A Tentative OUT OF INDIA Model To Explain The Origin & Spread Of INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES


The Roots of Indo-Iranian cultural genesis


The Last 2 months have produced a flurry of ancient DNA studies that have given us results with enormous implications for the spread of Indo-European languages. Incorporating the results of these studies along with linguistic and archaeological evidence, we can create a model of spread of Indo-European languages from SC Asia to other parts of Eurasia.

Image result for The Indo-European languages


Johanna Nichols had produced, more than 2 decades ago, a wonderful model for the spread of the Indo-European languages from its locus in Central Asia. Her thesis was spread over two articles in two volumes. According to her –

Several kinds of evidence for the PIE locus have been presented here. Ancient loanwords point to a locus along the desert trajectory, not particularly close to Mesopotamia and probably far out in the eastern hinterlands. The structure of the family tree, the accumulation of genetic diversity at the western periphery of the range, the location of Tocharian and its implications for early dialect geography, the early attestation of Anatolian in Asia Minor, and the geography of the centum-satem split all point in the same direction: a locus in western central Asia. Evidence presented in Volume II supports the same conclusion: the long-standing westward trajectories of languages point to an eastward locus, and the spread of IE along all three trajectories points to a locus well to the east of the Caspian Sea. The satem shift also spread from a locus to the south-east of the Caspian, with satem languages showing up as later entrants along all three trajectory terminals. (The satem shift is a post-PIE but very early IE development.) The locus of the IE spread was therefore somewhere in the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana. This locus resembles those of the three known post-IE spreads: those of Indo-Iranian (from a locus close to that of PIE), Turkic (from a locus near north-western Mongolia), and Mongolian (from north-eastern Mongolia) as shown in Figure 8.8. Thus in regard to its locus, as in other respects, the PIE spread was no singularity but was absolutely ordinary for its geography and its time-frame.

To summarize the important points of dialect geography in the Eurasian spread zone, the hallmark of a language family that enters a spread zone as an undifferentiated single language and diversifies while spreading is a multiple branching from the root. This is the structure of the IE tree, which has the greatest number of primary branches of any known genetic grouping of comparable age. The hallmark of developments that arise in or near the locus is that they appear along more than one trajectory. This is the distribution of the centum/satem division in IE, and in the later Indo-Iranian spread it is the distribution of the Indo-Aryan/Iranian split (as argued in Nichols, Volume II). The reason that dialect divisions arising in the locus show up along more than one trajectory is that the Caspian Sea divides westward spreads into steppe versus desert trajectories quite close to the locus and hence quite early in the spread. In contrast, developments that occurred farther west, as the split of Slavic from Baltic in the middle Volga may have, continue to spread along only one trajectory.This is why the Pontic steppe is an unlikely locus for the PIE spread. (THE EPICENTRE OF INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTIC SPREAD – pgs 137-138)

She further states in her 2nd article,

IE homeland studies so far have had to resolve the dilemma of how to reconcile conflicting lexical evidence about the IE homeland. Were the Indo-Europeans pastoralists or agriculturalists? The lexical evidence can be used to support both viewpoints (for a summary and argument in favour of agriculture see Diebold 1992). If they were a people of the dry grasslands, how do we explain the presence in their language of words for ‘beaver’, ‘birch’, and ‘oak’, the latter with extensive mythic and cultural salience (Friedrich 1970:129ff.)? If they were steppe pastoralists, how do we explain the presence of words for ‘double door’ and ‘enclosed yard or garden’ suggestive of dwellings in the urban Near East (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov [1984:741ff.] 1994:645ff.)? If they were nomadic herders of the plains, how is the presence of a word for ‘pig’ explained? A homeland reconstructed as locus, trajectory and range removes the dilemma: a locus in the vicinity of Bactria-Sogdiana implies a spread beginning at the frontier of ancient Near Eastern civilization and a range throughout the steppe and central Asia, following the east-to-west trajectory, with occasional or periodic spreads into the Danube plain and Anatolia. The PIE ecological and cultural world, then, included the forested mountains southeast of the Kazakh steppe, the dry eastern steppes, the Central Asian deserts, the urbanized oases of southern Turkmenistan and Bactria-Sogdiana, the eastern extension of the urban Near East, the rich grasslands of the Black Sea steppe, the southern edge of the forest-steppe zone and the Siberian taiga, fresh-water lakes, and salt seas (the Aral and Caspian). The economy of the Indo-Europeans included dry-grasslands pastoralism, settled farming, mixed herding and farming, and trade, including not only trade between farmers and herders in central Asia but also, importantly, control of the antecedents to the Silk Route and the trade connections with India to the south. This economic and ecological diversity is reflected in the vocabulary of PIE. (THE EURASIAN SPREAD ZONE & INDO-EUROPEAN DISPERSAL, pg 233)

Nichols dates the breaking of IE languages between 4000 – 3300 BCE. This is contemporary to the Chalcolithic aDNA samples we now have from Central Asia, Iran, the Caucasus, Anatolia and the steppe. But before proceeding with the genetic evidence let us also have a glance at the archaeological evidence.

Image result for hittites


Based on some pioneering research by archaeologist Mariya Ivanova, hitherto unknown long-distance connections between the Caucasus and Central Asia in the 4th millennium BC have now come to light. The evidence can be best summarized as below,

Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favoured theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the so-called “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro- Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativise the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof.

So we have archaeological evidence that clearly suggests a large interaction zone spreading from South Central Asia to Anatolia & Caucasus in the 4th millennium BC and we have a linguistic theory that attempts to explain the spread of Indo-European languages in the 4th millennium BC from a locus in Central Asia with a spread westward. Now we have genetic data from the Chalcolithic period that ranges from South Central Asia to Anatolia & the Caucasus. So we will see if the genetic evidence can fit into the pre-existing linguistic and archaeological framework.

Image result for ancient dna


Before addressing the larger question of evidence of SC Asian genetic influence in the Chalcolithic Near East, let us establish the genetic unity of people from Chalcolithic Central Asia and Northern South Asia.


All the Chalcolithic samples from Iran & Central Asia in the Narasimhan et al paper are modeled as a mixture of 3 sources – Iran_N, Anatolia_N & WSHG/EHG with Anatolia_N showing a West to East decreasing gradient while the WSHG/EHG related ancestry showing the opposite gradient.

Haji_Firuz_C is modelled as having substantial Seh_Gabi_C related ancestry (63 to 83 %) (pg 116, Table S3.10). Seh_Gabi_C is modelled proximally as 40 % Tepe_Hissar_C & 60 % Haji_Firuz_C (Table S3.12). Tepe_Hissar_C is in turn modelled as substantially derived from Tepe_Anau_EN or Parkhai_EN (66 to 89 %) (Table S3.13). Tepe_Anau_EN, Parkhai_EN & Geoksiur_EN are also modelled as derived from Iran_N related Central Asian chalcolithic groups from its west & East. This serves to emphasize the close nature of genetic ancestry shared by the Chalcolithic Central Asian groups from Eastern Iran to Central Asia as far east as Sarazm.

On the other hand, we do not have Chalcolithic samples from South Asia. But we know that Sarazm_EN, Tepe_Anau_EN & Parkhai_EN act as a very good admixture source for both the Indus_Periphery samples (tables S3.37-S3.39) as well as the Swat samples (table S3.79). Sarazm_EN infacts shares more alleles with Austroasiatic South Asians than even the BMAC who have atleast 5 % AASI. (Fig S3.10, right panel)

In a similar vein as the Narasimhan et al paper, the Daamgard et al paper uses the Namazga_CA samples as the West Eurasian ancestry source for successfully modeling all Dravidian groups in their study as admixed between only 2 sources, Namazga & Onge or ASI. This again serves to emphasize the closeness between Chalcolithic Central Asians and the West Eurasian ancestry of South Asians.

According to the authors of the Narasimhan et al paper,

“…the group(s) that contributed Iranian agriculturalist-related ancestry to South Asia shared more genetic drift with the Iranian agriculturalist-related groups in our dataset that are temporally and geographically closest, compared to Caucasus HGs (CHG) or early Zagros related agriculturalists previously shown to be related to source populations for South Asians.” (pg 175, Supplementary Text)

The temporally and geographically closest Iran_N related groups to South Asians are the Copper Age Central Asians and Eastern Iranians such as Tepe_Anau_EN, Parkhai_EN, Sarazm_EN & Namazga_CA. What is important to understand is that the above implies that the Iran_N related ancestry of South Asians separated from its counterpart in Central Asia after both of them had separated from Iran_N i.e. the Zagrosian farmer itself. The South Asian Neolithic at Mehrgarh & Bhiranna is dated to the 8th millennium BC and is therefore significantly earlier than the Central Asian Neolithic at Jeitun. This implies, based on the above quote from Narasimhan et al that either :-

  • The Central Asian farmer related group had its origin from the South Asian Neolithic or,
  • The Central Asian farmer originated separately from Iran_N, after the early separation of South Asian farmer related ancestry and subsequently received gene flow from South Asian farmers.

In either of the two scenarios, the relatively close nature of Central Asian and South Asian farmer related ancestry is emphasized and it implies gene flow from South Asia, either during the initial migration & settlement of Central Asian farmers or later. Since, there is no apparent AASI in Central Asian Chalcolithic populations, as per Narasimhan et al team, it would imply that the South Asian farmers that contributed to the Central Asian farmers must also have had minimal to none AASI admixture.

It also needs to be emphasized that there is no evidence to suggest that AASI was already present in the Northern or Northwestern regions of South Asia when South Asian Neolithic began around 7500 BCE. On the contrary, it is likely that the South Asian Neolithic population only had ANE + Iran Neolithic ancestry based on the discussion above & below.

According to the Narasimhan et al paper – the Indus Periphery samples got AASI admixture between 4700 – 3000 BCE while South Asian Neolithic is about 3 millenium older than that and is clearly closely related to the Zagrosian Iran_N suggesting that an Iran_N like population was also responsible for the start of South Asian Neolithic. It also clearly suggests that AASI was intrusive into the Northwest of the subcontinent and did not admix with the South Asian early farmers until much later. This intrusiveness is also suggested by the fact that the early Shahr I Sokhta BA2 sample dating to 3100 BC only has 14 % AASI while the latter one dating to around 2550 BC has 42 % AASI suggesting increase in the level of AASI admixture with the passage of time.

The South Asian Neolithic and the Indus civilization arose in the Northwest of South Asia. Therefore the first population expansion in South Asia happened in the Northwest among a population which was likely Iran Neo + ANE/EHG/WSHG with the AASI ancestry being minimal to non-existent among them and only admixing into these groups relatively late – i.e. 3000 BCE or thereafter. Since the Indus_Periphery sample from Shahr-i-Sokhta dating to 3100 BCE only had 14 % AASI while the 2300 BCE Indus_Periphery also had only 18 % AASI, we cannot rule out the very real probability that AASI admixture even as late as 2300 BCE was still very minor across the Northern region of South Asia which was at that time the location of the Indus civilization.

It is conceivable that the spread of the Indus civilization in the 3rd millennium BC lead to incorporation of AASI rich populations living at the margins of South Asian Neolithic groups and therefore, at an earlier period before 3000 BCE, the Chalcolithic & Neolithic South Asian farmers had non-existent levels of AASI. The clear implication of that would be that the South Asian & Central Asian Chalcolithic populations were quite closely related groups with similar genetic profiles & cultural profiles. The cultural interaction zone would likely be spread from Eastern Iran to Central Asia to NW India which likely existed from the early Chalcolithic or Neolithic periods (as evidenced by similarities between the Neolithic site of Mehrgarh & the later Central Asian sites), where in the Bronze Age we see the near simultaneous rise of Helmand, Jiroft, BMAC & Indus civilizations. The occurrence of AASI admixture in almost all the populations of BMAC & Shahr-i-Sokhta during the Bronze Age could therefore be best described as – AASI ancestry entering into this vast cultural zone at its Southeastern margins at the southern expanse of the Indus civilization which then subsequently spread across the entire cultural zone from Eastern Iran to Central Asia. It does not suggest the first instance of contact of South Asians groups with these regions but rather a continuation of very old cultural, religious & genetic ties.

The engine or main driving force of this large interaction zone most likely is Early Harappan & Mature Harappan Indus civilization denizens since not only was the population density of Indus civilization greater but its spread was many many times over the combined spread of the Eastern Iranian & BMAC civilizations. Further proof for this comes from the fact that it is the South Asian domesticated Zebu cattle that becomes dominant in both the Helmand & Jiroft as well as the Central Asian civilizations from around 3000 BC or earlier. The wheeled vehicles technology also likely spread from the Early Harappan phase into these adjoining regions. Lastly the spread of AASI ancestry into these regions also supports the same.

Ofcourse this has to be verified by ancient samples from the Indus Valley. But there is a great likelihood that the Chalcolithic people of North & NW South Asia had a similar genetic profile as the Chalcolithic Central Asians and that the driving force behind the cultural interaction & integration was a likely migration followed by intensive contacts with the Indus civilization.

Image result for maykop culture


Already sometime ago it was evident with the publication of the 1st aDNA study from a Maykop site that there were long distance movements from SC Asia into the Caucasus region. The study which was based on mtDNA found that one the samples was mtDNA M52, which is unmistakably as South Asian marker with little to no presence outside it. Later on with the Lazaridis et al study on the first farmers on the Near East, we have the 1st samples from Armenia Chalcolithic. All the 3 y-dna came out to be L1a – M27 which is most common today among South Asians. The Lazaridis team also managed to model the Armenia_Chl as 52 % Anatolia_N + 29 % Iran_N + 18 % EHG. The EHG/Steppe related ancestry is also quite ancient in SC Asia and the Iran_Hotu sample demonstrated it. Therefore, coupled with the y-dna L1a, this was a sign that the Armenia_Chl was probably admixed with a SC Asian source.

There was also Iran_Chl in the same study and it was modeled as 10 % iran_N + 70 % CHG + 20 % Levant_N. CHG itself was modeled as majority Iran_N + EHG + WHG. Therefore, even Iran_Chl appears to have had a sliver of steppe-related ancestry. Anatolia_Chl in the same study was modeled as Anatolia_N + either Iran_Chl or Armenia_Chl. Therefore, it was clearly demonstrated that the Anatolia_Chl, Iran_Chl & Armenia_Chl were closely related population with similar ancestry profiles with Armenia_Chl clearly showing signs of admixture from SC Asia. This SC Asian ancestry was probably also present in Iran_Chl & Anatolia_Chl in a smaller proportion.

The Armenia_EBA samples from the study were modeled as 60 % CHG + 40 % Anatolia_N where CHG itself is modeled as admixed between Iran_N + EHG. Therefore, Armenia_EBA is also EHG or steppe-shifted. Therefore, it becomes clear from the Lazaridis et al study itelf that there is some steppe-related shift in the Near East around the Caucasus & Anatolia from the Chalcolithic period. The steppe-related ancestry here is likely from the same source that contributed it to Armenia_Chl and since its y-dna L1a is a distinctly SC Asian marker, along with the presence of mtDNA M52, it was suggestive of a SC Asian admixture into Chalcolithic Near East – via the path described by Ivanova.

We may now move on to the recent studies starting with the Narasimhan et al study. It had a large no of Chalcolithic samples from Central Asia to Iran followed by Bronze Age samples from the same regions. While the paper made no attempts to model the Near Eastern Chalcolithic models afresh in the new study, it became amply clear that the Chalcolithic Central Asians had significant levels of steppe-related ancestry besides the Iran_N ancestry and this added support to the very real possibility that the steppe-related ancestry in Chalcolithic Near East was infact coming from Central Asia.

From the proximal qpAdm modeling tables S3.10, S3.15 & S3.16, it is quite apparent that the Armenia_Chl & Armenia_EBA samples act as good proxies for admixture into Copper Age samples from Iran & Turan. Even the Bronze Age Iran & Turan samples are modeled as admixed with Armenia_Chl & Armenia_EBA as can be seen in tables S3.23-S3.26 & S3.28 and also tables S3.41-S3.43. Infact the Dzharkutan2_BA samples appear to be especially close to Armenia_EBA since as per qpAdm about 42 to 88 % of their ancestry could to attributed to this Armenian source and all proximal models always chose Armenia_EBA as one of the admixture sources. The y-dna linkages are also established as both R1b1 & L1a are present in the BMAC period in Central Asia. Infact, while Armenia_EBA is R1b-M269, the Darra-i-Kur sample from Afghanistan is R1b-L51 while the Haji Firuz_Chl sample is R1b-Z2103.

Moving to the next paper which is the Daamgard et al paper from the Willerslav team, we have a couple of more samples from Chalcolithic Central Asia from the site of Namazga. We also see an attempt to capture the population transition in Anatolia from the Chalcolithic to MLBA period.

Now if we were to look at the 1st PCA, Figure 2A, the Anatolian_EBA/MLBA cluster together and are on a cline from Anatolian_N towards EHG. So it looks like there is an increase in affinity towards EHG relative to Anatolian_N. However the 2nd PCA does not seem to support it.

What is also observed from both the PCAs is that Anatolian_EBA/MLBA cluster is intermediate between Anatolian_N & Namazga_CA. The admixture (fig 3) shows the EHG component in Anatolian_Chl/EBA/MLBA in very trace amount but it also shows a sliver of light pink component which is maximised in South Asians and is also present in Namazga_CA. The Namazga_CA consists of Green Iran_N/CHG component majorly + EHG Blue + ASI-like Pink. This combination of 3 components appears in Anatolian_Chl and is present in EBA, MLBA right upto Anatolia_IA. Namazga_CA has ydna J2a1 while Anatolian_EBA has J2a while Anatolian_MLBA has J2a1.

So it is probable to model Anatolian_CA or Anatolian_EBA as admixed between Anatolian_N & Namazga_CA. Infact, it maybe that most of the Chalcolithic Central Asian groups from Narasimhan et al & Daamgard et al could act as probable admixture sources into Anatolia_CA & Anatolia_EBA.

As per some of the models posted by the commentator Alberto on the Eurogenes blog, which can be seen below, there is a clear Central Asian Chalcolithic signal in Armenia & Anatolia Chalcolithic & EBA periods.

Sarazm_Eneolithic 31.7%
Tisza_LN 28.3%
CHG 12.5%
Levant_N 10.6%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 8.7%
Barcin_N 8.1%
Yamnaya_Samara 0.1%
Ganj_Dareh_N 0%
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 0%
Balkans_ChL 0%
Khvalynsk_Eneolithic 0%
Xibo 0%
Yoruba 0%

Distance 2.6334%

Barcin_N 56.3%
Sarazm_Eneolithic 18.8%
CHG 17.3%
Levant_N 6.5%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 1%
Tisza_LN 0.1%

Distance 2.6976%

Also in Armenia_EBA:

CHG 32.8%
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 29.7%
Barcin_N 26.4%
Levant_N 11.1%

Distance 2.7497%

So it looks very very probable now, that the Central Asian Chalcolithic likely contributed to the Chalcolithic populations of Near Eastern Anatolia & Armenia. Now what remains to be seen is if this genetic contribution extended further up into the Caucasus as well in the Maykop culture which, as archaeology shows, has indisputable links with SC Asia ?

To find it out we may turn to the latest aDNA paper which includes the Maykop samples.

According to the authors,

The Maykop period, represented by twelve individuals from eight Maykop sites (Maykop, n=2; a cultural variant ‘Novosvobodnaya’ from the site Klady, n=4; and Late Maykop, n=6) in the northern foothills appear homogeneous. These individuals closely resemble the preceding Caucasus Eneolithic individuals and present a continuation of the local genetic profile. This ancestry persists in the following centuries at least until ~3100 yBP (1100 calBCE) in the mountains, as revealed by individuals from Kura-Araxes from both the northeast (Velikent, Dagestan) and the South Caucasus (Kaps, Armenia), as well as Middle and Late Bronze Age individuals (e.g. Kudachurt, Marchenkova Gora) from the north. Overall, this Caucasus ancestry profile falls among the ‘Armenian and Iranian Chalcolithic’ individuals and is indistinguishable from other Kura-Araxes individuals (‘Armenian Early Bronze Age’) on the PCA plot (Fig. 2), suggesting a dual origin involving Anatolian/Levantine and Iran Neolithic/CHG ancestry, with only minimal EHG/WHG contribution possibly as part of the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry23.


Our results show that at the time of the eponymous grave mound of Maykop, the North Caucasus piedmont region was genetically connected to the south. Even without direct ancient DNA data from northern Mesopotamia, the new genetic evidence suggests an increased assimilation of Chalcolithic individuals from Iran, Anatolia and Armenia and those of the Eneolithic Caucasus during 6000-4000 calBCE23, and thus likely also intensified cultural connections. Within this sphere of interaction, it is possible that cultural influences and continuous subtle gene flow from the south formed the basis of Maykop (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 10).

Here we have a clear endorsement that the Eneolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Caucasus, such as Maykop, Kura Araxes & others were quite similar in genetic profile to the Chalcolithic & Bronze Age samples from Armenia, Anatolia & Iran and that this represented a cultural sphere of interaction. We may also observe the close genetic profile of this group by looking at the PCA and the admixture graph in figure 2. In this sphere of interaction, as we saw previously, there is most likely a very significant level of admixture from Chalcolithic Central Asian groups along with a probable cultural transfer. This is again supported by the fact that the authors of this study model the Maykop group as 86 % CHG + 10 % ANF + 4 % EHG. We also see the linkages in the y-dna profile of the two distant groups with J2a, L1a, G2a2, J2b, G2b & R1b1. A comment related to the y-dna links by Open Genomes on the Eurogenes blog is quite pertinent –

The G2b-M3115 found in the Kura-Araxes culture in Armenia is possibly related to the G2b2a-Z8022 found in the Early Neolithic cereal farmer and cattle herder from Wezmeh Cave in the Central Zagros, c. 9300 BP. However, a very early branch of G2b1-M377 is found in a single Armenian family from Kashatagh, Lachin in Nagorno-Karabakh. A single Armenian from Suleymanli (Zeitun) in the foothills of the Taurus in Southern Turkey is G2b2b. The YFull tMRCA of G2b-M3115 is 19,800 ybp, and the tMRCA of G2b2 alone is 18400 ybp. The tMRCA G2b and its immediate subclades dates well into the Upper Paleolithic. There is a distinct Lebanese G2b1-M377 clade with a tMRCA of 8800 ybp with the remainder of of the later sequenced branches.
What’s also interesting is that like L-M27 which was found in the Kura-Araxes culture, G2b1-M377 spread eastward to the region around the Khyber Pass, where it may even form the absolute majority among some Karlani Pathan tribes, like the Wardaks, Orakzai, and Yusafzai. Perhaps G-Y12297 co-migrated with L-M27 eastward to the Hindu Kush region?

The Y of the Maykop G2a2a-PF3147 (G-PF3147*?) was found everywhere from Early Neolithic Iberia, to Tepecik-Ciftlik in the Pottery Neolithic of Central Anatolia c. 6500 BCE, to Sappali Tepe in Bronze Age BMAC 2000-1600 BCE and Aligrama in the Iron Age Swat Valley c. 970-550 BCE/ G2a2a-PF3147 is the signature Y haplogroup of the Early Neolithic Farmers. It’s completely absent from the steppe. However, today G2a2a1-PF3148 is actually common among the Brahui (8%) and found in some Punjabi Jatt clans (Saho and Kalyal).

Thus, we see evidence of genetic, material & likely cultural linkages between Central Asia and the Near East/Caucasus beginning with the Chalcolithic period which may be used to explain the spread of IE languages from Central Asia to these regions using the model proposed by Johanna Nichols. It may be noted in passing that the Mycenaean samples could also be modeled as Anatolia_N admixed with Armenia_Chl or Armenia_MLBA and one the samples which was genotyped was y-dna J2a1. This further supports the argument that the population movements originating in Chalcolithic SC Asia most likely lead to the expansion and spread of Indo-European languages.

Image result for ancient dna and indo-europeans

With the publication of the genomes from Chalcolithic Caucasus, Armenia & Anatolia from the Maykop, Kura Araxes and other related cultures it becomes pertinent to find out if there is evidence of gene flow from Caucasus into the Yamnaya steppe which is considered to have been very greatly influenced by the Maykop culture. Genetically too, the Iran_N/CHG admixture into Yamnaya argued for a large Southern input.

As per the authors of the study,

Evidence for interaction between the Caucasus and the Steppe clusters is visible in our genetic data from individuals associated with the later Steppe Maykop phase around 5300-5100 years ago. These ‘outlier’ individuals were buried in the same mounds as those with steppe and in particular Steppe Maykop ancestry profiles but share a higher proportion of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry visible in the ADMIXTURE plot and are also shifted towards the Caucasus cluster in PC space (Fig. 2D). This observation is confirmed by formal D-statistics (Steppe Maykop outlier, Steppe Maykop; X; Mbuti), which are significantly positive when X is a Neolithic or Bronze Age group from the Near East or Anatolia (Supplementary Fig. 4). By modelling Steppe Maykop outliers successfully as a two-way mixture of Steppe Maykop and representatives of the Caucasus cluster (Supplementary Table 3), we can show that these individuals received additional ‘Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic ancestry’, most likely from contemporaneous sources in the south.

In the next section we are further told,

In principal component space Eneolithic individuals (Samara Eneolithic) form a cline running from EHG to CHG (Fig. 2D), which is continued by the newly reported Eneolithic steppe individuals. However, the trajectory of this cline changes in the subsequent centuries. Here we observe a cline from Eneolithic_steppe towards the Caucasus cluster. We can qualitatively explain this ‘tilting cline’ by developments south of the Caucasus, where Iranian and Anatolian/Levantine Neolithic ancestries continue to mix, resulting in a blend that is also observed in the Caucasus cluster, from where it could have spread onto the steppe. The first appearance of ‘Near Eastern farmer related ancestry’ in the steppe zone is evident in Steppe Maykop outliers. However, PCA results also suggest that Yamnaya and later groups of the West Eurasian steppe carry some farmer related ancestry as they are slightly shifted towards ‘European Neolithic groups’ in PC2 (Fig. 2D) compared to Eneolithic steppe. This is not the case for the preceding Eneolithic steppe individuals. The tilting cline is also confirmed by admixture f3-statistics, which provide statistically negative values for AG3 as one source and any Anatolian Neolithic related group as a second source (Supplementary Table 11). Detailed exploration via D-statistics in the form of D(EHG, steppe group; X, Mbuti) and D(Samara_Eneolithic, steppe group; X, Mbuti) show significantly negative D values for most of the steppe groups when X is a member of the Caucasus cluster or one of the Levant/Anatolia farmer-related groups (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6). In addition, we used f- and D-statistics to explore the shared ancestry with Anatolian Neolithic as well as the reciprocal relationship between Anatolian- and Iranian farmer-related ancestry for all groups of our two main clusters and relevant adjacent regions (Supplementary Fig. 4). Here, we observe an increase in farmer-related ancestry (both Anatolian and Iranian) in our Steppe cluster, ranging from Eneolithic steppe to later groups.

So we have good evidence to suggest genetic influence on the steppe from the Caucasus region which could have spread the Indo-European languages on the steppe along with the cultural package of the Maykop. One question that arises is that if genetic influence from Maykop was instrumental in spread IE on the steppe, why is the steppe dominated by y-dna R1b – M269 and its descendents which is totally lacking in Maykop and why are none of the y-dna from Maykop group present on the steppe ?

We may note that Armenia EBA is ydna R1b-M269 while the Chalcolithic Haji Firuz Sample from Iran has R1b-Z2103 which dominates in Yamnaya. Chalcolithic & EBA Armenia, Iran & Anatolia are considered to be part of the cultural interaction zone that stretched upto North Caucasus as noted by the authors, with the impulse spreading from the South into the Maykop group. Further, in distant Afghanistan, we have a solitary R1b-L51 dated to 2600 BCE. As we have argued, Central Asia was in close interaction with the Near Eastern cultural zone during the Chalcolithic & Bronze Age period. Therefore, there is every possibility that R1b-L23 & its descendents could have spread into Yamnaya steppe and later into Europe via the Caucasus with its ultimate origins being down further South or Southeast. While the Yamnaya exhibits an expansion of R1b-Z2103, the more densely populated Chalcolithic & EBA Near Eastern & Caucasus interaction zone shows the presence of a multitude of y-dna groups reflecting greater genetic diversity. As such, it could certainly have been the conduit from which R1b – L23 spread into Steppe and later into Europe.

On the other hand, if the Caucasus did not spread R1b-L23 into Yamnaya, one needs to explain how R1b-Z2103 appeared in Chalcolithic Iran around 5500 BCE. If this is disputed, one still needs to explain how R1b-M269 reached Armenia EBA and how R1b-L51 reached Afghanistan in 2600 BCE, when there is no evidence of Yamnaya ancestry spreading either into Armenia or into Central Asia. Moreover, Yamnaya have so far shown R1b-Z2103 and not its sister branch of R1b-L51 that is dominant across modern Europe. R1b-Z2103 is concentrated in Eastern Europe, West Asia and South Central Asia. All the regions which show the presence of R1b-Z2103 do not show any perceptible evidence of direct gene flow from Yamnaya.

We may now turn to the most interesting data that was found in Wang et al paper on Greater Caucasus.

Based on PCA and ADMIXTURE plots we observe two distinct genetic clusters: one cluster falls with previously published ancient individuals from the West Eurasian steppe (hence termed ‘Steppe’), and the second clusters with present-day southern Caucasian populations and ancient Bronze Age individuals from today’s Armenia (henceforth called ‘Caucasus’), while a few individuals take on intermediate positions between the two. The stark distinction seen in our temporal transect is also visible in the Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution, with R1/R1b1 and Q1a2 types in the Steppe and L, J, and G2 types in the Caucasus cluster (Fig. 3A, Supplementary Data 1).

Individuals from the Eneolithic North Caucasus piedmont steppe have an ancestry profile similar to the Eneolithic steppe individuals from further east in Khwalynsk & Samara region. All these Eneolithic steppe individuals are modeled as EHG + CHG/Iran_N with no Anatolian_N ancestry.

An interesting observation is that steppe zone individuals directly north of the Caucasus (Eneolithic Samara and Eneolithic steppe) had initially not received any gene flow from Anatolian farmers. Instead, the ancestry profile in Eneolithic steppe individuals shows an even mixture of EHG and CHG ancestry, which argues for an effective cultural and genetic border between the contemporaneous Eneolithic populations in the North Caucasus, notably Steppe and Caucasus.

This is a very intriguing development and deserves to be looked at with a little bit more scrutiny. The most likely and seemingly obvious source of Iran_N/CHG ancestry in the Eneolithic steppe populations is from further South beyond the Caucasus. But as we learn from this paper, already during the Eneolithic Caucasus phase which is dated to 4500 BCE, there was Anatolian_N ancestry north of the Caucasus. Further South, the presence of Anatolian_N ancestry in Iran is attested as early as 5500 BCE. So it is quite strange that the Eneolithic steppe populations only have Iran_N with no Anatolian_N ancestry. If Iran_N came into Eneolithic steppe from the South via the Caucasus, it appears that it should have happened around 5000 BCE or earlier atleast.

On the other hand, there is another possibility. It maybe that the Iran_N ancestry is coming from the east from Central Asia via the east of the Caspian Sea route. To lend credence to this theory we may turn our attention to the steppe Maykop individuals which succeeded the North Caucasus Eneolithic steppe. This is what is said about them,

Four individuals from mounds in the grass steppe zone, which are archaeologically associated with the ‘Steppe Maykop’ cultural complex (Supplementary Information 1), lack the Anatolian farmer-related component when compared to contemporaneous Maykop individuals from the foothills. Instead they carry a third and fourth ancestry component that is linked deeply to Upper Paleolithic Siberians (maximized in the individual Afontova Gora 3 (AG3)36, 37 and Native Americans, respectively, and in modern-day North Asians such as North Siberian Nganasan (Supplementary Fig. 1).

…we could successfully model Steppe Maykop ancestry as being derived from populations related to all three sources (p-value 0.371 for rank 2): Eneolithic steppe (63.5±2.9 %), AG3 (29.6±3.4%) and Kennewick (6.9±1.0%)

…the Steppe Maykop individuals share more alleles not only with Karitiana but also with Han Chinese when compared with the fitted ones using Eneolithic steppe and AG3 as two sources and Mbuti, Karitiana and Han as outgroups (Supplementary Table 2).

So it appears like admixture from a source carrying West_Siberian HG related ancestry which was characterized in the recent Narasimhan et al paper. The Narasimhan et al paper showed several populations from Chalcolithic & Bronze Age Central Asia which could simply be modeled as a mixture of Iran_N + West_Siberian_HG such as Sarazm_EN, Dali_EBA (table S3.53), Okunevo, Kanai_MBA & the Gonur1_BA_o samples. The Daamgard et al paper (which did characterize the WSHG ancestry) further showed that the Chalcolithic Central Asian sample from Namazga could also be modeled as a 2 way mixture between EHG & Iran_N. As was stated in the Supplementary Material section of the Narasimhan et al paper,

In samples further east, from Anau, and Sarazm, we now see our top statistics showing a mixture of both Anatolian Agriculturalist and West Siberia related ancestry. Native Americans also contribute to these statistics, reflecting their known Ancestral North Eurasian related ancestry, which is related to but not the same as the West Siberian HG related ancestry.

The populations from eastern Iran have an additional source of ancestry from a population related to those from the Neolithic West Siberia. Consistent to what we observed from the f-statistics, we observe that Anatolian agriculturalist related ancestry decreases from west to east while the West Siberian hunter-hatherer related ancestry increases.

Considering the fact that Chalcolithic populations in SC Asia and along the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor harbored ancestry that was a mix of Iran_N/CHG + WSHG/ANE, which is the kind of admixture required in Steppe Maykop samples and also the fact that the 2600 BCE sample from Afghanistan was y-dna R1b-L51 and that certain modern populations in Central Asia harbor large percentage of the Yamnaya R1b-Z2103, it is not inconceivable that the Eneolithic & Maykop steppe samples could have received their Iran_N & WSHG admixture from a source in Central Asia via a route from the east of the Caspian sea.

Or it maybe that early Central Asian groups contributed ANE + Iran_N/CHG type ancestry to Eneolithic_steppe while later Central Asian groups, as they migrated northwards east of the Caspian Sea into the Central Steppe they encountered WSHG type ancestry which they subsequently passed on to the steppe_Maykop individuals. This is further supported by the fact that the steppe Maykop samples have y-dna Q1a2 which has been found among the Ustida & Okunevo samples from the Central Steppes in the Daamgard et al study and which harbor ANE + East Asian ancestry (i.e. akin to WSHG). Infact, the Daamgard et al paper showcase for the 1st time Central steppe ancient dna which includes samples from Botai_CA, Central_steppe_EMBA & Okunevo_EMBA, all of which are modeled as ANE + AEA (Ancient East Asian) which is akin to the West Siberian Hunter Gatherer ancestry characterized in the Narasimhan et al paper.

Infact such a possibility for the spread of Indo-European languages from Central Asia to its east was already envisaged by Johanna Nichols who stated,

To summarize the important points of dialect geography in the Eurasian spread zone, the hallmark of a language family that enters a spread zone as an undifferentiated single language and diversifies while spreading is a multiple branching from the root. This is the structure of the IE tree, which has the greatest number of primary branches of any known genetic grouping of comparable age. The hallmark of developments that arise in or near the locus is that they appear along more than one trajectory. This is the distribution of the centum/satem division in IE, and in the later Indo-Iranian spread it is the distribution of the Indo-Aryan/Iranian split (as argued in Nichols, Volume II). The reason that dialect divisions arising in the locus show up along more than one trajectory is that the Caspian Sea divides westward spreads into steppe versus desert trajectories quite close to the locus and hence quite early in the spread.

So in effect, in an alternate scenario, what we may be seeing in the steppe and the Caucasus is the coming together of different groups of Indo-European languages that had taken different routes to their westward spread after their trajectories were separated by the Caspian Sea. Once the steppe Indo-European groups developed contact with the Caucasus Indo-European group during the Maykop phase, it may have lead to the transference of the Maykop cultural toolkit onto the Yamnaya steppe but with little genetic or linguistic overhaul.


58 thoughts on “A Tentative OUT OF INDIA Model To Explain The Origin & Spread Of INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES”

  1. (Read a couple of paragraphs. Will try to read the entire post when I get time, maybe in the weekend. Still, I’m not qualified to judge the soundness of your theory. Hopefully the experts on this blog will pitch in.)

    Just wanted to ask you though: where (and how) do the Andronovo and Corded Ware cultures fit in your model. Have you given any thought to that?

    1. So far we have no evidence to suggest links between corded ware and people of South Central Asia. The argument so far in the aDNA circles is that the Iran Neolithic like ancestry spread to the steppe during the Eneolithic and later the Yamnaya phase. The Yamnaya in turn admixed into the Corded ware culture. But obviously there is a y-DNA mismatch between Yamnaya which is heavily R1b and corded ware which is R1a (R1a – R1b split is dated to more than 20 kya).

      As far as Andronovo is considered, it has for long been considered by the Russian archaeologists and Indo-Europeanists like Anthony, Mallory, Kuzmina etc as the Indo-Iranian precursors that spread Indo-Iranian language and culture into Central & South Asia and Iran. Unfortunately the archaeological evidence for this theory is extremely questionable for Central Asia and non-existent for South Asia.

      In our Out of India model, BMAC is already Indo-Iranian speaking since it has a large chunk of ancestry already from the Indus civilization and it was also in a great deal of cultural interaction with the Indus civilization as well as with the other Indus influenced cultures of Eastern Iran like Helmand and Halil Rud.

      We know that the Andronovo nomads interacted with the people of the BMAC on its northern periphery and there is a belief among archaeologists now that this interaction lead to the Andronovo and the earlier Sintashta group getting culturally influenced by BMAC than vice-versa. This could explain Indo-Iranian or Iranian languages among the steppe people starting from the 2nd millennium BC.

          1. “This guy is lost in space and time.”

            He is a qualified linguist looking at the same data as people have over 150 years.
            Kazanas another qualified linguist has reached the same conclusions. It is not enough to say that they are wrong without saying WHY they are wrong. They are not “Hindutva” either. Some people want to pursue the truth.

          2. Here we go – my few observations. As I said, this Russian guy is lost in space and time. There is no explanation about ancient languages movement between Asia and Europe neither specific timelines, nor what is the connection between languages which are thousands of kilometres and thousands of years distant.

            • “Non-linguistic evidence are not discussed” > ???
            • “…facts of archaeology – there are no traces of Aryan invasion during and after 2600-1900BC…” > what did you say in previous sentence?
            • “Expansion of Indo-European languages outside of SA” > why not “expansion of Indo languages to Europe”
            • “Greek Crete 1500…remnants of Aryan like names” > ‘well-known and established’ in bold??? Know by whom, Crete civilisation was not Greek. Who were Aryans?
            • “Nothing, except SIMPLE WISH, can speak in favour of any early Indo-European presence in both Western and Easter Europe” > Simply unbelievable
            • “Balto-Slavic” > one language, two languages or more languages (which?)
            • “Proto-Indo-European”? > what is this, what about proto-Euro-American?
            • “Germanic” > what is this, tribes, languages, German language? If German language was formed in the 14th c.AC what is the connection with at least 3500 older Sanskrit?
            • “Latin” > starts forming in the 6th c.BC? Who spoke Latin, which language(s) was (were) spoken in Europe in the first millennium?
            • “Aryan loanwords in Uralic languages…before this time (1900-1400) neither proto-Balts nor proto-Slavs had not crossed the Urals westwards and were still – Asian branches of Indo-European”? > Have Aryans existed? Which Uralic languages? Why do you need ‘European’ here?
            • “Iranian-Aryan influenced Balto-Slavic, the ancestor of Balto-Slavic was a substratum for Steppe Iranian as opposed to both Indic and Western Iranian? > Wow!
            • “…place to the north of Iran where Balts originally lived (the fact that they moved later from east to west through modern Russia is attested in Central Russian hydroniums)…” > Wowow!
            • “This again means that before the beginning of that time (1900-1700BC) the ancestors of Balts and Slavs were still mostly not in Europe (the Urals being taken for the Europe-Asia border)”???…”and when we speak about some earlier periods (3300-2600) there were no Balto-Slavic ancestors in Europe…””??? > Europe was uninhabited land??? Or some tongue-tied people?
            • “Indo-European branching – 5 waves”:
            • “Proto Italo-Celtic”?
            • “Proto-Albanian”? > You must be kidding.
            • “Proto Greaco-Armenian (including Thracian and Phrygian)” > Thracian and Phrygian are not Greek
            • “Greaco-Aryan…..Northern Germanic-Western Armenian”? > ???
            • “By the end of this period there were areas to the west (Graeco-Armeno-Thraco-Phryan, partly overcovering the previously Italo-Celtic zone, whence adstratum like third series in these groups having developed) to the east! (Indo-Aryan and to the north and later north-west (Germanic)…” > There is a short name for this – Serbian language
            • “Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans”? > What was before Pre-Proto?
            • ”…the population of the BMAC (2300-1700) spoke some kind of either Proto-Graeco-Armeno-Phrygian or Proto-Germanic language…” > I wander about this ‘some kind’…
            • “All this needs long and deep further investigation” >

            >>> Exactly, it would be the best to start from scratch without any (OIM or other) prejudice. For example, can you explain about 30% of identical or very similar words in Sanskrit and modern Serbian? Specifically – identical or very similar words for family relationships (e.g. husband’s mother, husband’s father, husband’s brother’s wife, wife’s sister’s husband, wife’s brother’s wife, husband’s sister’s husband, father’s brother’s wife, etc)? Also, hundreds of Serbian hydronyms and toponyms which are many identical with names of rivers and mountains in Serbia…You may also find out about Vinca and read the basics of genetics instead of guessing how some letter was pronounced 5 thousand years ago by Pre-proto-post-whoever.

        1. Yes I have recently in the last couple of months come to know of his work through one of my online friends. I haven’t read any of his papers carefully but look forward to reading it soon since what he says , if true, has enormous implications. His work in combination with Johanna Nichols’ model and Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s wealth of data can help us build a solid linguistic framework for Out of India

          1. “There is no explanation about ancient languages movement between Asia and Europe neither specific timelines”
            He does propose a timeline in section 6: 1900 t0 1200 BCE for the last wave but admits that the rest of them are speculative.

            ““…facts of archaeology – there are no traces of Aryan invasion during and after 2600-1900BC…”

            His paper is about linguistics anyway.

            ““Greek Crete 1500…remnants of Aryan like names” > ‘well-known and established’ in bold??? Know by whom, Crete civilisation was not Greek. ”

            He never says Aryan names are found in Greek documents only the Hittite ones:

            Here is what he ACTUALLY says.

            ” finally, we
            have both Mycenaean Greek documents in Greece and Crete from ca.1500-
            1400 BC and the remnants of Aryan-like names, titles, and special terms in
            Hurrite and Hittite texts from ca.1500-1400 BC.”
            “Balto-Slavic” > one language, two languages or more languages (which?)”

            The BS family of course as per the standard model.

            ” “Germanic” > what is this, tribes, languages, German language? If German language was formed in the 14th c.AC what is the connection with at least 3500 older Sanskrit?”

            The same as in any other homeland scenario. The word “Germanic” is a linguistic entity not to be confused with modern German speaking people! This is a linguistic paper remember?

            The rest of your comments are just “wow or “simply unbelievable. ”
            But here is the point. He says

            ” Anyway, by the end of this fourth wave Indic zone gradually
            became periphery,”

            So India-Pakistan CANNOT really be the homeland of ALL IE languages. It has got to be further Northwest. Based on memory, the famed IE linguist Heinrich Hock has said something similar. There are too many bottleneck in a real OIT scenario that the so called “Hindutva fanatics” allegedly want. There have to be multiple loccii of dispersion and no real “homeland” can be located for the entire family. The steppe could be the homeland of the late PIE.

            “You may also find out about Vinca and read the basics of genetics instead of guessing how some letter was pronounced 5 thousand years ago by Pre-proto-post-whoever.”

            Well as far as genetics is concerned, I am not really up to speed. I have been following this debate for 25 years but lost touch in the last 5 years or so when genetics became prominent. But the recent work of Damgaard, and Wang et al. does not support the conventional steppe model, if I understand it correctly. All the jugglery Narsimhan et al. are doing, which I don’t understand either, about the steppe admixtures into South Asia is much ado about nothing! If Armenia and Anatolia are gone in a steppe scenario “Indo-Iranian” obviously goes out the door too for LINGUISTIC reasons that Igor has explained so beautifully.


          2. Thanks for your response.

             “He (Russian guy!) admits that the most of his timelines are speculative”
             Mycenaean and Crete civilisations are not Greeks
             The term Balto-Slavic (BS) is not standard, Slavic is fairly new term (7th c.AC) and cannot be used in ancient context, we still don’t know how many languages this term assumes
             Germanic > still don’t know what this term means and why is used in ancient context
             “Nothing, except SIMPLE WISH, can speak in favour of any early Indo-European presence in both Western and Eastern Europe” > It means that Europe was uninhabited at least until 1900BC? Because I said ‘simply unbelievable’.
             “…place to the north of Iran where Balts originally lived (the fact that they moved later from east to west through modern Russia is attested in Central Russian hydroniums) > This is really a brave statement. Especially, that Balts from Iran had this name 1000s of years before they came to Baltic??? And they brought Iranian hydronyms to Russia?
             “…before the beginning of that time (1900-1700BC) the ancestors of Balts and Slavs were still mostly not in Europe (the Urals being taken for the Europe-Asia border)…” > Who lived in Europe before 1900BC? Which language was spoken there? Who came to Europe in 1900BC? Balts lived east of Ural? (again had this name much before they actually came to Baltic?) Or, they lived at the north of Iran?
             “So India-Pakistan CANNOT really be the homeland of ALL IE languages. It has got to be further Northwest” > What does it mean Northwest? After 150 years of research the homeland of IE languages is Northwest? In this case the term ‘Indo-European’ should be changed because it is neither Indo, nor European. We may say – Northwest languages.
             RE: genetics – it is not needed to be expert like Razib, it is enough to know that if two groups have the same genetics profile, they and their languages are related. The older group are ancestors, the younger are descendants.
             RE: Vinca – such papers and discussions simply cannot be conducted without mentioning Vinca. Because of its absence in this paper, the author made such ridiculous statements about Europe before 1900BC.

             RE: There is no any comment on my assertion that modern Serbian and Sanskrit are 30% identical or very similar? How come? Any idea? Especially, identical/similar family relationships terms which are older than Vedas. Husband’s brother’s wife? What about many identical toponyms in India and Serbia? Ok, I leave genetics out of the picture because you are not ‘up to speed’. If you are interested to do own research I am happy to help with information I have. Cheers.

        1. Though I have heard of him I haven’t read any of his works. Will try to read up on him. Thanks again 🙏

          1. To Milan:

            Just found this link. Apparently, the Serbs have a dog in this race also. This is all so new to me.

            “The third one, from the late 19th century Serbia, has been discovered in an old monastery manuscript. It is a compilation of 345 poems of which at least 15 speak of Serbs being in India (under a name Hindustan and Indjija) mentioning also toponyms such as the Hindu Kush, Manchuria and Tatarstan.”

            So it seems, the influence was from India to Serbia. But then I found this one that claims that

            “The ancient Slavs inherited from Vedic – Arievic culture the concept of a three tiered universe, heaven, earth and the underworld. ”

            So the Serbs had their “Vedas” also from which the Indians got theirs?

            If you want a homeland in Serbia/Croatia just check WHERE they are! The IE would have drowned into the Black Sea or the Mediterranean Sea. At least from the steppe they could ride their horses into South Asia.

            Words for fire in Slavic languages all seem to come from the agni family and none from the pur family that Igor talks about.

            агонь – Belarusian
            огън – Bulgarian
            oheň – Czech
            òdżin – Kashubian
            оган – Macedonian
            огнь – Old Church Slavonic
            огонь – Russian
            огањ/oganj – Serbo-Croatian
            łogyń – Silesian
            oheň – Slovak
            vuôheń – Slovincian
            ogenj – Slovenian
            woheń – Upper Sorbian
            wogeń – Lower Sorbian
            вогонь – Ukrainian

            ugnis – Lithuanian
            uguns – Latvian
            ignis – Latin
            अग्नि [agni] – Sanskrit/Hindi

            So in short, the Serbian Indic connections are quite easily explained from any south of Caucasus hypothesis including South Asia.

      1. Making progress! Now the mainstream is moving toward a South of Caucasus (Armenia and Iran) homeland of IE according to recent genetic work by Wang et. al. and Damgaard et al.


        “No steppe migration to Anatolia via southeast Europe
        “An alternative hypothesis is that the homeland
        of Proto-Indo-European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran.
        In this scenario, westward population movement contributed to the
        dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture
        with EHG was responsible for the formation of a ‘Late Proto-Indo
        European’-speaking population associated with the Yamnaya complex13.
        Although this scenario gains plausibility from our results, it
        remains possible that Indo-European languages were spread through
        southeastern Europe into Anatolia without large-scale population
        movement or admixture.”

        They are not ready to accept South Asia yet. However from Armenia all the way up to the Pontic steppe and then back to South Asia would be quite a trek!!
        Here is the link to the Wang et al (2018)


        1. It will be even more absurd to bring the “Indo-Iranians” through Andronova etc. when Iran is just next door. So if one accepts the Armenian theory, then the question is did the “Indo-Iranians” even exist as a group roaming around together for a very long time. That is where Igor A Tonoyan-Belyayev’s work comes in. Of the two stems of fire present in Sanskrit pur and agni, agni is completely missing from Iranian! The similarities between Greek and Iranian on the other hand in spite of the well accepted centum/satem dichotomy are far too many to ignore if one wants to have them go separate ways for a long time as is required by the steppe hypothesis.

          1. Especially important to note in terms of genetics is the following :-

            The geneticists are coming around the view that an Iranian Neolithic/Chalcolithic like population spread Indo-European languages from NW Iran through Caucasus into the steppe between 4000-3000 BC, from where it spread into Europe and also supposedly came to India.

            But this Iran Neolithic like population was already there in South Asia/India since the Neolithic since the Mehrgarh Neolithic and Iranian Neolithic are very closely related. Moreover, this Iranian Neolithic like ancestry may also have a much older presence in South Asia than the Neolithic and what’s more – it may have spread to Iran from South Asia itself than vice versa.

            Then, we have the evidence from ancient DNA that samples from the Chalcolithic period – right from Western Iran to Central Asia were closely related groups with a major chunk of Iranian Neolithic like ancestry.

            Therefore, if Iranian Neolithic ancestry spread IE languages on the steppe, then IE languages could very well have been present in Central & South Asia during the Chalcolithic.

      2. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/horse-domestication-dna-indo-european-science/

        “These horse-riding pastoralists from the western steppe, known as the Yamnaya, may not have been responsible for bringing horse breeding and Indo-European languages into Asia, according to a study by an international, interdisciplinary team published today in the journal Science.”

        “It turns out that the Botai and the Yamnaya didn’t share many genetic similarities at all. The Botai were most closely related to a group of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, not people of the western steppes like the Yamnaya. Instead of getting the scoop on horse breeding from western herders, the Botai may have learned to domesticate horses on their own through hunts before transitioning to pastoral life in their horse-centered farming villages.”

        ““It’s new territory,” says Olsen of the findings. “A lot of what we’ve published [on horse breeding and Eurasian population shifts] is probably going to be thrown out.”

        For Damgaard, the research enables a more nuanced view of the Eurasian steppes—and how horses helped humanity travel and blend. “There was never a point in time when you had a fully defined, finished version of a population or a language,” he says. “That doesn’t exist. Casting light on human history is a way to debunk those myths.”

  2. It will take me some time to digest.

    How about the following theory:

    There was an Arya Varsha civilization (not Jati or cultural civilization) that had members who lived in South East Asia, South Asia, Turin, Iran, Serbia. Maybe with minority populations living in Lebanon, Anatolia, Greece. We know that there was a substantial minority immigrant IVC community living in Sumeria. Since Arya was an open system architecture ecosystem with multiple pluralist mini ecosystems thriving within it . . . there were many non Arya cultures living side by side with Arya cultural people.

    If such a system occurred, wouldn’t it be normal for people to travel back and forth between different pockets of Arya culture? And for non Arya travellors to travel to other parts of Arya Varsha and even decide to have families in new parts of the world?

    In other words it is not an either or. It doesn’t much matter where the Arya people Jatis came from. Culture matters far more.

    If Bharatiya Jatis come from other parts of the world long ago (say more than 9 K years ago), it doesn’t much matter. Bharat remains part of the soil of India.

    Now a stupid question: did R1b Haplotype originate from Siberia 600 generations ago? Can you share the progression of all Haplootypes starting with R that are connected to Arya (Turn, Iranic, Bharatiya) peoples? Along with how many generations back each permutation in the haplotype might have occurred? It would be very helpful.

    1. There is nothing wrong in propounding a theory. But it cannot be sustained if most of the theory has no evidence to support it.

      The interactions between people of historical NW India and people beyond is millennia old and is supported both by textual as well as archaeological evidence. The interactions extended all the way up to the eastern Mediterranean. But the Near Eastern cultures of Egypt, Anatolia, Syria, Mesopotamia and western Iran (Elam) are known to have been speakers of Semitic and other non-IE languages. So they cannot be considered part of Arya civilization as you put it.

      Similarly, SE Asia or China became part of the interaction zone with Indians most likely in the 1st millennium BC at the earliest and there is not much evidence of an earlier contacts to consider them part of the Arya cultural sphere.


      As far as having foreign tribes becoming Arya by migration into India, to support such an argument we need evidence, not merely conjectures. Without evidence why should we accept this so-called migration when it was clearly proposed due to racist beliefs of 19th century Europeans ? Where is the evidence for it in archaeology or in Indian texts ?

    2. As for ydna R1b, it is a lineage which is more than 20 kya old. It’s most likely origin is somewhere in South Central Asia or West Asia.

      The R1b subclades relevant to the Indo-European debate are much younger and form only a subset of all R1b classes. These are R1b L51 which is spread across Europe and is a dominant paternal lineage there, and R1b Z2103 which is present in limited nos across the Near East, Caucasus, Iran, Central & South Asia.

      R1b Z2103 was present in large nos among the Yamnaya samples but the likely earliest R1b Z2103 is a recent Chalcolithic Iranian sample dated to 6000-5500 BC.

      1. I thought the current Parivar approved model was a Ghar-Wapasi (homecoming) model. R1a arose in India, traveled to Steppes, and came back to India after a few centuries of temporary residence in pardes. Now this is clever, isn’t it. Best of both the worlds! We get to call ourselves sons of the soil without contradicting those pesky papers coming out of mlechchha universities.

        Just kidding 🙂 I really don’t have a dog in this fight. I am OK with whatever way the debate settles.

        1. Yes, there is some basal ydna R, R2, R1a & R1b diversity in South Asia but there is little attention being paid to it and there is no major R1b study coming up in the near future as far as I know. There is though an R1a study from India in the offing that should come out pretty soon.

          The R1b basal diversity found in India however dates to a period roughly around 15 kya and has no relation to the IE question. The more recent R1b clade that has been linked to the IE question is R1b – M269 and its subclades L51 which is predominant in Europe and Z2103 which was found in Yamnaya on the steppe and which is found in trace quantities right from the Near East to India.

          1. Thanks for the reply Jaideep.

            “The R1b basal diversity found in India however dates to a period roughly around 15 kya ” —
            Could you point me a paper regarding this stament ? I am not aware of R1b in south Asia except for few FtDNA and yfull samples.

  3. I should give a credit to Jaydeepsinh Rathod for his effort but I also need more time to read this text carefully. It seems that so many complicated interactions between various groups (I cannot say proven or not) presented by Johanna Nichols overshadow the simplest things. For e.g :

    Which “Slavic” languages 4000 BC if the term ‘Slavic’ is artificially (and with a purpose) invented in the 7th c.AC?

    “Nichols dates the breaking of IE languages between 4000 – 3300 BCE.”

    Which languages existed at that time? What does it mean “Indo-European” or Proto IE? It has similar meaning as Proto Euro-American.

    What does it mean the figure of the bull in the text? What symbolises? Who used this figure If it was explained it probably (I need to read it in its entirety) would say more about ancient history than the whole JN’s text. Let’s compare this with another picture of bull:


    Regarding languages…I can say that one simple table at the bottom of the text (I have several others) says much more than everything what Johanna Nichols was guessing that was with them 6000 years ago (I posted this link before):


    1. The link that you have given seems to be arguing that about an ancient Serbian/Slavic traditional memory of them having come originally from India.

      So it is not really in any way contradicting Johanna Nichols’ arguments but rather supporting it.

      And I would suggest you read the 2 papers of Nichols patiently. They are long but she explains it beautifully as to why a Indo-European expansion into Eurasia from a locus around Bactria would make a lot of sense historically as well as linguistically.

      1. The term Slavic does not belong to anything ancient. It was coined in the 7th c. AC. It means only the term Serbian (tribes, languages) existed in ancient times. Because I called this map idiotic, all so-called Slavic languages (some are artificially made 20 or 50 years ago) did not exist until couple hundreds of years ago. I would have so many questions but for now only one-two things. How can be explained Sanskrit/Serbian similarities regarding names of family relationships (e.g. husband’s brother’s wife and many other), it is confirmed that they are older than Vedas?

        I have a book of Serbian ritual songs from SA/India (recorded couple hundreds of years ago) from Serbs who returned to their motherland after several difficult battles with Mongolian and Chinese (e.g. River Chuy, etc). Archaeology proved the continuity of Serbs from Vinca/Lepenski Vir (10.000+ years ago) until new era, it means that they did not come, they were indigenous in Europe. The alphabet found there 7000 BC had a swastika as a letter (=rising sun), calendar which started 5508 BC, etc. I would like you to read a paper about Aryans ancestral homeland which link I provided recently.


        1. Thanks for the link. Will read up on it soon hopefully.

          I don’t know about Serbian archaeology to comment on what you said. But is your position that the Serbs came from India ? Or are you suggesting something else ?

    2. Slavic isn’t an artificial invention of the 7th century
      You must be referring to recent post-modernist interpretations of Slavic ethnicity as something galvanised in the Byzantine frontier
      However this in no way negates the fact that Slavic is a real, “organic” langue

      1. I have no idea what do you want to say. The term Slavic is used now for new nations which evolved from Serbian roots. It applies also for their new languages which also evolved from Serbian language (Polish, Czechs, Slovak, Russian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Slovenian, etc.). We are witnesses that politics created new languages just recently – so-called Bosnian (20 years ago), Montenegrin (couple years), Macedonian (60 years), Romanian (160 years ago). Do you know what the term Slavic means?

        The term Slavic did not exist in ancient times. It was coined and used to suppress Serbian name. Also, the term Byzantine is also artificial and coined in the 16th century. This is the name of village close to Constantinople. The right name is East Roman Empire (i.e. in Serbian – istocno romejsko carstvo). There is a rationale why this new, previously non-existent, name was invented.

        1. Milan
          Yes my remarks probably went above your head
          Anyhow, the term Slav is attested before Serbs. I’m quite sure the byzantines weren’t anti-Serbian, given that they helped create their kingdom in the 800s

          1. You haven’t made any remark. Only now you are saying that the term Slav is older than term Serb. Ok, tell me when the term Slav originated, who invented and used this term, what is its meaning, which language ‘Slavs’ spoke, where they lived, are ‘Slav(s)’ a composite creature (who belongs to them?), etc.

            Is the same case with Byzantine, when this term originated and who first used it? What was with Serbs before 800s, what was their organisation, where they originated from, do you know who was the Emperor Constantine, who was Justinian? Which borders had Serbian kingdom? Which are ‘Slavic’ languages and when they originated? Which language spoke Alexander the Great and his army? Which language is older – Serbian or Greek or Latin?

            I don’t know your background, it is ok if you don’t know the answers on previous questions but pls don’t tell me about post-modernists and Byzantine (?) frontiers(??).

        2. Look, I didn’t want to comment here, but your comments are really, really embarrassing. Slavic is simply a “roof” term for a lot of similar languages/dialects (from Slovene, over Polish to Russian and Bulgarian). Whether something is a dialect or a language (often for political reasons) is completely irrelevant: they are obviously closely related.

          It’s also a native term, as you can tell from names like Slavonia, Slovenia, Slovakia. It’s also mentioned very, very early. As for any “suppression” of Serb name, why would e.g. Russians want to suppress that name?

          As for your other comments, such things have been explained for a long time: both Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages belong to a “satem” group of languages, which had similar development.

          Why aren’t you obsessed with the similarity of Serbian mleko and English milk? Or sunce and sun? Or brat and brother? Or sestra and sister?

  4. Isn’t this whole post something of a sleight of hand? Instead of locating the PIE locus to west of Caspian, you have located it to east of Caspian, and then termed this region as south central asia. This south central asia seems to be used as a poor proxy for India.

    A truly out-of-India model will trace PIE languages to something like lower Ganges valley. Think like the land between Banaras and Patna. Not like Bactria which can hardly be called India.

    1. Excellent observation. Although I try to have sympathy for OIMs, I feel sorry for them. The have some political agenda. Instead of finding the facts and the truth they firstly made a conclusion and now they are searching supporting evidences. They argue with claims in some previous articles thinking if they find them (un)supporting this will prove their assertion. For example, this language map in the text is not only irrelevant, it is idiotic. I believe, the reason for their persistence on these positions is a belief that they fight for own national interests against former colonialists rulers and their academics. This is so wrong because these academics did not want to find the truth for 200 years but were always leaving a perception that they were those who came to Hindustan although it was impossible. There is still a silence regarding the facts I offered in several occasions because they simply cannot neither negate nor explain them.

    2. I would suggest you to stop using frivolous & slanderous terms like ‘sleight of hand’.

      It is also rather frivolous and arbitrary to suggest that an Out of India model should place the homeland deep in the Gangetic plains around Bihar & Eastern UP. Do you have any good reasons as to why that should necessarily be the case ? You do know that historical India extended right upto the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan which is just south of ancient Bactria, don’t you ?

      So why forbid all the vast regions to the north & northwest of the Gangetic plains ?

      You should also know that it is specifically the region of Haryana & Western UP which was the Vedic homeland, known as Brahmavarta in the later literature. It is here that the 5 great Vedic tribes originated from. These were the Yadu, Turvasu, Druhyu, Anu & Puru who are said to have been descended of 5 sons of Yayati. Of these 5 tribes Yadu & Turvasu supposedly moved further into interior India while Druhyu and Anu migrated westward. It is the Purus and their descendents the Bharatas who are the main heroes of the Rigveda and they considered the speakers of Indo-Aryan by Michael Witzel. These Purus came to occupy the land watered by ancient Saraswati and centered in modern Haryana & West UP. Their descendents, the Bharatas later on went on to dominate the consciousness of our nation so much that it began to be even named after them as Bharatavarsha.

      The Druhyus and Anus, who were closely related to the Purus initially, had to migrate outwards due to wars with Purus. The Druhyu are clearly mentioned in the Puranas as having been forced to migrate from their base in Punjab to Afghanistan/North Pakistan where they established the kingdom of Gandhara. Later on they are said to have migrated northwards and established numerous kingdoms among the mleccha countries. This region north of Afghanistan is none other than Bactria.

      So what we are talking about makes perfect sense. It is not ‘sleight of hand’ as you put it. A genuine ‘sleight of hand’ is the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory.

      We now have clear archaeological and genetic evidence that the Bactria Margiana civilization of the 3rd millenium BC had close cultural contacts with the people of the Indus civilization and that all the BMAC ancient samples we have so far (dozens of them from 4-5 different sites) had significant South Asian admixture. The most well-known BMAC site of Gonur which was also perhaps the largest, also shows a great degree of influence from Indus civilization. On the other hand, in Shortughai in modern Tajikistan, we have a site which was fro 2400-1800 BC, an all out Indus site right in the midst of the BMAC.

      That is not all. The earliest evidence of South Asian influence in Central Asia is at Sarazm where we have 2 samples dating to 3500 BC, where atleast one of them if not both, clearly has South Asian admixture. Many of the cultural features found in the Chalcolithic sites of Central Asia are already found much earlier at the site of Mehrgarh.

      Therefore, arguing for Bactria as a staging point from where Indo-Europeans migrated further into Western Eurasia is not contradicting an out of India scenario. It rather fits in well with ancient Indian textual evidence and can also be supported by archaeological and genetic evidence.

      But ofcourse, this is a tentative model, a work-in-progress. It is not even a theory and certainly far from being proven comprehensively. So there are large gaps in our knowledge which needs to be filled. Let that happen and let us see if this model can still hold.

      1. Let me clarify at the onset that just because I questioned some of the premises of your post, it does not make me an automatic proponent of AIT/AMT. I think these alternative models have large unanswered gaps too. My personal hunch is that migration patterns in and out of India were much more complex than these simplistic theories propose.

        With that out of the way, the point I was making is that to include Bactria into a “Greater India”, strong cultural and genetic links between Harappan civilization and BMAC have to be proven, and I don’t think such links exist. Even though these were contemporary civilizations, the contact between them appears to be purely trade based.

        We know that Harappan artifacts have been found as far as Mesopotamia too. There were probably trading colonies of Harappans in Mesopatamia. That does not mean we can include Mesopatamia in a “Greater India” too, can we.

        1. I have not called you an AIT proponent. And I am not denying that the patterns of migration in and out of South Asia would have been much more complex than we envisage at present. That is not disputed. However, the western academic thrust so far has been only to emphasise on the migrations into South Asia, real or imagined. They really do not bother about migrations of South Asians outwards and what the implications of those migrations could have been.


          Now coming to the links between Bactria and Indus civilization, let me quote you the relevant para from the recent aDNA paper on South and Central Asia which had a very sizable no of samples from South Asia –

          In fact, the data suggest that instead of the main BMAC population having a demographic impact on South Asia, there was a larger effect of gene flow in the reverse direction, as the main BMAC genetic cluster is slightly different from the preceding Turan populations in harboring ~5% of their ancestry from the AASI.

          This 5 % AASI ancestry is found in almost all of the 69 samples from the 4 sites of BMAC. 5 % AASI is big since even in the so-called Indus civilization migrant in BMAC, the AASI level was only 18 %. So there was a very significant demographic impact of Indus civilization on the BMAC. Don’t you think that this would have lead to cultural impact ?

          There was an Indus civilization colony site at Shortughai in the BMAC civilization itself, which lasted from 2400-1800 BCE. For a preview of the nature of the links between the BMAC and Indus, please read the following paper –


          The influence of the South Asians in Central Asia already starts showing up as early as the Chalcolithic. The Chalcolithic cultures of Central Asia show signs of influence from Mehrgarh. i.e. several features exhibited by the Chalcolithic cultures of Central Asia is already evident at the site of Mehrgarh much much earlier. The two aDNA samples from Sarazm which were dated to 3500 BCE already AASI admixture and there are archaeological evidences of linkages from the South of the Hindu Kush.

          1. As far as I know, Shortughai is considered IVC by almost everyone.

            A question on Sarazm. What is the evidence of IVC and Sanathana Dharma connection with Sarazm?

            What evidence has been found at Mehrgarh of connection with IVC and Sanathana Dharma?

            What other evidence has been found north of Afghanistan and Iran about ancient IVC or Dharmic connections?

    3. …This same Serbian tradition from where these folk songs and culture came, declare that Triglav lives in India and India was once the home of the ancient Serbs. The following is taken from an old Serbian folksong called the children of India.

      “From your tree a branch are we. We are too children of Hindustan, you do not know of Serbs, we know of you. We think of you, sing of you from Himalaya to Hindukush, with you is our heart and soul “.

  5. Hello Jaydeepsinh_Rathod,

    I am here mainly regarding a little tidbit about the question of antiquity of Iran_N and AASI in northwest India as I’m not much knowledgeable about the work of the linguist Johanna Nichols in this area (Indo-European linguistics in general too, except some very superficial things like centum-satem, etc.).

    I’ll put forth my general thoughts at the outset that I’m considerably biased towards the view that the East Eurasian AASI might be the aboriginal population of the northwest of the Indian subcontinent (because it is part of the Indian subcontinent after all). So I’d personally consider the Iran_N-AASI admixture dates of that relevant individual at 4700-3300 BC as indicating just a minimum bound for the admixture dates in the northwest and not as indicative of the very first admixtures (the trend seen in the genetics findings seems also to be to push the Iran_N/Iran_N-like-&-AASI admixture dates increasingly back in time: the earliest 2009 ANI-ASI study put a pure West Eurasian ANI population in the northwest for a long time till it started moving out and mixing with the ASI in 2200 BC in the Deccan while with the Narasimhan et al paper, they found an early individual in the northwest with very significant AASI ancestry and with significantly older inferred admixture dates at 4700 BC- 3300 BC). I am not confident whether this thinking is correct though. People knowledgeable in genetics are requested to correct me if possible.

    However, I have also been wondering quite a bit about the alternative possibility- that is if the Iran_N-like population of the Indian northwest somehow dates to a time before the neolithic of the eastern Fertile Crescent. Do you happen to have any more information about this? As in, is there a way to argue against the early presence of East Eurasian in the subcontinental northwest, perhaps by archaeology? I am vaguely thinking about the microlithic traditions that I personally typically presume as related to the various AASI cultures: are these or are these not considered as having a presence in the northwest before the Mehrgarh neolithic? And is it considered that there was any presence of Iranian and/or Central Asian mesolithic characteristics in the subcontinental northwest? I have taken a cursory look at the Wikipedia page titled “Prehistory of Iran” which tells me: “Almost nothing is known about the 2500 years which followed the Epipalaeolithic after 11,000 BC. ” I don’t know if this information is current or outdated. And I have always wondered about the mesolithic and very early neolithic period of more eastern parts of Iran (like the hometown of the Hotu cave guy we know from aDNA) as opposed to the more western, seemingly overwhelmingly Zagros-focussed archaeology of late mesolithic and early neolithic Iran.

    1. I have done a little bit of googling and found this SpringerLink paper titled “South Asian Microlithic” by Indrani Chattopadhyaya and the paper’s first two pages are accessible. In it the author seems to say that the Microlithic tradition was observed in the Indian northwest too along with many other places of interior India like , during the time periods we concerned with- the Indian mesolithic. Apparently, the North Western Border subtradition of the Microlithic, located in Afghanistan and Pakistan, has the period 16,615-9475 BP, according to that paper.

      But I don’t know if the rather easily obtained above information is correct and reliable though. There may exist alternative viewpoints in literature which I’m not aware of.

      1. Santosh, why do you write BP instead of BC?

        The last great Ice Age (when the water level was more than 200 feet higher) ended circa 9700 BC. How strong is the evidence that these are pre flood artifacts?

        Do you consider this civilization to continue to the present (I do)?

        In the old scriptures, many people are described as Arya, including many who are not considered human or great ape. For example Ravana, Devas (Adityas), Danavas, Daityas. The Surya Vamsha are also considered Arya.

        1. Hahahaha! Anan, I just reproduced what I saw in that article. They wrote BP so I too wrote it.

          Then I don’t know much about that discipline of geology except watch a few BBC documentaries like the ones that they do about the basically extremely awesome collision of India with Eurasia. So I can’t contribute anything much meaningful to the topics that you bring up. I also don’t know if any artefacts and stuff got submerged into the rising sea levels after the end of the Ice Age; it sounds quite likely that something of the kind happened. I read somewhere that they do archaeology in the oceans near the Indian coasts but don’t know much more about it.

          And I am again not very knowledgeable about the research of Indian mythologies, etc. but my personal inclination in these matters is quite radically opposite to yours: I’m quite pessimistic with respect to these matters and think that humans don’t have the capability to preserve oral myths properly (maybe they are indeed capable in some cases like remembering and recording astronomical events, etc. like I read Native Australians do but most probably not in too much detail with information about every peripheral entity of the original event properly transmitted) for such ridiculously long durations.

      2. The Indian microlithic tradition dates to as early as 45000 YBP as far as I understand.

        Regarding the presence of Iran_N in South Asia, I am of the opinion that its presence is likely to be much older than the origin of the Neolithic. I am quite positive with new evidence that has come up recently, that the Iran_N & CHG ancestry has a shared origin with AASI and ANE ancestry. God willing, I shall soon write a post on this where I will go in a bit more detail about this subject. Iran_N & CHG themselves increasingly look like they are arrivals in the Near East from a more Eastern origin, possibly from South Asia.

        1. Okay thank you very much Jaydeepsinh_Rathod! The relationship between AASI (the true Indian hunter-gatherers of the ANS time period, whatever they were, whether East Eurasian or pre-West-East Eurasian) and ANE (or ANS or whatever is the relevant term) is indeed quite key. How do you figure BE comes into play in all of this? Anyway, I look forward to reading your prospective post on the making of the ANE, Iran_N and CHG ancestry.

  6. I am still reviewing this and formulating questions.

    One question, when do you think Buddha was born?:
    Are you still of the view 1000 BC to 1800 BC?

    Second question:
    Is it possible that Cyrus was born before historians currently place him?

    Third question:
    When was Zarathustra born?

    Fourth question:
    When were Parshvanatha and Mahavira born. Jain’s believe that Parshvanatha in particular and to a much lesser degree Mahavira were very tall. Does this mean they could be some type of mutated homo sapien with now mostly extinct gene haploids? Or is their height symbolic of something related to the brain and nervous system (or spiritual)?

    Fifth question:
    Before Zarathustra was born, might the Iranians (or the Pahlavas) have worshiped Daityas and Danavas as many Indologists speculate?

    Sixth question:
    Might Sudakshina of the Mahabharata have been a Turanian king? Part of the confusion is because he is thought to have brought Scythian armies (Sistan province Iran) as well as from Turan to fight in the Kurukshetra war. Perhaps Sudakshina coordinated for the armies of Sistan Iran and Turan to meet and march to Kurukshetra together?

    seventh question:
    Where do you think Uttara Kuru is and what do you think the Chandra Vamsha are? Did you read?:

    eight question:
    Have you touched base with Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, and Sanjeev Sanyal?


    Snake Charmer, why do you think that the IVC didn’t extend to eastern Iran and Turan? Many Indologists, archaeologists and anthropologists believe this?

    Where do you think Sudakshina ruled? Where do you think Uttara Kuru (and Chandra Vamsha) came from?

  7. I was watching 45 minutes in and they mentioned something that I have always found to be true:
    Mleccha was never used for Java, Sumatra (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore), Thailand, Cambodia, Loas, Vietnam). Including in the Ramayana and Mahabharata. South East Asia was considered part of Bharat.

    Separately, one of the most important (near mythic) queens in the history of Korea is suppose to have been from Ayuta India (which most have for thousands of years considered to be Ayodhya):

  8. The following is a Serbian ritual song originated from the river Choy (I think, today’s Kirgizstan) where some Serbs lived after Aryans migration to SA. After several difficult battles for many years with Mongolians and Chinese many of them returned to the ancestral homeland in Serbia, leaving their towns. This returning migration lasted for decades even more than a century. On the way back many remained to live in today’s Iran and Anatolia. There are many of their descendants who now live in these places (maybe Zack’s grand-grand-pa/ma?). This song was recorded couple hundreds of years ago originated and orally transmitted from Serbs who returned to the land of their ancestries:


    Tekla voda Serberica.
    Kalino Milino!
    Kalin Vilin
    Vito pero
    Jeljeno jeljevo
    Jeljevo draskovo!
    Zdravlje nam je veliko
    Hrabrost nam najveca.
    S pokraj grada tog Dunava
    Tog Dunava dobrog vojne.
    S pokraj Raske na Rasici
    Na utoci u Marici.
    Vodu pili trudni konji
    Na toj reci stracnom Cuju.
    Trudni konji utrudjeni
    Teska boja vavijek bijuc.
    Sa Tatarom ljutim vragom
    I Mandzurom dusmaninom.
    Mlad se Bozic naljutio od Dunava grada oso,
    Nasoj Bosni pricalio
    U Bosni se nastanio.
    Svako dobro Bosni dao
    I bosanskim Srbovima
    Ponajvece tebi gazda
    A ti nama dobre darke.

    1. Razib, not a good place to ask but got a doubt regarding narsimhan paper. In the suplementary table where they try to ascertain time of admixture of west eurasian ancestry(they say that admixture time denote the average of Iran. Agri and Steppe MLBA) , some of the admixture is very recent in some communities. Like in Punjabi and sikh_jatts, it’s around ~54 gens ago and ~48 gens ago. What does this indicate wrt to history ? Is this due to early islamic movements ?

    2. Thanks for putting up a link on your blog. It has lead to some scholars, bloggers, etc having read it and sharing their opinions which would otherwise not have happened.

  9. @ Jaydeep
    Interesting post, and the survey of genetic analysis is good.
    I would suggest that we consider Meshoko, Majkop, Novosvobodnaya, Kura-Araxes as distinct entities (society, settlements, ..) , even if they are very similar in autosomal composition.
    But the key is , as you point out, long -established routes of interaction and movement which already by 4500 BC linked SCA and Central Europe.

    1. Thanks for reading up the article.

      Yes, they would be distinct cultures or units. But we may surmise that there was intercultural interaction among these groups wherein if they did not speak related languages, then surely there must have been significant levels of linguistic exchanges and influences in both directions.

  10. @Jaideep, @Razib , what are your thoughts about the so many E1b and a few E1a in Swat_IA period ? Where are these coming from ?

    1. I think there is no confirmation about whether the authors made the right ydna calls in the preprint. We should wait for the final publication of the paper.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.