PDA

View Full Version : Ancestry of IVC people?



Lara101
11-07-2017, 06:09 PM
I didnt see a thread on this subject, I know skeletons from IVC have not been tested, but what are your thoughts on their dna make up? Will they be mostly West Asian/ASI mix? or would they have Steppe ancestry too?

anthroin
11-08-2017, 12:05 AM
I didnt see a thread on this subject, I know skeletons from IVC have not been tested, but what are your thoughts on their dna make up? Will they be mostly West Asian/ASI mix? or would they have Steppe ancestry too?

I have been going through this single site for three or four months now and the learned express the following ideas basically, and they are all generally very careful to include a note or so emphasising the speculative nature of their ideas if any such things are involved and many also lament the pitiable situation of having to just discuss ad nauseum, expect and predict personally, and wait, and wait, for so long regarding this highly important question without any end in sight being visible anywhere near.

1. The traditional and shades (differ majorly in the amount of ASI expected with some expecting 0 ASI and some expecting higher ASI): IVC = Resulting out of the Indus Valley Neolithic which is a result of some West Asian neolithic migration (likely male mediated and ethnically non-Indo-Aryan) + varying percentages of the 2009 ghost ASI, whatever that ASI may have been in the northwest. The nature of the West Asian element noted to be becoming more and more clear as several things like the Neolithic of Anatolia and Neolithic of Levant not being the ancestral West Asian elements in South Asians today. Eastern Fertile Crescent as in the Zagros mountains of Iran or Mesopotamia noted to be likely (that Iran_N is heard everywhere now where they talk about South Asian population genetics).

2. The slightly unorthodox: IVC = Iran_N + Indo-Iranian (some type of Steppe_EMBA) + ASI. As we are well aware, linguistics maintains that there should be no significant Steppe_EMBA in IVC when it was ruling the world (yes, am I wrong? wasn't that IVC really ruling the world in 2400 BC?), and that's why I labelled this as unorthodox. This is the scenario which is most expected and hoped for by the most lay among the unorthodox.

3. The significantly unorthodox and insanely clever and original: IVC = Iran_N + ASI, but the Iran_N is thought to be identically equal to Indo-Aryan or some older currently non-existent Indo-European ethnically; Majorly based on the observation that the Steppe_EMBA has a 50% CHG signature with CHG and Iran_N being very close riStedAr of each other. The Steppe_EMBA-like (i.e. the EHG) signature in current South Asians thought of as a result of later Scythian-Iranic invasions or something like that? I am not sure about this one. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable may present this case better.

If either of 2 or 3 turn out to be right (especially 2; 3 is better), then that will trigger a Copernican Revolution-scale revolution in linguistics and Indology, except linguistics and Indology won't even be able to find for a good while what went wrong and where. The minds of both of these subjects will be reeling like anything.

I'm not aware of any other proposals put forward though; no one seems keen to throw in some AAA or ATB there anywhere. (AAA and ATB being two constructs that make sense to me personally on the basis of linguistics, speaking in terms of their existence only. But I'm not sure if they are considered real and meaningful components in genetics anymore.)

Also, another important thing to be noticed is the very strong perception of a current dearth of necessary equipment to resolve this IVC question satisfactorily. "aDNA from South Asia" followed by phrases that express feelings like hope, of some kind, say "will settle the issue" is a very frequently invoked phrase here and such devoted invocations are also unable to persuade that aDNA to descend to the earth from the high heavens. Till that aDNA ultimately comes, the humans (like yours truly) are going to continue to engage in that most unholy activity of writing post after post, writing review posts of review posts, etc. etc. out of pure frustration.

DMXX
11-08-2017, 01:25 PM
The problem with the options outside of number one is that they are not usually accompanied by satisfactory alternative explanations for the fairly well-accepted linguistic patterns within IE. I've commented on this in a tangent some months back (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7877-Broushaki-et-al-quot-Early-Neolithic-genomes-from-the-eastern-Fertile-Crescent-quot/page56) (the ensuing discussion with member "homosapiens" is useful for those hoping to understand why the options outside of number one don't fit the bill very cleanly):



The main problem with Indo-Aryan origin claims relating to the IVC is that they are typically framed in a contextual vacuum.

The specific aim is to fit Indo-Aryan into the IVC (or another Subcontinental archaeological culture), but no firm argument or compelling evidence is presented to explain how that happened, relative to the other branches of IE. No convincing counter-argument regarding the proto-Kartvelian loans in PIE, the deep cognates with Uralic, the obvious issues with flora and fauna... It goes on.


Even if those in favour of option number two concede PIE arose within the P-C steppes, they are still left with the issue of explaining how proto-Indo-Aryan arrived in the IVC by 2400 B.C. (archaeological correlates?), or what happened to proto-Iranian (it somehow remained on the steppes; what of the non-IE agricultural terms shared between both?). However, instead, it seems the pro-number two's generally subscribe to an Out-of-India hypothesis for PIE to explain the shared linguistic traits between Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Thracian and Balto-Slavic (though that does not explain the proto-Kartvelian loans or deep cognates with Uralic).

Option number one certainly isn't the perfect choice, but it (like the P-C steppe theory) seemed to be the best linguistic and archaeological fit for the emergence of Indo-Aryan in the Subcontinent. If the whispers around the Eurogenes campfire turn out correct, we'll shortly be receiving genetic evidence confirming it.

anthroin
11-09-2017, 02:02 AM
The problem with the options outside of number one is that they are not usually accompanied by satisfactory alternative explanations for the fairly well-accepted linguistic patterns within IE. I've commented on this in a tangent some months back (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7877-Broushaki-et-al-quot-Early-Neolithic-genomes-from-the-eastern-Fertile-Crescent-quot/page56) (the ensuing discussion with member "homosapiens" is useful for those hoping to understand why the options outside of number one don't fit the bill very cleanly):



Even if those in favour of option number two concede PIE arose within the P-C steppes, they are still left with the issue of explaining how proto-Indo-Aryan arrived in the IVC by 2400 B.C. (archaeological correlates?), or what happened to proto-Iranian (it somehow remained on the steppes; what of the non-IE agricultural terms shared between both?). However, instead, it seems the pro-number two's generally subscribe to an Out-of-India hypothesis for PIE to explain the shared linguistic traits between Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Thracian and Balto-Slavic (though that does not explain the proto-Kartvelian loans or deep cognates with Uralic).

Option number one certainly isn't the perfect choice, but it (like the P-C steppe theory) seemed to be the best linguistic and archaeological fit for the emergence of Indo-Aryan in the Subcontinent. If the whispers around the Eurogenes campfire turn out correct, we'll shortly be receiving genetic evidence confirming it.

You might be very correct about the idea number 2. The idea that the people demanding Indo-Aryans be present in IVC would at the same time be easy-going about those IVC Indo-Aryans coming from the Pontic-Caspian steppe at whatever remote point was quite silly on my part as I now realise. Out of India zindAbAd.

Also, perhaps y'all have noticed it already, but I just wanted to write a little note after that post that even after some hypothetical aDNA results showing no Steppe_EMBA or related in IVC, 3 gets a lot of new support; the point is, one can't rule out 3 (or for that matter 1), at least from the IVC evidence alone. Do you think there are ways we can rule out or more strongly support 3 in the future, such as with more and more aDNA from other places like the Caucasus mountains, etc? Or is this question, which is widely considered as a linguistic problem first and foremost, fundamentally unsolvable by genetic research?

DMXX
11-09-2017, 01:11 PM
Scenario three looks unlikely based on the combination of linguistic and archaeological evidence or reasoning (I will refrain from citing genetics as we simply don't have the aDNA at present).

1) The earliest material changes in the IVC look consistent with the introduction of West Asian agricultural practices, motifs and settlement style. The earliest period of the IVC (just before 3000 B.C.) dates to around the period after both the Anatolian and Tocharian branches had split from the PIE urheimat.
Proponents of scenario three will have to explain how the intermediate PIE stage (where Germanic, Greek, Slavic, Baltic, Celtic, Armenian, Thracian and Indo-Iranian branches were in an undifferentiated phase) could simultaneously exist in both the Eurasian steppes and South-Central Asia. If they argue that the West Asian agriculturalists were in fact PIE, they are proponents of the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov or Renfrew hypotheses, which don't make sense (that's another discussion entirely).

2) From the reconstructed terms, we know the PIE's did not lead the mode of living practiced by the IVC's. The words consistent with a settled environment in both Indo-Aryan and Iranian don't have any known cognates in other IE languages.
They could be argued to be neologisms, but other terms consistent with a cultural contact with the BMAC (specifically religious terms) suggest otherwise (the reconstructed Indo-Iranian religion common to the Avesta and Rg Veda show the same deviations away from the common PIE belief system).
Proponents of scenario three will have to explain an alternative for why the observed deviations from the known PIE belief system and mode of living common to both Avestan and the Rig Veda happen to match a) what is observed among modern Indo-Iranians and b) are easily explained as a cultural contact with a pre-existing settled population (Occam's razor).

3) An expansion of a point from 1); there are unique shared linguistic traits between Indo-Iranian with Balto-Slavic, Armenian (outside of Iranian loans), Greek and Thracian. These traits are irregularly shared between these IE branches. That clearly suggests they developed in the same region as one another.
Proponents of scenario three will have to explain how the Indo-Iranian branch could conceivably share specific traits with all of these branches (the European ones specifically).

4) There is linguistic evidence of interactions between the Indo-Iranian languages and proto-Uralic throughout the development of the former. Particularly Indo-Aryan. Proponents of scenario three will have to explain how the Indo-Aryan language interacted with proto-Uralic during its' development if the former was in the IVC.

5) Further to the above, Uralic and IE share multiple deep linguistic features (i.e. cognates), suggesting PU and PIE developed close to another (hence the Indo-Uralic hypothesis and the hypothetical linking of both with EHG). Proponents of scenario three will have to explain how Uralic and IE share these developmental traits, when the Uralic languages simply had to have arisen in a forested environment between the Volga and Yenisei (this is the range most Uralicists identify as the urheimat being somewhere in).

There simply isn't a satisfactory unified argument addressing all five of these points. The likely response I imagine we'd receive from an IVC-Indo-Aryan advocate is a logical fallacy ("the research is biased against the Subcontinent", "it's a coincidence" etc.). Note that the purely linguistic points above are neither biased against the Subcontinent nor can they be a coincidence.

The closest counter-argument is the reverse of scenario one (the IVC influenced the BMAC, which in turn influenced the steppes). IVC-BMAC interactions do take place before Indo-Iranian formed, so that's in their favour. However, there isn't any sign of a cultural influence on Sintashta (the material goods linked to the BMAC appear inspired from, rather than derived from). Additionally, there is no evidence that Sintashta culturally influenced steppe groups further west (on the contrary, it was influenced by them). This proposal does satisfactorily explain points 1) and 4), but not 2), 3) or 5).