Central and South Asian DNA Paper

Still weird tho. He said previously ( Narasimhan ) that this sample was from an archeological layer and autosomally exactly the same as the other and older samples. Now this sample was redated so it fit exactly a Steppe expansion, but then he is still autosomally and archeologically related with the older and local individuals. Can this even match?
 
Still weird tho. He said previously ( Narasimhan ) that this sample was from an archeological layer and autosomally exactly the same as the other and older samples. Now this sample was redated so it fit exactly a Steppe expansion, but then he is still autosomally and archeologically related with the older and local individuals. Can this even match?

Well it's not necessarily descended from the Yamnaya subclades. It's still possible that there was another non-steppe earlier source ancestral to both, but at this juncture it really looks like like R1 was a North Eurasian thing before the bronze age. It doesn't take many generations to completely dilute out any "steppe" genotype that was there initially.
 
Well it's not necessarily descended from the Yamnaya subclades. It's still possible that there was another non-steppe earlier source ancestral to both, but at this juncture it really looks like like R1 was a North Eurasian thing before the bronze age. It doesn't take many generations to completely dilute out any "steppe" genotype that was there initially.

I'm not necessary referencing the Steppe origin, but the methodology they used. Tested the J2b sample but not the R1b one even tho the latter is the most exotic one to found here if you look at modern and previous prehistoric datas ( or did they tested it but it failed from the beginning and they assume it was contemporary with the J2b one? ) But if so, that's an interesting coincidence that THE important samples C14 failed, but now it's ok, it was redated, how? Did the C14 magically succeeded? Claiming that both are from the same archeological layers, and have the same ancestry, while they have almost 2'000 years of difference, it's the first R1b sample that actually would not show noticable Steppe ancestry comparing to contemporary other samples around the world ( Afanasievo, BB, etc ). Also with the Late Kura-Araxes one. While other samples from the same period do show some Steppe ancestry. I feel this is the perfect scenario to misslead or confirmed one's hypothesis if the community or other scientists didn't press to C14 the R1b samples, because it didn't make sense, the sublade and the age, but why didn't they deduce that themselves tho?
 
I'm not necessary referencing the Steppe origin, but the methodology they used. Tested the J2b sample but not the R1b one even tho the latter is the most exotic one to found here if you look at modern and previous prehistoric datas ( or did they tested it but it failed from the beginning and they assume it was contemporary with the J2b one? ) But if so, that's an interesting coincidence that THE important samples C14 failed, but now it's ok, it was redated, how? Did the C14 magically succeeded? Claiming that both are from the same archeological layers, and have the same ancestry, while they have almost 2'000 years of difference, it's the first R1b sample that actually would not show noticable Steppe ancestry comparing to contemporary other samples around the world ( Afanasievo, BB, etc ). Also with the Late Kura-Araxes one. While other samples from the same period do show some Steppe ancestry. I feel this is the perfect scenario to misslead or confirmed one's hypothesis if the community or other scientists didn't press to C14 the R1b samples, because it didn't make sense, the sublade and the age, but why didn't they deduce that themselves tho?

Perhaps at this point it's hard not to view these reports through such a lens of skepticism for ideological/nationalistic motivations.

The most simple answer is that the archaeological context was mistakenly identified and they weren't doing C14s of every sample, but rather of each identifiable layer in the dig, and they randomly chose the J2b sample for C14 spec. I dunno.
 
Yes, from what I understand the Hajji Firuz site is known for having well preserved archaeological layers on the grave-side of the burial mound. The R1b-M269 sample, labeled I2327, was found in the 'sub'-grave 'K10', which lied buried neatly under well documented layers we can date by looking at pottery and other finds in those layers. Besides, his grave lied in the same burial mound as graves 'F10' and 'F11', which were the graves with the J2b samples(and those 2 are C14 dated). Narasimhan sample now magically dated/redated to the Bronze Age is extraordinarily questionable, as is his ethics.
 
Thats nothing. Theres a sample in the publicly available Reich dataset which is Carbon dated to 4,500BC Turkmenistan and is PURE STEPPE DNA. It is called Zamababa_N. This sample basically 'crept' into the Harvard dataset because it is a poor quality sample and was originally dated to much later (prior to carbon-dating) so was excluded from all analysis but still made its way into the public dataset.

So now Harvard are writing all these papers about Steppe Migrations starting in the Bronze Age yet their own publicly available dataset has a sample that clearly disproves their theories. You cant make this stuff up.
 
Just to be clear on the above. The sample is called ZamaNbaba_N not Zamababa_N (typo). It is carbon-dated to 4,500BC not 2,500BC. Details are in the Reich HO_1240K Anno file. I am not sure if it is still there, as that file may have been updated, but it is on the version I have which I downloaded a couple of years ago.

Last I heard Narasimhaan was looking at it.

twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1278332657278103554
 
We need to distinguish between a raid (engage in glorified organized crime for something like cattle or women), a conquest (where foreign forces depose another land's warriors/elites and replace them as was the case in Moorish Spain and Italy), and a settling (where populations of sufficient numbers migrate into one region and settle it, transform it, as was the case in the Americas).

All evidence indicates that the situation for the Steppe men was a case of raiding that became conquest thanks to societal dysfunction. Not settling since there isn't that much admixture in the overall population from more northern populations and what there is disproportionately from males. The evidence doesn't show mass slaughter and doom comparable to the Spanish in the Americas (which enabled by guns, germs, steel). Just raids.

The examples of actual population replacement/mingling in history that can be shown by genetics happened in situations of either undeniable technological and/or weaponry gaps (including ability to feed populations and industrialized murder as in the case of the Holocaust), plagues, climate ravaging, ideologies that encouraged destruction of outside populations as an end in itself. These situations mostly happened before the Bronze Age ended. The other situations are cases like in the Americas or Australia.
 

This thread has been viewed 286685 times.

Back
Top