PDA

View Full Version : Predictions for upcoming aDNA from Indus Valley



parasar
01-05-2016, 08:09 PM
Indus aDNA.

Almost here, finally...



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/rakhigarhi-indian-town-unlock-mystery-indus-civilisation


One has stood out: who exactly were the people of the Indus civilisation? A response may come within weeks.

“Our research will most definitely provide an answer. This will be a major breakthrough. I am very excited,” said Vasant Shinde, an Indian archaeologist leading current excavations at Rakhigarhi, which was discovered in 1965.

Shinde’s conclusions will be published in the new year. They are based on DNA sequences derived from four skeletons – of two men, a woman and a child – excavated eight months ago and checked against DNA data from tens of thousands of people from all across the subcontinent, central Asia and Iran.


So let the predictions begin!

Razib's:
The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-dravidian-migration-theory-vindicated/
"I predict that the Y chromosomal haplogroups will be H or J2. Both these are common in Dravidian speaking groups of Southern India, and, are found at some fractions in West Asia. I predict that these individuals who share gene flow with Kotias, and not with Central Eurasian groups. I predict that these individuals will not be enriched for ANE ancestry. I predict these individuals will have mtDNA lineages present in modern Indian populations, probably M. Though excavated in a region of South Asia where today lactase persistence (LP( is common, none of the individuals with carry the common derived Eurasian haplotype conferring LP. They will segregate for the derived variant of SLC24A5. On a PCA plot these individuals will cluster with non-Brahmin upper/middle caste South Indian populations, such as the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh."

bored
01-05-2016, 08:22 PM
So let the predictions begin!

Razib's:
The Dravidian Migration Theory Vindicated!
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-dravidian-migration-theory-vindicated/
"I predict that the Y chromosomal haplogroups will be H or J2. Both these are common in Dravidian speaking groups of Southern India, and, are found at some fractions in West Asia. I predict that these individuals who share gene flow with Kotias, and not with Central Eurasian groups. I predict that these individuals will not be enriched for ANE ancestry. I predict these individuals will have mtDNA lineages present in modern Indian populations, probably M. Though excavated in a region of South Asia where today lactase persistence (LP( is common, none of the individuals with carry the common derived Eurasian haplotype conferring LP. They will segregate for the derived variant of SLC24A5. On a PCA plot these individuals will cluster with non-Brahmin upper/middle caste South Indian populations, such as the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh."

I think the bolded, if true, would make many people happy and upset an entire country.

parasar
01-05-2016, 09:27 PM
My thinking is:
Both J and H are possible. Plus L and R.
Shared ancestry with Kotias looks likely to me.
mtDNA N > M, with both present

Unlike Razib I think there will be a strong affinity to MA1.

Apparently Razib feels the PCA is key as he highlighted it.

Megalophias
01-05-2016, 09:46 PM
Around half of South Asian H seems to be specifically H1a1d2, which is only 5 or 6 thousand years old maybe; could be the right age to be common there. R2a, L1a, J2, many possibilities. That is if we see Y DNA at all, hopefully it won't just be scraps of mtDNA.

VOX
01-05-2016, 10:28 PM
The Indus people pushed further east into the Ganges Basin after agriculture near the Indus collapsed. My tentative guess is that the Indus would be genetically similar to modern people in the Ganges basin and those who don't have as much Yamnaya related admixture. The way I see it is that the Ganges = Indus 2.0 and Magadha = IVC 2.0

http://i64.tinypic.com/30ayhk8.jpg

http://planetsave.com/2012/05/30/ancient-harappan-civilization-collapsed-because-of-changes-in-the-climate/

Generalissimo
01-05-2016, 10:40 PM
Around half of South Asian H seems to be specifically H1a1d2, which is only 5 or 6 thousand years old maybe; could be the right age to be common there. R2a, L1a, J2, many possibilities. That is if we see Y DNA at all, hopefully it won't just be scraps of mtDNA.

Apparently there's Y-DNA and mtDNA, and some genome-wide sites linked to phenotypic traits were targeted as well. But there won't be any full genomes or anything close. From everything I've read and heard it sounds like they used fairly old methods, not the stuff we got used to last year.

MfA
01-05-2016, 11:04 PM
Apparently there's Y-DNA and mtDNA, and some genome-wide sites linked to phenotypic traits were targeted as well. But there won't be any full genomes or anything close. From everything I've read and heard it sounds like they used fairly old methods, not the stuff we got used to last year.
That if true is a disappointment, knowing South Asians are quite nerdy and techy, I'd expect a top notch work. Maybe the samples isn't in good shape?

Generalissimo
01-05-2016, 11:17 PM
That if true is a disappointment, knowing South Asians are quite nerdy and techy, I'd expect a top notch work. Maybe the samples isn't in good shape?

They sent the samples for testing to a medical lab in Korea which probably isn't equipped to do full genome sequencing or the stuff that Harvard does. They put out this paper last year...

Human Skeletal Remains from Ancient Burial Sites in India: With Special Reference to Harappan Civilization (http://synapse.koreamed.org/DOIx.php?id=10.11637/kjpa.2015.28.1.1)

When the aDNA results come out, they'll probably be announced here...

Biomedical Studies on Our Past (http://shinpaleopathology.blogspot.com/)

parasar
01-06-2016, 01:40 AM
I hope the testing is better than their geography.

While indeed there were Harappan settlements in Afghanistan (eg. Shortugai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortugai , https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/shortugai-afghanistan.pdf ; Mundigak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundigak ; Altyn Depe, etc.), their abstract does not match their own map:


"Harappan Civilization is well known for highly sophisticated urban society, having been flourished in extensive regions of northwestern part of Pakistan and northeastern part of Afghanistan as its heyday around 4500 years ago."
http://synapse.koreamed.org/ArticleImage/0107KJPA/kjpa-28-1-g001-l.jpg

Gravetto-Danubian
01-06-2016, 04:12 AM
They sent the samples for testing to a medical lab in Korea which probably isn't equipped to do full genome sequencing or the stuff that Harvard does. They put out this paper last year...

Human Skeletal Remains from Ancient Burial Sites in India: With Special Reference to Harappan Civilization (http://synapse.koreamed.org/DOIx.php?id=10.11637/kjpa.2015.28.1.1)

When the aDNA results come out, they'll probably be announced here...

Biomedical Studies on Our Past (http://shinpaleopathology.blogspot.com/)

I've heard it might be NGS

Generalissimo
01-06-2016, 04:43 AM
I've heard it might be NGS

Would be nice, but many people define NGS as picking out a few sites linked to LP, eye color etc. and sequencing them.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-06-2016, 04:55 AM
Would be nice, but many people define NGS as picking out a few sites linked to LP, eye color etc. and sequencing them.

Yeah I see. Well, we can only hope for the best

paulgill
01-06-2016, 07:12 AM
J2a Y lineage, aDNA and mtDNA could be similar to Kalash.

tamilgangster
01-06-2016, 08:01 AM
The south indian component is 50% west eurasian, and the rest is south eurasian(probably with some E eurasian mixed in there). ANE is NOT east asian related. Also the amount of ANE in south asia is hard to determine, its different from the ANE found in the americas and among european. On Kurd's and Chad's Tests Once the CHG component was isolated, much of the ANE was absorbed into the CHG component, but with some trace levels of EHG. This indicates that the ANE in south asia is distinct from the ANE among amerindians and northern euros. WHat tricky to determine is if the ANE scored on EUrogenes k7 by south asians was proper ANE, or not

tamilgangster
01-06-2016, 08:40 AM
My thinking is:
Both J and H are possible. Plus L and R.
Shared ancestry with Kotias looks likely to me.
mtDNA N > M, with both present

Unlike Razib I think there will be a strong affinity to MA1.

Apparently Razib feels the PCA is key as he highlighted it.

I agree though that the predominant haplogroups would be J and L, though R will likely be present in lower frequencies. Some degree of Affinity yes, strong affinity to Ma1 unlikely.
1) CHG appears to be basal eurasian rich, which is lacking in MA1. On the CHG runs that kurd and Chad did, south asian populations scored negligable levels of EHG, but all populations had it(including adivasis), though it peaked in populations with steppe affinities(eg jatts)
2) The Indus Valley People almost certainly had some degree ASI. Id estimate the South Indian score on Harappa DNA would be around 40%, similar to dravidian high castes, but also to lower caste populations in Sindh.
3) Also take into consideration that ANE like ancestry may be present within the ASI. For example Chenchus score Haplogroup R1A1, and the Malta boy showed south asian affinity and even scored minor amounts of papuan.

Ryukendo
01-07-2016, 09:51 AM
Here's a place where we can make some predictions about the upcoming results from the Indus Valley! Neither Haploid genetics nor archaeology are my strengths, so I would love to see what some of your ideas are :)

Razib mentioned that they would be autosomally similar to the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh. I disagree somewhat, in that the population would probably be less 'S Indian' and more 'Balochi/Brahui', i.e, it will be similar to present-day Balochis, Brahuis, or Sindhis with the Caucasus, SW Asian and NE Euro removed. Though I wonder how much I'm disagreeing really? A vast swathe of Indian caste populations south of Sindh are quite similar, autosomally speaking.

Razib's predictions are J2 and H, while I think L would probably be more important, and J2 less.

Formally, I predict they will be most similar to CHG, but much more ANE-shifted than them, and with some 'ASI', whatever than is.

More broadly, I suspect that the 'S Indian' cluster modal in Paniya, Pulliyar and other S Indian low-caste or outcaste groups may, circuituously and with the usual caveats, represent the S Indian Neolithic, which I think is associated with the Dravidian Languages, while the 'Balochi/Brahui' component may represent the demographic impact of the first farmers in S Asia in the Indus valley; the two signals being different because the usual W Asian crops could not grow in S India, the S Indian neolithic starting extremely late at 3000BCE with a different package of crops and a different ritual system from the Indus Valley. Upper caste S Indians are probably affected by IAr genetic input, which, by the time it reached them, would be substantially 'Baloch' already. So I think the Indus valley genomes will probably not cluster with S Indians.

Just speculation! :beerchug: Fingers crossed that they have a high-quality genome though.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-07-2016, 10:03 AM
Nice thread Ryu

I don't know much about the autosomal components of modern south Asians to make any meaningful comparisons but I would tend to agree with what you say about the CHG and ANE mix +/- ASI

As for Y Haplogroup predictions- I'd expect a diverse potential...

fjnj
01-07-2016, 02:03 PM
I would speculate that we will see a distinct autosomal genetic group that will have some similarity to CHG, but distinct enough from be a new component. As for the Y-haplogroup, it could be one of the following which had been seen in early farmers: G, H, T or some died-out minor branches of F.

Piquerobi
01-07-2016, 02:49 PM
It would be interesting if they compared ancient samples to later ones (after IEs appeared) so that we could compare.

Generalissimo
01-07-2016, 03:04 PM
They only have four samples, all from the mature Harappan phase, and probably only Y-DNA, mtDNA and a few selected trait SNP results.

My guess is the Y-DNA will be J2. If they do have some decent genome-wide coverage, then what we'll see are the equivalents of CHG/Dai mixtures with ratios of around 65/35%.

Padre Organtino
01-07-2016, 03:12 PM
They only have four samples, all from the mature Harappan phase, and probably only Y-DNA, mtDNA and a few selected trait SNP results.

My guess is the Y-DNA will be J2. If they do have some decent genome-wide coverage, then what we'll see are the equivalents of CHG/Dai mixtures with ratios of around 65/35%.

Isn't the share of Dai ancestry a bit high?

Táltos
01-07-2016, 03:16 PM
Merged posts from http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3433-Waves-of-migration-into-South-Asia/page19 to here. It will make finding predictions easier.

redifflal
01-07-2016, 03:49 PM
Are all 4 males? I'll go through the roof if they have R2 in there :p

rozenfeld
01-07-2016, 04:08 PM
Are all 4 males?

No: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/rakhigarhi-indian-town-unlock-mystery-indus-civilisation


four skeletons – of two men, a woman and a child

parasar
01-07-2016, 05:44 PM
It would be interesting if they compared ancient samples to later ones (after IEs appeared) so that we could compare.

Rakhigarhi is close to one of the major Aryan centers - that of the Kuru tribe in Kuru-kshetra.

Rakhigarhi: http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/rakhigarhi_excavation_report_new.pdf


The toponyms are completely Aryan. The Gauda, presumably a non-Aryan term (cf. modern W Bengal) are mentioned, but very late (AD 1430).
For this to happen there has to be a complete break from the Harappan to the Aryan period. The ASI paper (pg 50) on Rakhigarhi ascribes it to the aridity between 2000bc and 1000bc.
So it is circa 1000bc that the Aryan/Kuru period begins in the region.

Dr_McNinja
01-07-2016, 06:56 PM
Rakhigarhi is close to one of the major Aryan centers - that of the Kuru tribe in Kuru-kshetra.

Rakhigarhi: http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/rakhigarhi_excavation_report_new.pdf


The toponyms are completely Aryan. The Gauda, presumably a non-Aryan term (cf. modern W Bengal) are mentioned, but very late (AD 1430).
For this to happen there has to be a complete break from the Harappan to the Aryan period. The ASI paper (pg 50) on Rakhigarhi ascribes it to the aridity between 2000bc and 1000bc.
So it is circa 1000bc that the Aryan/Kuru period begins in the region.

These skeletons are ~2000 BC, correct?

That's right after many Neolithic lines diverged (from around 7000ya to 5000ya). I think we could see any of those. G, J, H, L. They might even be part of the exodus from the IVC.

IVC is 5300ya to 3700ya.

Interestingly a lot of the Indo-European lineages diversified around 3700-3000ya (R1a-L657 is 3900ybp and R1a-Z93 is 4800ybp).

And a lot of the Neolithic lines diversified right before then. J2b2 had a minor split around 7100ybp, but at 6000 the main trunk split into two main branches, one of which, Z2437, contains the Sindh/Gujarat/SW-India/Some-Arabia/General-Pakistan-or-Indus-area branch (along with a sister branch found in South/East India). That branch is probably going to be found in IVC.

In the other smaller branch (Y978), my line split off at 5400ybp. The other part of Y978 (Z8323) split again at ~5100ybp where one remnant is found in West Bengal and the other line, continuing until today, has 3 South Indian members.

I wonder if this tracks the history of pre-IE India. We have no idea if all this happened within India before 6000ybp but the split @ 5400ybp for my line could be related to the development of the IVC. Or perhaps Z2437 was the foundation for the IVC in the Indus area and Y978 began splitting a short while later in the Haryana/N-India area.

And R1a-L657 could have diversified as it was entering India in the wake of the IVC collapse/exodus.

If my friend is in the Gujarat/Pakistan branch of Z2437, I'll try to encourage him to get Big Y so we can get dates on that branch's split from its South/East sibling clade.

ddugas
01-07-2016, 07:28 PM
First post! I'm hoping for J-M530 which seems to have originated in Iran (Grugni 2012) but think H and L very likely.

I really like the idea of a possible Dravidian connection to IVC and am very excited to see this paper.

Dr_McNinja
01-07-2016, 08:33 PM
I hope we can get DNA from Mehrgarh too. Anyone familiar with Pre-Harappan or earlier India know if there's any significant events around ~5000 BC and ~4000 BC?

J Man
01-07-2016, 09:27 PM
First post! I'm hoping for J-M530 which seems to have originated in Iran (Grugni 2012) but think H and L very likely.

I really like the idea of a possible Dravidian connection to IVC and am very excited to see this paper.

Nice to see you here! :)

bol_nat
01-08-2016, 12:06 AM
First post! I'm hoping for J-M530 which seems to have originated in Iran (Grugni 2012) but think H and L very likely.

I really like the idea of a possible Dravidian connection to IVC and am very excited to see this paper.

I think they will be like jatts :behindsofa:

bol_nat
01-08-2016, 12:10 AM
I hope we can get DNA from Mehrgarh too. Anyone familiar with Pre-Harappan or earlier India know if there's any significant events around ~5000 BC and ~4000 BC?

Skeletons found in Merhgarh are likely contaminated with modern DNA. Only hope left is to find new ones and extract them properly with gloves and all that.

tamilgangster
01-08-2016, 12:28 AM
Here's a place where we can make some predictions about the upcoming results from the Indus Valley! Neither Haploid genetics nor archaeology are my strengths, so I would love to see what some of your ideas are :)

Razib mentioned that they would be autosomally similar to the Reddys of Andhra Pradesh. I disagree somewhat, in that the population would probably be less 'S Indian' and more 'Balochi/Brahui', i.e, it will be similar to present-day Balochis, Brahuis, or Sindhis with the Caucasus, SW Asian and NE Euro removed. Though I wonder how much I'm disagreeing really? A vast swathe of Indian caste populations south of Sindh are quite similar, autosomally speaking.

Razib's predictions are J2 and H, while I think L would probably be more important, and J2 less.

Formally, I predict they will be most similar to CHG, but much more ANE-shifted than them, and with some 'ASI', whatever than is.

More broadly, I suspect that the 'S Indian' cluster modal in Paniya, Pulliyar and other S Indian low-caste or outcaste groups may, circuituously and with the usual caveats, represent the S Indian Neolithic, which I think is associated with the Dravidian Languages, while the 'Balochi/Brahui' component may represent the demographic impact of the first farmers in S Asia in the Indus valley; the two signals being different because the usual W Asian crops could not grow in S India, the S Indian neolithic starting extremely late at 3000BCE with a different package of crops and a different ritual system from the Indus Valley. Upper caste S Indians are probably affected by IAr genetic input, which, by the time it reached them, would be substantially 'Baloch' already. So I think the Indus valley genomes will probably not cluster with S Indians.

Just speculation! :beerchug: Fingers crossed that they have a high-quality genome though.

Its only brahmins who have indoeuropean admixture(assuming NE euro/Steppe like component). South indian brahmins are a fairly recent group. Other dravidian high castes lack it. Its definatley not going to be purely Baloch, becasue by they time Dravidian populations reached the Indus they would have mixed with existing populations who had ASI, but the amount, than in south indian populations

tamilgangster
01-08-2016, 12:38 AM
I think they will be like jatts :behindsofa:

ur joking right?

J Man
01-08-2016, 12:44 AM
I think they will be like jatts :behindsofa:

Do Jatts have a lot of Y-DNA haplogroup J2a among them?

khanabadoshi
01-08-2016, 01:56 AM
ur joking right?

JATTLAND probably already has stated this as fact. LOL!

bol_nat
01-08-2016, 02:08 AM
ur joking right?

Only jatts can be scythians and harappans at the same time.

Dr_McNinja
01-08-2016, 02:26 AM
Only jatts can be scythians and harappans at the same time.

Hahaha, but seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if there was L3*/L1c-M357 there. That's native to the Indus area.

Ryukendo
01-08-2016, 02:54 AM
Hmm, I change my mind, modern clusters like 'Balochi/Brahui' and 'S Indian' would be meaningless at the time. In fact the skeletons would have come from the period when the S Indian neolithic has just started, so the demographic events that affect the majority of Indians today will have occurred after, not before, this...

I'll just leave it as CHG+ANE+ENA. Given that Balochi/Brahui have some 10%? 20%? of recent Middle Eastern ancestry, and probably another 20%? of IAr ancestry conservatively (GujaratiA differs from GujaratiD by having ~a third less ASI, implying at least 30% demographic impact of the most proximate steppe migration on the most steppe-derived peoples, even if actual ancestry from Sintashta may be diluted to a fraction of that 30% impact as the steppe peoples were admixed already by the time they came to India), so doubling the amount of ASI ancestry in present-day Baloch and Brahui seems like a good idea.

That said, I'm not sure these skeletons will settle the question of the 'Dravidian' Indus valley either way, its just too little to go on, and Dravidian, Indus Valley, and later IAr genetic impacts in S India are a bit too intertwined... We may need a lot more sampling. McNinja, does the J2 in S India look like it got picked up by, and came in with, IAr, or does it seem more 'Dravidian'? I've read that it has a correlation with Caste in S India, is this true?

And actually, do you or any other person have more info on L and H in India? It seems very underexplored to me.

The distribution of the 'S Indian' component, peaking in S India and extending along the west coast to Gujarat and Sindh, seems to me a nice fit to the distribution of Dravidian toponyms, and the age of Dravidian -- 3000BCE, fits nicely with the start of the S Indian Neolithic, and also is a nice age for an Admixture component to accumulate sufficient drift at that resolution too... but I assume something like this won't get proven or disproven absolutely until years later...

paulgill
01-08-2016, 04:28 AM
Do Jatts have a lot of Y-DNA haplogroup J2a among them?

Yes, around 20%, I guess.

Dr_McNinja
01-08-2016, 04:30 AM
Hmm, I change my mind, modern clusters like 'Balochi/Brahui' and 'S Indian' would be meaningless at the time. In fact the skeletons would have come from the period when the S Indian neolithic has just started, so the demographic events that affect the majority of Indians today will have occurred after, not before, this...

I'll just leave it as CHG+ANE+ENA. Given that Balochi/Brahui have some 10%? 20%? of recent Middle Eastern ancestry, and probably another 20%? of IAr ancestry conservatively (GujaratiA differs from GujaratiD by having ~a third less ASI, implying at least 30% demographic impact of the most proximate steppe migration on the most steppe-derived peoples, even if actual ancestry from Sintashta may be diluted to a fraction of that 30% impact as the steppe peoples were admixed already by the time they came to India), so doubling the amount of ASI ancestry in present-day Baloch and Brahui seems like a good idea.

That said, I'm not sure these skeletons will settle the question of the 'Dravidian' Indus valley either way, its just too little to go on, and Dravidian, Indus Valley, and later IAr genetic impacts in S India are a bit too intertwined... We may need a lot more sampling. McNinja, does the J2 in S India look like it got picked up by, and came in with, IAr, or does it seem more 'Dravidian'? I've read that it has a correlation with Caste in S India, is this true?

And actually, do you or any other person have more info on L and H in India? It seems very underexplored to me.

The distribution of the 'S Indian' component, peaking in S India and extending along the west coast to Gujarat and Sindh, seems to me a nice fit to the distribution of Dravidian toponyms, and the age of Dravidian -- 3000BCE, fits nicely with the start of the S Indian Neolithic, and also is a nice age for an Admixture component to accumulate sufficient drift at that resolution too... but I assume something like this won't get proven or disproven absolutely until years later...Some, if not most of the J2 definitely had been there or "in the area" since the neolithic. Without finding corresponding haplogroups in ancient Central/South Central Asian or Middle Eastern finds, it's hard to say for sure. Some undoubtedly came with the Indo-Aryans. But those should probably have analogues in other parts of Asia and even Europe, with a divergence timeframe equivalent to R1a's so we haven't seen a lot of that.

Some branches of L are in Europe. Some, like L1c-M357, are predominant in the Indus Valley area but also spread branches to Caucasus and the Middle East (3400ybp TMRCA for Caucasus/Mideast, 950ybp for just Caucasus). 8300ybp for all L1c-M357 and there are branches in South Asia throughout the Neolithic period. I'm betting with a few more NGS results we'll find that L1c-M357 in South Asia began branching apart as Harappan/IVC civilization got started.

The Caucasus/European branches of L seem to have recent TMRCA (3000ybp for L-M317 though it was formed 18300ybp and its sister clade in South Asia immediately began throwing off many branches).

H also has some westward spread. There's H in Central/South Central Asia to a small degree. H is interesting because there's a lot of samples that show diversification before and during Harappan civilization.

The "S-Indian" component is more like an "Ancient (pre-Indo-European) Indian" component. It peaks where recent (<3000ybp) foreign admixture from West and Central Asia is the least which happens to be South India. Some parts of it (like Oceanian, East Eurasian, and the component itself) peak again in the far north.

jesus
01-08-2016, 05:02 AM
L1c-M357 could be found in IVC, but most L there would probably be L1a/L1. L1c-M357 is would probably be more common in the BMAC region, since it's pretty common in Northern Afghanistan/Tajikistan(including Pamiris)/Uzbekistan/Kalash&Burusho + some Turkmen and Uyghur groups.

vettor
01-08-2016, 05:10 AM
My Guess or my hope is that its either T or TL, since TL has claims of origins in the sind valley near by

I also think this paper give some weight as well
http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/genetics-and-afro-dravidian-hypothesis.html

as well as

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948632/
Haplogroup F*, K*, L1 and Q3

Parahaplogroup F* along with the other parahaplogroup K* and two haplogroups L and Q accounted for 13.03% of the total haplogroups. After initial screening of M89-T allele, 11 samples failed to resolve further and were therefore grouped under F*. Similarly, 8 individuals did not exhibit any mutation except G allele for M9 and were therefore grouped under K*. Other two sub-clades L1-M27 and Q3-M346 were present, but in low frequencies only.

But also why only test 4 skeletons when 11 skeletons where initially found?


from dispatches from turtle island, below
In my view, Dravidian probably expanded as a component of the South Asian Neolithic which featured African Sahel founder crops and cultural parts of the Sahel Neolithic package beyond crops. This Neolithic package could thrive in conditions where the Harappan civilization of the Indus River Valley did not expand because its Fertile Crescent origin crops did not thrive there. This package probably brought by a predominantly male group of individuals who were the bearers of Y-DNA haplogroup T to India who probably arrived midway up the eastern coast of India by sea.

Dravidian shows signs of being a relatively young language that had many new language learners in its formative period. There is strong evidence that as a proto-language, it had intrusive elements and was not predominantly native to India, although there may have been an autochronous substrate. But, a narrative that can make sense of just what the nature of those intrusive elements were, or that can connect these intrusive elements to a specific historic cultural community, is elusive.

One of the most promising avenues for finding these links would be to study at a high level of detail, subhaplogroups of Y-DNA haplogroup T and determine which world populations are most strongly phyologenetically linked to the Indian forms of this haplogroup. This work has largely been accomplished for non-African bearers of haplogroup T, but not for haplogroup T in India.

Kurd
01-08-2016, 05:24 AM
Hmm, I change my mind, modern clusters like 'Balochi/Brahui' and 'S Indian' would be meaningless at the time. In fact the skeletons would have come from the period when the S Indian neolithic has just started, so the demographic events that affect the majority of Indians today will have occurred after, not before, this...



I agree, the Balochi Admixture appears to be Caucausus drift derived, due to its overlap with and small GD separation with Caucausus.


Given that Balochi/Brahui have some 10%? 20%? of recent Middle Eastern ancestry, and probably another 20%? of IAr ancestry conservatively (GujaratiA differs from GujaratiD by having ~a third less ASI, implying at least 30% demographic impact of the most proximate steppe migration on the most steppe-derived peoples


It is the other way around. The W/SW Asian ancestry is old, and the ASI is new. I am intimately familiar with the Baloch and Brahui. Baloch readily acknowledge their Kurd and W Asian origins. The following Dstats compare Iraqi Kurd / other W Asians vs Brahui with Baloch. You will notice that Iraqi Kurd has the smallest D, followed by Kalash and Armenians. Frankly, I was surprised when I saw this, since I expected Brahui to be on top, but I guess this is consistent with drift/mutations, after the split of Kurd - Baloch not affecting the D score. Also, with qpAdm the fixed paths between Baloch and the Iraqi Kurd sample indicated that they were a near clade



POP1
POP2
TARGET
OUTGROUP
D
Z
SNP


Brahui
Kurd_Iraq
Balochi
Gorilla
-0.0038
-0.944
85170


Brahui
Kalash
Balochi
Gorilla
-0.0026
-1.402
85301


Brahui
Armenian
Balochi
Gorilla
-0.0009
-0.543
85301




















Brahui
Pathan
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0005
0.385
85301


Brahui
Greek
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0012
0.789
85301


Brahui
Tajik_Pomiri
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0017
0.98
85301


Brahui
Pashtun_Afghan
Balochi
Gorilla
0.002
1.174
82372


Brahui
Turkish
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0034
2.593
85301


Brahui
Iranian
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0052
2.954
85301


Brahui
Makrani
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0061
4.73
85301


Brahui
KOTIAS
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0072
1.7
73801


Brahui
Balochi_Iranian
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0073
1.666
85011


Brahui
Burusho
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0076
5.023
85301


Brahui
Druze
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0084
5.602
85301


Brahui
Anatolia_Neolithic
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0092
4.034
85027


Brahui
Tajik_Afghan
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0105
5.08
82372


Brahui
Syrian
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0255
12.687
85301


Brahui
Puliyar
Balochi
Gorilla
0.03
11.144
81714


Brahui
Paniyas
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0372
9.847
41068


Brahui
Onge
Balochi
Gorilla
0.0511
11.61
41068

parasar
01-08-2016, 05:36 AM
L1c-M357 could be found in IVC, but most L there would probably be L1a/L1. L1c-M357 is would probably be more common in the BMAC region, since it's pretty common in Northern Afghanistan/Tajikistan(including Pamiris)/Uzbekistan/Kalash&Burusho + some Turkmen and Uyghur groups.

While it is true that M357 has seen expansion in certain groups - Jatts and some Caucasus populations come to mind, these groups have low diversity. The origin of L,T lines are still not clear. They could be basal lines by virtue of their absence in Eastern Eurasia, the way basal is currently understood. Basal rather than a component that did not spread to Eastern Eurasia, can also be seen as a component that arrived first from Eastern Eurasia.

parasar
01-08-2016, 07:24 PM
These skeletons are ~2000 BC, correct?

That's right after many Neolithic lines diverged (from around 7000ya to 5000ya). I think we could see any of those. G, J, H, L. They might even be part of the exodus from the IVC ...

G came to mind when I saw the recent Otzi H. pylori paper.
If we go by the theory that the IVC population all but disappeared and new groups moved in a thousand years later, then we should expect that IVC types will be present only in small amounts in South Asia, especially Y lines.

Magoon et al.: "Punjabi G-L166 sample, HG02681, here shares four L166-specific SNPs with the 5,300-year-old G-L166 Iceman mummy Ötzi, found in the Italian part of the Ötztal Alps"

Piquerobi
01-09-2016, 05:20 PM
What about haplogroup H? I guess that's likely to appear too. I am interested also in seeing when and where R2 will first appear.

parasar
01-09-2016, 05:29 PM
What haplogroup H? I guess that's likely to appear too. I am interested also in seeing when and where R2 will first appear.

Who would have thought that Y-C and Y-H would show up first in European ancient DNA, and quite widespread too. Y-C, H, and R2 were quite often thought to be of South Asian origin at one time.

Ebizur
01-09-2016, 09:31 PM
Who would have thought that Y-C and Y-H would show up first in European ancient DNA, and quite widespread too. Y-C, H, and R2 were quite often thought to be of South Asian origin at one time.As far as I know, all examples of Y-DNA haplogroup H-L901 that have been found in ancient European specimens belong to (or potentially might belong to) H2-P96, which formerly has been called haplogroup F3. (If you have knowledge of any information to the contrary, please let me know!) I do not recall having ever seen any author associate Haplogroup F3/H2-P96 with South Asia. At present, H2-P96 seems to be spread with low frequency throughout Western Eurasia, but I recall that, at least in West Asia, it may be present especially among predominantly Christian populations, such as Assyrians and Armenians.

In India, where Y-DNA haplogroup H is especially frequent among populations of the present day, an overwhelming majority of H belongs to H1-M69 (former H) or H3-Z5857 (former Indian/South Asian F*). H1-M69 is fairly common in mainstream Indian populations ("castes"), whereas H3-Z5857 seems to be relatively infrequent in castes, and more notable as an element in the Y-DNA gene pools of tribes that are numerically small and geographically and culturally isolated in pockets of India.

There are some other derivatives of F-M89, such as F2-M427/M428 (found mainly in Loloish peoples of Southwest China), whose status in regard to L901 or equivalent SNPs remains unknown.

According to the YFull experimental tree, H1-M69, H2-P96, and H3-Z5857 share a most recent common ancestor approximately 45300 (95% CI 42000 <-> 48700) years before present. This is about the same time as the most recent common ancestor of IJ-P130 and K-M9 or the most recent common ancestor of D1a-Z27276 (continental East/Central Asian D) and D1b-M64 (Japanese D). This means that any ancient European specimen belonging to H2-P96 is (at least in the direct paternal line) not significantly more closely related to a South Asian belonging to H1-M69 or H3-Z5857 than any modern European belonging to I1-M253 is related to a Papuan belonging to M-P256. The three primary subclades of H-L901 descend from lineages that separated (at least genealogically) during the initial dispersal of members of haplogroup F-M89.

The rare Nepali lineage belonging to C1a2-V20 seems to have shared a most recent common ancestor with European C-V20 not much later than the most recent common ancestor of H1-M69, H2-P96, and H3-Z5857. South Asia also contains many members of C1b1a1-M356 (former C5); this is now subsumed under the C1b-F1370 clade that includes the derivatives of Y-DNA haplogroup C that occur with high frequency in some populations of Southeast Asia and Oceania, but I expect that its MRCA with the major Oceanian subclades should be very ancient, too.

Anyway, regardless of the ultimate origin of H-L901 or C1-F3393, modern South Asians clearly carry some very ancient diversity within these clades.

Tomenable
01-10-2016, 05:35 PM
Apart from Dravidian, there are other candidates for the main ethno-linguistic identity of the Indus Valley Civilization. For example:

Munda:

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

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

Burushaski:

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

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

Kusunda:

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

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

Nihali:

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

Or something which is already extinct by now.

Tomenable
01-10-2016, 05:39 PM
Bhirrana (भिर्दाना) is a small village located in the Indian state of Haryana. According to a December 2014 report by the Archaeological Survey of India, Bhirrana is the oldest Indus Valley Civilization site, dating back to 7570-6200 BC:

http://asi.nic.in/images/exec_bhirrana/images/012.jpg

http://asi.nic.in/images/headers/hdr_exc_bhirrana.jpg

http://asi.nic.in/images/exec_bhirrana/images/006.jpg

http://asi.nic.in/images/exec_bhirrana/images/005.jpg

http://asi.nic.in/images/exec_bhirrana/images/016.jpg

http://asi.nic.in/images/exec_bhirrana/images/019.jpg

http://asi.nic.in/images/exec_bhirrana/images/012.jpg

It would be great to get some ancient DNA samples from Bhirrana.

parasar
01-13-2016, 08:58 PM
Bhirrana (भिर्दाना) is a small village located in the Indian state of Haryana. According to a December 2014 report by the Archaeological Survey of India, Bhirrana is the oldest Indus Valley Civilization site, dating back to 7570-6200 BC:
...

And the excavator of Rakhigarhi says there has been no change in the population since then!
The results should be interesting to say the least.

Vasant Shinde, Professor of Archaeology at Deccan College, Pune, about Rakhigarhi:
"There are different hypotheses as regards the identity of the people who thrived on the banks of the Saraswati. Some people believe these were Aryans while others insist they were non-Aryans. My argument is that from 7000 BC onwards, we don't have any evidence of people migrating. If we say the Aryans came from outside, it should reflect in their lifestyle. From 7000 BC onwards, we have been able to observe that they are the same people. Studying Rakhigarhi has been a study of their legacy. The model Haryana household today is exactly how the households of people must have been thousands and thousands of years ago. There are too many similarities between modern day and ancient Rakhigarhi to ignore."

Generalissimo
01-13-2016, 10:39 PM
And the excavator of Rakhigarhi says there has been no change in the population since then!
The results should be interesting to say the least.

Vasant Shinde, Professor of Archaeology at Deccan College, Pune, about Rakhigarhi:
"There are different hypotheses as regards the identity of the people who thrived on the banks of the Saraswati. Some people believe these were Aryans while others insist they were non-Aryans. My argument is that from 7000 BC onwards, we don't have any evidence of people migrating. If we say the Aryans came from outside, it should reflect in their lifestyle. From 7000 BC onwards, we have been able to observe that they are the same people. Studying Rakhigarhi has been a study of their legacy. The model Haryana household today is exactly how the households of people must have been thousands and thousands of years ago. There are too many similarities between modern day and ancient Rakhigarhi to ignore."

Very funny. But that quote comes from 2012.

parasar
01-13-2016, 11:00 PM
Very funny. But that quote comes from 2012.

Yes, and it is based on cultural and other aspects, not DNA.
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/artbeat/harappas-greatest-centre-sheds-light-on-our-today

It is difficult to imagine how an influx of R1a1 did not make a difference. Perhaps cultural continuity was maintained even with a population change. We do see some cultural changes circa. 1000-800bc - iron, horse, PGW, etc. Anthropologists based on skeletal data see little change. There is some influx around 800bc and a discontinuity around 4500bc, but the older population recovered.

parasar
01-14-2016, 02:48 AM
G came to mind when I saw the recent Otzi H. pylori paper.
If we go by the theory that the IVC population all but disappeared and new groups moved in a thousand years later, then we should expect that IVC types will be present only in small amounts in South Asia, especially Y lines.

Magoon et al.: "Punjabi G-L166 sample, HG02681, here shares four L166-specific SNPs with the 5,300-year-old G-L166 Iceman mummy Ötzi, found in the Italian part of the Ötztal Alps"

"The Iceman’s ancient H. pylori was separated from modern hpEurope strains, and its position along PC1 was close to modern hpAsia2 strains from India"
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6269/162.full?utm_campaign=email-sci-toc&et_rid=70687561&et_cid=198061

Ral
07-25-2016, 08:59 PM
My prediction:
1.J2
2.R1a-L657
I think that R1a-L657 came at the beginning /middle of the 3rd millennium BC.
R1a-z2123 should not be there(probably it came at the end of 2nd/beginning 1st millennium BC).
But the sample is not representative.

parasar
07-26-2016, 02:34 AM
My prediction:
1.J2
2.R1a-L657
I think that R1a-L657 came at the beginning /middle of the 3rd millennium BC.
R1a-z2123 should not be there(probably it came at the end of 2nd/beginning 1st millennium BC).
But the sample is not representative.

If continuity at Rakhigarhi is as Shinde believes, there is no chance for any Z94 derivative, and definitely not L657 even going back to ~2500bc.

Going by Poltavka Z94
Approximate ages per my calculation:
M780 ~4582 years
M634 ~4339 years
L657 ~ 3852 years (ie 1852bc)

Ral
07-26-2016, 08:53 AM
If continuity at Rakhigarhi is as Shinde believes, there is no chance for any Z94 derivative, and definitely not L657 even going back to ~2500bc.

Going by Poltavka Z94
Approximate ages per my calculation:
M780 ~4582 years
M634 ~4339 years
L657 ~ 3852 years (ie 1852bc)

My prediction: it came from north, east-north, not from west-north. There are only z-2123 in Poltavka i think.

ddugas
07-26-2016, 03:55 PM
when is it expected that we will see this aDNA sample in a paper or other means? In December it was said the answer would come in weeks.

parasar
07-26-2016, 04:24 PM
My prediction: it came from north, east-north, not from west-north. There are only z-2123 in Poltavka i think.

The Poltavka sample I used for calibrating the dates is only Z94.
Potapovka I sample entitled the Poltavka_outlier: "I0432 SVP42 Non-petrous bone (Femur) Outlier N N Poltavka_outlier IGNORE IGNORE New 1240k data - 1 2925-2536 calBCE (AA12569) 4940 4551 Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara Russia 53.66 50.67 0.87 648,053 M Yes 10,867,614 U5a1c R1a1a1b2a Z94"

Yes an entry from the north is possible. If so, it is likely Saka and not Vedic Aryan.
The Saka belt extended from Sistan, Gujarat, Malwa in the south, to the Gandhara-Mathura belt in the middle, to Khotan in the north. A Karakoram entry has been propsed and was favored by Dani.

"At the time of the establishment of the Bactrian monarchy, the territories to the north — Sogdiana and Transoxiana — were occupied by a tribe called the Sse (or Sek), who had come from the south of China. These Sse have usually been identified with the Sakas, who, in previous ages, had come into conflict with the Achaemenid and Macedonian powers."

"The coins of the dynasty of Maues are found in the Panjab only — particularly in the N.W. — and not in Afghanistan (C.NChr. 1890, p. 104). It has accordingly been conjectured (gard. p. Xli; Drouin, Rev. Num. 1888, p. 20; and JA. 1891 (XVII), p. 146 = Rev. Num. 1891, p. 219) that this band of Sakas, unlike other foreign invaders, entered India by the Karakoram Pass, and passed through Kashmir into the Panjab. . C, however, denies the possibility of this, and supposes that, after the Saka occupation of Arachosia and Drangiana — the country afterwards called Sakasthana — a detachment under the leadership of Maues passed thence into Sind and up the valley of the Indus."
https://books.google.com/books?id=MncWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7

Agnimitra
09-05-2016, 08:33 AM
An anonymous official of the archaeological survey has hinted at something recently. It seems there has been no notable population change since the collapse of IVSC. Now this can mean many things, but would be wise to wait than make wild speculations. Personally, considering how Haryana has one of the largest frequencies on earth, I expect Z2124 or upstream of that.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Descendants-of-Harappans-still-living-in-Rakhigarhi/articleshow/53609286.cms

Haryana is the most important territory in the Rig Veda. It is the heart and source of the Vedic culture. Infact, most of the Rig veda was composed inside Haryana. It is fondly referred to as Vara- Prithvya in the RV( "The best place on earth"). It is also called other names like "Nabha-Prithvya" ("navel of the earth") all showing the importance of the territory. There are at least three pilgrimage centers pinpointed in the RV, all of which are tantalizingly close to IVSC sites and are still holy shrines to Hindus. This region is called "Kurukhetra" today, arguably the holiest place for Hindus. To put it in the familiar biblical terms, Haryana is the "Holy land" of the Indo-Aryans and also for the modern Hindus.

Haryana is also the most important province and the power center of the IVSC. Both the oldest (Bhirrana) and the largest (Rakhigarhi) sites are in Haryana. The IVSC seems to have spread from Haryana into the Indus Valley. Most of the sites are along the dried up river bed of the mighty Saraswathy river which has been proven beyond reasonable doubt by many rigorous methodologies to have stopped reaching the sea around 3800-3600 BCE and to have dried up completely by 2000 BCE.

The above parallel is amazing, this sort of material and literary agreement would prove to be way more than the standard of proof applied for any other culture in the rest of the world. The aDNA results has the potential to link them permanently or to sever them.

Generalissimo
09-05-2016, 09:04 AM
An anonymous official of the archaeological survey has hinted at something recently. It seems there has been no notable population change since the collapse of IVSC. Now this can mean many things, but its better to wait than make wild speculations. Personally, considering how Haryana has one of the largest frequencies on earth, I expect Z2124 or upstream of that.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Descendants-of-Harappans-still-living-in-Rakhigarhi/articleshow/53609286.cms

The quote in the article you linked to only suggests that there's been continuity in the region since the Harappan period. That doesn't imply "no notable population change" nor does it imply that R1a-Z2124 was extracted from the remains.


The initial results have thrown up scientific evidence proving that even as the civilization faded away, some people adapted to the changes and continued to live here.

Why would you expect a steppe marker like Z2124 to be in India at that time? It makes no sense. It's more plausible to expect J, R2 or even G.

Agnimitra
09-05-2016, 09:47 AM
The quote in the article you linked to only suggests that there's been continuity in the region since the Harappan period. That doesn't imply "no notable population change" nor does it imply that R1a-Z2124 was extracted from the remains.


Of course, as I said, it could mean many things. One way to interpret it is that the dominant haplogroups in Haryana today was also the dominant ones in the bronze age. That would be one way.

I do expect for reasons I mentioned earlier that Z 93 branch will turn up. And of course, it is only natural to assume that when a large civilization collapses, migration patters will involve all directions. There is no reason to believe the Harappans only went east.

Harappans had established trading colonies as far away as Dilmun in the middle east, they were really running around the old world.



It's more plausible to expect J, R2 or even G.


Such a cosmopolitan and extensive society like IVSC will definitely have more than one haplogroup.

R2 is possible, yes. L is also likely though I do hope sampling errors don't screw up the actual scenario. Imagine, if the two males samples are relatives!!

But why G? I dont understand why you wont be surprised if G turned up......My mandible would drop off if it came true.

Generalissimo
09-05-2016, 10:16 AM
But why G? I dont understand why you wont be surprised if G turned up......My mandible would drop off if it came true.

Present day Indians are mainly a mixture of three groups: South Asian foragers, Neolithic Iranian farmers, and Bronze Age herders from the European steppes.

Harappans were basically a mixture of the former two. So Y-HG G is likely. It may have become much less common in the region since the Bronze Age.

lgmayka
09-05-2016, 12:48 PM
An anonymous official of the archaeological survey has hinted at something recently. It seems there has been no notable population change since the collapse of IVSC.
The anonymous person may have been referring merely to mtDNA.

Agnimitra
09-05-2016, 12:56 PM
Present day Indians are mainly a mixture of three groups: South Asian foragers, Neolithic Iranian farmers, and Bronze Age herders from the European steppes.



I have not read the relevant papers, but I can see easily that there are assumptions involved.
1. That R2 was not present in neolithic India .
2. That there was an R1a1 influx in the second millennium BCE( which seems to beg the question of the IVSC identity)
3. That the IVSC is a continuation of neolithic Iranian farming tradition.

The beginnings of agriculture in India has roots in the ninth or eighth millennium BCE. The rice farming sites are scattered all over the Saraswathy-Ganges plains.

https://selfstudyhistory.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/d0519-3.png

Some of the sites above continued to become full fledged cities in the IVC. All stages of development are found in many of the sites. Continuous habitation and cultivation in some of these sites predate this supposed migration of farmers by millenniums. Wheat cultivation is much younger in India than the onset of farming, its later appearance in India is clearly a result of contact with the near east or Iran. It may be accounted for by neolithic Iranian farming tradition and may have come about by immigration, if the genetic data is confirmatory. But there is no evidence of a break in the archaeological record east of the Indus river. There is a break in Mehrgarh which also has a small amount of near eastern variety of wheat(10%) and 90% local breed of barley in Phase I, which is west of the Indus. Not surprisingly, wheat cultivation was restricted to the western regions, spreading gradually.

A very curious fact is that the Rig veda knows of only rice and barley(yava). Rice is the preferred food used for rituals. Wheat is totally unknown to the early Indo Aryans. Whats more, wheat is treated with disdain even in the later literature. It is even referred to as "Mlecchabhojya" or "food of the barbarians". Only gradually and over millenniums was it accepted.

All this shows that in the earliest period, the Indo Aryans were unfamiliar with wheat cultivation. Its spread from regions west of the Indus is much younger to the beginnings of the IVSC, the presence of Indo Aryans in Haryana and also the onset of farming.

So it is difficult to think that G came in with farmers from Iran and were a founder group for IVSC.

pegasus
09-06-2016, 04:50 AM
Present day Indians are mainly a mixture of three groups: South Asian foragers, Neolithic Iranian farmers, and Bronze Age herders from the European steppes.

Harappans were basically a mixture of the former two. So Y-HG G is likely. It may have become much less common in the region since the Bronze Age.

The Steppe admixture in South Asians seems to be more North Caucasus Yamnaya like than Corded Ware Androvono , though the Y Dna is Androvono related, strangely. One should not ignore the presence of a 4th populaton, a Central Asian Forager population, which Iran_Hotu gives evidence of.

Generalissimo
09-06-2016, 05:21 AM
The Steppe admixture in South Asians seems to be more North Caucasus Yamnaya like than Corded Ware Androvono , though the Y Dna is Androvono related, strangely. One should not ignore the presence of a 4th populaton, a Central Asian Forager population, which Iran_Hotu gives evidence of.

No, steppe admixture in South Asians looks like a mixture of Catacomb and Andronovo in varying degrees. The former peaks in the Kalash and the latter in Pamir Tajiks.

Neolithic farmer admixture in South Asians fits somewhere along the cline from Iran Neolithic to Iran Hotu.

pegasus
09-06-2016, 12:20 PM
No, steppe admixture in South Asians looks like a mixture of Catacomb and Andronovo in varying degrees. The former peaks in the Kalash and the latter in Pamir Tajiks.

Neolithic farmer admixture in South Asians fits somewhere along the cline from Iran Neolithic to Iran Hotu.

I guess earlier Indo Aryan admixture seems to be Yamnaya like while the later Iranian steppe seems to be much more Androvono derived.

parasar
09-08-2016, 03:18 PM
...

I do expect for reasons I mentioned earlier that Z 93 branch will turn up. And of course, it is only natural to assume that when a large civilization collapses, migration patters will involve all directions. There is no reason to believe the Harappans only went east. ...

But why G? I dont understand why you wont be surprised if G turned up......My mandible would drop off if it came true.

And my mandible would hit the floor if Z93 turns up.

Agnimitra
09-09-2016, 01:13 PM
And my mandible would hit the floor if Z93 turns up.

:) Well, we've been dabbling in speculations for decades. A little more while of waiting and the case is decided. I for one no longer have a shred of doubt about the identity of the IVSC. Z-93 will only resonate with the one directional implications of the evidences from archaeology, geology, linguistics and literature. It will answer more questions than it will raise. Of course it will be a blow to speculative scholarship and will entail a bulldozing of many preconceptions. The empirical is also the absolute.

Lets both wait. On a lighter note, an anecdote that may interest you. I see that your username is Parasara. You probably know that he was the grandson of Vasishta. This Vasishta is the most famous priest from the RV. He was instrumental and directly involved in the Indo-Iranian split. Yes, this split that is so frequently discussed happened in his lifetime and it happened in the Sapta Sindhu(Indus valley) remembered in the Iranian Avesta as "Hapta Hendu", called one of the "ancient habitats" of the Iranians. Go check it up...

topfield
09-10-2016, 08:56 AM
:) Well, we've been dabbling in speculations for decades. A little more while of waiting and the case is decided. I for one no longer have a shred of doubt about the identity of the IVSC. Z-93 will only resonate with the one directional implications of the evidences from archaeology, geology, linguistics and literature. It will answer more questions than it will raise. Of course it will be a blow to speculative scholarship and will entail a bulldozing of many preconceptions. The empirical is also the absolute.

Lets both wait. On a lighter note, an anecdote that may interest you. I see that your username is Parasara. You probably know that he was the grandson of Vasishta. This Vasishta is the most famous priest from the RV. He was instrumental and directly involved in the Indo-Iranian split. Yes, this split that is so frequently discussed happened in his lifetime and it happened in the Sapta Sindhu(Indus valley) remembered in the Iranian Avesta as "Hapta Hendu", called one of the "ancient habitats" of the Iranians. Go check it up...

There are just 4 skeletons? Results from 4 skeletons might not prove much or settle the matter at all. I guess though, it depends.

Jean M
09-10-2016, 10:10 AM
when is it expected that we will see this aDNA sample in a paper or other means? In December it was said the answer would come in weeks.

David reported a couple of days ago in comments on his blog:


The DNA results are ready, but they're top secret for now. The researchers were going to have a meeting in July to see what to do with them. If they decided to put out a paper, then we might see it before the end of the year.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/rakhigarhi-ancient-dna-paper-probably.html

parasar
09-10-2016, 04:50 PM
There are just 4 skeletons? Results from 4 skeletons might not prove much or settle the matter at all. I guess though, it depends.

For autosomal data four should be sufficient. We have see seen autosomal consistency over vast regions and periods (eg. Bichon, La Brana, Loschbour; AG, MA1).

parasar
09-10-2016, 05:05 PM
:) Well, we've been dabbling in speculations for decades. A little more while of waiting and the case is decided. I for one no longer have a shred of doubt about the identity of the IVSC. Z-93 will only resonate with the one directional implications of the evidences from archaeology, geology, linguistics and literature. It will answer more questions than it will raise. Of course it will be a blow to speculative scholarship and will entail a bulldozing of many preconceptions. The empirical is also the absolute.

Lets both wait. On a lighter note, an anecdote that may interest you. I see that your username is Parasara. You probably know that he was the grandson of Vasishta. This Vasishta is the most famous priest from the RV. He was instrumental and directly involved in the Indo-Iranian split. Yes, this split that is so frequently discussed happened in his lifetime and it happened in the Sapta Sindhu(Indus valley) remembered in the Iranian Avesta as "Hapta Hendu", called one of the "ancient habitats" of the Iranians. Go check it up...

There were a number of Vasisthas. But yes some texts make the primodal Parasara descend from the primodal Vasishtha via Sakti.
https://books.google.com/books?id=2BRjkE385ScC&pg=PA212

But internal evidence within the Rg Veda is inconsistent as by the time the Rg was compiled, parasar was being used also as an adjective in the sense of destroyer of demons.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wN6dz2UZkw4C&pg=PA142
https://books.google.com/books?id=gSZmbbsg9bEC&pg=PA222

Agnimitra
09-11-2016, 02:39 PM
There were a number of Vasisthas. But yes some texts make the primodal Parasara descend from the primodal Vasishtha via Sakti.
But internal evidence within the Rg Veda is inconsistent as by the time the Rg was compiled, parasar was being used also as an adjective in the sense of destroyer of demons.


Well yes, he appears in many texts. But the original Vasistha lived during the time of Book 7 of the Rig veda which was written by him and his descendants. Book 7 is the third oldest book of the RV. The Vasisthas in the later texts are clearly the respective authors replacing his descendants with their more famed eponymous patriarch. This bad habit is pretty common in classical texts and even in the RV itself, the rishis ascribe their verses to their patriarch to give them more credibility(Like Bhrigu and Angiras)

Parasara was also a historical figure. He is referred to as a contemporary in verse 7.18.21. ParASara sAktya is also a significant contributor having authored verses 65-73 of book 1. (Each book has an anukramani which specifically lists the authors of each verse)

About the ANI-ASI admixture, Dravidian loan words do not appear in Vedic Sanskrit of the RV, and they present increasingly in later and classical sanskrit texts. While some linguists have tried to pick a few words from the RV showing them to be non IE derived, these claims are contested by others as hairsplitting endeavors. Most linguists today reject the criteria used as undependable as these words do not have Dravidian etymologies either and the presence of perfect etymology is not a universal law for any language.

I predict that the autosomal component showing ASI admixture is a small chance, and if it does show up it wouldn't be as much as what characterizes modern populations .The proto- Europeans split from Indo-Iranians around 4000 BCE, give or take a few hundreds.There are no Dravidian loan words in the European branches. But there are a few examples in the Iranian branch and many in later post RV texts . As I implied above, they signify contact with the proto Dravidians which appears to have begun to happen after the end of the Vedic period, which is towards the end of and after the collapse of the IVSC. The Iranians split from the Indo Aryans shorty before this contact, explaining the sparsity of influence in Avestan. So it happened in all probability in the 2nd millennium BCE. This timeline( Within 4000 BP) for the admixture is in agreement with a majority of genetic studies. Since the samples are from the mature phase(2500 BCE), I think it is more probable that the relevant admixture would not yet have happened. ( Of course, all this assuming the samples are Z 93 positive).

The autosomes will throw surprises, oh yeah. And the mtDNA, I cant even begin to guess.....

parasar
09-12-2016, 02:24 AM
Well yes, he appears in many texts. But the original Vasistha lived during the time of Book 7 of the Rig veda which was written by him and his descendants. ...

Improbable.
As I had mentioned Parasara, his supposed descendant, was already an adjective in Book 7. IMO, Book 7, is not older than 900bc (Vyasa Parasarya's time-frame).
Plus the plural usage indicates there were many Vasisthas by that time. The primodal Vasistha is already a myth in the form of maitravaruni.
This hymn is an ode to a time past. We have to look at the Bharata (the older portion of Mahabharata) to bring some coherence to these stories.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07033.htm

Agnimitra
09-12-2016, 10:14 AM
Improbable.
As I had mentioned Parasara, his supposed descendant, was already an adjective in Book 7. .
Plus the plural usage indicates there were many Vasisthas by that time. The primodal Vasistha is already a myth in the form of maitravaruni.



I could not find the verses using "Parasara" as an adjective. Please locate them for me. And here is the reference to Vasistha and his grandson Parasara together along with an unknown member of the family.
7.18.21--They who, from home, have gladdened thee, thy servants Parasara, Vasiṣṭha, Satayatu,
Will not forget thy friendship, liberal Giver. So shall the days dawn prosperous for the princes

The family called themselves "Vasisthas",that does not mean that there were many Vasisthas. Vasishta of book 7 is the patriarch, there is no one both famous and older than him in their ancestry. The Bhrigus and Angirasa are the oldest families,much older than the RV itself, they use the name of their ancestors Bhrigu and Angiras all over the RV. The patriarchs Bhrigu and Angiras lived long before the RV was written( Perhaps these two lived during PIE times,because these names are common to most IE branches including Greek, Persian and Germanic) . Your idea about Vasistha actually fits these two better. One more point is that an author of a verse very commonly refers to himself in his own verses. That is a common practice.

You see, most of the books are FAMILY BOOKS. These are written only by members of a single family over many generations. "MitraVaruni" does not mean that Vasistha was mythical. That was his full name-- 'Vasishta Mitravaruni', Agastya is also referred to by the same name in the same book, implying they might have been brothers. Or they may be trying to cover up their humble birth in the garb of myth. There is a suggestive story that Vasistha was born of Urvasi or something in book 10.

Thus there is no reason to think that Vasistha or Parasara was mythical, when they are contemporaneously mentioned in their own compositions and they are listed in the anukramanis for each and every verse they composed. Such meticulous recording of authorship cannot be cast aside as though they are irrelevant. All three relevant people -Vasistha Mitravaruni, Saktya Vasistha and Parasara Saktya( Father, son and grandson) find their place in the text. Refer to page 132 of this pdf for book 7 anukramani(Index)

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/anukramani.pdf


This hymn is an ode to a time past. We have to look at the Bharata (the older portion of Mahabharata) to bring some coherence to these stories.

This is were the anukramani( Index of sages) comes into play. If you read it you will see who authored hymn 33. It was the "Vasisthaputras" or descendants of Vasisthas. The index knows who wrote what, and our work is make much easier by it. As I said, book 7 was composed over many generations of the Vasistha family. However, verse 18 is much older, written by Vasistha himself. There is no need to refer to the Mahabharata. Vasisthas served the Bharata royal family. The Kurus of the MB are but descendants of the Rig Vedic Bharatas.


IMO, Book 7, is not older than 900bc (Vyasa Parasarya's time-frame)

You may not be aware of it yourself, you are following the timescale cooked up by Max Mueller a hundred years ago. He got exposed for his ridiculous treatment of the subject back then, and he himself rejected his dating of "1500 BCE". But the scholarly community, pathetically, not examining his books, offering no reasons at all, continued using this date . Even today it is used. You will throw up and roll on the floor if you read the arguments Mueller gave for his dating. Enjoy....
http://www.sabha.info/books/AsiaticSocDiscourses/IndiansAreHamiticPg9.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/AsiaticSocDiscourses/VedasNotBeforeFloodPg89.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/Bunsen28Aug1853Vol1Pg152.html

You have a great burden of proof if you stick to 900 BCE. You need to show how the primitive RV fits in Iron age India. And that's just the first hurdle.

Megalophias
09-12-2016, 03:16 PM
Oh for heaven's sake. No, modern scholarship does not merely repeat the opinions of Max Mueller, let alone of William Jones, and no, current estimates of the age of the Rgveda (which are very approximate at best) are not based on Biblical chronology, nor is the time when the collection was completed the same time as when all the verses were written. Also, a great deal of nonsense and lies are spoken of Max Mueller, who does not deserve it.

parasar
09-12-2016, 03:24 PM
I could not find the verses using "Parasara" as an adjective. Please locate them for me. And here is the reference to Vasistha and his grandson Parasara together along with an unknown member of the family.



इन्द्रो यातूनामभवत पराशरो हविर्मथीनामभ्याविवासताम |
अभीदु शक्रः परशुर्यथा वनं पात्रेव भिन्दन सत एति रक्षसः ||
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv07104.htm



7.18.21--They who, from home, have gladdened thee, thy servants Parasara, Vasiṣṭha, Satayatu,
Will not forget thy friendship, liberal Giver. So shall the days dawn prosperous for the princes


The family called themselves "Vasisthas",that does not mean that there were many Vasisthas. Vasishta of book 7 is the patriarch, there is no one both famous and older than him in their ancestry. The Bhrigus and Angirasa are the oldest families,much older than the RV itself, they use the name of their ancestors Bhrigu and Angiras all over the RV. The patriarchs Bhrigu and Angiras lived long before the RV was written( Perhaps these two lived during PIE times,because these names are common to most IE branches including Greek, Persian and Germanic) . Your idea about Vasistha actually fits these two better. One more point is that an author of a verse very commonly refers to himself in his own verses. That is a common practice.

You see, most of the books are FAMILY BOOKS. These are written only by members of a single family over many generations. "MitraVaruni" does not mean that Vasistha was mythical. That was his full name-- 'Vasishta Mitravaruni', Agastya is also referred to by the same name in the same book, implying they might have been brothers. Or they may be trying to cover up their humble birth in the garb of myth. There is a suggestive story that Vasistha was born of Urvasi or something in book 10.



Thus there is no reason to think that Vasistha or Parasara was mythical, when they are contemporaneously mentioned in their own compositions and they are listed in the anukramanis for each and every verse they composed. Such meticulous recording of authorship cannot be cast aside as though they are irrelevant. All three relevant people -Vasistha Mitravaruni, Saktya Vasistha and Parasara Saktya( Father, son and grandson) find their place in the text. Refer to page 132 of this pdf for book 7 anukramani(Index)

http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/anukramani.pdf


I am not convinced that Maitra-varuni is not mythical.
It looks evident to me from this:
"11 Born of their love for Urvasi, Vasiṣṭha thou, priest, art son of Varuṇa and Mitra;
And as a fallen drop, in heavenly fervour, all the Gods laid thee on a lotus-blossom."

Perhaps some biological processes would allow for that, but I am not aware of it in higher species.




This is were the anukramani( Index of sages) comes into play. If you read it you will see who authored hymn 33. It was the "Vasisthaputras" or descendants of Vasisthas. The index knows who wrote what, and our work is make much easier by it. As I said, book 7 was composed over many generations of the Vasistha family. However, verse 18 is much older, written by Vasistha himself. There is no need to refer to the Mahabharata. Vasisthas served the Bharata royal family. The Kurus of the MB are but descendants of the Rig Vedic Bharatas.



You may not be aware of it yourself, you are following the timescale cooked up by Max Mueller a hundred years ago. He got exposed for his ridiculous treatment of the subject back then, and he himself rejected his dating of "1500 BCE". But the scholarly community, pathetically, not examining his books, offering no reasons at all, continued using this date . Even today it is used. You will throw up and roll on the floor if you read the arguments Mueller gave for his dating. Enjoy....
http://www.sabha.info/books/AsiaticSocDiscourses/IndiansAreHamiticPg9.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/AsiaticSocDiscourses/VedasNotBeforeFloodPg89.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/Bunsen28Aug1853Vol1Pg152.html

You have a great burden of proof if you stick to 900 BCE. You need to show how the primitive RV fits in Iron age India. And that's just the first hurdle.

I am not following anyone's timelines. Muller's dates are minimums so they don't mean much for historical dating.

The Kurus of Mahabharata are all Parasaras.
The whole story-line was developed by Krsna Parasarya who not only made himself God - Narayana - but inserted himself into the genealogy of the Kurus, thus:
"DHRITARÂSTRA: The blind son of Vyâsadeva, born of Ambikâ after the death of her husband, Vichitravirya"
"PÂNDU: Father of the Pândava's born to Vichitravirya's widow queen Ambalika by the grace of Vyâsadeva."
http://www.vahini.org/downloads/familytree.html

He was slave-dasa/dasi born and black-krsna in color but rose to eminence despite that (and not only as a compiler-vyasa of the Vedas, but as a self annointed God and progenitor of the Kurus).

Agnimitra
09-12-2016, 04:19 PM
इन्द्रो यातूनामभवत पराशरो हविर्मथीनामभ्याविवासताम |
अभीदु शक्रः परशुर्यथा वनं पात्रेव भिन्दन सत एति रक्षसः ||
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv07104.htm


Each Sanskrit word/ has roots and therefore multiple meanings. The name Parashara is also a word with a meaning, and here it is a noun meaning "destroyer". It has nothing to do with the person with the name.
http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=+parashara&trans=Translate


I am not convinced that Maitra-varuni is not mythical.
It looks evident to me from this:

This is the story I alluded to in my previous post. As I already alluded, the later generations deify their ancestor. Ancestor worship(Pitrs) is well attested in the RV. Or it may be hinting at the low birth of Vasistha. All families do it. Some to even more ridiculous extents.


The Kurus of Mahabharata are all Parasaras.

The MB is not a historical text. No less fictional than say the Iliad or Odessy in its fantastical, magical details. It was continuously edited, garnished with myths and expanded from its original 8800 verses to the present 100,000. It is completely useless in our present discussion about the early Indoeuropean times. The dating of RV however is of primal importance in our predictions about aDNA. Obviously, if there was a Parasara in the MB, he is not our person of interest, he is a fictional character or one of his distant descendants using his name for credibility.

Agnimitra
09-12-2016, 04:32 PM
Oh for heaven's sake. No, modern scholarship does not merely repeat the opinions of Max Mueller, let alone of William Jones, and no, current estimates of the age of the Rgveda (which are very approximate at best) are not based on Biblical chronology, nor is the time when the collection was completed the same time as when all the verses were written. Also, a great deal of nonsense and lies are spoken of Max Mueller, who does not deserve it.

I know it sounds outrageous, but it appears to be true. This matter is taken for granted ever since Muellers times. No one at any point has offered an explanation correcting Muellers writings or replacing them with valid evidences. I did not speak my opinion of him nor did I peddle lies. I only quoted writings by him. There are even more unscientific opinions by him which I held back to prevent digression. Or perhaps I am wrong and you could offer me a proper explanation for the current estimates.I would be more than grateful.

Jean M
09-12-2016, 04:57 PM
The dating of RV however is of primal importance in our predictions about aDNA.

Linguistic dating of PIE and its descendants is not based on estimates of the date of RV. The crucial dates are based on lexico-chronology i.e. words for inventions which we can date from archaeology, like the wheel (c. 3500 BC). This is covered in the current thread on PIE origins: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8481-Is-this-summary-of-PIE-origins-correct&p=184736&viewfull=1#post184736

To make matters clearer, here are some images from David W. Anthony and Don Ringe, The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives, The Annual Review of Linguistics, 2015. 1:199–219.

Wheel terms in various IE languages or language families (click to enlarge):

11568

The estimated departures from the IE homeland of the various groups which developed offspring languages. You can see from the linguistic tree inserted on the map that the branch ancestral to Indo-Iranian lingered among the longest in the homeland. Its departure is not shown on the map, but the linguistic estimate of its departure fit the steppe cultures of Sintashta (2100-1800 BC) and Andronovo (2000–900 BC).

11569

Agnimitra
09-12-2016, 05:11 PM
@Jean

Thank you for bringing in some serious points. I will reply to your post in the relevant thread.

parasar
09-12-2016, 06:55 PM
Each Sanskrit word/ has roots and therefore multiple meanings. The name Parashara is also a word with a meaning, and here it is a noun meaning "destroyer". It has nothing to do with the person with the name.
http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=+parashara&trans=Translate

...

I know that it has meaning, and I gave you the meaning in a prior post - not just any destroyer - but a destroyer of demons - exactly the way Indra is being described.

It is not an etymological meaning - there is no way parasara becomes destroyer of demons or even destroyer or crusher etymologically.
But if you read Krsna Parasarya's story of Parasara devouring demons to avenge killing of his father, the usage become clear.
[edit: much like say the verb usage bork http://www.dictionary.com/browse/borked or even from a fictional character - quixotic]

I consider Mahabharata to be history in the Pauranic tradition - no doubt it was repeatedly edited as any history book should.

parasar
09-12-2016, 07:32 PM
One of the key issues in threads such as this one is what are we trying to resolve?
Language (PIE) or genes?

IMO, whether the language of Rakhigarhi was IE is completely different from whether Z93 was present in Rakhigarhi. Given what we know from Poltavka, it is only the latter that would surprise.

Megalophias
09-12-2016, 09:50 PM
I know it sounds outrageous, but it appears to be true. This matter is taken for granted ever since Muellers times. No one at any point has offered an explanation correcting Muellers writings or replacing them with valid evidences.
And have you ever looked? At Mueller's time hardly anything was known of the archaeology of India, and the Indo-Iranian material in Hurrian had not yet been discovered. Some rather significant developments have taken place since then!

Modern treatments of the spread of Indo-European often cite Michael Witzel (few scholars of the actual Vedic texts concern themselves with the subject, that I've seen). Jamison and Witzel (1992), in Vedic Hinduism, say: "According to recent archaeological research the disappearance of the Indus cities is determined at 1900 B.C.; on the other hand, the AV is the first text mentioning iron which was introduced in North India at c. 1100 BCE. The RV, which no longer knows of the Indus cities but only mentions ruins (armaka, [mahå]vailasthåna), thus could have been composed during the long period between 1990 and 1100 BCE. An ad quem date for the RV is provided by the mentioning of Vedic gods (Varua, Mitra, Indra, Nåsatya = Aśvin) in the Hittite-Mitanni agreement of c. 1380 BCE. The RV, however, presents, for the greatest part, only a "snapshot" picture of c. 5-6 generations of poets and kings who lived closer towards the end of the period (cf. Witzel, forthc. a)." See any citation of Mueller? (BTW, I think this is a rather shoddy argument, and I'm not a fan of Witzel, but there you go.) If you read something by Southworth or Parpola you'll find similar arguments.

For a view from the 1920s - it looks hoplessly naive now of course - see the Childe's discussion in The Aryans (https://archive.org/stream/TheAryansAStudyOfIndo-europeanOrigins/TheAryans#page/n49/mode/2up).


I did not speak my opinion of him nor did I peddle lies. I only quoted writings by him.
I didn't accuse you of lying. However, you quoted two pieces from Jones, who died three decades before Mueller was born, and one excerpt of a private letter of Mueller, in which he expresses his opinion without offering an argument. So you have only inadvertantly contributed to the misinformation.

Agnimitra
09-13-2016, 07:48 PM
And have you ever looked? At Mueller's time hardly anything was known of the archaeology of India, and the Indo-Iranian material in Hurrian had not yet been discovered. Some rather significant developments have taken place since then!

The feeling is mutual. That discovery helps date the RV only if it is meaningfully compared with it and not if it is immediately assumed to predate it. And that is what was done, I regret to say.

I do appreciate your effort to show that proofs were maintained. That is more than what many do. But as I try to show below, these are not proofs, they do not stand even a superficial scrutiny.


"According to recent archaeological research the disappearance of the Indus cities is determined at 1900 B.C.; on the other hand, the AV is the first text mentioning iron which was introduced in North India at c. 1100 BCE.

You are correct that the RV does not mention iron. It is clearly not an Iron age text. But recent evidence from sites like Lahuradeva suggests the beginnings of iron age began in India as early as 1800 BCE.

" Taking all this evidence together it may be concluded that knowledge of iron smelting and manufacturing of iron artefacts was well known in the Eastern Vindhyas and iron had been in use in the Central Ganga Plain, at least from the early second millennium BCE."
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/tewari/tewari.pdf

I don't want to leave any doubt here. These sites are in Uttar Pradesh, which is already a familiar territory in the Rig veda. Even the city of Kasi, far to the east of Uttar pradesh is mentioned as a Vedic kingdom in book 10. So it is incredible that a text composed in a region where iron technology is present and is also dated to the same period does not have any evidence of iron use.

So if we do as you suggested above, if we peg the AV which first mentions iron to the earliest archaeological evidence of Iron in Rig vedic territory, you will be forced to push the RV's date into the forbidden millennium.



The RV, which no longer knows of the Indus cities but only mentions ruins (armaka, [mahå]vailasthåna), thus could have been composed during the long period between 1990 and 1100 BCE.
Some attempts have been made to squeeze verse 1.133 to suggest that ruins( supposedly of IVSC) are mentioned. The hymn mentions no ruined buildings, no fallen walls and no materials such as wood, stone or bricks. It only describes a frightful scene with demons (yātumati, piśāci and rakṣas). Its a stretch of imagination to think otherwise.


An ad quem date for the RV is provided by the mentioning of Vedic gods (Varua, Mitra, Indra, Nåsatya = Aśvin) in the Hittite-Mitanni agreement of c. 1380 BCE.

Actually, it does the opposite. Be that as it may, do you see something interesting here? If you look at the map of lexico-chronology provided by Jean above, you will notice that the Hittite-mittani were the first branch to split off. Even before the Germnic, Italo-Celtic, Tocharian, Slavic and Baltic split from the Indo-Aryans. And yet, the Mittani is the the only branch that preserves the Rig vedic gods so faithfully. Whats even more insolent is that the only Indo European myth surviving in Hittite is of "Inar" who slays the serpent. Hittite shares theonyms with RV only and not with any other branch ,as we could expect. Why should the first branch that split be faithful to the traditions of the last branch in the homeland?

There is no Mittani Indo Aryan language in 1460-1330 BCE. The kingdom spoke a Hurrian language. But it has many Indo Aryan loan words. And its ruling elite traditionally had Indo Arayn names. An actual Mittani IA language must have been spoken centuries earlier in the region. But the relevant question to us is exactly how many centuries earlier.



The RV, however, presents, for the greatest part, only a "snapshot" picture of c. 5-6 generations of poets and kings who lived closer towards the end of the period (cf. Witzel, forthc. a).

Utterly wrong, of course. Shows the sparsity of the study involved.

Using the same logic against Witzel, Prof Nicholas Kazanas has shown that the list of 60 previous teachers mentioned in the text called Brhadaranyaka take us back to c1450BCE, even if we use the date of 600 BCE that Witzel (arbitrarily of course, as always) gave for the same text. Now the RV is philosophically primitive , and this would push it back at least till 1800BCE.

As I hope you would have realized, there is simply not even a single standing argument supporting the presently circulated dates. You can evaluate the standard of the arguments given for an older date here...
www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RPSSC.pdf


I didn't accuse you of lying. However, you quoted two pieces from Jones, who died three decades before Mueller was born, and one excerpt of a private letter of Mueller, in which he expresses his opinion without offering an argument.

Oops, my bad. I will make up for my mistake with two more from Mueller.
http://www.sabha.info/books/HomeOfAryas/babel121.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeOfArgyll4Feb1875Vol1Pg509.html

Megalophias
09-13-2016, 08:56 PM
I do appreciate your effort to show that proofs were maintained. That is more than what many do. But as I try to show below, these are not proofs, they do not stand even a superficial scrutiny.
Did you miss that I said I thought Witzel's argument shoddy? The point is it isn't based on Mueller, you are wrong. I was not trying to get into a long tangential argument about the dating of the Rigveda. It's well after the middle of the 4th M BC and long, long before Ashoka, almost certainly; not too many centuries prior to the Mitanni treaty, probably.

Why should religious poetry explicitly mention iron - or spokes, or rice, or whatever? It isn't an automotive manual or a treatise on metallurgy. Meteoric iron has been known since the dawn of time. All such arguments from negative evidence are weak.

The references to ruins containing witches, if the word even means ruins, obviously cannot be taken to mean "ruined Harappan cities". Likewise the word pur can be translated as "city", among other things, if one is so inclined.

Where is Kasi mentioned in book 10?


Actually, it does the opposite.
Look up ad quem, and it doesn't really do either.


Be that as it may, do you see something interesting here? If you look at the map of lexico-chronology provided by Jean above, you will notice that the Hittite-mittani were the first branch to split off. Even before the Germnic, Italo-Celtic, Tocharian, Slavic and Baltic split from the Indo-Aryans. And yet, the Mittani is the the only branch that preserves the Rig vedic gods so faithfully. Whats even more insolent is that the only Indo European myth surviving in Hittite is of "Inar" who slays the serpent. Hittite shares theonyms with RV only and not with any other branch ,as we could expect. Why should the first branch that split be faithful to the traditions of the last branch in the homeland?

There is no "Hittite-Mitannni". There is a Hittite text attributed to a Hurrian which contains some Indo-Iranian loanwords. Anatolian and Indo-Iranian are entirely separate branches, and the language of the Mitanni was non-Indo-European Hurrian, not Hittite. The Indic literature is the most extensive and also very old, of course it shares stuff with a lot of other branches. They are both being faithful to their original shared traditions, obviously. Well, the Hittite Inara is a goddess who gets the dragon drunk so the Hurrian storm god can kill it, but close enough I guess.


There is no Mittani Indo Aryan language in 1460-1330 BCE. The kingdom spoke a Hurrian language. But it has many Indo Aryan loan words. And its ruling elite traditionally had Indo Arayn names. An actual Mittani IA language must have been spoken centuries earlier in the region. But the relevant question to us is exactly how many centuries earlier.We don't know that; we don't know most of the lexicon, much of the phonology, or any of the grammar of Mitanni Aryan for comparison with Vedic Sanskrit (though we do know it has at least one feature more archaic than the latter, and one more derived); we don't know how much the early Rigvedic hymns were changed in oral transmission prior to their canonization; we don't know how archaic the language of the hymns was at the time of their composition. All of these things prevent Mitanni Aryan from being a solid chronological anchor point. On the other hand, they do make something around the mid-2nd M BC rather plausible, which also fits the milieu of the hymns.


You can evaluate the standard of the arguments given for an older date here... www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RPSSC.pdf
I've read it, and he's no more convincing than Witzel (or Taligeri).


Oops, my bad. I will make up for my mistake with two more from Mueller.
http://www.sabha.info/books/HomeOfAryas/babel121.html
http://www.sabha.info/books/LifeLetters1/DukeOfArgyll4Feb1875Vol1Pg509.html
Thank you. I don't think anyone reading those in context rather than looking to score points will come to the conclusion that Mueller was a Biblical literalist wedded to the chronology of Ussher, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. But a word of advice, linking to Internet propaganda sites rather than actual sources looks bad.

Agnimitra
09-13-2016, 09:34 PM
Why should religious poetry explicitly mention iron - or spokes, or rice, or whatever? It isn't an automotive manual or a treatise on metallurgy. Meteoric iron has been known since the dawn of time. All such arguments from negative evidence are weak.

You are the one who brought up Iron. I see you have dropped it now.

These are not the strongest sort of evidence, but they have corroborative value. These items listed are conspicuously present in the immediately succeeding texts, increasing their relevance. Nothing appears out of place anywhere. There are other classes of evidence that Kazanas has listed such as the hydrological ,palaeo-astronomical etc to which these negative ones are in agreement.

In any case, I am not here to push any dates. We started off when you assured me that the consensus is based on valid evidences. You are yet to show me even one.



Where is Kasi mentioned in book 10?

10.179.2 refers to Divodasa, King of Kasi.


the language of the Mitanni was non-Indo-European Hurrian, not Hittite. You need to learn the basic facts here.

A fact which I myself have specifically mentioned in my previous post.


We don't know that; we don't know most of the lexicon, much of the phonology, or any of the grammar of Mitanni Aryan for comparison with Vedic Sanskrit (though we do know it has at least one feature more archaic than the latter, and one more derived);

Actually we have enough of it to establish a relative chronology. I will discuss it in the PIE thread. And, oh, there are far more archaisms in RV too.



we don't know how much the early Rigvedic hymns were changed in oral transmission prior to their canonization; we don't know how archaic the language of the hymns was at the time of their composition.

Interesting, I have never encountered a single scholar who has argued this. Perhaps you have? Changes in pronunciations without any additional loss of words or meaning is the best pronouncement I have encountered in this direction


I've read it, and it's no better than Witzel.

You are entitled to your opinion too. But they are far better than the ruins and generations you brought up. Do you at least admit that the current dates are unfounded even though convenient?

Jean M
09-13-2016, 10:13 PM
There is no Mittani Indo Aryan language in 1460-1330 BCE. The kingdom spoke a Hurrian language. But it has many Indo Aryan loan words. And its ruling elite traditionally had Indo Arayn names.

From Ancestral Journeys:


The invention of spoked wheels around 2000 BC made possible a lighter vehicle - the horse-drawn, two-wheel chariot, which could be used to devastating effect in warfare. Early images of the technology appear in the Near East, but its origin lies in the Eurasian steppes. In the Sintashta culture, Russia, a man could be buried with his chariot. As the wood rotted it left stains in the ground, preserving the shape of the two-wheeled vehicle, including the spokes of the wheels. So far at least 16 such graves have been found. They are dated 2100-1700 BC, older than any chariots elsewhere. From the steppe, chariots were introduced into the Near East together with steppe horses and studded disk cheek-pieces.

In northern Mesopotamia the Mitanni were famed charioteers. The names of their kings appear in the record from about 1500. These names were Indic. One meant 'having an attacking chariot'. The mass of their people spoke Hurrian, a non-Indo-European language. Their aristocracy had its origin in military charioteers. So we may guess that a band from afar had used the chariot to seize power.

I am no Vedic scholar, but the chariot seems to appear quite frequently in the RV. Where horses are involved, the vehicle in question can scarcely be a lumbering, ox-drawn wagon.

I suspect that Indic-speaking chariot specialists were recruited by potentates in the Near East who wanted the new technology, but that these charioteers and chariot-makers and horse-trainers took advantage of their position of power to take over the Hurrian state.

Megalophias
09-14-2016, 12:09 AM
You are the one who brought up Iron. I see you have dropped it now. In any case, I am not here to push any dates. We started off when you assured me that the consensus is based on valid evidences. You are yet to show me even one.
I told you that modern scholars weren't blindly following Mueller, as you claimed. I quoted Witzel to show that this was the case, and I said that I thought his argument was lousy. I did not "assure you that the modern consensus is based on valid evidences", or suggest that the argument about iron was valid. Please read what my posts actually say rather than imagining things. Anyway, I don't have time to get into this.


10.179.2 refers to Divodasa, King of Kasi.No it doesn't, though its composition is attributed to a King of Kasi (who isn't Divodasa). But that tradition can't necessarily be assumed to belong to the same era, pace Talageri.


Changes in pronunciations without any additional loss of words or meaning is the best pronouncement I have encountered in that directionChanges in pronunciation are what I'm talking about, and there wouldn't be any evidence unless it affects the metre (as with coalescence of vowels).


Do you at least admit that the current dates are unfounded even though convenient?
No. They are unproven, and could be wrong, but they are not unfounded. Even Early Harappan dates aren't unfounded.

parasar
09-14-2016, 02:22 AM
...

Thank you. I don't think anyone reading those in context rather than looking to score points will come to the conclusion that Mueller was a Biblical literalist wedded to the chronology of Ussher, but you are of course entitled to your opinion. But a word of advice, linking to Internet propaganda sites rather than actual sources looks bad.

Folk aren't even happy when Muller is actually trying to establish the antiquity of Sanskrit!
He is saying that the core meanings are understood via Sanskrit. He makes the same argument for the antiquity of Germanic Old English vis a vis modern English (hlaford vs lord, the meaning of the latter is understood via the former).

The babel reference to me is tongue in cheek, as in - sure all languages date to the first language and so all are equally old, but some retain the original forms more and thus have a greater claim to antiquity.

Agnimitra
09-14-2016, 10:19 AM
No. They are unproven, and could be wrong, but they are not unfounded. Even Early Harappan dates aren't unfounded.

I was hoping you would say disproven. Not one of them is valid. You don't pick a date and try to prove it. No you don't. And they cannot be compared with archaeological dates.


No it doesn't, though its composition is attributed to a King of Kasi

Pratardana, son of Divodasa, Kasiraja. This is a late hymn, obviously not written by Divodsa or Pratardana( who are both kings of the Early books). The author is a Bharata who calls his ancestor Kasiraja. There is only one Kasi in history. You are free to ignore this. Ignoring each and every inconvenient finding is how the dates have been preserved, and not on the basis of positive findings.

I look forward to the results and its implications on this matter.

Megalophias
09-14-2016, 02:31 PM
Pratardana, son of Divodasa, Kasiraja. This is a late hymn, obviously not written by Divodsa or Pratardana( who are both kings of the Early books). The author is a Bharata who calls his ancestor Kasiraja. There is only one Kasi in history.
So in your view the tradition of authorship is false.


I look forward to the results and its implications on this matter.
As do we all, whatever the outcome. I just hope it isn't super low coverage and hard to interpret.

ddugas
11-03-2016, 03:19 PM
What happened here? In December 2015 we were apparently "weeks" away from Indus Valley DNA. Its closing in on a year and not a word... Has anyone heard anything about this study?