proper Indus Valley Civilization DNA to come

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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 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).
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
Indra_deva.jpg

votan8.jpg

viracocha.jpg

5f2475b66efce578514a9113ff7ee531.png
 
Last edited:
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 54314 times.

Back
Top