
That being said, I think you'll find the output posted below to be quite sensible.
All,
Here are some models of various southern Central Asian populations.
Tajik:
20.00% Iran_N + 17.55% Iran_Chl + 8.55% AfontovaGora3 + 1.40% CHG
44.65% Steppe_MLBA
3.10% AASI
2.50% Ulchi
2.25% Mongola
"distance%=0.2337 / distance=0.002337"
Tajik_Rushan:
47.25% Steppe_MLBA
16.15% Iran_N + 15.75% Iran_Chl + 6.10% AfontovaGora3 + 4.60% CHG
7.10% Mongola
3.05% AASI
"distance%=0.1878 / distance=0.001878"
Tajik_Shugnan:
19.60% Iran_Chl + 17.00% Iran_N + 8.80% AfontovaGora3 + 1.65% CHG
41.80% Steppe_MLBA
4.45% Mongola
4.40% AASI
2.30% Ulchi
"distance%=0.1671 / distance=0.001671"
Tajik_Ishkashim:
19.80% Iran_N + 15.70% Iran_Chl + 9.25% AfontovaGora3 + 4.25% CHG
37.15% Steppe_MLBA
8.40% AASI
4.45% Mongola
1.00% Ulchi
"distance%=0.2178 / distance=0.002178"
Pashtun:HGDP00259 (the only HGDP Pashtun in Global_25 which is close to the usual average):
36.40% Iran_N + 6.35% CHG + 3.80% AfontovaGora + 2.95% Iran_Chl
35.10% Steppe_MLBA
14.65% AASI
0.75% Ulchi
"distance%=0.3102 / distance=0.003102"
Pashtun_Afg (the two Afghan Pashtuns in Global_25):
24.05% Iran_N + 19.60% Iran_Chl + 4.30% AfontovaGora + 3.60% CHG
34.30% Steppe_MLBA
11.00% AASI
3.15% Ulchi
"distance%=0.2143 / distance=0.002143"
Karlani Pashtun, Central Highlands:
23.70% Iran_N + 20.75% Iran_Chl + 4.25% AfontovaGora3 + 0.25% CHG
37.95% Steppe_MLBA
10.30% AASI
2.80% Ulchi
"distance%=0.2549 / distance=0.002549"
Batanri Pashtun, Nomadic:
33.50% Iran_N + 13.45% Iran_Chl + 2.50% AfontovaGora3 + 1.85% CHG
35.25% Steppe_MLBA
11.00% AASI
2.45% Ulchi
"distance%=0.3201 / distance=0.003201
Sarbani Pashtun, Southwestern Plateau:
30.30% Iran_N + 19.15% Iran_Chl + 3.85% AfontovaGora3 + 3.60% CHG
30.15% Steppe_MLBA
9.30% AASI
2.75% Mongola
0.90% Ulchi
"distance%=0.3069 / distance=0.003069"
Kho_Singanali:
30.20% Iran_N + 10.55% Iran_Chl + 10.50% AfontovaGora3 + 1.85% CHG
28.80% Steppe_MLBA
14.15% AASI
3.95% Ulchi
"distance%=0.3231 / distance=0.003231"
Kalash:
39.35% Iran_N + + 8.95% AfontovaGora3 + 7.75% CHG
29.80% Steppe_MLBA
14.15% AASI
"distance%=0.333 / distance=0.00333"
For comparison, South Asians.
Brahmin:
34.8% Iran_N + 7.3% AfontovaGora3
32.9% AASI
25.1% Steppe_MLBA
"distance%=0.5365 / distance=0.005365"
Chamar:
52.20% AASI
30.40% Iran_N + 9.55% AfontovaGora3
7.85% Steppe_MLBA
"distance%=0.7312 / distance=0.007312"
Comments:
As one can see, the non-Steppe_MLBA side of all southern Central Asians is construed as a mix of Iran_N, Iran_Chl, ANE/West_Siberian_N, and CHG. In addition to minor ASI (ranging from 3% to 14%), they also show Ulchi and Mongola (perhaps a reflection of that West_Siberian_N, or perhaps a reflection of Turko-Mongolic admixture).
The Kalash are an exception. No Iran_Chl, just Iran_N + ANE + CHG, and no East Asian in addition to 14% ASI.
By contrast, South Asians (both Brahmin and Chamar) show 0% Iran_Chl, and 0% CHG. Only Iran_N + ANE. Brahmins are 25% Steppe_MLBA, while Chamar are at 8%.
Matches up with the data presented in the paper (in South Asia proper, only Iran_N + ANE/West_Siberian_HG, no Iran_Chl + CHG influence).
Which reminds me; the paper should include Iran_Chl and CHG in the modelling of BMAC. Anatolia_N isn't the actual source of western admixture.
Also, just to show that this setup works, here are some results from outside southern Central Asia/South Asia.
Chechen:
37.45% CHG
27.30% Steppe_MLBA
11.80% Iran_Chl
10.50% Barcin_N
7.40% Levant_N
2.85% AfontovaGora3
2.70% Mongola
"distance%=0.2334 / distance=0.002334
Iranian_Mazandarani:
69.55% Iran_Chl
19.90% Steppe_MLBA
3.70% CHG
3.35% Iran_N
2.15% ASI
0.50% AfontovaGora3
0.45% Ulchi
0.40% Mongola
"distance%=0.1569 / distance=0.001569"
Interesting that Chechens have about the same amount of Steppe_MLBA as Kalasha and Brahmins, but less than Pashtuns, and much less than Tajikistanis.
So, it seems that we weren't wrong in assuming that the highest levels of steppe-related admixture in Asia are to be found in the Pamirs + Hindu Kush, as well as among Upper Caste North Indians. We were just wrong about the kind of steppe-related admixture (not Steppe_EMBA), and the exact proportions (not 50%, more around 45%-30%).
@David
if Iran only started getting IE speakers in the the iron age 900 BC. How do you explain Mitanni I/Ir speakers in Syria by 1400 bc
Matt,
It seems you did not read my comment in full because I have clearly addressed the very same point you're raising. Let me again put it in brief :-
1. There is already about 15 % Anational Neolithic (ANF) ancestry in Copper Age Central Asia, from the sites Tepe Anau, Parkhai & Geoksiur. These sites are in the same region where BMAC later emerged. Sarazm has only 3 % ANF and it also appears to have some sort of AASI if we go by the admixture graph, but this site is too further east from the geography of BMAC as compared to the 3 sites with 15 % ANF.
2. So all the ANF did not come in the Bronze Age. A significant fraction was already present from the Copper Age.
3. During the BMAC phase this ANF goes to 21 % apparently. So there is a definite increase in ANF from the Copper to the Bronze Age inspite of IVC admixture of about 30 % with 0 ANF.
4. But this ANF could not have come from Mesopotamia but from a geographically more proximate source. That source is most likely Eastern Iran because it had Helmand civilization with sites like Shahr I Sokhta which shows strong links with BMAC.
5. However Eastern Iran only had 33 % ANF while if we discount 30 % IVC admixture from BMAC, we have 21 % ANF in the rest 70 %, which is 30 % ANF into the non-IVC ancestry of BMAC.
6. So a jump from 15 % ANF in Copper Age to 30 % ANF in BMAC period. To account for this, we need 80 % East Iranian admixture in BMAC with only 20 % from the Copper Age Central Asia itself. Working out the total percentages, we get 56 % East Iranian admixture, 30 % IVC admixture and only 14 % native Copper Age Central Asia.
7. The above level of population replacement in BMAC over its earlier phase looks quite unrealistic. But a more distant Western ANF source with greater ANF ancestry also looks archaeologically quite impluasible. Just maybe the the calculated ANF percentages are a little off.
8. Lastly, The Central Asian BMAC, the Eastern Iranian civilizations of Helmand & Jiroft and the IVC were in close cultural economic relations with IVC being by far the largest among them and also the most influential. There is significant IVC influence in Helmand, Jiroft and BMAC but very little vice versa. It could also be that the AASI in BMAC also came in through the Helmand civilization with sites like Shahr I Sokhta. This would have brought in AASI along with ANF.
@Seinundzeit,
Interesting stuff. For a while we've modelled modern pops from places where we don't have ancient DNA from yet. The models are good. But every time we get ancient DNA from that location, the results make slight, sometimes dramatic, changes to our models. It looks like this paper really has finally gotten central Asia figured out. We need aDNA from India to know precicly what's going on with ASI in South Asia but basically India-South Asia is also figured out.
David,
I can point out atleast 3 instances where you have been proven wrong :-
1. You claimed the Pontic Caspian steppe as the PIE homeland but leading geneticists like Reich & Krause are veering towards NW Iran.
2. You claimed that the southern ancestry in Yamnaya is mostly through females. Although a most ridiculous argument from the outset, you and your fellow band members kept trumpeting this idea because of overwhelming and old presence of R1a & R1b on the steppe. Now with the Seh Gabi samples it is clear that R1b Z2103, the same type predominat among Yamnaya, was already present in Iran as early as 5500 BC and therefore it shows that the southern input in Yamnaya is most likely responsible in bringing the Z2103 on the steppe.
3. You claimed that the steppe ancestry in South Asia is very recent and only came to South Asia from the steppe in the Bronze Age. Now with the Indus Periphery samples, it is clear that the steppe aka ANE ancestry in South Asia is older than that.
It also seems to not make any sense to you the fact that the ANE ancestry is associated with ydna R & Q both of which derive from P and its ancestor K2, both of which have their roots in South & SE Asia. So the source of ANE ancestry into West Eurasia is most likely South Asia. Therefore to deny an old presence of ANE type ancestry in South Asia is ludicrous.
Sam,
I completely agree; we are finally on solid ground when it comes to Central Asia, and probably South Asia as well (as you noted, we just need an actual AASI reference when it comes to the latter).
Jaydeep,
"It also seems to not make any sense to you the fact that the ANE ancestry is associated with ydna R & Q both of which derive from P and its ancestor K2, both of which have their roots in South & SE Asia. So the source of ANE ancestry into West Eurasia is most likely South Asia. Therefore to deny an old presence of ANE type ancestry in South Asia is ludicrous."
You just might be right about all of this.
But, this has no bearing on the Steppe_MLBA signal in South Asia. The ANE signal is old (using the terminology found in the preprint, "West_Siberian_N"), but nothing deeply rooted in South Asia can possibly act as a confound when it comes to Steppe_MLBA.
On top of this, those Steppe_MLBA populations have the right kind of R1a. So, what are we even debating?
@Jaydeep
You Indians always make the same flawed arguments all the time, everywhere, incredible.
1. They have to show their case for that, the evidence.
2. There's no R1b in Seh Gabi. Also, we don't know the haplogroups of the West_Siberian_HG, might as well be R1a, R1b, R2a or even Q.
3. Steppe is not ANE. They are different. And there's no ANE presence there, there's West_Siberian_HG presence there, just like there's EHG presence in Europe.
"It also seems to not make any sense to you the fact that the ANE ancestry is associated with ydna R & Q both of which derive from P and its ancestor K2, both of which have their roots in South & SE Asia. So the source of ANE ancestry into West Eurasia is most likely South Asia. Therefore to deny an old presence of ANE type ancestry in South Asia is ludicrous."
This seems to be en vogue to say among Indians. R and Q derive from P, which has K as ancestor, which separated from IJK in European Cro-Magnons! K is found in Siberia - these are ANE haplogroups, the ANE are not South Asians, they are not Southeast Asians, they are the ANE, a group of its own. People like the AASI didn't even exist by their time, neither any South/east Asian living today, no one.
I said this one more time and I'll have to say it again: the hidden truth this paper revealed was the deep hatred Indians have for Europeans - they want they ancestry to be from Iran, from South Asia, from Southeast Asia, the Himalaias and Siberia, but never Europe. And hey! The Aryans?! Their national pride?! Absurd! Heresy! In fact, the Aryan's ancestry in Europe was due to South Asians! Yes! Those 0% South Asian Aryans have South Asian ancestors from tens of thousands of years ago! When no modern human population was formed but the master of the universe AASI! The Crown group itself! The masters of ENA, the one and only colonizers of the world, from which all haplogroups come from!
The haplogroup assignments for Seh Gabi samples are here:
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Publications_files/nature19310-s4.pdf
There is no R1b amongst them.
Lol The linguistic and archaeological fields have a consensus on this issue, unlike what many comments are claiming. The genetics have up until now validated this consensus. Except this small possibility of R1b Z2103 carrying IE languages from the south to the steppe.
For the worst case scenario, even if R1b Z2103 is shown to have a southern origin, it is not unlikely that they could have experienced a shift in their language after making it into the steppe. Lineages can shift languages fast like we have seen in other historical cases (there are many I could point to).
But the above possibility is itself very remote. Why? Because all the immediately upclade samples of R1b are found to the north of the Caucasus( P297s all the way from Narva to Samara with no southern admixture as far as I know, one L23* sample from Khvalynsk/Samara). The phylogeographic record is pretty clear.
I'm not outright ruling out a homeland south of the Caucasus. Maybe there is a 5 in a 100 chance of it being there, but I'm not going to be all shifty about the issue and go against consensus just because of this one sample. That is intellectually dishonest.
I admit I will be a little disappointed if the homeland is determined to be in the Caucasus but that is because over the years, I have come to believe the steppe model is bullet proof. But it's not the end of the world, I will move on :)
I don't think Indians have hatred for Europeans. It's just that this paper has upset the applecart for a highly vocal set of religious fundamentalists, for whom it is very important to have Aryans as completely native to India.
If they are proven to be of external origin, then the fundamentalists cannot lay sole claim to the country's past and future. It also throws the spanner in the plan to gradually declare adherents of non-Hindu religions as foreigners.
Like Davidski here, Vagheesh Narasimhan has become a target for a wolfpack like attack on twitter ;-) I hope he pays heed to Tom Nichols' commentary (The Death of Expertise):
http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/
@kc
Jaydeep is probably repeating someone else's words. The mysterious R1b is from Hajji Firuz_C, a population loaded with Steppe-related ancestry (not West_Siberian_HG).
Btw, anybody who has used nMonte to model Middle Easterners knows Assyrians lack Steppe admixture while Persians & Kurds are about 15-20% of Steppe decent. This is more confirmation of where Indo iranian languages are from.
But, Armenians seem to lack Steppe admixture as well. This is one inconsistency with the Kurgan hypothesis.
You see, that's the stuff: We're in a situation of who came first, the egg or the chicken.
We know that the clades ancestral to R1b-Z2103 are found in Europe, but Z2103 specifically is oldest now in Hajji_Firuz_C.
If we look at the ADMIXTURE graph of the paper, we'll see that Steppe_EMBA has Hajji_Firuz_C-related ancestry but that Hajji_Firuz_C also has Steppe ancestry.
So, what to do? They're going by the dates and giving Hajji_Firuz_C the priority.
I still think there are problems with the yDNA in this study, this is a fact - if after the correction this persists, then we must consider it.
And if it turns out to be the way Reich is saying, then how to explain the "Steppe" ancestry of Hajji_Firuz_C? Or how to explain that the ancestral R1b was only found in Europe so far?
To me, this is a huge mystery, but might be related to the Anatolian languages.
@Samuel Andrews
Armenians have Steppe ancestry.
@Seinundzeit,
Where does your AASI reference come from? I don't see it in the Global 25 spreadsheets.
@Rob
I'm not American, go die in another hill, Mr. Mycenaean-were-the-only-wave-of-IE-in-Greece.
Pathetic.
@Jaydeep
1. The consensus amongst historical linguists is that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. As far as I know that hasn't change overnight, although, admittedly, I may have not gotten the memo yet.
2. Let's wait for the DNA data and C14 date for the Hajji Firuz sample in question before discussing this further.
3. I recognized that there was extra Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry in South Asia on top of what was brought there by the R1a-Z93-rich Bronze Age steppe pastoralists long before this preprint, and, more importantly, unlike the likes of you, was able to demonstrate it. See here...
D(Outgroup, PopTest) (Pop1, Pop2)
Sein,
Do we have IVC genomes which prove that steppe_mlba related ancestry was not present in South Asia before that ?
Do you really think that the Indus Periphery samples accurately capture the diversity of the enormous spread of the IVC ?
If not, let me ask you this. Could the steppe_mlba like signal in South Asians be because of recent shared ancestry rather than a clear evidence of steppe migration into South Asia ?
I mean why is this signal absent in BMAC and why is there no evidence of BMAC input in South Asia ? Should this not raise any suspicion ?
@postneo
It's news to me that the Mitanni were the early West Iranian people who gave rise to Iran.
I always thought that they were Hurrian-speakers with an Indo-Aryan elite. Duh.
David,
So you are talking about linguistic consensus about the PIE homeland. Read the below passage from none other than J P Mallory, the high priest of IE studies and a man who is surely more aware than you, of the linguistic consensus regarding PIE.
All too often surveys of the Indo-Europeans eventually conclude with something on the order of ‘scholars have concluded that the most likely area of the homeland is . . .X’ with a brief defence of one particular solution (this type of scholarship has been going on since the late nineteenth century). In fact, we not only lack total consensus but where we seem to find something of a major school it is often formed by deference rather than conviction, i.e. linguists or archaeologists indicate agreement with a particular theory that they have not themselves investigated in any depth. This situation means that a small number of advocates—at times, very vigorous advocates—provide an assortment of homeland theories for the rest of their colleagues to comply with passively. The homeland is an interesting question but it is so difficult to resolve (we have over two centuries of dispute to prove that) and requires the application of so many less than robust means of argument that most archaeologists and historical linguists do not find it a worthwhile enterprise, at least for themselves. The last word is, therefore, far from written...
I suggest you should stop tom toming this idea of a linguistic consensus over the PIE homeland. It only serves to showcase your own ignorance of the complexity of the subject.
@Rob - it seems a lot like proto-Uralic connections in morphology and early loan words are becoming the go to counterargument against a pre-steppe fork of IE; either to indicate a genetic relationship between Uralic and IE and thus a steppe background, or an interaction the must have been pre-forking of Hittite. But linguistic opinion seems very equivocal at best about whether this is early enough on the loanword side, or whether the morphological and pronoun connections are chance... A fair assessment? I personally will have to read more on this topic to address and understand this subject.
Jaydeepsinh:It seems you did not read my comment in full because I have clearly addressed the very same point you're raising. Let me again put it in brief
No, I read what you've said but briefly, barring the archaeological stuff (which while full of interest does not imply any population genetic relationship and is your interpretation of relationships in archaeology moreover), it does seems just like a very long winded way to get to the point regarding the ANF percentage.
Then ultimately your conclusion after working through the proportions is you seem to decide that because you don't like the outcome (implied levels of replacement and the implied centre of gravity of its direction, nor an "implausible" long distance migration of more ANF people), the ANF levels must be "off" and that the result is "improbable".
Which I must treat with no more respect or interest than someone deciding that the AASI percentage in BMAC must be off, because they don't like a possibility of 20-30% IVC influence (supported by two or three paragraphs of their opinion on the archaeology)...
Jaydeep said...
David,
I can point out atleast 3 instances where you have been proven wrong :-
David is much to modest, however beside predating Indian pottery by several millenia,the Hyperborean's[component ANE] devised technology of heating certain types of wood[not palm trees or fig trees-remember why the battle of Kadesh took place-for access to pine]to give us the use of a spoked chariot and or symbol for a flag.
€ hardwoods are oak, maple, cherry, birch, walnut, ash and poplar. Common softwoods are pine, fir, spruce, hemlock, cedar and redwood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_bending
@Jaydeep
You claim that I'm wrong when I say that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was probably on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And then you dig up a quote from someone who you claim is a high priest in this area of study which says that there's no consensus on the matter.
Well, if there's really no consensus and the problem hasn't been solved, then how can I be wrong by positing that one of the most often proposed locations for the homeland is likely to be the right one?
Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. Here's a more recent review of the problem...
The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives
In any case, James Mallory, your so called high priest, is one of the co-authors on this Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint, and the preprint abstract says this...
Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.
So you're up shit creek without a paddle, because even if I'm wrong about where the ultimate Proto-Indo-European homeland is located, the authors of this preprint seem quite sure that they've located some sort of Indo-European homeland, which was inhabited by people who contributed both genetically and linguistically in a big way to the present-day Indian population.
As usual, you don't have any real arguments.
Matt,
I have never imputed any motives to your arguments nor should you do the same. You are one of the few commentators here whose views I tend to respect.
I am not making any argument based on my like or dislike. I have just stated facts. You have a problem with that. Clearly your understanding of South Asian & Central Asian archaeology is limited. So when I am merely trying to correct you on that, am I being wrong ?
As I said, there is little evidence of direct Mesopotamian influence on BMAC. There is far greater influence of Eastern Iranian civilizations on BMAC who also incidentally had high proportion of ANF. Hence I said that Eastern Iran is the most likely place for BMAC to get the extra ANF. Do you dispute that ? And based on what ?
And when I said that something is off, it is clear that something like 80 to 85 % of population turnover of pre-BMAC people looks highly improbable. Or do you think that it is highly plausible ?
I am merely pointing this out to you. And so there has to be some explanation for how the ANF got to be so high, isn't it ? One issue could be that the ANF proportion being calculated might be slightly high. The reason is if you have a look at the qpADM tables for ANF proportions in the main BMAC cluster, there are wild variations going from as high as 24 % to as low as 6 %. Maybe you understand this better so you can enlighten me. Its somewhere between pg 120 to 140 in the supplement.
At any rate, long-distance migration from the ANF rich western regions have to be looked upon as highly unlikely. Or maybe Sarianidi's argument of BMAC origins in Anatolia needs to be looked at ? At any rate, I am merely trying to figure out the things and if it does not turn out a particular way, I am willing to accept it. Stop attributing motives as that is a way to lose respect.
Some arguments i read for Near Eastern PIE homeland:
Oldest R1b-Z2103 in Northern Iran without steppe admixture in it
Oldest Kurgans are in Caucasia
Oldest IE language is in Anatolia
Cattle were first domesticated in the area
Haplogroup J2 found in upper caste Hindus
Some quantitative models identifying Anatolia as PIE homeland
Let's discuss the counter-arguments.
David,
So when you're argument is shown to be hollow you shift the goalpost !
You said
The consensus amongst historical linguists is that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. As far as I know that hasn't change overnight, although, admittedly, I may have not gotten the memo yet.
Did you not ?
I merely pointed out that even the most deeply invested scholars in this PIE homeland debate believe of such a linguistic consensus. That is that. I did not imply anything else.
So let us just stick to the point. The paper you reference in your defence is also a viewpoint of a particular linguist, it does not prove consensus among historical linguists regarding the PIE issue.
At any rate, I shall produce a critique of this Ringe and Anthony paper in a few hours, as I have read it a while back and know whats wrong in it.
-----
As far as this paper validating the steppe theory, this is a genetics paper and its principal contributors are geneticists and not archaeologists like Mallory. So you are completely besides the point again. As far as the opinion of geneticists is concerned, you read what Dr. Patterson said in his reply to Balaji, didn't you ? He clearly said that he could be wrong and he has no qualms in accepting it if its proven so.
I merely pointed out that even the most deeply invested scholars in this PIE homeland debate *believe of such a linguistic consensus. That is that. I did not imply anything else.
The above statement should have "do not believe" instead of "believe".
@ Matt
"It seems a lot like proto-Uralic connections in morphology and early loan words are becoming the go to counterargument against a pre-steppe fork of IE; either to indicate a genetic relationship between Uralic and IE and thus a steppe background, or an interaction the must have been pre-forking of Hittite. But linguistic opinion seems very equivocal at best about whether this is early enough on the loanword side, or whether the morphological and pronoun connections are chance... A fair assessment? I personally will have to read more on this topic to address and understand this subject."
Indeed. And Pereltsvaig & Lewis - who are squarely in the 'steppe camp' - very fairly and nicely summarise the issue of linguistic contact and 'triangulation':
"Much better documented are the linkages between PIE and Uralic, which
also support a more northerly PIE homeland (Ringe 1998; Dolgopolsky 2000:
407; Janhunen 2000, 2001; Kallio 2001; Koivulehto 2001; Salminen 2001;
Katz 2003). Morphological and lexical resemblances between the two language
families are so numerous and striking that some scholars have proposed
an Indo-Uralic macro-family, which would encompass all Indo-European and
Uralic languages (e.g. Kortlandt 1995). Most linguists, however, believe that
such similarities resulted from extensive contact rather than common descent,
attributing many resemblances, especially the lexical ones, to borrowing –
usually from Indo-European into Uralic. ..."
She further cites Hakkinen (who but commented a few threads back) "Häkkinen (2012) differentiates four layers of borrowings from Indo-European into Uralic, listed below from the oldest to the newest. Note that these borrowings originated from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European, not from PIE."
In their seminal study on contact linguistics, Thomas & Kaufmann ofcourse outline how heavy contact & borrowing over hundreds of years as can be expected between IE and FU - can result in phonological, syntactic, morphological borrowing approaching the appearance of genetic descent.
back to L & P, they raise the well known Kartvellian contact, but (as I mentioned) raise the issue of NW Caucasian contact - "Such strong evidence of linguistic contact between the early Indo-Europeans and the linguistic ancestors of the present-day Abkhaz, Adyghe, and Kabardian peoples makes the Pontic steppes to the north of the Caucasus Mountains a more likely candidate for the Indo-European homeland than either the Armenian Highlands or central Anatolia. '
Fair enough - but when did NW Caucasian arrive to the NW Caucasus ? They seem to think it was always there - a dubious proposal given the flux we have seen everywhere. In fact, this is the entire issue surrounding contact, or lack thereof with Hurrian & Semitic. These laguages were themselves only expanding in the CA- BA, so cannot be taken as definitive evidence of the negative.
But I do think there might be something to Kristiina's idea. I have no reason to a prior exclude a genuine relatedness between FU & PPIE, but being just beyond prove-ability because of time depths involved and the fractal nature of HG speech groups. But this fractl HG continuum could have extended the wide spans of Eurasia - stemming from UHG to EHG which we very well know was not limited to the steppe. These then diverged further as the ancestors crystalised around differing adstrata - ? Balkan & Caucasus for PIE and ? some paleo-Siberian for FU.
In fact, now going beyond the topic, FU influence has in turn been found in IE daughter languages by serious linguists - Germanic (Schriver) and Balto-Slavic (T & K). This of means i disagree with the Kristiansen -Kroonen model of proto-Germanic, and rather allign with German linguists who propose a late Iron Age expansion. Certainly, the peripherality of R1a in modern Germanic groups bodes poorly for the K & K model.
I gather those who claim 'consensus' like Chetan are aware of these factoids ?
Lastly, contrary to detractors, i have nothing against a steppe homeland for PIE. However, Id like to see solid proof. IMO propperly analysed and contextual archaeogenetics can. - like significant steppe with R1a -predominance in Swat valley elite burials or Mycenean shaft graves. So let's see more aDNA analysed sui generis
@Cpk
If you want to use Brahmin Y-chromosomes as evidence for where the Indo-European homeland was located, and you prefer the Near East as the homeland, then you're shooting yourself in the foot.
That's because Brahmins are exceptionally rich in Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is a sister clade of R1a-Z282, a marker that peaks amongst Indo-European-speaking Balto-Slavs (who don't happen to be rich in any J2 subclades).
So as things stand, R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z282 are the most direct genetic evidence of where the Indo-European homeland was located, because they're relatively young paternal markers that link the Indo-European speakers of both Europe and South Asia.
There are no other genetic markers that show such a strong and recent paternal link between the geographically disparate Indo-Europeans of Europe and South Asia.
So, as thing stand, if we're to use genetics as an argument, the steppe is the most likely location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland, because R1a-Z93 arrived in India from the steppe, just like R1a-Z282 arrived deep in Europe from the steppe. That quote again...
Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.
On the other hand, you can argue till you go blue in the face that the supposedly R1b-Z2103 Hajji Firuz individual was an Indo-European, but based on what exactly? R1b-Z2103 shows high frequencies in Northeast Caucasian speakers. So how do you know he wasn't some sort of Caucasian speaker?
For that matter, how do you know that the Yamnaya groups rich in R1b-Z2103 weren't Caucasian speakers?
Of course you don't.
Cpk said...
Some arguments i read for Near Eastern PIE homeland:
"Oldest R1b-Z2103 in Northern Iran without steppe admixture in it
Oldest Kurgans are in Caucasia
Oldest IE language is in Anatolia
Cattle were first domesticated in the area
Haplogroup J2 found in upper caste Hindus
Some quantitative models identifying Anatolia as PIE homeland
Let's discuss the counter-arguments."
R1b-Z2103 has most variance on the steppe-Hungary has most variance of R1b-Z2103/L51+ samples
All R1b-Z2103 can be modeled with ANE<Iran should be no exception<ANE cline in Europe matches, migration.
Higher levels of ANE in R1b-M73 Samara dated to 5500+/- BC than Iran Mesolithic-9000BC+-
Elshanka pottery in area with high levels of ANE- Elshanka pottery just as old as Iranian, but younger than Ust-Karenga pottery- a site 700+/-NE km from Malta1 R* variant sample
R1b-Samara samples contain both R1b-M73 and later R1b-Yamnaya/Poltavka/Srubnaya
Oldest wagon burials south from Samara, non in Iran.
Some of the oldest chariots found in the steppe-Sintashta- using fire and steam to bend certain types of wood that are used in the manufacture of spoked wheels.
Possible language connection between proto-Kartvelian-proto-Indo European-Proto Uralic- again all three modeled with ANE.
Possible signs of Horse domestication-Csepel-Hungary-to steppe regions
@salden @kc
If it wasn't for white supremacists such as yourselves, the OIT wouldn't even be popular.
Its nice to see Dr Vagheesh Narasimhan discussing issues openly with OITists as well. This is contrast to arrogance of Historians and Philologists towards the lay public. While the OIT is pretty much dead and needs to be buried. This study in no way proves the old invasionist fantasies of 20th century historians which reduced linguist language and cultural change in 2nd mill BCE South Asia to a war between 'whites' and 'black' people influenced by the experiences of western europeans with colonized people
@Davidski
“In any case, James Mallory, your so called high priest, is one of the co-authors on this Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint, and the preprint abstract says this...
Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.”
I think we don’t have enough data to speculate about PIE. R1b-Z2103 doesn’t have continuity in any IE culture, so we cannot be even sure it was IE.
What is important is that the genetic link has been established between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian populations and many similarities in languages and religions can be investigated as a result of migrations from Eastern Europe to South Asia.
@All
Post by the bullshit artist known as Bronze deleted.
@Bronze
Learn what Steppe_MLBA is exactly, where it comes from, and about it's genetic structure, before ever again attempting to post here about the origins of South Asian R1a-Z93.
@Rob I think most of the answers to your questions are in those sections you quoted. Regarding Indo-Uralic, the consensus has drifted although now with prominent linguists like Alwin Kloekhorst and Ferdinand Kortlandt, it is tilted more toward the theory of PIE and PU having an proto Indo-Uralic ancestor.
If this is true, Indo-Uralic would be a proto-language similar to PIE and so, your theory of a dispersed Indo-Uralic speech community extending all over Central Asia-Eastern Europe wouldn't work out.
Also, even in the case of alternative models like Caucasusia/Anatolian hypotheses, even their proponents wouldn't doubt the instrumentality of the Eurasian steppe in spreading IE far and wide. The steppe was akin to a superhighway of the ancient world. So we would probably have to say bye to any theories of how PIE spread from Anatolia or the Caucasus to Central Asia by any other route.
Another thing - I'm sure you would agree with me that the Anatolian / Caucasian hypotheses lack any coherent archaeological models like JP Mallory and David Anthony have outlined for the steppe model. So there's another possible hurdle.
The position of Anatolian and Tocharian (accepted to be the most archaic of IE languages) on opposite ends of the world is itself a dead give away as to where the homeland was probably located.
"I've said this before and I'll say it again: in terms of culture Khvalynsk is as IE as Keltiminar."
Cultures aren't static. There's a whole millennium from Khvalynsk to the Yamna culture and it's the Yamna which represents warrior, patrilineal, clan-based classic "IE package".
Some people haven't just come out of the 19th century ideas of anthropology which claims PIE groups and culture have been existing since the beginning of time. Clearly cultures change.
I can't understand why my Indian brothers are barking after the OIT tree. They don't have any genetic evidence. They quote Indian mythology. This is very embarrassing. Why don't you guys shut up and stop making a fool of yourselves all around.
@Santosh
I don't think you get it. In reality none of us truly care about the racial component - Indians, indeed most people come from somewhere else and all of us probably come from someplace in Africa or close by.
Its the connection they make between the R1a gene, language, and in some really nefarious cases, culture and religion. They are trying to imply that they are the originators of our culture. Its the same thing they try with Greece and Rome. Heck I've read pieces that try to say Vedic religion is not Hinduism and that its actually the religion of the steppe.
So what if we are quoting mythology? David Anthony et al do exactly that - which is quote our mythology in extremely ridiculous ways to establish connections that are dubious at best. Example - connecting the rig veda and chariot burial practices in the steppe.
They don't find any chariot burials or kurgans in India - oh then all of a sudden the same texts are used to pretend that they changed to cremation right before the supposed invasion. And then of course after the invasion they magically all went back to burials in the steppe.
Its a discussion and there are many viewpoints. You don't need to feel embarrassed on our behalf just because we don't agree with the opposing viewpoint.
Chetan
“I'm sure you would agree with me that the Anatolian / Caucasian hypotheses lack any coherent archaeological models like JP Mallory and David Anthony have outlined for the steppe model. So there's another possible hurdle”
Certainly, the details of the Genesis have not been adequately described by anyone to date.
Your impression rests on what (who) you’ve read, and from what ive read you say, your understanding isn’t all there.
“
If this is true, Indo-Uralic would be a proto-language similar to PIE and so, your theory of a dispersed Indo-Uralic speech community extending all over Central Asia-Eastern Europe wouldn't work ouT”
Ok but you have misunderstood what I suggested- which was not that PPIE was strewn across have of Eurasia
@thorin23
You can talk till the cows come home. What genetic evidence you have? Zilch. That is the point I am making.
“Regarding Indo-Uralic, the consensus has drifted although now with prominent linguists like Alwin Kloekhorst and Ferdinand Kortlandt, it is tilted more toward the theory of PIE and PU having an proto Indo-Uralic ancestor. ”
In your view perhaps. I have my sources.
In fact, doesn’t Kortlandt think PIE is neolithic ? How’s that square with your visions
@Santosh
Alright if you want to play that game. So what proof do you have that Sanskrit originated in the Ukranian steppe?
That's right - none. Its all based on conjecture. Its all based on linking the r1a gene to "Proto-Indo-European" which is a made up language that actually doesn't exist.
This artificially made up proto language relies HEAVILY on rigvedic sanskrit as its basis. Then its ASSUMED that people on the steppe spoke this made up fantasy language. And then after having constructed it using Sanskrit, they say hey Sanskrit actually comes from it. How convenient.
As i said before, show me ONE kurgan burial in India with horses, chariots and weapons, r1a skeletons - I'll be sold on all this. You make and incredible claim, show me the incredible evidence.
Proto-Indo-European is not a 'made up language'. It was a real spoken language. Our modern reconstruction of it is far from perfect, of course.
It seems that you are skeptical of the link between R1a and Indo-European language in India.
This connection is not out of nothing, there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the link.
"In fact, doesn’t Kortlandt think PIE is neolithic ?"
Sources for this? Kortlandt may argue for a neolithic P-IU but not for PIE I think
@thorin23
please go to a psychiatrist and show him what you said. I am not responding to you anymore.
As i said before, show me ONE kurgan burial in India with horses, chariots and weapons, r1a skeletons - I'll be sold on all this. You make and incredible claim, show me the incredible evidence.
Even tough I do think of the importance of the role of steppe people in IEzation of India you have a point in stressing this. Remind everybody that are obsessed with the horse and IE that you have to turn to the bull ( and the cow) if you want to find an animal that is far more important for IE culture. Significantly is diffused from Old Europe ( from which the bull fight in spain comes from?) to the very name of Italy, the land of the Veals VITELIA/VITELIO ( so of the people that worshipped bulls and cow) to obviously India ( no need to talk here) . But why many prefer not to talk about this? It doesn't fit the narrative.
@EastPole
"I think we don’t have enough data to speculate about PIE. R1b-Z2103 doesn’t have continuity in any IE culture, so we cannot be even sure it was IE."
^ In what sense? Yamnaya, Afanasievo... generally accepted to have spoken LPIE.
@karl_K
"Proto-Indo-European is not a 'made up language'. It was a real spoken language. Our modern reconstruction of it is far from perfect, of cours"
I am not sure about PIE but I am beginning to think there never was a Proto-Indo-Iranian and that all Iranian languages just developed out of Vedic Sanskrit, or dialects of it.
thorin,
androvans were our ancestors, modern europeans have no claim to them, they are at best descendants of a sister culture. further the vedas and vedic culture itself were born in india borrowing from neighbouring cultures and vedic dialects were spoken by possibly a genetically heterogenous group. ethnicity is far more closely related to culture than where you lie on a pca plot. I don't believe anyone can claim to be the owners of steppe culture but if anything indians - hindus and related religious groups in particular have a far better claim to be the true heirs of proto-europeans than modern europeans.
Whatever it may be denying science which suggests that its almost certain that some of our ancestors were from the bronze age cultures of the steppe is ridiculous.
At the end of the day there is no written evidence available to say for sure. So there will always be a mainstream theory and several fringe theories about Proto-Indo-European.
For some it has attained an almost Religious like Status and we all know how hard (Impossible) it is to convince people to change their religion.
So yes, even if the DNA Evidence, Archaeology and later Written Linguistic Evidence all point to some kind of unity
in the distant past it will be up to the individual to decide if he/she accepts it or not.
@Jijnasu
I'm not denying that at all. Like I said, we are all related. I have no issue with being genetically related to someone in Europe. Or Asia, or Africa or anywhere else.
What I simply don't see is evidence that our language and culture come from the steppe.
PIE is a made up language - show me one, just one, PIE book or text. Sanskrit is real because we have texts in it. Lithuanian is real, because we have texts in it.
PIE is something that a bunch of linguists have "reconstructed" in the modern era making the false assumption that there is actually something to reconstruct. And then they make the assumption that this reconstructed language was spoken by people on the steppe. I mean really its pretty comical if you think about it.
All of this is to burnish the notion that a warrior clan of males from Europe spread out and changed the whole world. If that happened, I have no problem with it. But show me the evidence.
All I'm asking for is for one single solitary kurgan burial in India. The kurgans are the only real archaeological continuity for this group of people.
@Jijnasu
You are another idiot. Why can't you just shut up?
Jijnasu
hindus and related religious groups in particular have a far better claim to be the true heirs of proto-europeans than modern europeans.
Completely agree. To hint at Maju's blog "For What you are we were" (Ah Aha). The fact is that in Europe IE culture has been erased by the huge impact with Cristianity which destroyed the rigid hierarchical society, and of course polytheism. Even tough to be fair indoeuropen mind set in metaphysics ( Greeks) was very important to structurize the christian doctrine
What language or languages did the CHG people speak at the time of admixture on the Steppe ? How much did they influence Steppe Language/Languages ? Why would a gradual admixture over a 2000 years period change the core of Steppe Languages ?
All these questions can only be answered with maybe this or most likely that with no real conclusive Linguistic proof.
Reading the counter-arguments on Near Eastern PIE, i think one of the crucial questions is that if the kurgans go from oldest at Southern Caucasus to youngest at Ukraine. If that is the case than this would mean genes & culture moved to steppe from Near East.
@Cpk
Yeah, awesome argument there. But no, the oldest dirt mounds aren't in the Near East, they're on the steppe, courtesy of the Repin Culture, which was ancestral to Yamnaya.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16087/pdf
thorin23 says above,
"PIE is a made up language - show me one, just one, PIE book or text. Sanskrit is real because we have texts in it. Lithuanian is real, because we have texts in it."
This is related to a very interesting phenomenon that in my view can act as one possible way of categorising people into two groups with respect to their attitudes to historical linguistics- one supportive and the other opposing. There is perhaps a natural tendency for people with not extremely ancient literatures like those of Sanskrit or Tamil and constantly getting pressured by this very giant duo for example, such as the case of some Telugu speakers like me, to get attracted to comparative linguistics and see how their own mother tongue has developed and changed with time; on the contrary, people with hoary, extensive and linguistically-conservative literary traditions like those of Sanskrit and Tamil have no much need to worry or care about the most-likely past stages of their own languages as worked out by linguistics. There may be some reality in my belief or none, but how else, I personally wonder, can a seemingly quite sensible commentator like thorin23 above be so disapproving of historical linguistics? After all, it did predict the presence of some laryngeals in some archaic ancestor of Sanskrit (let's not call it PIE) some of which indeed happened to turn up in Hittite, a relative of Sanskrit (this piece of evidence in favour of the legitimacy of comparative linguistics obviously won't be treated as one if one denies that there is any close genetic relationship between Hittite and Sanskrit). It did put an end to the "Sanskrit is the mother of all languages" erroneous jingoistic business in India. It did many other useful things, at least for me, such as elucidating the root structure, sound changes, word formation methods, etc. of pure Telugu which never received a treatment of that scale ever before in its history. Both Indian and foreign modern linguists reconstructed the prehistoric Telugu before Old Telugu which barely got attested before 7th century AD. Yes, they "make it all up" but I personally believe they are right to a large extent in making up what they make up.
Well said Dave.R1A came from Europe to India, the steppe had a huge impact in many places and spread many if not most IE languages, I don't believe India or Anatolia is the homeland and so on.I just think it's likely that PIE was first spoken Caucasus Iran somewhere, based on NW Caucasian languages and lack of evidence so far of a steppe migration to Anatolia.
@Santosh One needs to have a wholesome appreciation of the PIE problem before setting out to either solve it or dismiss it. If someone tries to interpret ancient genetic data without this context, that attempt will more likely falter.
@Davidski
''At this stage, the Pit-Grave culture
developed synchronously with the early stage of the Maikop culture in the northern Caucasus...''
@Chetan
"Yamna which represents warrior, patrilineal, clan-based classic "IE package"."
That's why Anatolians, who according to linguistic consensus split off PIE 7k-6kya, were warlike metallurgists?
@santosh
I'd actually think the opposite. To one familiar with sanskrit literature (which invariable involves contact with the prakrits as well) it is evident that phonetic change follows certain rules. As a dravidian speaker that the relationship of my language to sanskrit (despite heavy borrowing) is quite different from the relationship between hindi and sanskrit was quite evident. I think it is those who have a very limited knowledge of these languages who are likely to have these preconceived notions.
@Jijnasu
Yes but what about Tamil extremists claiming all the Dravidian languages "are born from" Tamil? It becomes mandatory for people like me in such cases to take a much closer look at things and see how valid all these ultra-aggressive claims are. And regarding Sanskrit, though it seems that there was some intuition always that the native was very different from Sanskrit, both in the case of Kannada and Telugu, I believe the overarching belief anyway was that ultimately both of them had to have descended from Sanskrit, in some fashion somehow, in many cases via "corruption" of THE language which to olden Indian grammarians was Vedic and Classical Sanskrit.
@Vara Anatolians could have become war-like from contact with other cultures around them. Also metallurgy in Anatolia is older than on the steppe.
By the way. Looks like there are two Santosh's here. I will try to change my name to Santosh R. i will be back.
To be war like doesn't mean you are actually stronger or more effective in spreading culture language and and religions
Persians were more war like than greeks and they got done by them and by alexander the great
Celts were more war like than germans and romans ...we all know the story..
Tartars were more war like than russian slavic farmers.....we all know the story
Turks were more war like than europeans but were crushed many times
nazis were more war like than allied forces...
Soviet Union was more war like than the west...
Us army was more war like than vietnamese rice eaters...they got done
Isis was more war like than assad forces....
To be war like is a key factor if it is supported by
technological gap
and above all strong religious and cultural convictions
As a Uralic speaker I was disappointed that this new paper did not yield any yDNA N. However, to be honest, many samples from the areas and cultures which could have yielded yDNA N were females, e.g. samples from Western Siberia.
Although, I currently do not even believe that the yDNA vector of PU was yDNA N, I still believe that the daughter languages of PU were mainly spread by western N1c. Therefore, I am still considering yDNA N as evidence of the area of expansion of Uralic languages.
The core area of presumed Uralic languages is still unsampled. While keeping this in mind, on the basis of this new paper, it does not appear that there was a PU speaking area anywhere in Kazakhstan or Altai c. 3000-2500 BC. Moreover, to me, it seems that the Uralic languages had not yet started to expand during the period from 2000 to 1400 BC from its core area. Finns seem to have arrived to Finland very late and the Baltic-Finnic N1c seems to have arrived in the area of the Gulf of Finland only after 1000 BC. The Sargat paper showed that N-L1026 and R1a1 were in West Siberia c. 500 BC. According to Häkkinen, PU is dated to c. 3000 BC, and IMO, the current ancient DNA does not support a wide area of expansion of Uralic in 2500 BC but rather point to an early Iron Age expansion to Siberia and to Fennoscandia.
I have already suggested that it is possible that the Uralic languages resemble the extinct EHG languages of the Volga area. In this model, complex consonant systems, ergative pattern and gender systems belong to the deeper West Asian / Caucasian roots of PIE while the non-IE root of Uralic languages before their intense contacts with IE languages resembled these earlier EHG languages. With this, I do not exclude that there are significant Siberian substrates in Uralic languages.
Agreed, there are some contacts with Uralic but overall structure is closer to Caucasian languages , areal features and so on.
@Chetan
Did they pick up the world-conqueror dragonslayer myth from Earth Mother worshipping Hattians too?
@old europe
By warlike I mean an actual warrior military tradition we see in all Indo Europeans, including Anatolians, not who loves pillaging and fighting more. These people who had a dedicated warrior caste and hero cults were not egalitarian hunter gatherers.
A Tale of Two Subcontinents from Reich's book:
https://twitter.com/_Aakaash_/status/980162921773740032
It looks like the controversies and compromises happened also on the European side. Reich clearly sees CWC as a beginning of the European cline and in a broad sense a source of the steppe ancestry in Central and Western Europe (BTW this is also visible in G25).
In the preprint someone (from the Max Planck Kindergarten?) enforced addition of a separate migration of proto-Beakers straight from Yamnaya and probably also addition of a line from Yamnaya to "German" in the "model" map (Fig. 2 A).
That's why we now have those confusing crossed arrows where it's not clear which one shows what and Beakers jumping from the outside exactly to the middle of the CWC-farmer cline.
Moreover position of CWC suggests CWC_Baltic_early. Yet they use CWC_Czech where we have two CWC individuals coupled with a middle neolithic one under one label, which not only suppresses the stats but also gives impression in the Fig. 2 B that CWC is the culture most differentiated from the source of IE languages.
I wonder who insisted on a such selection of samples...
Jaydeep, with so still sparse coverage over time and space considering the variation and temporal trends seen already, there are many possibilities. For two simple examples, a) groups from Eastern Iran from close to the time of BMAC may have coalesced as a population more with folk to their west than we think from samples here, and so may have been more Anatolian like, and the require less migration, b) a migration of IVC like folk to BMAC may have been slightly heavier in AASI than the average here, and contributed less than 20%, changing again the dynamics, as they would dilute ANF less. And so on.
With such sparse data over the time and spatial spans, and multiple possibilities with only a little imagination assuming accuracy of actual data, once we start speculating that the data are not describing the population we have, then we will likely end up simply recapitulating our own biases!
If you don't have bias, and your motive is not a bias against migration from further west than eastern Iran, then OK, I'm wrong on that. But even if not, I don't find your proposition sound; I'm sure you know more about this area in archaeology, but I don't believe there is a good track record of anyone on how much cultural similarities in archaeology reflect the actual volumes of exchanges of migrants between archaeological cultures, and this is true even for much more well researched cultural complexes than the one under discussion. I'm not happy to be deciding that archaeology is so conclusive on a lack of contact with ANF richer populations, even indirectly via east Iran, that this is any grounds for suspicion of the methodology.
Rob: but when did NW Caucasian arrive to the NW Caucasus ? They seem to think it was always there - a dubious proposal given the flux we have seen everywhere.
lol browsing around on this topic a few days ago, I stumbled up Cavalli-Sforza suggesting that Caucasian languages diversified at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic as remnants of superfamily (https://bit.ly/2qaszih). In fairness, I'd guess he didn't really think that they'd necessarily been without linguistic evolution, but...
Other in good faith believe that all the Caucasian languages are Early-Middle Neolithic survivors, aided by the region's mountainous geography. (And this is in part from where I have seen the notion of the impermeable Caucasus as a barrier to migration that seems to occasionally come about).
But (yes, given the "flux") is there really any sound knowledge of when and where *any* of the three accepted Caucasian language families expanded, and where speakers of them would have been living at the time established as plausible for the earliest proto-Indo European? It seems that for all we know the speakers of the Northwest / Northeast Caucasian languages could well have been established south of their current range, or to the north. And the South Caucasian languages look (as far as I can briefly search) by scholarly opinion to have their speakers in Anatolia in the Bronze Age...
@All
The dataset from the preprint will definitely be released soon, but probably not until next week.
@Kristiina
What cultures besides the female WSHGs did you excpect to have N?
Also I am no linguist and I am sure you have more knowledge on the subject than I do but is PPU likely to have been spoken west of the Urals? It seems like some uralicists favor an origin east of the urals and Uralic having such a close relationship with IE due to heavy contacts from the Proto-Aryan stage on instead of the PIE stage.
Going by modern distrubution N coupd have been west of the urals ast early as 7500ybp or at least in West Siberia. That being said most modern lineages are from a LBA-Iron age expansion.
I love Reich's book & respect him a lot. But his book does have mistakes.
He claims Yamnaya has Iranian farmer ancestry.
-Yamnaya did not have Iranian farmer ancestry. This is clear when looking at formal stats or PCA or mtDNA. They have CHG ancestry.
He claims Yamnaya is 50% EHG and 50% iranian farmer.
-Recent analysis shows Yamnaya at about 58% EHG, 35% CHG, 7% EEF. The CHG-Iranian farmer component is significantly smaller than we used to think.
He claims Corded Ware & Andronovo derive from Yamnaya.
-They don't. Yamnaya was one subgroup of early IEs. It is a relative not an ancestor of Corded Ware & Andronovo.
He claims Yamnaya is modern northern European's primary ancestor, underplays the importance of WHG & EEF ancestry.
-50% Steppe ancestry, maybe. Most estimates I see get more like 44-48%. Tiny difference. But his book doesn't give any estimates. It gives the impression northern Europeans are overwelhmingly of Steppe origin.
He claims EHG, WHG, CHG-Iranian farmer, EEF, Natufian all as different from each as modern Europeans and East Asians.
-I'm very skeptical of this. I don't know what analysis people base this claim on. We know EHG was about 50% almost full-blown WHG. From mtDNA results, we know Iranian farmers & EEF shared more recent mtDNA than modern Europeans & East Asians do. We know, from genome-wide analysis EEF and Natufian share somekind of recent ancestry. We also, know all the ancient Middle Easterners had some kind of "recent" WHG-like ancestor.
-He claims WHG is from the Balkans or Near East.
This is another standard theory by Reich's team that I don't understand. The evidence is CHG, Natufian, Iranian farmer show more relation to WHG than to earlier Europeans and the discontinuation between Magdalenian and WHG. But, people ignore the fact Magdalenian had much more WHG relation than the ancient Middle Easterners did.
Elmiron had mtDNA U5b. Most Magdalenian men so far have Y DNA I. WHG-like people did live in western Europe 20,000 years ago. They contributed ancestry to the Magdalenians.
Deeply derived WHG-like mtDNA U5b2b, has been found in Italy dating 20,000 years old. People have overlooked Italy as a possible homeland for WHG. Maybe WHG isn't from the Iberian refigium and the Magdalenian expansion. Maybe, they come from a post-Ice age expansion that came out of Italy not Anatolia or the Near East.
@ Kristiina & Al said
“I have already suggested that it is possible that the Uralic languages resemble the extinct EHG languages of the Volga area. In this model, complex consonant systems, ergative pattern and gender systems belong to the deeper West Asian / Caucasian roots of PIE while the non-IE root of Uralic languages before their intense contacts with IE languages resembled these earlier EHG languages. With this, I do not exclude that there are significant Siberian substrates in Uralic languages.
Blogger Al Bundy said...
Agreed, there are some contacts with Uralic but overall structure is closer to Caucasian languages , areal features and so on.”
Interesting points.
I also would disagree strongly with Anthony’s speculation that EEF spoke Semitic. Therefore they could have spoken something akin to Caucasian.
@ Matt
I would sketch that NEC arrived after 3000 BC, after the demise of Majkop and concurrent expansion of K-A north via Dagestan; whilst NWC perhaps links to Abkhazian Dolmen groups.
Sam,
Sorry, but you're flat out wrong about several things. Yamnaya does have Iranian-related ancestry, and also Anatolian-related. This is almost certainly via the Caucasus, but from groups descended from Zagros and East Anatolian farmers. My bet is that Halaf is going to be vital here as a population that does resemble Iran_ChL and is responsible for a lot of the southern ancestry. CHG was certainly minimal in anyone, as they are hunter gatherers. In fact, I'll bet you there will never be any evidence of them past the 6000BCE timeframe. What matters is groups that sit between Anatolia and Iran, such as Tepecik-Ciftlik and Halaf.
I will also bet you that WHG isn't just some 20,000 year old group that gives some ancestry to Magdalenians. It is much different than that. WHG is the continuation of Gravettian, with influence coming in from Anatolia, that includes some Basal Eurasian. This group makes up most of WHG and also Magdalenians. What separates WHG mostly from Magdalenians (Aside from extra UP ancestry) is the increased affinity to MA1 and definitely ENA, as the pop bringing ANE to Europe is more ENA admixed. Which is also the case with EHG and Iran_N.
@Chad
CHG is not minimal in Yamnaya. They share unusual levels of drift with each other, so much so that they behave like they're part of the same cline with the early Iranian farmers clearly looking distinct.
This isn't cut and dried without ancient DNA from pre-Yamnaya North Caucasus.
Apparently there was a Pre-Pottery Neolithic Culture that preceded later Pottery Neolithic groups in Armenia. Can someone throw more light on this ?
And there were two different kinds of horses apparently found in Azerbaijan during the 4th Mil BC. My uneducated guess is that one kind could have been the bigger Steppe type and the other the Smaller Native Caspian Horse type.
The Southern Caucasus in Prehistory: Stages of Cultural and Socioeconomic ...
By K. Kh. Kushnareva
It's minimal to none. It's going to be the same story as KO1. CHG has Anatolian and EHG-related ancestry, so it looks like a good fit. It isn't because they were never numerous and were replaced by farmers. Their high ROH tells a good story here. CHG was such a small pop, they left basically no imprint on EHG around them. Rather than CHG being something important, it is rather EHG that pulses into West Asia in the late Mesolithic, creating a pseudo Steppe and CHG effect at least as far south as Armenia. Farmers from south of the Caucasus brought in the new ancestry.
I'd put money on it being the same deal as KO1. Something that looks a lot better than it is.
@ Chad
And WHG expansed from SEE. Am almost definite about this now
It’s essentially a north Balkan late Gravettian group with Anatolian Epipaleolithic and “Siberian” admixture
Rob,
I think it goes the other direction. R1b V88 into Balkans, pre-P297 north through the Caucasus, rather than some big Y I influx to West Asia. This is probably around 20kya. Too much similarity between type of excess ENA between Balkan HG and Iran. Looks different, more Ami-like rather than Onge in EHG. Like Siberians now. It looks more Onge shifted in Iran, Anatolia, and Balkans HG. Still kind of piecing it together though. Tianyuan kind of helps, but it is more admixture lines with ENA pops.
There is cross-over, but just simplifying it by majority lineage, or what would become a majority in those places.
Rob,
I re-read your comment, and I think I misunderstood. Yes, "WHG" formed in SE Europe and mixed with Magdalenians in North Central and Western Europe. Magdalenians though, are basically WHG-minus most or all "Siberian" and having excess UP Euro admixture, or just less of the "Anatolian" basically.
@Chad
Anatolians and Iron Gates show a special relationship, but Natufians don’t show that relationship. However, both El Miron and Villabruna show a relationship to Anatlians as well as Natufians, but not to Iran Neolithic.
That point to something old, with some extra local shared stuff between Anatolian and Iran Gates.
If it’s old the Levantine Aurignacian comes to mind. There has been a time almost all contemporary UP cultures were considered having a connection to the Aurignacian – I think because they tried to find a migration route for OoA – but that has been revised. But the special cultural relationship between the Levantine Aurignacian and the European Aurignacian has survived that revisal. However it is younger that European Aurignacian. This is the opinion of Ofer bar Yoseph.
A back migration from Europe may seem unlikely at first sight, but the was that huge eruption of the Phlegaean fields, which coincides with the disappearance of Oase 1 ancestry. After that, the area may very well have been recolonized from the north, drawing groups to the Middle East.
So, in the Aurignac we’ll find a UHG next to Goyet, whose ancestry survived LGM and mixed into El Miron and other groups. I think you need to create an UHG as ancestor of WHG. So, WHG got that from the west, got some ANE related stuff from the east.
(Yes, I am pushing this idea, but as an amateur I like that it keeps being defendable even after new discoveries)
Chad you’ve misunderstood
The R1b coming from east wasn’t yet WHG
The WHG amalgam formed in SEE and expanded from there, including some back to Anatolia
@Chad
North Caucasus is showing much continutity in lithic industries since Mesolithic. Therefore, diffusion from the South could have been mostly cultural rather than demic.
you can read:
https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:91771
"Recent archaeological research seems to point to an association of long-term, long-distance contacts with Near Eastern groups while also gesturing towards indigenous development within the region itself."
It is therefore far from granted than any culture South of Caucasus (Halaf or Tepecik) could be a sizeable source of admxiture for EMBA Steppe.
By the way, if North Caucasus population was mostly CHG during Mesolithic, there is no reason to believe that CHG was not a major component of North Caucasusian during Chalcolithic (given archeologic datas).
And even if a small population originally, CHG could have endured an expansion during mesolithic.
Remember that Broushaki has studied the impact of Iran_N on Europeans, and find it extemely low. It goes not well if Iran_N/ChL did have a major contribution to EMBA.
Rob,
I never said it was WHG entering the Balkans. I was talking about something else regarding the formation. I think you misunderstood me. Wires got crossed both ways.
epoch,
It's not really that simple.
Folker,
You've got a lot of issues with those statements that will have to wait until tomorrow. Bed time.
@ Folker
"It is therefore far from granted than any culture South of Caucasus (Halaf or Tepecik) could be a sizeable source of admxiture for EMBA Steppe.
By the way, if North Caucasus population was mostly CHG during Mesolithic, there is no reason to believe that CHG was not a major component of North Caucasusian during Chalcolithic (given archeologic datas).
"
There is no demonstrable continuity between the late Epipaleolithic and Chalcolithic in north Caucasus. There is over 2000 years of gap
Moreover, that site from the paper you linked is in the south Caucasus and the one site from the north is Chockh, in Dagestan.
You have a habit of simply making up stories to suit your religious ideologies.
@Rob
Can you dare read the paper before posting?
Because the paper is about ALL of Caucasus, and mesolithic continuity is cited in the part concerning North Caucasus.
Now, the author is an Harvard PhD, so if you want to call him "stupid"....
@ Folker
I have read the paper. You're claiming "North Caucasus is showing much continutity in lithic industries since Mesolithic"
Actually, there is only one site the author mentions in North Caucasus- Chokh. By contrast, there are numerous Chalcolithic sites.
Moreover, the author clearly prefers an exogenous origin for Chockh's subsequent Neolithic layer :'"Grinding stones and pottery also appear in this layer, along with a bone sickle handle decorated with incised motifs which closely parallel the culture of Sialk I (sixth millennium BCE) on the Iranian plateau. Based on the presence of domesticated animals (sheep) and a large assortment of cereals, the excavator considered this site provided evidence of local domestication. However, the cereals found there belong to evolved varieties of wheat and barley—no wild varieties were found, and it is likely that these cereals were domesticated elsewhere before arriving at Chokh.."
in fact, "In every part of the Caucasus where Mesolithic and Early Neolithic layers have been identified, no clear evidence for domestication was found and the lithic industry was resolutely microlithic. The first food-producing economies thus appear suddenly as fully developed agricultural societies around 6000 BCE in the South Caucasus, in the Kura and Araxes river basins, but also in the North Caucasus, as shown by Chokh (Dagestan) and Cmi (North Ossetia)."
Now if you want to push your idea of Mesolithic continuity and mere "contacts' with the south, then good luck to you.
@Chad
Thx
@Rob
I pointed to "some" continuity, and the author is pointing to the complexity in Caucasus regarding diffusion of Neolithic package. Meaning in some places, demic diffusion diffusion was dominant, and in other cultural diffusion was a real option, if not the main explanation.
My point of view would be that pure cultural diffusion is unlikely, but rather various levels of admixture with migrants from South of Caucasus, explaining various adoption of cultural traits.
Hence, perhaps some populations more rich in CHG in some places than in others.
By the way, I don't feel we have real disagreement here.
Post a Comment