Genetic study The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans

[MOESAN]

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a direct eastward route on the basis of the degree and timing of Anatolian admixture (49, 52), but these have been superseded by methodological and analytical refinements, which no longer exclude this scenario entirely (56).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).”

Truth be retold: On archaeology, Indian history and more

The Earth is the library of mankind. For centuries, an obsessive, inquisitive and courageous tribe has been trying to excavate the extensive hoard of knowledge

www.newindianexpress.com

"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."

Please keep all this rubbish terminology of "racist" or "colonialist" away when you speak of more or less recent historic or genetic works. All the scientists were/are not Nazies, and one can be mistaken without being influenced by extra-scientific thoughts! And I don't see why/how the fact of being come out of Africa 50000 years ago and showing ties with Iraninas can help us in this topic?

 

[MOESAN]

^

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 from Novoselytsia, Ukraine

circle b:

I agree with you that Y-R1a-Z93 came from Steppes into Southern Asia. But I cannot exclude Scythians and cousins as bearers of this haplo. BTW we have to trace Z93 route in Central Asia and to find the oldest remnents of it between Central-East Europe and Central Asia. It seems to me that it has been introduced into Central Asia by Eastern Europeans who dominated in a lot of places until IA, and mixed with Eastern Asians around Altay. Have you news about the ancient distribution of Z93? (not the today one, which surely depends on some founders effects.

 

[MOESAN]

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.

I don't disagree with some of your arguments, but I think:
- Our modern pop's are not only the fruit of ancient bottelneckings, they are also the result of more than a crossing between the ancient pop's you refer to. It's evident than crossings create new pop's "halfway" to the original more distant pop's, so less distant to the most of these "mothers", and closer between themselves. BTW1 we may not deduce the level of bottlenecking on allover autoDNA from what occurred on male uniparental haplo's. BTW2 a deep bottleneck effect acts only upon a part of the genome, if it occurs among a relatively homogenous pop. But if it could change deeply the autoDNA making, it would create distance rather than proximity between pop's! Because reducing internal genomic variance, it creates distance between the descendant pop's of the ancient common stock.
The ancient pop's which serve as references for our ancestors are pop's which were not very numerous and were severed by long distances since some time (Glaciation played a big role), so it isn't amazing they were distant between them, by mutations, drifts, selection.
At the mergin, I think we have to be cautious when employing our words:
'homogenous' pop: if newly enough crossed, the people are not identical: they share roughly the same proportions of admixture but in detail don't share the same genes of this admixture. Selection hasn't had the time to reduce the individual diversity. This kind of homogeneity is obtained after a few generations in a stable pop, only recurrent crossings (exogamy) can bring 'heterogeneity' in.
'homogenous' at the individual level: a lot of homozygoty. It implies too that there is homogeneity at the pop level.

 

[Moja]

Please keep all this rubbish terminology of "racist" or "colonialist" away when you speak of more or less recent historic or genetic works. All the scientists were/are not Nazies, and one can be mistaken without being influenced by extra-scientific thoughts! And I don't see why/how the fact of being come out of Africa 50000 years ago and showing ties with Iraninas can help us in this topic?

This sentence: "For over a century, British colonialists pushed the fraudulent Aryan migration theory as a superior racial trope." is from the Indian Express, there is really not a big difference between Nazies and those scientists who say real Aryans/Indo-Iranians were the people of Corded Ware culture, or say modern Indians and Iranians have nothing to do with ancient Indo-Iranians.

 

[Tautalus]

The study enumerates the different competing hypotheses of Indo-Anatolian and Indo-European languages origins.

It states about one of the hypotheses:
“Hypothesis A-East has fewer difficulties from the genetic point of view, as it requires only one dilution of steppe ancestry: between the steppe and the highlands of West Asia. But, such a dilution did indeed take place as we see the Maikop and Armenian Chalcolithic had limited steppe ancestry”

One of the main arguments that PIA/PIE could have a South Caucasian origin was the absence of steppe autosomal DNA in region that spoke the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. This is no longer a problem, there is steppe ancestry in Anatolia. There is steppe autosomal DNA and haplogroups, R1b R-V1636, in Anatolia and in Armenia also.
This steppe ancestry is connected to BPGroup ancestry (of the CLV cline), which has substantial EHG ancestry.

I lean towards David Anthony's theory about the origin of IE languages. Anthony states that the roots of the proto-Indo-European language primarily formed from a base of languages spoken by Eastern European hunter-gatherers, with some influence from the languages of the Caucasus.
One of the arguments he uses is that the majority of the paternal lineages of these PIE people were R1b, and this haplogroup is related to the Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The dominant people impose their language.

From a genetic point of view this study does not contradict this theory, on the contrary it seems to validate it.

Anthony suggests the possibility of a steppe origin for the Anatolian branch, proposing that migration from the steppes into the Balkans could explain the Anatolian split (Hypothesis A-West). Regarding this point, the study proposes that the migration was not through the Balkans but through the Caucasus.

One way or another, PIA must have originated in the steppe and must have been spread by people with steppe ancestry.

I'm not on any team, whether it's R1b, J2, CHG, EHG. I think, without any confirmation bias, that with the data we currently have the best hypothesis to explain the origin of PIA/PIE is the A-East hypothesis.​

 

[norbert]

I agree with you that Y-R1a-Z93 came from Steppes into Southern Asia. But I cannot exclude Scythians and cousins as bearers of this haplo. BTW we have to trace Z93 route in Central Asia and to find the oldest remnents of it between Central-East Europe and Central Asia. It seems to me that it has been introduced into Central Asia by Eastern Europeans who dominated in a lot of places until IA, and mixed with Eastern Asians around Altay. Have you news about the ancient distribution of Z93? (not the today one, which surely depends on some founders effects.

R1a-Z93 is a very Indo-Iranian marker. It may not have originated with them but it owes its greatest distribution to the expansion of the Scythians, the Saka and other Indo-Iranian groups. I don't think you're going to find it in any significant numbers in Eastern Europe as its hotspot must have been around the Southern Ural in the Sintashta culture. The Indo-Iranians appeared on the easternmost fringes of the steppe. This must have been the haplogroup mainly responsible for the spread of Indo-Iranian languages into what are modern-day Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. This was clearly the case in central Asia as well but there Indo-Iranian would have been replaced by the incoming Turkic groups from the east, yet R1a-Z93 remains one of the dominant haplogroups there.

 

[norbert]

This sentence: "For over a century, British colonialists pushed the fraudulent Aryan migration theory as a superior racial trope." is from the Indian Express, there is really not a big difference between Nazies and those scientists who say real Aryans/Indo-Iranians were the people of Corded Ware culture, or say modern Indians and Iranians have nothing to do with ancient Indo-Iranians.

Yeah, nice try with that "anti-colonialist" blackmailing bullshit. The adherents of the Hindutva ideology in India have also started to attack physics , claiming it is a colonialist science. Nobody says that Iranians and Indians have nothing to do with the ancient Indo-Iranians. They clearly do since they speak languages that have descended from Indo-Iranian. You can cherry-pick one or two papers as long as you wish but the vast majority of scholars rejects the "southern theory."

 

[bicicleur 2]

Do we have Y-DNA from the Shulaveri-Shomu culture?

I always thought that R1b-M269 came from the northern Middle East via the Caucasus but I thought it more likely through the eastern side of the Caucasus how long do Caspian Sea (mainly because it's easier to cross there). This remains to be confirmed by ancient DNA

View attachment 16015

What anciant middle eastern R1b do we have?
We have a R1b-V1636 in Kura Araxes, but the origin of this haplogroup seems to be Khvalynsk.
What R1b-M269 do we have in the middle east?

 

[bicicleur 2]

The only difference between this study and "The genetic history of the Southern Arc" is that it says the homeland of Indo-Anatolians was a little further north in the Caucasus.

I think there is an important nuance.
the genetic history of the southern arc suggests a direct disperion from the Caucasus into the Indo-Anatolians

this study says there was a mixture in the Caucasus-Lower Volga area before the expansion into Anatolia

 

[Moja]

Yeah, nice try with that "anti-colonialist" blackmailing bullshit. The adherents of the Hindutva ideology in India have also started to attack physics , claiming it is a colonialist science. Nobody says that Iranians and Indians have nothing to do with the ancient Indo-Iranians. They clearly do since they speak languages that have descended from Indo-Iranian. You can cherry-pick one or two papers as long as you wish but the vast majority of scholars rejects the "southern theory."

François Desset's work on Linear Elamite inscriptions will be published this year, it will prove that Indo-Iranians definitely lived in Iran in the third millennium BC, hundreds years before the formation of Sintashta culture in the Southern Urals, then we see that those scholars still reject the "southern theory" or not.

 

[norbert]

François Desset's work on Linear Elamite inscriptions will be published this year, it will prove that Indo-Iranians definitely lived in Iran in the third millennium BC, hundreds years before the formation of Sintashta culture in the Southern Urals, then we see that those scholars still reject the "southern theory" or not.

You think the Elamites spoke Indo-Iranian? We might as well claim that the Western Hunter-Gatherers spoke Germanic.

 

[Vitruvius]

The study enumerates the different competing hypotheses of Indo-Anatolian and Indo-European languages origins.

It states about one of the hypotheses:
“Hypothesis A-East has fewer difficulties from the genetic point of view, as it requires only one dilution of steppe ancestry: between the steppe and the highlands of West Asia. But, such a dilution did indeed take place as we see the Maikop and Armenian Chalcolithic had limited steppe ancestry”

One of the main arguments that PIA/PIE could have a South Caucasian origin was the absence of steppe autosomal DNA in region that spoke the Anatolian branch of Indo-European. This is no longer a problem, there is steppe ancestry in Anatolia. There is steppe autosomal DNA and haplogroups, R1b R-V1636, in Anatolia and in Armenia also.
This steppe ancestry is connected to BPGroup ancestry (of the CLV cline), which has substantial EHG ancestry.

I lean towards David Anthony's theory about the origin of IE languages. Anthony states that the roots of the proto-Indo-European language primarily formed from a base of languages spoken by Eastern European hunter-gatherers, with some influence from the languages of the Caucasus.
One of the arguments he uses is that the majority of the paternal lineages of these PIE people were R1b, and this haplogroup is related to the Eastern European hunter-gatherers. The dominant people impose their language.

From a genetic point of view this study does not contradict this theory, on the contrary it seems to validate it.

Anthony suggests the possibility of a steppe origin for the Anatolian branch, proposing that migration from the steppes into the Balkans could explain the Anatolian split (Hypothesis A-West). Regarding this point, the study proposes that the migration was not through the Balkans but through the Caucasus.

One way or another, PIA must have originated in the steppe and must have been spread by people with steppe ancestry.

I'm not on any team, whether it's R1b, J2, CHG, EHG. I think, without any confirmation bias, that with the data we currently have the best hypothesis to explain the origin of PIA/PIE is the A-East hypothesis.​

Hypothesis C seems much more likely to me than trying to claim that trace amounts of EHG which may or may not exist in BA Anatolia was responsible for a language overturn. The more reliable pattern I see is PIE speakers appearing after large sums of Caucasian introgression. The steppe simply seems to be the main transporter of PIE languages rather than the origin of PIE from a genetic perspective.

 

[CrazyDonkey]

I agree with you that Y-R1a-Z93 came from Steppes into Southern Asia. But I cannot exclude Scythians and cousins as bearers of this haplo. BTW we have to trace Z93 route in Central Asia and to find the oldest remnents of it between Central-East Europe and Central Asia. It seems to me that it has been introduced into Central Asia by Eastern Europeans who dominated in a lot of places until IA, and mixed with Eastern Asians around Altay. Have you news about the ancient distribution of Z93? (not the today one, which surely depends on some founders effects.

Not just R1a-Z93, but also I2a-L702:

Bug–Dniester culture 6300–5000 bce; Dnieper-Donets 5000-4200 bce; Sredny Stog 4500-3500 bce; Yamnaya 3300-2600 bce; Sintashta 2200-1900 bce; Andronovo 2000-1150 bce

I2a-M223 > P222 > CTS616 > CTS10057 > L702 > S22311 > L703 > PF6902 > L704 > FT384999

L702 = Ukraine(2) 7300-7212 ybp; Hungary(2); 7050-7001 ybp; Bulgaria 4950 ybp

L703 = Ukraine(3) 7374-7310 ybp; Bulgaria 4895 ybp

FT384999 = Swat Valley, Pakistan(2) 2850 ybp

So, how did L702/L703 (5300-5200 bce) get from the Ukraine to the Swat Valley of Pakistan (850 bce)?

Short way: Ukraine -> Sintashta/Andronovo/BMAC Cultures -> Swat Valley?

Long way: Ukraine -> Bulgaria -> Anatolia -> Iran -> Swat Valley?

"The Gandhara grave culture that emerged c. 1400 BCE and lasted until 800 BCE,[20] and named for their distinct funerary practices, was found along the Middle Swat River course.[21]"

20.
21. Mallory, J. P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781884964985.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swat_District

"According to Upinder Singh, the Gandhara grave culture is similar to the one in the Ghalegay caves during their V, VI, and VII phases.[17] Rajesh Kochhar says it may be associated with early Indo-Aryan speakers as well as the Indo-Aryan migration into the Indian Subcontinent,[18] which came from the Bactria–Margiana region. According to Kochhar, the Indo-Aryan culture fused with indigenous elements of the remnants of the Indus Valley civilization (OCP, Cemetery H) and gave rise to the Vedic Civilization.[18]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_grave_culture

 

[johen]

So, how did L702/L703 (5300-5200 bce) get from the Ukraine to the Swat Valley of Pakistan (850 bce)?

Short way: Ukraine -> Sintashta/Andronovo/BMAC Cultures -> Swat Valley?

However, there is a recent rebuttal from India:

" Kashmir - Burz3 1300 BC sample has no Steppe ancestry, Burz7 200 AD sample has 10% Steppe ancestry, and modern Kashmiris around 22%. So more Steppe ancestry arrived after 200AD"

https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/comments/18xdiwv

- there is one hope at Swat valley:
And the newcomer Aryans in the Indus valley (Swat) for example:

"Twelve skulls from the graves of Butkara II and four skulls from the settlement of Aligrama have been found. They belong to the Mediterranean type that is represented in Central Asia. B. A. Litvinsky (1972: 186) has underlined “a remarkable resemblance between a series of skulls from Swat and the Saka skulls from the Pamirs” which was first noted by B. Bernhard (1967: 317-385). It suggests a genetic relation between the two populations. Among the 25 skulls from Timargarha this type is represented, as well as a massive proto-Caucasoid type which was distinctive for the steppe Andronovans, a Veddoid (3 skulls) usual for the indigenous inhabitants of Hindustan, and a Mongoloid type (2 skulls) which might have appeared during Ghaligai period III from Kashmir."
source: Elena E. Kuz’mina: The Origin of the Indo-Iranians - Leiden, 2007"

 

[CrazyDonkey]

However, there is a recent rebuttal from India:

" Kashmir - Burz3 1300 BC sample has no Steppe ancestry, Burz7 200 AD sample has 10% Steppe ancestry, and modern Kashmiris around 22%. So Steppe ancestry arrived after 200AD"

The two I2a-FT384999 samples in question are not Burz3 or Burz7, but I12471 - Swat Valley, Katelai and I12149 - Swat Valley, Katelai, both c.850 BCE. They arrived before 850 BCE and are positive for I2a-L702 & L703, the oldest ancient samples of which have been found in Ukraine (upper-Dnieper Rapids area) dated to c.5300 BCE.

https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...lumn=Y_Haplotree_Variant&searchfor=I-FT384999

https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...chcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Variant&searchfor=I-L702

https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient...plotree_Variant&searchfor=I-L703&ybp=500000,0

 

[Moja]

You think the Elamites spoke Indo-Iranian? We might as well claim that the Western Hunter-Gatherers spoke Germanic.

No, Elamites spoke Elamite language, François Desset says this is Proto-Iranian script, not Linear Elamite: https://www.academia.edu/97964761 Because some of these inscriptions are in Indo-Iranian language, not Elamite. It doesn't matter what you claim, you should prove it. Names of Indo-Iranian gods, mythical kings, places, ... exist in these inscriptions.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Hypothesis C seems much more likely to me than trying to claim that trace amounts of EHG which may or may not exist in BA Anatolia was responsible for a language overturn. The more reliable pattern I see is PIE speakers appearing after large sums of Caucasian introgression. The steppe simply seems to be the main transporter of PIE languages rather than the origin of PIE from a genetic perspective.

The story of R1b-V1636 confirms that steppe people crossed the Caucasus into Anatolia. I go for hypthesis A-East.

 

[norbert]

No, Elamites spoke Elamite language, François Desset says this is Proto-Iranian script, not Linear Elamite: https://www.academia.edu/97964761 Because some of these inscriptions are in Indo-Iranian language, not Elamite. It doesn't matter what you claim, you should prove it. Names of Indo-Iranian gods, mythical kings, places, ... exist in these inscriptions.

The proto-Iranians emerged in the Andronovo culture which covered a vast area from central Siberia down to central Asia. What you claim only proves that these early Iranians expanded into what is present-day Iran very early on, not that they originated in Iran. The Scythians and Cimmerians were much more representative of those early Iranian peoples and they were from the steppe.

 

[Tautalus]

Hypothesis C seems much more likely to me than trying to claim that trace amounts of EHG which may or may not exist in BA Anatolia was responsible for a language overturn. The more reliable pattern I see is PIE speakers appearing after large sums of Caucasian introgression. The steppe simply seems to be the main transporter of PIE languages rather than the origin of PIE from a genetic perspective.

Even at a linguistic level, it is more difficult to maintain that PIA/PIE could have had as primary source the Caucasus, through the CHG component. The autochthonous language families of the Caucasus, the Northwest Caucasian family, the Northeast Caucasian family and the South Caucasian (or Kartvelian) family, none are Indo-European.
The Indo-European languages present in the Caucasus are from latter intrusions in the area, Armenian, Ossetian…
Apart from claiming that PIE was a EHG language David Anthony (and others) claims also that the languages of the Caucasus influenced the development of PIE. The CHG ancestry in the steppe may be an additional proof of that, it acted as a secondary influence on the development of PIE and not as its primary source.​

 

[johen]

The story of R1b-V1636 confirms that steppe people crossed the Caucasus into Anatolia. I go for hypthesis A-East.

something happened at south caucasus;

"Going back to Southern Caucasus, the apparent stability of the Kura-Araxes communities went through a crisis around the mid-third millennium BC, and by 2400 BC their traditions and system of values were replaced by that of the “Early Kurgans.” It is not yet clear if, between ca. 2600 and 2500 BC, another “gray” cultural phase of coexistence between Kura-Araxes and “Early Kurgans” traditions (table 1) took place in the region (Rova, 2014). However, by 2400 BC changes are consistently visible, starting with settlement patterns; the abandonment of the former Kura-Araxes villages and a shift toward less permanent occupations and higher mobility coupled with the construction of monumental funerary tumuli (Edens, 1995)."

These earthen kurgans—with their preserved wooden-log funerary chambers containing wheeled wagons (Djaparidze, 2003; Makharadze and Murvanidze, 2014; Lyonnet, 2014) and rich funerary inventories composed of skillfully crafted golden and silver artifacts, arsenical copper, and tin-bronze objects (Chernykh, 1992; Carminati, 2014)—are paradigmatic of the radical changes in the region. While the focus on land as a primary resource for agro-pastoral activities was a pillar of the socioeconomic organization of the Kura-Araxes communities, the symbolic presence of wheeled vehicles in the new kurgans emphasizes the importance of mobility, which is not only the result of a new focus on a pastoral economy but presumably also a fundamental prerequisite to connect with routes of communication and trade networks focused on metals (Lyonnet, 2014; Smith, 2015)."