Genetic study The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

I haven't been here for a long time. This new paper is very interesting and indeed proves what many of the users had proposed earlier.
I always said Indo Europeans do not seem to be derived from a single atomic culture and genetic group, but rather formed more out of a cultural network from the region of Northwest Iran, (East Caucasus) all the way into the Steppes. The Eastern Caucasus was very under-researched. And some of the earliest (if not the earliest) Kurgans are found in the East of the Caucasus. And now it seems to get confirmed that the Indo Europeans(Core Yamnaya and Indo-Anatolian) emerged in this triangle of region through mixing and contact of these people.

Olympus Mons seems to have been on to something with Shulaveri -Shomu dispersal.

As Maciamo pointed out and as the scientists also noted the route through the East Caucasus/Caspian Sea seems to be a relatively easy way.
But some people acted like the Caucasus mountains were a impenetrable barrier while at the same time acknowledging CHG admixture in Yamnaya via weird theories of "kidnapped wives". Not even noticing how they contradicted themselves. And I always argued that the reason why we only find one very specific Haplogroups in Yamnaya is down to the fact that Indo Europeans were very patriachal and most of these guys were simply related. Not to forget that it is highly unlikely that everyone got a Kurgan burial and these most likely represent Elite burials not representative of the Haplogroup diversity even among Yamnaya commoners. That is why they are so dominant in R1b L23, most probably a Elite of related man. A good explanation for why Indo Europeans were so expansive also explaining the ritual of young man leaving their homeland in search for wives and land to settle somewhere else.


 
It says the majority of CLV ancestry is from West Asian sources from the Mesopotamia-Caucasus (or Çayönü-Masis Blur-Aknashen) cline. In fact there is almost no difference between Heggarty et. al and this study, both of them say that the earliest Indo-European people were those who lived in the South Caucasus but this study says these people first migrated to the north of Caucasus and then came back.
Moesan is right, it is a cline, a continuum with various gradients between different populations.
In this case between Aknashen and BPgroup, (“Berezhnovka-2-Progress-2 cluster”) a people that had a mixture of EHG, CHG, and Siberian/Central Asian Neolithic ancestries.
More specifically the cline is Aknashen-Maikop-Remontnoye- Berezhnovka.
2C9QrJE.png


In this cline there are people who have little Caucasus Neolithic ancestry.
As the study says: “Thus, in the north Caucasus there lived, side by side, both “high steppe” ancestry people genetically close to the Lower Volga Berezhnovka population (individuals at Progress-2 and Vonyuchka-1), as well as “low steppe” ancestry people in which the Lower Volga ancestry had been diluted by the greater contribution of the (Aknashen-related) Caucasus Neolithic.

qlptrEQ.png


It’s incorrect to say that the earliest Indo-European people lived in the South Caucasus. The earliest Indo-European people formed in the steppe, the result of a specific admixture, and nowhere else.
 
was not the Persians still in Uzbekistan until migrating to Iran in 1100BC ?
No, Persian is an Indo-Iranian language, historical evidences just show that an Indo-Iranian language existed in Mitanni in the north of Syria and Iraq in the 2nd millennium BC.
 
It’s incorrect to say that the earliest Indo-European people lived in the South Caucasus. The earliest Indo-European people formed in the steppe, the result of a specific admixture, and nowhere else.
There is no big difference, what we know about the earliest Anatolian language dates back to 1600 BC, this study says Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus in 4400 BC and then migrated west to Anatolia, so those who are called Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus at least 1100 years before the formation of Yamnaya culture in the steppe.
 
There is no big difference, what we know about the earliest Anatolian language dates back to 1600 BC, this study says Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus in 4400 BC and then migrated west to Anatolia, so those who are called Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus at least 1100 years before the formation of Yamnaya culture in the steppe.
I think they had just PIE or PIA words at 4400bc.
Kortlandt also said "What we do have to take into account is the typological similarity of Proto-Indo-European to the North-West Caucasian languages."

I think it was a same situation as the last Qing dynasty at china ruled for 300 years. Manchu people of Qing dynasty had so powerful enough to forcefully change language at china, however, they couldn’t due to the cultural gap between Ming and Manchu. In other words, Manchu words could not cover the variety of chinese high culture. Thus Manchu people, elite group of Qing dynasty, must learn Chinese words. And they produced a brand-new modern Chinese language.
I think steppe words must not cover high cultural society from Caucasus.

In another example, lots of japanese and korean words are similar to tamil. You can see it at youtube. However, they do not speak tamil. ( This situation can be easily explained by WSHG or its descendants migrated to north east asia and IVC.):

"Similarities between the Dravidian languages and Korean were first noted by French missionaries in Korea.[3] In 1905, Homer B. Hulbert wrote a comparative grammar of Korean and Dravidian in which he hypothesized a genetic connection between the two.[2] According to Hulbert, the endings of many names of ancient settlements of southern Korea can be traced to Dravidian words.[4] Later, Susumu Ōno caused a stir in Japan with his theory that Tamil constituted a lexical stratum of both Korean and Japanese, which was widely publicized in the following years but was quickly abandoned"

"Comparative linguist Kang Gil-un identifies 1300 Dravidian Tamil cognates in Korean."
 
Also it seems to be finally a consensus now that Yamnaya is not where it all started. Yamnaya represents the ancestor of Corded Ware and afanasievo. Linguistically Tocharian might be what best represents the proto speech of Yamnaya folks
No, Persian is an Indo-Iranian language, historical evidences just show that an Indo-Iranian language existed in Mitanni in the north of Syria and Iraq in the 2nd millennium BC.
Morever Persian is a West Iranic tongue and evolved in the Western part of the Iranian Plateau (Zagros mountains) most likely from inside Media proper close to where Hasanlu IA is located. The region was also known as Parsua from which according to Urartaen and Assyrian inscriptions the Persian migrated from Parsua to Persis.
 
There is no big difference, what we know about the earliest Anatolian language dates back to 1600 BC, this study says Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus in 4400 BC and then migrated west to Anatolia, so those who are called Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus at least 1100 years before the formation of Yamnaya culture in the steppe.
I think there is a consensus among the scientist today that, although Yamnaya is essential for the dispersal of most Indo European languages, it is not ground zero. Indo-Anatolian is very unlikely from Yamnaya but represents more like a brother branch to Core Yamnaya. And this Proto IA-Yamnaya groups lived somewhere in this triangle of CLV cline region. Somewhere between the (North) East Caucasus and the Lower Volga Steppe. And the expanded rapidly creating a network of early Indo European cultures in the surrounding areas.


Maturing some years has made me realiz how trivial this whole arguing is. It's quite comical seing someone from India arguing with someone from let's say the US, United Kingdom or the Baltics about wether the Proto Indo Europeans started North of the Caucasus mountains in the Steppes or barely 50-100 km further South of the Caucasus Mountains. In ancient context these people on the CLV cline were culturally, ethnically and genetically most likely much more alike to each other than we could imagine. more comparable to the difference between an Italian, French, German and British person in modern context. The only reason why they appear sometimes "so distinct" in genetic context, is because modern populations are basically the result of founder & bottle neck effect out of single populations/cultures. With Europeans being basically almost all derived from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker (basically Yamnaya + EEF). Using modern metrics on ancient groups will always make ancient groups appear more diverse. That is why a Kura Araxes sample can appear like closest to a Italian while other Kura Araxes sample look like Kurd heavliy mixed with a Swedish person or something Armenian.
 
Maturing some years has made me realiz how trivial this whole arguing is. It's quite comical seing someone from India arguing with someone from let's say the US, United Kingdom or the Baltics about wether the Proto Indo Europeans started North of the Caucasus mountains in the Steppes or barely 50-100 km further South of the Caucasus Mountains.
My statement is not meant as an attack on Indians, British, Baltic or any other folks. I was just trying to visualize how people this far distant from the actual regions of question, would have very lengthy debates over 50-200 km of distance of land, because of an artificial "border" created quite recently through politics to have some bragging rights from 3k-4k km of distance.
 
Also it seems to be finally a consensus now that Yamnaya is not where it all started. Yamnaya represents the ancestor of Corded Ware and afanasievo. Linguistically Tocharian might be what best represents the proto speech of Yamnaya folks
I think there is no evidence for afanasievo to speak tocharian. The Tocharian words were found at china. Especially Zhou dynasty (1100bc) had a bunch of Indoeuropean language. However, their royals had N and elites Q1. Regarding PIE the most important thing is sky god. "Sky" petroglyph spread from lake baikal to altai, scandinavia, circle B, south asia and armenia:

okunevo:
Museum_in_Abakan%2C_Khakassia%2C_Russia_2021_-_petroglyphs.jpg


india:


okunevo:
Okunev_period_figurine%2C_Novosibirsk_Tourist-2_archaeological_site.jpg
 
There is no big difference, what we know about the earliest Anatolian language dates back to 1600 BC, this study says Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus in 4400 BC and then migrated west to Anatolia, so those who are called Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the South of Caucasus at least 1100 years before the formation of Yamnaya culture in the steppe.
I'm tempted to think these people you see South the Caucasus in 4400 BC were only PIA and not PIE. At least it is one the hypothesis exposed in the paper.
 
No, Persian is an Indo-Iranian language, historical evidences just show that an Indo-Iranian language existed in Mitanni in the north of Syria and Iraq in the 2nd millennium BC.
In my mind, "Indo-Iranian" is a previous, very more ancient stage of language. Persian is just "Iranian", a drifted and evolved "son" language. Perhaps ma I wrong?
 
Maturing some years has made me realiz how trivial this whole arguing is. It's quite comical seing someone from India arguing with someone from let's say the US, United Kingdom or the Baltics about wether the Proto Indo Europeans started North of the Caucasus mountains in the Steppes or barely 50-100 km further South of the Caucasus Mountains. In ancient context these people on the CLV cline were culturally, ethnically and genetically most likely much more alike to each other than we could imagine. more comparable to the difference between an Italian, French, German and British person in modern context. The only reason why they appear sometimes "so distinct" in genetic context, is because modern populations are basically the result of founder & bottle neck effect out of single populations/cultures. With Europeans being basically almost all derived from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker (basically Yamnaya + EEF). Using modern metrics on ancient groups will always make ancient groups appear more diverse. That is why a Kura Araxes sample can appear like closest to a Italian while other Kura Araxes sample look like Kurd heavliy mixed with a Swedish person or something Armenian.
"metrics"? I suppose you speak of their auDNA?
The calculations about their auDNA has been made based upon ancient pops without looking at the modern distribution of their diverses components. I find at the contrary that there was a strong enough difference between the makings of the DNA of the pop's of the clines 2 poles, more than between modern pop's even if these differences are relatively small compared to the allover auDNA where parts are not taken in account (look at chimp's, pigs ...!). And concerning the cline in consideration, I see more a steep step between the Maykop + Armenia groups and the most of the others, and not a genuine cline. SO yes I said "a cline is a cline", for a general reasoning, but in this precise case, it could be said otherwise.
Concerning modern pop's, they are closer between them as a whole. On another side, the most of the differences in modern pop's are, IMO, due to differences in crossings (admixture) more than by drift and recent selection.
 
I'm tempted to think these people you see South the Caucasus in 4400 BC were only PIA and not PIE. At least it is one the hypothesis exposed in the paper.
I think this Proto-Indo-Anatolian has been forged by those who don't want to believe that Indo-European languages didn't originate in the steppe, Anatolian languages are as Indo-European as other IE languages.
 
In my mind, "Indo-Iranian" is a previous, very more ancient stage of language. Persian is just "Iranian", a drifted and evolved "son" language. Perhaps ma I wrong?
You are right but Iranian is certainly a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian languages, when we want to talk about the homeland we should consider the major branch.
 
Indo-Iranian was spoken before Iranian and Indo-Aryan and it was spoken in the eastern steppe. Indo-Iranian emerged as an eastern offshoot of Corded Ware. Present-day Persians have little to do with those ancient Indo-Iranians and even proto-Iranians. Maybe that's why some wish to locate the PIE homeland as close to Iran as possible. A lot of "centrists" do it, so one shouldn't be surprised. I have also come across claims that J2 is an "ethnic Iranian" haplogroup and that the genetic make-up of Iran hasn't changed since the neolithic.
 
"metrics"? I suppose you speak of their auDNA?
The calculations about their auDNA has been made based upon ancient pops without looking at the modern distribution of their diverses components. I find at the contrary that there was a strong enough difference between the makings of the DNA of the pop's of the clines 2 poles, more than between modern pop's even if these differences are relatively small compared to the allover auDNA where parts are not taken in account (look at chimp's, pigs ...!). And concerning the cline in consideration, I see more a steep step between the Maykop + Armenia groups and the most of the others, and not a genuine cline. SO yes I said "a cline is a cline", for a general reasoning, but in this precise case, it could be said otherwise.
Concerning modern pop's, they are closer between them as a whole. On another side, the most of the differences in modern pop's are, IMO, due to differences in crossings (admixture) more than by drift and recent selection.
The further back you go and compare these ancient genetic groups with modern population. Ancient populations even within themselves always appear more genetically diverse compared to the diversity within modern population (especially Europeans). I don't think this is a matter of opinion but a fact as far as I am concerned. And I tried to explain the reason for that above. It is because modern populations are often the result of founder/bottle-neck effect. A small portion of a former more "diverse" group becoming dominant. Basically a seed from a fruit on a bigger tree, falling down and growing into it's own tree. It's simple logic the further back you go the closer you come to the common ancestors. And admixture calculators and comparing ancient samples to modern population will therefore always make the ancient populations appear more genetically diverse. Regardless of "cross breading" through the times.

I am not sure if my words are understood correctly.As an example for us, using a West Eurasian pca map, WHG to SHG to EHG to ANE appears genetically more distinct than anything you can find nowadays in Europe. But in ancient context, culturally, all had the same H&G lifestyle, and even genetically, all descend predominantly from a Proto WHG/UHG like common ancestor just with varying levels of East Eurasian admixture (from 0% in WHG to 20% in ANE). For us WHG to EHG to ANE appears very distinct and diverse because we all are the products of bottle necks and cross breading from these groups.
 
Indo-Iranian was spoken before Iranian and Indo-Aryan and it was spoken in the eastern steppe. Indo-Iranian emerged as an eastern offshoot of Corded Ware. Present-day Persians have little to do with those ancient Indo-Iranians and even proto-Iranians. Maybe that's why some wish to locate the PIE homeland as close to Iran as possible. A lot of "centrists" do it, so one shouldn't be surprised. I have also come across claims that J2 is an "ethnic Iranian" haplogroup and that the genetic make-up of Iran hasn't changed since the neolithic.
That racist story is too old, look at new studies, for example Heggarty et al., Science (2023):

“Indo-Iranic is an early independent branch in our analyses, with no close relationship to Balto-Slavic (see Box 1 and SM section 7.6.2.1), so that argument in favor of a northern route falls away. Genetically, the ancestry of Indo-Iranic speakers also derives much more heavily from south of the Caucasus and from Neolithic Iran than from the Bronze Age steppe (16) (see Box 2). Previous interpretations of aDNA from one individual from the Indus Periphery sought to exclude a direct eastward route on the basis of the degree and timing of Anatolian admixture (49, 52), but these have been superseded by methodological and analytical refinements, which no longer exclude this scenario entirely (56). More parsimonious geographically, at least, would be a route for Indo-Iranic directly eastward out of a South Caucasus homeland through the Iranian Plateau, south of the Caspian (Fig. 1D).”


"For over a century, British colonialists pushed the fraudulent Aryan migration theory as a superior racial trope. Now, fresh evidence released in early March suggests that Indians, like other races, travelled out from Africa around 50,000 years ago and possess Iranian ancestry."
 
“Indo-Iranic is an early independent branch in our analyses, with no close relationship to Balto-Slavic (see Box 1 and SM section 7.6.2.1), so that argument in favor of a northern route falls away. Genetically, the ancestry of Indo-Iranic speakers also derives much more heavily from south of the Caucasus and from Neolithic Iran than from the Bronze Age steppe (16) (see Box 2). Previous interpretations of aDNA from one individual from the Indus Periphery sought to exclude a direct eastward route on the basis of the degree and timing of Anatolian admixture (49, 52), but these have been superseded by methodological and analytical refinements, which no longer exclude this scenario entirely (56). More parsimonious geographically, at least, would be a route for Indo-Iranic directly eastward out of a South Caucasus homeland through the Iranian Plateau, south of the Caspian (Fig. 1D).”
Actually people from north migrated to south asia. It seems to me that R1a-z93 has nothing to do with scythian, b/c east europe barely has z93. And the Z93 would be indo-aryan factor unlike steppe admixture.

R1a-Z93+maps+small.png



URL unfurl="true"]https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2024/May/04/truth-be-retold-on-archaeology-indian-history-and-more[/URL]

"For over a century, British colonialists pushed the fraudulent Aryan migration theory as a superior racial trope. Now, fresh evidence released in early March suggests that Indians, like other races, travelled out from Africa around 50,000 years ago and possess Iranian ancestry."
The article also said,
"remains of the day Human remains(below) discovered in Rakhigarhi village, Haryana, are 8,000 years old. This debunks the Aryan invasion theory, which is supposed to have happened between 1,800 and 1,500 years ago."

remains of the dayHuman remains discovered in Rakhigarhi village, Haryana, are 8,000 years old. This debunks the Aryan invasion theory, which is supposed to have happened between 1,800 and 1,500 years ago


However, this guy was buried in supine position like WSHG, not neolithic south caucasus people below:

Fl-G-7o-XEAATHn-W.jpg


This caucasus culture had changed at steppe from Nalchik to yamna, which means language (culture) was also changed:
lzozwph.png
 
^

When the first Caucasus paper by Wang was published, the archaeological difference between caucasus and steppe people was discussed in this forum. The main difference is the steppe people buried wagon while caucasus people bull. After mid bronze age, the south caucasus people started to bury wagon. The wagon burial custom originated in steppe maykop culture. We can see how wagon is important thing in yamna culture: The sky at yamna was placed on the wagon. Thus main language on steppe must be not one from Caucasus.
Yamnaya_wagon_-_cart_burial.png

Yamnaya wagon/cart burial from Novoselytsia, Ukraine

circle b:
S-G%20GAMMA.jpg
 
I'm tempted to think these people you see South the Caucasus in 4400 BC were only PIA and not PIE. At least it is one the hypothesis exposed in the paper.
I've often times linked the S. Caucasus with the bronze age anatolian languages as well. Based on calculator results it has always seemed to me like steppe ancestry derives from a more northerly Caucasian origin where as the BA/IA Anatolian/Mycenaean/Imperial roman pull of Caucasian ancestry seems entirely or near entirely from Neolithic Armenia.

This could just be a result of the limits of using G25 coordinates for such a complex migratory scenario, but it's a consistent pattern that I've seen. I think it's very likely the differences between North and South Caucasian were primarily mediated through varying levels of ANE introgression into a dzudzuana-like base, similar to how in Europe today there are varying levels North to South levels of EHG ancestry which can be used to differentiate otherwise similar populations.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 11068 times.

Back
Top