Yu, He, 2022, "Paleogenomics of Upper Paleolithic to Neolithic European hunter-gatherers", https://doi.org/10.17617/3.Y1KJMF, Edmond, V2
The dataset for the above paper is available, but the paper/preprint is not. One of the samples is TTK001
 |
| Tutkaul, Sarazm, Khvalynsk locations |
qpAdm on this sample revealed that they possessed mainly ANE ancestry with additional Iran Neolithic component.
Target: TTK001
Russia_Kolyma_M.SG: 2.7 ± 2.7%
Iran_GanjDareh_N: 17.8 ± 3.1%
Russia_Kolyma_M.SG: 2.7 ± 2.7%
Iran_GanjDareh_N: 17.8 ± 3.1%
Russia_AfontovaGora3: 79.5 ± 3.2%
p-value: 0.065
Kocher, Arthur et al. “Ten millennia of hepatitis B virus evolution.” Science (New York, N.Y.) vol. 374,6564 (2021): 182-188. doi:10.1126/science.abi5658
Kocher et al, 2021 studied another sample from Tutkaul, Tajikistan with id TTK002. In their excel supplement, they list:
TTK002, B-n3, Tajikistan,Tutkaul, 38.3 69.3, Neolithic (Hissar culture), 6466-6077 cal BCE (GV-02104 7450 ±106)
“Tutkaul”, Tajikistan. (Individuals TTK002): The site of Tutkaul is located in southern Tajikistan, 70 km southeastwards of Dushanbe in the Dashti-Mazar region. The site was discovered during the archaeological survey of the Nurek dam’s flooding area led by A.P. Okladnikov in 1956 (106). Excavations were conducted during six field seasons (1963, 1965-1969) as part of a rescue archeological program led by the Tajik Archeological Expedition (107). The upper part of the stratigraphy consists of a medieval fortified settlement, followed by levels 1 and 2 which are attributed to the Hissar Neolithic culture. The lowest stratigraphic units (3 and 2a) belong to the Early and Late Epipaleolithic (108). At the base of level 2, three burials were identified containing the remains of four individuals: a female adult (burial nb. 1), a subadult (burial nb. 2) and two children (burial nb. 3). The burials were oriented to the SE-NW, the skeletons were in a bent condition on the left side, suggesting that the bodies were tied up before being buried. TTK002 is the 19 vertebra from a child found in burial nb. 3. An unidentified bone fragment from the same burial was radiocarbon-dated to 8425-8025 cal BP (GV-02104 7450±106).
TTK002 is confirmed to be from Tutkaul and dated to ~6200 BCE. We can assume that TTK001 is from one of the other 3 individuals.
Rough modelling of the ~3600-3300 BCE Tajikistan_Sarazm samples show 25% TTK001 ancestry, competing sources like Tarim_EMBA or Tyumen_HG are not chosen.
 |
| Sarazm rough G25 model |
Some TTK ancestry is also seen in the Khvalynsk individuals, and it also explains the presence of Y HG Q in the Khvalynsk samples.
 |
| Khvalynsk I0434 ~4400bce, rough G25 model |
Some conclusions and questions:
1. Additional Iran N-related ancestry expanded into Tajikistan between 6200-3600 BCE, along with CHG and the Anatolian component. The need for some CHG is Sarazm is validated by qpAdm as well.
2. ANE ancestry was present much more to the south than what is seen in the chalcolithic era. They seem to have been pushed northward by the expanding Iranian-related farmers.
3. The nature of this IranN/CHG and ANE interaction seems to be very important and relevant to me. If the ANE ancestry represents some form of proto-Uralic population, there is a huge scope of language interaction here. For those who consider SC Asia as the PIE homeland to be one of the viable options (me included), this interaction could explain PIE word transfers to proto-Uralic. And later pre-proto IIr, proto IIr, proto Iranic loanwords to the early branches after the proto-Uralic split. The middle and later Iranian loanwords are well explained by the presence of Scythians in the steppe.
211 comments:
1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»"Additional Iran N-related ancestry expanded into Tajikistan between 6200-3600 BCE, along with CHG and the Anatolian component."
The Gamkrelidze expansion model of Armenia/NW Iran > C Asia > Steppe comes to mind
I think whats more important is that both TTK and Sarazm come from mountaineous regions, which is where we tend to find the 'older' Iran_N + ANE profile.
That may even exist today with Rors having relatively more Steppe and Burusho and Kalash (mountain pops) having more Iran_N or ANE. It is just that mountain pops are generally more isolated. For TTK and Sarazm we should probably also make these adjustments and not assume these pops are representative of populations further to the NW in the Central Asian lowland areas.
I dont have the samples, but it would be interesting to run f4 calcs like
(Sarazm, TTK) (Test, Chimp) to see who scores highest. And then with whatever pops score higher, try a qpAdm like
Sarazm= TTK + pops
Because TTK is older than Sarazm, from close region, and models similarly (ANE + Iran_N) it would be interesting to see what kind of 'new' ancestry exists in Sarazm not in TTK.
Thus whatever groups score highest for the f4, or in the qpAdm Sarazm=TTK = pop, we can surmise that were the source pops mixing into everyone else in that region in that time.
Our DNA samples are all biased as we tend to find samples based on burial types (kurgans, caves, mountain peoples) etc but we are not getting anywhere near representative sampling, just due to certain places and burial types better preserving DNA or human remains. Its kind of important to acknowledge this bias and make adjustments to our models of ancient population structure.
There is no reason to assume Sarazm and TTK are representative of contemporary populations in central asia, as the Iran_N + ANE is a very ancient North Eurasian profile like Botai, MA1, and then its existence into more recent times with TTK and Sarazm is just found in the mountains further south, the mountains being a sink for ancient populations.
You have a bad habit of making simple things complicated.
'dont assume samples to be representative' is a generic caveat applied to all samples. But we work with what we have. When new data comes, i shall change whatever view i have made depending on the data.
Simple fact is that from what we have so far, 6200bce Tajikistan was ANE heavy and 3600bce Tajikistan is iranN heavy. No amount of exotic F4 testing will change this fact.
Yeah but Tajikistan could be where Iran_N and ANE separated out? Then you are modelling the source as the sink?
NE of Tajikistan has more ANE, and SW has more Iran_N. Thus Tajikistan, esp the mountaineous isolated pops, resemble more the ancient pop from which Iran_N and ANE split off.
Its kind obvious when you realise that ANE and Iran_N are the earliest split and most differentiated of (West) Eurasian groups. ANE being more like East or NE Asian, and Iran_N more like SW Asian, the former having greatest crown and the latter most basal eurasian, which is just a consequence of this split, not an actual basal eurasian pop.
Then, if Steppe DNA, and NW South Asians, are more basal to this split, ie within the central trunk of Central Eurasia rather than maximum NE (ANE) SW (IranN) isolation, then newer populations should have more of this than older ones.
So I am just wondering why TTK and Sarazm are not being modelled with SteppeDNA. I think modelling at this resolution is more difficult and complicated, hence your model with very distant outgroups and distant and higly differentiated, isolated pops like Iran_N and AG3 works better.
"Yeah but Tajikistan could be where Iran_N and ANE separated out? Then you are modelling the source as the sink?"
No. IranN has a basal Eurasian component. ANE does not, ANE is simply West eurasian + east eurasian. IranN has basal eurasian as additional component. These things become clear when you use qpGraphs.
Plus, we are talking about the 6000-4000bce period here, formative components of these ancestries are not at play, their formation occured tens of millenia before.
Ofcourse with qpAdm its a complicated tool..
I think the best way to use it is to model 'intermediate' samples with most drifted and then look for the best source pops.
A good example is Iran_N. As Wezmeh is more drifted than GanjDareh, we can model GanjDareh as Wezmeh + source.
GanjDareh = Wezmeh +
Kotias CHG 90% 0.62
Afanasievo 49% 0.29
MA1 9% .00038
Anatolian HG 2% 0.004
GujaratiB 2% 0.00003
(ustishim, mbuti, taforalt, yoruba, ma1, Itu.sg)
Damn,iran_n made ane go extinct.
Its such a weird feeling.
It feels sad that if there were no iran_n migrations to central asia,we would have 70-100% ANE people alive and flourishing in the iron age uptil today.
Ane seems to have a likeliness for mixing with every migrant group, considering the creation of iran_N and chg by ANE,the creation of ehg by ane by mixing with whg,the bronze age tarim mummies with 20% east asian,Ane mixing with yamnaya to create kumsay,mereke,mixing with Baikal east Asians to create selkups,kets,and other siberians,the creation of amerindians by mixing with east Asians.
Mixing with afansievo and sintashta.
They had refuge in southern central asia like Tajikistan, Afghanistan but iran_N migrations replaced them
If they were a bit more endogamous we would see them alive today
Its this mixing with made Ane go extinct,i just wanted to see an Ane rich population in bronze age
Sorry for the long rant,i was feeling very sad considering i am desecended from iran_N ,it makes me feel guilty about Ane.
Anyways,any idea about the ydna, mtdna, Phenotype of this sample?
ADMIXTOOLS 2
target left weigh
1 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG 0.19
2 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.09
3 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm GujaratiB 0.53
4 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm Israel_Natufian 0.19
p=0.9
target left weight se z
1 Russia_Afanasievo Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG 0.05
2 Russia_Afanasievo Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.12
3 Russia_Afanasievo GujaratiB 0.55
4 Russia_Afanasievo Israel_Natufian 0.29
p=0.8
target left weight
1 Russia_Afanasievo Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.09
2 Russia_Afanasievo Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.12
3 Russia_Afanasievo GujaratiB 0.53
4 Russia_Afanasievo Israel_Natufian 0.27
p=0.6
1 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG 0.32
2 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.46
3 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG GujaratiB 0.18
4 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Israel_Natufian 0.04
p=0.18
1 Georgia_Kotias.SG Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG 0.59
2 Georgia_Kotias.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3 00.05
3 Georgia_Kotias.SG GujaratiB 0.17
4 Georgia_Kotias.SG Israel_Natufian 0.18
p=0.6
1 Anatolia_Epipaleolithic Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG 0.13
2 Anatolia_Epipaleolithic Russia_AfontovaGora3 0.29
3 Anatolia_Epipaleolithic GujaratiB 0.13
4 Anatolia_Epipaleolithic Israel_Natufian 0.45
p=0.8
(Australian, Chimp. Mbuti. Toaforalt, Ong, Papuan. UstIshim, Vindija, Yoruba)
Its just all meh so easy to make it work sometimes this whole field is too easy
"Anyways,any idea about the ydna, mtdna, Phenotype of this sample?"
According to Pribislav on athrogenica, TTK001 is https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Y6802/
BA Aigyrzhal Kyrgyztan 2203-2041 calBC I11526, Q1b2a1-Y6802 is on this line. 3 afanasievo samples are also on this line. A modern Tajik on yfull is also on this line.
"Its this mixing with made Ane go extinct, i just wanted to see an Ane rich population in bronze age"
Aigyrzhal 2100bce in kyrgyzstan has 40-50% ANE, also 10-15% ivc ancestry.
@Vasistha, hey wat do u think of the qpadms above lol. remember I mentioned to you the ancient (unsampled) south eurasian hg which is best represented by Natufian, Anatolian etc?
That hint came from the stats we ran with lots of pops like
(indiv1, indiv2) (test, chimp) and it separated pops into Natufian, Anatolian, and then probably something like EHG, Steppe North/East Eurasian.
The qpAdm models are bad, outgroups are badly chosen without any west Eurasian references. Gujarati as a source for much older samples is problematic.
West Eurasian sources are found in Yoruba and Taforalt. I added some Native american that just to make it fairer to AG3 to have some more ANE in references.
Old vs new samples are not a concept in Genetics. The DNA doesnt care if something is new or old, those concepts are non-sensical, it only cares about phylogeny and relationships. Old and new is a meaningless concept here. Mbuti is a recent sample but can behave like a very ancient one due to being very anciently separated.
But at the end of the day, its just a tool, and can be manipulated by anyone. No one really knows how to choose outgroups properly or anything.
But its important to understand that the major cline in West Eurasian pops is going from South Asians to Natufian/Anatolian. This is the most major Eurasian cline, then Iran_N and ANE are coming off this cline, the former an early SW coastal branch and the latter a Northern branch.
Anyway, whatever, I showed you how it is, like you said to me earlier, can you make the qpAdm showing South Asian in Steppe DNA. Now everything matches up inc qpadm, pca, stats, out of india theory etc.
im sure you are smart enough to know how non-scientific and irrational it is to have issues comparing old and new samples.
I mean it is so clear that South Asians are on a cline from ASI to West Eurasian not Iran_N or ASI/India N to West Eurasian, yet people are still modelling South Asians with Iran_N or IVcp + steppe etc it is so retarded.
Clearly the older IVCp is not reflective of ancient South Asian pops, otherwise modern pops would be on a cline IvcP-West Eurasian instead of ASI-West Eurasian.
A person not knowing anything, ie a beginner or amateur would think cos we have ancient samples like IVCP but not Gujaratis that it is proper to use IVCp instead of modern Gujaratis but that is not correct at all.
One should be smart enough to know that the F4 stats show affinity, but not direction of geneflow. Therefore, rule of thumb is not to model ancients with moderns as sources, especially not one which is 10000yrs younger than the target.
Yeah but mostly true for European populations not south asians. South Asian levels of genetic diversity are more consistent with Ancient Eurasian diverity not modern West Eurasian diversity.
Modelling pops with ancient samples works well for europeans but not for south asians. According to you we cannot use any ancient samples in modelling cos it would bias everything towards where samples are found from.
Its important to understand that the variation within South Asian groups is not comparable to that in Europe and West Asia, so the same processes are not at play.
Btw,ashish,did u read this study?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605215/
It gives an alternate hypothesis with evidence for the expansion and arrival of r1a z93/l657 in india,other than it coming from fatyanovo or northern steppe cultures.
They associate it with kura araxes but i think that although that asociation is wrong,it's probable that z93/l657 still comes from east Caucasus/north iran/southeast Anatolia from later migrations like that anatolian Ancestry reaching indus valley that u showed on twitter
It's a pretty good study but they did on mostly the LPKSTR subclade of l657, although they have covered Z93 and l657 too, although i wish they had donr more.
Their results align with the pozbik et al 2016 study about l657 spreading in India during indus valley phase 2600-2200 bc.
This also dosent need all that fatyanovo
Although we won't find much older sample fron west asia with z93, because of high haplogroup diversity there,while the steppes are nearly homogeneous in theur haplogroups,all belonging to either z2124 or r1b l23 clades,so it's easier to find these in the steppes,the presence of basal clades In west asia and Caucasus point about the probable source of z93 and l657
Poznik*
Done*
@freak
Idk what lpkstr lineage they are talking about. Apparently it's a subclade of L657, but i dont know any caucasians moderns with L657.
@vasistha bump.
I wanted to say something,i was observing z93 subclades and it seemd that z93 has highest subcladal diversity only in mid east.
Middle east has Y40,Y2,those FT and F subclades of y3,z2124,z93 basal,l657
While steppe has only z93 and z2121/z2124.
And both show up after 2700 bc for the first time,all other r1a samples from Europe before that are either just r1a or that one r1a5 from peschanista.
If z93 or z283 was native to Europe or steppes then we should see it even before the formation of steppe eneolithic(4500 bc){i mean before the second iran_n type Ancestry reached but we don't} ,all this mkes a sudden appearance after 2800 bc.
Someone should do a dating on r1a z93 of middle east and r1a z93 of sintashta and of Turks and Afghans.
Any way to do this?
If seems that r1a z93 of steppes is derived from middle east rather than the other way round as people think.
Yes,we have first z93 from steppe but it doesn't mean it can't be from middle east, considering that Underhill 2015 study about basal r1a and sry10832.2 in iran.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and we shouldn't be too quick to draw conclusions, remember how that Ukraine I6561 sample turned out?
False dates and false calls for ydna.
The reason we won't find much bodies and samples in mid east is very unstable and unsuitable climate for preservation and because middle east genetic landscape is heterogeneous and has high haplogroup diversity with many ydnas dominating,so R1 descenedants like z93 would have escaped to europe and it would be less likely to find these in middle east itself
While steppe is homogeneous and prone to founder effects hd bottlenecks as seen in fatyanovo men carrying z93 and z2124,so it's much easier to find what you want here.
So ,that's why rather than looking for buried bodies,it's much better to test modern z93,y40,y3,z2124 samples in middle east and see when these clades expanded and arrived in middle east.
Also,i have already referenced the study above about r1a Z93 from middle east.
It shows SE Anatolia/upper Mesopotamia as source for z93 which expanded to Mesopotamia,then iran then to India,seens more likely than one fatyanovo man accidently entering india and then for some reason r1a l657 becomes so larg in india.
This would end the Aryan larp by Wignats too.
Also,R*,R1*,r1a* and Q1* is present in iran alongwith IJ,and many subclades of I1,i2 independent of europe,as i told you before.
Please don't tell me that they have tested it falsely and it's a few SNPs downstream, because they check it correctly,just like Sharma 1009 study that r1a* found in saharia was truly r1a*.
Even if it's a few SNPs downstream,it doeent mean anything negative,since the downstream SNPs ch only happen if the basal ydna/haplogroup clade is present.
Source for it:-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqKJPGiVEAEyI_c?format=jpg&name=medium
https://mobile.twitter.com/ThunderBearFire/status/1342787421352554497
Please be receptive for once,and stop dismissing these things like davidski does,you don't need one thousand confirmation flags to consider this..
They talk about migration of z93,l657,l342.2 too
The study was about LPKSTR but they cover z93 and l657 in the centroid analysis section
Although in this study,they don't give us the exact answers we are looking for but it still gives us a good
Picture that z93/l657 might not even be from fatyanovo as people were speculating and considering that high vladal diversity of z93 in mid east and west asia.
More studies are needed specifically on this west asian connection and this area should be given attention and consideration and possible candidacy for r1a z93 and l656 in india.
They also show archaeologlical Connection and evidence for their proposal in section 3.2.5 archeological data
(I think the kura araxes affiliation was unnecessary,but z93 could have come from middle east jin 3000-1000 bc
3.2.4. Centroid Analysis Earlier published studies have primarily shown data from arbitrarily selected and sampled communities. To gain a less biased snapshot of haplotype distribution, we queried public databases and expressed relative incidence after correcting for unequal regional representation. In this way, it is possible to map virtual geographic centroids and standard distances (from the centroids) for obligate chronological allele series such as Z93 > Z93 L342.2 > Z93 L342.2 L657 and Z283 > Z283 M480. The prediction is that standard distance (SD) should decrease along a series and that the average position of centroids will reveal a direction of migration. This prediction was observed with SD for Z93 L342.2 L657 being significantly smaller than that for Z93 (p = 0.034) and Z93 L342.2 (p = 0.0006). The SD for Z283 M480 was less than that for Z283 (p < 0.0001). The SD for Z93 L342.2 L657 was numerically smaller than for Z93 L342.2 but did not reach significance (p = 0.068). Furthermore the Z93 group was significantly distant from the Z93 L342.2 group (lat. p = 0.0041; long. p = 0.032) and Z93 L342.2 from Z93 L342.2 L657 (lat. p = 0.0004, long. p = 0.0037) and a regression line fit to these groups has a direction just slightly south of southeast. Figure 5 shows this for R1a1, R2a, and J2a4, all found in the Khatri cohort. A plot of the incidence of the series (inset in Figure 5) shows the more archaic alleles of the series preferentially in West Asia, with more recent alleles abundant in South Asia. The frequency of newer alleles is higher in the “Persian/Gulf” region, possibly suggesting a general location for their most significant expansion. This analysis supports the conclusion that Z93 and L342.2 expanded in a southeasterly direction from Transcaucasia into South Asia https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605215/figure/fig5/?report=objectonlyhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605215/figure/fig5/?report=objectonly
Freakk,
You may want to touch base with one Maju aka Gaska who is frequently seen on Eurogenes. He has some detailed explanations about how this up and down movement of Z93 and its various babies is unlikely in the time frame that the Kurganist want.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/
Mayuresh
Freakk,
By the way that genetic study you posted is perhaps a good one, but they cited Kochhar and Thapar as authorities on Rigveda, which made me chuckle. It is not even worth typing a post to refute these people’s theories. If you use twitter talk to Koenraad Elst.
Mayuresh
No, the Y40 and y3 related lineages in west Asia are all from India, either via Romanis 1000yrs ago or recent work migrants. The frequency is too minor there to be the origin. You just see a lot of them in yfull because Saudi/Oman/Kuwait/Iraq etc are highly sampled regions as compared to india.
The paper with the Tutkaul sample is out. 6200bce sample from Tajikistan as we thought. link: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05726-0
Their conclusion is similar to mine.
"On the basis of PCA and outgroup f3-statistics, the Neolithic Tutkaul 1 individual from Tajikistan is closely related to Upper Palaeolithic individuals from south-central Siberia (Afontova Gora 3 (AG3) and Mal’ta 1), and roughly contemporaneous West Siberian hunter-gatherers (Tyumen and Sosnoviy), both carrying high proportions of ANE ancestry45 (Fig. 1c and Extended Data Fig. 6). We tested the affinity of Tutkaul 1 to worldwide ancient and modern populations relative to AG3. Contrary to West Siberian hunter-gatherers, Tutkaul 1 does not carry an extra eastern Eurasian ancestry, but shows affinity to Iranian Neolithic farmers and some younger populations from Iran and the Turan region (Supplementary Data 2.L). Conversely, individuals in the Sidelkino cluster are genetically closer to AG3 than Tutkaul 1. This suggests that the newly reported Neolithic individual from central Asia carries an ancestry that might be a good proxy for the ANE-related contribution to Iran and the Turan region45 from around 5.5 ka but not to roughly contemporaneous hunter-gatherers from eastern Europe."
How about TTK as close genetically to the separation of ANE and Iran_N. This is plateau high-altitude pop afaik, and then further more recent contact between South Asian nomads and Steppe/Armenian nomads is the CHG and EHG elements which look like newer elements around West Asia and NW South Asia.
Damn there's a ton of clickbait about the Yamnaya "horseriding" paper, and the paper's title itself is clickbait. Is the aDNA field being degenerated?
@Kavi Iran Neolithic separated d
From AHG from a common Dzudzuana lineage, which separated from WHG from an older common lineage which presumably separated from ANE even further back. Any similarity of Iran N to TTK over WHG is a combination of drift and ANE ancestry in CHG/Iran, but the main ancestry of Iran N is phylogenetically closer to WHG via Dzudzuana than ANE.
Slavic languages do not have an "ashva" type of word for horse. Baltic languages do. These groupings of convnience like Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian based on current geography are meaningless. And looking for homelands of these languages ...?
Over 80 homelands for IE languages have been proposed so far, but "noooo;" India or Iran/Armenia cannot be one of them. Almost 60% of IE languages belong to just one family out of 12, never the less.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
@orpheus,
Ppl are overrating the position of dzudzana. It has these affinities just because it is the oldest southern pop we have.
But it is still lest drifted than Iran_N and ANE. Iran_N and ANE are separated earlier than Dzudzana.
I am saying Iranian platue hugher altitude pops like TTK and Sarazm only show Iran_N and ANE because TTK and Sarazm has been more isolated and not sharing 'newer' geneflow associated with CHG, EHG etc and the older earlier separated ones are IranN and ANE.
Dzudzana is old but still less 'newer' ie less drifted and separated than Iran_N and ANE. We are still working with pre-existing pre-dzu models that have Iran_N and ANE, EHG, CHG as components.
Dzudzana is throwing ppl off. It doesnt change anything wrt to what im saying. It has no relation to the separation of ANE and IranN which are the most early separated groups in this region. Dzudzana is still phylogeneticalluy separating later than ANE and Iran_N.
Separation of ANE and IranN is not relevant when we are talking about a 6200bce Tajik sample.
@kavi
In fact, here I will prove that there is at least one admixture event related to ANE, IranN and TTK, using your favourite tool, F4.
F4 tests pic
All permutations of F4(Mbuti,IranN;TTK,MA1) are significantly non-zero. This proves presence of admixture.
From Lipson, 2020
"If a set of four populations are unadmixed relative to each other,
then some permutation of them will yield an f4-statistic of zero (in
expectation), as in Figure 1a. Equivalently, if all three permutations
of f4-statistics for a certain set of four populations are (significantly)
nonzero, then at least one of the populations must be admixed; this
is one of the most common signals of admixture used in the literature."
So, before you deny admixture and rather propagate the view that a common population branched out all over Eurasia, it would be best to carry out this simple test first.
I think that Harvard is misinterpreting the outcomes of f-stats. They seem to want to link with everything with adxmiture, their program is even called Admixtools.
But these tools are only checking allele frequencies and those relationships can also occur due to phylogeny rather than admxiture.
For instance, Harvard say that neg f3 like f3(test; x, y) means test is admixed from x and y. But I think that test can just be the splitting point of x and y, hence x and y do not share drift with each other compared to test, so the f3 is negative.
This was the first test Reich to determine Aryan migration, f3(Gujarati; Euro, South India).
That showed negative f3 so he immediately accepted that Gujarati is a mix of ASI and West Eurasian, represented by South Indian and Euro respectively.
But Gujarati can also be the splitting point of ASI and Euros, which is how I interpret it.
So recently I made an outgroup-f3 based calculator using Gujarati as outgroup. It gives very precise and accurate results imo.
But just looking at some of the stats, it does look if we take a set of global pops, like Pops = African, East Asian, Eurasian, ancient and new, and run all combos of f3(test; Pops, Pops).
If we try test=any global pops I am sure Gujaratis will score the most negative, meaning it is closest to the splitting point for all modern pops.
More evidence is the fact that Gujaratis are also on average closer to all human pops, so take the mean f2, o-f3, fst or any distance calc and run f2(test, Pop) and get the mean for each test, Gujaratis will score the highest mean.
So according to Reich Gujaratis are the most mixed pop, but according to my theory they are closest to the separation point of global pops. That is for global pops, ie the separation of African and East Asian is included in that, also ANE and Iran_N etc. But the closest separation point of West Eurasian maybe Steppe.
The mainstream (in this case just Reich lab) is now dead. They are confused now about many things and trying to understand. No more papers are gonna out from them based on old ideas. This is why its gone so quiet.
Come on this server and we talk sometimes about stuff, they dont agree with me but we might aswell look at stats and ideas and have discussions to test those old ideas rather than following the old methodology which might be outdated now.
https://discord.gg/XMX55RPnZP
Did you know the Latin branch is the most special of the IE branches. All the good stuff went into it, the wealth of Eurasia, EEF, the earliest europeans, the most sophisticated democratic governance system, religion and language not too drifted.
The latin branch was so unaffected by all the nomadic farmer conflicts and Chalcolithic violence of Iran, South Asia, Steppe and NE Europe
When IE was splitting into Farmer and Nomads, everyone else was affected by the split, except the Latin branch
The Latin branch from which descended Rome, is where the whole IE group sent its wealth too, this branch got the best of everything and created european civilization.
So its like everythng else which is happening in the Chalcolithic is somehow related to the wealth being generated and moving across West Asia into SE Europe
This is the only branch that is not affected by the nomad farmer conflict and nomadic r1 and has no closeness to Indo Iranian compared to ALL the other groups.
This branch likely would of left West Asia before Kura Araxes, as they maintain some older more stable history and governance forms maybe more closer to farmers like Hajji Firuz.
Kura Araxes is some Eastern Steppe-like nomadic peoples probably related to BMAC and Iranian. These influences can be seen in Germanic and Balto Slavic and some in Greek esp the Greeks more violence and in ways closer to Indo-Iranian
Quotes from archaeologist Martin Furholt's (aka "the idiot") 2020 paper.
https://journals.openedition.org/pm/2383?lang=en
Social Worlds and Communities of Practice:
a polythetic culture model for 3rd millennium BC
Europe in the light of current migration debates
"The polythetic way of looking at the archaeological material, as discussed above, is not
compatible with the idea of a uniform migratory process in which a group of people
advances into central and later western Europe from the east, bringing all their
belongings with them, as is proposed in several publications related to aDNA research
(Allentoft et al. 2015, Brandt et al. 2013, Haak et al. 2015, Olalde et al. 2018)."
"Although this model (Kristiansen's et al. 2017) can be considered as a clear advance when compared with the
simple migration narrative referred to above, it is, in my opinion, still much too
generalised and simplified when it comes to explaining the diversity identified in the
archaeological record, even within units such as the Corded Ware, and the Bell Beaker,
as discussed above."
First prove the one-shot steppe origin of European IE branches. Iran and India are far far away.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
It is just ignored that Mycenaens practiced cousin marriage. This is found more commonly amongst Middle Eastern and certain South Asian pops, but clearly more ancient than Islam or anything like that.
Ofcourse cousin-marriage does not seem to exist in early Steppe groups afaik so the mycenaeans, along with ALL other evidence can not be steppe derived.
There is alot of trash euro trash that likes to associate cousin-marriage as some weird ME degenerate backward culture now let them know that beloved Greek Mycenaens also practiced it.
For the Steppe HYpothesis and anyone still talking about it is simply deluded trash that deserves no respect in any capacity it is simply a weird fantasy of deluded imagination with 0 basis in reality.
Hi there Ashish, can you make an tutorial on how to install admixtools 2
The installation guide for admixtools2 is here.
https://uqrmaie1.github.io/admixtools/
Install R on Windows/linux/mac and follow the guide. Should be quite simple.
once admixtools2 is installed, load it with library(admixtools).
you have to extract f2 blocks from geno using extract_f2() function. Inputs are file path of geno file and f2 output folder. Can also provide a subset label vector to extract only for specific labels.
f2_blocks can also be outputted to an R object with object=f2_from_geno()
shiny can be run with run_shiny_admixtools() something like that.
A new page on your browser will open. the f2blocks folder path should be provided first on this webpage. Then experiment.
Personally, R console itself is easier to deal with than shiny.
Not possible for me to make videos in the near future.
Everything i learnt about admixtools2 was from the official github page. It explains everything that one needs to know.
Getting serious about the "Aryan" debate | Shrikant Talageri | Dr Koenraad Elst | #sangamtalks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDSy9gPAB3s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp1BPTWlHQY
Revisiting the genetic histories of our past | Dr. Niraj Rai |
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1mrGmkZnzOVxy
Thanks Mayuresh, saw it. He is right about late steppe entry.
Mayuresh et all,
So some of you guys know I have been commenting in this field for a long time. I dont need to tell you I know my stuff.
This is what I have now concluded, what it all boils down to.
An important clue is the association of Kavi Usan with the Bhrgus, found from Indo Aryan.
Everything is about the Bhrigus and the related Kavi dynasty of Iran. These guys are the most influential in II by far.
Ofcourse this is not widely known, but it is all easy to piece together from II literature. The Kayanian Dynasty is already accepted as a major ancient power in Iranian with deep roots in II. Likewuise for the Bhrgus in Indo Aryan.
It is just that Bhrgus are not mainstream Indo Aryans and not majorly a part of the Indo Aryan literature hence they are not spoken of much. However, Bhrgus are definitely the most influential if not well-known of Indo Aryans.
The most important point is that Kayanids are descended from Bhrigu. This means the two most influential and deeply rooted groups of IA and Iranian are the same group.
I know that my ethnic group is Bhrigus, hence from my group comes both Bhrgus and Kayanids.
Therefore, I simply consider it, given that I already know more than most ppl about this topic, all aspects of it, and actually being descended directly from the biggest name in IE and II, that I have the most at stake in terms of these topics.
I mean I know I am descended from Bhrigu, no one else is, and I have extreme low steppe DNA and J1.
So this is not a debate or discussion for me.
Now you just have to understand, its easy to trace Brghus to Baruch and then in Bharuch it is just my ethnic group. Also genetically I am distant to other South Asians as were Bhrigus somewhat outside the mainstream. Further J1 associated with Iranian farmers, BMAC, is likely associated with Kayanians.
So ppl can talk all they want, Euros, Hindus etc but they are all mainstream normies, steppe and evryday ppls. Bhrgus and Kavis were at the top of the ancient II sphere and probably deeply rooted.
Just so ppl know the position of Bhrgus. It is said that Bhrigu brought Agni for humans. It is said Bhrigu taught the Vedics how to worship Agni. Kavi Usana built the Vajra for Indra. Bhrgus built the Chariot for the Gods etc.
Bhrigus are the most elite IE group. Cognates of Bhrigu is Fire-related BRight, BRIlliant, BLAzing, Pyre, Fire, etc Bryges, Belgium, BALk, BALoch, BRIgantes, BREtons, alBORz, BURZahom. Mostly cognates related to Fire, or Towns/Cities, Mountains.
Bhrigus were the most ancient lineage of IEs to whom is attribuetd in II The Fire Ritual, Craftsmanship (Chariots, Vajra etc) and from wider research Farming, Astronomy, Town-Building, Mountains, Sea-Faring etc. Kavis were also associated with Farming, Mountains, Irrigation, Fire etc.
Now, ppl can continue with their bullshit but one person atleast knows the real deal about IEs.
Ofcourse it goes without saying I am the smartest and most Alpha guy around, just like Bhrigu and Kavi Usana before me. I do expect to get powerful and when I do I expect to simply all the bullcrap that has been written about PIE by these Euro and Angiras fools.
Anglo is just Angiras from Rigveda. In later Iranian Angras were to be found further North than Iran, so Siberia. Then they came to UK as Anglos. Before that the Celtic ppl who were here called themselves after Brighus, BREtons. Bhrigus had removed Angras from India and Iran it seems, probably because the mainstream poor nomads were too violent and unruly and by that time the elite IEs the Brghus were interested in Civilization building ie Farming and Wealth creation hence didnt want unruly nomads causing problems.
Its so weird that my ancestors were the most elite and knowledgeable in ancient times and I am that guy today. Honestly when i started learning about IEs i wasnt expecting any real insight into my own ethnic group. The thing is we are quite a small obscure group from Gujarat that is quite west eurasian phenotype but not enough size to be punjabis and really just didn't fit in anywhere. Calculators just gave weird ambiguous results.
But wow i wasnt expecting this. Moreover the insight all this provides into other stuff like wider eurasian IE and dna, ydna etc is really interesting.
I knw i get angry often lols not even here i get super angry when i see stupidness and that was always personally difficult for me as it made made me feel like a victim until i realised it was common for bhrigu to get angry. Also i had this idea i thought it was super clever which was that global politics needs to move away from the nation state system more towards cities and towns like the greeks. I had this idea i was super passionate it was the most important thing lol and i didnt even knw bhrigus had been specialising in this since ancient times. Bhrighus even built byzantium it says so in wiki there was a town with the same name on the coast of india lols that wud be bharuch.
Now i dont blame anyone if they dont believe me i come from bhrigus. But that association of brighus and baruchis can be analysed by anyone. But if you believe i am a legit bhrgu, then coming from the lineage of Bhrigus and Kavis, and being pretty competent and knwledgeable in this field, i think ppl esp indo iranians should be giving me more respect than any other 'scholar' in this field.
I mean i have been commenting online since 10yrs and looking at IE even longer. Everything i say makes sense and overall IE i knw more than any1 online.
So this shit is not about harvard writing some paper or david anthony or talegeri or anyone else.
Especially for the indians if you want an urheimet in india (gujarat, not UP) and i mean mainstream gujaratis not Bharuchis then i am the only guy that can win this debate for you and u gotta understand reich anthony and others are not gonna be able to debate me ofcourse like my ancestors before me we are the most talented amongst eurasians and i dont see myself losing.
Ofcourse you dont need to worry im not muslim but bhrigus were not really aryans or deva worshippers hence we were not nor am i today a hindu. But that shouldnt trouble you as it was ok in the past.
And for the rest of the ppl who believe in the harvard theory or whatever it simple. Bhrigus were here before angiras and before harvard. Ofcourse there is no doubt who is right and wrong and who is outlast the other.
The bhrigus went down after 1500bc because after bmac collapsed. That period was a major decline for south central asia and also globally with the rise of abrahamic faiths and greater violence and the development of feudalism etc Mongols overruning asia etc it was all chaos thats why the bhrigus disappeared but fortunately i was gifted agni just like bhrigu was and i think bhrgus and kavis need to make a comeback or atleast a final encore.
@mzp1
"Ofcourse it goes without saying I am the smartest and most Alpha guy around, just like Bhrigu and Kavi Usana before me. I do expect to get powerful and when I do I expect to simply all the bullcrap that has been written about PIE by these Euro and Angiras fools."
Bahaha..what the hell!? are you okay? this is mental illness.
Yeah, buddy. Gujarati_B (sample with obvious recent west asian ancestry) is origin of the Universe. Keep up the good work.
Bharuchi Vohra clearly have recent west asian ancestry, your sample shows it on Harappaworld too.
Good to see people getting personal about this stuff. Its about time!
"The Bhrigus are accorded a primary status in all traditional lists of pravaras and gotras; and in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna proclaims: “Among the Great Sages, I am Bhrigu; and among words, I am the sacred syllable OM…” (Bhagavad Gita, X.25)."
"b. Here, the Bhrigus or Atharvans (Atharvan) are associated with Asuras (Ahura),
and the Angiras (Angra) with the Devas (Daeva)."
"The Avesta also shows the movement of a group from among the Bhrigus towards the side of the Deva-worshippers : there are two groups of Atharvan priests in the Avesta, the Kavis and the Spitams, and it is clear that the Kavis had moved over to the “enemy” side."
From Talageri (who else?!)
https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/tag/zend-avesta/
As per my understanding of Talageri, Bhrigu's and Angirasas were rivals initially. During The Vedic Avestan conflict some Bhrugs came over to "our side". Sort of like Vibishana and Sugreev or Ramayana. As irony would have it the Rig Veda we have today has mostly been preserved by the Bhrugus, says Talageri not me.
I can provide anecdotal evidence. I have had uncles in my extended family named Bhargav. P. L. Bhargava is the author of the widely read book about the Puranic kings.
Mayuresh
"Vibishana and Sugreev or Ramayana"
should read ""Vibishana and Sugreev of Ramayana"
"some Bhrugs" should read "some Bhrugus."
@Singh,
Your so dumb you dont know anything about Genetics or IE or anything.
Yes there some fools in my community they want to have Middle Eastern or Iranian ancestry just like loser Indians/Pakis/Afgans want to have Steppe ancestry.
How many times do I need to educate ignorant normies with my elite level knowledge that most modern pops are not mixes of populations they way they are being modelled.
Of my own group Bhrigus/Bharuchis we are very distinct compared to other Eurasians esp NW Indians and ofcourse we dont have any kind of 'recent' Middle Eastern or West Asian ancestry because ALL NW South Asians inc mainstream Gujaratis score closer to MENA/West Eurasian in all calcs inc PCA, fstats, fst etc.
Singh is just a term for recent nomad mainstream commoner as the lion was always a motif, along with the sun, of the mainstream common Eurasian nomad. Just like in 'recent' Iranian identities the Flag of the Lion of the Sun was the flag of recent nomads vs the more ancient Kayanian Flag which is really what Iranians really respect.
You are just a commoner nobody so your opinion has no value.
@Mayuresh,
Ofcourse you and Talegeri are correct on many things. Yes Talegeri did a lot of good work which is not respected by these losers like the 'Lion' Singh these normies are not intellectuals they are just workers so ofcourse they are clueless hence ppl dont respect OIT or the valueable research done by Talegeri.
Deva/Asura is a very ancient commonality/split in IE and Eurasian peoples. The more distant, diverged or earlier split ppls seem to be closer to Asura worship just like Germanic Aesir, MENA Ashur, Assyria, Vedic Asura and Iranian Ahura. Then Deva is more common in most other IE groups inc Vedic, which has both.
TBH I dont think this was really an enmity with Iranian and Indian. I think the Asura/Deva conflict was mostly related to the Farmers trying to push Nomads out of Iran and South Central Asia to control the area and build BMAC.
The Iranian really gives the reason for this enmity. Early Iranian (Shahname) really does have Turanians and mentions them as Nomads as being the major problem of the Iranians. That period of Iranian history is all about building towns and cities and cultivation, and also BMAC is an extension of that where these low-lying regions were controlled by Nimads but the influential tribes of the region wanted to build towns and cities there hence had to push the violent nomads Northwards. After 1500BC it seems due to environmental issues those cities collapsed and the region again became nomadic. After that nomads overran all of Eurasia.
Yes ofcourse many Bhrgus joined the mainstream IAs as deva ppl. Mainstream IA Deva worshippers were not problematic for Bhrigus but I think it was NW Western, Afghan or Iranian Nomad Deva worshippers who were the main problem. There is not real Deva/ASura conflict in IA but there is in Iranian, Iranian really does not Deva ppl and it is not the Indians they refer to it is Northern or Western Deva worshippers and they seem to be associated with Chaos, Anger and Warfare and Nomadism. These Western Deva worshippers are later related to Latin/Greek and Anglos (Angra/Angiras).
Kavi wrote,
"The Iranian really gives the reason for this enmity. Early Iranian (Shahname) really does have Turanians and mentions them as Nomads as being the major problem of the Iranians."
You could be right. Referencing Talageri from memory, just as Indo Aryans called there enemies Dasas, the Iranians also referred to THEIR enemies as dahae. In general dasa like epithets were reserved for people of "mixed practices" what it meant at that time to each group.
"The Iranian really gives the reason for this enmity. Early Iranian (Shahname) really does have Turanians and mentions them as Nomads as being the major problem of the Iranians."
I think mzp1 has similar ideas; correct me if I am wrong. The conflicts were between settled people and nomadic ones who either refused to settle or were simply incapable of it. The settling of the United States by Europeans is a documented example. The Native Americans just did not like the agricultural lifestyle of the new arrivals. The agriculturalist in search of more land, started pushing them out.
Mayuresh
'My group' is the bestest, strongest, oldest comments are ones i find cringe. I would say that such people, and the ones who are stuck up about their personal dna, personal Y hg etc should really stay away from scientific discussion of IE homeland etc. Their biases are too strong.
This is one reason I personally won't get a dna test.
Hmm unfortunately i only just realised this about my group so it is what it is. Maybe its incorrect but i dunno it does look like Bhrigus in Indo Aryan were seriously elite and so were Kayanid Kings in Central asia tho the Kay Bhrigu connection is not so straightforward.
If ppl forgot ALL history includinf terms like Aryan, R1A, greco roman civilization, Jesus, muhammed, krishna then i dont need to say anything. But while ppl continue to remember stuff then they should knw the truth which seems to me not so contentious that bhrigu and kayanids were more important and influential than anyone else. No other group can have any comparable claim to fame so ALL fame is bhrigu fame. This is simply about the eliteness of the bhrigus in Indo Aryan and IE. Bhrigu name seems to be above all others. So cool ppl should forget ALL history but if they wanna talk about Aryans, R1A and Jatts and Pashtuns and Kalash Brahmins and Anglos and Euros and all other shit cool but they they gotta knw the truth that the Bhrgu name trumps all others and thiss is for sure in Indo Aryan anyone can check it is all written.
Its easy to argue that bharuchis=bhrigus and then the position of Bhrigus in Indo Aryan and the likely related Kays in Iran (and also iran chalco J1) all show bhrigu eliteness in Indo Iranian. Then if we agree that bhrigu = Bharuchi ethnic group and bharuchis have v low steppe dna then it just disproves aryan migration theory and kurgan hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqIf_ThDkxo
New video from KE
New Video
Vedic Chronology through Rgvedic Rivers & Archaeology | Jijith N. Ravi | Dr Koenraad Elst
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE_UsSouUls
Mayuresh
@vAsiSTha
What do you think was present in Tajikistan before this sample? Like in the Paleolithic?
The the people have many questions and queries regarding the nature of things. They contemplate on the nature of tribes, genetics, civilization, religions.
Know that Bhrigus and Kavis are foremost of knowledge amongst mankind. Bhrigus are above all tribes and all religions, having no enemies, rivals or equals.
They ask what is the knowledge and skill of the Kavis?
Anciently Bhrigu taught man-kind the kindling of the Fire, and Usana fashioned the bolt for Indra the thunderer. These amongst others are the contributions of the Bhrigus and Kavis.
Now, in a new generation of the world, again a Kavi brings forth ancient knowledge.
Of the different tribes and religions the people ask what is the correct one, who is most truthful and excellent amongst men? The religions conflict amongst them as Kings conflict amongst themselves.
Here presented the knowledge of the Kavis and Bhrigus.
In the Abrahamic faiths it all begins when God made man from clay. Prometheus who is Bhrigu brought Fire for mankind from the Gods, he also made man from clay.
This truth though self-evident has only been told by Kavi. For to make anything from clay one requires two things, Earth and Fire. Then know that the Abrahamic origin story is the story of the Fire of the Bhrigus. But the Abrahamic peoples lost the knowledge of the Fire, and now Kavi Mubarak completes the myth for the peoples, as in ancient times did Bhrigu kindle the fire for the peoples.
Know also, that when mankind-kind was fashioned from Earth and Fire it happened in one place. The Kavi technical excellence had found this truth hidden within the DNA of man. For the DNA tells it man-kind came from Gujarat-Sindh region, there from the clay of the earth did emerge man-kind and civilization, for early man passed through the fire to develop civilization, and for all this it was the Knowledge of the kindling of the Fire that started it all.
Kavi wrote,
"Prometheus who is Bhrigu brought Fire for mankind from the Gods, he also made man from clay."
"They were given the task of creating man. Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his clay figure."
https://prometheas.org/resources/mythology/
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-full-out-of-india-case-in-short.html
"The Bhṛgu who migrated furthest retained their Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian name and language (Phryge/Phrygian), while those among them who settled down on the way got linguistically absorbed into the Iranians (their priestly class the Āθrauuan), and those who remained behind got linguistically absorbed into the Indo-Aryans (as the priestly class of Bhṛgu). [The Armenians, in the Caucasus area, lost the name, but retained their language much influenced by Iranian]."
1+1=2
QED.
Or is it? If you ask C. K. Raju no one has been able to prove 1+1=2 axiomatically. It can only be proved empirically which the modern mathematicians do not accept.
Mayuresh
1+1=2 is proven logically and Mathematics is form of logic. In Peano Arithmetic it can be proven that 1+1=2 this I was shown in a lecture once.
As in ancient times so today, Kavis know of the arts and sciences.
Steppe Route of Indo European Dispersal:Preliminary Findings| Dr Aleksandr Semenenko| #sangamtalks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgRdwkZnGqA
A creative mix of archaeological, anthropological and genetic data. He breaks down Indo European into Indo+European. The Indos (Indo Afghans) go up to the south and east of the Caspian Sea and the Euro's come down to meet and mix with them forming what is called the Indo-European family of languages today.
Since there is no clear genetic trail of mass migrations either out of or on to the Indian Continent this theory is a clever compromise. The map at 27:29 explains why Greek. Italo Celtic and Germanic branches escaped satamization as they left much earlier carried fprward by the Druhyus. Almost fits Talageri’s scheme of migrations. Interestingly Armenian and Albania hover around the kentum satum dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages
“Some linguists argue that the Albanian[8] and Armenian[citation needed] branches are also to be classified as satem,[9] but some linguists argue that they show evidence of separate treatment of all three dorsal consonant rows and so may not have merged the labiovelars with the plain velars, unlike the canonical satem branches.”
https://twitter.com/yajnadevam/status/1554599932925018113/photo/1
Nice map. The dates look plausible. The Slavic arrows mesh well with Florin Curta's Slavs in the Making. What about the apparent links between Tibetan and Italic, Germanic languages, Elst may object.
https://pragyata.com/arya-tibetan-case-for-the-oit/
"Germanic fehu, Latin pecus, .... may come from Tibetan thab, “hearth”, “oven”.
@Ashish,
You once mentioned the following in response to RK:
"I think R1a-Y3 (formation date 2600bce) formed from Fatyanovo related R-Z94 near India. But there is a small chance it did form in steppe itself. However, its subclades R-Y27 and L657 (formation date 2200bce) have a 99.9% chance of having formed near indian subcontinent, given their absence in aDna and in modern steppes/europeans. This is only relevant in providing evidence against a mass male mediated steppe invasion of L657 males. After all, 80% or more of R1a in India is L657+. So if L657 was born in India in 2200bce in a single man, it completely negates Narasimhan 2019 claim of male biased steppe admixture in modern Indians (they didnt bother to differentiate subclades of Z94). Only the R1a-Z2124+ variants are definitely related to steppe autosomal ancestry."
We have R1a-Y3 > Y2 > Y27 > L657.
What happens if R1a-Y27 is found in Eastern Europe around its TRMCA? Say around ~4.4kya? Will you change your mind about R1a-Y27 and R1a-Y3?
ANI Excavator,
"What happens if R1a-Y27 is found in Eastern Europe around its TRMCA? Say around ~4.4kya?"
The current "scholarly consensus" dating of the Rig Veda is 3500 kya. If the above indeed happenes and IF a haplogroup=language, then the Rig Veda would have glorified the Volga as Ambitame Naditame,
"In Rig Veda, Saraswati is praised as the Mother among rivers; Ambitame, Naditame, Devitame, Saraswati. Its literal meaning is; “the greatest of goddesses, the greatest of mothers, the greatest of rivers”.
https://www.jammukashmirnow.com/Encyc/2020/9/23/Legend-of-Saraswati-the-cradle-of-Vedic-civilization-of-Bharat-.html#:~:text=In%20Rig%20Veda%2C%20Saraswati%20is,%2C%20the%20greatest%20of%20rivers%E2%80%9D.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
Never forget Kavi Usan/Kavya Usana the most OG Indo European.
Oumezil has retrieved a mythic figure from
the period of Indo-Iranian unity, a time probably no later than
2,000 B.C. He can tell us considerable details about this figure
as well. His name was *Kavi Usan, with *Kavi most likely a
title denoting one possessed of a certain knowledge that we would
term magical. The figure was a brahmin set apart from his fellow
caste members by this special knowledge that gave him control
over life and death, over aging and resurrection. He was so
powerful as to be morally and politically independent of both
gods and demons alike. The demons sought his services so
desperately that in effect he had mastery over them and their
stupendous wealth. This wealth and his demon throngs may have
been kept on a mountain top vastness.
No one in history ever reached the level of eliteness of Kavya Usana ie Shukra.
Never forget Kavi Usan!
@Vas Wrt the J haplo connection with Aegean BA and Swat, these samples all have elevated CHG/Iran-like ancestry with Chalcolithic Anatolia as the most likely source. So it wouldn't be Greece > India but rather Eastern Anatolia (or something like that) > India.
Their admixture date is around 4000-5000 BCE so it could be a population related to Indo-Iranian (it fits the timeframe), or some population related to the I-Ir speakers.
ANI Excavator,
Now it is my turn to ask you a question. Have you changed *your* opinion about AIT/AMT or the latest label it’s called by, after 75 years of archaeological, anthropological, geological and *genetic* evidence has failed to uncover evidence of arrival of a new culture or a people on the Indian Continent within the time frame in question?
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
Also, what site are you using for those trees?
@Mayuresh
Well it's not quite true that there is no evidence for it, right? I know that you would say that the archaeology doesn't support it, but the important thing is that the archaeologists disagree about it, right? And when aDNA was tested, the steppe admixture actually appeared in the exact culture that archaeologists in the AMT camp suggested was responsible for Indo-Aryan entry into India.
Now we are getting more and more evidence that R1a-L657 may have emerged in Steppe cultures. I know, R1a-L657 was not found in the Steppe, but the parent clades that are two and three snps immediately upstream of it (R1a-Y2 and Y3) have been found in Abashevo now. R1a-Y2 is estimated to have almost the same age as R1a-L657, and so R1a-L657 appeared almost immediately after a population of R1a-Y2 men came into being. It's a little weird if the Y2 event happened in Abashevo, and then the L657 event happened in India almost immediately afterwards, no? But this is not a problem for the AMT theory. And we know that the expansion of R1a-Y3 actually did almost go extinct in Russia, because there are only two samples of Y3 from Bashkiria and no Y3 anywhere else. If we didn't have the Y3 from Abashevo, we would not have expected Y3 to have expanded in Russia at all. This tells us that L657 could have gone extinct, much like Y3 almost did.
@Mayuresh
You are probably going to mention the DATES and sex-biased admixture. Well, what the DATES proves is not that Steppe ancestry in most Indians must have come from a later migration, but that the average age of admixture is later than what AMT proposes for the entry of Indo-Aryans into India. The issue is that very late dates for admixture are common in places where admixture is ongoing. Nganasan ancestry reached Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov by at least 3500 years BP, but the admixture date for Nganasan ancestry in Uralic people nowadays is only 3000-2500 years BP, probably because mixing between high Nganasan ancestry ethnicities and low Nganasan ancestry ethnicities continued for a long time. If there is any place in the world where people who differ in ancestry by a lot live next to each other, it would be India.
On the question of female-mediated Steppe ancestry in Swat IA, this is not a very solid finding, with multiple issues. But the important thing is that, even if it was true, its not an issue for AMT because we know that tribes and ethnicities with different ways of life (pastoralists, farmers, and hunters that lived in forests) and-- judging from how ancestry correlates with way of life in India today--different ancestry also, must have existed all the way down into classical Hindu civilization in the few centuries before and after 0AD. At that time forests still existed even along the Ganges, and forest-living people often formed powerful political groupings of their own. We also know that some high-steppe groups and low-steppe groups existed in Swat from the fact that there are outliers, but the admixture date was quite old already, which suggests that the outliers are not entirely due to uneven mixing (which also raises the issue of cremation and how that biases our estimate of how much R1a or sex bias there was). The low steppe ethnic groups could have accepted women from high-steppe groups and vice versa, which is a common pattern for neighboring ethnic groups in many places in the world. Later when Hindu kingdoms with well-developed caste and gotra systems appeared, and farmers and hunter-gatherers were socially below brahmins and Kshatriyas, there could be the pattern of sex-biased admixture only from the high-steppe groups leading to the Indian populations we see now. We know from Moorjani's work that admixture between high and low steppe groups continued over a long time, and continues even today as love marriages get more important.
So I don't see a very strong argument that should make us discount the traditional theory, it just hasn't emerged yet. What would really change my mind is early R1a in India, but I don't think that will happen.
@ani excavator
"What happens if R1a-Y27 is found in Eastern Europe around its TRMCA? Say around ~4.4kya? Will you change your mind about R1a-Y27 and R1a-Y3?"
If the Abashevo Y3 is correct (shouldnt have C->T or G->A), then steppe would be proven to be the place of Y3 origin.
@orpheus
"these samples all have elevated CHG/Iran-like ancestry with Chalcolithic Anatolia as the most likely source. So it wouldn't be Greece > India but rather Eastern Anatolia (or something like that) > India."
Those samples are simply like Swat_IA, no additional anatolian admixture is seen.
"Also, what site are you using for those trees?"
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L657/tree
ANI Exacavator,
"So I don't see a very strong argument that should make us discount the traditional theory, it just hasn't emerged yet. What would really change my mind is early R1a in India, but I don't think that will happen."
Thank you for the detailed analysis of the genetic issues, which I am not in a position to comprehend. But your answer does not answer my question; it just dodges it. The theory you will not “discount” is just that. It is a theory, not a fact. It has *never* been proven. It has never been proven that people with R1a or upstream/downstream markers thereof EXCLUSIVELY speak or spoke an IE language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1
"while a subclade of haplogroup R1a (especially haplogroup R1a1) is the most common haplogroup in large parts of South Asia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Western China, and South Siberia.[7]"
The onus of proof rests on the shoulders of those who claim that this or that haplogroup which even today (about 40 million males according Ashish) constitutes a very small percentage of the population on Indian Continent was able to irreversibly alter its linguistic landscape without leaving behind any physical traces of their arrival or using a known realistic mechanism of language change.
Here, I will also freely acknowledge that the OIT has not been proven either. What Semenenko has offered is a clever alternative but not a definitive proof. But I will not "discount" the OIT either till the AMT is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Frankly, I don't see too many people on the other side with such candidness and openness of mind. All I hear on blogs are silly abuses hurled anonymously from behind a computer screen which to me is a sign of cowardice and mental illness. Journalist with no real knowledge of the issues involved, spew venom just for monetary and political gain.
Very few scholars like Professor Kazanas, Angela Marcantonio, Edwin Bryant, and James Clackson are willing to acknowledge the limitations of comparative linguists and philology. Proto languages are simply a tool to study human past. Many proto words look like mathematical equations. Languages are not organic beings that evolve and split into families like amoebas. Human beings make a conscious choice to construct words from dhatus which can be at best mistranslated into English as "roots." Linguist Antoine Meillet never uttered a reconstructed word. Nikolai Trubetzkoy knew that a language can come into the so-called IE family or leave it depending on what its speakers want at a given point in time. And yet such propaganda videos exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78SJf8NL2k
apparently to prove the presumed superiority of one group over another that lasted for a short period of time, and was based not on a language but on the use of brute force. A language like Urdu with a load of Arabic, Turkic and non-Indo-Aryan words can be, and has been purposely created to establish a separate identity that is not based on any noticeable linguistic or GENETIC differences.
Anyway, nuff said. I will continue this conversation only if you use your real name and state your father’s name.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
@Vasishta
I'm trying to hear your opinion on the fact that R1a-Y2, R1a-Y27 and R1a-L657 emerged basically almost at the same time, according to coalescent estimates run by Yfull. This means that R1a-L657 emerged almost immediately (at most a couple of generations) after a group of men with R1a-Y2/Y27 emerged. It is a little strange if R1a-Y2 or Y27 emerged in Eastern Europe close to its TRMCA, then R1a-L657 emerged in India almost immediately after that, no? This is extremely unlikely, much more unlikely than the fact that our sample at Swat inaccurately captures the sex bias and the percentage of R1a because the high steppe males were cremated, for example, since we already know that many people were cremated in Swat_IA. Its also much more unlikely than the fact that Y3 and its descendants, including L657 became extinct on the Steppes of Eastern Europe because we know that Y3 became almost extinct in Russia except for the two F1417 men, and also that the basal R1a-Z93, Z94 and Z2124 of Fatyanovo became extinct in the region of Russia between Moscow and the Baltic, even though Fatyanovo and basal R1a-Z93, Z94 and Z2124 actually came from that area. Do you accept this, and if you don't, why not?
By the way, I replied to you on the Eurogenes thread, it should get approved soon. I'm not talking about zoomed out phenomena like how many Z2124 are there in the whole of Russia. I'm talking about 0 basal Z94, Z93 and even Z2124 in the area between Moscow and the Baltics in modern populations--this is accurate, I went to check. This is despite the fact that Fatyanovo came from that area and carried these clades. The closest men with these clades are far to the south and east in Bashkiria, Chuvashia and the Caucasus. So what happened in far western Russia with these basal clades, and Russia as a whole for the descendants of Y3, prove that extinctions can in fact happen.
@ani excavator
"I'm trying to hear your opinion on the fact that R1a-Y2, R1a-Y27 and R1a-L657 emerged basically almost at the same time, according to coalescent estimates run by Yfull. This means that R1a-L657 emerged almost immediately (at most a couple of generations) after a group of men with R1a-Y2/Y27 emerged."
This is not correct. Y2 formation date is 4500ya, L657 4200ya as per Yfull. Yfull assumes around 144yrs per mutation on Y chr.
"and also that the basal R1a-Z93, Z94 and Z2124 of Fatyanovo became extinct in the region of Russia between Moscow and the Baltic, even though Fatyanovo and basal R1a-Z93, Z94 and Z2124 actually came from that area. Do you accept this, and if you don't, why not?"
I don't. As I have already said on Davidskis blog, on Yfull there are 290 Z2124 moderns in Russia, 60+ in Ukraine, and double digits in Poland, Lithuania and Germany. So no, they weren't cleaned out from the region. On the other hand there are 0 L657 moderns in all of these countries.
Let me for sake of argument accept your proposition that L657 was born in steppe around 2000bce and immediately came down to India, leaving no trace behind. In what numbers did that happen? 10, 50, 100? The more the numbers, the less likely that it gets fully wiped out in the steppe.
How can that small migration affect anything linguistically in the Indian subcontinent which had a population of 10+million in northern parts? Something like this has never happened in history.
This doesn't even require ancient DNA actually. The wholly Indian rooted nature of L657 itself says that that current frequency of 15% in India is through local expansion from a founder effect rather than a large invasion. Just like the rooted nature of Z93 in steppe says that Z93 expansion happened there.
@Vasistha
Well then your reason for rejecting it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, does it?
Like I said, it's no use paying attention to Z2123 or Z2124 because those clades in Russians, including in Uralic populations in Russia, are all closely related to or nested under clades found in Scythians, Sarmatians and the like and are recently introduced from the south. The relevant thing here is, because there are no basal R1a-Z93 or Z94 (not derived Z2124 and so on, but basal, early branching clades under R1a-Z93 or Z94) in western Russia, but we know the earliest Z93 and Z94 came from there in Fatyanovo. So we know Fatyanovo-related patrilines went extinct and were not able to leave a legacy in the Fatyanovo area between the Baltics and Moscow. We also know the Y3 line almost went extinct too.
This is a little like saying "because all basal Z94 and Z93 are found in Central Asia and areas adjacent to it, including areas close to the Urals and the Caucasus, there is no way basal Z94 and Z93 appeared in western Russia" when in fact the oldest representatives of that line in a population full of men from those lines were in western Russia.
What do you estimate was the population of the Fatyanovo culture? Well that culture was not able to leave any patrilineal descendants between the Volga and the Baltic area. So large populations could disappear without leaving a trace too. It looks like this did happen for Z93 and Z94 in western Russia and almost happened for Y3 in Russia in general.
About the TRMCA, yes that was a mistake, the date of formation is 4500BP and for ancient DNA that is more important than the TRMCA. But let's say Y27 is found close to the date of formation (4200BP) in Russia. What will you say then? Please answer.
@ani
I'm getting a bit tired of the mental gymnastics you are pulling here. First you say this
"I'm talking about 0 basal Z94, Z93 and even Z2124 in the area between Moscow and the Baltics in modern populations--this is accurate, I went to check".
Now when i showed proof of hundreds of Z2124 men in Baltic and Slavic countries you changed your tune and now say this
"Like I said, it's no use paying attention to Z2123 or Z2124 because those clades in Russians, including in Uralic populations in Russia, are all closely related to or nested under clades found in Scythians, Sarmatians and the like and are recently introduced from the south. The relevant thing here is, because there are no basal R1a-Z93 or Z94 (not derived Z2124 and so on, but basal, early branching clades under R1a-Z93 or Z94) in western Russia"
The fact of the matter is simply this, hundreds of descendants of Z93, Z94, Y3 all live in that region even today, and these are just those whose dna has been checked. You keep saying that they were wiped out, clearly they were not.
"Well that culture was not able to leave any patrilineal descendants between the Volga and the Baltic area."
Why do you keep saying this? You claim L657 are the descents of 'indo-iranian' Fatyanovo but suddenly when it comes to others like Z2124, Y3 etc in the same region they're not descendants? WTF? These buggers dont even speak indo-iranian, how are you so sure that fatyanovo or sintashta spoke indo-iranian? based on horses and chariots? lol.
"But let's say Y27 is found close to the date of formation (4200BP) in Russia. What will you say then? Please answer."
I have already said that 99% of Indians under y3 are also under L657. So L657 is the one that is important here. The fact that each and every subclade of L657 is present in subcontinentals means that it underwent expansion inside the subcontinent from a very small founder population. It is irrelevant to indo iranian languages.
@Vasistha
The argument I’m making is very simple, there’s no mental gymnastics involved here. It’s just taking the same argument you made regarding L657 and Y3 and applying it to Z93/Z94 as a whole. The reason why you thought that L657 and also Y3 didn’t emerge in the European Steppes is because there is no, or very little, of a trail of old clades there. Later occurrences of fully-formed downstream lines of L657 in the steppes don’t count.
Likewise, If you go and check the tree of Z93/Z94, it is simply a fact that none of the basal branches left any descendants in western Russia, in the area where Fatyanovo lived, despite the fact that we know the earliest expansion of Z93/Z94 took place there. There aren’t even any basal branches of Z2123/2124 in western Russia, even though the earliest expansion of this clade took place there too. Go and look at the earliest branching mutations under Z93/4 and it’s subclades in Yfull. You will find that none of the Fatyanovo clades, or the early branching clades under Z93/94 more generally, left any descendants in Western Russia, even though we know they expanded there in Fatyanovo.
Why don’t the later clades of Z2123/2124 count? Well there are individuals with L657 in Xinjiang and the Steppes after 0 AD, do they tell us anything about the origin of L657? Can we judge from them that L657 came from the steppe? Clearly no, because these branches are late and also might be nested under Indian L657 clades. In the same way, the Z2123 in Eastern Europe you’re talking about on Yfull are definitely nested under Scythian, Sarmatian and even Turkic clades, in many cases tracking Ashkenazi Jewish clades in Poland and Germany. You can go and check this yourself. If we know a downstream mutation first appeared in sintashta and spread to it’s descendants from Central Asia to the Middle East, it’s not relevant to the question of whether or not the Fatyanovo clades survived in western Russia. So they’re not involved here. This is easy to verify—none of the z2123/24 clades in Western Russia come directly from Fatyanovo clades or similarly deeply-branching clades but are all nested under clades in sintashta and later Iranic and Turkic people.
So the Fatyanovo clades did go extinct in that area of Russia, and Y3 and Y2 nearly extinct also (except for those two Bashkiria men). This should shake your confidence in your own theory if you were reasonable. Either case it doesn’t really matter because reasonable people will come to their own conclusions of course.
Now about R1a-Z27, the issue is that L657 appeared almost immediately after Y27 appeared, so if we know where Y27 appeared around 4400BP from aDNA, we can be virtually certain the the earliest L657 was close by. Coupled with the fact that the star-shaped expansion of L657 took place around 4400BP to 4000BP, which is something anti-AMT people have mentioned themselves, this would mean that most of the earliest expansion of L657 happened outside India and the diversity we have in India now most likely came in with a larger migration from outside that is poorly captured in current aDNA sampling between India and the Steppe. Bad sampling is very common—we still don’t know where the Bell Beaker R1b came from for example, though we know it’s there somewhere in the migrations that spread yamnaya ancestry, so L657 being missing for a while is no issue. After the migration, the diversity of L657 then went extinct in Eastern Europe, just like the diversity of basal Z93/94 actually went extinct in western Russia and the diversity of Y3 and Y2 also actually almost went extinct in Russia as a whole.
This larger-scale migration of course makes Y27 and L657 potentially relevant to the Indo-Aryanization of the continent under an AMT scenario. Also, if Y27 is found alongside the “Iranian” early Z2123/4, that makes it and L657 relevant to indo-Iranian as a whole, and relevant to tracing where proto-indo-Iranians could have lived.
@ani
My last comment. I understand your point fully.
Hundreds of (non indo iranian) z2124 in slavic and Baltic countries means nothing, but 0 L657 means that L657 was born in Russia.
I think this is a nice summary.
Swat data also means nothing, those 100+ samples are just a distraction.
Only thing that is true is how thousands of L657 were without a doubt cleared from the steppe, because 400 samples from baltoslav countries are just a distraction from the true cause, they should be ignored.
Vasishta wrote,
"As I have already said on Davidskis blog."
I would not say *anything* on that blog unless its moderator states his full name, his fathers name and his mothers surname (last name) at birth.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
@Vas I'm talking about the Aegean samples having elevated CHG/Iran, and their J lineages likely coming from somewhere in Eastern Anatolia. The theory is that the lineages expanded westward but also eastward into India, hence the connection.
The admixture dates are 4000 BCE or younger, 5000 BCE (as the earliest) appears for Minoans only. Better proxies would give a bit more recent dates so it could be either a population related to I-Ir or pre-proto-I-Ir before it split (with the split presumably taking place south of the Caucasus).
3rd Lindau Online Conference
https://sciathon.org/project/a-multidisciplinary-approach-to-understand-the-peopling-of-south-asia/
"Rigvedians"
Ok. Finally, something new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNv3R1xS6so
The above song reminds me of the American Patriotic song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsv8LF8y9Uk
Every heart beats true neath the Dark Blue, light blue, faded blue, hadly blue
Mayuresh
@Vasistha
It's ok if you don't want to comment further, but I'm just going to write this for the sake of others reading this.
A more accurate summary of my argument is this: There are hundreds of basal/early-branching R1a-Z93 Y-chromosomes in present-day men in Central Asia and parts of Russia close to it (e.g. Urals and Caucasus). There are 0 of such Y-chromosomes in Western Russia, from Moscow to Finland and Estonia. But we know that basal R1a-Z93 actually expanded from Western Russia in the Fatyanovo culture around 4500 BP. Once ancient DNA appears confirming the presence of a clade somewhere or suggesting it was close by, the modern distribution can't negate it, so it becomes immaterial.
Likewise, there is negligible R1a-Y3, R1a-Y2, or R1a-Y27 in Russia (there are only 2 R1a-F1417 men from Bashkiria, out of thousands and thousands of Russians on Yfull), compared to hundreds of basal R1a-Y3 and Y2 in South-Central Asia, the Middle East, and South Asia. This is a point Ashish/Vasistha has made himself. But the oldest Y2 and Y3 are now found in Abashevo. Once again the evidential value of the modern distribution is nullified by the ancient find.
In the same way, even though all L657 is found today in South Asia, it is still possible that the mutation appeared and expanded in the Steppe, and then died out like the basal Z93/94 did, or the Y3/Y2 almost did. We already know for a fact that all the Fatyanovo and Abashevo-associated basal Z94/93 and Y3/Y2 died out in Russia (except for those two F1417 men in Bashkiria), to be replaced by incoming R1a clades related to Balto-Slavic populations, N clades found in Uralic populations, and R1a clades found in post-Sintashta Iranic populations under Z2123/2124. So if the L657 appeared in Fatyanovo or Abashevo, it could have been extinguished alongside these other clades early R1a clades. The Fatyanovo and Abashevo descendants, full of early-branching R1a, seem to have fared badly after around 4000BP for whatever reason.
"hadly blue" should read "hardly blue."
Any new info ashish?
@ani excavator
There are not 2 but 4 bashkir/tatars from Russia on Yfull https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2/
"In the same way, even though all L657 is found today in South Asia, it is still possible that the mutation appeared and expanded in the Steppe, and then died out like the basal Z93/94 did, or the Y3/Y2 almost did."
Whether Z93 is from steppe or whether L657 is, is actually immaterial. The exclusively Indian distribution of L657 in moderns itself is proof that the expansion of L657 and its subclades occurred locally from a single man. So the 15% L657 in modern Indians is not because of a large scale invasion by steppe L657 men 3500years ago. Rather what we see here is a result of a local expansion.
This is why you don't see a single L657 subclade which is not present in subcontinent and is specific to central asia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iUNgYlb-Lo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdCaEXj2KeI
@Vasistha
You keep trying to dance around the logic, but it's not gonna work.
In present-day populations, we find 0 basal R1a-z93 in western Russia, v.s. all early branches of R1a-z93 present in Central Asia and surrounds. You can say that this "proves" that R1a-z93 cannot have expanded in western Russia, and must have expanded in Central Asia. But this "proof" ended up not working because the populations with very high percentages of basal R1a-z93 was shown in ancient DNA to have existed in western Russia, and so R1a-z93 expanded first in western Russia. This is despite the fact that there are no western-Russian specific clades of R1a-z93.
Likewise for R1a-L657. Even though there is 0 basal R1a-L657 outside of India, and early branches of R1a-L657 richly represented in India, and there are no Central Asia or Steppe-specific clades of R1a-L657, this doesn't "prove" anything, its not a watertight argument. Its an argument that can end up being easily disproven by aDNA like in the Fatyanovo basal R1a-z93 case, so it is not a proof. It's exactly the same scenario.
If R1a-Y27 is also found in Russia at a very early date, we are one step closer to showing that the likeliest place R1a-L657 is to have expanded was outside of India, since the Y27 and L657 clades formed extremely close in time and space. In fact the subclades of R1a-L657 such as Y4, Y6, Y9 and Y7 are all expected to have formed and expanded extremely closely in time and space to Y27 and L657 itself (Y4, Y6 and Y9 are, like L657 and Y27, also dated to 4200BP, and Y7 is dated to 4000BP). If we know where one of these clades formed (e.g. Y27) we know the other clades must have formed and expanded close by.
Fatynonvo having R1A L657 or whatever, is the Fatyanovo sample out there, I bet it has more AASI than other Steppe samples, I bet the Fatyanovo R1A is correlated with higher AASI.
I already showed you guys many times Steppe DNA has more AASI than other Eurasians explaining the R1A and R1B lineages found in Steppe and South Asia.
None of this is complicated whatsoever it is all very simple.
All this AMT vs OIT is just the Bhrigu Angiras 'conflict' since ancient times. But Angiras was just the 'commoner' nomadic tribe. Mostly just warlike cattle herders. This is the Anglos.
Bhrigus and Kavis are ALWAYS superior to Anglos/Angiras in knowledge. AMT is just an Anglo/Angiras theory.
The Anglo AMT theory is trash just like anciently Bhrgus simply said Angiras is trash so even today Kavi just says AMT is trash.
Even the King of England wears his crown with the Kavi flag at the top of the crown. Then even the British Crown and all the jewels it has the Kavi Banner is still at the top.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/05/07/13/70688655-12056391-King_Charles_and_Queen_Camilla_wave_to_crowds_from_the_Buckingha-a-78_1683464024887.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derafsh_Kaviani
Stupid why does Anglo King wear Kavi Flag on top of his crown this was never endorsed by Kavis as Kavis were Bhrgus mostly and Bhrgus do not respect Angiras. Its all lies and stupid.
Now as in ancient times so today, Bhrgus and Kavis are superior in knowledge to Angiras/Anglos.
For Kavi knows all about IEs and the origin of humans, he even knows why Kavi symbol sits atop the British Imperial Crown. Ofcourse Anglo Kings are not Bhrgus or Kavis and Kavis do not endorse their authority. Their authority and their version of History and science is all wrong it is simply trash compared to Bhrgus and Kavis as it was anciently so today.
Know that AMT vs OIT and nonesense vs correctness is the just same ancient issue between Angiras and Bhrgu but in reality everything came from Bhrgus so too like the Rigveda was a mostly Angiras book which later Hinduism became Bhrgu dominated so too the debate on IEs and the Kingship of Britain everything again will be taken by Bhrgus.
Soon the Kavi movement will come and we may have our own version of history. Kavi doesn care about Jewls like Kohinoor but he is troubled by the use of Kavi flag by Anglo rulers as it is all a lie.
Then ppl can join this movement and win cos Bhrgus and Kavis always win over Angiras.
@Kavi,
"Even the King of England wears his crown with the Kavi flag at the top of the crown. Then even the British Crown and all the jewels it has the Kavi Banner is still at the top.
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/05/07/13/70688655-12056391-King_Charles_and_Queen_Camilla_wave_to_crowds_from_the_Buckingha-a-78_1683464024887.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derafsh_Kaviani"
That is indeed interesting. Thank you for pointing that out. What we know for sure is Bhrugus were the more westerly peoples and Angirasas were easterly. However, the argument that Kavis are superior because they are similar to well documented looters and destroyers of advanced civilizations, and even worse, enslavers with genocidal tendencies, is a hard sell.
Mayuresh
@Mayuresh,
I dont agree with Bhrigus being 'westerly'. Most of the more recent Indian literature has Bhrgus and Kavis like Usana associated with Gujarat region. For example Dwaraka it is said somewhere Bhrigus reclaimed land from the ocean. Krishna is also associated with Bhrgus and Kavis he does say "Of the Rishis I am Bhrigu" "Of the Kavis I am Usana" and Krishna was also associated with Dwarka.
Brighu is associated with Bharuch. This is the only association of Bhrgu with any places in India afaik.
I dont think Bhrigus were Priests of Anu, Bhrigus were their own tribe. There is not much evidence in RV that Bhrgus are a class of priests rather they are a separate tribe like other tribes Anus, Druhyus etc.
In ancient times Bhrgus may have been more Western but in RV we cannot place them anywhere and in later Hinduism they are just associated with Gujarat region.
Yes Anglos were looters because nearly ALL nomads were looters cos they didnt experience building stuff. All those ppl remained nomads while other ppl became farmers. The farmers built more and more wealth. Then after the bronze age things got out of hand in Eurasia, there was too many waves of nomads taking over and looting. Looting was just done by nomads.
Those same nomads are the nomads of the RV, the Aryans. Angiras.
This is why anciently the Bhrgus and Angiras had problems. Bhrgus were building wealth like KAvi Usan who built cities like Samarkand in Central Asia. Then as Bhrigus and Farmers built more cities and farming and created more wealth over time it led to more nomads wanting that wealth and causing wars and empires and looting.
All this unfortunately already happened in the RV, where Aryans were destroying Dasa 'forts. The Aryans were looting the Dasas already. These were nomadic tribes in NW of South Asia vs the farmers in teh same region.
This is why Bhrigus and Kavis are outside of the RV mainstream. They were farmers and RV is about Aryan nomads or recent nomads. When Aryans settle down in later Hinduism Bhrgus become more predominant because they knew about farming.
If the Anglos were looters it is not so different as the Angiras type of RV Aryan who destroyed the forts of the Dasas. It is just nomad looters vs settled farmers who build.
Why was there Bhrgu Angiras conflict in ancient times? Farmer vs Nomad. Different values different ways of life. Bhrigus had transitioned from Vedic nomad type to farmer so they knew more than Angiras hence they are always more respected and more ancient in the RV.
But the nomad was getting everything wrong. The same as the AMT. The same as Anglos wearing Kavi flag. In Iranian the Angiras/Anglos type of looter nomad is just the Angra mainyu evil spirit, said to live i the far north. Kavi Iranians didnt like Angras cos they were troublesome backward nomad looters and they lacked knowledge and were quite incompetent (not having developed into farming and settled cultures) so it is really wrong that the Anglo rulers wear the Kavi banner on their crown cos Kavis didnt respect Angras at all and ofcourse just like Angras followed Bhrgus and Kavis in the fire worship, soma use, and other things so today the Anglos use the Kavi banner but it is all wrong and STUPID just like their version of history, science, economics it is all Angiras backward nomad warriors who have big numbers but are incompetent.
Then these guys are so stupid and backward saying that IE originated in Europe when we can even track the Kavi symbol from ancient Central Asia all the way to England ofcourse everything is going in one direction and it is very symbolic that the Kavi symbol lol is right at the top of the whole kingship of England, but also a big lie or great incompetence.
Bhrigus and Kavis are at the top of the whole of IE history not just Anglos. Angiras nomad was in many places inc India where they originated and had most numbers and then we pushed the name angiras out of existence even today I can say legitimately I am a Bhrigu and can continue the Kavi tradition but the Angiras tribe is nothing in India.
For it is said the Bhrgus is the Flame of the Fire and Angiras the Coal. The coals only purpose is to the fuel the Flame, and it disappears in the process. Just like nomads becoming farmers.
All this stuff has deep meaning and sybolism.
The AMT is just the theory pushed by Anglo domination of the global narrative, there is no substantial evidence for it.
The Anglo rule by their own choice of symbols has the Kavi symbol right at the top of the globe, on the Anglo Imperian crown. They put the symbol so they know themselves the Kavi banner symbolises their rule.
But the Kayanian banner is from Iran. Still, the Kavi banner has a LOTUS symbol.
"The symbol of Derafsh Kaviani is a LOTUS flower, which refers to the royal stars of Persia, and its history goes back to ancient Iranian beliefs from the Achaemenid Empire period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derafsh_Kaviani
Lotus: It has a very wide native distribution, ranging from India and Sri Lanka (at altitudes up to 1,400 m or 4,600 ft in the southern Himalayas[4]), through northern Indochina and East Asia (north to the Amur region; the Russian populations have sometimes been referred to as "Nelumbo komarovii"), with isolated locations at the Caspian Sea, as well as virtually all of Island Southeast Asia, New Guinea and northern and eastern Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelumbo_nucifera
So you see the Lotus is from the regions of India. Kavis were in India and Iran, hence took the lotus symbol, probably representing mountanous wealth and civilization from the Himalayas and made it the symbol of their Iranian rule.
But the for Anglo Kings to be pushing this AMT crap they can see it themselves right at the top of their crown is the lotus the symbol of Northern India since ancient times so all their theories and ideas are all stupid and contradictory and they are are clueless just like Bhrgus didnt respect Angiras in the past for they thought Angiras/Angra stupid chaotic and violent beta males.
@ani excavator
"In present-day populations, we find 0 basal R1a-z93 in western Russia, v.s. all early branches of R1a-z93 present in Central Asia and surrounds. You can say that this "proves" that R1a-z93 cannot have expanded in western Russia, and must have expanded in Central Asia. But this "proof" ended up not working because the populations with very high percentages of basal R1a-z93 was shown in ancient DNA to have existed in western Russia, and so R1a-z93 expanded first in western Russia. This is despite the fact that there are no western-Russian specific clades of R1a-z93."
This is plain wrong, all subclades of Z93 are present in Russia. Z94, Z2124, as well as Y3. Therefore Z93 is rooted in Russia. Similarly, all subclades of L657 are present only in Indian subcontinent, therefore L657 is rooted in Indian subcontinent.
You seem to think that just Y haplogroup alone is enough to prove your Aryan invasions. What a ridiculous narrow way to look at things. 90% R1b in Basques 60% in Etruscans, 35% N in Latvians and Lithuanians could not change their language. It is a side evidence at best. Lot of change happens in Y distribution over 4000 years, unrelated to language. Modern distribution cannot be used to prove such language claims, as if languages are encoded in Y chromosome.
Prove Sintashta migration to Syria by 1600bce then we can talk. By this time Sintashta ancestry wasn't even crossing Turkmenistan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdCaEXj2KeI
at 2:45, "The people who migrated to Central Asia and India were mainly Z2125"
and not the L657 about which people are fussing over.
The following sentence mentions L657 migrated to "South Asia, Arabia, Xinjiang and the Persian Gulf."
The Arabians speak or ever spoke an Indo-European language?
7:28 the home of "Proto Indo-Iranian" is dated at -2050 BC(E). The Indian Continent is too far away from this "home."
1500-2500 people lived in Arkaim! and they rushed to the Indian Continent much like the American Gold Rush to the Wild West. The "Indus Valley" civilization was "destroyed" (because of an asteroid impact or a nuclear missile?). Nearly third of humanity alive at the time just vanished and these "supermen" composed the world's most archaic and dense hymnody, the only one of its kind to have been orally preserved to this day, but they do not remember a thing about where they lived just 500 years ago. Then they proceeded to glorify a river as "Amibtame and Naditame" that had dried up completely 500 year before they arrived.
And after such a mad dash they were too kind to not wipe out the Dravidian family of languages on the southern part of the Indian Continent. However, they hopped over like Hanumanji to Sri Linka and forced an Indo-European language Sinhala on those hapless people.
They were also pleasantly surprised to find that the former inhabitants of "Indus Valley" had left their own fire alters for them, which saved them a lot of money and labor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fire+altars+in+indus+valley&sxsrf=APwXEdfuFnYj1Mlrq3edW69vyfZAbqHnDw:1683591754799&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8h_WD_Ob-AhWiMVkFHcYdA-YQ0pQJegQIBRAC&biw=1275&bih=614&dpr=1.5#imgrc=7hm-smXrlLmg-M
Then they found the "natives" had left Sinauli chariots oiled up and ready for use because their own chariot rental company just went belly up. As if this was not enough, the "natives" donated them an advanced copper bronze metallurgy they could amass even more wealth from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_metallurgy_in_the_Indian_subcontinent#:~:text=have%20procured%20tin.-,Indus%20Valley%20Civilization,the%20practice%20of%20copper%2Dsmelting.
Ok.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
If the subclade 657 is 4500 years old, how many descendants of the parent of this subclade were there in a thousand years at the time of the alleged invasion of India? Taking into account the absence of L657 in the ancient Steppe, it can be assumed that almost all the owners of this subclade migrated to India.
Their number was probably from several thousand to several hundred people at the time of migration. This is what Vasistha wants to say i think.
Taking into account the absence of Andronovo artifacts and the endemicity of Indian cows, the rarity of this subclade in Swat at the end of the second millennium BC, the early owners of L657 are more like a small group of reproductively successful migrants than like numerous conquerors of the subcontinent.
@vAsiStha
I am a layman and I was reading your argument with ani excavator. Could you simplify what it was about so that a child could understand it? Is L657 Indian (Relatively speaking) or Steppe. Surely according to Yfull if the sub clades of L657 are Indian then the common ancestor has to be in India. My view is that Steppe people came to India prior to 3000 BCE formed the ANI but remained relatively unmixed with the Indus Valley people (ASI) until about 2000 BCE. Is this a tenable hypothesis.
"Is L657 Indian (Relatively speaking) or Steppe."
If there were many ancient L657 men outside India, then there would be mutations in that branch today not found in Indians. ie. there would be L657 sub-branches not found in Indians today. That is not the case. Ergo, L657 for all intents and purposes is Indian and the modern distribution seen today is from a single L657 man in India.
"My view is that Steppe people came to India prior to 3000 BCE formed the ANI but remained relatively unmixed with the Indus Valley people (ASI) until about 2000 BCE. Is this a tenable hypothesis."
No, there is no steppe ancestry in Indians from pre Sintashta like steppe people (yamnaya or afanasievo). The steppe ancestry is from andronovo derived populations and admixture dated to later than 1400bce. So I dont think thats a tenable hypothesis.
@Past
"Taking into account the absence of Andronovo artifacts and the endemicity of Indian cows, the rarity of this subclade in Swat at the end of the second millennium BC, the early owners of L657 are more like a small group of reproductively successful migrants than like numerous conquerors of the subcontinent."
Yes
The Sintashta culture started around 2100 bce and so did the andronovo. L657 originated in India at the same time the Sintashta just formed. How is this possible? Surely the ancestors of L657 were in India before the Sintashta.
When did these owners come to India? And if R1a is not the Indo European gene, then what is. After all, you believe that PIE came from South Central Asia.
@anon
Please change your name to something unique.
"The Sintashta culture started around 2100 bce and so did the andronovo. L657 originated in India at the same time the Sintashta just formed. How is this possible? Surely the ancestors of L657 were in India before the Sintashta."
L657 is not directly related to Sintashta, because there is 0% L657 in Sintashta or other steppe ancient samples. I don't know what you mean by 'How is this possible'. Rather sintashta has R1a-Z2124 which is a cousin of L657.
Sintashta culture is archaeologically dated to 2000bce, are independently the L657 mutation is dated to 2700-1800bce 95% CI range by Yfull.
Whenever it was formed in this range, it's clear from the ancient and modern distribution that it expanded only in Indian subcontinent. Therefore, Indian subcontinent is most likely place of origin. So, that could be either before Sintashta (pre 2000bce) or coeval with Sintashta (1800bce).
"And if R1a is not the Indo European gene, then what is. After all, you believe that PIE came from South Central Asia."
Y chromosome is only 2% of male human nuclear DNA. And migration of just 1 man is enough to introduce a new lineage to a population. Therefore tying Y haplogroups to languages is stupid. One must look at the 96% of nuclear dna - autosomal ancestry.
IranN related ancestry is the original PIE, made clear by the presence of IranN ancestry and absence of steppe ancestry in chalcolithic Anatolia.
Sorry. I was a child when I made the username. Again, I am new to the discussion.
Vasishtha wrote,
"@anon
Please change your name to something unique."
Well at least we know he is a man. And while you are at it, stop pretending to be a layperson.
"I am a layman....Surely according to Yfull "
I have been reading genetic blogs for more than 8 years and still don't have a clue what a Yfull tree is.
"And if R1a is not the Indo European gene, then what is."
Now, even I can answer that one. There is *none*. If you have viewed the videos posted in this thread, these haplogroups have been expanding for about 20000 years and they are all over the place.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
The Rigveda Chronology And The Indo European Homeland | Dr Aleksandr Semenenko | #sangamtalks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLnQ8eyG4gA
Summary slides at 24:37, 29:41, 40:32
Mayuresh
Unravelling Witzel's Work | Manogna Sastry | #sangamtalks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3Gels-RuTg
Interesting https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/LSA97304_EP.pdf
"Genetic Imprint of Early Indo-Aryans in Central, West and South Asia"
https://nezihseven.substack.com/p/genetic-imprint-of-early-indo-aryans
"Some of the Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages are from the Proto-Aryan phase, which indicates again a northern homeland for Proto-Aryans"
This has been refuted by Talageri
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/10/uralic-finno-ugrian-and-indo-iranian.html
All the loan word traffic is one way from Indo Aryan to Uralic, which is impossible in an extended language contact situation.
"all the borrowings are in only one direction: from "Indo-Iranian" to Uralic, and decades of intense diligent search have failed to yield a single credible borrowing in the opposite direction: i.e. from Uralic to "Indo-Iranian".
More over the type of words borrowed is important. FU has word for camel borrowed from IA. Camels are no way near FU territory. If IA were moving south, how could they have their own word for camel? Therefore, they were moving out not onto to the Indian Continent.
Also see,
https://www.academia.edu/41954555/On_the_so_called_Pre_Finno_Ugric_substratum_words_some_notes_
"Sintashta is also generally associated with the invention of chariot which would become an important war machine especially for later Indo-Aryans."
Semenenko has written a multi volume series in Russian demonstrating that Sintashta people did not have chariots.
40:02 min
https://youtu.be/MLnQ8eyG4gA?t=2402
“The first wave of Aryan migrations to the south was likely that of the Indic branch. Historical records indicate a class of charioteers who spoke a pre-Vedic Indo-Aryan language that was in control of the Mitanni kingdom in West Asia, approximately from 1600 to 1250 BCE”
Refuted by Talageri using the same chronological order of the Rig Vedic books established by European scholars.
“is in proving that the common culture of the Rigveda, the Avesta and the Mitanni inscriptions belongs to the period of the New Rigveda and is very clearly posterior to the period of the Old Rigveda:”
Again, indicates a movement away from the Indian Continent.
“Compared with Avestan, the number of BMAC-derived words contained in the vocabulary of Vedic Sanskrit is higher.”
Igor TB has gone through all 30 of these supposed loanwards in section 4 of his article below,
https://www.academia.edu/33042091/An_alternative_vision_of_the_A_Lubotskys_list_of_Bactro_Margianisms_
“Considering that the BMAC and Indus Valley Culture do not have much in common archaeologically, the latter scenario is more likely.”
Now, this really takes the cake as Nezih Seven claims to be an archaeologist.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2019/11/archaeological-evidence-for-oit-part-i.html
and
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-andronovo-cradle-of-indo-iranian.html
“While this (Kuzmina’s) is undoubtedly an important book, and as far as I (Elst) can judge a classic of Andronovo archaeology, it fails in its primary mission: to show that this culture was the staging-ground for an Aryan invasion of Iran and India. It only assumes that much but doesn’t demonstrate it.”
Mayuresh
Reconstructing the Human Population Histories of South Asia using Archaeology and Genetics” 7th-9th June 2023 at Srinagar, India. Jointly organized by BSIP, Lucknow & University of Kashmir, Srinagar.
https://twitter.com/samxak/status/1659024014675968000/photo/1
In Hindi
ARYAN MIGRATION - आप के प्रश्नों के उत्तर | Responding to Comments - Ashish Kulkarni
https://twitter.com/sagorika_s/status/1660283058044669955
The Indo Iranian thing, the Indo European thing, the Aryan thing, it is all rooted in the Bhrigus and for Indo Iranian specifically the Kavis (IA) or Kays (Iranian).
So ppl have to understand it is Bhrigus who are intermediate between India and the West (Iran, ME, Caucasus) and Bhrigus who are close to the origin of IE which was likely from the Western part of South Asia inc Pak and Afghanistan regions, but PIE was very ancient we dont know much about that.
But for Indo Iranian, the similarities between Avestan and Vedic, it all comes down to Kavi. Kavi as a term, Kavikratuh, Kavya etc are deeply rooted in Vedic, then in Iranian the Kavis or Kays are the most famous dynasty.
All the similarities between Indo Aryan and Iranian is rooted in Kavis. For instance the closest to Avestan linguistically is Atharvaveda which is a Bhrigu book.
Historically the Brahmins of India didnt talk about Iran or PIE, their remit was only Hinduism or Vedic->post Vedic. Larger Indo Europeans to Brahmins was mediated via Bhrigus or Kavis. For Brahmins to discuss Iranian it has to go through Kavis, this is how it always was.
So as far as modern Indians are concerned, the discussion about what happened before Vedic and how it is related to wider IE, ie the Aryan Migration debate, it has to be discussed in terms of Bhrigus and Kavis.
So for the Brahmin he talks to Indians but for higher knowledge he comes to Bhrigus and Kavis. Kavis -> Brahmins. Kavis are a class above Brahmins.
Hence in the Rigveda Indra says he is Usana (Kavya Usanas)
I was aforetime Manu, I was Sūrya: I am the sage Kakṣīvān, holy singer.
Kutsa the son of Ārjuni I master. I am the sapient Uśanā behold me.
I have bestowed the earth upon the Ārya, and rain upon the man who brings oblation.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv04026.htm
But later on Krishan also says he is Usana
Of the Vrsnis (the members of the Vrsni clan), I am the son of Vasudeva; of the sons of Pandu, Dhananjaya (Arjuna) [I am]; of the sages too, I am Vyasa; ,of the seers, the seer Usanas.
Usana is the only common name in both lists.
Further, Krishna also says he is Bhrigu
Of the great rishis, I am Bhrgu; of the words, I am the Single-syllable (Om); of the sacrifices [performed with external objects], I am the sacrifice of muttering prayer; of the immovables, I am the Himalayan range.
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/35658/why-did-sri-krishna-say-he-is-usanas-among-seers
I also believe that Manu and Yama are ancient Bhrgus who may have been Western Kings or Sages around Iran. Manu (Manuchehr=Moon-Face, moon = Asuras, Middle Eastern symbol) and Yama (Jamshid)are both associated with the Flood Myth found across Eurasian myths and are both well-known in the wider IE community. It looks like these people became famous earlier than Kavis Usana and then Kavis/Bhrigus bring them into Indian literature.
https://youtu.be/IccoKqGXLiw?t=4805
My translation of some parts of the above video
Kulkarni,
46:47-48: 37 responding to Razib Khan’s work as understood by a Youtube commentator
“This ANI/ASI are made up things, I mean, it is a theory and it should be forgotten now. This theory was proposed around 2010-2012. This theory says all Indians are basically made up of two components ANI and ASI. But now we know that only these two are not enough. You need at least three and if you consider the people of Laddakh and considering the people eastern India and northeaster India you may need a third, fourth or a fifth component also. “
1:00:11 About R1a
“This is a really technical matter. Even if R1a is from Russia, it does not mean all its downstream subclades are from Russia also. “
1:01:32
“What I mean to say is R1a is from Russia but the Indian specific R1a which is R1a-L657 also known as ……is not found anywhere except in ancient or modern samples in India, Pakistan, Bangaladesh and Srilanka and in the Arab countries where these people have migrated.”
1:01:56
“The means the India specific R1a-L657 is a local development.”
Mayuresh
@Mayuresh Yeah that article is garbage, idk what he was thinking. Or if he was thinking at all.
@Vara Saw your comment, I don't think I-Ir arrived in BMAC/Indus area sooner than 3000 BCE. The Yamnaya related ancestry and haplos are tempting to link them to I-Ir but they generally seem to be related to Balkanic/Armenian. It's probably more likely that I-Ir is associated either with some kind of Eneolithic/EBA movements from the steppe southward with the genetic signal completely diluted (maybe except a couple of haplos? idk) over time, or it was never associated with the steppe in the first place and evolved south of the Caucasus, then moving eastward.
I base this on the early split date for I-Ir that seems to be the mainstream now, and for different reasons (archaisms and no clear next relative, cereal terminology, bayesian etc). Post-3000 BCE the IE dialects/languages in the steppe would already be very different than I-Ir.
Hi Kavi,
"Of the great rishis, I am Bhrgu; of the words, I am the Single-syllable (Om); of the sacrifices [performed with external objects], I am the sacrifice of muttering prayer; of the immovables, I am the Himalayan range."
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/35658/why-did-sri-krishna-say-he-is-usanas-among-seers
I have a copy of the Bhrugu Samhita in Hindi on my shelves. It is about astrology which does not fire me up.
https://storage.yandexcloud.net/j108/library/4ffhwt1k/Maharshi_Bhrigu_-_Bhrigu_Samhita.pdf
I also believe that Manu and Yama are ancient Bhrgus who may have been Western Kings or Sages around Iran. Manu (Manuchehr=Moon-Face, moon = Asuras, "
Exactly my point. Bhrugus were related to or the priests of the Iranians and hence Avestan Yima and Ahura Mazada are gods of the Avesta. Yama is the good of death for the Vedics and Asuras are the devils. This must have happened when Vedics and Avestans went their separate ways. The verse from Bhagavad Gita you quoted shows that Bhrugus were still very much a part of the Vedic culture till the Mahabharata war. Talagiri unsurprisingly links the Norse Bragi to Vedic/Avestan Bhrugu to buttress his OIT. Critics may argue that the verse was inserted later to bring Bhrugus in the mainstream, sort of “Ghar wapasi” or home coming in those days.
Mayuresh
@Orpheus, and I believe @vAsiSTha you also mentioned this,
what is the source for the early split for IIr?
@3rdacc Kummel 2022, Pronk 2022, Kroonen 2022, Hamp 2012, Kortlandt 2016 are the ones I remember
Also
Barbieri et al 2022 also gives an early split date for I-Ir with modified bayesian models.
Carling & Cathcart 2021 had a more or less synchronous split of I-Ir and Italo-Celtic (with I-Ir being isolated from other language families) using bayesian models.
All of these are recent and at the same time I don't see any counterargument. So I shifted the position I consider most likely now to an early I-Ir split, possibly pre-Yamnaya (pre 3500-3200 BCE) even.
So this is what happened.
PIE, IA, IE, Vedic Culture: Cattle Herder Nomads, Very warlike, language PIE/Vedic Sanskrit, Religion based on Songs in Vedic language, no 'ownership' of land, no farming, land is for cattle grazing and cattle can roam free.
This is the very ancient like 20k bc IE culture widepread across South Eurasia.
Over time from this PIE culture there are developments particularly towards farming and settled society. This produces greater wealth for those poeple. So more and more people become farmers from this original culture. This mostly happens in places away from the Central IE culture where it is safer like up in mountains or in regions out of the way.
By the time of the Rigveda the Bhrigus are more aligned with the farmers than the nomads, though they are closely associated with the nomads too. So what happens is there is a new concept called Kavi, which is produced by or in association with the Bhrigus.
Because the Bhrigus were aligned with the farmers and the non-mainstream tribes, as enemies in the dasaragna for instance, they did not have influence amongst the Rgvedic tribes. So a new concept called Kavi/Kavya was created. This concept was very central to Indo Aryan and it was created in that way.
So now Bhrigus are non-mainstream and not really mentioned in the RV. But Kavis take that position. Bhrigus anciently brought Agni to mankind, so Kavi Usan is said to have made Agni priest for man. Bhrigus built chariots for the Gods, Kavi Usan built the Bolt for Indra.
What is interesting about the language, Kavi is a poet, but RV is based on singers. Singing predated 'poetry'. If you think about Vedic Sanskrit is more like singing whereas Avestan is more like 'Poetry', tghe difference is in timing/metres and especially the Tonal Accent of Vedic makes Vedic a sing-song type of language.
The Term Kavya means a type of poetry but not singing like in Vedic. So this type of poetry is what happens to tribes as they move away from Vedic Culture to farming culture.
So in Vedic Kavya is inserted into Vedic culture and has some status higher than Rishi or Singer. In this case Poet is higher than Singer. This is because Poetry was associated with farmers and post-vedic culture so those guys being more advanced in overall knowledge hence Kavya poetry had more social prestige than Vedic Singing, not because it was better imo.
And the concept of Kavya meaning Poetry exists in India but it is a post-vedic modern concept going all the way back to Vedic. So this 'post-vedic' concept of Poetry must have existed during the Vedic times and then the Bhrigus use that as a term to build an identity around and create a new concept of Kavi. Kavi is rooted in Bhrigus but separate from them.
No can 'date' the split of II cos these ppl dont know shit. Kavi Usana knew everyhting and Kavi Mubarak knows alot.
The language of Vedic and Avestan is the just the languages of Singing and Poetry, respectively, the latter having lost some structure from the former.
Specifically the split, atleast from pre-Avestan Kayanian Dynasty, is really a split of Vedic Nomads vs Iranian Farmers, the split between IA and Vedic is really related to Iran being controlled and then cultivated. So its just a farmer thing.
But the Kavi concept is really brilliant, as the Vedic/PIE has the SInger as the most important religious figure, the whole religion is based on the poetic hymns which were sung or chanted. The term Kavi which means Poet is constructed much later than PIE but really is consistent with the deepest religious values of PIE which is about Singing, or Poetry ie a form of art. But also it points to the transition of Eurasia away from the earlier PIE/Veduc nomadic culture of Vedic sanskrit and singing and towards the more 'modern' culture of poetry, farming, caste system, etc.
After being rooted in Vedic and becoming influential in the NW subcontinent amongst the Aryans, the Kavis manage to take control of 'Iran' and start to make the whole region farming-based, away from the Vedic Aryan nomadic way.
In the same way the Bhrigus come back into the mainstream because Bhrigus oversaw the transition of Vedic culture into post-vedic farming culture, having themselves been involved in spreading farming culture across eurasia, they knew how the vedic culture would change as they became farmers.
So this whole thing about Indo Aryan and Iranian, from Vedic to Hinduism and Avestan, Vedic ppl everything it is all a snapshot of a period of time when everyone moved away from the ancient Vedic nomadic culture and became farmers.
Hi Anonymous, this is ANI EXCAVATOR. Sure, let's simplify this discussion. Let's look at Vashistha's logic in his reply to you:
"If there were many ancient L657 men outside India, then there would be mutations in that branch today not found in Indians. ie. there would be L657 sub-branches not found in Indians today. That is not the case. Ergo, L657 for all intents and purposes is Indian and the modern distribution seen today is from a single L657 man in India."
The point Vasistha is making is that:
1. R1a-L657 is found outside of India today as well, like in the Middle East, BUT
2. All the non-Indian R1a-L657 is related to the R1a-L657 found in India. Therefore,
3. R1a-L657 appeared in India and expanded to outside of India.
Let's look at what happened for R1a-Z94 and R1a-Z93. This clade is a number of mutations upstream of R1a-L657, i.e. it is the parent branch of R1a-L657. This clade is found heavily predominating in Central Asians, West Asians, Ural Mountains populations, and Siberians today, and its sub-branch R1a-L657 is found in South Asia, as aforementioned.
Now, the R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94 found in Western European Russia (the region between Moscow and Finland) is all descended/closely related to the branches found in Central Asia, West Asia, Urals, Siberia, and South Asia, which is something Vasistha himself will acknowledge. A simple check on Y-full confirms this too: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/ and https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z94/. There are no early branches of R1a-Z93/94 that are unique to Western European Russia; all branches of R1a-Z93/94 in Western European Russians are descended from branches found already in Central Asia, West Asia, Urals, Siberia, and South Asia. Therefore by Vasistha's logic we can judge that R1a-Z93/94 did not come from Western European Russia, from the place between Moscow and Finland, but emerged further east and expanded back west into European Russia.However, ancient DNA from the region between Moscow and Finland has in fact shown that the Fatyanovo culture in that region from 4500 years ago was full of basal R1a-Z93 and Z94; i.e., the Fatyanovo culture was full of people with unique earliest-branching branches of R1a-Z93 and Z94 that left no descendants anywhere else today. In other words, R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94 originated and expanded from the Fatyanovo culture and its immediate precursors in between Moscow and Finland. You can check this here: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/. The individuals with the red labels are ancient individuals, and you can see that NAU001, HAL001 and BOL001, which are all from the Fatyanovo culture, are the earliest branches of R1a-Z93 (the Chinese ancient individual is an early Steppe_MLBA individual related to the Fatyanovo gene pool).
What has happened is that the early R1a-Z93 and Z94 expanded into the Urals, Central Asia, West Asia and South Asia as we know (for example, through the descendant branch R1a-Z2123 in the Sintastha and Srubnaya cultures, which is today found at high frequency among Iranic speakers, and through the descendant branch R1a-L657, found today at high frequencies in South Asians). But then the early branching individuals of R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94 have become extinct in their original homeland in western Russia. The later western Russia men with child branches of R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94 were instead migrants from further east that reintroduced this clade.
We know that this pattern didn't just happen for R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94. It also happened for R1a-Y3 and R1a-Y2, the immediate parent branches of R1a-L657. I.e., imagine a population of men with R1a-Y2 and R1a-Y3 Y-chromosomes. We know that the R1a-L657 Y-chromosome appeared in this population almost immediately after these populations appeared themselves. This population almost became extinct in Russia as well, leaving only a few men from Bashkotorstan with the rare sub-branch R1a-F1417 under R1a-Y2. Other than these 4 men, there are no samples from the 1000s of men from Russia with R1a-Y3 and R1a-Y2. But the Abashevo genomes once again show us that R1a-Y2 and R1a-Y3 existed in Russia, around the Urals, 4000 years ago.
Because the early-branching R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z94 men became extinct in western Russia, and also the general R1a-Y3 and R1a-Y2 populations almost became extinct in Russia, and we know the R1a-L657 mutation appeared in the group of R1a-Y2 men almost as soon as it first appeared, its likely that R1a-L657 was actually present in Russia but became extinct also, just like it happened for these other groups. The Fatyanovo, Abashevo and associated cultures with these clades of R1a were replaced by other cultures with the "Slavic/European" clades of R1a in what seems like a major episode of replacement.
Anonymous, one more thing to mention is this. R1a-F1417, R1a-L657, and its sub-branches R1a-Y4, Y6, Y9 and Y7 (which are only found among Indians today) are all descended from R1a-Y2's sub-branch, R1a-Y27. They are all estimated to have formed almost at the same time and almost in the same place, almost immediately after the group of R1a-Y27 males appeared. In other words, when the R1a-Y27 clan emerged from the R1a-Y2 clan, almost immediately afterwards the R1a-F1417, R1a-L657, R1a-Y4, Y6, Y9 and Y7 clans also appeared in the R1a-Y27 clan. This means that if we find R1a-Y27 or R1a-F1417 in Russia around 4000 years ago, it is almost certain that the R1a-L657 clan and its sub-branches R1a-Y4, Y6, Y9 and Y7 were living close by, even though these branches are only found among South Asians today.
@Vasistha
You talk about missing signs of Sintashta archaeological influence in India. There are two issues: first, not all archaeologists agree with this, no? Many AMT-supporting archaeologists certainly disagree, especially the ones from Russia. So its not a consensus.
The deeper issue is that it is not necessary for Sintastha archaeology to appear in India for AMT to be true. The reason why people were looking for Sintashta archaeology was because they had to prove some kind of movement of people, or population contact, from the Steppes into India, and more specifically from the Ural steppes into India. But we already have proof of such contact--the genetics. The aDNA. It is not necessary for the archaeology to show that people migrated when the genetics already do. As for whether or not the genetic turnover is as extreme as the most extreme invasionists think it should be, there's no need for that level of extremity, is there? The migration is there.
And there are sampling issues that affect how we should interpret the social situation of the migration from the genetics, like I already mentioned.
Vasistha said on April 29
“My last comment. I understand your point fully.
Hundreds of (non indo iranian) z2124 in slavic and Baltic countries means nothing, but 0 L657 means that L657 was born in Russia.
I think this is a nice summary.”
on May 7,
“Whether Z93 is from steppe or whether L657 is, is actually immaterial. The exclusively Indian distribution of L657 in moderns itself is proof that the expansion of L657 and its subclades occurred locally from a single man. So the 15% L657 in modern Indians is not because of a large scale invasion by steppe L657 men 3500years ago. Rather what we see here is a result of a local expansion.
This is why you don't see a single L657 subclade which is not present in subcontinent and is specific to central asia.”
On May 9
“Prove Sintashta migration to Syria by 1600bce then we can talk. By this time Sintashta ancestry wasn't even crossing Turkmenistan.”
And yet the same id shows up on May 25 expecting people to engage with them. The line of “argument” they have is what I have seen on the other blog,
“The papers you cited are either wrong or you misinterpreted the details.”
So, no need to read those papers then! Heads I win, tails you lose.
There is no consensus on archaeological evidence or lack thereof. But if there is, it does not matter, because there is aDNA.
Any good lawyer will say that such a line of argumentation is will not succeed in a court of law. The standard for a “guilty” verdict is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many things *could have happened.* That does not mean they did. If people continue to maintain that they did, then it is up to *them* to prove their theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have said repeatedly that there is no need to prove the OIT. In fact, there is not even a need for OIT. If the so called “Indo-European” languages did not come on to the Indian Continent then they must have left from it.
I have cited Meillet, Kazanas, Marcantonio-Brady, Trubetschoy, Clackson and linguistic scholars opining that comparative linguistics is not an exact science, in fact, it not even a science because it cannot generate falsifiable hypotheses. The comparative method is incable of retrieving proto languages based with passage of time. Exactly how long? No one can be sure. So attempting to trace these migrations on the ground will inevitably lead to tautological situations. Linguists have reconstructed a proto World language also.
Now, when people back themselves into a corner by taking the existence of a proto language as fact, then instead of the prosecutor they become the defendant. If the defendant is not guilty then THEY are!
I highly recommend that such lines of so called “argumentation” not be entertained on this blog, less it become a slugfest like the hundreds out there. This post is not addressed to anyone in particular. Thank you for reading.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
@ANI EXCAVATOR Can you post the papers from the archaeologists claiming Sintashta/Andronovo archaeological impact in India? I'd like to read them.
Wrt migration, you'd have to fit it into the timeline of Indo-Aryan itself, and archaeology is brought up often because it's a good indicator of social influence. Same goes fo Mitanni.
Genetic influence, small-scale at that (and I believe mostly female mediated as Vas mentioned), ia easy to detect throughout prehistory and recent history and was one o Lazaridis et al 2022's main arguments for the Southern Arc homeland, but is not associated with linguistic change (at most some loanwords). In fact the norm is that genetic influence that is not significant will not affect culture or language, and when it does then it leaves visible archaeological traces behind.
There's Southern Arc-related ancetry in BMAC and India long before Sintashta, so I guess you agree that Indo-Iranian was introduced at that time and from there, since that's your argument after all (genetic influence -> language change).
Fits all the linguistic data too (Kroonen, Kummel, Pronk etc).
@Mayuresh
This issue is that Vasistha's reasoning is invalid, and he actually knows this.
"Hundreds of (non indo iranian) z2124 in slavic and Baltic countries means nothing, but 0 L657 means that L657 was born in Russia.
I think this is a nice summary.”
But hundreds of R1a-Z93 and Z94 rooted in Central Asia and surrounds and not Western Russia (all western Russian versions of this clade are related to those found in Central Asia and surrounds), but R1a-Z93 and Z94 still appeared in Fatyanovo in Western Russia. Thousands or even tends of thousands of R1a-Y3 and Y2 in the Middle East and only 4 Y2>F1417 in Russia, and yet R1a-Y3 and Y2 still formed in Russia, around the Urals, as the Abashevo genomes show.
The evidence is closing in on the fact that R1a-L657 and its descendants likely appeared on the Steppe. Y3 and Y2 have already been found there and once Y27 is found, the probability that Indian R1a-L657 appeared on the Steppe nears 100%. This immediately gets rid of many of the problems that Vasistha and you have with AMT, and suggests that a sex-biased migration into South Asia carrying R1a-L657 actually likely took place even if the relevant samples from the main population of this migration are missing so far.
The facts that I've mentioned cannot be disproven by Vasistha for the simple reason that they are true, you can check yourself. He has never once contradicted them, the R1a-Z2124 in Western European Russia are back-migrants from East and not persisting down from Fatyanovo times, like I said. Notice he's not talking about this point any longer.
I am going to focus on the R1a-L657 issue because most of the other objections you and Vasistha raise (X is missing in the Middle East, or Y is missing in South Central Asia, etc.) have to do with absence of evidence, which is just not a strong argument for something like ancient DNA and the Indo-Europeanization of ancient populations where the process is patchy and took time and you could always end up sampling the right patterns eventually. If R1a-L657 or Y27 is found, that's positive evidence for a particular scenario, so its much stronger.
@Orpheus
I'm not trying to prove AMT. The issue is that AMT is not *disproven* by the current data (e.g. lack of L657), unlike the line taken by this blog. There are still many possibilities, and we should wait for further sampling especially from the steppes. Absence of evidence could turn into its presence! And if current trends are anything to go by, it looks like that is gonna happen.
@ANI Haplos spreading does not require a sex biased migration, a big example of this is the Beaker related R1b that spread to far greater extents without its spread beig sex biased as Lazaridis & Reich have already analyzed. Your best bet is to look directly for sex biased geneflow regardless of haplos (which can be easily replaced).
With regards to what I wrote, I don't see you answering. And Sintashta/Andronovo are currently "disproven" by linguistics and timeline of admixture first and foremost. These are recent finds as well, so the trend is going against a steppe source of I-Ir which has not had anything in its favor since basically forever, and was supported mainly because there was no other alternative explanation at the time (same reason I thought it was the most likely explanation too).
Not to mention Mitanni. More ancient samples should clear it up better though, indeed.
@Orpheus
I think you got the Beaker situation backward:
"These groups lived in close proximity and admixed to form the Bronze Age population after 2000 BCE with ~40% ancestry from incoming groups (Fig. 2B and fig. S6). Y-chromosome turnover was even more dramatic (Fig. 2B), as the lineages common in Copper Age Iberia (I2, G2, H) were nearly completely replaced by one lineage, R1b-M269. These patterns point to a higher contribution of incoming males than females, also supported by a lower proportion of non-local ancestry on the X-chromosome (table S14 and fig. S7)... While ancient DNA can document that sex-biased admixture occurred, archaeological and anthropological research will be needed to understand the processes that generated it."
About the genetic influence, I have stated the argument in other places about the patchiness--we know that there were higher-steppe individuals and populations in the vicinity of Swat because there are some high steppe outliers and the admixture dating for both groups are similar. We also know that in Vedic times there were non-mainstream "tribal" people living in forests, towns/agrarian settlements and so on who were not part of the Vedic mainstream. This is likely to reflect a reality of the time, that there were different cultural groups living close proximity who differed in lifestyle and genetically as well, just like in India today. In fact we know that cremation and inhumation were both prominent at Swat, meaning that some of these differences could be erased in the aDNA record by cremation. Lastly we know that the Swat population is not even on the mainstream Indo-Aryan cline, where we find most Indo-Aryan speaking caste populations from Northern India today. The Swat IA were themselves marginal in terms of their contribution to later people, and therefore likely culturally marginal in some way as well at the time when they lived. All this makes it likely that there are populations with the requisite patterns of sex-bias and higher in steppe ancestry, that are more impactful on later Indian populations, but that they are poorly sampled at present.
About the "early split of IIr" I think you've misremembered. Pronk 2022 and Kroonen 2022 are not about Indo-Iranian. Kummel 2022 merely says that Indo-Iranian has no clear close relatives, unlike say Slavic (whose closest relative is clearly Baltic), but that makes it no different from every other branch of Indo European except for Balto-Slavic or Italo-Celtic. The other papers, the older Bayesian phylogenies you cited, all show a relatively flat branching, meaning that IIr split off at almost the same time as most of the other branches of Core Indo-European even if it was the first to split off (which matches well with the expansion of the Corded Ware horizon by the way; the Fatyanovo culture in western Russia is one of its oldest variants, appearing almost at the same time as the oldest Corded Ware appeared in Belarus and Poland). Indo-Iranian must also have stayed in contact with other branches for some time (but not a long time) after that, because of Satemization spreading from Indo-Iranian to Balto-Slavic and other branches of Indo-European--you will also find this point raised by all the Bayesian linguists.
There's actually still a lot of strong recent evidence for AMT, which is why it is the default, mainstream opinion in multiple fields. The strongest recent evidence for AMT is probably Indo-Iranian loanwords into Uralic languages, which were systematically investigated in Holopainen's dissertation in 2021. Actually, around 10% of the reconstructible proto-Uralic vocabulary is Indo-Iranian loanwords, and going a step further Krzysztof Witczak presented several specifically Indo-Aryan loanwords into Samoyedic languages at a Uralic language conference this year. These linguistic scenarios are matching really well with some recent aDNA leaks. For example, Abashevo R1a-Y2 and R1a-Y3 (precursor to South Asian R1a-L657) are found very close to the Uralic N-L1026 found at the Seima-Turbino site at Rostovka. There are of course a lot of Abashevo-style burials in Selma-Turbino sites, so the patrilineal ancestors of many Uralic men and Indo-Aryan men have even been found next to each other in ancient DNA, and we might even know where Indo-Iranian and Uralic people first met. If we find R1a-Y27 or R1a-L657 in Abashevo and Fatyanovo as well, the picture would get even clearer.
Amt is definitely.wrong and stupid as fuck
@ANI Nah, pretty sure you got it backwards. See Villalba-Mouco et al 2021 and Lazaridis & Reich 2017 (response letter). There's no mating bias in Bell Beakers.
The rest of your comment can be summed up as "it MIGHT be this way, therefore it is this way". No actual proof. Come back when these are found.
Kummel literally writes that an early split is quite possible due to the nature of I-Ir. This also eliminates Sintashta as a candidate because they were not at all some random fringe group and neither were early. Page 264 right below what you quoted. Nice reading comprehension lmao
The phylogenetic paper I linked is also clear that Indo-Iranian splits around 4000 BCE. It's even in a figure, did you miss that too?
Uralic-Indo-Iranian interaction is one way from Indo-Iranian into Uralic without the other way around missing, which does not indicate a close geographical relationship between the two. Basically more evidence against Sintashta, as if we didn't have enough already.
To conclude, you intentionally misinterpret data hoping you won't get called out for it, ignore every other data you dislike (linguistics both bayesian and standard and all of them recent, genetic admixture datings, genetic influence from the southern arc, archaeology etc), and keep autistically repeating wishful thinking and even arguments that serve as evidence against a steppe origin of I-Ir. Conclusion: you are low IQ.
I can see why Vas stopped replying to you, your lack of brain cells is so bad it's insulting to anyone who isn't braindead. Guess I should have followed his example
with the other way around missing*
A global analysis of matches and mismatches between human genetic and linguistic histories
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122084119
All right, now that the tantrum is over I urge everyone to go and read the original sources.
Babieri 2022 in figure S24: https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2122084119/suppl_file/pnas.2122084119.sapp.pdf estimates IIr to date to around 4884 years ago, not 6000 years ago (i.e, after the Fatyanovo split and before the emergence of Abashevo and Sintashta) and recovers an extremely flat tree for nuclear Indo-European just like all other Bayesian phylogenies do (such as Bouckaert, Chang, Gray and Atkinson and so on--these are the big three). They estimate a rapid succession of splits around 6300-5900 years ago between all the major branches of Indo-European (i.e, around the date of Corded Ware and the formation of Fatyanovo). Orpheus has misread the graph.
Carling & Cathcart 2021 are about inferring ancestral grammatical states of ancient languages: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/216757/1/dia.19043.car.pdf. They do not put a lot of emphasis on the split times, only on the reconstructed states, because the split times their method finds are clearly extremely inaccurate, even though the reconstructed states are accurate, which is something they emphasize themselves. For example, Classical Greek and modern greek are inferred, for example, to have split 4000 years ago when Classical Greek itself dates to around the few centuries BC and AD. You can see that the authors completely ignore all the time-related inferences in their paper, and focus solely on the reconstructing ancient grammatical states.
A direct quote from Kummel 2022's conclusion section:
"•Indo-Iranian does not have a clear next relative.
• It [Indo-Iranian] is rather distinct in some respects, so an early split seems quite possible
(Hamp’s scenario), but only under the assumption of continued areal contact.
• There is good evidence for early proximity to Eastern Europe–with different developments shared with either the south (Greek, Albanian, Armenian) or the north (Baltic-Slavic, Germanic), or with the east (satem languages). "
Kummel does not say that IIr split and went off early, only that it is "possible", but even then it could only have split off early if it stayed in contact with the rest of the IE languages. And what are the rest of the IE languages called under Hamp's scenario? "European IE" by Hamp himself. Kummel's sure conclusion is that IIr has no clear close relative, not that IIr definitely split off early. Under Hamp's scenario, after Anatolian split off, there is a split between IIr (Asian IE) and European IE. Kummel's conclusion is that Hamp's scenario can only be correct if IIr remained in contact with "European IE" for a sustained time. Kummel has never stated anything like an early split requiring a West Asian scenario like Orpheus does, and in fact himself favors a location of IIr in Eastern Europe.
Villalba-Mouco 2021 re-analyzed the data from Inigo Olalde's paper (from which my quote comes from). The relevant population label in figure 6B: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7038#F6 is "N_Iberia_BA". The samples in this label all come from Olalde's paper, and when analyzing them Olalde finds a sex-bias though Villalba-Mouco do not, using the same methods. I am unsure why this is the case--they are literally doing the exact same analysis. It might be time to email then and ask them to redo this to try to find out why. Orpheus, thank you for showing me this analysis, which I was not aware of, but you clearly don't know the rest of what you are talking about.
@Orpheus
You're clearly engaging in a very superficial way with what you've read--see my replies in the other message to the rest of the thread.
"Uralic-Indo-Iranian interaction is one way from Indo-Iranian into Uralic without the other way around missing, which does not indicate a close geographical relationship between the two. Basically more evidence against Sintashta, as if we didn't have enough already."
You clearly don't know what you're talking about again--this happens all the time. There is another scenario just like this, that of Finnic and Germanic. Around 10% of the photo-finnic vocabulary is from proto-Germanic, but proto-germanic has basically zero loanwords from Finnic. And how close are Sweden and Finland?
Many British people lived for a long time in India, what is the number of English loanwords in everyday use for an average Hindi-speaker vs Hindi loanwords for an average English speaker in Britain?
@ANI Excavator,
Bruh do ur sources say say PIE was Kentum. If so then they have already messed up. Now you are going way deep into already incorrect theory.
Look let me give an example.
Indic Samiti = Democratic Assembly of the people = Centum Comittee
Indic Sabha = Group of Select Elders = Centum Kabal
And theres lots of other words evidencing Satem = Kentum.
This stuff your quoting its not science its just talking. Anyuone can make a theory going from Satem to Kentum. Dont act like these people are scientists or some kind of authority its all bullshit.
Use your brain cant you see its all wrong. Once they think PIE = Kentum they are making and assumption and chposing a path, if that is wrong which it is then everything else is also wrong.
Also, a side point, look at all the IE loans in to Semitic
7,8,9 are cognates in IE and Semitic
Baba = Papa P->B
Arabic Bhurj, Germanic Berg, Iranian Brihat
Arabic Barak = Euro Blessing are cognates
Also R1A/J1 combo in Semites and Indo Aryans/Iranians is not coming from Steppe.
Bruh u dont understand the mainstream its over they are too 'institutional' and backward.
If you are using 'experts' as authoritative without thinking for yourself then theres no point we dont need you or anyone else just rehashing what some random guy wrote in some paper from a university.
This whole field is full of nomries who dont understand much all they do is point to 'experts' opinions but that is all trash now they are too backwards and dont know these things and clearly Nostratic is a thing but these experts dont get it.
The supremacy of institutions is over now. Unless things can be tested in experiments like physics or tested practically like Engineering we cant really trust experts as has been shown look at IE studies and physics it is all a farce once it gets theoretical they just come with stupid theories ie so many different theories in physics and also reconstructed PIE it is all just arbitrary and stupid.
To anyone reading this: you can of course choose to ignore mainstream opinion in linguistics and genetics. But these things are called sciences and exist in university departments for a reason.
Look at Holopainen's Phd dissertation, where he literally goes through hundreds and hundreds of words looking for regular sound correspondences between IIr loanwords in Uralic and the different stages of the Indo-Iranian donor languages with a fine-grained comb: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/245131352.pdf. The regularity of the correspondences is something that you can check out for yourselves. To find out more about what comparisons mean, you can read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_method. Linguistic reconstruction is not in fact very difficult to follow.
Linguistic knowledge is the accumulated result of hundreds and hundreds of students who have done work over many decades. Science is not perfect, it never is, but there is still a difference between more and less likely hypotheses supported by more or less evidence. There is still a difference between majority opinions, minority opinions, and fringe opinions. Let me remind you that the paleolinguists predicted that wave of Yamnaya-related genetic influence should be carried into Europe in the Corded Ware culture (with only limited support from archaeology), and also that some Sintashta genetics should be found in the Swat Valley using only linguistic and archaeological arguments alone (some, but not a lot of Sintashta genetics! Even David Anthony, the strongest Kurganist there was, thought there would be only a minority influence, because even the AMT supporters aknowledged that the archaeological influence from the steppe was quite minor even if it existed, which is why J P Mallory suggested the "Kulturkugel" theory for the AMT, you can look this up). Both of these were later found to be true--very strong confirmation of the validity of some of the deductions of this field.
https://youtu.be/25kqobiv4ng
Collective stupidity in academia is a real issue. Atleast according to Sabine Hossenfielder.
Rivers of Rgveda : A Geographic Exploration Paperback – 18 January 2022
by Jijith Nadumuri Rav
Available in electronic and hard copy format.
The “Mainstream Model”
N. Kazanas, Omilos Meleton, March 2008 Athens.
http://omilosmeleton.gr/indology/
"I (Kazanas) am not denying that the Indoaryans may have come to India from some other location at
an earlier period. Indeed, at c 6000-4500 BC there is a break in the skeletal record of the region
(Elst 1999: 233; Witzel 2001: 9)."
This is *important* though the author only cites secondary sources. I believe the host of this blog is of a similar opinion.
@ANI Okay, let's see the arguments more seriously.
My bad about Barbieri, I was looking at the tree with Greco-Albanian. This eliminates any CWC group as the source of I-Ir so all that's left is either Yamnaya or a pre-Yamnaya group (with or without steppe ancestry).
Carling & Cathcart 2021 is mentioned not for the split time but for I-Ir being isolated, which is less likely for any CWC group. Debatable though
Kummel 2022 saying early proximity to Eastern Europe isn't new, and this is possible with either homeland. The Yamnaya and Khvalynsk areas are right next to the West Asian homeland, and I-Ir could have split on the steppe (literally Eastern Europe even if it's the easternmost part).
Early proximity alludes to later isolation, something that was not the case for steppe cultures. More on that later
"but even then it could only have split off early if it stayed in contact with the rest of the IE languages. And what are the rest of the IE languages called under Hamp's scenario? "European IE" by Hamp himself."
Not sure why you think I favor a West Asian homeland. I'm undecided between the two (Sredny or West Asia) and I-Ir being a part of Core IE works with both homelands. You apparently misunderstood something, since I'm not arguing about where the PIA homeland is
Villalba-Mouco simply found what Lazaridis & Reich (2017) found initially. Maybe you should do some read up on that.
I-Ir loanwords in Uralic works fine with an early split (proposed Volga homeland of Uralic is right next to Yamnaya & co), without Sintashta in the picture at all. A more eastern homeland of Uralic also works fine with I-Ir in C Asia by the time the loans occurred.
Now, let's see some more stuff:
Kroonen (endorsed by Anthony) is pretty clear about an early split of I-Ir using the comparative method. And from Saag et al 2021 we can see that Fatyanovo were farmers (explicitly mentioned as such), and had a good chunk of EEF ancestry (~35% with some samples as high as 46% and 47%). This completely eliminates them, since they had undergone an agricultural vocabulary shift that European IE languages did but which Indo-Iranian did not. Basically anything CWC underwent this shift.
Then there's DATES and qpAdm not adding up for modern Indians (late arrival of Sintashta ancestry), and no Sintashta ancestry in Mitanni (at best a link can be made with Yamnaya or the Eneolithic Steppe). What are the papers that manage to provide evidence for Sintashta that overcome these limitations? As far as I know there's none, and all the evidence point to a relatively early split of Indo-Iranian as the most logical explanation, from a population unrelated to CWC farmers.
@Orpheus
4880 years ago is well within the timeframe for the Corded Ware culture and at the beginning of the Fatyanovo culture. There is simply no timing or dates in the literature that "rules out" Corded Ware, no such dates exist.
Reich et al 2017 is about the small set of Bell Beakers they got from the rest of Europe; Olalde et al 2018 came after that and had a much larger set of Bronze Age Iberians including Bell Beakers. Olalde et al and Cillalba-Mouco could not "rediscover" Reich et al 2017 because their Bell Beaker samples haven't even come out yet in 2017.
IIr is clearly not "isolated" and cannot be for the simple reason that a very unusual set of sound changes (the satem changes conditioned by the RUKI rule) propagated out of IIr into BaltoSlavic and to a lesser extent other Eastern European language families. Axel Palmer is coming out with some new papers about shared lexicon between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian this year--this branch being apparent in the lexicon is also reconstructed in some of the Bayesian phylogenetic analyses.
Kroonen has never stated anywhere that IIr separated and isolated itself super early. At most it was the first to branch off from other nuclear Indo-European, but it separated at around the same time nuclear Indo-European split apart.
You can email Kroonen himself and ask him when he and other linguists in his group (e.g. Axel Palmer) think that the agricultural substrate vocabulary ended up being borrowed, and so whether or not CW having EEF and CW origin of IIr can be supported. Hint--he points out that different branches of even Baltic and Slavic languages can have irregular loanwords from the substrate that do not correspond. In other words, the agricultural substrate words entered the languages super late, as late as during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, not during the Corded Ware period when EEF ancestry first mixed with Steppe. If they entered during the Corded Ware period, European IE will all have regular correspondences between the loanwords, when the central claim in Kroonen's work on these words is that they correspondences are highly irregular, meaning that each IE branch borrowed it separately and many times super late, after the branches had already separated.
I have stated over and over that DATES is going to produce a super young date because India is full of populations with different levels of Steppe ancestry living cheek-by-jowl even today with minor admixture continuing over a long time. This produces extremely depressed dates--Nganasan ancestry is inferred by DATES to have admixed with European ancestry in Uralic speakers 1000 years after the actual date of arrival of such ancestry in Europe (in Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov). The admixture date in present-day Indian caste populations is likely depressed for the exact same reason--we know the earliest solid date for Steppe ancestry in India is several centuries before Swat IA and that time actually works well.
We do not actually have any Mitanni samples. Many of the arguments against AMT at the moment stand on things being "missing" but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we find Y27 or L657 in Russia then absence of patrilineal continuity between Eastern Europe and India becomes presence of such continuity, doesn't it?
Just to point out some problems already in Mayuresh's link to Talageri's blog--if you look into ancient Uralic lexicon, there is no evidence that Uralic borrowed the IIr word for camel early on. Holopainen in his 2022 paper does not even include such a word as something to be checked as a potential loanword. So Talageri's idea that the Uralic word for camel creates a problem is not on solid ground. He quotes Kuzmina who published this as an offhand claim in an obscure paper in the 1960s, but Kuzmina is an archaeologist, she's an amateur linguist at best. Yet this "camel" calim is a central pillar of Talageri's blogpost.
This kind of epistemic problem (cherry picking of weak evidence to "disprove" or nullify the import of much stronger evidence) is a big reason why some quality control is still necessary in so many fields related to the IIr problem. Just in case people think that linguistics is a diseased science, the consensus among Uralic linguists for example just shifted from proto-uralic being west of the Urals to proto-Uralic coming from Siberia just last year. People are capable of changing their minds if the evidence changes, the evidence just has to be strong.
I'm gonna bow out here--my main reason for posting here is to point out that there is simply no strong evidence to "disprove" AMT at this point. Sure there are problems with AMT, but none so big that is is "disproven". The arguments showing that "X is absent", "Y is absent" are singularly weak, depending either on how something has not been found yet (which is common in aDNA, just look at how Y3 and Y2 were in fact found in Russia despite it "not being present in 1000s of samples on the North Eurasian steppes, so it must have formed in South Central Asia"), or tendencious interpretations of results that in fact admit of other interpretations (e.g. admixture timings being young), or R1a-L657 found at Roopkund without Steppe admixture (a subclade N-L1026 was also found in a La-Tene culture sample with no Nganasan ancestry, are we gonna say that the certain "European" subclades of what was originally a Uralic paternal haplogroup must have had a "celtic" origin?).
What should happen is that we should wait and see, wait for positive evidence for one hypothesis or another. The strongest positive evidence, for me, would be if R1a-Y27 or R1a-L657 is found in the steppes. Because Y27, F1417, Y6, Y4, Y7, Y9 are all formed at almost the same time and place (possibly members of a single clan separated by less than 5 generations), if any one of these is found it is evidence that the others were close by. This means that if any of these is found on the steppe, we know that multiple subclades of R1a-Y27>L657 formed outside of India and likely entered India together, as a group, as part of what was likely to be a rather substantial migration (since all the early branches of these sub-branches I just mentioned, coalescing to around 4000 years ago, are present in India, despite the fact that the migration took place centuries after 4000 years ago, so all of them must be present in substantial number in the incoming population).
Germanic and Balto-Slavic mostly are close to Iranian not Indo Iranian. Infact early Greeks considered Germanic to be a dialiect of Persian, it is not incorrect and also consistent wth my own findings.
I dont know why these 'academics' keep using the term Indo-Iranian for both the Germanic/Balto-Slavic and Uralic relationships to Indo-Iranian as they are both mostly connected to Iranian not Indo-Iranian and not Indo Aryan.
This is all due to attempting to get Indo Aryan into the Steppes and related to these languages to backwards prove the AMT but it is all wrong Uralic and Germanic/Balto Slavic are like 90% connected to Iranian specifically with only rare similarities with Indo Aryan.
Indo-Iranian as an actual language is non-attested and there is no evidence for it. There is only Indo Aryan and Iranian, go figure.
Iranian likely developed from Indo-Aryan, with those other groups borrowing from Iranian.
Hence we only have attested evidence of Indo-Aryan and Iranian but none for Indo-Iranian, which is just a bad concept not working at all as there is nothing for Indo-Iranian to have as everything is already in Vedic or Iranian, I mean that Indo-Iranian cannot be reconstructed linguistically, mythologically, culturally as there is no 'parent' branch for Vedic and Iranian because Iranian vedic already have everything from which to derive Iranian and later Indo-Aryan.
The Tarimian Trace of the Indo European Dispersal | Dr Aleksandr Semenenko | #sangamtalks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyY7EHotXto
More important portion starts at 35:56
Summary slides at 56:55, 58:02, 1:00:37, 1:01:51
@ANI excavator.
You seem to be suffering from a fundamental problem of believing that 2% dna (ie y chromosome) is the best indicator for languages, even if the data points are 4000 years apart. You seem to forget everything about the 96% of nuclear dna ie autosomal chr 1-22.
You seem to believe that L657 is definitely born on the steppe, and that if one L657 is found from the steppe as you believe then all of Indian languages are from the steppe. That is, you seem to believe that in 2000bce a region of the world with less than 200,000 population ended up giving languages to a region with 20-30 million population because of 1 L657 sample. (population numbers are from Hyde v3.2 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1662437422968315905?s=20)
What you fail to realize is that one or 2 L657 samples don't prove jackshit. The conclusion still remains that L657 expanded in India itself from a very low base, by definition from one or two men (only 2 subclades of L657>M605 are Y9 and Y28). If there were 10,000s of L657 men invading from steppe, most would have been successful and there would have been many subclades, not just 2.
Furthermore, you also seem to believe that such a cultural and linguistic transformation in the most populated region of the world happened without any archaeological impact (Karlovsky 2004 -
"There is absolutely NO archaeological evidence for any variant of the
Andronovo culture either reaching or influencing the cultures of Iran or
northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of identifiable Andronovo type has been recovered from the Iranian Plateau, northern India, or Pakistan."
If you have any papers on any material from Andronovo found in India or Pakistan, let us know.
The fact is that the earliest steppe autosomal ancestry in Indian subcon at Swat is from Yaz culture, already admixed with BMAC. Yaz was an Iranic culture. The steppe admixture dates in modern Indians averages 400bce, whereas for Brits, french, basque, spanish, icelandic etc the steppe admixture dates are correctly estimated as 2000-2500bce (bellbeaker, battle axe culture times).
The whole steppe theory is a non-starter, so ridiculous that people pass out while doing smell tests.
The admixture estimates of 400bce are in line with Moorjani 2013 who gives 72 generations as west eurasian admixture date in indo-aryans. That translates to 0ce admixture.
"Second, the date estimates are typically more recent in Indo-Europeans (average of 72 generations) compared to Dravidians (108 generations). A jackknife estimate of the difference is highly significant at 35 ± 8 generations".
Wrt to your specific previous question about my stance on AMT if L657 is found from the steppe, I have changed my stance. Earlier I believed Narasimhan that steppe entry into Swat occurred between 2000-1500bce and therefore there was a slight chance that L657 entered with that influx (even if Swat samples show no such thing). Now I know that date range to be wrong. Therefore, L657 ancient sample from the steppe is irrelevant to me now.
Autosomal ancestry holds much more information that parental markers.
I also have much more interesting proof wrt Mitanni and west Iran. Haven't been active on the blog much because I am busy with my paper.
@Vasistha
It is nice to see that you have changed your mind, probably because you also acknowledge at some level that R1a-L657 will be found on the Steppes eventually, and so a central premise of your original objection to the AMT no longer stands up to scrutiny. Let me remind you again that if R1a-L657 did not emerge in India, then its subclades which appeared almost simultaneously with R1a-L657 (Y4, Y6, Y7, Y9) almost certainly did not emerge in India either. The fact that all subclades of a 4000-year-old clade that possibly formed in Eastern Europe are found in South Asia a few centuries later would then indicate a rather substantial migration of the R1a-L657-carrying clan along with all its immediate later mutations into India. It can no longer be just one man.
Of course Moorjani will find the same date as you, because like you she used present-day Indians to get the date. The problem of course is that the date in present-day populations would be confounded by the fact that admixture continued for a long time after Steppe ancestry first entered India, so of course dates from modern Indians would be super late, whatever method you use. For the purposes of AMT, it does not matter what the average date of admixture is--it only matters what the oldest date when Steppe ancestry got to India is, because that marks the movement of people that would have brought the languages from the steppe into India under the AMT scenario. We already know what the date for that is because of Swat IA, and that so happens to work extremely well for the AMT migration into India.
Your current argument against AMT now stands on the fact that the migration that potentially brought the Y-chromosome from Eastern Europe (R1a-L657) and definitely the autosomal component from Eastern Europe (Steppe ancestry) were uncorrelated with language, because the initial impact was minor. However this clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny because we already have another example of ~4% to ~16% Steppe autosomal impact on a region that clearly ended up speaking an Indo-European language, which we can directly deduce from the written records. This region was Mycenaean Greece. In this region, the patrilineal impact was almost non-existent too. This of course does not mean that minor ancestry changes always change the language--it only indicates that a minor autosomal shift does not definitively preclude a change in language.
(Mycenaean Greeks are very homogeneous and we would have thought that the migration to Greece must have been very small scale, resulting in only 4-16% change in ancestry, were it not for newer samples from Skourtianourti et al 2023, which showed that, in one area at one time period of Mainland MBA Greece, the impact reached up to ~37%, but then this was diluted rapidly in other regions already during the MBA and also later during the LBA. Something like this could be happening for India too, with the high-steppe group being unsampled as of now.)
I don't think most people will buy your argument that just because Steppe ancestry doesn't appear in the samples in Western Iran at exactly when West Iranics were first attested, therefore Steppe ancestry must definitely be missing in Iran--we simply do not have enough coverage of the area to claim something like this. Further samples from Western Iran could always show Steppe ancestry eventually. We also do not actually have any Mitanni individuals. Someone should probably email the Reich lab and ask for further sampling from Mitanni-associated burials and early Western Iranians if you continue down this line of argument and thus influence opponents of the AMT (or anyone from the lab take note, if you're reading this comment directly).
Note that the oldest Iranics we know on record are not actually West Iranics from western Iran. The oldest securely Iranic people we know are Cimmerians, dating to the 9th century BC. We already have samples from them in Jarve Current Biology 2019 and Krzewinska Science Advances 2018, and they turn out Steppe_MLBA and R1a-Z93/94, as expected.
"and so a central premise of your original objection to the AMT no longer stands up to scrutiny"
This has never been my central premise. The central premise has been that steppe hypothesis for India is so stupid wrt date of Vedas and geography/archaeology that it is insulting. R1a has been YOUR central premise.
"I don't think most people will buy your argument that just because Steppe ancestry doesn't appear in the samples in Western Iran at exactly when West Iranics were first attested"
Oh you will be surprised at what ancestry actually appears in western Iran precisely during Mitanni rule of 1500-1100bce. (Hint its not steppe, and I have a much better rigorous analysis done on these than what I have presented in my blog)
"We already know what the date for that is because of Swat IA, and that so happens to work extremely well for the AMT migration into India."
No steppe ancestry appeared in Swat region before 1400bce. Narasimhan's conclusion was flawed, I will prove it. Steppe ancestry at Swat appeared along with the 1200-800bce gandhara grave culture.
"The problem of course is that the date in present-day populations would be confounded by the fact that admixture continued for a long time after Steppe ancestry first entered India, so of course dates from modern Indians would be super late, whatever method you use"
First do admixture simulations yourself before you say these things. I have done over 1000 simulations. Basque steppe admixture date is 2500 bce. English 2100bce. where is the confounding factor over the past 4000yrs? Anglo saxons came to britain only recently. Where is the archaeology?
"Mycenaean Greeks are very homogeneous and we would have thought that the migration to Greece must have been very small scale, resulting in only 4-16% change in ancestry, were it not for newer samples from Skourtianourti et al 2023, which showed that, in one area at one time period of Mainland MBA Greece, the impact reached up to ~37%,"
India was never Greece. Indian landmass almost equals europe ex russia. Indian population 40million in 1000bce, Greece was just about 100,000. At least have some sense when comparing regions.
Two more quick points:
R1a-L657 has a star-shaped expansion. After the two initial mutations in R1a-L657, the clade accumulated rapidly a very large number of mutations in a short period of time after it appeared. This is what I am referring to by pointing to Y4, Y6, Y7, Y9 etc. The star-shaped expansion of what are today South Asian-specific clades of R1a-L657 around 4000 years ago is a central conclusion of Poznik et. al. 2017. Note that all the branches of this star-shaped expansion are found in India. This means that, if R1a-L657 was formed outside India, the migration that brought its branches into India was quite substantial such that all the branches of the star are now found in India.
Vasishta, I would like to see better, more archaeologically grounded population estimates, not just from biogeographic models using ecological models or paleobotanical information alone. If you check academic sources that take the archaeological facts into account, for example the population size of the Mature Harappan has been estimated to be around 4-6 million people, from here: https://academic.oup.com/book/3581. Note that there was an almost hundredfold decline in the number of find sites from the Mature Harappan to the post-Harappan period: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3433-Waves-of-migration-into-South-Asia&p=385366&highlight=post-Harappan#post385366. The density of post-Harappan find sites is lower than even the density of Neolithic find sites in the same area of Northern India and Pakistan.
It is not just the density of finds that declines. Possehl 1997 already points out that the average size of post-Harappan settlements is lower than that of even the initial Harappan, and resemble the sizes of the Togau Neolithic settlements: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25801118. The post-Harappan was a village-level society that suffered from such a severe drought that, in some areas, it switched its major crop from wheat to millets: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185684. For one of the major centers of the Neolithic to switch its major crop is no small matter. The Indus Valley civilization did not lose all the vestiges of its writing system and urban civilization due to just a minor disruption. However, pastoralists were relatively unaffected by this change: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278416519302806, so pastoralists, whether native or immigrant, were well-position to take advantage of the situation.
There was basically no Harappan civilization to speak of when the incomers arrived under the AMT, due to the extreme reduction of population, settlement size, and settlement density, and extreme ruralization and increase in reliance on pastoralism. You and the readers of your blog might not be aware of these archaeological facts, but I hope this is a good introduction and a spur to do some searching of your own.
You may also be unaware that the estimates of the Byzantine population of Anatolia were around 8 to 12 million, in Speyros' books on the Byzantines for example. The Byzantine empire was a famously rich, urban, and cultured part of Eurasia, vital for transmitting Classical knowledge in greek to Europe and the Islamic world. It retained knowledge of how to make gears and automatons for example down to the Middle Ages. Yet the conquest of Byzantine Anatolia by marauding Turkic ghazis produced a population with up to ~25% and in some places ~30% ancestry from Central Asian Turkmens, despite the incoming population being so much smaller than the Anatolian Greek one. The process is well described in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Hellenism-Islamization-Eleventh-Fifteenth/dp/1597404764.
"India was never Greece. Indian landmass almost equals europe ex russia. Indian population 40million in 1000bce, Greece was just about 100,000. At least have some sense when comparing regions."
India was never "India" throughout its history either. The Indo-Aryanization of India took place first in a very small area, and expanded to the rest of India over time. You will find yourself that in Vedic and early post-Vedic literature only the western Gangetic plain and the Ganga-Yamuna doab was ever initially referred to as "Aryavarta". Even in the Mahajanapada period, Brahmins that went to Magadha had to do purification rites, for example.
The Indo-Aryanization of India took place in stages. It is not a requirement for AMT that the whole subcontinent was Indo-Aryanized at once. Nor is the Indian subcontinent even completely Indo-Aryanized today. It only matters that a small area be Indo-Aryanized, and then the influence could continue to expand from there. If it was the post-Harappan region around the Ganga-Yamnuna doab that was Indo-Aryanized first, the expansion of urban settlements eastwards in the second urbanization period in Indian history (the Mahajanapada period, when much of the Gangetic plains were deforested for the first time) gains demographic momentum too.
Vasistha wrote
“You seem to believe that L657 is definitely born on the steppe, and that if one L657 is found from the steppe as you believe then all of Indian languages are from the steppe. That is, you seem to believe that in 2000bce a region of the world with less than 200,000 population ended up giving languages to a region with 20-30 million population because of 1 L657 sample. (population numbers are from Hyde v3.2 https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1662437422968315905?s=20):”
Let us charitably assume that *every one* of these 200,000 people were L657 and they migrated to the SSC region which then hosted 20 million residents. So the new entrants would have been 1% of the natives *at most*, because so far, none have been found in their homeland. So obviously they all took a DNA test and packed their bags.
For comparison,
https://www.theheritagelab.in/sindhi-voices-partition/
“An estimated 12,00,000 to 14,00,000 Sindhi Hindus migrated to India primarily by ship or train. Approximately 50,000 Hindus and Sikhs registered with their local Congress offices to ask for assistance to leave Sindh by mid-September 1947.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/09/21/population-growth-and-religious-composition/#:~:text=India's%20population%20has%20more%20than,(120%20crore)%20in%202011.
“India’s population has more than tripled in the six decades following Partition, from 361 million (36.1 crore) people in the 1951 census to more than 1.2 billion (120 crore) in 2011.”
Therefore, India received 3.87% percentage of native Sindhi speakers of their extant population in 1947. These migrants never demanded and most likely would not have received their own state called Sindh within the newly created nation state of India.
The migrants started a new life in their new home and one of their descendants has married into my extended family. That person speaks better Marathi than even I do. On the flip side I cannot speak or even understand Sindhi at all in spite of growing up around many native Sindhi speakers.
I am going to bow out again, this time permanently.
I just want to remind all readers of this blog that the broad strokes of Indian prehistory have been known to archaeologists for a long time, though recent work has fleshed this out in greater and greater detail using more advanced techniques from modern landscape and settlement archaeology, for example. These broad strokes indicate that Indian prehistory can be divided into three periods: the first urbanization (Harappan civilization), the post-Harappan period, and the second urbanization (the Mahajanapada period, when the precursors of later Indian polities like Magadha, the Kuru-Pancala kingdom, Videha, Kosala and so on first emerged). The post-Harappan period was marked famously by a massive decline in the number and density of archaeological finds and find sites, ruralization, pastoralization, and changes in subsistence strategy, alongside a complete loss of the hallmarks of complex society (like writing, cities and civic architecture) and replacement by a village-level society in what was one of the most mysterious episodes in prehistory that is still an extremely active topic of research, spurring for example much new work in settlement archaeology and paleoclimatic analyses. Much of the work done on changes in climate around 4.2kya and the dramatic weakening of the summer monsoon in this period in Northern India and Pakistan were published in just the last few years for example. While there is still some controversy about why the transformation of Harappan to post-Harappan took place, all parties involved in researching this period agree that the changes occurred. It is in this period that the AMT posits that the migration into North India took place.
Note that in the post-Harappan period, urban civilization and densely-settled agricultural landscapes (a configuration which characterizes the entire North Indian plain today) did not exist in much of India; the density of post-Harappan finds resembles that of Neolithic (!) finds in Northern India and Pakistan. In the Harappan period, urban civilization within densely-settled agricultural landscapes existed in the Indus Valley, and in the second urbanization period these landscapes started to appear in the Ganges Valley, starting from west to east, before spreading to other parts of India like the south. But in the post-Harappan period, this did not exist in any part of India. The Ganges was still heavily forested, and the South of India was still dominated by the pastoralist Ashmound Neolithic. While broad-scale, globally focused ecological models that are super low resolution might tell you one thing, you will not find any South Asian archaeologist who has published papers, who knows the facts on the ground, who will disagree with this broad strokes characterization.
The broad strokes characterization does not involve steppe, if it did you would have quoted papers. But you can't, since there aren't any. That migration only exists in fantasy.
> India was never "India" throughout its history either. The Indo-Aryanization of India took place first in a very small area, and expanded to the rest of India over time. You will find yourself that in Vedic and early post-Vedic literature only the western Gangetic plain and the Ganga-Yamuna doab was ever initially referred to as "Aryavarta". Even in the Mahajanapada period, Brahmins that went to Magadha had to do purification rites, for example.
I agree, and for this you need time. The steppe theory has the Aryans write the oldest parts of the RV in 1200 BCE and speed run the Vedic period in 2-300 years.
Also doesn't help that 1200 BCE is basically the start of the iron age.
Why are you focusing so much on archaeology… pottery and artifacts don’t speak languages, people do. If ancient DNA shows that the migration happened, then the language would have migrated alongside.
Nobody is going anywhere. They are all going to come right back here because of this compulsive obsessive need to convince other people of the inconceivable and the inconvincible.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
unknown wrote,
...something.
Please write your full name including your surname and your motherns surname at birth. Thank you.
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
Vasistha,
https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1662437422968315905?s=20
Thank you for sharing. I presume their research is acccurate. Simply mind boggling to see China swing back and forth like that.
Mayuresh
"Why are you focusing so much on archaeology… pottery and artifacts don’t speak languages, people do."
Germany, France, Iberia, England, Italy - Steppe ancestry arrival along with Bellbeaker culture arrival
Germany, Scandinavia, Baltic states - Steppe ancestry arrival along with CordedWare/ battle axe culture arrival
North India is as large as these combined regions, with a much larger historical population. Neither is there any such steppe archaeological arrival, nor is there steppe ancestry arrival before 1000bce.
Vasistha wrote,
“North India is as large as these combined regions, with a much larger historical population. Neither is there any such steppe archaeological arrival, nor is there steppe ancestry arrival before 1000bce.”
Use archaeology selectively. Demand “archaeologically based” population estimates when convenient and disappear when asked to produce positive evidence about invasions/migrations or copies of airline tickets, boarding passes etc.
https://ancient-asia-journal.com/articles/10.5334/aa.06107
“This Civilization was unique compared to the two contemporary civilizations on account of its extent and town planning. Extent-wise it was much bigger in size than the Mesopotamian and the Egyptian Civilizations put together and spread beyond the Subcontinent. “
“This trend is dangerous as there may not be a stop to this tendency, which is growing. We should not be surprised if tomorrow someone would like to call the Harappan Civilization as the Indus-Saraswati-Gujarat Civilization with a valid point to do so. There may not be an end to this confusion.”
“This data (excavation of Ganweriwala) has enabled reconstruction of urban or city life of the Harappan people but it represents less than even 3% of the Harappan population. We have however, very little idea of their rural lifestyle, where more than 97% Harappans were living, as "Small Harappan Site Archaeology" does not seem to be a priority of the Harappan archaeologists (parenthesis added). “
“Studies in respect to the reconstruction of climatic sequence carried out in various parts of the world suggest it was not only the Indian subcontinent that was affected, but the whole globe. In other words it was a major Global Climatic Change Phenomenon around 4000 BP or 2000 BC. Yasuda (2001) believes that not only the Harappan but all the civilizations of Eurasia declined around 4000 BP as a result of dry climate.”
But, but saar. the natives with dried up skins are waiting for their “Indo Aryanizing” saviors, saar. Please help saar! We are dying saar!
https://vk.com/wall-54414113_9108?lang=en
Indus Valley Civilization: Recent Nomads who were Aryans of the Rigveda, who were the LAST NOMADS living the PIE cow-heding warlike nomadic way of life, settle down and build a large civilization.
IVC is different to other civilizations like Egypt and Mespotamia and stnds out for 2 reasons.
1. Standardisation, measurements, weights, signs, probs other things too
2. Egalitarianianism
3. Geographic extent
Now you have to understand these things are all due to these ppl being recent Indo European Vedic ppl who just settled down but kept certain values from their earlier nomadic way of life.
Standardisation was important to the small vedic tribes, standardisation of language (Sanskrit) and Religion/Culture allowed IE nomads to get aling woth each other and make alliances and trade which was important as a competitive advantage for such a warlike ppl.
Egalitarianism is greater amongst PIE Nomads as the greater wealth inequality really increases in Neolithic societies, though not all.
But the Neolithic already existed in South Asia by this time, the IVC being the last nomads to settle down, but others for instance in northern punjab, south india etc had already transitioned into settled life much earlier.
So we have scholars who believe that in India there was other religions and philosophies that later hinduism moved towards, so this would be the culture of the earlier neolithic in south asia.
The IVC would be the later part of Rigveda and early Brahmanas. The period of Janapadas. This is still a rather homogenous culture just like the Rigveda is very homogenous. But then over time this culture breaks up and splits into more localised cultures and basically goes through the same transition that earlier neolithic went.
Now all anyone needs to know is that the AMT is just too backward to understand any of this complexity.
Then they try to say that upper-caste Indians (Brahmins) or dominant groups like Jatts have high steppe DNA so that proves AMT. But infact highest steppe is amongst Rors who are Ksatriyas and infact Ksatriyas in general have the highest Steppe DNA imo.
I believe that Brahmins were recruited from the pre-existing neolithic ppls and those of the IVC and Vedic Aryans were grouped as Ksatriyas with groups like Khatris being the pre-eminent ones.
Euros always want Pashtun, Jatt, Kalash to have highest Steppe DNA but it is always the Rors and the Euros dont like that at all cos Rors and Khatris aint shit it is all about Bhrigus, Jatts, Pashtuns, Brahmins etc not lowly high steppe Rors and Khatri fake warriors just traders and film-makers.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS IN THE DECLINEOF THE INDUS–SARASVATI CIVILIZATION
Michel Danino
https://www.academia.edu/74811456/Environmental_factors_in_the_decline_of_the_Indus_Sarasvati_civilization
Breaking News !!!
Delimail dot comedy reports the discovery of a 5000 year old video of "Indo Aryans" chanting the Rig Veda in Lubotskovia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hiHE4yNuJw
According to the Wishingngwell Times reliable sources have confirmed that
In a emergency meeting at 2:00 AM the Modi Government has decided to expel all Lubtoskovian diplomats and the immediate closing of all Indian embassies in the country. Travel advisory issued to all Indian citizens and Non Resident Indians.
@ANI Are you Pakistani? You sound like one.
Kroonen is explicit in separating I-Ir eaely from other IE languages. Ruki is not sufficient evidence as is highlighted in either his or another paper I linked, can't remember which one. Also highlighted in the other papers; I-Ir being isolated is consensus now apparently. This is literally just what the papers say, if you have a problem with that then that's on you.
A Greco-Aryan branch further makes a CWC connection impossible but that's debateable. What is not debateable is that CWC languages underwent an agricultural shift that Indo-Iranian did not, and this includes all CWC languages as well as Fatyanovo (literally a farmer culture). Otherwise Fatyanovo would be a valid candidate
And yes we have Mitanni samples, as evidenced by the Hasanlu bowl. Too bad nothing like that is found in Fatyanovo or Sintashta or Andronovo lmao
There's no evidence pointing to Sintashta or their ancestors as a source for I-Ir. Sintashta could very well be I-Ir speakers if they adopted the language from elsewhere. But all the evidence point to an early split, pre-agricultural shift, either linked to early Yamnaya or some steppe Eneolithic population or some south Caucasian population
I have no issue with Sintashta (or Fatyanovo) being the source of I-Ir and I supported this position since a few years ago. But this was mainly because we didn't really have any other alternative explanations. Now we do, at least three different ones and all work better, so linking Sintashta to I-Ir is now a non-sequitur since every other option has more evidence in its favor than Sintashta. Unless new evidence comes up of course
Not sure why you're so invested in this
@Vas Longer IBD links between Indians and modern people carrying Sintashta-related ancestry also corroborate recent admixture. Can't remember the paper, will try to find it.
The burden of proof that dating the admixture is flawed falls on those who argue against it now.
@ANI Mycenaeans most likely did not undergo a language shift since the Mycenaean culture formed already after steppe ancestry was there, i.e. they were already speaking the language. This includes archaeology and culture as well, including the obvious Near Eastern influences. Whereas in India and Iran there would be a language shift without any other significant trace of exogenous influence, after the culture had already formed, not once but twice.
Pretty different situations
Also quick note on MBA Greece, the Logkas and Skourtanioti samples with steppe (up to ~40% in one of the two Logkas females) is CWC-related so it doesn't match Mycenaeans. (Clemente's paper, Skourtanioti's paper, Ringbauer's IBD paper, Lazaridis et al 2022).
Kopetkin et al 2023 has some ~2200 BCE samples from Greece with steppe but we don't know yet if their steppe is from Yamnaya.
We don't actually know the scale of migration harboring steppe ancestry that affected Mycenaeans yet, and specifically pre-Mycenaeans.
@ANI Modern Turks have around 5% Asian ancestry (both Turkic and Han-like) at best, and their Central Asian-like ancestry is ~10-15% at most. We've got Kars' paper and Yang's paper now, alongside other older ones. Turks having any significant Eastern ancestry (besides Iranian) is a massive LARP, on top of that a good chunk of females contributed this ancestry to modern Turks as well. You've got some catching up to do
Steppe DNA is Armenian EBA ie Areni Cave. All Steppe Groups inc CW, BB, SIntashta, Yamnaya can be modelled with Armenian EBA as a source. Hence Steppe DNA is moving South to North with Armenian EBA being the southernmost source. These are sampled late but would of existed since much earlier. So in the South there are farmers and nomads and the farmers are the more diverged ppl like Iran_N but Armenian EBA are southern nomads who would be migrated North and populating the Steppe regions and genetic clusters.
Do we have ancient DNA of the Mittani people? I read in the comments that there is no Sintashta DNA. But the Mittani people predominantly spoke Hurrian with some Indo-Aryan loan words. It could be that the Sintashta DNA was diluted. This is could be plausible if we have evidence of Indo Iranian associated R1a haplogroups or suclades. So we?
If we look at Shrikant Talageri's work, then it is understood that common elements between Avestan, Mittani, and Vedic culture occured in the later books of the Rig Veda. This is to be taken as evidence for an Out of India migration of Indo European languages. However, let us assume the AMT. We can deny the logic of Talageri's analysis, thus we can at best conlude that Indo iranian ancestors came in India and the Iranian and Indo-Aryan split occured in India, or at least in Kashmir. Surely R1a or some Indo European associated Haplogroup should show evidence of this.
Anonymous wrote,
"However, let us assume the AMT."
Wonderful!
What should I assume your name is? I will give you three options, or better yet. You give YOURSELF three options!:))
Mayuresh M. Kelkar
To Mayuresh: The assumption of the AMT was so I could prove it’s flaws. As for my name, it is Abhi. I was a child when I started this account.
Look, you people, the time is over to give the AMT and mainstream theoreticians any credibility. It is over for them.
For the intelligent and knowing humans amongsts us, the IE thing has some very important questions and implications which are not being tackled by the mainstream academics who at this point are left way back in the darkness of ignorance and irrelevance.
The genetic questions for the most are easily answered with the available tools like PCA, qpAdm, etc. Yes this all favours the OIT theory. The only thing I dont know much about is Y-DNA cos I dont spend much time looking at that.
But these are the important questions/points about IE that all of this is really all about.
Why is PIE so stable and PIE ie Vedic Sanksrit such a peculiar langauge. This language almost seems deliberately made as great language for song and art and human consciousness. From PIE all descendants languages have lost structure and consistency, they have all simplified and imo are inferior languages. Why did this happen?
What I now believe happened is the following. The PIE Vedic community were highly warlike cattle herders but over time members of this community settled down to become farmers. Nomadic herders and farmers had different ways of life, different values and hence the warlike cattle herding religion based on songs was not suitable for the farmers.
This conflict between farmers and nomads looks like the Deva Asura conflict in Indo Iranian, but the Devas are not the Indic gods but the Northern or Western peoples as is mentioned in Iranian literature, their Deva enemies were in the West or North not India.
This demonization of Devas was initiated by the Iranians, probably by the Kavis, to stop Deva nomadic Cattle-herders from influencing the people of 'Iran' (South Central Asia) to live that life. The Kings of Iran wanted Iran to become cultivated and they wanted to push the troublesome and economically less productive nomads out and stop them influencing Iranians into being warlike uncontrollable nomads.
To stop this influence they may have moved away from the language of Vedic and towards Iranian, a language more suited towards poetry and less towards singing of the Vedic type.
Similarly they wanted to move these ppl away from the Vedic religion and Indra worship which was also very warlike unsuitable for settled farmers.
The problem with this is that once the nomads had been pushed out, the last remntants of the Vedic community disappeared, the ecosystem became unbalanced. With the removal of the Vedic religion and language, which was highly central to the region and IE, there now was a big gap in the middle, and other langiages and religions developed in the periphary.
None of these languages and religions had the same level of 'uniformity' or artistic expression or simply put excellence of the Vedic langiage and religion. That was a perfect language and religion for cattle herding nomads, but there was no equivalent for farmers. With the Western regions now full of very different languages and religions with no common basis to hold them all together, it all became a shit show of war and domination and subjucation.
But its just weird that PIE Cattle herders had a highly uniform, internally consistent, standardised, appropriate language and religion for their way of life but for the farmers there was nothing similar.
And it is big question, given human language would of started of much simpler, as to why Vedic would have developed to a highly complex language with I think 8 inflectional cases, and then that is the height and after that everything the langiage and religion (songs, literature, concepts) everything starts to fall down as tribes become more and more settled.
@Orpheus
"Longer IBD links between Indians and modern people carrying Sintashta-related ancestry also corroborate recent admixture."
I think these are flawed as well. IBD links cant survive over millennia.
@Abhi
"Do we have ancient DNA of the Mittani people? I read in the comments that there is no Sintashta DNA. But the Mittani people predominantly spoke Hurrian with some Indo-Aryan loan words. It could be that the Sintashta DNA was diluted. This is could be plausible if we have evidence of Indo Iranian associated R1a haplogroups or suclades. So we?"
No, but we have samples from western Iran, quite close to Mitanni empire, but not really Mitanni. There is no R1a there, and no trace of Sintashta related ancestry. On the other habd we see BMAC as well as IVC ancestry appearing around 1500bce. It's quite clear where the Indo-Iranians are from, it's not Sintashta.
The Indo-European Controversy in Historical Linguistics with Asya Pereltsvaig and Martin Lewis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovars-woTbk&t=3095s
In Hindi,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6IsaCSriWg&list=PLVguLkO4fenB-4zvUb2LBiBjkC0Wgdrsn&index=1
ARYAN INVASION Q&A प्रश्नोत्तर || Ashish Kulkarni
Kulkarni @1:29:28
"I believe that Indo Iranian languages migrated from IRAN to India and South-Central Asia, modern Turkmenistan, Tajikistan around -4000 BCE. "I o not think Out of India theory is correct. I do not see any proof in genetics that Indian DNA has spread into whole of Europe, Germany, France, England etc."
Translation mine.
The steppe origins of (even) the *western* branches of IE has not been established yet. According to a blogger who will intentionally remain unnamed, M269, L51, L151 or P312 have not been found in the steppe or the forest steppe. India & Iran are faaar away.
Post a Comment