PDA

View Full Version : proper Indus Valley Civilization DNA to come



bicicleur
27-04-18, 14:28
http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/indus-valley-genetic-contribution-steppes-rakhigarhi

The Rakhigarhi samples belonged to individuals who lived approximately 4,600 years ago, during the peak of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The absence of steppe DNA markers in the samples indicates that, at that point in time, there had been no intermingling between the steppe pastoralists and the population of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Rai had earlier told Open magazine that the male “Y chromosome R1a genetic marker is missing in the Rakhigarhi sample.” The R1a is seen as a marker of Indo-European speakers, but its absence in a single sample is not significant—it is the wider analysis of the entire genome that is important in the context of this sample.

The work by Rai and his team will provide direct evidence for the model proposed by the March 2018 paper from the Reich Lab, which has bearing on a number of questions of great interest pertaining to the Indian past. The preprint states, “Our results also shed light on the question of the origins of the subset of Indo-European languages spoken in India and Europe. It is striking that the great majority of Indo-European speakers today living in both Europe and South Asia harbor large fractions of ancestry related to … Steppe pastoralists … suggesting that ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’—the language ancestral to all modern Indo- European languages—was the language” of the steppe pastoralist population.

In other words, the preprint observes that the migration from the steppes to South Asia was the source of the Indo-European languages in the subcontinent. Commenting on this, Rai said, “any model of migration of Indo-Europeans from South Asia simply cannot fit the data that is now available.”

Angela
27-04-18, 18:48
http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/indus-valley-genetic-contribution-steppes-rakhigarhi

The Rakhigarhi samples belonged to individuals who lived approximately 4,600 years ago, during the peak of the Indus Valley Civilisation. The absence of steppe DNA markers in the samples indicates that, at that point in time, there had been no intermingling between the steppe pastoralists and the population of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Rai had earlier told Open magazine that the male “Y chromosome R1a genetic marker is missing in the Rakhigarhi sample.” The R1a is seen as a marker of Indo-European speakers, but its absence in a single sample is not significant—it is the wider analysis of the entire genome that is important in the context of this sample.

The work by Rai and his team will provide direct evidence for the model proposed by the March 2018 paper from the Reich Lab, which has bearing on a number of questions of great interest pertaining to the Indian past. The preprint states, “Our results also shed light on the question of the origins of the subset of Indo-European languages spoken in India and Europe. It is striking that the great majority of Indo-European speakers today living in both Europe and South Asia harbor large fractions of ancestry related to … Steppe pastoralists … suggesting that ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’—the language ancestral to all modern Indo- European languages—was the language” of the steppe pastoralist population.

In other words, the preprint observes that the migration from the steppes to South Asia was the source of the Indo-European languages in the subcontinent. Commenting on this, Rai said, “any model of migration of Indo-Europeans from South Asia simply cannot fit the data that is now available.”

Out of India was always an absurd theory, and it's good to know that Indian scientists have bitten the bullet and acknowledged it, no matter the blowback they might get from extreme Hindu nationalists.

The story still isn't completely clear, however.

johen
27-04-18, 19:03
However, there are the other samples in the other area of IVC. There is a great possibilty of R1a to appear in IVC, which might make situation more complicated. As I mentioned lots of times, EHG R1a has mtDNA C and lake baikal pottery, being buried in supine position like lake baikal people. J was also found in karelia. In iran Hotu, J and lake baikal pottery were found. West siberian HG entered IVC.
(I think lake baikal people would enter IVC)
One indian member in Eurogens already caught the point of the possibilty, considering the relation between EHG and West siberian HG.

Angela
27-04-18, 19:16
Razib Khan's take on it:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/27/rakhigarhi-sample-doesnt-have-steppe-ancestry-probably-indus-periphery/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

He's cautious since it's only one sample and from the far eastern range of the area, but basically suspects this will be the case for all the samples.

"A major caveat here is that we’re talking about one sample from the eastern edge of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). I’m not sure that this should adjust our probabilities that much. From all the other things we know, as well as copious ancient DNA from Central Asia, our probability for the model which the Rakhigarhi result aligns with should already be quite high.Again, since it’s one sample, we need to be cautious…but I bet once we have more samples from the IVC the Rakhigarhi individual will probably be enriched for AASI relative to other samples from the IVC. The InPe samples in The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581) exhibited some variation, and it’s likely that the IVC region was genetically heterogeneous."

I'm sorry, but if I'm to be honest, if the following is true, it doesn't say much good about the steppe people.

"In contrast, India has a rich mythos which seems to date to the early period of the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. One interpretation has been that since these myths seem to take as a given that Indo-Aryans were autochtonous to India, they were. But the genetic data seem to be strongly suggesting that the arrival of pastoralists occurred in South Asia concomitant with their arrival in West Asia, and somewhat after their expansion westward into Europe. Indian tradition and mythos could actually be a window into the general process of how these pastoralists dealt with native peoples and an illustration of the sort of cultural synthesis that often occurred."

I'm not fond of the fact that they mated barely pubescent girls, either, to the detriment of both the girls and their longevity rates.

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 19:35
The "Indian ultra-nationalist" community already warned us - in Eurogenes and other places - that Dr. Rai was "misunderstood" and "misquoted", and that "of course" the results will prove that the IVC people were relatively close to the modern North Indian Brahmins and already had typical Indo-Aryan autosomal and Y-DNA markers. Oh my God, what kind of brainwashing did these people take? I can only feel a bit of pity on them because, as a more sensible and well informed Indian man told me yesterday, they're somehow striving to decolonize the culture and mindset of India, and to get rid of the centuries-old (even before the British) feelings of inferiority due to foreign conquest, but they want to do that regardless of facts and evidences and in such an extreme, uncompromising way that their brand of nationalism is becoming an international laughing stock these days...

Johane Derite
27-04-18, 19:35
I think there is something to be said about the fact that it was the indians that preserved these ancient traditions.

The Vedas, Sanskrit, rituals, and all the rest of the culture, both material and immaterial.

Its not only wrong but sick, to have this infantile attitude towards Indian's amazing achievement by somehow claiming ownership to it via higher steppe percentages
in Brahmins.

Indians paid a price and sacrificed to conserve all that they did, they get a claim to this legacy.

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 19:42
It is striking that the great majority of Indo-European speakers today living in both Europe and South Asia harbor large fractions of ancestry related to … Steppe pastoralists … suggesting that ‘Late Proto-Indo-European’—the language ancestral to all modern Indo- European languages—was the language” of the steppe pastoralist population.

Their phrasing of these results suggest to me that they are leaning towards reviving the Indo-Hittite theory, that is, an Early PIE i.e. Indo-Hittite that was spoken not necessarily in the same place and the same culture as the later PIE-minus-Anatolian Late PIE of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 19:45
I think there is something to be said about the fact that it was the indians that preserved these ancient traditions.

The Vedas, Sanskrit, rituals, and all the rest of the culture, both material and immaterial.

Its not only wrong but sick, to have this infantile attitude towards Indian's amazing achievement by somehow claiming ownership to it via higher steppe percentages
in Brahmins.

Indians paid a price and sacrificed to conserve all that they did, they get a claim to this legacy.

But nobody is even suggesting that Indian culture came fully formed, locked and packaged in the steppes, and then delivered to India. Indian culture is most definitely NOT a steppe culture, but the indigenous final development of a mix of cultures, including the one brought by steppe Central Asian pastoralists. That's also what Greek culture is, what Italian culture is, and so on.

I actually think that this misunderstanding between genetics and culture (which change, shift and evolve much faster and more flexibly than the genetic makeup of a population) is one of the main reasons for all this resistance against the latest findings by Indian nationalists. Nobody is claiming that Indian culture or Hinduism itself is not Indian, but just that the Indo-Aryan language and the Indo-Aryan steppe culture were contributors to the melting pot from which Indian civilization arose.

Now I myself can't really understand what's so offensive and demeaning about suggesting that there was no primeval continuity in India and that their culture has a substantial foreign contribution. Perhaps I don't even want to understand the true, undisguised reasons.

This is not about "ownership". Thousands of years later you just can't disentangle the steppe from the Iranian Noelithic and from the indigenous Indian hunter-gatherer contributions either in genetics or in culture, they're all irretrievably mixed together and forming a whole new thing. It'd be naive to believe that Indian culture really preserves Aryan culture exactly as it was when pastoralists migrated there milennia ago.

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 19:57
However, there are the other samples in the other area of IVC. There is a great possibilty of R1a to appear in IVC, which might make situation more complicated. As I mentioned lots of times, EHG R1a has mtDNA C and lake baikal pottery, being buried in supine position like lake baikal people. J was also found in karelia. In iran Hotu, J and lake baikal pottery were found. West siberian HG entered IVC.
(I think lake baikal people would enter IVC)
One indian member in Eurogens already caught the point of the possibilty, considering the relation between EHG and West siberian HG.

R1a may appear there, but not "the" R1a clades associated with Indo-Aryan or more broadly Indo-Iranian speakers/culture, and even if EHG and West Siberian HG were related to each other they were still different enough to allow a distinction between them, so if some now rarer clade of R1a appears it shouldn't be too difficult to distinguish whether it came with EHG/CHG steppe pastoralists or with West Siberian HGs. Haplogroups alone, especially in a very generic label (R1b, R1a, no specified clades), are a very weak indication of the origin of migrations and components of a people's genetic structure if you don't relate them to the results of autosomal DNA analysis. If no BA Steppe-like ancestry is found in IVC, but eventually West Siberian HG is found, then the presence of R1a would be much more easily explained by the latter than by the unlikely assumption that IVC were already Indo-Aryans, had "Aryan" R1a, but somehow got rid of all their steppe ancestry.

Promenade
27-04-18, 20:01
Razib Khan's take on it:
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/27/rakhigarhi-sample-doesnt-have-steppe-ancestry-probably-indus-periphery/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

He's cautious since it's only one sample and from the far eastern range of the area, but basically suspects this will be the case for all the samples.

"A major caveat here is that we’re talking about one sample from the eastern edge of the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC). I’m not sure that this should adjust our probabilities that much. From all the other things we know, as well as copious ancient DNA from Central Asia, our probability for the model which the Rakhigarhi result aligns with should already be quite high.Again, since it’s one sample, we need to be cautious…but I bet once we have more samples from the IVC the Rakhigarhi individual will probably be enriched for AASI relative to other samples from the IVC. The InPe samples in The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581) exhibited some variation, and it’s likely that the IVC region was genetically heterogeneous."

I'm sorry, but if I'm to be honest, if the following is true, it doesn't say much good about the steppe people.

"In contrast, India has a rich mythos which seems to date to the early period of the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. One interpretation has been that since these myths seem to take as a given that Indo-Aryans were autochtonous to India, they were. But the genetic data seem to be strongly suggesting that the arrival of pastoralists occurred in South Asia concomitant with their arrival in West Asia, and somewhat after their expansion westward into Europe. Indian tradition and mythos could actually be a window into the general process of how these pastoralists dealt with native peoples and an illustration of the sort of cultural synthesis that often occurred."

.

Well Razib is right about one thing, Rakhigarhi is one of hundreds upon hundreds of IVC settlements and on the very eastern frontier of the IVC cultures. In the west Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa along with the many other settlements along the Indus may have harbored more Iran_Neo ancestry, I remember a description of anthropological features from skeletons in Mohenjo Daro being described as mostly Mediterranean. That be saying said I do not expect Rakhigarhi to be the most AASI shifted of the IVC, that will probably be claimed by the settlements south east in Gujarat like Lothal and Dolivira where contact with hunter gatherers was most evident and native material traditions strongest and most pervasive. Keep in mind Rakhigarhi was not a shanty town either, but geographically the largest of all the IVC cities. What that means is you should not expect this sample to be some kind of outlier with more AASI ancestry than usual in IVC, but representative of someone closer toward AASI on a cline of AASI and Iran_Neo ancestry that existed in IVC from north west to south east.



I'm not fond of the fact that they mated barely pubescent girls, either, to the detriment of both the girls and their longevity rates

Angela, I feel as if you are overly prejudiced towards the ancient steppe people because of your own negative interactions with some steppe theorists.

Are you even aware your own ancestors did the same thing? The legal marriage age in Rome was 11 and girls were expected to copulate right away lest their "inner desires" get hold of them and they lost their virginity before marriage, eliminating the little value they had in the Roman world. At least the steppe people did it out of desperation and not a bizarre anxiety about pseudoscience involving an imbalance of fluids and gases in young women.

Johane Derite
27-04-18, 20:02
But nobody is even suggesting that Indian culture came fully formed

Did I suggest this? Why mention this?

Promenade
27-04-18, 20:08
I think there is something to be said about the fact that it was the indians that preserved these ancient traditions.

The Vedas, Sanskrit, rituals, and all the rest of the culture, both material and immaterial.

Its not only wrong but sick, to have this infantile attitude towards Indian's amazing achievement by somehow claiming ownership to it via higher steppe percentages
in Brahmins.

Indians paid a price and sacrificed to conserve all that they did, they get a claim to this legacy.

I agree, if you want a laugh look at the comments of EastPole on eurogenes who claims that the philosophy of India and Greece (he mentions specifically Pythagoras) actually derive from ancient knowledge from "Hypoborean philosophers" (who I guess he connects with balto-slavs)

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 20:29
Did I suggest this? Why mention this?

Oh don't take it personally. I'm not talking of your personal opinions, but making a comment, based on parts of what you've written, on some of the misunderstandings and controversies that have surrounded this issue, most of them related to this underlying - and sometimes quite explicit - notion that "they're trying to deny the indigenous origin of Indian languages and cultures and are again stealing our legacy and our self-esteem as they did during the colonial era", often in an unfair way, because no one among the criticized parts was claiming that Indians do not "own" their culture and history.

There are also of course the radical types that believe everything the ultra-nationalist Indian pseudo-scientists say and are automatically suspicious of anything wrtten by the "white man" (even when, as in the study of David Reich et al., there are also several South Asians involved). Just a few minutes ago I had to read an angry Indian man's post against my answer to a topic, with all the "scientific evidences" that the IVC had very advanced technology, like the ability to make floating rocks (yeah...), and that - prepare for this - they destroyed themselves in a nuclear war because they weren't responsible with the use of their nuclear weapons.

So, THAT is the kind of people with a "keen scientific interest" that are into delirious wishful thinking of a "glorious hidden past" and believe they are in an epic crusade against the "white men" who want to deny that their civilizations is not only 100% indigenous, but 100% primeval, dating back to even (yes, I read this exact comment yesterday in another forum) 70,000 years ago - oh, and mind you, those ancient people already spoke an early form of Sanskrit. It's just too much for me to take them seriously.

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 20:42
I'm sorry, but if I'm to be honest, if the following is true, it doesn't say much good about the steppe people.

"In contrast, India has a rich mythos which seems to date to the early period of the arrival of the Indo-Aryans. One interpretation has been that since these myths seem to take as a given that Indo-Aryans were autochtonous to India, they were. But the genetic data seem to be strongly suggesting that the arrival of pastoralists occurred in South Asia concomitant with their arrival in West Asia, and somewhat after their expansion westward into Europe. Indian tradition and mythos could actually be a window into the general process of how these pastoralists dealt with native peoples and an illustration of the sort of cultural synthesis that often occurred."

I'm not fond of the fact that they mated barely pubescent girls, either, to the detriment of both the girls and their longevity rates.

I'm not sure what exactly in that quoted comment makes you say "it doesn't say much good about the steppe people".
I see nothing that wasn't already totally expected and unsurprising in any ancient expanding population there.

Also, as for getting barely pubescent girls married, I think the unfortunate and inconvenient truth is that they, the steppe tribes, were more following the usual norm than being the weird outliers with awful customs. Life expectancy for women, due to high maternal death rates, used to be lower than that of men, and of course at least 1/3 of them died during childhood, and women being net economic burdens after some age was also taken in consideration by the parents, so the general pattern in most ancient societies, especially those still fairly tribal, and not urban civilizations, was indeed to marry them off as soon as possible.

I don't see anything really "OMG these bastards", by Antiquity standards, in the steppe peoples as far as these social customs are concerned. It's not like Aztecs ordering the conquered peoples to send "gifts" to them in the form of human beings to be sacrificed in the hundreds per year to appease the gods and avoid the chaos and destruction of the cosmos. In isolated tribes of these days these practices are also still pretty common.

Angela
27-04-18, 20:50
Well Razib is right about one thing, Rakhigarhi is one of hundreds upon hundreds of IVC settlements and on the very eastern frontier of the IVC cultures. In the west Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa along with the many other settlements along the Indus may have harbored more Iran_Neo ancestry, I remember a description of anthropological features from skeletons in Mohenjo Daro being described as mostly Mediterranean. That be saying said I do not expect Rakhigarhi to be the most AASI shifted of the IVC, that will probably be claimed by the settlements south east in Gujarat like Lothal and Dolivira where contact with hunter gatherers was most evident and native material traditions strongest and most pervasive. Keep in mind Rakhigarhi was not a shanty town either, but geographically the largest of all the IVC cities. What that means is you should not expect this sample to be some kind of outlier with more AASI ancestry than usual in IVC, but representative of someone closer toward AASI on a cline of AASI and Iran_Neo ancestry that existed in IVC from north west to south east.



Angela, I feel as if you are overly prejudiced towards the ancient steppe people because of your own negative interactions with some steppe theorists.

Are you even aware your own ancestors did the same thing? The legal marriage age in Rome was 11 and girls were expected to copulate right away lest their "inner desires" get hold of them and they lost their virginity before marriage, eliminating the little value they had in the Roman world. At least the steppe people did it out of desperation and not a bizarre anxiety about pseudoscience involving an imbalance of fluids and gases in young women.

My dear Promenade, I've been rather "down" on the steppe people since I read about them at university a couple of decades ago, and particularly since I read Marija Gimbutas. I'm not so childish, as you seem to think, as to dislike a culture because one of its champions is a racist thug. (I know, I know, she was wrong or at least exaggerated a lot of things.)

Part of my perspective on ancient cultures comes out of my ethical sensibilities, my compassion for the "under-dog", my belief that all human being should be treated with respect, if you will. Part of it is very much because I'm a woman, and so I'm not going to be inclined to identify with warriors banging around killing all the local men, and male children, and raping all the women. Why on earth would I?

The more peaceable a culture, and the more respect and scope it gives to women the more I'm going to like it.

Nor am I so childish and proprietary as to "like" a culture simply because I'm descended from the people who created it. I like the Etruscans more the Romans as a people. I also like the Cretans more than the Romans. Now, before you say it, I'm very well aware that all cultures, including those, have attributes which are less than admirable. There's nothing admirable about enslaving or killing one third of the population of Gaul, or in creating combats to the death at funeral games. It's a question of whether, in addition to the attributes which seem to be shared by most ancient cultures, there are also numerous things to balance the scale. In the case of Rome, I believe there are. (Also, that particular custom, and others of which I'm also not overly fond, are, in fact, a legacy of the Indo-Europeans. Did you forget the Romans are descended from them?) I don't see anything much noteworthy about the Indo-Europeans other than being a martial society, and apparently, ruthlessly suppressing local people, and creating a rigid caste system ultimately based on color. Certainly, most of the hall marks of what civilization they had were borrowed from others. I completely understand why Indians would not want to be descended from them; I don't either. However, we have to be rational and objective about science and history, and facts are facts and have to be accepted.

For good or ill I was trained to be a Christian humanist. The Christian part may have faded away, but the humanist part remains, and it's going to be part of my world view. I'm also a woman, and that's also going to color my outlook. Maybe it's good for all the men in this hobby to be reminded from time to time that not everyone looks at these people and this period of time in the way that they do.

Cpluskx
27-04-18, 21:19
Hard to believe that any kind of steppe people would have high level of sophistication about anything except fighting. Indo-Aryans who went to India and parts of Near East were probably the earliest example of steppe conquerors who reached their apogee with Genghis Khan. Here's what happened when Gutians conquered parts of Near East according to Wikipedia:

''The Guti proved to be poor rulers. Under their crude rule, prosperity declined. They were too unaccustomed to the complexities of civilization to organize matters properly, particularly in connection with the canal network. This was allowed to sink into disrepair, with famine and death resulting. Thus, a short "dark age" swept over Mesopotamia...''

'' Sumerian sources generally portray the Guti as an "unhappy", barbarous and rapacious people...''

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 21:21
I don't see anything much noteworthy about the Indo-Europeans other than being a martial society, and apparently, ruthlessly suppressing local people, and creating a rigid caste system ultimately based on color.

Are we really sure that that was a common thing among all the Indo-European speakers who conquered other peoples and lands, especially outside South Asia? I remember having read that there are signs of still extensive inter-ethnic/inter-caste mixing in India up to a mere 2,000 years ago, when the genetic structure seems to have started to become "fossilized" and the groups became much more endogamous and to drift from each other much faster. Some saw that as an indication that the caste system only became really rigid many centuries after the supposed Indo-Aryan migration and assimilation and was an internal development of Indian culture/politics. Are there strong evidences that it was actually a much more ancient and Indo-European-wide phenomenon?

Ygorcs
27-04-18, 21:29
Hard to believe that any kind of steppe people would have high level of sophistication about anything except fighting. Indo-Aryans who went to India and parts of Middle East were probably the earliest example of steppe conquerors who reached their apogee with Genghis Khan. Here's what happened when Gutians conquered parts of Near East according to Wikipedia:

''The Guti proved to be poor rulers. Under their crude rule, prosperity declined. They were too unaccustomed to the complexities of civilization to organize matters properly, particularly in connection with the canal network. This was allowed to sink into disrepair, with famine and death resulting. Thus, a short "dark age" swept over Mesopotamia...''

'' Sumerian sources generally portray the Guti as an "unhappy", barbarous and rapacious people...''


That's mostly right, but they, or at least the later IE steppe cultures like Sintashta and Andronovo, become very good at making metal tools and objects, as well as efficient means of transportation (trained horses, wheels, wagons, chariots). They also must've been quite efficient in immaterial techniques like military organization and management, if not they couldn't have sustained their power and enforce their cultural ways for a long time anywhere, they would've been nothing but temporary raiders. They couldn't win those more advanced peoples if they just had strength and will, and nothing else.

I would be wary of the way settled civilizations that were attacked by the steppe peoples portrayed them in a very dehumanizing and demeaning way. No attacked people who hates those foreigner hordes would say very good things about them. You just need to read how Romans and later Europeans portrayed the Huns and later the Mongols and Turks. Granted, they weren't "that" sophisticated, but the way they were portrayed would make us believe they were completely ignorant and primitive savages, and modern historians know that wasn't exactly the case - not when they reached Europe, anyway.

As for the Gutians, nobody really knows if they were IE. Their few extant names don't look particularly IE to most linguists. I think people are just trying to find a direct link between the IE expansion and the Gutian invasions broadly in the same historic period. But I would be really surprised if the IE speakers were the only steppe/desert peoples to have invaded civilizations and settled societies in the Early-Mid Bronze Age. We know for sure that at least another people, Semites, expanded right in the same period and in a similar fashion, too.

Promenade
27-04-18, 21:59
My dear Promenade, I've been rather "down" on the steppe people since I read about them at university a couple of decades ago, and particularly since I read Marija Gimbutas. I'm not so childish, as you seem to think, as to dislike a culture because one of its champions is a racist thug. (I know, I know, she was wrong or at least exaggerated a lot of things.)

Part of my perspective on ancient cultures comes out of my ethical sensibilities, my compassion for the "under-dog", my belief that all human being should be treated with respect, if you will. Part of it is very much because I'm a woman, and so I'm not going to be inclined to identify with warriors banging around killing all the local men, and male children, and raping all the women. Why on earth would I?

The more peaceable a culture, and the more respect and scope it gives to women the more I'm going to like it.

Nor am I so childish and proprietary as to "like" a culture simply because I'm descended from the people who created it. I like the Etruscans more the Romans as a people. I also like the Cretans more than the Romans. Now, before you say it, I'm very well aware that all cultures, including those, have attributes which are less than admirable. There's nothing admirable about enslaving or killing one third of the population of Gaul, or in creating combats to the death at funeral games. It's a question of whether, in addition to the attributes which seem to be shared by most ancient cultures, there are also numerous things to balance the scale. In the case of Rome, I believe there are. (Also, that particular custom, and others of which I'm also not overly fond, are, in fact, a legacy of the Indo-Europeans. Did you forget the Romans are descended from them?) I don't see anything much noteworthy about the Indo-Europeans other than being a martial society, and apparently, ruthlessly suppressing local people, and creating a rigid caste system ultimately based on color. Certainly, most of the hall marks of what civilization they had were borrowed from others. I completely understand why Indians would not want to be descended from them; I don't either. However, we have to be rational and objective about science and history, and facts are facts and have to be accepted.

For good or ill I was trained to be a Christian humanist. The Christian part may have faded away, but the humanist part remains, and it's going to be part of my world view. I'm also a woman, and that's also going to color my outlook. Maybe it's good for all the men in this hobby to be reminded from time to time that not everyone looks at these people and this period of time in the way that they do.

Don't worry I'm not going to go down the path of turning a thread on the celebration of finally getting dna from ancient South Asia (even if it's just one sample, it's a start) into a discussion of whether we should be reprimanding ancient cultures. I don't find you childish that's why the commentary seemed odd, it's a bit silly to be chastising steppe cultures as if they are an outlier of an exceptionally evil ancient people. The Proto Natives of the Americas were forced to practice similar mating behaviors because of their harsh environment which led to the designation of "wild types" where the men were hyper masculine and women overly feminized in physicality, are we going to attach this behavior as far back as the ANE now and blame them? (This is rhetorical, of course not)

More pertinent to the discussion was my prior paragraph that we should not expect Rakhigarhi to be labeled as IVC_Outlier when we get more samples (one day...), but rather something more akin to IVC_East.




Hard to believe that any kind of steppe people would have high level of sophistication about anything except fighting. Indo-Aryans who went to India and parts of Near East were probably the earliest example of steppe conquerors who reached their apogee with Genghis Khan. Here's what happened when Gutians conquered parts of Near East according to Wikipedia:

''The Guti proved to be poor rulers. Under their crude rule, prosperity declined. They were too unaccustomed to the complexities of civilization to organize matters properly, particularly in connection with the canal network. This was allowed to sink into disrepair, with famine and death resulting. Thus, a short "dark age" swept over Mesopotamia...''

'' Sumerian sources generally portray the Guti as an "unhappy", barbarous and rapacious people...''


Keep in mind they were already in contact with BMAC and the ancient cities of the Turan for a while by the time they entered South Asia.

halfalp
28-04-18, 07:42
Are we really sure that that was a common thing among all the Indo-European speakers who conquered other peoples and lands, especially outside South Asia? I remember having read that there are signs of still extensive inter-ethnic/inter-caste mixing in India up to a mere 2,000 years ago, when the genetic structure seems to have started to become "fossilized" and the groups became much more endogamous and to drift from each other much faster. Some saw that as an indication that the caste system only became really rigid many centuries after the supposed Indo-Aryan migration and assimilation and was an internal development of Indian culture/politics. Are there strong evidences that it was actually a much more ancient and Indo-European-wide phenomenon?Ancient studies linked with proto and late indo-europeans shows how much inclusive they were. They probably didn't care who the peasant were, if they were genetically related or not. And most of exterior women could have been take as concubine, only focusing on the rulling elite, like actually most of the society even today. Just like vikings becoming count in western europe, they didn't care about lost their culture and their friend if they could have power and honor, this is pretty much how those guys had to be.

holderlin
28-04-18, 09:23
Lol the Gutians are back! That's Alan's other account.

bicicleur
28-04-18, 10:19
Keep in mind they were already in contact with BMAC and the ancient cities of the Turan for a while by the time they entered South Asia.
they made charriots with spoked wheels and trained horses before contact with BMAC
they were skilled metallurgists, but not as sophisticated as BMAC
the spread of later Seima-Turbino through the steppe has been associated with the casting of metals with lost-wax techniques from BMAC
what is more, the IE tribes seem not to have destroyed BMAC, but they took over the trading networks of BMAC, making the BMAC cities and fortresses redundant, the IE people seem to have been learning from other cultures quite fast

Cpluskx
28-04-18, 15:30
That's mostly right, but they, or at least the later IE steppe cultures like Sintashta and Andronovo, become very good at making metal tools and objects, as well as efficient means of transportation (trained horses, wheels, wagons, chariots). They also must've been quite efficient in immaterial techniques like military organization and management, if not they couldn't have sustained their power and enforce their cultural ways for a long time anywhere, they would've been nothing but temporary raiders. They couldn't win those more advanced peoples if they just had strength and will, and nothing else.

I would be wary of the way settled civilizations that were attacked by the steppe peoples portrayed them in a very dehumanizing and demeaning way. No attacked people who hates those foreigner hordes would say very good things about them. You just need to read how Romans and later Europeans portrayed the Huns and later the Mongols and Turks. Granted, they weren't "that" sophisticated, but the way they were portrayed would make us believe they were completely ignorant and primitive savages, and modern historians know that wasn't exactly the case - not when they reached Europe, anyway.

As for the Gutians, nobody really knows if they were IE. Their few extant names don't look particularly IE to most linguists. I think people are just trying to find a direct link between the IE expansion and the Gutian invasions broadly in the same historic period. But I would be really surprised if the IE speakers were the only steppe/desert peoples to have invaded civilizations and settled societies in the Early-Mid Bronze Age. We know for sure that at least another people, Semites, expanded right in the same period and in a similar fashion, too.

Generally agree with you although i'd say it would be wrong to compare Turkic people to Indo Europeans. When Turkic people moved out to Near East, Central Asia was a center of the Islamic Golden Age and had the world's largest city (Merv)

On the other hand i am not a trol* or someone else's secondary account and don't know why people are claiming that. I've been reading Dienekes and Razib since 2006 and commenting with the same nickname.

Ygorcs
28-04-18, 17:37
Generally agree with you although i'd say it would be wrong to compare Turkic people to Indo Europeans. When Turkic people moved out to Near East, Central Asia was a center of the Islamic Golden Age and had the world's largest city (Merv)

On the other hand i am not a trol* or someone else's secondary account and don't know why people are claiming that. I've been reading Dienekes and Razib since 2006 and commenting with the same nickname.

That's right, but the Turks were also a foreign element in Central Asia, at least with absolute certainty south of Kazakhstan, the really civilized and urbanized portion of Central Asia. They were also, at least until they became fully integrated and in turn assimilated the locals (linguistically and genetically), conquerors and for a long time a co-existing ethnicity, maintaining its distinct way of life and identity, occupying ecological/economic zones not fully used by the local Islamico-Persianate cultures. I think the situation of the gradual Turkification of most of Central Asia was more akin to the expansion of IEs in the Balkans (Cucuteni-Tripolye) and especially in India, though of course similarities are just very vague and generic, for the historic periods and contexts were very different.

Ygorcs
28-04-18, 18:08
Ancient studies linked with proto and late indo-europeans shows how much inclusive they were. They probably didn't care who the peasant were, if they were genetically related or not. And most of exterior women could have been take as concubine, only focusing on the rulling elite, like actually most of the society even today. Just like vikings becoming count in western europe, they didn't care about lost their culture and their friend if they could have power and honor, this is pretty much how those guys had to be.

I also believe they were inclusive at least initially and at least for women (concubines, arranged marriages, political/tribal alliances through marriage) and for potential male warriors that could strengthen their bands. I doubt they, who were probably not the largest ethnic population in the continent, could've done so much if they hadn't had the help of many integrated peoples and circumstantial allies. That does not mean they were egalitarian or "PC", but just that they had to accept outsiders and make large-scale alliances and compromises if they were willing to expand and win over adversaries that in many cases were actually more advanced than them (much like the Romans, Germans and Turks later did).

halfalp
28-04-18, 18:30
I also believe they were inclusive at least initially and at least for women (concubines, arranged marriages, political/tribal alliances through marriage) and for potential male warriors that could strengthen their bands. I doubt they, who were probably not the largest ethnic population in the continent, could've done so much if they hadn't had the help of many integrated peoples and circumstantial allies. That does not mean they were egalitarian or "PC", but just that they had to accept outsiders and make large-scale alliances and compromises if they were willing to expand and win over adversaries that in many cases were actually more advanced than them (much like the Romans, Germans and Turks later did).How i see late ie's, especially in western europe seems to me like a form of proto-feodalism. They had something like a cliens - patron relationship between the elite and the plebs. I dont think they were egalitarian at all and that there was some social mobility. Modern western male lineage just shows how much yamnaya related male ancestry have annihilate others, so certainly local men who were absorb in the community, even if they became warriors, could not be on the long term prolific lineage, meaning an elite. And of course there is the obvious, when you conquer another land, there's gonna be some remnants of the previous society, i dont know if those people were slaved or take as cliens in the long term, but see how ie's male lineage are so predominent ether in western and eastern europe, men had to suffer verry much of the situation.

Ygorcs
28-04-18, 21:09
How i see late ie's, especially in western europe seems to me like a form of proto-feodalism. They had something like a cliens - patron relationship between the elite and the plebs. I dont think they were egalitarian at all and that there was some social mobility. Modern western male lineage just shows how much yamnaya related male ancestry have annihilate others, so certainly local men who were absorb in the community, even if they became warriors, could not be on the long term prolific lineage, meaning an elite. And of course there is the obvious, when you conquer another land, there's gonna be some remnants of the previous society, i dont know if those people were slaved or take as cliens in the long term, but see how ie's male lineage are so predominent ether in western and eastern europe, men had to suffer verry much of the situation.

Agreed. However, I think those sweeping changes favoring just a few haplogroup subclades was not a sudden consequence of their conquest/immigration, but rather a long-term consequence of a strictly hierarchical and unequal, as well as still clan-based society, where one's marriage and procreation prospects differed a lot depending on whether the belonged or not to the "right" lineages (something like the way elite Romans cared so much about the "gens" to which someone belonged). In ancient times, more surviving offspring certainly came from a better social standing, a more influential and helpful network (one's important lineage and their allies and clients) and more family real estate (I don't think they were initially very bent on individual property, more like a clan/family-based and patriarch-centered property). It's probable that many women wouldn't be married off by their parents to men without a prestigious "gens", an important social position and significant property. And the conquered males were disproportionately among those disadvantaged "unmarriable" - or simply incapable of suppoting large families - men.

I have done a simple experiment months ago: a hypothetical scenario where the non-IE and non-dominant males wouldn't have been massively annihilated, not for a long time, but where their lower status and wealth made them have only half the number of children of the IE dominant males. In "just" 300-400 years a huge change in Y-DNA haplogroups could happen even in the absence of any "genocidal" elimination of native males.

halfalp
28-04-18, 21:19
Agrred. However, I think those sweeping changes favoring just a few haplogroup subclades was not a sudden consequence of their conquest/immigration, but rather a long-term consequence of a strictly hierarchical and unequal, as well as still clan-based society, where one's marriage and procreation prospects differed a lot depending on whether the belonged or not to the "right" lineages (something like the way elite Romans cared so much about the "gens" to which someone belonged). In ancient times, more surviving offspring certainly came from a better social standing, a more influential and helpful network (one's important lineage and their allies and clients) and more family real estate (I don't think they were initially very bent on individual property, more like a clan/family-based and patriarch-centered property). It's probable that many women wouldn't be married off by their parents to men without a prestigious "gens", an important social position and significant property. And the conquered males were disproportionately among those disadvantaged "unmarriable" - or simply incapable of suppoting large families - men.
This was pretty much what i wanted to say. A lot of people have idealized the indo-europeans in a Julius Evola way, but in reality, those societies must have been one of the hardest to have ever lived. If we take the latter scythians or the turco-mongols, at least the cultural evolution made that because of horse was the main weapon, every warriors were pretty much at the same level, whether they were of royal blood or of peasant, every child must have learned to mount from childhood. It's not like the earliest indo-europeans where the elite had horses and chariots and the plebs just their feet. This must have been an hardcore society that was naturally focus on individualism and self-developement, every men could only count on himself, even if they were from the same society and related blood, if they could found a civilization with better lifestyle, they would totally pick it.

I have done a simple experiment months ago: a hypothetical scenario where the non-IE and non-dominant males wouldn't have been massively annihilated, not for a long time, but where their lower status and wealth made them have only half the number of children of the IE dominant males. In "just" 300-400 years a huge change in Y-DNA haplogroups could happen even in the absence of any "genocidal" elimination of native males. Yes when i say annihilated i think in a large scale of time. Little by little, the neolithic or previous regional male lineages were absolutely not favored by multiple environnemental reasons

Ygorcs
28-04-18, 21:27
This was pretty much what i wanted to say. A lot of people have idealized the indo-europeans in a Julius Savola way, but in reality, those societies must have been one of the hardest to have ever lived. If we take the latter scythians or the turco-mongols, at least the cultural evolution made that because of horse was the main weapon, every warriors were pretty much at the same level, whether they were of royal blood or of peasant, every child must have learned to mount from childhood. It's not like the earliest indo-europeans where the elite had horses and chariots and the plebs just their feet. This must have been an hardcore society that was naturally focus on individualism and self-developement, every men could only count on himself, even if they were from the same society and related blood, if they could found a civilization with better lifestyle, they would totally pick it.
Yes when i say annihilated i think in a large scale of time. Little by little, the neolithic or previous regional male lineages were absolutely not favored by multiple environnemental reasons

Yes, now I understand your point better. Even more individualistic, my hunch is that these early IEs were very family/clan/lineage-centric, with stark divisions and even distinctive identities and customs from one clan to the other. They would do anything for them and their patriarch-led "gens", period, there wasn't a sense of unified ethnic, cultural or even regional identity.

Maybe that "hardore society" also explains why so many of them went into "adventures" very far away from their homeland: they were quite literally looking for a better life, more opportunities and a safe heaven, because their original society was kind of closed, self-limited, without enough social and economic mobility and a winner-takes-all structure that left a lot of people with very little perspectives and no hope to get a rightful place in the social pyramid. Looking for a new life in a distant place may have been a rational thing to do in several different situations, especially when disputes arose or resources were more scarce.

halfalp
28-04-18, 22:49
Yes, now I understand your point better. Even more individualistic, my hunch is that these early IEs were very family/clan/lineage-centric, with stark divisions and even distinctive identities and customs from one clan to the other. They would do anything for them and their patriarch-led "gens", period, there wasn't a sense of unified ethnic, cultural or even regional identity.

Maybe that "hardore society" also explains why so many of them went into "adventures" very far away from their homeland: they were quite literally looking for a better life, more opportunities and a safe heaven, because their original society was kind of closed, self-limited, without enough social and economic mobility and a winner-takes-all structure that left a lot of people with very little perspectives and no hope to get a rightful place in the social pyramid. Looking for a new life in a distant place may have been a rational thing to do in several different situations, especially when disputes arose or resources were more scarce.This is basically that, it was the same with vikings or ancient celts i guess, with the ver sacrum. At some point, little groups had to migrate because of the growth of the demography and a too much inequal society. Those guys were warriors and certainly their spiritual beliefs where around the fact to die as a warrior with honor. When you have guys like this, with a specific individualistic mind in a spiritual or cultural way, not a lot of things can stop you. If we take in a totally other context guys in ISIS, they might have exactly the same mental pattern as those ancient peoples, when you are cornering in your own society, you become a lone wolf and you try to have a piece of the world for yourself. There is that concept of the Männerbund, basically i warrior chief surround by brave companions ready to die for their chief and brothers, those people were certainly peasants for the most part in their original society, and might have a very low incom for food and women, they had to make their own society by conquering other people. Some royal prince might been the chief of that kind of group and at the end of the day, the only ones who wins something from conquering other peoples.

CrazyDonkey
29-04-18, 01:42
Are we really sure that that was a common thing among all the Indo-European speakers who conquered other peoples and lands, especially outside South Asia? I remember having read that there are signs of still extensive inter-ethnic/inter-caste mixing in India up to a mere 2,000 years ago, when the genetic structure seems to have started to become "fossilized" and the groups became much more endogamous and to drift from each other much faster. Some saw that as an indication that the caste system only became really rigid many centuries after the supposed Indo-Aryan migration and assimilation and was an internal development of Indian culture/politics. Are there strong evidences that it was actually a much more ancient and Indo-European-wide phenomenon?


He [David Reich] cautioned, however, that Majumder and his team's calculation could have erred as they used certain statistical methods software, and also considered 22.5 years as the span of one generation. "Standard citation in genetics literature is 29 years based on studies in many diverse societies around the world. We usually use 29 years and that would give substantially older calendar dates than the authors cite," he told TOI.

Google: "70 generations ago, caste stopped people inter-mixing" (not allowed to post links yet).

22.5 x 70 generations = 1575 years ago, or c. 443 b.c.e. (Gupta Empire.)

29 x 70 generations = 2030 years ago, or c. 12 b.c.e. (Reich's numbers would date endogamy to the Kushan Empire.)

CrazyDonkey
29-04-18, 02:06
Strange that "barbarians", which the IE tribes and clans certainly were, should have had a reputation for being barbaric, although I suspect that if you piled up all their victims it would be a rather small hill compared to the mountain of bodies that can be attributed to the major "civilizations".

The more common pattern would be the establishment of client-patron relationships (ala Vico) with subjected populations (not unlike Mafia "protection" rackets, if you will), rather than population replacement or ethnic cleansing. Where population replacement did occur, we can't assume it wasn't due to non-martial factors (climate change, drought, famine, disease, etc.).

halfalp
29-04-18, 02:35
Strange that "barbarians", which the IE tribes and clans certainly were, should have had a reputation for being barbaric, although I suspect that if you piled up all their victims it would be a rather small hill compared to the mountain of bodies that can be attributed to the major "civilizations".

The more common pattern would be the establishment of client-patron relationships (ala Vico) with subjected populations (not unlike Mafia "protection" rackets, if you will), rather than population replacement or ethnic cleansing. Where population replacement did occur, we can't assume it wasn't due to non-martial factors (climate change, drought, famine, disease, etc.).Yeah in the case of indo-europeans studies, the whole replacement by a 1000 miles long mounted warriors hypothesis is pretty immature, that's the kind of inference that your mind makes when you first hear about the whole concept.

CrazyDonkey
29-04-18, 03:57
Blame Gimbutas' overly simplistic narrative, which casts the Indo-Europeans as the evil patriarchal herders massacring the good matriarchal farmers, regardless that they lived side-by-side for centuries, trading, intermarrying, etc. What happened? The climate changed, growing colder and drier. Herds starved, crops failed. It could be that the the Yamnaya break-out of the steppes and drive up the Danube River valley was for one reason only - to find fresh fodder, "green grass", for their herds.

Same thing happened around 1200 b.c.e., with the marauding "Sea Peoples" who destroyed the Mycenaeans and Hittites (both, not incidentally, "Indo-European" civilizations) and almost destroyed the Egyptian civilization, and again in the 6th century c.e., when the Goths, Vandals, etc., brought down the western Roman Empire. If a choice of whose children should starve, would you volunteer your own? Or would you do whatever you needed to do to feed them?

Angela
29-04-18, 15:40
All of a sudden we're back to the post war nonsense in archaeology and history where nobody was an invader, nobody massacred most of the males and raped the females; they were just good fathers providing for their young. Somebody was even saying the Huns were not so bad! No piles of human skulls, I guess. No depopulation of whole swathes of Central Asia. No panicked fleeing in front of them by the Germanic tribes either, I suppose.

Is no one honest and objective about their ancestors except me and a couple of others? I freely admit that the Romans enslaved or killed perhaps more than 1/3 of the people of Gaul, and it wasn't just to get food for their children! That's what conquering nations did at that time. Now, there's a lot of good things about the Roman Empire, I think, but that's not one of them.

I do wish people would stop back projecting modern values onto ancient peoples.

The big elephant in the room is that while, yes, population crashes in Central Europe occurred before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, and the plague they brought with them was devastating, that just means they didn't need to be Conan the Barbarian to conquer it. The other pertinent fact is that there is a huge imbalance between ydna and mtdna even though the academic papers indicate that women did accompany the Indo-Europeans into Central Europe, and an analysis of the mtDna of modern Central and Northern Europeans substantiates that.

The men and boys, presumably, were killed, but many of the women, those who survived, were not, and were kept for breeding.

Yes, I know all the arguments that it was just selective advantage over the generations. Yes, that may have contributed, but it's not the total picture. One should pay attention to a people's own mythology. It's where they reveal the heart of their culture. Read the Rig Veda, or Norse mythology. Heck, even read the Old Testament! This is what men did.

It may not be pretty, but it's the reality.

Let's look at the Lombards for a later example. Yes, there was climate change, and fewer food supplies, and yes, they were fleeing other tribes behind them, but does that really make it just fine that they not only invaded the land of another people, again killed a lot of the men, subjugated the locals, making them serfs, allowing them only minimal food, and when laws were codified, making them permanently an underclass? And please, they didn't just want food for their wailing babies. They liked bling, the Lombards.

markozd
29-04-18, 17:09
Barbarian invasions tended to be the norm rather than something unusual up until recently, and few peoples in history were spared that fate. The archetypical barbarians of late antiquity - the Slavs and the Germanics - surely owed much of their expansions to the adoption of the warlike culture of the easterners under whose dominion they came. I doubt the dynamics were very different in the Bronze Age.

That doesn't mean that there isn't usually a kind of systemic weakness in civilized cultures that facilitates opportunistic invasions. The Germanic armies could roam the western empire for decades without being engaged by a standing Roman army. Such conquests were more often than not less than heroic.

Only the Greeks never really succumbed to invasions by less advanced peoples, because unusually for a civilized culture war always remained central to their ethos. That might be part of the reason why they were the greatest :grin:

Angela
29-04-18, 17:35
^^Well, timing is everything. Not easy to be in power when there's climate change causing widespread famine in the periphery as well as shortages at home, and rampaging Huns building towers of human skulls of their defeated enemies and scattering other tribes in front of them, along with some plague, for good measure, all in addition to the normal problems that plague (pun intended) established and probably too prosperous and soft civilizations.

CrazyDonkey
29-04-18, 18:10
Strange that "barbarians", which the IE tribes and clans certainly were, should have had a reputation for being barbaric, although I suspect that if you piled up all their victims it would be a rather small hill compared to the mountain of bodies that can be attributed to the major "civilizations".

I'm not denying above that barbarians are often quite barbaric. I just think that the "good vs evil" historical narrative, ala Gimbutas, is overly simplistic and misleading. As to comparing the Indo-Europeans to the Mongols...

Angela
29-04-18, 18:15
Goodness, I guess a lot of people are thinking about this.

See Razib Khan's post on why there is steppe ancestry over such a wide swathe of territory.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/27/why-bronze-age-steppe-people-replaced-the-farmers-they-conquered/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"During the Mongol conquest of Northern China Genghis Khan reputedly wanted to turn the land that had been the heart of the Middle Kingdom into pasture, first by exterminating the whole population. Part of the motive was to punish the Chinese for resisting his armies, and part of it was to increase his wealth. One of his advisors, Yelu Chucai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yel%C3%BC_Chucai), a functionary from the Khitai people, dissuaded him from this path through appealing to his selfishness. Chinese peasants taxed on their surplus would enrich Genghis Khan far more than enlarging his herds. Rather than focus on primary production, Genghis Khan could sit atop a more complex economic system and extract rents."

But this makes us ask: when did this dynamic begin? I don’t think it was primordial. It was invented and developed over time through trial and error. I believe that the initial instinct of pastoralists was to turn farmland into pasture for his herds. This was Genghis Khan’s instinct. The rude barbarian that he was he had not grown up in the extortive system which more civilized barbarians, such as the Khitai, had been habituated to.
In these situations where pastoralists expropriated the land, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for the farmer to raise a family. Barbarian warlords throughout history have aspired to be rich by plundering from the civilized the peoples…but would the earliest generations have understood the complexity of the institutions that they would have to extract rents out of if there wasn’t a precedent?"

Again, based on their own mythology, if nothing else, I'm sure there was a lot of butchery involved but this adds some nuance.

IronSide
29-04-18, 18:39
The "Indian ultra-nationalist" community already warned us - in Eurogenes and other places - that Dr. Rai was "misunderstood" and "misquoted", and that "of course" the results will prove that the IVC people were relatively close to the modern North Indian Brahmins and already had typical Indo-Aryan autosomal and Y-DNA markers. Oh my God, what kind of brainwashing did these people take? I can only feel a bit of pity on them because, as a more sensible and well informed Indian man told me yesterday, they're somehow striving to decolonize the culture and mindset of India, and to get rid of the centuries-old (even before the British) feelings of inferiority due to foreign conquest, but they want to do that regardless of facts and evidences and in such an extreme, uncompromising way that their brand of nationalism is becoming an international laughing stock these days...

Why should they feel ashamed? the Indo-Aryans were their ancestors, and did contribute ancestry to all people in India, Indians and all people must accept that they are the result of a mixture of different peoples, these people must have come from somewhere, I mean it's not like they grew out of the ground.

And something else, when we say Iranian farmers that doesn't equal modern Iranians, and Indo-Aryans don't mean Russians or Turkmens, they were old ethnicities that disappeared in their unmixed form, and Indians shouldn't view them as foreign conquerors, Indians are not the AASI (Indian hunter-gatherers), and even they must have come from somewhere, they were just the first to arrive, or the first to conquer and replace a people that lived before them.

bicicleur
29-04-18, 19:46
Goodness, I guess a lot of people are thinking about this.
See Razib Khan's post on why there is steppe ancestry over such a wide swathe of territory.
https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/04/27/why-bronze-age-steppe-people-replaced-the-farmers-they-conquered/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"During the Mongol conquest of Northern China Genghis Khan reputedly wanted to turn the land that had been the heart of the Middle Kingdom into pasture, first by exterminating the whole population. Part of the motive was to punish the Chinese for resisting his armies, and part of it was to increase his wealth. One of his advisors, Yelu Chucai (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yel%C3%BC_Chucai), a functionary from the Khitai people, dissuaded him from this path through appealing to his selfishness. Chinese peasants taxed on their surplus would enrich Genghis Khan far more than enlarging his herds. Rather than focus on primary production, Genghis Khan could sit atop a more complex economic system and extract rents."
But this makes us ask: when did this dynamic begin? I don’t think it was primordial. It was invented and developed over time through trial and error. I believe that the initial instinct of pastoralists was to turn farmland into pasture for his herds. This was Genghis Khan’s instinct. The rude barbarian that he was he had not grown up in the extortive system which more civilized barbarians, such as the Khitai, had been habituated to.
In these situations where pastoralists expropriated the land, there wouldn’t have been an opportunity for the farmer to raise a family. Barbarian warlords throughout history have aspired to be rich by plundering from the civilized the peoples…but would the earliest generations have understood the complexity of the institutions that they would have to extract rents out of if there wasn’t a precedent?"
Again, based on their own mythology, if nothing else, I'm sure there was a lot of butchery involved but this adds some nuance.
not only in the steppe
the Amorites were seen as invaders in southern Mesopotamia
when famine and drought strikes, farmers always seem to be in a weaker position because of their immobility compared to the herders continously moving and looking for greener pastures

Razib Khan :
Of course, pre-modern societies did not have totalitarian states and deadly technology. Rapid organized genocide in a way that we would understand was unlikely to have happened. Rather, in a world on the Malthusian margin, a few generations of deprivation may have resulted in the rapid demographic extinction of whole cultures. You don’t need to kill them if they starve because they were driven off their land.

This seems to be the situation when the Amorites moved south, but the last sentence is misleading, as if the purpose of the invading herders is to starve the farmers.

What was the situation when the IE moved south bypassing BMAC?
Nobody knows.
Fact is that BMAC was not destroyed by the IE herders, it merely became redundant.
To me it looks like there was not a famine, but herders saw the wealth of BMAC and the opportunity to combine herding with trade and even knowledge exchange (as with the Mitanni, the Kassites).

As for organised warfare, where and when did it start?
I think it started in many places in the world.
There were the fortresses in Sintashta.
But also written reports of war and extreme cruelties in Summer and Akkadia.
It existed in Maya and Aztec cultures.
And in Longshan culture, China.

And one more thing : warlords don't always have to be pastoralists.
The Germanic tribes originated from peacefull farmers in the Nordic Bronze Age.
They became warlike and started moving south when climate became cooler making agriculture impossible up north 6th century BC.

Sile
29-04-18, 19:58
Barbarian invasions tended to be the norm rather than something unusual up until recently, and few peoples in history were spared that fate. The archetypical barbarians of late antiquity - the Slavs and the Germanics - surely owed much of their expansions to the adoption of the warlike culture of the easterners under whose dominion they came. I doubt the dynamics were very different in the Bronze Age.

That doesn't mean that there isn't usually a kind of systemic weakness in civilized cultures that facilitates opportunistic invasions. The Germanic armies could roam the western empire for decades without being engaged by a standing Roman army. Such conquests were more often than not less than heroic.

Only the Greeks never really succumbed to invasions by less advanced peoples, because unusually for a civilized culture war always remained central to their ethos. That might be part of the reason why they were the greatest :grin:

Was the Dorian invasion of Greece in the late bronze-age fabricated or real ...........they are stated as coming from the barbaric north

CrazyDonkey
29-04-18, 21:21
I believe that the initial instinct of pastoralists was to turn farmland into pasture for his herds.

Which was preceded by the Cucuteni farmers expanding into the steppe from the Prut to the Dneister to the Bug to the Dneiper River, turning pasture into farmland, building forts to protect their incursion. Sounds not unlike the expansion of the U.S. western frontier, justified as "manifest destiny", with the "Indians" resisting the expropriation of their hunting grounds. The difference in the case of the Cucuteni farmers is that the "Indians" fought back and won, undoubtedly due to the former's lack of rifles and cannon.

Angela
30-04-18, 02:10
not only in the steppe
the Amorites were seen as invaders in southern Mesopotamia
when famine and drought strikes, farmers always seem to be in a weaker position because of their immobility compared to the herders continously moving and looking for greener pastures

Razib Khan :
Of course, pre-modern societies did not have totalitarian states and deadly technology. Rapid organized genocide in a way that we would understand was unlikely to have happened. Rather, in a world on the Malthusian margin, a few generations of deprivation may have resulted in the rapid demographic extinction of whole cultures. You don’t need to kill them if they starve because they were driven off their land.

This seems to be the situation when the Amorites moved south, but the last sentence is misleading, as if the purpose of the invading herders is to starve the farmers.

What was the situation when the IE moved south bypassing BMAC?
Nobody knows.
Fact is that BMAC was not destroyed by the IE herders, it merely became redundant.
To me it looks like there was not a famine, but herders saw the wealth of BMAC and the opportunity to combine herding with trade and even knowledge exchange (as with the Mitanni, the Kassites).

As for organised warfare, where and when did it start?
I think it started in many places in the world.
There were the fortresses in Sintashta.
But also written reports of war and extreme cruelties in Summer and Akkadia.
It existed in Maya and Aztec cultures.
And in Longshan culture, China.

And one more thing : warlords don't always have to be pastoralists.
The Germanic tribes originated from peacefull farmers in the Nordic Bronze Age.
They became warlike and started moving south when climate became cooler making agriculture impossible up north 6th century BC.

I have no argument with most of what you wrote. I have written here innumerable times that there are certain cycles in history, one of which is that civilizations, settled and based on farming, form, develop, expand, influencing to some degree more pastoral groups on the poorer land in the periphery, and that then those pastoral groups invade, destroy the nucleus of the civilization, and then it all has to be built up all over again. It's the same in the Americas, in Europe, in the Near East (the Amorites are a good example), South Asia, and East Asia. The Manchu are another example. (The Chinese are good at neutralizing their conquerors, however. )I acknowledge that, but I don't have to "like" it, even from a strictly utilitarian point of view. It's just such a waste of time having to start all over again. Think how much we might have advanced if there hadn't been so many stops and restarts.

What happened in the Near East is indeed very analogous to what happened in Europe.

I do have one quibble: I think there are lots of documented instances where invading groups do indeed want the natives to starve. Not pretty, as I said upthread, but the reality. The Huns are only perhaps the worst example.

Why do you think that Europeans deliberately infected trading blankets with smallpox, or didn't give a damn that killing buffalo for sport from moving trains would leave the Plains Indians dependent on them starving? They wanted the LAND, Bicicleur. The Romans sowed the fields of Carthage with salt once they destroyed it. Do you think the Lombards didn't take all the best land, and the hell with whether the natives who fled to the mountains would starve to death?

Good grief, Hitler and his generals and bureaucrats were planning to send all the Poles and Russians to the gas chambers so they could give all that nice, flat, farmland to, in their view, the more industrious German farmers. That was, what, eighty years ago? The Balkan War was much more recent than that. The Serbs set up camps to make raping Bosnian Muslim women and impregnating them with Serb children easier, while they executed the men and boys. They did it in part to get LAND. You think that was the first time in history that happened?

Yet, somehow, people want to think the Indo-European invasions, or perhaps you want to call them "Wanderings" too, were benign? Well meaning? It's just a coincidence that in some places the yDna of the prior inhabitants virtually disappeared? I don't think so. Their own mythology explains exactly what happened. I think a course on the mythology of the major civilizations should be required reading, a mythology often found in their sacred texts.

Take the Rig Veda, for example: the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was not some peaceable affair. There was war and death and enslavement, and the imposition of a rigid caste system based on color. To this day, high caste men can rape lower caste women with impunity. Or take the Old Testament. The Helots in ancient Greece. We have to look at ancient peoples and the events of the past as objectively as possible if we are to learn from our studies and analyses of them. It's not supposed to be about making us feel superior because of certain ancestors.

Just because we number certain people among our ancestors doesn't mean we should put on rose-colored glasses when we examine historical events.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 02:41
Why should they feel ashamed? the Indo-Aryans were their ancestors, and did contribute ancestry to all people in India, Indians and all people must accept that they are the result of a mixture of different peoples, these people must have come from somewhere, I mean it's not like they grew out of the ground.

And something else, when we say Iranian farmers that doesn't equal modern Iranians, and Indo-Aryans don't mean Russians or Turkmens, they were old ethnicities that disappeared in their unmixed form, and Indians shouldn't view them as foreign conquerors, Indians are not the AASI (Indian hunter-gatherers), and even they must have come from somewhere, they were just the first to arrive, or the first to conquer and replace a people that lived before them.

I know, I know, but none of what you say is what they have in mind when they resist so much against these evidences. They're projecting contemporary concerns and ideologies onto a completely different, ancient history - and they aren't the only ones guilty of that, as we can see even here. They are often deeply attached to a widely held belief that Indian civilization is immemorially ancient and mostly autochthonous despite one or another foreign influence, and they were also taught that decisively Indo-Aryan things like the Rigveda are many thousands of years old, and not just 3,000-4,000 years old. I've seen some comments which suggest that they are perfectly fine with an ultimately foreign origin, as long as - necessarily - it was dozens of thousands of years ago or something like that, that is, allowing for a lot of time to reaffirm the "100% independent" development of Indian civilization within South Asia. Sooner rather than later, like Europeans, they'll have to reconcile with the fact that they're mixed and not just genetic ancestry, but even agriculture and pastoralism themselves came from elsewhere, let alone languages, which are in some contexts even more easily shifted.

Finally, even though as you say this kind of thinking obviously is totally meaningless and wrong, the fact is that, maybe because of anti-colonial and even anti-European grudges after centuries of being in an inferior position to them, many of them do equate "Indo-Aryan migration from the steppes" with "the origins of our civilization were just another 'white colonization' done by foreigners" - even though that of course implies a very inaccurate confusion between genetics and culture, because nobody believes that the steppe Indo-Iranian culture was exactly like the Indian Rigvedic culture, just one of its ancestors.

They're totally wrong and even deranged, but it's kind of a pitiful situation too, because they have a desperate need - maybe a projection of inner insecurities and resentments - to assert their uniqueness, independence and self-relying past glory. Of course the reality indicated by a growing amount of evidences is knocking on the door by now, so some will resist even more vocally and maybe even angrily.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 02:57
The men and boys, presumably, were killed, but many of the women, those who survived, were not, and were kept for breeding.
Yes, I know all the arguments that it was just selective advantage over the generations. Yes, that may have contributed, but it's not the total picture. One should pay attention to a people's own mythology. It's where they reveal the heart of their culture. Read the Rig Veda, or Norse mythology. Heck, even read the Old Testament! This is what men did.

Yes, none of those scenarios - neither the "monstrous mounted warriors" nor the "poor climate-change refugees" - will fit the much more complex reality. It was probably a mix of all those things, in some places a more violent immigration, in some others are more gradual and conciliatory infiltration, but always with some degree of violence, because that's what both the invaders and the invaded peoples used to do against foreigners, who were mostly assumed to be enemies until proven the opposite. Also, there is the fact that certainly not all the violence meant outright murder. As in the much later slave-based societies of Latin America, the disenfranchjised males were not just murdered en masse during this or that war, but subject to higher levels of violence, maltreatment and heavier work in a chronic fashion along several generations (as slaves, servants and so on) - and thus, much more than the females, they suffered violence not just in moments of open conflict, but a kind of structural violence that most definitely meant they had lower reproductive success. That's also a part of the "ugly" side of this process, even though not as visibly shocking as massive slaughters.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 03:04
Barbarian invasions tended to be the norm rather than something unusual up until recently, and few peoples in history were spared that fate. The archetypical barbarians of late antiquity - the Slavs and the Germanics - surely owed much of their expansions to the adoption of the warlike culture of the easterners under whose dominion they came. I doubt the dynamics were very different in the Bronze Age.

That doesn't mean that there isn't usually a kind of systemic weakness in civilized cultures that facilitates opportunistic invasions. The Germanic armies could roam the western empire for decades without being engaged by a standing Roman army. Such conquests were more often than not less than heroic.

Only the Greeks never really succumbed to invasions by less advanced peoples, because unusually for a civilized culture war always remained central to their ethos. That might be part of the reason why they were the greatest :grin:

If by Greeks you mean the "city-states proper of ancient Greeks", okay, but essentially even they were strongly dominated by the "barbarian version of Greeks", the Macedonians, and by the originally less sophisticated Romans, and of course much later they were subject to heavy Slavic and Turkic invasions, and even former Hellenized/Greek parts of their world were most definitely conquered and changed by the "barbarians", mainly parts of Northern Greece (and areas to its north, like FYROM) and all of West Anatolia.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 04:02
The Germanic tribes originated from peacefull farmers in the Nordic Bronze Age.
They became warlike and started moving south when climate became cooler making agriculture impossible up north 6th century BC.

As early as the 6th century BC, really?!? That's virtually as early as the first expansion of La Tène/Gaulish culture to much of Western/Central Europe.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 04:43
Their own mythology explains exactly what happened. I think a course on the mythology of the major civilizations should be required reading, a mythology often found in their sacred texts.

Take the Rig Veda, for example: the arrival of the Indo-Europeans was not some peaceable affair. There was war and death and enslavement, and the imposition of a rigid caste system based on color. To this day, high caste men can rape lower caste women with impunity. Or take the Old Testament. The Helots in ancient Greece. We have to look at ancient peoples and the events of the past as objectively as possible if we are to learn from our studies and analyses of them. It's not supposed to be about making us feel superior because of certain ancestors.

Just because we number certain people among our ancestors doesn't mean we should put on rose-colored glasses when we examine historical events.

That was a great comment, Angela. You nailed it. It's a shame some still feel this "tribal", perhaps clannish urge to defend their ancestors as if they themselves had some conscious participation and merit in the things (the achievements as well as the mistakes and even hideous crimes) done by people many generations ago.

bicicleur
30-04-18, 07:50
@ Angela

Indeed there are instances where pastoralists deliberately destroy the land of farmers, or as in the Wild West, were farmers killed the buffalos on which some Native American tribes depended.

In case of the Amorites invading Southern Mesopotamia, which is recorded in written history, I don't think it was the purpose of the Amorites to destroy the land, but they did.

I think it was likewise when Indo-Aryan pastoralists moved south.
They could have destroyed the BMAC cities, but they didn't, unlike your example, the Huns or the Mongols.
I think deliberate strategies in destroying the habitat of other tribes came later in history, maybe in late bronze age, after the era of the Sea Peoples.
Afaik even the Egyptians and the Hittites didn't do so.

As for the caste system, it's origins remain unknown.
According to DNA it exists 2000 years or longer.

And slavery would already exist longer than farming, as it is also observed amongst HG societies.

I haven't read the RigVeda, but heard of it, of course.
I recommend reading about the city states in Southern Mesopoatamia, which is written history.
There are no signs of such wars and destructions commited by the Aryans.

bicicleur
30-04-18, 08:06
As early as the 6th century BC, really?!? That's virtually as early as the first expansion of La Tène/Gaulish culture to much of Western/Central Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age#Climate
The Nordic Bronze Age was initially characterized by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC. The climate was comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France and permitted a relatively dense population and good opportunities for farming; for example, grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. A minor change in climate occurred between 850 BC and 760 BC, introducing a wetter, colder climate and a more radical climate change began around 650 BC.[3]

Before that, there was agriculture as far north as southern Finland.
Climate change made it impossible to feed the dense population.
War bands formed, united under daring warlords.

Maciamo
30-04-18, 10:04
Why should they feel ashamed? the Indo-Aryans were their ancestors, and did contribute ancestry to all people in India, Indians and all people must accept that they are the result of a mixture of different peoples, these people must have come from somewhere, I mean it's not like they grew out of the ground.

And something else, when we say Iranian farmers that doesn't equal modern Iranians, and Indo-Aryans don't mean Russians or Turkmens, they were old ethnicities that disappeared in their unmixed form, and Indians shouldn't view them as foreign conquerors, Indians are not the AASI (Indian hunter-gatherers), and even they must have come from somewhere, they were just the first to arrive, or the first to conquer and replace a people that lived before them.

Very well said. What a lot of people do not understand is that the genes of the people who invaded or colonised one land live on in the modern population of this land, not in the invaders' original homeland. That's why Neolithic Anatolian farmers resemble more modern Sardinians than modern Anatolians. That's also why the genome of Yamna people is closer to modern Irish, Scots and Norwegians than to modern Ukrainians or South Russians.

The Indo-Europeans that left Russia and migrated to Northern Pakistan to become the Indo-Aryans were the ancestors of modern South Asians, not of modern Russians. The Iranian farmers that left Iran to colonise South Asia became the ancestors of all South Asians, not of modern Iranians. Modern Iranians do have shared similar ancestry from the farmers that remained there, but also plenty of ancestry from later migrations into Iran.

As ancient DNA has shown us, and which David Reich explains at length in his book Who We Are and How We Got Here (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/110187032X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=110187032X&linkCode=as2&tag=eupedia-20&linkId=b0f211b2cfe28526c03ca2330c262087)https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=eupedia-20&l=am2&o=1&a=110187032X, modern racial or ethnic groups were only formed in the last 5000 years from ancestral groups that do not exist any more in their unmixed form. The only people who may have survived without external input in the last 5,000 to 10,000 years are very isolated tribes such as the aborigines of the North Sentinel Island in the Andamans (who shoot arrows at helicopters), or some tribes from the Amazon, Papua New Guinea or Australia. Even the Khoisan of southern Africa have recent admixture from farmers. If Indians were descended from the Palaeolithic South Asians without admixture they would be essentially like the North Sentinel tribes genetically (and perhaps also culturally). I don't understand why anyone would be ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming.

markozd
30-04-18, 10:28
If by Greeks you mean the "city-states proper of ancient Greeks", okay, but essentially even they were strongly dominated by the "barbarian version of Greeks", the Macedonians, and by the originally less sophisticated Romans, and of course much later they were subject to heavy Slavic and Turkic invasions, and even former Hellenized/Greek parts of their world were most definitely conquered and changed by the "barbarians", mainly parts of Northern Greece (and areas to its north, like FYROM) and all of West Anatolia.

The Romans and Macedonian were in matters of warfare much more sophisticated than the Greeks. Philip II could conquer Greece because of his tactical & strategic innovations. This is completely unlike Rome's struggle with the Barbarians - a well prepared Roman army always defeated the Germanics in pitched battles.

My guess would be that Bronze Age dynamics were much more akin to the latter phenomenon, but still more extreme. The world view that arose in theBronze Age must have been completely unlike that of the Neolithic & Paleolithic peoples. The same sociological developments can be seen (in some cases even earlier) in Afro-Asiatic, Sumerian, Hurro-Uratrian, Turkic, Minoan, Etruscan and so forth. We're talking about the ascendancy of hitherto unknown male gods, doctrines associated with bands of men, the sudden ubiquity of symbology related to war like armed stelae & the labrys and such things.

Angela
30-04-18, 18:17
Very well said. What a lot of people do not understand is that the genes of the people who invaded or colonised one land live on in the modern population of this land, not in the invaders' original homeland. That's why Neolithic Anatolian farmers resemble more modern Sardinians than modern Anatolians. That's also why the genome of Yamna people is closer to modern Irish, Scots and Norwegians than to modern Ukrainians or South Russians.

The Indo-Europeans that left Russia and migrated to Northern Pakistan to become the Indo-Aryans were the ancestors of modern South Asians, not of modern Russians. The Iranian farmers that left Iran to colonise South Asia became the ancestors of all South Asians, not of modern Iranians. Modern Iranians do have shared similar ancestry from the farmers that remained there, but also plenty of ancestry from later migrations into Iran.

As ancient DNA has shown us, and which David Reich explains at length in his book Who We Are and How We Got Here (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/110187032X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=110187032X&linkCode=as2&tag=eupedia-20&linkId=b0f211b2cfe28526c03ca2330c262087)https://ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=eupedia-20&l=am2&o=1&a=110187032X, modern racial or ethnic groups were only formed in the last 5000 years from ancestral groups that do not exist any more in their unmixed form. The only people who may have survived without external input in the last 5,000 to 10,000 years are very isolated tribes such as the aborigines of the North Sentinel Island in the Andamans (who shoot arrows at helicopters), or some tribes from the Amazon, Papua New Guinea or Australia. Even the Khoisan of southern Africa have recent admixture from farmers. If Indians were descended from the Palaeolithic South Asians without admixture they would be essentially like the North Sentinel tribes genetically (and perhaps also culturally). I don't understand why anyone would be ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming.

I don't think they're ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming, Maciamo. From things I've read most of them seem to be ok with being descended in part from Neolithic Iran like people. Their issue is with owing anything in terms of genes or culture to anything associated with Europe.

Given their history I understand it, but facts are facts. To deny certain things just makes a country look ridiculous. They have to accept, like everyone else, that their people and culture are a mix of different groups.

bicicleur
30-04-18, 19:03
I don't think they're ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming, Maciamo. From things I've read most of them seem to be ok with being descended in part from Neolithic Iran like people. Their issue is with owing anything in terms of genes or culture to anything associated with Europe.
Given their history I understand it, but facts are facts. To deny certain things just makes a country look ridiculous. They have to accept, like everyone else, that their people and culture are a mix of different groups.
they have a theory that IE originated in India (out of India theory)
they deny every prehistoric invasion of India, and see India as the origin of many expansions
read the article, it says an Indian origin of IE has become impossible now
in their view, Mehrgarh was a local development
and the Indo-Aryan invasion, it never happened

Coriolan
30-04-18, 19:43
I don't think they're ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming, Maciamo. From things I've read most of them seem to be ok with being descended in part from Neolithic Iran like people. Their issue is with owing anything in terms of genes or culture to anything associated with Europe.

Given their history I understand it, but facts are facts. To deny certain things just makes a country look ridiculous. They have to accept, like everyone else, that their people and culture are a mix of different groups.Haven't Russia/USSR and India enjoyed good relations since India became independent? During the Cold War I think that Indians were even closer to Russians than Westerners. It got my attention when I read that because I found it uncanny that two very different cultures but sharing a high percentage of haplogroup R1a should be so close. It made me wonder if there were shared genes that made them feel close or mutually compatible. With that in mind, it is surprising that Indians don't want anything to do with Russians genetically. When you think about it, even if nationalist Indians believe that Indo-Europeans originated in India, that still makes Europeans their genetic cousins. So why feel shame about that relatedness?

Sent from my Redmi 5 Plus using Tapatalk

Angela
30-04-18, 20:47
Haven't Russia/USSR and India enjoyed good relations since India became independent? During the Cold War I think that Indians were even closer to Russians than Westerners. It got my attention when I read that because I found it uncanny that two very different cultures but sharing a high percentage of haplogroup R1a should be so close. It made me wonder if there were shared genes that made them feel close or mutually compatible. With that in mind, it is surprising that Indians don't want anything to do with Russians genetically. When you think about it, even if nationalist Indians believe that Indo-Europeans originated in India, that still makes Europeans their genetic cousins. So why feel shame about that relatedness?

Sent from my Redmi 5 Plus using Tapatalk

I think they feel shame about being conquered. You really have to read the Rigveda to understand. That's why many of them don't seem to care very much if ancestry came to them from the west, from Iran. Those were just farmers moving in and blending. They didn't subjugate them. It's also all tied into colonialism and the Raj.

Meanwhile, the values which came with the Indo-Europeans persist to this day. I just saw an article the other day about sperm banks In India touting that their sperm would guarantee "light-skinned" tall offspring.

It's schizophrenic and totally illogical, but emotional stances are often just that. I mean, to my European eyes even the very much in a minority high caste Brahmins or Kshatriya with their 15-20% "steppe" ancestry are still decidedly "brown", so it's hard to understand these delineations.

Still, it's there. One of our Miss Americas was of Indian descent and said in an interview that she's too dark to have ever won such an award in India. I find that really sad.

https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/408813/nina-davuluri.jpg

The same used to be true to some extent in the U.S. or the Caribbean, and is still true to some extent. One of my closest friends is a "black" Jamaican (although "brown" describes her color better, and my Cuban friend said she would be described as a "mulatta" in Cuba), and the other day she was saying that one of her daughter's has "better" hair than the other. By that she means straighter.

Ailchu
30-04-18, 22:32
why do you think that these values come from indo europeans? you have the same thing in east asia and africa. that didn't come from indo europeans but from the our modern culture.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 23:06
The only people who may have survived without external input in the last 5,000 to 10,000 years are very isolated tribes such as the aborigines of the North Sentinel Island in the Andamans (who shoot arrows at helicopters), or some tribes from the Amazon, Papua New Guinea or Australia. Even the Khoisan of southern Africa have recent admixture from farmers. If Indians were descended from the Palaeolithic South Asians without admixture they would be essentially like the North Sentinel tribes genetically (and perhaps also culturally). I don't understand why anyone would be ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming.

Even in the case of non-islander isolated tribes, like the Amazonians, I find it extremely unlikely that they remained more or less unadmixed in the last 5,000-10,000 years. In the case of the Amazon, my opinion is mostly due to the fact that we have reliable indications of huge expansions of a few language families associated with more intensive farming and very warlike structures, such as the Tupi-Guaranis and Arawaks. I don't know about the Arawaks, but for the Tupi-Guarani their expansion is dated to around 2,000 years ago. The reach of those languages was, in the early Columbian times, extremely wide, in territories roughly as large as 1/2 or even 2/3 of Europe, and that would be almost impossible - certainly not with extreme linguistic divergence to the point that the connections would now be almost unrecognizable - if this situation had been persisting since as much as ~10,000 years ago. Thus, we can see that even apparently "pristine" and isolated regions must have actually had a lot of action, cultural change and demographic replacements in the last milennia, especially after the spread of farming encroaching on hunter-gatherer territories.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 23:11
The Romans and Macedonian were in matters of warfare much more sophisticated than the Greeks. Philip II could conquer Greece because of his tactical & strategic innovations. This is completely unlike Rome's struggle with the Barbarians - a well prepared Roman army always defeated the Germanics in pitched battles.

My guess would be that Bronze Age dynamics were much more akin to the latter phenomenon, but still more extreme. The world view that arose in theBronze Age must have been completely unlike that of the Neolithic & Paleolithic peoples. The same sociological developments can be seen (in some cases even earlier) in Afro-Asiatic, Sumerian, Hurro-Uratrian, Turkic, Minoan, Etruscan and so forth. We're talking about the ascendancy of hitherto unknown male gods, doctrines associated with bands of men, the sudden ubiquity of symbology related to war like armed stelae & the labrys and such things.

In matters of warfare, yes, certainly, but as we were talking about the level of sophistication of the civilization I'm pretty sure that Romans until around 200 BC and Macedonians by 340 BC were certainly seen by the Greek city-state dwellers as pretty unrefined and uncivilized, even if increasingly, as time went on, more for hubris and xenophobic bias than for real differences in levels of wealth and technological advances.

Ygorcs
30-04-18, 23:14
I don't think they're ashamed to descend from the people who invented farming, Maciamo. From things I've read most of them seem to be ok with being descended in part from Neolithic Iran like people. Their issue is with owing anything in terms of genes or culture to anything associated with Europe.

Given their history I understand it, but facts are facts. To deny certain things just makes a country look ridiculous. They have to accept, like everyone else, that their people and culture are a mix of different groups.

I was going to say roughly the same thing. Well said.

IronSide
01-05-18, 02:07
I think they feel shame about being conquered.

I see it that they were the conquerors, its the story of their arrival to India, because they are the Indo Aryans, in part at least.



You really have to read the Rigveda to understand. That's why many of them don't seem to care very much if ancestry came to them from the west, from Iran. Those were just farmers moving in and blending. They didn't subjugate them. It's also all tied into colonialism and the Raj.


Why do we have this picture of the peaceful farmer? They were conquerors too, desiring more land and removing or subjugating anyone who stands in their way.

Where did the Iron Gates HGs go? they vanished, after the farmers made it to the scene, later in LBK there was evidence for fortifications, they very much knew about war and their differences from the "others" at their borders.

Promenade
01-05-18, 04:12
I see it that they were the conquerors, its the story of their arrival to India, because they are the Indo Aryans, in part at least.
Why do we have this picture of the peaceful farmer? They were conquerors too, desiring more land and removing or subjugating anyone who stands in their way.
Where did the Iron Gates HGs go? they vanished, after the farmers made it to the scene, later in LBK there was evidence for fortifications, they very much knew about war and their differences from the "others" at their borders.


Of the two samples from Lepenski Vir one actually had both R1b1a (the same y-dna as many found among the Iron Gates Hunter Gatherers) and partial hunter gatherer ancestry. The other sample was completely EEF, but both were buried in the style of the prior Hunter Gatherers of the region and had a diet heavy in fish (the staple cuisine of hunter gatherers). This means that there was both genetic and an even more considerable cultural exchange between the hunter gatherers and early farmers of the balkans, so much so that these farmers may have even adopted the hunter gatherers religious traditions to a degree if we can deduce that from the burials. At least initially it seems things were rather amicable between the farmers and hunter gathers in south east europe and the farmers became more militant as scarcity over resources grew. I guess someone could even construe the male dominated resurgence of WHG ancestry in western Europe as being a sign of the relative openness of neolithic farmers, but this phenomenon is still unexplained.

As for India in particular I dont want to perpetuate the stereotype that the IVC was a society completely devoid of war, but if IVC society was any indication of how the first contact was between hunter gatherers and incoming farmers in the region we can assume this was rather peaceful as well. In fact through out the IVC's entire existence they were interacting with local hunter gatherer cultures, they never disappeared and as far as we know their interactions were peaceful. In particular the Ganeshwar culture were hunter gatherers that mined copper ore (very important for a chalcolithic culture) and traded with the IVC and there were also hunter gatherers in northern Gujurat very near to the IVC, but the IVC never appropriated their lands. The IVC probably saw no reason to penetrate into their spaces and benefited from the economic exchange the hunter gatherers provided. So for the IVC farmers at least their desire for land could be satiated and they did not have to subjugate everyone, even people who had materials they needed.

Angela
01-05-18, 05:02
I see it that they were the conquerors, its the story of their arrival to India, because they are the Indo Aryans, in part at least.



Why do we have this picture of the peaceful farmer? They were conquerors too, desiring more land and removing or subjugating anyone who stands in their way.

Where did the Iron Gates HGs go? they vanished, after the farmers made it to the scene, later in LBK there was evidence for fortifications, they very much knew about war and their differences from the "others" at their borders.

I don't understand your first point at all. Most Indians have no or a couple of percent of steppe. Even the Brahmins, who make up a small percentage of the Indian population, and are indeed resented by a large percentage of the population, are at best 10-20% steppe. Then, in the Rigveda there are all these stories about the noble Arya defeating "lower" peoples. They have been taught that these were different autochthonous groups.

Now they're supposed to be thrilled at the suggestion that their holy book comes from Arya who were European related peoples from the steppe and who subjugated most of their ancestors, and this after they were subjugated and ruled for a couple of hundred years by Europeans, and whom they threw off only after great effort?

I don't understand how you don't get it.

As to violence in relationship to the migration of farmers from the Near East, there are some problems with getting a grip on it. Most importantly, we don't have recorded mythology to give us an understanding of what happened.

We do know, however, that the number of hunter-gatherers in Europe was pretty small. It's probably true that as the farmers took over loess soil areas, the hunter-gatherers retreated to the deep forests, mountains or to the northeast. Might there have been violence? I would think so. I think there's always been violence when two groups with different subsistence strategies meet.

However, we also have papers which show that in the Iron Gates, and in the German plain (I think Bollingino et al?,) and in Gotland as well, there are hunter-gather and farmer enclaves side by side for at least a thousand years. If you don't remember that, the papers are easy to find.

As time passed, there was some admixture, and the admixture was not just of farmer men with hunter-gatherer women. In fact, it seems that a good number of hunter-gatherer men were absorbed. That's why we have so many I2a( and even a I1) autosomally farmer samples, yes?

One of the big differences, I think, is that the Indo-European invasions, although some women also made the journey, were more male oriented, where I think it is pretty clear that the farmers came as family groups. It also seems that the Indo-Europeans were polygamous, and we don't know if that was the case with the farmers.

I think it's also clear that as the climate worsened and crops failed and there was intense competition for resources, there was substantial violence between farming communities.

The final factor is that in the later stages of the Indo-European migrations (not necessarily with Corded Ware, where the weapons were not actually superior to those of the farmers), in Central Asia and India, for example, we have the evidence from the Rig Veda and other written records which do reveal a lot of violence.

How much violence there was with the Bell Beakers or even Corded Ware, I don't know. In the beginning their weaponry and metallurgy were not very good, especially in the case of Corded Ware. It improved significantly pretty quickly, though. As I said on one of these threads, I'm sure there was violence. If there wasn't a lot of violence, yDna G2a and most of yDna I2a would not have disappeared. There were no long periods of the two groups living side by side. Instead, there was an abrupt change of culture. However, I do think that much of the far north and northeast were under-populated, and there had been population crashes, especially in Central Europe, and then there was the plague.

So, it was a perfect storm in a way.

Wow, Promenade, we cross-posted. :)

Yes, I see things in exactly the same way.

bicicleur
01-05-18, 08:32
Why do we have this picture of the peaceful farmer? They were conquerors too, desiring more land and removing or subjugating anyone who stands in their way.
Where did the Iron Gates HGs go? they vanished, after the farmers made it to the scene, later in LBK there was evidence for fortifications, they very much knew about war and their differences from the "others" at their borders.
the first farmers in Europe could just work the light, fertile soils
where there was enough fish to catch, they were unable to outcompete the HG
but when the light fertile soils became scarce there was a lot of tribal warfare and cruelty amongst late LBK farmers
the peaceful farmer is a myth indeed
it is the same everywhere
whenever there is scarcity or overpopulation conflicts and violence escalate
but in the end, people get organised for war
it is not about resources any more, it is about power
that is already clear in the wars between the Mesopotamian city states
and the king-warlords, they had the support from religion, they had 'divine powers'
the kings were burried along with servants and female concubines killed to join the king in his last yourney

bicicleur
01-05-18, 08:58
it may be a sampling biass, we have just DNA from a small area in the Swat Valley
but if this Aryan invasian was so male-centered, why was there autosomal steppe MLBA but no Y-DNA R1a or R1b found?

bicicleur
01-05-18, 09:14
after the Aryan invasion there were 2 populations in India : ANI and ASI
mixture of ANI and ASI came later, during the iron age
anybody knows what happened and how this last mixture came about?

Maciamo
01-05-18, 10:17
I see it that they were the conquerors, its the story of their arrival to India, because they are the Indo Aryans, in part at least.

I agree with this point of view. Almost all the original Indo-Aryans' DNA survives among South Asians today, but Europeans. The Indo-Aryan moved to South Asia, but they never left (unlike the British) and their genes contributed to making modern Indians, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepali and Sri Lankans what they are today. It's true that there is a gradient in the amount of ancestry from upper to lower castes (among Hindus), but virtually all South Asians, even Dravidians and tribal groups, have at least a bit of ANI ancestry (which includes Steppe ancestry).

The Indo-Aryans did not come with pure Steppe ancestry. They had already mixed with local populations in Central Asia. They appear to have arrived in northern Pakistan and NW India around 1800 BCE and remained in that region throughout the Vedic period (c. 1500 – c. 600 BCE) before expanding over the whole subcontinent. At that time the caste system had not yet been established and over the course of 1200 years the Indo-Aryans became ethnically hybridised with populations related to the IVC, with heavy Iranian farmer ancestry, but also substantial Palaeolithic Indian/Pakistani ancestry. That's why Brahmins have only 10-20% of Steppe ancestry today. That proportion may have already been the same at the time the Ramayana and Mahabharata were written.

That also explains why the Indo-Aryans were described as native to the Indian subcontinent. They were. The Proto-Indo-Aryans who originated in the Steppe had been in the Indian subcontinent for a millennium, long enough to be seen as natives. But more importantly they had intermarried with natives and therefore could claim even more ancient local ancestry. So people in India today are right to believe that the Indo-Aryans were native to India, as indicated in the scriptures. The only point of contention is the definition of 'native'.

Populations have mixed constantly at least since the end of the last Ice Age, with major climate changed that reshaped all the world's ecosystems, then the expansion of Neolithic farmers, bronze age invasions, iron age empires and so on. If modern French people can be considered native to France even though over half of the ancestry comes from people who did not live in France 2500 to 2000 years ago (Hallstatt Celts, Romans) or arrived only 1500 to 1000 years ago (Franks, Bretons, Normans), then 1000 to 2000 years is long enough to be seen as native. Indeed, English people descend mostly of Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans who came to England from 1500 to 900 years ago. Yet nobody would claim that English people are foreigners in England today.

Therefore, by the end of the Vedic period, when Indo-Aryans conquered most of the Indian subcontinent and imposed the caste system over the conquered populations, there is no way those Indo-Aryans could be seen as anything but native to a part of the Indian subcontinent themselves. It's completely right to say so. Even genetically, they weren't European-looking any more. They had become pretty much the same blend of Palaeolithic Indian HG, Neolithic Iranian farmers and Bronze Age Indo-European as modern Brahmins and Kshatriyas, with only 10-20% of Steppe DNA (itself partly derived from Iranian and Anatolian farmers).

So if modern Indian nationalists can accept that they descend from Iranian Neolithic farmers, how could they not accept their Indo-Aryan ancestry, since it is itself mostly Iranian farmer and Palaeolithic Indian, and only a few percent European. I think that the main issue is in the naming conventions. It would be better to use the term 'Indo-Aryans' for the ethnic blend that emerged in NW India and northern Pakistan during the Vedic period. The R1a Steppe people who settled in that region from 1800 BCE should be referred to as Proto-Indo-Aryans or Proto-Indo-Iranians. It's an important distinction because the autosomal make-up of the two groups was radically different. Indo-Aryans were much more South Asian genetically. Physically the difference is pretty much the same as between a modern Brahmin and a modern Russian (or possibly a Balkan Slav or Greek as Proto-Indo-Aryans could have had increased Anatolian/Iranian farmer ancestry due to interbreeding with BMAC females).

It's really the same level of genetic difference as between 5th century Anglo-Saxons and modern English people. It's wrong to use the term English and Anglo-Saxon interchangeably (as the French love to do). These are two genetically distinct ethnicities. The English are a blend of Anglo-Saxon, ancient Britons, Vikings and Normans (themselves a hybrid of Viking and North French). The Indo-Aryans were a blend of Proto-Indo-Iranian (a mix of Mesolithic Europeans, Anatolian and Iranian farmers) and Indus Valley inhabitants (a mix of Iranian farmers and Palaeolithic/Mesolithic Pakistanis/North Indians).

Maciamo
01-05-18, 10:37
the first farmers in Europe could just work the light, fertile soils
where there was enough fish to catch, they were unable to outcompete the HG
but when the light fertile soils became scarce there was a lot of tribal warfare and cruelty amongst late LBK farmers
the peaceful farmer is a myth indeed
it is the same everywhere
whenever there is scarcity or overpopulation conflicts and violence escalate
but in the end, people get organised for war
it is not about resources any more, it is about power
that is already clear in the wars between the Mesopotamian city states
and the king-warlords, they had the support from religion, they had 'divine powers'
the kings were burried along with servants and female concubines killed to join the king in his last yourney

I completely agree. Violence is part of human (and animal) nature, especially when one's survival is threatened by food scarcity. As long as food is plentiful people (and other species of animals) can live side by side relatively peacefully. That was also a prerequisite for the stability of large empires (Persian, Roman, Indian, Chinese). When food became scarce because of climatic events, uprisings occurred and empires collapsed.

Epidemics like the plage had the opposite effect, as it created a vacuum that released the internal tensions and provided abundance to the survivors once the epidemics had passed - as long as no neighbouring barbarians seized the opportunity to invade the weakened land. The 14th century Black Death probably played a role in stimulating the rebuilding of European economy and facilitating the emergence of the Renaissance. The 17th century plague also seem to have had a stimulatory effect in the long run, with the 18th century booming of the population and the Enlightenment, as if the pruning of population and the psychological trauma was counteracted by an increased vigour of the surviving population. It might be part of the wider cycle of civilisations described in Biohistory: Decline and Fall of the West, by Jim Penman (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B01GKH3ZK8/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=B01GKH3ZK8&linkCode=as2&tag=eupedia-21) (which was summarised in a very good video series on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4-Od8cq5Gk)).

IronSide
01-05-18, 15:24
I don't understand your first point at all. Most Indians have no or a couple of percent of steppe. Even the Brahmins, who make up a small percentage of the Indian population, and are indeed resented by a large percentage of the population, are at best 10-20% steppe. Then, in the Rigveda there are all these stories about the noble Arya defeating "lower" peoples. They have been taught that these were different autochthonous groups.
Now they're supposed to be thrilled at the suggestion that their holy book comes from Arya who were European related peoples from the steppe and who subjugated most of their ancestors, and this after they were subjugated and ruled for a couple of hundred years by Europeans, and whom they threw off only after great effort?
I don't understand how you don't get it.

It depends on which Steppe population you choose to model south Asians with, in Lazaridis et al(2016) they chose Steppe EMBA (Yamnaya) and dismissed Steppe MLBA (Sintashta) which was admixed with European farmers. If Yamnaya is chosen then Steppe ancestry rises from 25% to 40% in various South Asian groups.

As Maciamo pointed, Its highly likely that the Indo Aryans were already mixed between Steppe MLBA and another population with Iranian farmer and AASI ancestry, which reduced Anatolian farmer ancestry, if you calculate how much "Steppe" south Asians have from this reference it might go even higher.

What makes Steppe MLBA different from this mixed population? they're both mixed and not totally similar to Yamnaya, and Steppe MLBA may not be the direct source of ancestry, so what advantage point does this population have?

The Yamnaya themselves are CHG and EHG, both got higher in India after they mixed with Iranian farmers and ANE like Siberians. what is true is that they don't have European farmer related ancestry when they arrived in India, so Hindu nationalists can still claim the Aryans were not very European like if that satisfies their ego, self-victimization is not cool.

Cpluskx
01-05-18, 15:52
How much do we know about the physical appearance of Indo-Aryans? I read that Yamnaya had darker features similar to Mediterraneans while there were lots of lighter people in the Andronovo.

IronSide
01-05-18, 16:47
How much do we know about the physical appearance of Indo-Aryans? I read that Yamnaya had darker features similar to Mediterraneans while there were lots of lighter people in the Andronovo.

Yeah, Andronovo had "measurably" lighter individuals compared tp Yamnaya.

In theory, light blonde hair correlates with Ancient North Eurasian "ANE" ancestry, the first individual who had alleles for light hair was an ANE from Siberia, the Scandinavian HG were also light haired, and they had ANE, so the trail leads to them I guess, Yamnaya should have had lighter haired individuals based on this principle.

I don't have any conspiracies, I don't know.

Quoting David Reich from his book:

"The fusion of these highly different populations into today’s West Eurasians is vividly evident in what might be considered the classic northern European look: blue eyes, light skin, and blond hair. Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter-gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes—thus light skin in Europe largely owes its origins to migrating farmers. The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive migration into the region of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, an event that is related in the next chapter."

So maybe David Reich thinks Steppe pastoralists spread this trait in Europe and elsewhere?

Angela
01-05-18, 16:50
the first farmers in Europe could just work the light, fertile soils
where there was enough fish to catch, they were unable to outcompete the HG
but when the light fertile soils became scarce there was a lot of tribal warfare and cruelty amongst late LBK farmers
the peaceful farmer is a myth indeed
it is the same everywhere
whenever there is scarcity or overpopulation conflicts and violence escalate
but in the end, people get organised for war
it is not about resources any more, it is about power
that is already clear in the wars between the Mesopotamian city states
and the king-warlords, they had the support from religion, they had 'divine powers'
the kings were burried along with servants and female concubines killed to join the king in his last yourney

I think rather than speaking of an Indo-European "warrior culture", it's perhaps a Bronze Age warrior culture, present both in Europe and in the Near East.

I absolutely don't think it's some "genetic" thing when Semites show many of the hallmarks of this kind of culture, including taking over prior agricultural societies.

Increasingly, I'm also being persuaded that in addition to things like metallurgy and kurgans and the wheel filtering onto the steppe from over the Caucasus and "Old Europe", that was also the case with this heightened and increased stratification of society and the development of a separate "warrior" class. All of this is tied, I think, to bronze weapons, which required great wealth to obtain, but which gave a decided advantage in warfare.

The papers documenting all this are numerous and have been posted here. I'm off, so I won't be able to post all the citations.

johen
01-05-18, 16:53
So if modern Indian nationalists can accept that they descend from Iranian Neolithic farmers, how could they not accept their Indo-Aryan ancestry, since it is itself mostly Iranian farmer and Palaeolithic Indian, and only a few percent European. I think that the main issue is in the naming conventions. It would be better to use the term 'Indo-Aryans' for the ethnic blend that emerged in NW India and northern Pakistan during the Vedic period. The R1a Steppe people who settled in that region from 1800 BCE should be referred to as Proto-Indo-Aryans or Proto-Indo-Iranians. It's an important distinction because the autosomal make-up of the two groups was radically different. Indo-Aryans were much more South Asian genetically. Physically the difference is pretty much the same as between a modern Brahmin and a modern Russian (or possibly a Balkan Slav or Greek as Proto-Indo-Aryans could have had increased Anatolian/Iranian farmer ancestry due to interbreeding with BMAC females).


Under the circumstances, can we say it was done by spreading R1a-z93?

I think the problem is not the Indian nationalist, but tons of Indian bloggers who actually do not care about aryan migration, but for why hindu and mayan culture are exetremly similar in astronomy, math, engineering, architecture, their gods and especially yoga and pyramid also. Even some bloggers wrote books about the subject, ” The Ayar-Incas called the Mayan Civilization 'unquestionably Hindu”

I also mentioned lot of time here and anthrogenica, thankfully not to be deleted, but in the other forums absolutely deleted. But I have not got any answers, even from lots of Hindu Indian members who are always quoting Rigveda as Rigveda experts . Why do you think those things happened?

For example, western wotan/odin, or maybe Jeus, and Indra w/ thunderbolt would be the same concept of mesoamerica civilization creator votan. So some archaeologist or peoples said that ancient european or indian migrated to mesoamerica. However,I think that they did not know ANE and okunevo has votan concept, fire worship and third eye, even being directly connected to R1a-z93 scythian animal art culture. Is there a result without cause?

Indra with Vajra
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Indra_deva.jpg
http://www.viewzone.com/votan8.jpg
http://www.lost-civilizations.net/images/inca/viracocha.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/24/75/5f2475b66efce578514a9113ff7ee531.png

bicicleur
01-05-18, 17:54
Yeah, Andronovo had "measurably" lighter individuals compared tp Yamnaya.

In theory, light blonde hair correlates with Ancient North Eurasian "ANE" ancestry, the first individual who had alleles for light hair was an ANE from Siberia, the Scandinavian HG were also light haired, and they had ANE, so the trail leads to them I guess, Yamnaya should have had lighter haired individuals based on this principle.

I don't have any conspiracies, I don't know.

Quoting David Reich from his book:

"The fusion of these highly different populations into today’s West Eurasians is vividly evident in what might be considered the classic northern European look: blue eyes, light skin, and blond hair. Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter-gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes—thus light skin in Europe largely owes its origins to migrating farmers. The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive migration into the region of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, an event that is related in the next chapter."

So maybe David Reich thinks Steppe pastoralists spread this trait in Europe and elsewhere?

it was in Europe allready before Yamna, EHG has 75 % ANE according to Laziridis 2016
so, it was also in Corded Ware and Central European Bell Beaker

bicicleur
01-05-18, 19:35
I think rather than speaking of an Indo-European "warrior culture", it's perhaps a Bronze Age warrior culture, present both in Europe and in the Near East.

I absolutely don't think it's some "genetic" thing when Semites show many of the hallmarks of this kind of culture, including taking over prior agricultural societies.

Increasingly, I'm also being persuaded that in addition to things like metallurgy and kurgans and the wheel filtering onto the steppe from over the Caucasus and "Old Europe", that was also the case with this heightened and increased stratification of society and the development of a separate "warrior" class. All of this is tied, I think, to bronze weapons, which required great wealth to obtain, but which gave a decided advantage in warfare.

The papers documenting all this are numerous and have been posted here. I'm off, so I won't be able to post all the citations.

no, I don't think warrior culture is something genetic
it is a matter of circumstances and personality of the leader
there are instances of warrior rulers and peaceful rulers under the same dynasty

Ygorcs
01-05-18, 21:45
after the Aryan invasion there were 2 populations in India : ANI and ASI
mixture of ANI and ASI came later, during the iron age
anybody knows what happened and how this last mixture came about?

I'd guess that came with the appearance of some big dominant kingdoms around the time of Buddha and later the huge empires in India after the 5th/4th century BC, like Nanda, Maurya, etc.

bicicleur
01-05-18, 22:04
I'd guess that came with the appearance of some big dominant kingdoms around the time of Buddha and later the huge empires in India after the 5th/4th century BC, like Nanda, Maurya, etc.

yes, indeed
I know very little about these kingdoms and empires

Ygorcs
01-05-18, 23:41
Yeah, Andronovo had "measurably" lighter individuals compared tp Yamnaya.

In theory, light blonde hair correlates with Ancient North Eurasian "ANE" ancestry, the first individual who had alleles for light hair was an ANE from Siberia, the Scandinavian HG were also light haired, and they had ANE, so the trail leads to them I guess, Yamnaya should have had lighter haired individuals based on this principle.

I don't have any conspiracies, I don't know.

Quoting David Reich from his book:

"The fusion of these highly different populations into today’s West Eurasians is vividly evident in what might be considered the classic northern European look: blue eyes, light skin, and blond hair. Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter-gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes—thus light skin in Europe largely owes its origins to migrating farmers. The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive migration into the region of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, an event that is related in the next chapter."

So maybe David Reich thinks Steppe pastoralists spread this trait in Europe and elsewhere?

I have read this so many times in the last few years, but I saw no explanation as to this really big gap: why isn't blonde hair found in any non-European-admixed Native American population even if they harbored some of the highest % of ANE among ancient populations? Would their ~60% ENA-related ancestry have simply overpowered the genes for lighter hair, so that they hardly ever are/were expressed? Ditto for som ANE-heavy North Siberian populations, like Yeniseians, most of whom AFAIK have very low or nonexistent % of blondism. Or can we simply assume that just a small subset of ANE people developed this mutation and made it rise to a frequency high enough to spread easily to other populations with whom they mixed?

halfalp
01-05-18, 23:59
I have read this so many times in the last few years, but I saw no explanation as to this really big gap: why isn't blonde hair found in any non-European-admixed Native American population even if they harbored some of the highest % of ANE among ancient populations? Would their ~60% ENA-related ancestry have simply overpowered the genes for lighter hair, so that they hardly ever are/were expressed? Ditto for som ANE-heavy North Siberian populations, like Yeniseians, most of whom AFAIK have very low or nonexistent % of blondism. Or can we simply assume that just a small subset of ANE people developed this mutation and made it rise to a frequency high enough to spread easily to other populations with whom they mixed?Yeah i thought about that too multiple times. Their could be multiples reasons, 1) Amerindians are a mix of ANE mal'ta related but also eastern asian, who are one of the strongest black haired people in the world. 2) ANE in Eastern Europe could be related from a Western Siberian ANE-Afontova Gora related population that would have a founder effect or some Kostenki-Sunghir ancestry wich light hairs could have originated, that the ANE-Amerindian/Eastern Siberian would not have had. 3) ANE in Eastern Europe came with Q1a2 and therefore if light hairs originate in them, an intensive selection would occur in Eastern Europe / Western Siberia and nowhere else wich explain the modern distribution of light hairs.

Olympus Mons
02-05-18, 00:42
the first farmers in Europe could just work the light, fertile soils
where there was enough fish to catch, they were unable to outcompete the HG
but when the light fertile soils became scarce there was a lot of tribal warfare and cruelty amongst late LBK farmers
the peaceful farmer is a myth indeed
it is the same everywhere
whenever there is scarcity or overpopulation conflicts and violence escalate
but in the end, people get organised for war
it is not about resources any more, it is about power
that is already clear in the wars between the Mesopotamian city states
and the king-warlords, they had the support from religion, they had 'divine powers'
the kings were burried along with servants and female concubines killed to join the king in his last yourney

... and everybody forgets that all those arriving populations happened after the 5.9 kiloyear event that not only created the sahara desert, but really sent europe temperatures dropping heavily. If the LIA (little Ige age) of the 17th/18th century is any indication then it could really be rough to farmers in europe. they truly could just have died out and the arriving of new populations a couple centuries later did not find many still "standing".
So arriving populations can really just have looked around and say, where is everyone? ;)

Off course we need to learn much more to learn what happened. But its not a coincidence that the events are marked by 5.9 Kiloyear and the end of bronze age cultures such as Bell beakers shortly after 4.2 kiloyear event.

bicicleur
02-05-18, 07:01
I have read this so many times in the last few years, but I saw no explanation as to this really big gap: why isn't blonde hair found in any non-European-admixed Native American population even if they harbored some of the highest % of ANE among ancient populations? Would their ~60% ENA-related ancestry have simply overpowered the genes for lighter hair, so that they hardly ever are/were expressed? Ditto for som ANE-heavy North Siberian populations, like Yeniseians, most of whom AFAIK have very low or nonexistent % of blondism. Or can we simply assume that just a small subset of ANE people developed this mutation and made it rise to a frequency high enough to spread easily to other populations with whom they mixed?

David Reich in his new book says that Native Americans are 1/3 ANE and 2/3 East Asian.
But the same tought had come up with me.
Somehow the ancestors of the Native Americans seem to have lost that blonde hair gene.
How did that happen? I can't think of any natural cause.

I1a3_Young
02-05-18, 15:41
David Reich in his new book says that Native Americans are 1/3 ANE and 2/3 East Asian.
But the same tought had come up with me.
Somehow the ancestors of the Native Americans seem to have lost that blonde hair gene.
How did that happen? I can't think of any natural cause.

Halfway kidding here but I wouldn't want to have had blonde hair in a culture where scalps are treasured.

Angela
02-05-18, 17:47
David Reich in his new book says that Native Americans are 1/3 ANE and 2/3 East Asian.
But the same tought had come up with me.
Somehow the ancestors of the Native Americans seem to have lost that blonde hair gene.
How did that happen? I can't think of any natural cause.

That's why there's more to find out. Two recessive mutations would have to appear in someone.

One mutation in one ancient sample might have been a one off. Plus, pigmentation is multi-genetic. Without the other de-pigmentation snps I'm highly skeptical that ancient person would have had actual blonde hair.

I think this is one part of his book where Reich was pretty sloppy, probably because he doesn't care very much about it, and so condensed the evidence too much. As someone else mentioned, the SHG had depigmentation snps for skin too, and they have to be considered European. Unless, perhaps, they have some sort of evidence that it came from the Near East all the way to Northeastern Europe, I don't think what he said was accurate.

holderlin
02-05-18, 23:01
We didn't have widespread blond/light hair, light skin, and light eye genotype/phenotype until Late/Middle Bronze age. This genotype appears to originate in CWC type people, the first of which we see in Ukraine Eneolithic. Before then we didn't have this genotype and phenotypes that came close to this "North Euro" complexion (e.g. Samara HG in 5600BC) were much more rare because the allele frequencies don't seem to have risen to high enough levels by this time.

It shouldn't be a surprise that any population older than 2000BC outside of NE Europe/steppe lacks blonde hair or a combination of light features. And if I remember correctly Native Americans are descended from MA-1 specifically, and not AG 3. Perhaps these alleles aren't present in the ANE that is ancestral to Native Americans. I dunno.

How exactly these alleles concentrated on the steppe and in North East Europe is another question that we may never know the precise answer to. There are many potential mechanisms.

Biochemically speaking they are clear examples of positive (directional) selection, but I have trouble believing that these light features themselves would have added enough of an advantage to be positively selected for on their own, especially in such a short time frame. This was very quick. We had very infrequent light features, then all of a sudden the entire steppe and NE Europe resembled a modern Danish population.

Were women without light features really having obstructions to labor from Rickets and osteomalacia? Perhaps, but I don't think it was the light features alone that prevented it entirely

I think that Lactase Persistence in combination with light features was the thing that was being selected for in these populations. Light features alone would help vitamin D absorption from the sun, but if you add the ability to metabolize Lactose, you're then able to get vitamin D through your intestines as well. It must have resulted in a synergistic effect that significantly raised the fitness of these populations.

Right when you see the first widespread appearance Light hair/eye/skin phenotypes in the middle bronze age they also come along with LCT. You don't get one without the other, aside from outlying examples, and even when you look at the modern LCT distribution it's still very clearly concentrated in the most light featured populations on the planet, who are also most closely related to these CWC types where the genotype appears to have first been selected for.

Yeah. I'll go with that. Come at me bros.

Ygorcs
02-05-18, 23:17
Yeah i thought about that too multiple times. Their could be multiples reasons, 1) Amerindians are a mix of ANE mal'ta related but also eastern asian, who are one of the strongest black haired people in the world. 2) ANE in Eastern Europe could be related from a Western Siberian ANE-Afontova Gora related population that would have a founder effect or some Kostenki-Sunghir ancestry wich light hairs could have originated, that the ANE-Amerindian/Eastern Siberian would not have had. 3) ANE in Eastern Europe came with Q1a2 and therefore if light hairs originate in them, an intensive selection would occur in Eastern Europe / Western Siberia and nowhere else wich explain the modern distribution of light hairs.

Interesting hypotheses, I think the explanation must be something close to one or a combination of some of them. That said, are we really sure that ANE in Eastern Europe came with Q1a2 alone? I'd at least suspect that R1a had something to do with ANE introgression into EHG, especially considering that there was also more WHG-associated haplogroups (mainly I and some R1b) among the EHG accounting for the WHG-related part of EHG. Of course that's just a speculation of mine. As you also said in your comment, my best guess is that light hair was a relatively late regional innovation (probably in West Siberia or the Urals) and wasn't a common ancient feature in ANE since its earliest existence, especially because ANE admixture into Pre-Native Americans was probably very old, before ~20-22k ybp, considering the recent evidences of a long period of isolation in a "Beringian refuge", between the ANE+ENA admixture and the ultimate colonization of America.

ROS
02-05-18, 23:29
I will never understand why the majority of blondes went to the north of Europe, will it not be rather that there is something in the north of Europe that increases the frequency of being blond in the human being? Maybe the weather? and the inclination of the solar rays?


Here in the south of the south there are blond people, blue eyes, white as milk, but the frequency is totally different to the north, because the greater frequency of dark skinned people to the south? Maybe the weather? and the inclination of the solar rays?

Ailchu
02-05-18, 23:49
We didn't have widespread blond/light hair, light skin, and light eye genotype/phenotype until Late/Middle Bronze age. This genotype appears to originate in CWC type people, the first of which we see in Ukraine Eneolithic. Before then we didn't have this genotype and phenotypes that came close to this "North Euro" complexion (e.g. Samara HG in 5600BC) were much more rare because the allele frequencies don't seem to have risen to high enough levels by this time.

It shouldn't be a surprise that any population older than 2000BC outside of NE Europe/steppe lacks blonde hair or a combination of light features. And if I remember correctly Native Americans are descended from MA-1 specifically, and not AG 3. Perhaps these alleles aren't present in the ANE that is ancestral to Native Americans. I dunno.

How exactly these alleles concentrated on the steppe and in North East Europe is another question that we may never know the precise answer to. There are many potential mechanisms.

Biochemically speaking they are clear examples of positive (directional) selection, but I have trouble believing that these light features themselves would have added enough of an advantage to be positively selected for on their own, especially in such a short time frame. This was very quick. We had very infrequent light features, then all of a sudden the entire steppe and NE Europe resembled a modern Danish population.

Were women without light features really having obstructions to labor from Rickets and osteomalacia? Perhaps, but I don't think it was the light features alone that prevented it entirely

I think that Lactase Persistence in combination with light features was the thing that was being selected for in these populations. Light features alone would help vitamin D absorption from the sun, but if you add the ability to metabolize Lactose, you're then able to get vitamin D through your intestines as well. It must have resulted in a synergistic effect that significantly raised the fitness of these populations.

Right when you see the first widespread appearance Light hair/eye/skin phenotypes in the middle bronze age they also come along with LCT. You don't get one without the other, aside from outlying examples, and even when you look at the modern LCT distribution it's still very clearly concentrated in the most light featured populations on the planet, who are also most closely related to these CWC types where the genotype appears to have first been selected for.

Yeah. I'll go with that. Come at me bros.

i would have to look up info about blonde hairs but light skin was already fixated in SHG so i guess the selection process is older. they also carried this allele here i believe(copy paste from wiki)


SLC45A2

Solute carrier family 45 member 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC45A2) (SLC45A2 or MATP) aids in the transport and processing of tyrosine, a precursor to melanin. It has also been shown to be one of the significant components of the skin color of modern Europeans through its Phe374Leu (rs16891982[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-55)) allele that has been directly correlated with skin color variation in mixed-race populations.[41] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Valenzuela-41)[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Stokowski2007-52) This variation is ubiquitous in European populations but extremely rare elsewhere and shows strong signs of selection.[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Soejima2006-53)[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Khai2012-54)[56]


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-56)

halfalp
03-05-18, 00:02
Interesting hypotheses, I think the explanation must be something close to one or a combination of some of them. That said, are we really sure that ANE in Eastern Europe came with Q1a2 alone? I'd at least suspect that R1a had something to do with ANE introgression into EHG, especially considering that there was also more WHG-associated haplogroups (mainly I and some R1b) among the EHG accounting for the WHG-related part of EHG. Of course that's just a speculation of mine. As you also said in your comment, my best guess is that light hair was a relatively late regional innovation (probably in West Siberia or the Urals) and wasn't a common ancient feature in ANE since its earliest existence, especially because ANE admixture into Pre-Native Americans was probably very old, before ~20-22k ybp, considering the recent evidences of a long period of isolation in a "Beringian refuge", between the ANE+ENA admixture and the ultimate colonization of America.I remember have seen here the user Firehaired say that one of the Kostenki individual could have had some genes for proto-redhairs something like that, the same with the Afontova Gora 3 individual could have had some genes with proto-blonde hair. For ANE coming with Q1a2 i have to say that i'm not really sure of anything, Q1a2 seems very related with R1b in mesolithic eastern europe, but Q1a2 is typically siberian given that this is the principal lineage of native americans. R1a is found in neolithic baikal and seems pretty much siberian / eastern european too in context of pre-neolithic. EHG is part ANE but R1b in mesolithic latvia and balkans are mostly WHG with some EHG with a CHG transition in early neolithic wich is a fusion of EHG and something Iran_Neolithic wich have ANE... if i recall ? The only point that i can think of is that, Western Siberian and Central Asian ANE populations in pre-neolithic had an intense relationship with each others and influence genetically a lot of peripheral populations from Eastern Europe, Iran to Caucasus. There is also a great possibility that light hairs and light features in general evolved regionally in Eastern Europe / Western Siberia in a Kostenki-Mal'ta related population before expanding.

Angela
03-05-18, 00:19
We didn't have widespread blond/light hair, light skin, and light eye genotype/phenotype until Late/Middle Bronze age. This genotype appears to originate in CWC type people, the first of which we see in Ukraine Eneolithic. Before then we didn't have this genotype and phenotypes that came close to this "North Euro" complexion (e.g. Samara HG in 5600BC) were much more rare because the allele frequencies don't seem to have risen to high enough levels by this time.

It shouldn't be a surprise that any population older than 2000BC outside of NE Europe/steppe lacks blonde hair or a combination of light features. And if I remember correctly Native Americans are descended from MA-1 specifically, and not AG 3. Perhaps these alleles aren't present in the ANE that is ancestral to Native Americans. I dunno.

How exactly these alleles concentrated on the steppe and in North East Europe is another question that we may never know the precise answer to. There are many potential mechanisms.

Biochemically speaking they are clear examples of positive (directional) selection, but I have trouble believing that these light features themselves would have added enough of an advantage to be positively selected for on their own, especially in such a short time frame. This was very quick. We had very infrequent light features, then all of a sudden the entire steppe and NE Europe resembled a modern Danish population.

Were women without light features really having obstructions to labor from Rickets and osteomalacia? Perhaps, but I don't think it was the light features alone that prevented it entirely

I think that Lactase Persistence in combination with light features was the thing that was being selected for in these populations. Light features alone would help vitamin D absorption from the sun, but if you add the ability to metabolize Lactose, you're then able to get vitamin D through your intestines as well. It must have resulted in a synergistic effect that significantly raised the fitness of these populations.

Right when you see the first widespread appearance Light hair/eye/skin phenotypes in the middle bronze age they also come along with LCT. You don't get one without the other, aside from outlying examples, and even when you look at the modern LCT distribution it's still very clearly concentrated in the most light featured populations on the planet, who are also most closely related to these CWC types where the genotype appears to have first been selected for.

Yeah. I'll go with that. Come at me bros.

What date is that Corded Ware sample, Holderlin? Is it before these?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e2/f5/86/e2f58637e92f5766da4525af77d1cc0e.jpg

Also, what are the dates of the GAC samples? They're really fair if Genetiker is correct, and I've seen speculation that the MN people with whom the steppe people mixed to create Corded Ware were, in fact, GAC, which might mean that's how Corded Ware became fair. Certainly it wasn't from Yamnaya.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the ANE individual with the "gene" for blonde hair (as I said, I highly doubt one gene alone is responsible) still had the genes for dark skin, so sort of like the Solomon Islanders. I used to know the "blonde" gene they carried, but I've forgotten.

https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02210/solomon-islands_2210026c.jpg

halfalp
03-05-18, 00:32
What date is that Corded Ware sample, Holderlin? Is it before these?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e2/f5/86/e2f58637e92f5766da4525af77d1cc0e.jpg

Also, what are the dates of the GAC samples? They're really fair if Genetiker is correct, and I've seen speculation that the MN people with whom the steppe people mixed to create Corded Ware were, in fact, GAC, which might mean that's how Corded Ware became fair. Certainly it wasn't from Yamnaya.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the ANE individual with the "gene" for blonde hair (as I said, I highly doubt one gene alone is responsible) still had the genes for dark skin, so sort of like the Solomon Islanders. I used to know the "blonde" gene they carried, but I've forgotten.

https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02210/solomon-islands_2210026c.jpgI think the genetic relationship are more complicate than only autosomal DNA. GAC are almost completely EEF but also almost completely y-dna I2 so a WHG lineage. The link between the ante-big scale demic migrations populations that had those light features and the post-multicultural-populations like GAC or CWC might only be resolved with a big scale, in time, sampling. I highly doubt that Afontova Gora individuals would look like that Melanesian, is or their complexion might be different of modern western siberian of course, but evolution is gradually, how is modern native american skin color genetically regard ? is it dark or light or olive ?

halfalp
03-05-18, 00:40
I remember have seen here the user Firehaired say that one of the Kostenki individual could have had some genes for proto-redhairs something like that, the same with the Afontova Gora 3 individual could have had some genes with proto-blonde hair. For ANE coming with Q1a2 i have to say that i'm not really sure of anything, Q1a2 seems very related with R1b in mesolithic eastern europe, but Q1a2 is typically siberian given that this is the principal lineage of native americans. R1a is found in neolithic baikal and seems pretty much siberian / eastern european too in context of pre-neolithic. EHG is part ANE but R1b in mesolithic latvia and balkans are mostly WHG with some EHG with a CHG transition in early neolithic wich is a fusion of EHG and something Iran_Neolithic wich have ANE... if i recall ? The only point that i can think of is that, Western Siberian and Central Asian ANE populations in pre-neolithic had an intense relationship with each others and influence genetically a lot of peripheral populations from Eastern Europe, Iran to Caucasus. There is also a great possibility that light hairs and light features in general evolved regionally in Eastern Europe / Western Siberia in a Kostenki-Mal'ta related population before expanding.
I see i few days ago that apparently some russian scientists have some new Khvalynsk y-dna with some R1a1 and O1a1(???) we might look in the futur if this is confirmed, that would give a new view on the relationship with eastern europe and eastern asia with ANE in his center.

Angela
03-05-18, 01:15
I think the genetic relationship are more complicate than only autosomal DNA. GAC are almost completely EEF but also almost completely y-dna I2 so a WHG lineage. The link between the ante-big scale demic migrations populations that had those light features and the post-multicultural-populations like GAC or CWC might only be resolved with a big scale, in time, sampling. I highly doubt that Afontova Gora individuals would look like that Melanesian, is or their complexion might be different of modern western siberian of course, but evolution is gradually, how is modern native american skin color genetically regard ? is it dark or light or olive ?

No, I don't think they would have been that dark: that wasn't my point. I highly doubt they were "European" fair, however, as difficult as that seems to be for certain people. American Indians in North America are highly admixed. South American Indians get a lot of solar radiation. They were certainly there for long enough for selection to play its part.

That said, this is what the Karataina look like, who were used in a lot of early modeling;
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/world/americas/20blood.html

Blackfoot:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9LzNSvCc4a4/UulgTfqyUmI/AAAAAAAAP08/LsS9g02VD18/s1600/Blackfeet+Indian-Chief-Mountain+Horse-1925.jpg

Fwiw, except for a bit around the eyes, they don't look East Asian to me at all.

I remember the first time I went out west: the Indians sure didn't look like the ones in the movies.

halfalp
03-05-18, 02:13
No, I don't think they would have been that dark: that wasn't my point. I highly doubt they were "European" fair, however, as difficult as that seems to be for certain people. American Indians in North America are highly admixed. South American Indians get a lot of solar radiation. They were certainly there for long enough for selection to play its part.

That said, this is what the Karataina look like, who were used in a lot of early modeling;
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/world/americas/20blood.html

Blackfoot:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9LzNSvCc4a4/UulgTfqyUmI/AAAAAAAAP08/LsS9g02VD18/s1600/Blackfeet+Indian-Chief-Mountain+Horse-1925.jpg

Fwiw, except for a bit around the eyes, they don't look East Asian to me at all.

I remember the first time I went out west: the Indians sure didn't look like the ones in the movies.North Native Americans sometimes look more archaic and south ones looks more smooth in the shape of their face. I wonder how is the complexion in argentine and chillean natives because it's in the temperate part of southern hemisphere with maybe less radiation. I dont think the stereotypical blonde blue eyed european exist before neolithic-eneolithic transition. In scandinavia and eastern europe, a lot of blonde and blue eyed people have a yellowish skin, not the classical pale white of western europe or the caucasus, dont know if it came with CE asiatic migrations or if prehistoric EHG already had those features. We shall never found the exact populations that had primarlly developed, red hairs, blonde hairs, blue eyes, green eyes, amber eyes, light skins... but i'm pretty sure all the founder effect of each one of these features happenned in north eurasia, where ? For exemple, CHG might have had mutations for light skin, but we dont know where they came from, after all, ancestors of Kotias and Satsurblia or even haplogroup J could have been originally WHG-related and get some new autosomal dna going south, creating a new autosomal population but with the same physical features as those northern ancestors, they would become CHG, but their WHG-like ancestral population, remained in Eastern Europe would become EHG after an other migration in that population this time from an ANE-related population. Like paleolithic HG's from europe might have their own autosomal dna, but look like africans or australoids. We can make thousands of inferences that dont contradicte actual studies but we just dont have any informations to make a migration pattern and there is 0.01 chance that we found rests of a paleolithic population, saying 20 individuals, all blonde haired.

johen
03-05-18, 04:19
According to Dr. Brace, black foot Indian ties with UP, late bronze chandman in west mongolia, greek bronze.

Anyway, when we discuss light eye, light hair, we need to consider kalash together.we can find one part of siberian culture in kalash culture. As mentioned before, EHG/ scythian had red hair, of which the highest frequency is in udmurt except Island people.
So I think 3 west siberia HG women would have the same light gene of SHG with EDAR.

Actually Kalash’s culture is really fascinating.

"Gandau" statues used in Kalash funery art
http://understanding-our-past.blogspot.ca/2014/04/a-comparison-of-kalash-gandau-and.html
https://thekalashatimes.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gandao1.jpg
(Their pose is exactly same as bronze artifact of seima turbino shaman's)

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnfgraham/4000_kaleshfigure1.jpg
http://viewzone2.com/turkey-patoli.jpg




the ancient wooden idols figure at Siberian:
https://previews.123rf.com/images/rasstriga/rasstriga1702/rasstriga170200144/73306124-the-ancient-wooden-idols-figure-at-siberian.jpg


Amur basin shamanic idol:
https://i1.wp.com/todiscoverrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Nanai%E2%80%99s-idols.jpg
https://todiscoverrussia.com/indigenous-peoples-of-the-russian-north-nanais-are-still-holding-their-own/


http://www.2pathfindercounseling.com/shamanic-healing-practices-of-the-ulchi.html:
really similar idol picture


maybe origin here:
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bfnews/uploads/shigir1.jpg
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/news/archaeology.php?id=The-Wooden-Shigir-Idol-of-Siberia

P.s

I really don't understand why genetic admixture of kalash is so frequently changed from 2012 to 2018. I think it is 4 times. On 2015 they were mixed with siberian and CHG.

https://media.nature.com/full/nature-assets/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-f3.jpg

CrazyDonkey
03-05-18, 04:25
If the "blonde" trait was concentrated in the ruling class, the Jarls, it would be desired and selected even by the Karls.

Angela
03-05-18, 15:16
@Johen,
C. Loring Brace said the following:
"Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations".", which we know is rubbish, so I wouldn't bet on him being right about anything else.

The fact that the "modeling" of the Kalash has gone through so many large changes indicates to me that one should take all such modeling with a large grain of salt, especially modeling done by amateurs, some of whom have a specific agenda. There's also the fact that as new and more proximate ancient samples are found, the modeling would, of course, change.

However, I think everyone agrees that the Kalash have high amounts of ancestry from people on the steppe (long after Yamnaya), people who most probably picked up light skin and eyes in Europe.

holderlin
03-05-18, 18:05
i would have to look up info about blonde hairs but light skin was already fixated in SHG so i guess the selection process is older. they also carried this allele here i believe(copy paste from wiki)


SLC45A2

Solute carrier family 45 member 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLC45A2) (SLC45A2 or MATP) aids in the transport and processing of tyrosine, a precursor to melanin. It has also been shown to be one of the significant components of the skin color of modern Europeans through its Phe374Leu (rs16891982[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-55)) allele that has been directly correlated with skin color variation in mixed-race populations.[41] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Valenzuela-41)[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Stokowski2007-52) This variation is ubiquitous in European populations but extremely rare elsewhere and shows strong signs of selection.[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Soejima2006-53)[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-Khai2012-54)[56]


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#cite_note-56)

The allele had been around, but it hadn't been selected for enough to lead to super fair featured people e.g. blonde with light skin

holderlin
03-05-18, 18:25
What date is that Corded Ware sample, Holderlin? Is it before these?

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e2/f5/86/e2f58637e92f5766da4525af77d1cc0e.jpg

Also, what are the dates of the GAC samples? They're really fair if Genetiker is correct, and I've seen speculation that the MN people with whom the steppe people mixed to create Corded Ware were, in fact, GAC, which might mean that's how Corded Ware became fair. Certainly it wasn't from Yamnaya.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the ANE individual with the "gene" for blonde hair (as I said, I highly doubt one gene alone is responsible) still had the genes for dark skin, so sort of like the Solomon Islanders. I used to know the "blonde" gene they carried, but I've forgotten.

https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02210/solomon-islands_2210026c.jpg

Of course those samples predate CWC, C'mon, but they aren't nearly as phenotypically fair, nor as LCT positive as modern Europeans, much less modern North Europeans. That is what I'm speaking to as it relates to the discussion of blondism, which you only see in high frequencies in modern North Europe. We only begin to see anything close to this after CWC, in populations that look to descend from CWC like genotypes e.g. Andronovo, Shintasha, Srubnaya, and Nordic Bronze Age (along with BB related groups like the Raithlin samples).

This is why I'm saying that it looks like it's happening in or around CWC genotypes as we move through the bronze age. This also comes along with elevated LCT frequencies, which why I'm theorizing that it was the combination of LCT and fair traits that was really being selected for rather than one or the other.

I'm getting more and more convinced of this, so I welcome criticism, but we need something like this to explain this explosion of features that are ultra-fair in comparison to the rest of the world. I do think that this genotype in dairying populations offers such a cause.

You have these alleles floating around in these populations, probably from ancient selection events, but they don't seem to really be increasing in frequency all that much for thousands of years. Then all of sudden these alleles, along with LCT, increase drastically right around the time when stock breeding, and presumably dairying, becomes prevalent.

And yes I do now think that GAC is a good candidate for the contribution that you mention, because we don't see these phenotypes until we see more WHG and some EEF.

Angela
03-05-18, 18:48
Of course those samples predate CWC, C'mon, but they aren't nearly as phenotypically fair, nor as LCT positive as modern Europeans, much less modern North Europeans. That is what I'm speaking to as it relates to the discussion of blondism, which you only see in high frequencies in modern North Europe. We only begin to see anything close to this after CWC, in populations that look to descend from CWC like genotypes e.g. Andronovo, Shintasha, Srubnaya, and Nordic Bronze Age (along with BB related groups like the Raithlin samples).

This is why I'm saying that it looks like it's happening in or around CWC genotypes as we move through the bronze age. This also comes along with elevated LCT frequencies, which why I'm theorizing that it was the combination of LCT and fair traits that was really being selected for rather than one or the other.

I'm getting more and more convinced of this, so I welcome criticism, but we need something like this to explain this explosion of features that are ultra-fair in comparison to the rest of the world. I do think that this genotype in dairying populations offers such a cause.

You have these alleles floating around in these populations, probably from ancient selection events, but they don't seem to really be increasing in frequency all that much for thousands of years. Then all of sudden these alleles, along with LCT, increase drastically right around the time when stock breeding, and presumably dairying, becomes prevalent.

No, you c'mon. I asked a perfectly civil question, and when I do so I expect a perfectly civil answer.

I could care less where this phenotype "originated", but you were making a broad and general and rather emphatic statement, without providing any specific data, and I was seeking clarification. I didn't know the number or date of the CW sample(s) to which you were referring. I also didn't know if in addition to knowing the dates for Corded Ware you had taken into account both the dates and the phenotypic data of the samples in the Hungarian Neolithic and Chalcolithic and the GAC samples.

Apparently, the dates for the Corded Ware "more" fair samples are later than the Hungarian Neolithic although you still haven't provided the dates or the numbers to see what percentage had this phenotype, and their specific date.

You also don't seem to know the dates of the GAC, or whether the percentages are higher and the dates are earlier than for Corded Ware. They seem, from the phenotypic analysis, to be really fair, more so even than a lot of the "steppe" samples (not Yamnaya, which is very dark in comparison). They also, according to a lot of modeling, are one of the contributing populations to Corded Ware.

If all of that is basically the case, then it is highly unlikely, that, as you said, "This genotype appears to originate in CWC type people,".

Ailchu
03-05-18, 19:03
Of course those samples predate CWC, C'mon, but they aren't nearly as phenotypically fair, nor as LCT positive as modern Europeans, much less modern North Europeans. That is what I'm speaking to as it relates to the discussion of blondism, which you only see in high frequencies in modern North Europe. We only begin to see anything close to this after CWC, in populations that look to descend from CWC like genotypes e.g. Andronovo, Shintasha, Srubnaya, and Nordic Bronze Age (along with BB related groups like the Raithlin samples).
This is why I'm saying that it looks like it's happening in or around CWC genotypes as we move through the bronze age. This also comes along with elevated LCT frequencies, which why I'm theorizing that it was the combination of LCT and fair traits that was really being selected for rather than one or the other.
I'm getting more and more convinced of this, so I welcome criticism, but we need something like this to explain this explosion of features that are ultra-fair in comparison to the rest of the world. I do think that this genotype in dairying populations offers such a cause.
You have these alleles floating around in these populations, probably from ancient selection events, but they don't seem to really be increasing in frequency all that much for thousands of years. Then all of sudden these alleles, along with LCT, increase drastically right around the time when stock breeding, and presumably dairying, becomes prevalent.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
"But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency."
there is something else i found quite interessting:
"They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet."
that last sentence makes no real sense in my opinion. how was spain colder than central and northern europe.
here is the full study about the topic
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf
so the frequency of those alleles for skin, eye and hair color did increase in the last few thousand years in every population. but it was already high in SHGs way before CWC.

johen
03-05-18, 19:40
@Johen,
C. Loring Brace said the following:
"Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations".", which we know is rubbish, so I wouldn't bet on him being right about anything else.



Considering Russian and greek anthropologist work, I mentioned his statement.

we will see the result of greek bronze later, who were buried in supine position in shaft tomb.

I have located the text of George Panagiaris important 1993 doctoral thesis on Greek skeletal material. This may be one of the most comprehensive efforts to study the Ancient Greek population from a physical anthropological perspective (413 male and 354 female crania, using 65 biometric characters as well odontological traits). Panagiaris' conclusions in English can be found in p.10 of the document. He confirms that the greater period of discontinuity in the material is observed during the Helladic period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population. He attributes this to the arrival of such people from the highlands Pindos range, although he sees the possibility of Anatolian influences as well, but has no comparative data. He cites the tendency for broader skulls in higher latitudes, although this general trend in H. sapiens probably does not explain the local trend within Caucasoids where the key difference is between mountaineers (where the Alpine, Dinaric, Armenoid, and Pamir-Ferghana types are well-represented) and lowland folk. Perhaps, if various ancient DNA projects manage to study some Greek material we may be able to ascertain the events that were taking place in Greece at that time.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean/wp-content/flagallery/lesson16/16-3.jpg
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean/wp-content/plugins/flash-album-gallery/flagframe.php?i=7&f=photo_blog&h=480

holderlin
03-05-18, 23:50
No, you c'mon. I asked a perfectly civil question, and when I do so I expect a perfectly civil answer.

:rolleyes2: stop being weird


I could care less where this phenotype "originated"......

You mean you couldn't care less. If you could care less that would mean that you actually do have some care relative to your point of zero care. Freudian slip.


I could care less where this phenotype "originated", but you were making a broad and general and rather emphatic statement, without providing any specific data, and I was seeking clarification. I didn't know the number or date of the CW sample(s) to which you were referring. I also didn't know if in addition to knowing the dates for Corded Ware you had taken into account both the dates and the phenotypic data of the samples in the Hungarian Neolithic and Chalcolithic and the GAC samples.

Apparently, the dates for the Corded Ware "more" fair samples are later than the Hungarian Neolithic although you still haven't provided the dates or the numbers to see what percentage had this phenotype, and their specific date.

You also don't seem to know the dates of the GAC, or whether the percentages are higher and the dates are earlier than for Corded Ware. They seem, from the phenotypic analysis, to be really fair, more so even than a lot of the "steppe" samples (not Yamnaya, which is very dark in comparison). They also, according to a lot of modeling, are one of the contributing populations to Corded Ware.

If all of that is basically the case, then it is highly unlikely, that, as you said, "This genotype appears to originate in CWC type people,".



I clarified why I think that this phenotype originated in CWC and/or immediate descendants. Read it again.

And I said that I agreed that GAC likely contributed to the concentration of these alleles in line with conclusions that they contributed to CWC.

I'm very familiar with GAC. I don't have the dates of the samples handy, but they will likely be just before or contemporaneous with CWC.

Forgive me, I presumed it was well established whence these "North Euro" phenotypes began showing up. I will do some digging and post back :smile::smile:

holderlin
04-05-18, 00:04
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
"But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency."
there is something else i found quite interessting:
"They found that selection strongly favored several gene variants for tallness in northern and central Europeans, starting 8000 years ago, with a boost coming from the Yamnaya migration, starting 4800 years ago. The Yamnaya have the greatest genetic potential for being tall of any of the populations, which is consistent with measurements of their ancient skeletons. In contrast, selection favored shorter people in Italy and Spain starting 8000 years ago, according to the paper now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server. Spaniards, in particular, shrank in stature 6000 years ago, perhaps as a result of adapting to colder temperatures and a poor diet."
that last sentence makes no real sense in my opinion. how was spain colder than central and northern europe.
here is the full study about the topic
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf
so the frequency of those alleles for skin, eye and hair color did increase in the last few thousand years in every population. but it was already high in SHGs way before CWC.

I know that the Motala samples had those alleles, but I'm pretty sure that phenotypically they were still very far from modern North Euros, or Andronovo to give an example of an ancient population.

Angela
04-05-18, 04:05
@Holderlin,

My reading comprehension is quite good, thank-you. Perhaps you should re-read your own posts. You have not proved that this phenotype originated with Corded Ware. It existed before them, so clearly it couldn't have ORIGINATED with them. Is it so difficult to admit that you made an incorrect statement?

You know what, you seem to be incapable of discussing these issues without making snarky comments. Therefore, you can in future discuss them with other members.

holderlin
04-05-18, 18:06
@Holderlin,

My reading comprehension is quite good, thank-you. Perhaps you should re-read your own posts. You have not proved that this phenotype originated with Corded Ware. It existed before them, so clearly it couldn't have ORIGINATED with them. Is it so difficult to admit that you made an incorrect statement?

If I used the word "originated" then I misspoke. My meaning was the these traits increased in frequency, and spread, in populations that appear to be descended in large part from CWC genotypes, that still exist today. And that this also comes along with lactase persistence. This is absolutely true.

This selection process kept on going all the way into the Iron Age. Notice I said "through the bronze age".

What I'm saying isn't controversial.

I understand that there are samples with genotypes showing relatively high frequencies of these alleles before CWC. Nothing that I say is opposed to that fact. We both recognize that GAC has been shown to have contributed to CWC, which is actually supportive of what I'm saying in that they provide an additional source for these allele.

Also, it should be noted that Genetiker's chart showing skin, eye, and hair color is very robust. I don't think it's meant to shows, for example, something like the subtle difference between a typical German with dark hair and a Spaniard, Basque, or Italian.


You know what, you seem to be incapable of discussing these issues without making snarky comments. Therefore, you can in future discuss them with other members.

I don't know what the last part means, but I make plenty of non-snarky posts on here.

I think you're being overly sensitive.

halfalp
06-05-18, 09:03
I see i few days ago that apparently some russian scientists have some new Khvalynsk y-dna with some R1a1 and O1a1(???) we might look in the futur if this is confirmed, that would give a new view on the relationship with eastern europe and eastern asia with ANE in his center.
So i saw both by Carlos Quiles of Indo-European.Eu and Davidski of Eurogenes that those same have found R1b-L51 in the pontic steppe, in an eneolithic burial related to Mariupol and Khvalynsk.

berun
06-05-18, 12:20
nah, the L51 (U106) is that found in the Indus steppe
;)

https://andvari5.livejournal.com/7446.html

halfalp
06-05-18, 13:52
nah, the L51 (U106) is that found in the Indus steppe
;)

https://andvari5.livejournal.com/7446.html
It makes reference to the volga-steppe where do you read Indus ?

berun
06-05-18, 14:23
in nowhere, as in nowhere I read U106

MOESAN
06-05-18, 23:39
in nowhere, as in nowhere I read U106

Is this kind of joke of yours?

berun
06-05-18, 23:58
I'm not so wrong, I only expose that some infos seem blended in a bad manner, by that I called the Indus U106

Angela
07-08-18, 20:30
It seems the paper on these results is finally going to come out. (I know, I know, people have been saying that for ages.)
http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/08/03/rakhigarhi-sneak-peaks/

It's not a big change from the pre-print except perhaps in terms of the dating?

"Basically, the individual(s) they got DNA out of did not have any Eurasian steppe ancestry. This seems to confirm again that Eurasian steppe ancestry, which is found in fractions as high as ~30% in twice-born varna in Northern India (e.g., Rajputs, Tiwari Brahmins), arrived after 2000 BC. That is, after the peak period of the Indus Valley Civilization."

Razib Khan has an interesting post up about the political use of results like this on all sides. I think it's worth bearing in mind, as he says, that it shouldn't be about high fiving the "foreign" nature of Hindu culture or the BIG influence of steppe genetics in India, which India wide is a bit of an exaggeration.

See:
http://www.brownpundits.com/2018/08/06/genetics-is-not-about-dunking-on-hindu-nationalists/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"the cline is probably 30% among the kalash, to 10-20% in gangetic plain, and then 0-10% in south india"

aleph
20-02-19, 01:45
Only 30%? Wasn't the steppe early-middle bronze age admixture among the Kalash calculated at like 50% or something (or am I simply living under a rock at this point)? Also as far as culture is concerned, how deep was the impact of BMAC culture on that of the Sintashta and Andronovo people? (considering that the Sintashta mines shipped raw material to BMAC on quite a large scale over a contact period spanning possibly several hundred years). Furthermore, the arrival of steppe admixture in south Asia is dated to around 1500 - 1200 BCE, isn't it?