Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 114

Thread: proper Indus Valley Civilization DNA to come

  1. #51
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,197
    Points
    40,435
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,435, Level: 62
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,215
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  2. #52
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,677
    Points
    676,842
    Level
    100
    Points: 676,842, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    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, 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.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    31-03-18
    Posts
    78
    Points
    990
    Level
    8
    Points: 990, Level: 8
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 160
    Overall activity: 48.0%


    Country: Germany



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    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.

  4. #54
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,412
    Points
    230,926
    Level
    100
    Points: 230,926, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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, 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.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  5. #55
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,197
    Points
    40,435
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,435, Level: 62
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,215
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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

  6. #56
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points
    Coriolan's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-12-12
    Posts
    175
    Points
    7,467
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,467, Level: 25
    Level completed: 84%, Points required for next Level: 83
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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

  7. #57
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,412
    Points
    230,926
    Level
    100
    Points: 230,926, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolan View Post
    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.



    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.

  8. #58
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    201
    Points
    1,242
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,242, Level: 9
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 108
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    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.

  9. #59
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,595
    Points
    23,757
    Level
    47
    Points: 23,757, Level: 47
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 65.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,595
    Points
    23,757
    Level
    47
    Points: 23,757, Level: 47
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 65.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by markozd View Post
    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.

  11. #61
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends10000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,595
    Points
    23,757
    Level
    47
    Points: 23,757, Level: 47
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 793
    Overall activity: 65.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

  12. #62
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

  13. #63
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288
    Points
    4,459
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,459, Level: 19
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 191
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    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.

  14. #64
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,412
    Points
    230,926
    Level
    100
    Points: 230,926, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    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.

  15. #65
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,197
    Points
    40,435
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,435, Level: 62
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,215
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    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

  16. #66
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,197
    Points
    40,435
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,435, Level: 62
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,215
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    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?

  17. #67
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,197
    Points
    40,435
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,435, Level: 62
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,215
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    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?

  18. #68
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,677
    Points
    676,842
    Level
    100
    Points: 676,842, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    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).

  19. #69
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,677
    Points
    676,842
    Level
    100
    Points: 676,842, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 28.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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 (which was summarised in a very good video series on YouTube).

  20. #70
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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.

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    99
    Points
    1,343
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,343, Level: 9
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 7
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: United States



    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.

  22. #72
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    IronSide's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-10-16
    Age
    24
    Posts
    883
    Points
    8,064
    Level
    26
    Points: 8,064, Level: 26
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 86
    Overall activity: 71.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2e1

    Country: United Arab Emirates



    Quote Originally Posted by Cpluskx View Post
    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?

  23. #73
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,412
    Points
    230,926
    Level
    100
    Points: 230,926, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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.

  24. #74
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-12-15
    Posts
    378
    Points
    5,279
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,279, Level: 21
    Level completed: 46%, Points required for next Level: 271
    Overall activity: 29.0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post

    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



    Last edited by johen; 02-05-18 at 02:22.

  25. #75
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,197
    Points
    40,435
    Level
    62
    Points: 40,435, Level: 62
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 1,215
    Overall activity: 17.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by IronSide View Post
    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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •