I've updated my map of pre-Corded Ware culture R1a samples with a couple of new entries from Central and South Asia (the original is still
here). However, before any of you get overly excited, please note that these samples aren't older than the Corded Ware culture. The reason I added them to my map is to counter the ongoing absurd claims online that South Asian R1a isn't derived from European R1a.
Just in case the map can't be viewed in all of its glory in some devices, here's what the fine print says:
The oldest example of R1a in ancient DNA from Central Asia is dated to 2132-1940 calBCE (ID I3770, Narasimhan 2019). Moreover, this sequence is closely related to much older R1a samples from Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, and phylogenetically nested within their diversity. Thus, it must surely represent a population expansion from Europe to Central Asia. Indeed, it's also associated with the Bronze Age Andronovo archeological culture, which is usually seen as an offshoot of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) of Late Neolithic Europe. The vast majority of present-day R1a lineages in Central Asia are closely related to that of I3770, and so must also ultimately derive from Europe.
The oldest instance of R1a in ancient DNA from South Asia is dated to just 1044-922 calBCE (ID I12457, Narasimhan 2019). This sequence, as well as the vast majority of present-day South Asian R1a lineages, are closely related to much older R1a samples from Central, Eastern and Northern Europe, and phylogenetically nested within their diversity. Thus, they must surely represent a population expansion from Europe to South Asia via Central Asia, in all likelihood during the Bronze Age. Even if R1a existed in South Asia before the Bronze Age, which is extremely unlikely, because it's found in samples from indigenous European hunter-gatherers, the vast majority of present-day R1a lineages in South Asia must be ultimately from Europe.
The idea that most, if not all, South Asian R1a is derived from European R1a seriously scares a lot of people. This is obvious in many online discussions on the topic. I suspect they're so frightened by it because, in their minds, it has the potential to encourage discrimination and even racism, perhaps by re-defining the colonization of much of the world by European nations in the recent past as the natural order of things?
In any case, clearly we're dealing with some sort of mass phobia here. I've got advice for those of you suffering from this problem: if you're honestly worried that the geographic provenance and expansion history of some Y-haplogroup is going to negatively impact on your life in any meaningful way, then it's time to find yourself a quality mental health professional. All the best with that.
See also...
The mystery of the Sintashta people
The Poltavka outlier
Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India
716 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 716 of 716There are also high frequencies of Iberian R1b in many parts of South America, even among the mostly native communities. Do you know why?
It's not because Iberian R1b is native to South America.
@vAsiSTha
"If you don't understand Hindi"
This a really lame device, dude.
"He clearly says that frequency is highest in south India."
And? Is R1b native to Ireland? Is Y-haplogroup Q native to the Americas? You really suck at this.
@Gaska
I think I know what you're talking about. The P312 "LBK" sample, right?
However, keep in mind that it's probably contaminated and not directly dated.
@Davidski
Hi David we may be closer to solving the issue of P312 than that of L51. And the solution doesn't seem to be in the east. LBK-P312 is not a closed issue either. You know that whenever there is a sample of P312 in Austria, Germany, Spain there are problems with dating, pollution etc. A few months ago Spanish researchers dismissed a case of R1b-M269 in the Neolithic of Andalusia (5,000 BC) due to contamination and finally classified it as G2. Maybe one day we can stop speculating.
@vAsiSTha
"If you don't understand Hindi, then stfu and stop being a pest. He clearly says that frequency is highest in south India."
I don't know what he said, I don't care, but I know you lie all the time.
There is written that the frequency of several subclades is higher in Southern India! do you see the word of several? This is not simple frequency. This big difference is changing the meaning of what you're shoving in here.
Pictures of the they took from research, and final conclusions conflicting research their.
It seems some have conflated the 'genetic genealogy' of L21+ with ancient history & historical sociolinguisics of Celtic languages; and come to conclusions that places like Ireland remained secluded after 2400 BC because there were no longer any big migrations into it. But this is not the case. It remained linked to the continent, but flows which subsequently arrived were always mediated via Britain; hence this attenuates signals & needs to be incorporated into any genomic analyses. It's well known that Celtic speakers migrated around, no only during the hey-dey of La Tene & preceding cultures, but also near its demise at the hand of Rome, not to mention the movement of Celtic-speakers after the end of Rome.
Anyhow; the distribution of BBs in Italy is intriguing. Im sure Etruscans & Italic speakers will be packed with U152
@vAsiSTha
"r1a frequency is highest in south india"
Alright, let's say that it is.
What does this demonstrate, apart from the well known fact that R1a is really common in India? We already know that. Is Chaubey going to talk about how R1a spread from north to south India? Because apart from that, it's hard to see what he's bringing to this discussion.
@Bob Floy
https://youtu.be/PIeiHsGUeEU?t=1109
https://youtu.be/PIeiHsGUeEU?t=1148
Frequency of several any subclades of a haplogroup always higher when it spread to a new area. For example, take America, the frequency of several Q1a subclades is higher than in Eurasia.
No word of diversity. In the North of India diversity of R1a subclades is higher than in the South. As well as in Eurasia diversity of oldest Q1a subclades in Eurasia is higher than in America.
The pictures they took from scientific research, but the final conclusions pushed to deceive contradicting written and shown.
Can somebody shut archi up till the paper is released?
The diversity of R1a is highest in Gangetic plains, but frequency of occurence is highest in south India. Neither diversity nor frequency is highest in North or NW India.
Make whatever conclusion you want to. I'm waiting for the published paper.
No one cares where the highest diversity and frequency is for R1a.
The only thing that matters is that practically all modern R1a, including Indian Z93, is a subset of the diversity seen in ancient Eastern European R1a.
Christ, if you can't work out that R1a is native to Eastern Europe but not to South Asia from the ancient DNA already available then you've got a serious problem.
Archi cares a lot lol
We should welcome the forthcoming data from India. Modern or not; all evidence is good evidence. Naturally ; the community will be able to parouse and scrutinise the data & conclusions.
fvAsiSTha said.. "Can somebody archi shut up till the paper is released?" Shut up yourself frankly silly type.
"The diversity of R1a is highest in Gangetic plains, but frequency of occurence is highest in south India." Meaningless set of words, you once again write not understanding anything in that you are writing.
"frequency of occurence" what? - sеveral (some) subclades that was written in the slide, but you're trying to blow smoke in our face.
"Neither diversity nor frequency is highest in North or NW India."
Pointless, stupid sentence. You wrote: The diversity of R1a is highest in Gangetic plains = North India.
The paper unequivocally and categorically proves that the arias came from the North, without any doubt and options.
The diversity is highest in eastern Gangetic plains (in Bihar, which is east india) Could someone plz shut archi up..
Btw, I have been hypothesizing for long that India R1a expanded from Magadha (Bihar) during the mauryan empire when they annexed almost all of India. Post 500bce.
@Mammoth_Hunter
Chaubey's R1a samples aren't the problem, if they're technically fine that is.
The problem is his interpretation of the data and the stupid claims he's making about Indian R1a, which is overwhelmingly Z93+, and thus obviously from Eastern Europe.
There's no reason to try and tie Indian R1a-Z93 to some unusual R* lineages from the Nepalese foothills, since R1a-Z93 is firmly rooted in ancient Eastern Europe R1a lineages, and its expansion to Central Asia and South Asia now well documented with ancient DNA.
Most 12 year olds should be able to follow this logic and decide that any claims of R1a-Z93 being native to India are stupid and futile.
fvAsiSTha "The diversity is highest in eastern Gangetic plains (in Bihar, which is east india) Could someone plz shut archi up.."
Not only you can not read at all, not only do you lie all the time, but you don't know the geography, Bihar is the Eastern part of Northern India, but it shows the peak of diversity in all of Northern India.
The state of Bharat was formed of course between the Indus and the Ganges where the main events of the Mahabharata take place.
The truth cannot be shut up by a disgraced liar, no matter how much you shut it up yourself.
I must say that the Eastern part of India was being colonized mainly by Vratya (so the enemies), non-Vedic Aryans, which in the time of the Vedas were separate from the Vedic Aryans.
"Bihar is the Eastern part of Northern India, but it shows the peak of diversity in all of Northern India."
anyone who considers Bihar as northern in any way should seek psych help. Would urge one and all to do a basic wiki on Bihar to see its location. here is the link https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjU-eCpgefkAhURfysKHZvRAFcQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBihar&psig=AOvVaw011TTdRqgaXElLKHQy9w6i&ust=1569330361652541
@fvAsiSTha Heal up!
Delenda Est Yamnaya
It seems that not many people have assimilated or understood that one of the main consequences of the latest paper on India directly affects Yamnaya culture. Not even R1a moved east in times of the famous Kurgan culture but hundreds of years after its disappearance. If we add to this, the incompatibility of uniparental markers with their supposed western offshots, that is CWC and BBC, everyone will understand why Kurganists are urgently looking for new solutions and explanations. If you add to this that the genetic continuity of R1b-P312 in Iberia and probably in Etruria has questioned the Indo-Europeanity of BB culture, I suppose that the Anti-Iberian clan that lives in Anthrogenica will have stopped saying nonsense about the steppe BBs, the Buzdhak culture, and the paths that the Yamnaya riders followed until they reached Central Europe. I suppose they have already assimilated that the Eastern BBs are descendants of the German BBs and that the Yamnaya culture and its Z2013 and I2a-L699 never passed from Hungary where its expansion was slowed down by the BB culture.
Everything that comes from now will be well received, we can only try to specify the geographical origin of L51 but considering when it was formed and its TMRCA, we know perfectly well in what cultures and dates we have to look for it
I suppose that this clamorous defeat of the Yamnaya culture has served at least for people to respect different opinions and to be less dogmatic and more honest in interpreting European history, culture and genetics.
@Gaska There is no a Kurgan culture, there is the Kurgan theory. The Kurgan theory is not a Yamnaya theory.
@ Gaska
"geographical origin of L51 but considering when it was formed and its TMRCA, we know perfectly well in what cultures and dates we have to look for it"
Please enlighten us about the Cultures and Dates.
@Ric Hern
I'm afraid you uttered the Charm Of The Crickets.
The I1 in Etruscan, where does that information come from? Is that a reliable leak?
@Ric Hern... The steppe is the anti-Iberia for L51. After being butt hurt by having Iberia ruled out, his response will be something that ultimately boils down to "anything but the steppe".
@ epoch & Richard
Heheheeh, Yes that seems to be the case but let's see what he comes up with. R1b Z2109 originating from Hungary, Bulgaria or Central Europe maybe ? :D
@ epoch & Richard
Heheheeh, Yes that seems to be the case but let's see what he comes up with. R1b Z2103 originating from Hungary, Bulgaria or Central Europe maybe ? :D
@Archi
Yeah, but it really dosen't matter, for our purposes, where R1a is most frequent today.
My point was that R1a isn't native to south India, or indeed to India at all, it came from eastern Europe and that should be obvious at this point. What Chaubey is doing is beyond ridiculous.
@vAsiSTha
"Bihar is the Eastern part of Northern India"
None of this is going to change that one fact that you can't face.
You're making a fool of yourself.
@Bob Floy All of this is true, but everything Chaubey does is fueling Indian nationalism. Misinterpretation data there is becoming the norm.
Are there any samples from the Lower Don culture yet?
"Bharat Patriot foundation"
Sounds like an organization that we can count on to be objective, definitely. Thank God they're on the case.
Choubey's talk:
1.R* rooted in Himalaya , but also found in North, South, East and Central India.
2. Indian branch is exclusively Indian.
3. Gradient is opposite of migration hypothesis, it is going from east(Bihar) to west.
4. Gangetic plain has highest diversity M780.
5. South India has highest frequency of M780.
6. M780 is surely not from Steppe.
7. Full continuity from origin to spanning 20kya years to modern day without a break.
8. They are pointing out the flaw in Silva et al's paper based on ancient DNA from David Reich's lab, as they do not sequence full genome, they do only capture sequencing. If any one mutation is missing then the whole tree goes haywire.
9. European branch is a sister branch which split 6 to 10 kya. The common ancestor is not known.
I can't wait for the part where he tells us how R1a came to be in Ukraine and northern Russia 10,000 years ago with no south Asian admixture. Maybe that's in his next lecture.
Mybe that will be covered in future studies, here the scope was limited to show local origin of R1a in India.
@Bhikshu
R1a isn't local to India, it's from Eastern Europe.
Ancient DNA shows this very clearly.
"Choubey's talk:
1.R* rooted in the Himalaya , but also found in North, South, East and Central India."
R* is found in many places in the North, it was 25,000 years ago in Southern Siberia.
"2. Indian branch is exclusively Indian."
The South Asian branch is R-L657, which is originally from Kyrgystan, but not R-Y3, which they specifically labeled in an unusual way as M780 to confuse.
"3. Gradient is opposite of migration hypothesis, it is going from east(Bihar) to west."
It's a meaningless statement because it calculates the gradient incorrectly, just because it can't.
"4. Gangetic plain has the highest diversity M780."
This means only that the state of Bharat grew from there and there were many migrations into it.
"5. South India has highest frequency of M780."
That's not true, there written that South India highest frequency of several (some) M780 subclades.
"6. M780 is surely not from Steppe."
R-Y3 from the steppe, not much to fantasize.
"7. Full continuity from origin to spanning 20kya years to modern day without a break."
If he are talking about India, it is a complete lie.
"8. They are pointing out the flaw in Silva et al's paper based.on ancient DNA from David Reich"s lab, as they do not sequence the full genome, they do only capture sequencing. If any one mutation is missing then the whole tree goes haywire."
Excuses, Underhill constantly in the works mistakes and incomplete testing, which he constantly admits.
"9. European branch is a sister branch which split 6 to 10 kya. The common ancestor is not known."
Common ancestor known, he simply propagandists lies. R-Y3 is a subbranch of the European branch, R-L657 occurred not earlier than 4700 ybp.
@All, finally had a chance to getting around to using the new set of Global25 data to cook up a set of Indus_Periphery cline 'zombie / simulations': https://pastebin.com/tzTrZQAk
0AHG=point on InPe cline with 0% AASI, 100AHG = point on InPe cline with 100% AASI. Two different approaches in the file, but they basically converge on the same point.
Example plots: https://imgur.com/a/WgMiD25
0% AASI Basically something like both Turan+IranN with some differences... It's difficult to know exactly where to draw 0% AASI, as it seems likely that IranN has some low level of ENA/AASI admixture that may confound attempts to find an endpoint. 100% AASI looks fairly distant from Onge. Again, I may have overshot this slightly, it's hard to be sure.
It's all about OIT adherents desperately trying to avoid admitting the truth, the horrible truth that their precious R1a is not native to India, but was brought there by migrants/invaders/whatever from eastern Europe, namely by people associated with the Andronovo culture. Sanskrit and the RV also ultimately have their origin with these people. Only a delusional moron would try to argue against that at this point, and all of these new attempts to deny it are pathetic.
Thanks Matt
@Bob Floy
The only way to explain the origin of R1a in India, considering the already available ancient DNA evidence from Eastern Europe, is to claim that there were regular waves of R1a migrations from India to Europe from the early Mesolithic to the Bronze Age.
But we would also have to claim that somehow these migrations didn't register in the autosomal DNA of any ancient Eastern Europeans, nor in the autosomal DNA or Y-chromosomes of ancient Central Asians.
I guess Dr. Chaubey is preparing such a paper now. LOL
@David
I can't wait to hear Chaubey's fascinating theory explaining why Oleni Ostrov and Vasilevka have no south Asian ancestry. He may end up getting a Nobel prize.
Time for some hard facts about R1a and South Asia:
One of the earliest firmly dated Steppe R1a-M417 individuals is I1027 from the Sintashta MLBA kurgan 2, Kamennyi Ambar 5 Cemetery, Russia, dated to 1962-1775 calBCE (YFull 3869 ybp).
He is R-M417>Z645>Z93>Z94>Z2124>Z2125>Z2123>Y934>Y874 (Y19762- Y43743- Y151833-)
He is also mtDNA T1a1, which was found in Neolithic Europe.
Only the single SNP Y874 defines the haplogroup. The YFull tMRCA of R-Y874 is 3900 ybp, which is amazingly close to his mean calibrated radiocarbon date of 3869 ybp. If he himself isn't the actual ancestor of all of R-Y874, then he would have been the son of the ancestor.
In this clade we have two root branches, two individuals, one Telugu from Andhra Pradesh, and another a Tamil from Sri Lanka. There is also another root clade with an Indian from Gujarat and a Saudi with a tMRCA with each other of 1500 ybp, which means that the Saudi is very likely one of the many descendants of Muslim South Asians who settled in the Hijaz over the centuries.
The R-Z6405 subclade has a Russian Tatar, Chinese from Beijing and Henan, and two Sardinians. The Chinese have a tMRCA with each other at 900 BCE, and the overall tMRCA of R-Z6045 is also 3900 ybp.
These South Indians, both Dravidian speakers from southernmost South Asia, provably descend from a man who lived on the Steppe at 52.81666667 N 60.46666667 E in Russia. (Click on the link and you'll get the map.) So do the Chinese and the Sardinians.
There is no question about the origins of R-Y874. Both the time and place and the culture are known, and this also corresponds to the calculated tMRCA of the clade (which had nothing to do with the ancient DNA result). The autosomal results of Mr. I1027 are also available, and he does not show any sign of AASI (Ancient Ancestral South Indian) ancestry at all. Anyone who wants to argue that R-Y874 did not come from the Steppe has to contend with these facts. Q.E.D.
The full set of Y SNP calls are available in one of the sheets here:
Narasimhan et al. (2019): A reanalysis of ancient Y-DNA haplogroups from Central Asia, South Asia, the Steppe, and Europe.
("Find and Replace" search for I1027 in all Sheets for the whole cell and you'll find the sheet with the Y SNP calls. The BAM file link is also available on the first sheet.)
Dr. Chaubey is no less than a magician if he can explain away the ancient R1a samples from Eastern Europe and argue successfully that R1a-Z93 is native to India.
I've heard that in his next Youtube clip he pulls a rabbit out of his ass.
@jama0112
Do you or Sein have the results of Khorasani Iranians either on gedmatch or on nMonte? Either way I ran these tests on the global 25 nMonte runner, modelling the Pashtun average as a mix of a ‘West Eurasian-type Indian’ (Punjabi Khatri) and a western Iranian (Iranian Persian). They much prefer the Punjabi Khatri over the Iranian Persian.
Pashtun: Average
fit:1.5457
“Khatri”:80
“Iranian_Fars”:20
Modelling a southwestern Pashtun (Kandahari Durrani, the most West Asian shifted of all Pashtuns) as a mix of a ‘West Eurasian-type Indian’ and a ‘western Iranian’. Again, closer to the former than to the latter.
Pashtun: surbakhun_AGUser
fit: 2.4454
“Khatri”: 60.83
“Iranian_Fars”:39.17
Based on this, Sein’s claims dont seem accurate. Which group or groups is he using for the West Eurasian type Indians? And how do the Khorasani Iranians he talks about score/ or model on nmonte?
@David
Is Chaubey going to tell us that R1a somehow magically originated in two places at the same time?
@Rocca-
You only have steppe in your brain, it must be sad to wake up one day and realize that you have been wasting your time for ten years defending the existence of L51 in the Yamnaya culture to end up suddenly recognizing that you were wrong-The only important thing about all this is that many uncultured friends of yours are going to have to stop saying stupid things such as that the Yamnaya culture is the origin of the BB culture, that the Eastern BBs are direct descendants of Yamnaya, that the Yamnaya riders conquered Western Europe , that they brought metallurgy to Europe.... They have been doing this ridiculous for years and I have no doubt that you will continue to do so.
Meanwhile Davidski seems to have the key to the origin of R1b-L51 and I believe him, because I suppose he would not have killed the Yamnaya culture from one day to another if it were not like that. I will be delighted to see the evidence and we will toast to have finally found our origin. You do not like Iberia and you have shown it during all these years "Anything but Iberia"
You have not been intelligent enough to understand that our last objective was not L51, not even P312 but .....
@Hern
It will be a pleasure to stop listening the typical mantra- "L51 is in Yamnaya because L23 and Z2103 are in Yamnaya". Has any other argument occurred to you to demonstrate the relationship between the Yamnaya culture and R1b-L51 or have you accepted the harsh reality?
@Bob Floy
Is Chaubey going to tell us that R1a somehow magically originated in two places at the same time?
I think his only realistic option is to claim for now that ancient DNA isn't reliable enough to settle the issue. But this means that he's only really playing for time.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that if he gets too uppity in regards to this issue and starts to push his unusual theories in a more formal way than Youtube clips there will be a very definitive reaction from western scientists.
@ Gaska
L51 was in or near the Steppe. I specifically said Yamnaya Related, which does not automatically mean "from Yamnaya".
I asked you about the Cultures and Dates and this is what you respond with ?
@ Gaska
"Everything that comes from now will be well received, we can only try to specify the geographical origin of L51 but considering when it was formed and its TMRCA, we know perfectly well in what cultures and dates we have to look for it"
In what Cultures and Dates ?
@David
"I think his only realistic option is to claim for now that ancient DNA isn't reliable enough to settle the issue. But this means that he's only really playing for time."
Isn't he concerned about losing credibility? Or is he so delusional that it dosen't even occur to him? I don't understand these guys.
Came on Ric, now you are going to say that you and the rest of Kurganists have not defended that we were going to find L51 in Yamnaya because there are Z2103 and L23? -There are hundreds of thousands of posts that prove it because you have done it for years and you have never accepted arguments against this dogma. Obviously now you have to look for new explanations.
If someone has time to look at YFull Tree- R1b-L51- Formed (4.100 BC) TMRCA (3.700 BC)- you will see that L51* and the oldest subclades are in Italy-
What are the cultures where you can look? I'm sure you know them perfectly- Dates between 4,100-2.800 BC
You can start looking where you want, but apparently it is not necessary because they already know where it is. Ergo we just have to wait to see what the genome of these samples is and to see what explanations they give us regarding the migratory movements of L51. The harsh reality is that Yamnaya and his satellites are out of the game
If the lineages and traditions evolved from DDC -> Lower Don -> Sredny Stog -> Corded Ware, that would be still in line with the Kurgan theory and steppe ancestry. Yamnaya is the closest relative and would be culturally influential too, just not the main vector for the spread of IE.
@zardos There is not DDC -> Lower Don.
@bob floy "Isn't he concerned about losing credibility? Or is he so delusional that it dosen't even occur to him? I don't understand these guys."
The guys involved in this paper include scientists from the estonian biocentre who had already said way back in 2011 after analyzing modern populations (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234374/) that the iran farmer like components in iran and india had separated prior to 12500bp.
Harvard lab has been so thick that inspite of having the indus periphery samples they did not even deign to test for the relationship between these iran like components. The Narsimhan preprint still features arrows from Iran into NW India post 7000BC.
Because Shinde was the lead of the Rakhigarhi Cell paper, he must have pushed Harvard to test for ascertaining the relationship between the iran like components, and hence we get the truth, which was spelt out long back in 2011 by Kivisild, Metspalu, gyaneshwar Chaubey et al using modern populations.
They are not the ones who should be ashamed.
Not directly of course, but mediated and through acculturation and mixture with Neolithic elements?
Conclusions Shinde et al. (2019) that agriculture in India did not come from Iran is premature. It's unwarranted. That is, he claims that India did not come Zagros farmers (who are called of Iranian farmers), but came to those who have an Iranian component, as it was known before. Yes, in India have not come themselves Zagros farmers, and the Turkmen-Iranian and transfer scheme of agriculture was Iranian=Zagros farmers -> Turkmen-East Iranian (HG->fermers) -> India, before BMAC cline.
@vAsiSTha
"The guys involved in this paper include scientists from the estonian biocentre"
Ok, but those guys don't think that R1a is native to India.
I guarantee you.
All of this stuff about them being ahead of the curve on the Iran_neo issue is great, and good on them. But it's not relevant to this discussion, because it dosen't change the fact that Chaubey's new R1a story is a crock of shit. The oldest R1a samples by far have come from Ukraine and Russia, and these individuals had no south Asian ancestry, they were European HGs. If R1a had originated in India 20,000 years ago, we wouldn't be seeing this. The Sredny Stog guy from 4000 BCE would also have south Asian ancestry, but instead he looks basically like a modern central European. If Chaubey was right, this wouldn't be, that's the bottom line.
Try to understand, or you're not going to get anywhere.
It does look like the guys from Stanford and Estonia are going to put their stamp on 'R-M780 being native to India'. Will wait for the paper.
@vAsiSTha
It makes no difference who's involved in the paper.
If the paper argues or even suggests that Eastern European steppe populations didn't spread R1a-Z93 into Central and South Asia during the Bronze Age, then every single author on that paper is officially an idiot.
R-M470 was born out of thin air directly from the first monkey, of course, it did not come from somewhere. Naturally, it is originated in South India in Bihar because of this despite the fact that Bihar is the most Northern point of testings (https://youtu.be/PIeiHsGUeEU?t=1109) it is not in North India as say fvAsiSTha, and the more southern points from it are in Northern India. Us await yet Greater wonders.
@vAsiSTha
"R-M780 being native to India"
This language is misleading, too. However closely linked M780 is to India, it still descends from eastern Europe, because that's where R1a came to India from. So even if the M780 subclade itself did appear in India, to call it "native" without qualifying what that means is dishonest.
R1a is not a south Asian haplogroup, it's a European haplogroup that migrated to south Asia. No amount of double talk is going to change this. Chaubey can try to prolong the debate indefinitely by creating a new scenario where "we just haven't found those samples yet!", but he's only making a clown of himself.
R1a is not from south Asia.
If you say that R-M780 is native to India, what exactly does that mean to you?
@jama0112
Those samples aren’t from Ghaznavid soldiers or of actual Ghaznavids themselves (who were Turkic not Afghan), they are just from the Ghaznavid era in Udegram, Swat Valley. They are closest to the Damgaard et al. Yusufzais from Swat and Dir, who happen to be the most South Asian shifted of all Pashtuns, not to any Afghans.
@ Gaska
I can only guess who you lent your ears to...Whahahaha!!! Nope I'm rather sticking to Yamnaya Related.
@ Gaska
You might be correct in that M269 isn't from Volga steppe, but I think most people understand that by now. Don't forget that the western steppe & forest-steppe are likely to be more lineage diverse.
@Mammoth Hunter
Sorry, I may not have expressed myself well, I only say that R1b is a Whgs marker from at least the Epigravetian and that the population movements since then (east and west) had to be very numerous. In other words, I have no idea what the origin of M269 is. Regarding L51 I think it can be Central European because of the origin of P312 and U106 and because this lineage does not exist in Eastern Europe, but apparently I am wrong (it may be that one or a small number of individuals belonging to this lineage moved from the steppes quickly without leaving any genetic trace there). I am also clear that P312 is Western, but I have never pretended to be absolutely right. What bothers me is that they try to impose preconceived theories (Yamnaya) without taking into account all the data and posibilities we have.
@ Gaska
We don't know if R1b was only a WHG Marker from the Epigravettian. R1b PH155 was mostly found East of the Urals. R1b L754 West of the Urals. The split probably occurred near the Urals. Which means that every R1b found from the Urals/Caucasus Piedmont to Italy could have mixed into populations which lived throughout that area...so in the West they genetically looked WHG like and the East EHG like...So R1b L754 could have been present even in the Caucasus Piedmont or Lower Don during the Late Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic...
@Ebizur:
What about C-K98? Has it ever been found outside of southwest Asia and south Asia? And when did C1b1a1 and C1b1a2 have their most recent common ancestor?
Lastly, when do you think C1b1a1 appeared in south Asia? Was it brought by Iran HGs or is its presence in south Asia much older than the holocene?
@Ric
Do not complicate the issue, you know that I am not talking about Ph155, but about L754/P297 etc, and that type of R1b is a typical WHgs marker, that is to say that they can appear in any territory of the Whgs (Italy, France, Spain, Germany, the British Isles, Scandinavia etc)from the Magdalenian until the end of the Mesolithic. In fact, even the Magdalenians in Spain have a good percentage of Villabruna cluster, which demonstrates the mixture of both groups throughout Western Europe.
Obviously they can also appear in Eastern Europe as the Latvian mesolithic hunter gatherers that are 70% WHg and 30% EHG- We can expect that the further east we find them, they will have more percentage of EHg than Whg- For now, nobody can say that it has its origin in the steppes, even if there were cases of L51 in some steppe culture, we would have to study its autosomal composition to verify its origin.
Some time ago I thought that the Khvalynsk culture was the only one that could have been the origin of R1b-M269 and L51 because in addition archeologically it had some features that could be identified many centuries later in the BBs (boar's tusk, cinnabar), but now we are seeing that this culture is neither genetically homogeneous and so far it doesn't have R1b-M269 or L51
@Gaska Khvalyns has R-L754 > R-V1636.
Distinct genetic variation and heterogeneity of
the Iranian population
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008385
S1 Appendix. Description of the historic, ethnic and linguistic background of Iran.
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008385.s001&type=supplementary
They mention Andronovo as a most likely scenario of origin.
Those samples need some looking at (Do "Persian Gulf Islanders" preserve Iran_N related ancestry, or is this an illusion of PCA projection?).
So far, no early R1b-L51 has been found outside the BB context.
R1b-L151(L11) with TMRCA 4700ybp clearly was only the BB origin.
@Matt
Those Persian Gulf Islanders have recent African ancestry, so their similarity to Neolithic Iranians in the PCA is an artifact of this.
I can't access the data, but my guess is that they're very similar to Bandari Iranians.
@ David
From the Discussion of the paper, second paragraph:
"In turn, the ‘African’ component shared between PG Islanders and some Sub-Saharan populations likely predates the beginning of the Neolithic and, thus, renders PG Islanders as an early autochthonous group that subsequently became strongly admixed with CIC groups."
So the authors claim the African affinity is apparently ancient and not recent. I'm skeptical, but curious on your thoughts?
Bandari Iran in southeast Iran does have excess IranNeo which other Iranians do not have. In addition to African, Arabian, South Asian admixture. So I agree with Matt's suggestion Persian gulf islanders have extra Iran_Neo.
No such thing as ancient African ancestry in Iran. It's all very recent, same as across the border in Pakistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Iranians
The total BS that I often see in these sorts of genetics papers never ceases to amaze me.
@Matt
I had a quick look at the Central Steppe EMBA samples from Kumsay and Mereke. There's nothing really surprising to report, but yeah, it seems to me that Narasimhan et al. got it wrong.
Basically, it looks like a population like Vonyuchka_En moved into the north Caspian region, and then mixed west of the Urals with EEHG to create the Khvalynsk population, and east of the Urals with WSHG to create the Central Steppe EMBA groups.
Check out these qpAdm models...
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1T3cgJ0AMygqq8_GWUJsYJcEOcCrIMzFO
@ Simon_W
"As for the new samples, it's interesting, Piedmont, even without the outliers, gets some ABA and more Natufian than the other North Italian samples"
That's how Piedmont comes out to me, likely a sample from Southern or Eastern Piedmont. There is definitely ABA and a bit of Natufian in northern Italy. The average for Liguria is based on a single sample that seems unrepresentative and too much northern shifted. The average for Bergamo/Lombardia and Veneto are perhaps based on samples coming mainly from the pre-alpine and alpine areas. The Po Valley seems to be under-sampled also in academic studies.
[1] "distance%=2.1903 / distance=0.021903"
Italian_Piedmont
Anatolia_Barcin_N 55.8
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 34.5
WHG 4.4
Anatolia_Ovaoren_EBA 3.7
Levant_Natufian 1.6
"The bulk of the samples from the Emilia-Romagna in Raveane et al. 2019 is the same as those from Fiorito et al. 2015: a large number of people from the province of Ferrara. Could be interesting indeed!"
It would be really useful even if Ferrara is on the border with Veneto, a better location for Emilia-Romagna would be a city like Modena.
I am sure Chaubey has a perfectly rational explanation for how R1a and the Steppe component quickly arrived in Eastern Europe right after they arose in South Asia:
Flying Chariots!
Flying chariots that also turn the user from a paleolithic south Asian into an EHG. I think it's in the Mahabharata.
ANE was already there. Now, with ancient dna from india, it's easy to show r1a in pops that don't need steppe admix. Very straightforward. The split happened 6-10kya, while as per narasimhan's calculations the aasi started mixing with iran-like group only 5-6 kya. So, the split pre-dates that admix. Who knows where that iran like ancestry with a little bit of ENA went, maybe it showed up a bit in iran_n, and maybe that also mixed in the Steppes, one thing at a time please. K's spread westwards from SEA also didn't take a flying chariot over India.
@Bhikshu
And again, the oldest R1a samples, which also predate the origin of z93, are in eastern European men whose ancestry has nothing to do with south Asia. Their ANE didn't come from south Asia. This is something that you can't explain away, Chaubey's hypothesis is dead on arrival.
@ Bhikshu
Are you talking about the Ks like Ust Ishim and Oase ?
@Bhikshu
Ancient DNA very clearly shows that Steppe_MLBA (Eastern European migrants) suddenly showed up in Central Asia during the Bronze Age with basically a 100% frequency of R1a.
And that's the first time that this type of European ancestry and R1a are seen in Central Asian ancient DNA.
This unique type of ancestry, along with R1a and European mtDNA markers, then show up in the Iron Age Swat Valley samples and modern Indians at lower ratios than in Bronze Age Central Asians.
Ergo, there was no Steppe_MLBA ancestry, R1a nor European mtDNA lineages in South Asia before they got to Central Asia.
Do you understand this simple logic? If not, what's preventing you from doing so?
@Davidski, regarding the fits, OK, thanks, I think that makes sense.
Re; the Steppe Maykop fit, I guess how they model depends on how you cut the Steppe Maykop samples and the outliers - I consider that AY2003, SA6001, SA6004 are pretty alike and probably don't need any admixture from the Caucasus Maykop, while AY2001 is pretty different and has some admixture from the Caucasus Maykop, so you may get different results if you were excluding AY2001. (I put AY2001 into Steppe_Maykop_o, though it is the more WSHG shifted compared to IV3002 and SA6013).
The cut down set of Steppe Maykop as SA6004/AY2003/I11735 looks to have slightly more affinity for Yamnaya Samara/Afanasievo/Khvalynsk/Piedmont En, but pretty much almost to be identical to Kumsay and Mereke EBA.
Global 25 re-processed PCA to try and illustrate this: https://imgur.com/a/u7ktw1F
I'd guess if you ran the 3 above without AY2001, that 0.109 Maykop would disappear (i.e. it's really 40% Maykop in 1 sample and 0% in the rest, rather than 10% Maykop each in 4 samples).
Regarding the Persian Gulf Islanders, maybe that's the case, looking at their Global PCA, but I don't know if that fits with Iran_N, etc. projecting onto PGI on their projection of ancient samples onto the Iran only PCA (maybe there is some reason those samples would project onto a set which is simply Central Iran+African/Yemeni, maybe not).
@Matt
Yep...
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gcjBEq8E-ZcZciMFS2Nil6b0kcLEaJA0
More rumors, steppe ancestry in Switzerland earlier than that detected in Germany. When did the transition occur and which Y-haplogroups are involved? We may begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel
Genetic engineering! All from "Vedic Sarasvati Civilization"!
It's actually quite cringeworthy for me as a South Asian. I'm more interested in finding out who the Swat people really were, and identifying the first Indo-Aryans to enter south Asia.
@Bhikshu "The main Steppe and Indian R1a lineages are cousins"
It's a mistake. The data is unambiguous.
@David
"The main Steppe and Indian R1a lineages are cousins"
Didn't I call it? A double origin for R1a, the discovery of the year.
Will Chaubey share his Nobel prize with the Bharat patriot foundation, I wonder?
@All
Bhikshu is a stupid troll. I'll be deleting his comments from now on.
@Simon_W
"Good to see there are still users around, even from Italy, supporting this old theory, which usually attracts heavy opposition from people claiming it's already a resolved thing that the Etruscans were native to Italy and anyone claiming otherwise doesn't know the facts. No it's not resolved and there is the possibility that the spread of Etruscan was by elite dominance and that the Orientalizing period was more than just a fashion inspired by Greek traders."
The idea that the Orientalizing period might have a role in the origins of the Etruscans is also an obsolete and superseded theory. There is a broad consensus that the Etruscan civilization began around 900 BC and the Orientalizing is a cultural phenomenon that spread to many parts of Italy, Greece and even Tartessos in Spain, two centuries after the beginning of the Etruscan civilization. Even if there were movements during the Orientalizing period to Greece and Italy from the East of merchants, artisans etc., no scholar who has a deep knowledge of the Etruscans believes that these movements have any relationship with the origin of the Etruscans. True, it's not resolved, but If the Etruscan language arrived from the East, it arrived much earlier, before the beginning of Protovillanovan and therefore before the last quarter of the second millennium. This is the possibility that enjoys greater consensus today among scholars who still support the hypothesis that the Etruscan language may have come from the east (and specifically from some island in the Aegean or more generally from the Greek world). While, of course, there are also many scholars who no longer think that the Etruscan language came from the East with the migration of an elite and that they believe Etruscan language is simply the survival of a local pre-Indo-European language.
"The relationship between Etruscan and Lemnian is close, the relationship between Etruscan and Raetic may be less close, at least it's harder to tell, because Raetic isn't well attested. So it could go back to older Neolithic contacts of the Balkans with central Europe. At any rate an origin of the family deep in Anatolia or even the Levant seems out of question."
Raetic is certainly more attested than Lemnian, also including in the Lemnian's count all the possible fragments. Obviously, the relationship between Raetic, Etruscan and Lemnian is not entirely clear, but the arguments in favour of a derivation of the lemnian language from the Etruscan are solid. I wish there were more inscriptions, and also the inscriptions of the many pre-Indo-European languages that are not attested.
Again with this Rig Veda bullshit. Archi and vAsiSTha need to get a room.
@Archi
No more discussions about the Rigveda.
I am not sure if this is the best time to make this comment (considering that this blog post has already received 700+ comments and the possibility of David making a new one with a fresh comment section). But oh well.
I looked through the Sintashta, Andronovo and Afanasievo samples that were available on umap (ancient human dna map) and I have stumbled across some interesting numbers regarding the U2e, U4 and U5 frequencies in the said cultures.
Andronovo = 4 U2e, 4 U4, 4 U5 (only 1/4 was U5a!)
Afanasievo = 0 U2e (!), 5 U4, 9 U5 (7/9 were U5a)
Sintashta = 6 U2e, 1 U4, 7 U5 (5/7 were U5a).
Given how Andronovo could be modeled as basically being Sintashta + some Afanasievo-like ancestry (along with other minor inputs such as Botai-like ancestry), I think that the U2e in Andronovo would have come entirely from Sintashta (its main ancestry) meanwhile most of the U4 in Andronovo could have come from scattered Afanasievo survivors. Interestingly, while most of the U5 in both Sintashta and Afanasievo were U5a, it seems that quite a bit of the listed Andronovo U5 was U5b (though there were Andronovo samples which did not have their unparental markers listed).
What could be the explanation for there being (apparently) more U5b than U5a in Andronovo? Is the umap list simply incomplete or was the U5b maternal lineage favoured in some ways?
@TLT
You need more samples, a more detailed breakdown of the subclades, and a better data source than umap to do something like this properly.
Amen.
@Davidski,
Do you think there is a particular subculture that is representative of the Steppe presence in modern South Asia?
Fedorova, Alakul, or Alekseyevka?
@Aniasi
Do you think there is a particular subculture that is representative of the Steppe presence in modern South Asia?
This is an interesting issue and I've started looking at it, but I haven't been able to get anywhere yet because the Steppe_MLBA cluster, at its core, is genetically extremely homogeneous. It's as if these people all came from the same village.
I'll post something on this topic if I manage to discover anything useful.
@Davidski
That's actually really interesting, thanks! Almost like certain later Caste populations.
Do you have any idea who the Swat people were? They're definitely proof of a Steppe arrival, but I don't think they're the group ancestral to modern north Indians.
They're female mediated Stepoe ancestry, and have some interesting Y groups.
Yeah, to be honest those Swat ancients look kind of weird to me, and I don't really know what to make of them.
They'll have to do for now, but I don't think they're great proxies for the Indo-Aryan expansions into India.
If you were to remove the Steppe MLBA and South Asian components, what is the main contributor?
@Archi
The Greek inhabitants of Empuries were not Mycenaeans because Mycenaeans are Bronze Age Greeks, whereas Empuries was founded well after the Bronze Age. But genetically they are very similar. Do you understand what genetical similarity means? It can be measured with science. And can't you imagine that true ethnic Greeks can exist outside of Greece? The process enabling this is called "migration".
@FTC
"There is a broad consensus that the Etruscan civilization began around 900 BC and the Orientalizing is a cultural phenomenon that spread to many parts of Italy, Greece and even Tartessos in Spain, two centuries after the beginning of the Etruscan civilization."
Well, that would mean to equate the Villanovan culture with the early Etruscan civilisation. That's certainly possible, and for me the strongest argument in favour of this view is the remarkable spatial overlap between Villanovans and Etruscans. Can this be coincidental? Kind of hard to believe. Also afaik there is one Etruscan inscription found in a late (North Italian) Villanovan context. Yet, the change in cultural style from Villanovan to later Etruscan is huge. Essentially from central European-like to Greek-like, even though it was a slow, gradual change, that doesn't make it smaller. And if the Orientalizing influence was transmitted by Greeks, then it could just as well have been transmitted by "Pelasgians". Though granted, Orientalizing, or rather outright Levantine and Middle Eastern cultural influence and trade goods could also be found in east-central Italy, where the Etruscans didn't establish themselves.
"If the Etruscan language arrived from the East, it arrived much earlier, before the beginning of Protovillanovan and therefore before the last quarter of the second millennium. This is the possibility that enjoys greater consensus today among scholars who still support the hypothesis that the Etruscan language may have come from the east (and specifically from some island in the Aegean or more generally from the Greek world)."
I've been sympathizing with this theory too for a while, but then why didn't take the purported Aegean migrants viticulture with them? Hard to believe.
"While, of course, there are also many scholars who no longer think that the Etruscan language came from the East with the migration of an elite and that they believe Etruscan language is simply the survival of a local pre-Indo-European language."
Of course I also consider this possible.
"Raetic is certainly more attested than Lemnian, also including in the Lemnian's count all the possible fragments. Obviously, the relationship between Raetic, Etruscan and Lemnian is not entirely clear, but the arguments in favour of a derivation of the lemnian language from the Etruscan are solid. "
I think the problem with Raetic (in contrast to Lemnian) is the absence of longer inscriptions which could enable to study the grammar in more detail. I can't really see how a comparison of Lemnian and Etruscan could be suggestive of a derivation of the former from the latter. Logically this would require a comparison between Lemnian and the proto-form of Italian Etruscan and the detection of systematic sound shifts in Lemnian that can only be explained as derivations from the same Italian proto-Etruscan. I've also heard the argument that the Lemnians used a western Greek script, but this script was also used in parts of Greece.
Although, hang on. Even with an Italian proto-Etruscan being established we cannot say where this came from, it would just enable us to say that the attested Lemnian is a variant nestled into its family of derived variants. And if there are more variants in Italy this shouldn't surprise us, because the language is just much more widely attested in Italy, so it's kind of logical. But whether the proto-language came from Italy or the Aegean cannot be deduced by language comparison. It boils down to the fact that there is much more evidence for Etruscan in Italy. But this isn't necessarily a proof regarding its origin. For example Celtic is much better attested on the British Isles than in continental Europe, yet nobody believes it spread from the Isles.
Re: what I wrote in this thread about Halberstadt_LBA being the best proxy for the Proto-Germanics. Seems like I was wrong and the English Saxons are even the better proxy!
First of all, the Saxons themselves cannot really be explained with Halberstadt_LBA:
"distance%=1.6427"
England_Saxon
England_Roman, 39
England_IA, 38.9
DEU_Halberstadt_LBA, 22.1
Nordic_BA, 0
DEU_Welzin_BA, 0
This would make the Saxons almost 80% Brythonic, which is nonsensical and only shows that Halberstadt_LBA isn't northwest European enough to do the job.
But for the Baiuvarii, too, England_Saxon works better than Halberstadt_LBA:
"distance%=2.0963"
DEU_MA
England_Saxon, 66.4
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111, 20.1
Nordic_BA, 10.2
DEU_Welzin_BA, 3.3
DEU_Halberstadt_LBA, 0
In this model the Hallstatt Celtic admixture shrank a little, down to 20.1%.
Now for the Iron Age Swede:
"distance%=3.4037"
SWE_IA
England_Saxon, 82.3
DEU_Welzin_BA, 11.7
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111, 6
Nordic_BA, 0
DEU_Halberstadt_LBA, 0
And Viking Age Sigtuna:
"distance%=2.3884"
SWE_Viking_Age_Sigtuna
England_Saxon, 71.4
DEU_Welzin_BA, 26.8
Nordic_BA, 1.8
DEU_Halberstadt_LBA, 0
This time I've also tested the Suebic individual from migration age Slovakia:
"distance%=2.76"
SVK_Poprad_MA
DEU_Halberstadt_LBA, 62
England_Saxon, 26.1
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111, 11.9
Nordic_BA, 0
DEU_Welzin_BA, 0
So this individual has less Celtic admixture than the Baiuvarii, but also less Saxon-like admixture.
In short, from now on I'll regard the English Saxons as the best proxy for proto-Germanic ancestry. It seems they're very representative for the Iron Age population of Jutland.
I think the only way how it could be established with linguistic means that Lemnian is derived from Etruscan, is by showing that Lemnian has shared innovations with a subset of Etruscans, in other words with an Etruscan dialect that also occurs in Italy. This would be a smoking gun.
@Davidsky
>This is an interesting issue and I've started looking at it, but I haven't been able to get anywhere yet because the Steppe_MLBA cluster, at its core, is genetically extremely homogeneous. It's as if these people all came from the same village.
Speaking of which, the Dashtikozy samples seem to be either (~90%) Krasnoyarsk MLBA + (~10%) BMAC or something like ~8% BMAC with the rest being MLBA + some EMBA (Afanasievo)-like input (botai accounted for). Dashtikozy is in northern Tajikistan and isn't that far away from south Asia. This would indicate that the Aryans who entered south Asia were mostly like the MLBA people themselves. However I have seen some opinions regarding the migrating Aryans being under ~50% MLBA being thrown around. Are those based on the Swat valley results, because clearly the Gandhara grave culture primarily known for its burials couldn't be following an Aryan tradition (which would primarily involve cremation). I think that these Swat graves would have been the Dasa that the Aryans had a conflict against. These guys are also said to derive most of their steppe ancestry non-paternally which would be an indication of a hostile 2-way female derived gene-flow between the steppe Arya and the Gandhara Dasa with the Arya being more fruitful in the end (as opposed to the theory of Aryans being responsible for the downfall of the IVC, which IMO is anachronistic since the IVC would have declined long before the Aryans truly arrived).
Hence, the people who migrated to south Asia would be well over 50% (perhaps approaching 90%) steppe-derived. Would this be a reasonable conclusion?
@Archi
"The Irish are switching to any master's language, that's just recently switched to English, in Ireland there has almost forgotten the Irish language. Considering that in the myths of Ireland was six migrations of peoples, it is clear that Irish people always easily changed the language. However, since the BB all migrating peoples have been R1b."
OK I think I found the silliest comment in this whole thread, considering the Irish always changing languages means going from a Q version of Insular Celtic that was not found anywhere else at the time historically to mostly English in 2000 years at least.
Congratulations you can now enter elementary school.
@Nowwin Awarddoor
I deleted your comments because you appear to be mentally unstable.
Inferred pigmentation from ancient DNA is not a reliable way by itself to prove or disprove ancient population movements. If you don't know why that is, then you shouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
You don't have any coherent arguments against the facts that I posted in my map based on the latest ancient genomics data, that's why you're grasping at straws like some outdated data from an old paper that has absolutely no bearing on the peopling of South Asia.
Well, the presence of a large Jewish and Syrian population in Imperial Rome bringing Eastern mystery religions with them is pretty well documented. This just confirms the historical account.
What do you think about this? Please read this twitter exchange.
https://twitter.com/d_bones81/status/1326942922080579584
He thinks R1a came from Iran due to basal lineages with 5/6 Iranians in a study. What do you think about this?
@Terminus
Peer reviewed scientific papers claiming that R1a originated in Iran or India are wrong.
That's because they're based on modern DNA, which is difficult to interpret.
Only ancient DNA can prove where R1a came from, and it shows that R1a spread from Eastern Europe into Iran and India.
@pnuadha all very accurate, except the fact the first group to understand slavery is ineffective economically were ancient chinese.. they abolished it few times, usually in concert with universal land privatization & tax reform. But change of dynasty or ruler often reverted the reforms... but still they did it first.. westerners were still stuck in aristotelian greek paradigm that a) person can own person b) that's natural, inherited state c) slaves being able to comprehend but not think/decide for themselves In late roman times it changed since ppl decided to become slaves to avoid high inflated taxes.. German ruler Otton wanted to abolish slave trade what would cut bavarian nobles slave trade profits but he suddenly died... he also had in plans the first christian eurpean union and linking amber route with northern land silk road to china avoiding middle east (BTW there was also no proof, no ever existing document for any slave trade in polish kingdom - except general slavic rule of keeping captives for a fixed time of ar. 2-5 years then giving option to either be sent back or stay as free with equal rights as peasants).
Post a Comment