Steppe Not Required to explain IE in India

[homosapien]

The question which needs to be asked is "Is the steppe really needed to explain IE in India"

Consider the below with an open and inquisitive mind and try to see the bigger picture.

1) The recent ( in relative terms) studies also provide evidence as to the early start of Iron working in India putting it in the early part of 2nd Millenium BC. And which has no connection to the presumed 1500BC date of the arrival of so called Aryans. And this supposed absence of mention of Iron in Rigveda makes them place composition of Rigveda between 1500BC to 1000BC.

Infact this discovery by Tewari shows the opposite , that Rig at minimum was composed pre second millenium BC.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...E7861683609BE9

Details:
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore

2) 'Taken together, our results—combined with archaeological evidence of XI cultivation for >9000 years in both India and China—support multiple independent domestications of O. sativa.' New study in Nature.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0063-9

Rigveda also has no mention of Rice cultivation. Based on the above study the dating of Rig becomes even more complicated.

3) Recent direct quote from one of the lead authors (G.Chaubey) of Rakhigarhi DNA study about the study.

(0:32 to 2:41 and 24:30 to 29:00)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmeVR8sqSd4

He mentions YDNA , mtDNA and autosomal studies have shown that there is no recent gene flow from the west to the east (from outside India to India.) Which he has said many times before as well.

However he also says their preliminary results(for Rakhigarhi) show AASI expansion towards North West of India. The exact same thing which is seen in Vagheesh et al where AASI increases in the Swat Valley samples from earlier to later period. And also mentions no intrusion of any foreign DNA material seen in their study.


4) Relevant twitter quotes from vagheesh:

Snap2.png

Snap1.png



So based on all the above it is quite likely that we are looking at only two scenarios:

A) There is a pseudo steppe like component in ancient India.

And given how heterogenous IVC was the only component lacking in InPe v/s Swat is the ANF which could very well have been there in Rakhigarhi.

Which could mean the classic steppe is defined by EHG and the pseudo steppe is defined by West Siberian HG as both are related to ANE.

Which might be as good as saying there is no classic steppe in IVC, which is what N.Rai seems to be saying.


Or alternatively Iran_Neo/Iran_Farmer component explains the IE in IVC as mentioned by vagheesh.

[Generalissimo]

Of course "steppe" is required to explain IE in India.

What's not required is Iran_N to explain southern ancestry in Yamnaya.

LOL

[cali]

YDNA and autosomal DNA does show recent intrusions into the region at a time that coincides with the appearance of IE languages in that region. For instance, there is no steppe ancestry (YDNA & autosomally) in Iran Neolithic/CHL. But there is during the Iron Age.

[Kale]

A 'psuedo-steppe' ancestry would not share drift with actual steppe populations to the exclusions of their formative components. I.E. (no pun intended), if we model South Asians with Steppe_MBA as an input, and Steppe_EBA as an outgroup (to which shared drift is measured against), if the 'psuedo-steppe' idea were correct, we would expect that if South Asians accept Steppe_MBA as an input, their Steppe_EBA affinity would be overfit. We don't see this happening.

It is true that there does appear to be a presence of West_Siberia_N throughout Central Asia (even in the Indus_periphery samples, which have ~30% what looks like AASI), so who knows how far that stretched, and the Central Asian neolithic samples do appear more related to CHG than just simply Iran_N + West_Siberia_N, so there might be something going on there. So sure, one could say there is a pseudo-steppe thing going on in Central/South Asia, but actual steppe input is still required.

Here's a rough trace-backwards using f-3 outgroup nmonte...
Columns: Barcin_N, Iran_N, Levant_N, Kotias, MA1, Anzick, Iron_Gates_HG, Ukraine_Mesolithic, Yamnaya_Samara, Ust_Ishim

Swat = 74% Indus periphery, 19% Uzbekistan_LBA, 7% BMAC (added Ami and Australian as columns to accurately gauge ENA levels)
Indus periphery = 70% something similar to central Asian neolithic, 30% something East-Eurasian
Uzbekistan_LBA = 70% Steppe_MBA, 30% Central Asian BA
BMAC = like earlier Central Asian BA populations
Neolithic Tajik+Turkmen and early Central Asian bronze age populations = Iran_LN + Hajji_Firuz + West_Siberia_N + CHG

[Ryukendo]

A 'psuedo-steppe' ancestry would not share drift with actual steppe populations to the exclusions of their formative components. I.E. (no pun intended), if we model South Asians with Steppe_MBA as an input, and Steppe_EBA as an outgroup (to which shared drift is measured against), if the 'psuedo-steppe' idea were correct, we would expect that if South Asians accept Steppe_MBA as an input, their Steppe_EBA affinity would be overfit. We don't see this happening.

It is true that there does appear to be a presence of West_Siberia_N throughout Central Asia (even in the Indus_periphery samples, which have ~30% what looks like AASI), so who knows how far that stretched, and the Central Asian neolithic samples do appear more related to CHG than just simply Iran_N + West_Siberia_N, so there might be something going on there. So sure, one could say there is a pseudo-steppe thing going on in Central/South Asia, but actual steppe input is still required.

Here's a rough trace-backwards using f-3 outgroup nmonte...
Columns: Barcin_N, Iran_N, Levant_N, Kotias, MA1, Anzick, Iron_Gates_HG, Ukraine_Mesolithic, Yamnaya_Samara, Ust_Ishim

Swat = 74% Indus periphery, 19% Uzbekistan_LBA, 7% BMAC (added Ami and Australian as columns to accurately gauge ENA levels)
Indus periphery = 70% something similar to central Asian neolithic, 30% something East-Eurasian
Uzbekistan_LBA = 70% Steppe_MBA, 30% Central Asian BA
BMAC = like earlier Central Asian BA populations
Neolithic Tajik+Turkmen and early Central Asian bronze age populations = Iran_LN + Hajji_Firuz + West_Siberia_N + CHG

:trophy:

[Immchr]

A 'psuedo-steppe' ancestry would not share drift with actual steppe populations to the exclusions of their formative components. I.E. (no pun intended), if we model South Asians with Steppe_MBA as an input, and Steppe_EBA as an outgroup (to which shared drift is measured against), if the 'psuedo-steppe' idea were correct, we would expect that if South Asians accept Steppe_MBA as an input, their Steppe_EBA affinity would be overfit. We don't see this happening.

It is true that there does appear to be a presence of West_Siberia_N throughout Central Asia (even in the Indus_periphery samples, which have ~30% what looks like AASI), so who knows how far that stretched, and the Central Asian neolithic samples do appear more related to CHG than just simply Iran_N + West_Siberia_N, so there might be something going on there. So sure, one could say there is a pseudo-steppe thing going on in Central/South Asia, but actual steppe input is still required

What you say suggests that there is sharing of ancestry between the steppe groups and South Asia dating to Bronze Age or slightly earlier. But it does not prove the direction of migration. A migration from South Asia into Central Asia and from there on into the steppe via Caucasus can also account for the shared ancestry during the Copper Age and then BMAC genetic impact on the steppe mlba would also lead to substantial shared ancestry between South Asians and the Steppe. But it cannot prove any actual steppe ancestry in South Asia as opposed to ANE ancestry.

[Generalissimo]

What you say suggests that there is sharing of ancestry between the steppe groups and South Asia dating to Bronze Age or slightly earlier. But it does not prove the direction of migration. A migration from South Asia into Central Asia and from there on into the steppe via Caucasus can also account for the shared ancestry during the Copper Age and then BMAC genetic impact on the steppe mlba would also lead to substantial shared ancestry between South Asians and the Steppe. But it cannot prove any actual steppe ancestry in South Asia as opposed to ANE ancestry.

This comment is just insane.

[Ruderico]

What you say suggests that there is sharing of ancestry between the steppe groups and South Asia dating to Bronze Age or slightly earlier. But it does not prove the direction of migration. A migration from South Asia into Central Asia and from there on into the steppe via Caucasus can also account for the shared ancestry during the Copper Age and then BMAC genetic impact on the steppe mlba would also lead to substantial shared ancestry between South Asians and the Steppe. But it cannot prove any actual steppe ancestry in South Asia as opposed to ANE ancestry.

Where's AASI-related ancestry in the steppe groups, then? Give us a single source.
It was present in Indus_Periphery, and as you say there was a movement from SA into CA then onto the steppe, surely it can be found in later steppe individuals, right?

Maybe you missed this?

[R.Rocca]

What you say suggests that there is sharing of ancestry between the steppe groups and South Asia dating to Bronze Age or slightly earlier. But it does not prove the direction of migration. A migration from South Asia into Central Asia and from there on into the steppe via Caucasus can also account for the shared ancestry during the Copper Age and then BMAC genetic impact on the steppe mlba would also lead to substantial shared ancestry between South Asians and the Steppe. But it cannot prove any actual steppe ancestry in South Asia as opposed to ANE ancestry.

Ancient DNA from Central Asia has already ruled out that scenario. Out-of-India is dead.

[Shamash]

Ancient DNA from Central Asia has already ruled out that scenario. Out-of-India is dead.

Out-of-India is wishful thinking of revisionistic Indian nationalists. As David Reich said many will not like what ancientDNA has already confirmed! Just get along with it and move on!